If you want to talk about politics on a global scale, it becomes confusing very quickly. “Liberal”, “Labor”, “Conservative”, “Tory”, “Green”, “Blue”... these labels get thrown around and adopted and then they mutate and they can mean wildly different things. For example, the Australian Liberal party is much the same as the US Republican party. Their Labor party is their equivalent to the Democrats. Which may be an insult; all I know is that Labor is further to the left than Liberal… in Australia.
For purposes of this convo, I’ll be using the terms as I learned them waaaay back in AP US Government.
* Conservative - someone who tries to maintain the status quo
* Liberal - someone who tries to make changes in order to make progress
For a while there in the US, it sure looked like the Republicans were the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal party. After all, the Democrats were the ones on the side of allowing gay and trans people to serve openly in the military and participate in society without fear of discrimination. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. Democrats were the ones in favor of fighting racism and racist policies against black and brown people. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. Democrats are in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal for anyone who gets pregnant. Republicans just want to punish that sort of person for existing. And so on.
But the Democrats haven’t walked the walk in decades. The party understood the results of Nixon’s Southern Strategy even if they didn’t understand the cause, and they swung to the right. They became the conservative party.
Ever since Clinton took office in 1992, the Democrats have been the weak, mealy-mouthed party of hand-wringing and compromise. They’ve been struggling to keep things quiet and peaceful and not actually change anything. They’ve been desperately fighting to keep things the way the are, fighting to keep the rich rich, keep the middle class comfortable, and keep the poor quiet.
“But what about Obamacare?” Yeah, the wildly progressive action that was the centerpiece of the Obama presidency, his left-wing legacy. The member states of the United Kingdom put National Health Services in place in the years immediately following WWII. And those are actual socialized medicine; fully funded government programs that serve the entire population. Obamacare is a slight modification to our god-awful private health care system that forces everyone to join, and forces all health plans to accept them, and forces all plans to cover all conditions.
Don’t get me wrong, Obamacare is a step up from the system we had before. It’s a step closer to the system we should have. But a pro-corporate, privatized version of a program that was successfully enacted 70 years earlier is simply not progressive. Obamacare is a patch on a profit-driven system, not actual socialized healthcare. It is incredibly conservative.
I’ve already made my feelings on the Republicans clear, but I’ll reiterate. They’re the fascist party. They’re trying to destroy every bit of social progress humanity has ever made. They’re trying to take us back to feudalism, when you were either an aristocrat or a slave. They’re trying to make changes, but they’re certainly not trying to make progress.
And to reiterate again: we need a genuine leftist movement in the United States. We need an actual counter to the fascist movement. We need democratic socialism, and it needs to recognize the reality on the ground.
Los Demócratas son el partido conservador de los Estados Unidos- Español
Si se quiere hablar de política a escala global, el asunto rápidamente se vuelve confuso. "Liberal", "Labor", "Conservative", "Tory", "Green", "Blue"... esas etiquetas se utilizan y se adoptan y luego mutan y pueden significar cosas totalmente diferentes. Por ejemplo, el partido Liberal australiano es muy similar al partido Republicano estadounidense. Su Partido Laborista es su equivalente a los Demócratas. Lo que puede ser un insulto; lo que yo sé es que el Partido Laborista es más de izquierda que los liberales... en Australia.
A los fines de esta conversación, usaré los términos como los aprendí hace mucho tiempo en AP US Government (una classe a nivel universitario sobre el gobierno estadounidense).
* Conservador: alguien que intenta mantener el status quo
* Liberal: alguien que intenta realizar cambios para hacer progresos
Durante algún tiempo en los Estados Unidos, parecía realmente que los Republicanos eran el partido conservador y los Demócratas el partido liberal. Después de todo, los Demócratas eran los que permitían a los homosexuales y las personas transgénero (lo siento si no estoy usando el término correctamente; lo uso en la manera como lo he aprendido en el inglés de izquierda de los Estados Unidos) a servir en el ejército. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar a estas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Los Demócratas eran los que estaban a favor de luchar contra el racismo y las políticas racistas contra las personas negras. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar esas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Los Demócratas están a favor de conservar el aborto seguro y legal para cualquier persona que resulte embarazada. Los Republicanos simplemente quieren castigar esas personas por el solo hecho de existir. Y así sucesivamente.
Pero los demócratas no han recorrido el camino desde hace unas décadas. El partido comprendió los resultados de la Estrategia del sur de Richard Nixon incluso si no comprendió la causa, y se movió a la derecha. Se convirtió en el partido conservador.
Desde que Clinton asumió el cargo en 1992, los demócratas han sido el partido débil evasivo de nerviosismo y transigencia. Han estado luchando para mantener las cosas silenciosas y tranquilas y no para verdaderamente cambiar nada. Han estado luchando para mantener las cosas como están, para guardar la riqueza de los ricos y la comodidad de la clase media y para silenciar a los pobres.
"¿Y el Obamacare?" Sí, la acción increíblemente progresista que fue la atracción principal de la presidencia de Obama, su legado de izquierda. Los estados miembros del Reino Unido promulgaron sus Sistemas Nacionales de Salud durante los años inmediatamente después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Y esos son realmente la medicina socializada; programas totalmente financiados del gobierno que sirven a toda la población. Obamacare es una modificación mínima de nuestro sistema de asistencia médica privatizada horrible que fuerza a todo el mundo a unirse y a todos planes de salud a aceptarlos y a cubrir todas las enfermedades.
No me malinterpretes, Obamacare es un paso por delante desde el sistema que teníamos antes. Es un paso más hacia el sistema que deberíamos tener. Pero una versión pro-empresarial privatizada de un programa que fue promulgado con éxito 70 años antes sencillamente no es progresista. Obamacare es un parche en un sistema con ánimo de lucro, no realmente la medicina socializada. Es increíblemente conservador.
Ya he aclarado mis sentimientos sobre los republicanos, pero los reiteraré. Son el partido fascista. Están intentando destruir todo el progreso social que la humanidad ha realizado. Están intentando llevarnos al feudalismo, cuando una persona era o un aristócrata o un esclavo. Ellos están intentando realizar cambios, pero ciertamente no están intentando realizar progresos.
Y para reiterar una vez más: necesitamos un movimiento de izquierda auténtico en los Estados Unidos. Necesitamos una oposición al movimiento fascista. Necesitamos el socialismo democrático, y este tiene que reconocer la realidad a la que enfrentamos.
Les Démocrates sont le parti conservateur des États-Unis. - français
Si on veut parler de la politique à l'échelle mondiale, elle devient rapidement peu claire. « Liberal », « Labor », « Conservative », « Tory », « Green », « Blue »... ces étiquettes sont utilisées et adoptées et puis elles subissent des mutations et peuvent signifier des choses très différentes. Par exemple, le parti Libéral australien est très similaire au parti Républicain américain. Leur parti Labor est leur équivalent des Démocrates. Ce qui peut être une insulte ; ce que je sais est que Labor est plus à la gauche que Liberal... en Australie.
Pour les besoins de cette conversation, j'utiliserai les termes comme je les ai appris il y a des années en AP US Government (une classe au niveau universitaire sur le gouvernement des États-Unis).
* Conservateur - quelqu'un qui essaie de maintenir le statu quo
* Libéral - quelqu'un qui essaie de changer des choses pour faire des progrès
Pendant un temps aux États-Unis, il semblait vraiment que les Républicains étaient le parti conservateur et les Démocrates le parti libéral. Après tout, les Démocrates étaient eux pour permettre aux homosexuels et personnes transgenres de servir dans l'armée et de participer à la société sans peur de la discrimination. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Les Démocrates sont eux en faveur de la lutte contre le racisme et les politiques racistes contre les personnes noires. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Les Démocrates souhaitent conserver l'avortement sûr et légal pour n'importe quelle personne est enceinte. Les Républicains veulent simplement punir ce type de personne pour le crime d’exister. Et ainsi suite.
Mais les Démocrates n'ont pas joint le geste à la parole depuis des décennies. Le parti a compris les résultats de la Stratégie du Sud de Richard Nixon même s'ils n'en ont pas compris la cause, et ils ont basculé vers la droite. Ils sont devenus le parti conservateur.
Depuis que Clinton est entré en fonction en 1992, les Démocrates ont été le parti faible qui manque de franchise, le parti de l'inquiétude et du compromis. Ils luttent pour conserver l'ordre des choses tel qu’il est, pour laisser la richesse aux riches et le confort à la classe moyenne et pour faire taire les pauvres.
« Mais qu'en est-il de l'Obamacare ? » Oui, l'action incroyablement progressive qui a été la pièce maîtresse de la présidence d'Obama, son héritage de gauche. Les états membres du Royaume Uni ont mis en place les systèmes de Sécurité sociale dans les années qui ont suivi la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Et ces sont vraiment des systèmes de sécurité sociale ; des programmes entièrement financés par le gouvernement au service de la population entière. L'Obamacare est une petite modification de notre système privé de services de santé franchement atroce qui oblige tout le monde à y adhérer et toutes les mutuelles à les accepter et à couvrir toutes les maladies.
Comprenez-moi bien, l'Obamacare est un progrès, comparé au système que nous avions avant. C'est un pas de plus vers le système que nous devrions avoir. Mais une version pro-corporatiste privatisée d'un programme qui a été mis en place avec succès 70 ans plus tôt n'est tout simplement pas progressive. L'Obamacare est un patch qui corrige un peu un système à but lucratif, pas vraiment un système de sécurité sociale. C'est incroyablement conservateur.
J'ai déjà montré mes sentiments sur les républicains, mais je les réitérerai. Ils sont le parti fasciste. Ils essaient de détruire tous les progrès sociaux que l’humanité n'a déjà faits. Ils essaient de nous retourner à la féodalité, où on est ou un aristocrate ou un esclave. Ils essaient d'apporter des changements, mais certainement ils n'essaient pas de faire des progrès.
Et pour réitérer encore une fois : nous avons besoin d'un mouvement de gauche aux États-Unis. Nous avons besoin d'un contrepoids au mouvement fasciste. Nous avons besoins du socialisme démocratique, et ceci doit reconnaître la réalité sur le terrain.
Os Democratas são o partido conservador dos Estados Unidos. - Português
Se você quiser falar sobre a política na escala global, se torna confuso muito rápido. "Liberal", "Labor", "Conservative", "Tory", "Green", "Blue"... essas etiquetas são utilizadas e adotadas, então mutuam e podem significar coisas extremamente diferentes. Por exemplo, o partido liberal australiano é muito similar ao partido republicano americano. Seu partido “Labor” é seu equivalente aos Democratas. O que pode ser um insulto; tudo o que eu sei é que o partido Labor é mais à esquerda que o partido Liberal... na Australia.
Para efeitos de conversa, eu usarei a terminologia que aprendi há muito tempo na aula AP US Government (uma aula de nível universitário sobre o governo dos Estados Unidos).
* Conservador - alguém que tenta manter o status quo
* Liberal - alguém que tenta introduzir alterações para realizar progressos
Durante algum tempo nos Estados Unidos, realmente parecia que os Republicanos eram o partido conservador e os Democratas o partido liberal. Afinal de contas, os Democratas eram a favor de permissão à homossexuais e transgêneros (me desculpe, eu espero que minha utilização desse término é correcto) de servir abertamente nas forças armadas e participar da sociedade sem medo de discriminação. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. Os Democratas eram a favor da luta contra o racismo e as políticas racistas contra pessoas negras. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. Os Democratas são a favor de manter o aborto seguro e legal para qualquer grávida. Os republicanos querem simplesmente castigar esse tipo de pessoa por existir. E assim por diante.
Mas há décadas que os democratas não andam a pé. O partido compreendeu os resultados da Estratégia sulista de Richard Nixon mesmo se não entendendo a causa, e deu uma guinada para a direita. Eles se tornaram o partido conservador.
Desde que Clinton assumiu o cargo em 1992, os democratas foi o partido débil e insincero de lamentações e compromisso. Estão lutando para manter o mundo quieto e tranqüilo e não realmente tentando mudar nada. Estão desesperadamente lutando por manter as coisas como estão, para conservar a riqueza dos ricos e o conforto da classe média e silenciar os pobres.
"Mas e quanto ao Obamacare?" Sim, a ação incrivelmente progressista que foi o centro de mesa da presidência de Obama, sua herança de esquerda. Os estados-membros do Reino Unido estabeleceram seus Serviços Nacionais de Saúde durante os anos imediatamente depois da Segunda Guerra Mundial. E estes são realmente medicina socializada; programas governamentais inteiramente financiados que servem toda a população. Obamacare é um modificação mínima de nosso sistema privado horrível de medicina que força todo mundo a associar-se e todos os planos de saúde a aceitá-los e a cobrir todas as doenças.
Não me interpretes mal, Obamacare é um avanço do sistema que nós tenhamos antes. É um passo mais perto do sistema que nós deveríamos ter. Mas uma versão pró-corporativa privatizada de um programa que foi promulgado com êxito 70 anos antes, simplesmente não é progressista. Obamacare é um remendo em um sistema com fins lucrativos, não realmente a medicina socializada. É incrivelmente conservador.
Eu já deixei claro meus sentimentos sobre os republicanos, mas eu os reiterarei. Eles são o partido fascista. Eles estão tentando destruir cada pedaço do progresso social que a humanidade já fez. Eles estão tentando devolvê-nos ao feudalismo, quando você era ou um aristocrata ou um escravo. Eles estão tentando fazer mudanças, mas eles certamente não estão tentando fazer progressos.
E para reiterar mais uma vez: nós precisamos de um movimento esquerdista autêntico nos Estados Unidos. Nós necessitamos de uma ofensiva real contra o movimento fascista. Nós precisamos do socialismo democrático, e isto precisa reconhecer a realidade que nós estamos enfrentando.
A few issues have come up lately that I think highlight a divide and a problem that should be getting more attention, that being the difference between the liberal and conservative view of children. As I've said before,Jon Haidt's work is incredibly useful for understanding these differences and how they lead to entirely different politics and philosophies. Here I'll just be focusing on a small part.
The liberal view of society is atomic; the basic unit of society is the individual, which individuals come together in free association to form communities and groups. The conservative view is molecular; the basic unit is the family, which form the smallest of a nested set of authoritarian hierarchies. Father is at the head of the family, then the family is part of a church with a priest at the head, then state/governor, then country/president, then Christian Commonwealth/God. Authority descends from god in heaven, to each level of the hierarchy below.
This is important for two reasons. The first is that it grants the father with god-given authority over the lives of his family, and that any outside interference is an abrogation of god's will, Christian duty, etc. The second is that this isn't interpreted merely as authority or hierarchy, but as ownership. By any reading, the Christian bible says that children are property (sons until they're grown, women until title is transferred to her new owner, her husband). Thus interfering with parental authority is in fact abrogating the most sacred of American rights; property rights. This finds expression in a number of harmful ways, not least of which is simple and straightforward physical abuse, but also emotional abuse.
This conflict has a history going back decades, as when conservatives attacked Dr. Seuss's objecting to spanking as "permissiveness", which epithet is still popular today. Because, obviously, if you're not hitting your child then you're letting it do whatever it wants, yes? They still find outlet by attacking, for example, that most wondrously uppity of bitches, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wrote the book It Takes a Village, and who is still attacked for trying to steal children1.
Take two examples that cropped up in my RSS feed recently. Both are from Christian fundamentalists: Ken Ham and Mark Driscoll. Ham was upset that mean atheists were attacking a poor, defenseless Christian school (notwithstanding that no one was certain which school it was until Ham put its name into the public discourse) for the most painfully ignorant and vile of indoctrination. Children learned to spew creationist talking points (behemoth=dinosaur, sharp teeth <> carnivore, "Were you there?") and atheists were appalled. Ham defended the school and said it was just another part of evil atheism's recent growth in attacks. He included a list of bullet points that PZ Myers took apart quite handily. However, Myers was mystified at number five and didn't know what to make of it (except to say "Citation needed"). Number five was "Many atheists claim that children belong to the community, not to their parents."
Meanwhile, Hemant Mehta was appalled by a recent sermon by Driscoll, which included the following gem.
One of the dumbest conversations I’ve ever had on this topic was with a pastor. He asked me to pray for his teenage daughter, who claimed to be a Christian but was dating and having sex with a non-Christian teenage boy. I asked him what specifically i should pray for — that God would give him a steady trigger finger? He told me that he had never told her not to have sex because she was an adult, and he did not want to pry into her personal life. I told the man that I would not pray that god would give his daughter wisdom, because God had already given that wisdom to her father, who did not lovingly dispense it to his daughter, and that he was a wicked man who apparently hated his daughter and was a coward unfit for the pastorate.
Emphasis mine
How clearly do you think it needs to be stated? Driscoll obviously denies the woman any agency, laying all blame for her actions at her father's feet, as if she were a dog who broke the leash rather than an actual human being. And then Driscoll thinks the only proper thing for the other pastor to do is to kill someone. My guess? The heathen who vandalized his property (the man who had sex to his daughter. Not with, because that implies she's human something can be done with).
This is all rather disgusting, and part of a larger conservative Christian worldview that posits that children aren't human, but property, and only men truly escape the status of being property and graduate to humanity.
On the other side, we have the progressive view that posits parents as limited caretakers of their children, who have a positive duty to see their children happy, healthy, and well-prepared for adulthood, and who have limited rights stemming only and necessarily from their obligations as parents. All obligation flows from parent to child and not, as a conservative might have it, the other way around.
1 - Ironically, that's exactly the sort of shit fundies pull with the Good News Club, an after-school program that indoctrinates children into fundamentalism. Their parents think "Oh, it'll be like Sunday School but with their friends" and instead they end up wetting the bed in terror thinking they're going to burn in hell for not cleaning their room. Be careful following that link; you might end up infuriated. Remember what Eusebius said, "If you're doing it for Jesus, anything goes."
