the outcome of the election

[Chaerophon]

With them at the helm the Democratic party is not Democratic, but a Leninist party and we all know how well that ended up.

First of all, you don't really know what a Leninist is. Look it up... Then proceed to kick your own ass.

Is anything Left of Bush Leninist? Or is the middle somewhere in between... If that's the case, then I suppose we should be hailing Bush as a fascist. To tell the truth, he's probably closer to that than Kerry is to being a Leninist. In the grand scheme of the 'radical to reactionary spectrum', he's quite a ways to the right what with his legislating morality, blind faith in laissez-faire and militarist tendencies. The Democrats are much closer to the middle. As I've said in another thread, the Democrats are right of center on the basis of their economic and social policies in most other "developed democracies" in the world. With all of that being said, I'll refrain from labelling Bush as such, because, well, he isn't a fascist. Maybe that kind of labelling works where you come from. Most on the Lounge know enough just to shake their head at that kind of backwater rhetoric.

That being said, if you think that you can explain to me how the Democrats or even their free enterprise liberal Hollywood backers are, in fact, Leninist, then by all means, give it a try. Something tells me that you won't do that.

[kandrathe]

...With them at the helm the Democratic party is not Democratic, but a Leninist party and we all know how well that ended up.
-A
[right][snapback]59214[/snapback][/right]

Huh? I think I get the jist of what you are saying. For instance, is there room in the democratic party for someone more centrist like Joe Leiberman? The Clinton presidential campaign was characterized by him reaching toward the middle and distancing himself from party progressives. That progressive movement is populated with the likes of Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Gephart, Boxer, the former Wellstone, and now ironically Mrs. Clinton.

My father was a life long Teamster, and Democrat. His values were characterized by the struggle of labor against greedy corporations, and he would have applauded the speech Zell Miller gave at the Republican convention. In many ways he was a blue dog democrat, or dixiecrat. But not from the south, only from the salt of the earth, and raised on a farm during the depression, and struggling to make a life for himself and his family.

[Occhidiangela]

First of all, you don't really know what a Leninist is.  Look it up...  Then proceed to kick your own ass. 

Is anything Left of Bush Leninist?  Or is the middle somewhere in between... If that's the case, then I suppose we should be hailing Bush as a fascist.  To tell the truth, he's probably closer to that than Kerry is to being a Leninist.  In the grand scheme of the 'radical to reactionary spectrum', he's quite a ways to the right what with his legislating morality, blind faith in laissez-faire and militarist tendencies.  The Democrats are much closer to the middle.  As I've said in another thread, the Democrats are right of center on the basis of their economic and social policies in most other "developed democracies" in the world.  With all of that being said, I'll refrain from labelling Bush as such, because, well, he isn't a fascist.  Maybe that kind of labelling works where you come from.  Most on the Lounge know enough just to shake their head at that kind of backwater rhetoric.   

That being said, if you think that you can explain to me how the Democrats or even their free enterprise liberal Hollywood backers are, in fact, Leninist, then by all means, give it a try. Something tells me that you won't do that. [right][snapback]59226[/snapback][/right]

Is anything Left of Bush Leninist? Or is the middle somewhere in between... If that's the case, then I suppose we should be hailing Bush as a fascist. To tell the truth, he's probably closer to that than Kerry is to being a Leninist.

I am left of President Bush, and I promise you, I am not a Leninist. You can take that on faith. "Anything left of Pres Bush is Leninist?" Not hardly.

Do you really understand what a fascist is (Pinochet or Mussollini, for example). Do you actually understand where Pres Bush is coming from? You can't be a fascist and believe in the American Constitution at the same time. Complete self contradiction. When you make that comparison, you try to fit a horseshoe onto a cow.

When you say "the Democrats are much closer to the middle" consider that the Democratic party has any number of cliques, some approaching Zel Miller, a very centrist Southern Democrat, others approaching Senator Clinton, a significantly left of center liberal. There are variations in between. The Democratic party allowed a non centrist message to be put out in their name, particularly from folks in Hollywood and the press, and for that matter such wits as moveon.org, not to mention Soros. Bad tactics, IMO. Lack of qualityh control hurts overall quality of message.

That goes back to the other disappointment I mentioned, I think, earlier: that the platform was designed as "I hate Pres Bush" and "He does not deserve to be Pres, he stole the last one" and other non-forward thinking themes, from the get go. Hey Al Gore, did you do your own party any favors with your rant? What I saw of WJ Clinton's remarks were at least more temperate, a bit more thoughtful.

Absent a lot of rather vague promises, common currency in many elections, where was the platform?

Last point: Left, Right, and Center in America should probably be referenced to an imagined American Center, a moving target. I think you'd catch on to the idea that a liberal Arab Emir is still quite conservative. (See the Emir of Qatar, considered by many Arabs to be a progressive.) As to the "developed world" and their liberal sensibilities, it has flourished under the umbrella of safety that was paid for by someone else. Left to their own devices . . . we shall see. That too will change over time.

Occhi

[jrichard]

Hi,
All too true.  However, the same can be said for the Republicans and their association with the fundamentalist far right.  Look at the numbers.  Each side represents less than 45% of the nation (and a lot of those 45% from each side pick their party because, although it is extreme, it is extreme *their* way).  And yet, overall, the nation is in agreement on many, indeed most, topics (although the media never really addresses that, do they?)

What this nation needs is not a better Republican party or a better Democratic party.  What this nation needs is a new party, composed of the 80 to 90% of the people who are smart enough to realize that extremes are to be avoided.  Of course, that will never happen -- or at least not until media stupidity becomes a terminal disease.

--Pete
[right][snapback]59219[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I don't think the same can be said for the republicans and the fundamentalist right. The reason being that the far right in the republican party doesn't have the control over the party's direction as do the very liberal parts of the democratic party. That's not to say they don't have infuence in the republican party, just not near as much.

It's running the gauntlet of those liberals who are unwilling to compromise which makes it so difficult for a moderate democrat to make it through the primaries and gain the nomination. Strangely enough, the democratic party seems to be as unwilling to address the diversity within their own party as they are to address the diversity within this country.

On the other side, the republicans are doing to opposite. Overall, going through the primaries on the republican side of things is much more a process of finding a candidate who can appeal to a wider audience. That fundalmentalist right is willing to stick to a few issues they feel are important such as gay marriage and stem cell research and go with a more moderate candidate so long as those things are included in the platform.

There was a time not so long ago that I never thought I'd say this in anything but a joking fashion, but the republican party is succeeding by appealing to the average american. While I'm not all that old these days, I'm also not that young anymore and in my lifetime I've gotten to see the parties almost reverse. When I began voting, it was the republicans who were considered more the elitist party and the democrats had the reputation of representing a larger cross-section of the country. Now, that's almost reversed. Given a little more time with things continuing as they are, that reversal will complete. It saddens me that at some point we went from standing up for minorities and giving them a voice to thinking we need to take care of them because they are incapable of thinking for themselves. It's not a message these days of "take our hand and we'll help you" as much as it is one of "just shut up and do what we tell you because we know better than you do what you need".

What I left unsaid in my other post agrees with what you stated at the end of your post pete. I think one that one thing this campaign and election have shown very well is the failing of our two party system. Both parties are far too entrenched. We need at least a third party to shake things up. The diversity of opinions and cultures in the US has always been one of our greatest strengths. The current political situation is becoming very vanilla. Every candidate has to be everything to everyone. Political correctness is mandatory. Diversity and disagreement are condemned. Both parties are guilty of this, not just the democrats. I just feel that the republicans are not quite as far down this road as the democrats are.

As long as I'm on the subject of things I left unsaid in my other post, let me add one more. The majority of the posts about the outcome of this election that I see made by people outside of the US ask "How could you possibly have re-elected Bush?". Odd, they don't seem to ask "Why didn't you elect Kerry?". It just doesn't seem to matter to Europeans especially who we elected as long as it wasn't Bush. And now, they call us narrow-minded for re-electing him. Hmm, no offense intended, but who is being narrow-minded here? Who is saying that our election should have taken nothing but their interests in mind?

jrichard

[Chaerophon]

Complete self contradiction. When you make that comparison, you try to fit a horseshoe onto a cow.

Kind of like comparing the Democratic Party to the Bolsheviks? Bush would like to change the constitution so as to legislate morality. I'm not arguing that that is top-down totalitarianism, a central facet of the movements that you mentioned. However, it runs closer to that characteristic of the far Right than does a tax rollback to the far Left. That was my only point, and I think that it is a fair one. Cripes, Kerry is adamantly opposed to government administered health care! No self-respecting socialist could hold such a position. I was merely trying to make a point, not argue that Bush was a Fascist - I don't think that he is the next Mussolini.

I understand your point re: the American political spectrum; however, there hasn't been even a mildly Socialist Party in the US for 70(?) years or so, and my point was that Socialism is really not anywhere to be found in American politics.

[Occhidiangela]

"was that Socialism is really not anywhere to be found in American politics."

Sure it is, you just aren't looking in the correct place.

Medicaire. Social Security. Two Socialistic tools we use.

Ever heard of the Teamsters? Alive and well, though there have been hard times for some unions lately. Socialist organs of society, labor unions.

There is no significant Socialist party for the simple reason that the Democrats (and to acertain extent the Republicans, via labor legislation, for example) had taken in such issues as are palatable enough for the nation who foughts, as its dire enemy

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The lack of what you seem to be referring to as Socialism in the US is, by and large, a good thing. Lack of Socialism is not a defect of character, any more than lack of a moustache indicates ugliness.

YMMV where you live in the the utility of Socialism in the social and political milieu.

Occhi

[Kharohz]

Ok.  Hope you enjoy it when your close-mindedness and unilateral thuggery land you in the thick of a nasty, nasty mess.  Trust me, it will happen.  Only a deeper understanding of WHY these complaints are so rampant and violent will preserve the vaunted American standard of life.  Your country is already dependent on China and Japan just to stay afloat.  The EU has a much healthier economic base that is rapidly overtaking your own.  Times are a changing, and it's time for Americans to collectively pull their heads out of the proverbial Cold War oil sands.  You ARE a part of the world. 

The majority of these votes for Bush were votes for single-minded self-determination.  Fear and xenophobia have gotten him another four-year term.  Self-determination is one thing and going it alone is something else altogether.  The time is rapidly approaching at which America WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO GO IT ALONE.  It doesn't seem possible, but trust me, it is.  You are a declining hegemon.  You can remain prosperous and rejoin the international community as a kind of 'superior equal', or you can continue your unilateral race to the crash site.  Canada will be dragged along with you.  Britain might jump out just in time.  I thought that maybe the time had come, and that the people would realize what was really going on in the world.  I guess I hoped for too much.  Seems that it will take the utter decimation of the American world-standing for change to come, but it WILL come. 

Here's hoping that this unreasoning fear doesn't drive AMERICANS, not just their administration, to endorse actions that they may come to regret in the coming century.  I'm very saddened by last night.
[right][snapback]59131[/snapback][/right]

Assuming you actually believe what you just typed, maybe you should worry less about what goes on in the USA and worry more about your own country. ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Actually, I don't think the same can be said for the republicans and the fundamentalist right.  The reason being that the far right in the republican party doesn't have the control over the party's direction as do the very liberal parts of the democratic party.  That's not to say they don't have infuence in the republican party, just not near as much.[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Maybe. But I crossed over in the opposite direction (lifelong Republican to reluctant Democrat) in the last 12 years. And the two biggest drivers of that crossing were the inexcusable behavior of the Republicans during Clinton's administration and their self proclaimed agenda to 'return this country to christianity' (no disrespect meant to true Christians, but the ignorant nonsense that the fundamentalists preach does not deserve a leading capital). I'd rather err on the side of personal freedom than on that of legislated morality. YMMV.

. . . That fundalmentalist right is willing to stick to a few issues they feel are important such as gay marriage and stem cell research and go with a more moderate candidate so long as those things are included in the platform.[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Yes indeed. The fundamentalist right does indeed use the hot button, knee jerk issues to get the vote. If god is on your side, then any means are justified, for you'll always get forgiveness at the end.

What I left unsaid in my other post agrees with what you stated at the end of your post pete.  I think one that one thing this campaign and election have shown very well is the failing of our two party system  Both parties are far too entrenched.  We need at least a third party to shake things up. .[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Yes. However, our two party system is a fundamental result of our overall system of government. At every level and for every office, representation is not by fraction of constituency but rather 'winner takes all'. In every representative government, there must be coalitions to get enough power to function. In governments that have some form of representation proportional to constituency, the coalitions are usually formed right before or right after the elections and are of short duration. In our form of government, the coalitions are formed well before the elections (indeed, a century or more at this point) in order to have the mechanism with which to win the election. To actually remove the two party system would entail a rewriting of the Constitution in spite of the fact that nowhere in that document is there any mention or recognition of political parties (which did indeed exist at that time, and thus the writers did not omit them from ignorance.) The possibility of forming a third party, and of having that party become so successful that it drives one of the two existing parties into oblivion is there. But the net result with political parties in the USA (much like with the cola wars in the USA) is that there can be only two.

As long as I'm on the subject of things I left unsaid in my other post, let me add one more.  The majority of the posts about the outcome of this election that I see made by people outside of the US ask "How could you possibly have re-elected Bush?".  Odd, they don't seem to ask "Why didn't you elect Kerry?".[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I can completely understand why no one asked why we didn't elect Kerry. I myself was prepared to vote for the gentleman with the cloven hooves and pitchfork rather than allow the present administration to continue its 'don't tax and spend' policy for four more years. However, the only attractive attribute that Kerry had, IMO, was that he was not Bush. As far as I am concerned, interest in this election ended shortly after the first few primaries, when the only refreshing people the Democrats had (along with the seven dwarfs) retired from the race. The Republicans, of course, I expected to go with a (middling) popular president.

And, something that has not been discussed (that I've seen) is just how much of a 'mandate' is there when a "war time" sitting president wins the election by such a slim margin? But, given that Shrub claimed a 'mandate' with a *lost* election, I guess actually winning one does give him some bragging rights. ;)

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

"was that Socialism is really not anywhere to be found in American politics."

Sure it is, you just aren't looking in the correct place.   

Medicaire.  Social Security. Two Socialistic tools we use. 

Ever heard of the Teamsters?  Alive and well, though there have been hard times for some unions lately.  Socialist organs of society, labor unions.

There is no significant Socialist party for the simple reason that the Democrats (and to acertain extent the Republicans, via labor legislation, for example)  had taken in such issues as are palatable enough for the nation who foughts, as its dire enemy

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The lack of what you seem to be referring to as Socialism in the US is, by and large, a good thing.  Lack of Socialism is not a defect of character, any more than lack of a moustache indicates ugliness.

YMMV where you live in the the utility of Socialism in the social and political milieu.

Occhi
[right][snapback]59238[/snapback][/right]

Let's not play word games. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties and the vast majority of Americans are dedicated to free enterprise liberalism. Sure, there are interventionist liberals in America, but at an official level, socialism does not exist. Unions fighting for workers rights are not 'socialist' tools, per se - as they exist in the U.S., they are an institutional part of liberal democracy that helps PREVENT socialism. Embedded liberalism was a necessary part of preventing undue distress among the working classes, and, I would argue, was in the greater interest of capitalism. Of all of the developed countries in the world, America is right at the bottom in terms of the concessions that capital was forced to give up to workers. This was a result of their relatively painless economic emergence from WWII vis a vis Europe and their role in reconstruction. Little compromise was necessary within the economy during the exagerrated boom of Fordism - at the time, America was alone in that social welfare did not require state intervention.

However, that's beside the point - don't point to the minimal social infrastructure that exists in America and somehow argue that America 'is kind of socialist'. Mainstream Americans fear socialist and social democratic thought - and ultimately government - more than any other national group in the developed world. It's a fact. I never said that it was a good thing or a bad thing - what I did say was that it has no ideological clout in American politics (as evidenced by the working class vote for Bush) and is, in fact, virtually non-existent.

[Ashock]

First of all, you don't really know what a Leninist is.  Look it up...  Then proceed to kick your own ass. 
[right][snapback]59226[/snapback][/right]

Hehe, that's funny. You amuse me. Oh yeh and... watch your own feet.


-A

[smithy]

Libertarians are against the projection of force beyond defending the US borders.  I'm a little more open minded.  I think we need to honor our commitments in defending our allies, but we should encourage them to become self sufficient.

We can discuss the doctrine protected by the UN charter of a threatened nation launching a first strike in order to defend itself.  In the case of Iraq, I agree the evidence of the threat evaporated once we got there, and that is the danger of acting based on bad information.  If North Korea was threatening a missile launch, I would expect the US to act to prevent it if possible.
[right][snapback]59199[/snapback][/right]

For me, the question is at what point do you decide that N.K. really is threatening the US, or any other country for that matter?

Do they have to pursue nuclear weapons development?
Do they need to fire a couple of test weapons?
Do they need to point them at major cities?

The information that we, the American public, have has changed since the months leading up to the Iraq war.

Could it not be argued that North Korea was farther along in their WMD development than Iraq was at the start of this conflict? If my memory servers me, the media coverage in the US was saturated with Iraq-centered stories leading up to the beginning of the war while N.K. was just kinda swept under the carpet.

So, if WMDs were not in Iraq, were not even being actively pursued (sp?), telling me that, "Hey, even though there never were any WMD we still got Sadam, no foul right?" isn't enough .

The case for war was essentially this guy has weapons already or the ability to develop/acquire weapons and he can pass those weapons to any number of these guys (terrorists) and he's going to come and use them against your home towns.

I just feel that based on those qualifications, our money, effort, and blood would have been better spent elsewhere. That's why I couldn't vote for Bush (among numerous other things).

Dubya did get at least one thing right? For good or bad, we as a country got ourselves into the mess that is Iraq, and we owe it to ourselves, the world, and especiially the Iraqi people to get out of this mess ASAP. If Bush can successfully (sp?) withdraw US forces from Iraq in the next 4 years then I will be satisfied with his performance provided he doesn't screw up everything else.

Guess the will of the people has been done.

Smithy

P.S. Sorry if that went off on a little tangent. Post just seemed to keep on growing. :)

[Chaerophon]

You amuse me.

Glad to hear it.

That being said, if you think that you can explain to me how the Democrats or even their free enterprise liberal Hollywood backers are, in fact, Leninist, then by all means, give it a try. Something tells me that you won't do that.

Prophetic, no?

[Minionman]

About this left/right talk, to me it doesn't seem to matter whether people are more "left" or "right", it's more a style thing. More "liberal" types get though of as a bunch of whiners, and/or clueless, while the "conservaticve" types are though of some kick ass people. Really, what more liberal types seem to need is not so much to move in different left/right directions as to find some issues that will fire people up. In this presidential election Bush's major issues were terrorists and religious stuff, and they got people fired up his way. At the convention when he talked about "ownership society", I'll agree with that in a non sarcastic way, the only problems are in how to get it done. Kerry didn't run on any issuess, as people have said. Maybe if he had hit the economy more that would have got people more supportive.

The words "liberal", "conservative", "leftist", etc. are also used for so many different ways that arguing about going "liberal" or "conservative" really has no point. "conservative" could mean someone is against abortion, gay marriage, possibly that they are rsascist, but it also could be used to mean they are hard working, save money, etc. I have heard both of these, and they don't necessarilt go together. The "hollywood liberals" are more of the whining type, while my guess is that.

More on the whining, the bits here about the "middle america" and some stuff I hear around school show perfectly well why liberal types are seen as whiners. At schoold there's this one person whose opinion is always "Bush will win" "people are so stupid", etc. I hate listening to this again and again, because they seem to want to whine instead of doing anything. They think more about how to whine than win elections or at least help convince other people off their views. I had a sort of argument yesterday about young voters, someone was arguing that young voters from, say, Texas wouldn't have voted for Kerry, but didn't notice that he had picked an area that always goes one way, young voters from, say, Ohio, could be convinced as a group one way or the other. They also don't noticed that whining just makes them look bad.

The last paragrpah was a half rant, so it's kind of hard to read. These thoughts are coming out kind of jumbled, and I know there was more to say.

I have heard some good viewpoints, one person was talking about why they thought more black people should vote, they said, and believed, that since people had died to get them this right, they should use it. Much better than complaining about non city areas. This particular person does a lot of community service work, and gets good grades, so I guess they are more used to going out and doing thingas instewad of complaining.

Edit: the first and fourth paragraphs aren't any part rants. The second one does have some real thoughts in it, it is only partially ranting about the whining, as the third one says.

[Minionman]

It's almost for sure going to take a long time to build Iraq back up in a good way. Maybe the infrastructure would go faster, but I've heard that different groups of people in Iraq hate the living daylights out of each other, or at least enough do that someone will need to keep them under control tlong enough to get a more stable country that can keep the fights down.

[kandrathe]

...
Here's hoping that this unreasoning fear doesn't drive AMERICANS, not just their administration, to endorse actions that they may come to regret in the coming century.  I'm very saddened by last night.
[right][snapback]59131[/snapback][/right]

Oh, come on. :) There is a bright side. With the US armies bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have the muscle to take on anything else. We will need to rely on good old fashioned diplomacy to deal with Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and the various central African brush fires.

[Bolty]

I'm utterly astounded that a thread of this size and on the most explosive topic of all (politics) has not yet fallen to a complete drivel of name calling and abuse. Yes, it's been quite testy, but just about any other forum on the Net would have been useless reading past the 20th post here. (round of applause to the Lurkers)

That being said, there's some borderline stuff here, so please remember the old axiom of counting to 10 before posting...or maybe 100 would be better. :)

And remember that the chances of you actually changing someone else's mind here are close to 1% or less. But it does make for fantastic reading to see people's viewpoints of it all and realizing just how different we all are here. Sometimes I think one of America's greatest weaknesses (the massive cultural divisions, racial/ethnic tensions, a huge mish-mash of religions and creeds) may actually be one of its greatest strengths in the end.

I know that when I travel to other countries, one of the greatest adjustments for me is how...homogeneous the populations can be. Not that it's a bad thing when you go to Denmark or Sweden and every woman there is tall and blond. :lol:

-Bolty

[kandrathe]

For me, the question is at what point do you decide that N.K. really is threatening the US, or any other country for that matter?

Do they have to pursue nuclear weapons development? 
Do they need to fire a couple of test weapons?
Do they need to point them at major cities?

The information that we, the American public, have has changed since the months leading up to the Iraq war. 

Could it not be argued that North Korea was farther along in their WMD development than Iraq was at the start of this conflict?  If my memory servers me, the media coverage in the US was saturated with Iraq-centered stories leading up to the beginning of the war while N.K. was just kinda swept under the carpet.

So, if WMDs were not in Iraq, were not even being actively pursued (sp?), telling me that, "Hey, even though there never were any WMD we still got Sadam,  no foul right?" isn't enough .

The case for war was essentially this guy has weapons already or the ability to develop/acquire weapons and he can pass those weapons to any number of these guys (terrorists) and he's going to come and use them against your home towns. 

I just feel that based on those qualifications, our money, effort, and blood would have been better spent elsewhere.  That's why I couldn't vote for Bush (among numerous other things).

Dubya did get at least one thing right?  For good or bad, we as a country got ourselves into the mess that is Iraq, and we owe it to ourselves, the world, and especiially the Iraqi people to get out of this mess ASAP.  If Bush can successfully (sp?) withdraw US forces from Iraq in the next 4 years then I will be satisfied with his performance provided he doesn't screw up everything else.

Guess the will of the people has been done.

Smithy

P.S. Sorry if that went off on a little tangent.  Post just seemed to keep on growing.  :)
[right][snapback]59271[/snapback][/right]

Not to get into this too far. I think personally, for the Bush administration there was a conjunction of factors that spelled trouble. The fact that Iraq had developed sophisticated WMD and had used them (and possibly even Sarin in the Gulf War ala GWS), they had relationships with and had sheltered terrorists and terrorist organizations, the sanctions regime was crumbling, and that they had ignored numerous UN resolutions since 1991. The fear post 9/11 was that a nation would use a terrorist organization as a delivery vehicle for WMD. North Korea does not fit that model, although they only have one saleable commodity, weapons.

But, if North Korea is known to have nuclear missles in launch readiness pointed at Okinawa, I think there would be some people in the US Defense Department with ichy trigger fingers. You are esentially returning the US to a cold war stance with a much smaller foe, and there are some who are crazy enough to think we could win a theatre nuclear war. I don't think anyone wants that to happen, including North Korea.

[Occhidiangela]

Let's not play word games.  Both the Republican and Democratic Parties and the vast majority of Americans are dedicated to free enterprise liberalism.  Sure, there are interventionist liberals in America, but at an official level, socialism does not exist.  Unions fighting for workers rights are not 'socialist' tools, per se - as they exist in the U.S., they are an institutional part of liberal democracy that helps PREVENT socialism.  Embedded liberalism was a necessary part of preventing undue distress among the working classes, and, I would argue, was in the greater interest of capitalism.  Of all of the developed countries in the world, America is right at the bottom in terms of the concessions that capital was forced to give up to workers.  This was a result of their relatively painless economic emergence from WWII vis a vis Europe and their role in reconstruction.  Little compromise was necessary within the economy during the exagerrated boom of Fordism - at the time, America was alone in that social welfare did not require state intervention. 

However, that's beside the point - don't point to the minimal social infrastructure that exists in America and somehow argue that America 'is kind of socialist'.  Mainstream Americans fear socialist and social democratic thought - and ultimately government - more than any other national group in the developed world.  It's a fact.  I never said that it was a good thing or a bad thing - what I did say was that it has no ideological clout in American politics (as evidenced by the working class vote for Bush) and is, in fact, virtually non-existent.
[right][snapback]59251[/snapback][/right]

I find your understanding of Socialism's principles interesting, though at odds with how socialism influenced our government and society. Indeed, some of the greatest critics of FDR were aghast at his socialist institutions, which, I repeat, include Social Security, which is now often used as the Dole, Welfare, which has come under attack for the past two decades, for better and worse, and Medicaire, a vestige of an attempt at state sponsored health care for the elderly.

That you do not recognize these Socialist elements, which could also be called Progressive elements depending on your decade and view point, in my society tells me that you barely understand America.

No problem, you are from Canada.

As for Unions, your characterization of the American labor Union movement is a study in misunderstanding, or just plain ignorance. I'll assume the former.

A powerful correction to the laize faire attitudes of our early capitalists resulted in a very strong and vital Union movement for about three generations. What weakened them was at least two things. They became too hard to fund as their share of the pie started to peel off slimmer and slimmer profit margins, and the corruption and linkage to organized crime in some cases. Ice the cake with the PATCO strike, which Reagan busted, and the loophole of bankruptcy laws that any number of folks used to bust, for example, air line unions, and the counter reaction to Unions as a major power in this nation has taken us to the present.

Are you aware that our Federal employees are allowed to and typicaly join a Union? That is provided for and protected by public law. I have had the chance to work with, and a couple of times against, two different chapters of the Labor Union's covering federal employees, and can say that it has generally been a mixed experience. I worked a non union shop as a furniture mover for two summers, at a lower wage but absent dues, thanks to being unable to penetrate the Beekins and Allied union shops in the late 1970's.

The reason that Unions lost power is that they, under pressure from foreign competition, slowly started to kill the goose that laid the golden egg within my life time. Not everyone feels that has been a good thing.

Labor was very much an opponent of certain strains of government in my lifetime. Labor is the fundamental power base of both Socialist and Communist parties, or was for about seven decades, as well as a vote sump for Liberals of less extreme stripes. Yes, Socialism and Communism, as well as representative republicanism, all grew from early Liberalism, which most folks would probably not recognize by now, since it strikes me as having been a reaction to the Royal/Imperial/Capital system of Europe.

Go play Humpty Dumpty with that, if you like.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, come on.  :)  There is a bright side.  With the US armies bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have the muscle to take on anything else.  We will need to rely on good old fashioned diplomacy to deal with Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and the various central African brush fires.
[right][snapback]59278[/snapback][/right]

Bogged down in Afghanistan? Your understanding of what is going on out there is lacking.

With less than a division strength, and an interesting assortment of unconventional forces, a remarkable application of force and political persuasion is taking place.

Bogged down? Not hardly. Under the radar, at the present? Yes. On orthodox? For darned sure.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

It's almost for sure going to take a long time to build Iraq back up in a good way.  Maybe the infrastructure would go faster, but I've heard that different groups of people in Iraq hate the living daylights out of each other, or at least enough do that someone will need to keep them under control tlong enough to get a more stable country that can keep the fights down.
[right][snapback]59277[/snapback][/right]

My way to describe Iraq, at present, is like New York with nine competing crime families after a major mafia don gets assassinated, circa 1950's.

Clannish, and passionate about their relative positions and jockeying for power.

Occhi