but wait... the GOP tells me every democrat including the clintons are hardcore pinko socialists?

/confused
/not subby

fark bill clinton.

As a non Us citizen - the Dems are "NOT Bush".

"Ain't I somethin'? You know it."

"back to the center?"

WTF?

hate to say it, but according to the rest of the world, bill clinton is on the right, and so are pretty much all of the democrats. if you want true left wing, the democrats haven't been anywhere near that for a long time if ever.

SilentStrider: hate to say it, but according to the rest of the world, bill clinton is on the right, and so are pretty much all of the democrats. if you want true left wing, the democrats haven't been anywhere near that for a long time if ever.

Shhh! They get cranky when told the truth.

And can someone explain how it's a Democrat's fault that the center is so far right? Couldn't it be the immense pull from the far right wing of the Republicans that is throwing that center off?

Hey Guardian, 1993 called. It wants its news back.

SilentStrider: hate to say it, but according to the rest of the world, bill clinton is on the right, and so are pretty much all of the democrats. if you want true left wing, the democrats haven't been anywhere near that for a long time if ever.

Quite agree - US politics is Right v Centre Right, sorry Center Right, but how do we explain this to the US citizens in a way they understand?

SilentStrider: hate to say it, but according to the rest of the world, bill clinton is on the right, and so are pretty much all of the democrats. if you want true left wing, the democrats haven't been anywhere near that for a long time if ever.

Not just the rest of the world. I think most of the US, at least those with an education, realize this.

Bill Frist: Not just the rest of the world. I think most of the US, at least those with an education, realize this.

While I agree with your sentiments, don't disparage those without an education. Universal suffrage is our only hope against the tyranny of ruling elites.

jamspoon: Bill Frist: Not just the rest of the world. I think most of the US, at least those with an education, realize this.

While I agree with your sentiments, don't disparage those without an education. Universal suffrage is our only hope against the tyranny of ruling elites.

Are you kidding? It's the maroons who have put the ruling elites right where they are now - in power.

Kublai Khan: Are you kidding? It's the maroons who have put the ruling elites right where they are now - in power.

No, I'm not kidding. They are also your only hope of getting them out again. Face up to it.

After years of asking, "What's a wild-eyed centrist like me to do?" I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

FTA: This led to electoral disaster and a Republican golden age, interrupted only by Jimmy Carter's bewildering presidency and ended when Bill Clinton pulled the party back to the centre of the spectrum, where it is today.

I wish we were still in the "center"....

Things have swung so far right under Bush, if this were on the other side of the Atlantic he'd look like Putin.

SilentStrider: hate to say it, but according to the rest of the world, bill clinton is on the right, and so are pretty much all of the democrats. if you want true left wing, the democrats haven't been anywhere near that for a long time if ever.

Why exactly are Europeans so bloody self-centered? You. Are. Not. "The Rest of The World", Dumbasses. There are 5 other continents with significant populations living on them. If anything, in the global context the US drifts center between Authoritarian socialism and honest authoritarianism (despotism, junta, dictatorship, etc.) I like to call it "Authoritarian whatever seems like a good idea at the time".

I mean, seriously, I've been informed that Americans are supposed to be the arrogant and closed-minded ones, but at least we don't deny the very existence of 75% of the world's population for the sake of a stupid semantic one-up that isn't technically correct anyhow?

//Americans, culturally, have different priorities than many European countries. Therefore, our left/right spectrum is defined in terms of different issues. Same goes for at least Britain and Canada, too, and probably a lot of other countries as well. If you can't grasp that much, please spare the rest of us a headache and stay out of the politics tab.

Jim_Callahan: SilentStrider: hate to say it, but according to the rest of the world, bill clinton is on the right, and so are pretty much all of the democrats. if you want true left wing, the democrats haven't been anywhere near that for a long time if ever.

Why exactly are Europeans so bloody self-centered? You. Are. Not. "The Rest of The World", Dumbasses. There are 5 other continents with significant populations living on them. If anything, in the global context the US drifts center between Authoritarian socialism and honest authoritarianism (despotism, junta, dictatorship, etc.) I like to call it "Authoritarian whatever seems like a good idea at the time".

I mean, seriously, I've been informed that Americans are supposed to be the arrogant and closed-minded ones, but at least we don't deny the very existence of 75% of the world's population for the sake of a stupid semantic one-up that isn't technically correct anyhow?

//Americans, culturally, have different priorities than many European countries. Therefore, our left/right spectrum is defined in terms of different issues. Same goes for at least Britain and Canada, too, and probably a lot of other countries as well. If you can't grasp that much, please spare the rest of us a headache and stay out of the politics tab.

Before you jump him, you might want to realize thing there is anything in the US near "Authoritarian Socialism" and not look like a total goddamn idiot. Too late..

About 10% of the people on fark know WTF they are talking about with socialism. Thats it. Read a freakin book.

Bill Frist: but wait... the GOP tells me every democrat including the clintons are hardcore pinko socialists?

/confused
/not subby

No they don't, and only a shill would claim this.

USP .45: Bill Frist: but wait... the GOP tells me every democrat including the clintons are hardcore pinko socialists?

/confused
/not subby

No they don't, and only a shill would claim this.


I tell you what, you show me one time where a republican refered to a liberal as "Moderate". ONE FREAKING TIME.

boomaze: USP .45: Bill Frist: but wait... the GOP tells me every democrat including the clintons are hardcore pinko socialists?

/confused
/not subby

No they don't, and only a shill would claim this.


I tell you what, you show me one time where a republican refered to a liberalDemocrat as "Moderate". ONE FREAKING TIME.


FTFM

2wolves: SilentStrider: hate to say it, but according to the rest of the world, bill clinton is on the right, and so are pretty much all of the democrats. if you want true left wing, the democrats haven't been anywhere near that for a long time if ever.

Shhh! They get cranky when told the truth.

You can be right of crazy and still be far left of sane.

Franklin Delano Rooseveldt was the most Left-wing Democratic Pesident ever.

He won landslide victories, FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

Umm...The Dems held the House in perpetuity for 40 years. Clinton's recentering made them lose all three branches of government at once, which is what lead to the fubaring of our country we've been experiencing for the last decade or so.

You have to understand...the BABY boomers destroyed America. The Greatest Generation gave birth to the ME generation, and it hasn't stopped yet.

We need the blood of the youth to remind us why we live

Darth_Lukecash: You have to understand...the BABY boomers destroyed America. The Greatest Generation gave birth to the ME generation, and it hasn't stopped yet.

We need the youth to bathe in the blood of the Boomers to remind us how not to run this show

FTFY.

/Age war? In my America? It's more likely than you think.

Blame Reagan. If it weren't for his slashing of social programs, legitimization of fundamentalist social conservatives, and market fundamentalist economic policies, the US would be much more moderate than it is today. It's absolutely pathetic that candidates like McCain, Obama, and Clinton - who support moralistic legal policies and fiscal policies that come nowhere near addressing the corporate dominance of the legislative process - are considered moderate.

Occam's Chainsaw: Darth_Lukecash: You have to understand...the BABY boomers destroyed America. The Greatest Generation gave birth to the ME generation, and it hasn't stopped yet.

We need the youth to bathe in the blood of the Boomers to remind us how not to run this show

FTFY.

STFU and go back to you room before I turn off your internet.

According to several Republican forums I was poking around in, Hillary Clinton is either a Socialist or a Communist, Obama is "Way Liberal", and McCain is so freakin' liberal he's a traitor to the Party, and maybe all America. I would have checked Free Republic and Little Green Footballs too, but I'd just taken a shower and didn't want to get crazy all over me.

Left and Right appear to be relative.

jamspoon
Bill Frist: Not just the rest of the world. I think most of the US, at least those with an education, realize this.

While I agree with your sentiments, don't disparage those without an education. Universal suffrage is our only hope against the tyranny of ruling elites.

Ruling elites like the lobbying industry, undefeatable incumbent congressmen, and guys who sit on a few dozen corporate boards? Get real, universal suffrage makes it easier for ruling elites because they just have to convince gullible, uneducated, and poor people to vote for them. You can bet assholes like George W. Bush wouldn't get elected if voting required a post-graduate education.

Call me stupid (and I know you will, regardless), but is there a law or something that says all Liberals must be Democrats and all Conservatives must be Republicans? Who decided that?

Argh2: Call me stupid (and I know you will, regardless), but is there a law or something that says all Liberals must be Democrats and all Conservatives must be Republicans? Who decided that?

The parties themselves, basically. It's historical and dates back basically to the Federalist/Anti-Federalist days. The Federalists were "liberal" and the Anti-Federalists were "conservative" (relative to the issues of the day).

Eventually, the parties got renamed, one of them disappeared entirely, the Whigs came along, and when the Republicans showed up, they were the "liberal" party- antislavery being the main issue, but having related effects on states' rights and so forth.

The Republicans were the "liberal" party for a long time, but over FDR's repeated terms, the economic conservatives moved to the Republican party and the economic liberals were obviously in the Dem camp. The R's still retained their social liberal status (see Eisenhower, Arkansas, and integration), with the Democrats being the party of racist scumbags (Paul Byrd comes to mind). This shifted in the '60s with Kennedy, LBJ, and the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1968.
Ever since the '60s, the Democratic party has been liberal on social issues.

The 1968 election was the only election in the 20th century with a significant 3rd party showing, the American Independent party. This was basically a party of ex-Democrats who wanted a party of racist farkers, and they carried several southern states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1968

1972 was still a mess, because the Democratic party had no clue what the hell they were doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1972

1976 was the Carter election, in which Ford was running against Reagan in the Republican primaries. (Ooh, foreshadowing!)
Carter ran as an outsider, got the southern vote, Ford's the one who pardoned Nixon.

Take a peek at the map. Looks familiar, except the colors are swapped.

Now, 1980 is really the defining year for the Republican side. Reagan was the social+fiscal conservative Republican running against the liberal Democrat Carter. The parties have stayed aligned like that since.

boomaze: USP .45: Bill Frist: but wait... the GOP tells me every democrat including the clintons are hardcore pinko socialists?

/confused
/not subby

No they don't, and only a shill would claim this.


I tell you what, you show me one time where a republican refered to a liberal as "Moderate". ONE FREAKING TIME.

You'd better wrangle those goalposts first.

TheCid: The Republicans were the "liberal" party for a long time, but over FDR's repeated terms, the economic conservatives moved to the Republican party and the economic liberals were obviously in the Dem camp.

Ah...not really. The first realignment was in the 1870s or so. The end of Reconstruction was the dawning of the GOP as the conservative party, economically speaking.

Neeek: TheCid: The Republicans were the "liberal" party for a long time, but over FDR's repeated terms, the economic conservatives moved to the Republican party and the economic liberals were obviously in the Dem camp.

Ah...not really. The first realignment was in the 1870s or so. The end of Reconstruction was the dawning of the GOP as the conservative party, economically speaking.

I was under the impression that the economic alignment of the 1870s had more to do with the industrial North vs agricultural South than anything else. I'm not really sure I would split that as "liberal" and "conservative" from the POV of the era, but I can see why you would do so from today's POV.

Also note that the whole post was really oversimplified- I didn't even mention William Jennings Bryan.

I just wanted to mention the start of each party, then kinda fast forward to the 1960s when the current party alignment began.

*shrug*

TheCid: I was under the impression that the economic alignment of the 1870s had more to do with the industrial North vs agricultural South than anything else. I'm not really sure I would split that as "liberal" and "conservative" from the POV of the era, but I can see why you would do so from today's POV.

The fundamental difference was the reading of the concept of "liberty of contract" into the Constitution. It was used to invalidate all sorts of things like minimum wage and maximum hours.

Neeek: The fundamental difference was the reading of the concept of "liberty of contract" into the Constitution. It was used to invalidate all sorts of things like minimum wage and maximum hours.

Pretty much every class I've ever taken that discussed that era discussed it in terms of industrialism/agriculturalism and/or the post-slavery reconstruction era. I thought the labor law stuff didn't become a major issue until after the turn of the century?

The left in America?

only independent senator Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader (the boogieman to the Democrats) could be considered on the left in this country.

ochobit: only independent senator Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader (the boogieman to the Democrats) could be considered on the left in this country.

Kucinich isn't left? Gravel (the guy who even wants to legalize cocaine) isn't left?

Certainly the Democratic party isn't as far left as it should be, but the whole country is moving to the left, and both parties are going to get dragged along with it.

TheCid: Pretty much every class I've ever taken that discussed that era discussed it in terms of industrialism/agriculturalism and/or the post-slavery reconstruction era. I thought the labor law stuff didn't become a major issue until after the turn of the century?

One of the Pre-reconstruction justices made it his life's work to kill every pro-labor law (he died in the 1890s, I don't feel like looking up his name atm). It took a while, but he succeeded with flying colors for a generation and a half.

Neeek: One of the Pre-reconstruction justices made it his life's work to kill every pro-labor law (he died in the 1890s, I don't feel like looking up his name atm). It took a while, but he succeeded with flying colors for a generation and a half.

Ah, right. I remember who you're talking about, but I can't remember his name either. I guess what I'm thinking of is that none of the labor laws really began to succeed until after the turn of the century.

The DLC and the moderate, centrist Democrats who capitulate and bow at every Republican request and threat of a strong word can go to hell.

Under FDR progressive policies were enacted that helped the US out of the great depression, built infrastructure that benefitted our nation, and gave us decades of the least income inequality and the largest middle-class this country ever saw. Then finally the conservatives were able to start dismantling some of those policies, reduce taxes on corporations and the wealthy and their heirs, deregulate industries, and bust the unions, and hey, now we can look forward to our children doing less well than us.

Moderate Democrats who didn't do much beyond symbolic gestures to end the Iraq war or lip service regarding torture, domestic spying, and violation of rule of law by the executive branch: Moderate Democrats who still support neo-liberal globalization that is killing regional and domestic industry and manufacturing: see how well that works out for you next election season. There are people standing to your left who will defeat you. Not all of you, but many. Those who used to be your base want leaders who listen.

TheCid: Ah, right. I remember who you're talking about, but I can't remember his name either. I guess what I'm thinking of is that none of the labor laws really began to succeed until after the turn of the century.

Stephen Field. I went and looked it up.

I really, really wish the Democrats would stop holding FDR up as this great president. Yes, his economic policies pulled us out of the depression. Social Security is a great thing, the prosperity of the middle class, and all that. We're good so far.

He also threw American citizens into internment camps based on their ethnicity. He tried to pull political shenanigans- court packing, anyone?- that you would HOWL over if a Republican even dared to try it.

Seriously. JFK and LBJ are the people you should be holding up as representative of the liberal cause... minus that whole cold war/vietnam garbage.

TheCid: I really, really wish the Democrats would stop holding FDR up as this great president. Yes, his economic policies pulled us out of the depression. Social Security is a great thing, the prosperity of the middle class, and all that. We're good so far.

He also threw American citizens into internment camps based on their ethnicity. He tried to pull political shenanigans- court packing, anyone?- that you would HOWL over if a Republican even dared to try it.

Seriously. JFK and LBJ are the people you should be holding up as representative of the liberal cause... minus that whole cold war/vietnam garbage.

Unlike Republicans who fetishize their "good" leaders like Reagan, democrats it seems generally can take them as humans who make bad choices. See also, Clinton, Bill.

TheCid: Certainly the Democratic party isn't as far left as it should be, but the whole country is moving to the left, and both parties are going to get dragged along with it.

...and the Constitution will follow suit.

The death of a nation.

saintstryfe: Unlike Republicans who fetishize their "good" leaders like Reagan, democrats it seems generally can take them as humans who make bad choices. See also, Clinton, Bill.

Except for FDR, apparently. Which I don't get. The College Democrats here were wearing FDR t-shirts and crap, which made me kinda go WTF. I mean, really now, it's been over 60 years. Time to find someone else. Kennedy was 40 years ago, which is a bit of an improvement. I mean, yeah, LBJ's Great Society got ruined by the war, and Carter was made of fail all around.

But yeah, the Republicans are definitely the type to hold their presidents up as superhuman... the "Fearless Leader" jokes about W had a glimmer of truth in them. That really is how they saw Bush up until 2005 or so. You see it now in the Ron Paul crowd. The rest of the party doesn't have that mindset anymore, mainly because they don't have a candidate they can agree to hang their fanaticism on. McCain? He's a traitor to the party. Romney? He's a Mormon. I hear they have sex with little girls. Or star wives. Or something. Huckabee though... well, let's just say if Huckabee makes it past the primary, watch out. You haven't seen crazy yet.

TheCid: Seriously. JFK and LBJ are the people you should be holding up as representative of the liberal cause... minus that whole cold war/vietnam garbage.

JFK and LBJ would be called bigger neocons than Bush/Cheney, because they were.

USP .45: TheCid: Certainly the Democratic party isn't as far left as it should be, but the whole country is moving to the left, and both parties are going to get dragged along with it.

...and the Constitution will follow suit.

The death of a nation.

You're right, because the Patriot Act, DMCA, "Free Speech Zones", DOMA, and further attempts to turn the nation into a theocracy are such shining examples of the right wing's respect for freedom.

Going back into history, we have... oh, what's this, more attempts at theocracy? Opposing civil rights legislation? McCarthyism?

Yay conservatism! Such a wonderful mindset.

Wait, is USP .45 Afternoon_Dog_Leather_Freeper_Skookum_Whatever's new troll account? Have I missed a memo?

All I've seen him do is troll and spout out general idiocy.