The Left finally takes a beating

[maxiep]

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13805596&fsrc=nwl

Let's hope we're paying attention here in the States.

 

[Shooter]

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13805596&fsrc=nwl

Let's hope we're paying attention here in the States.

Let's hope the same thing happens here in 4 years, and Obama is swept out of office.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So Amsterdam is majority-ruled by the "Christian Democratic Party"? Who knew? I mean, I could see Germany, perhaps...but the land of sex and drugs (but no rock-and-roll)?

 

[mook]

Not really surprising, I suppose. Conservatives were punished in the US for the economy. Liberals were punished in Europe.

If you are in charge when the shit hits the fan, a lot of that feces will be stuck on you.

Seems like the US and Europe are on opposite cycles. When it's conservative here, it's liberal there. When it's liberal here, it's slightly less liberal there.

 

[maxiep]

Not really surprising, I suppose. Conservatives were punished in the US for the economy. Liberals were punished in Europe.

If you are in charge when the shit hits the fan, a lot of that feces will be stuck on you.

Seems like the US and Europe are on opposite cycles. When it's conservative here, it's liberal there. When it's liberal here, it's slightly less liberal there.

Read more closely. Much of Europe has been going rightward for a few years, Sarkozy and Merkel are the best examples. Yet the Left still got hammered. I guess they're finally realizing that their mollycoddling of Islamic extremists, their endless growing of the government and their relentless march toward Europe being one country is not what many people want.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

states rights!

 

[Minstrel]

"Conservative" is a bit misleading, though, if one wants to compare Europe to the US. The political axis is different and more liberal. Most mainstream conservative parties in Europe are equivalent to the Democratic party in the US.

 

[Idog1976]

Really? Sorry but if you are still buying that Left vs. Right thing then you have lost. That used to mean something in the 1950's perhaps, but not for the past 30 years. Look at the core policies by both parties and you will see that their favored rich buddies are helped often the same rich guys regardless of which party is in power. It's ever more globalization at the expense of american industry and jobs (Budwiser is owned by the Belgians now!). The easily whipped into a frenzy social issues blind people to the more important issues of personal freedom (privacy, choice of religion, freedom of speech basically the bill of rights) and personal economic freedom (a truly free market not crony capitalism/monopoly capitalism/Facism or Socialism all of which are different attacks on the free market that end in the same result centralized power).

Didn't Bush say he didn't believe in an interventionist foreign policy? Yes he did! Didn't Bush say he believed in smaller government? Yes he said he did but the Homeland Security Act was the biggest expansion of government since World War 2! It's not the just the right its the supposed Left as well! Is Obama out of Iraq? No! Is he out of Afghanistan? No! Did he reverse the Bush Administration's assault or personal freedom and the bill of rights? NO! Did he stop the policy Bush had of TARP and instead allowed failed businesses and banks to fail and let the free market do it's work? NO!

The Right and Left is a joke! It's the individual and poor and middle class that are getting slaughtered by rich elite that have NO LOYALTY to a party. Not all Rich people have that mindset there are good people out there, and they are in both parties. For too long Democratic and Republican people have been tricked by Democratic and Republican politicians. Look to the real voices for change guys like Ron Paul, Jesse the Body Ventura, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. Those four stand up to abusive centralized power. If you let Bush set up domestic spying you reap the harvest of Obama using it to crush independant thinkers on the Right. If you let Clinton pass the 1996 Telecommunications act you get to watch Fox use it to destroy indpendant thinking on both the left and right. My point is don't let the government get more powerful by blidnly supporting a party regardless of their actions. US vs. THEM in politics leaves the average person out in the cold as they are cynically manipulated by the politicians of BOTH parties.

 

[maxiep]

Really? Sorry but if you are still buying that Left vs. Right thing then you have lost. That used to mean something in the 1950's perhaps, but not for the past 30 years. Look at the core policies by both parties and you will see that their favored rich buddies are helped often the same rich guys regardless of which party is in power. It's ever more globalization at the expense of american industry and jobs (Budwiser is owned by the Belgians now!). The easily whipped into a frenzy social issues blind people to the more important issues of personal freedom (privacy, choice of religion, freedom of speech basically the bill of rights) and personal economic freedom (a truly free market not crony capitalism/monopoly capitalism/Facism or Socialism all of which are different attacks on the free market that end in the same result centralized power).

Didn't Bush say he didn't believe in an interventionist foreign policy? Yes he did! Didn't Bush say he believed in smaller government? Yes he said he did but the Homeland Security Act was the biggest expansion of government since World War 2! It's not the just the right its the supposed Left as well! Is Obama out of Iraq? No! Is he out of Afghanistan? No! Did he reverse the Bush Administration's assault or personal freedom and the bill of rights? NO! Did he stop the policy Bush had of TARP and instead allowed failed businesses and banks to fail and let the free market do it's work? NO!

The Right and Left is a joke! It's the individual and poor and middle class that are getting slaughtered by rich elite that have NO LOYALTY to a party. Not all Rich people have that mindset there are good people out there, and they are in both parties. For too long Democratic and Republican people have been tricked by Democratic and Republican politicians. Look to the real voices for change guys like Ron Paul, Jesse the Body Ventura, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. Those four stand up to abusive centralized power. If you let Bush set up domestic spying you reap the harvest of Obama using it to crush independant thinkers on the Right. If you let Clinton pass the 1996 Telecommunications act you get to watch Fox use it to destroy indpendant thinking on both the left and right. My point is don't let the government get more powerful by blidnly supporting a party regardless of their actions. US vs. THEM in politics leaves the average person out in the cold as they are cynically manipulated by the politicians of BOTH parties.

Ah, yes. The Devil's Theory of Imperialism. I remember intro to Poly Sci in college.

 

[maxiep]

"Conservative" is a bit misleading, though, if one wants to compare Europe to the US. The political axis is different and more liberal. Most mainstream conservative parties in Europe are equivalent to the Democratic party in the US.

THe relative center doesn't matter. Europe as a whole moved rightward with this election. Don't forget, the article referenced was from a British-based periodical. What I found most interesting from the article was the schism of the right wing of the UK's delegation, following the path of increased autonomy along with Eastern European countries.

 

[Minstrel]

THe relative center doesn't matter. Europe as a whole moved rightward with this election. Don't forget, the article referenced was from a British-based periodical. What I found most interesting from the article was the schism of the right wing of the UK's delegation, following the path of increased autonomy along with Eastern European countries.

I'd say the article's argument is overblown for a few reasons:

1. This was for the EU parliament, not national parliaments. EU parliament is seen as much less important to most Europeans, the voter turnout is much lower and there's a lot more "protest voting."

2. The big right-wing parties went from 264 seats to 264 seats. Which specific right-wing parties did well changed (nationalistic ones did much better than normal) but there really wasn't a big rightward shift overall.

3. One of the biggest rising parties was the Green party, a very liberal party. They got 16% of the vote in France, a huge increase in a country where they've typically done poorly.

So, I'd say that the more correct conclusion is that nationalism (various parties around Europe) and the Green party were the big winners. Not "conservatism." And even that is limited to the EU parliament. National parliaments are still very left-wing across Europe.

I do agree that there's a backlash against Labour in the UK. Of course, the UK parliament seats didn't change. It'll be interesting to see if seats change significantly the next time the UK has elections and how. This blow to Labour largely amounts to polling badly, not actually losing power.

 

[maxiep]

I'd say the article's argument is overblown for a few reasons:

1. This was for the EU parliament, not national parliaments. EU parliament is seen as much less important to most Europeans, the voter turnout is much lower and there's a lot more "protest voting."

That sounds like an excuse.

2. The big right-wing parties went from 264 seats to 264 seats. Which specific right-wing parties did well changed (nationalistic ones did much better than normal) but there really wasn't a big rightward shift overall.

It's not just the big parties that can claim part of the political spectrum. That's like saying those that voted for Ralph Nader weren't on the left.

3. One of the biggest rising parties was the Green party, a very liberal party. They got 16% of the vote in France, a huge increase in a country where they've typically done poorly.

And the conservatives in France trounced both.

So, I'd say that the more correct conclusion is that nationalism (various parties around Europe) and the Green party were the big winners. Not "conservatism." And even that is limited to the EU parliament. National parliaments are still very left-wing across Europe.

Yep, you'd say that. Of course, others would say that this vote is a reflection of the failure of leftist policies in the EU. There's a higher priority being put on immigration, border security and standing up to extremists. Focus on labels all you wish, it's the policy difference that's important here.

I do agree that there's a backlash against Labour in the UK. Of course, the UK parliament seats didn't change. It'll be interesting to see if seats change significantly the next time the UK has elections and how. This blow to Labour largely amounts to polling badly, not actually losing power.

Labour is at the end of its run. Blair skimmed the cream off the top and left Brown with the bitter grounds. It's akin to Thatcher/Major. The personal expense scandal is just the final blow.

 

[Minstrel]

That sounds like an excuse.

Well, turnout was almost precisely half in the UK what it is for UK parliament elections. This was essentially true across Europe. I'd say it's fact. The EU parliament has much less power over any particular European's life than their own national parliament.

And the conservatives in France trounced both.

Sure, France is currently more conservative than usual. This doesn't say much about "Europe" moving to the right.

Yep, you'd say that. Of course, others would say that this vote is a reflection of the failure of leftist policies in the EU. There's a higher priority being put on immigration, border security and standing up to extremists. Focus on labels all you wish, it's the policy difference that's important here.

As I said, this was a "win" for nationalism, but has not much to do with social progressivism, environmentalism or the more socialistic economic policies. All these things remain essentially as popular as ever. Almost all of the nationalist parties that did so well in these elections are also for social welfare and are social liberals. They are essentially tribalist socialists.

Labour is at the end of its run. Blair skimmed the cream off the top and left Brown with the bitter grounds. It's akin to Thatcher/Major. The personal expense scandal is just the final blow.

I agree. But while Labour is falling, the Liberal Democrats are rising and the Liberal Democrats are more left than Labour. The future battles are likely going to be between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

To analogize this to the US, it's equivalent to the Democrats waning in influence and the Green party becoming the mainstream national party on the left. Bad for the Democrats (or Labour in the UK), but good for the "Left."

 

[Minstrel]

And regarding France, this is how the voting broke down for the largest blocs:

27.8% for the UMP (a center-right party), 16.48 for the socialists, 16.28 for the greens. 8.4 for MoDem (a centrist, socially liberal party).

The UMP (the conservatives) got 29 seats in the EU parliament....the socialists/greens/MoDems got 38. Others got 5.

Not very conservative, really. The majority is actually quite left-leaning.

 

[Idog1976]

Ah, yes. The Devil's Theory of Imperialism. I remember intro to Poly Sci in college.

I'm sorry were you trying to say that was a basic concept or something? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here...

 

[maxiep]

I'm sorry were you trying to say that was a basic concept or something? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here...

You understood my point just fine.

 

[maxiep]

And regarding France, this is how the voting broke down for the largest blocs:

27.8% for the UMP (a center-right party), 16.48 for the socialists, 16.28 for the greens. 8.4 for MoDem (a centrist, socially liberal party).

The UMP (the conservatives) got 29 seats in the EU parliament....the socialists/greens/MoDems got 38. Others got 5.

Not very conservative, really. The majority is actually quite left-leaning.

I note you neglected Jean Marie Pen's party, who got 6.62% but that's okay. I never said the French weren't left, it's the trend that's noteworthy in this election.

 

[Minstrel]

I note you neglected Jean Marie Pen's party, who got 6.62% but that's okay.

They took some of the 5. It doesn't really change things.

I never said the French weren't left, it's the trend that's noteworthy in this election.

My point is that I don't think the left "took a beating" or that conservatism is on the march across Europe. In the EU parliament (a parliament that is less important to Europeans as evidenced by the across-the-board lower voter turnout), nationalism did well, as did the Greens. Overall, though, the usual left policies (social liberalism, environmentalism and socialist economic policy) remained as popular as ever. Even the nationalist parties basically champion all those things.

If you boil "the right" down to nationalism (border issues, immigration), then yes, the right did great. If you care about social liberalism, environmentalism and socialist economic policy, then the right didn't do well at all.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I note you neglected Jean Marie Pen's party, who got 6.62% but that's okay. I never said the French weren't left, it's the trend that's noteworthy in this election.

He's still in elections? That unabashed communist was getting votes when I was learning to read French newspapers in 93. Wow.

 

[Idog1976]

You understood my point just fine.

So I looked that up to see if I was missing something: "The Devil's Theory of Imperialism". Oddly, only two of your posts on two different sports blogs came up along with a defunct page from some African Americans Unite -type page. I used Google Cache to read what that site said. I see you like to consider this theory and old saw. Funny though, the definition I saw seemed to be pretty spot on and had virtually nothing to do with what I said. Nice oversimplification of my argument so you could dismiss it and go back to your tired partisan wrangling and glorious talking points. Sad really that folks continue to sit around and debate if the so called right or so called left are better, never bothering to study pre-1700's history and see the obvious continuity in human existence since ancient times. Those who lust for power will do whatever it takes to get it including mouth Republican "values" or Democratic "values" and then proceed to do what their money masters tell them to do. Try reading some pre-1700's (pre-advanced propaganda) history and then look at events and tell me if maybe your little throwaway line might be just a tad on the lightweight side of the scale.

Just for S and G why don't you enlighten us with your grand theory of political reality that you came up with for your doctoral dissertation in Political Science. I'm quite curious; I'm sure it's beautifully reductionist just like your reply to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

So I looked that up to see if I was missing something: "The Devil's Theory of Imperialism". Oddly, only two of your posts on two different sports blogs came up along with a defunct page from some African Americans Unite -type page. I used Google Cache to read what that site said. I see you like to consider this theory and old saw. Funny though, the definition I saw seemed to be pretty spot on and had virtually nothing to do with what I said. Nice oversimplification of my argument so you could dismiss it and go back to your tired partisan wrangling and glorious talking points. Sad really that folks continue to sit around and debate if the so called right or so called left are better, never bothering to study pre-1700's history and see the obvious continuity in human existence since ancient times. Those who lust for power will do whatever it takes to get it including mouth Republican "values" or Democratic "values" and then proceed to do what their money masters tell them to do. Try reading some pre-1700's (pre-advanced propaganda) history and then look at events and tell me if maybe your little throwaway line might be just a tad on the lightweight side of the scale.

Just for S and G why don't you enlighten us with your grand theory of political reality that you came up with for your doctoral dissertation in Political Science. I'm quite curious; I'm sure it's beautifully reductionist just like your reply to me.

FYI

http://books.google.com/books?id=FT..._JjACA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

A General Theory of International Relations
by Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, Rikhi Jaipal

The Devil theory of imperialism focuses attention on the role of private arms manufacturers in promoting imperialism and war. While the capitalist class as a whole is impelled by the profit motive, that segment of it which is engaged in the private manufacture of arms makes quick and large profits from imperialism and warfare, mainly through the sale of arms on government contract. The 'military-industrial complex' of the advanced industrial economies exercises considerable control over the state and are able to bend foreign policy in their favour. The state often becomes a willing tool of the arms manufacturers also because massive doses of arms expenditure help to check the tendency of a capitalist economy to fall into a depression. In one form or another, this theory has been propounded by British socialists such as Philip Noel Baker, Fenner Brockway and Frederick Mullaly, Stalin, Einstein, and many contemporary non-Marxist critics of capitalism.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

England is a lot more conservative than I've seen them in the a long time. You should of seen the BNP guys who were running for office--Holy shit they're insane.

 

[Idog1976]

FYI

http://books.google.com/books?id=FT..._JjACA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

A General Theory of International Relations
by Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, Rikhi Jaipal

The Devil theory of imperialism focuses attention on the role of private arms manufacturers in promoting imperialism and war. While the capitalist class as a whole is impelled by the profit motive, that segment of it which is engaged in the private manufacture of arms makes quick and large profits from imperialism and warfare, mainly through the sale of arms on government contract. The 'military-industrial complex' of the advanced industrial economies exercises considerable control over the state and are able to bend foreign policy in their favour. The state often becomes a willing tool of the arms manufacturers also because massive doses of arms expenditure help to check the tendency of a capitalist economy to fall into a depression. In one form or another, this theory has been propounded by British socialists such as Philip Noel Baker, Fenner Brockway and Frederick Mullaly, Stalin, Einstein, and many contemporary non-Marxist critics of capitalism.

Thanks Denny. Only read a cursory explanation prior to responding. Interesting that I had never heard those mechanisms explained with under the rubric "Devil's Theory of Imperialism". Can't say I entirely disagree but I don't entirely agree either. Seems to have some merit. I tend to blame the money men more then arms manufacturers but there is no doubt that capitalist countries (and even pre-capitalist for that matter) tend to resort to warfare when they can't balance the books. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly revelatory in that theory seems more like an accurate grasp of a particular cycle of capitalism. Personally, I tend to think that the blueprint for destruction lies in the ego/mind complex we are saddled with and less so a particular dogma or strain of political ideology. Thanks for the info Denny.

 

[Idog1976]

After reading a section of that E-book provided by Denny I would go with the Realist theory of Imperialism myself. It is there in every state and certainly not limited to Capitalist states.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've actually given this a bit of thought over the years. If a company is going to do business with the government, then they should be restricted from dealing with foreign powers. I don't think there's any particular pressure to go to war that isn't based solely upon spending a tiny fraction of a huge GDP on defense yielding an impressively strong military.

The thing about the USA is, at least my hope is, that we have certain values that give us the moral authority to use military force on rare occasions for the general welfare of the entire world. Though that's not our mandate as a nation, it's likely in our own best interest that the world is as free from war and criminal dictators as possible and that we have free nations to trade with.

On the other hand, a very rich person can make war on his own.

“You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.” -- William Randolph Hearst

 

[BrianFromWA]

Wasn't that the Spanish-American war? That one turned out well for us.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

So Amsterdam is majority-ruled by the "Christian Democratic Party"? Who knew? I mean, I could see Germany, perhaps...but the land of sex and drugs (but no rock-and-roll)?

Golden Earring begs to differ!

[video=youtube;JeRa3RtBiIU]

 

[maxiep]

So I looked that up to see if I was missing something: "The Devil's Theory of Imperialism". Oddly, only two of your posts on two different sports blogs came up along with a defunct page from some African Americans Unite -type page. I used Google Cache to read what that site said. I see you like to consider this theory and old saw. Funny though, the definition I saw seemed to be pretty spot on and had virtually nothing to do with what I said. Nice oversimplification of my argument so you could dismiss it and go back to your tired partisan wrangling and glorious talking points. Sad really that folks continue to sit around and debate if the so called right or so called left are better, never bothering to study pre-1700's history and see the obvious continuity in human existence since ancient times. Those who lust for power will do whatever it takes to get it including mouth Republican "values" or Democratic "values" and then proceed to do what their money masters tell them to do. Try reading some pre-1700's (pre-advanced propaganda) history and then look at events and tell me if maybe your little throwaway line might be just a tad on the lightweight side of the scale.

Just for S and G why don't you enlighten us with your grand theory of political reality that you came up with for your doctoral dissertation in Political Science. I'm quite curious; I'm sure it's beautifully reductionist just like your reply to me.

I studied a different social science in graduate school. That doesn't take away from the fact that your initial post could have been the puerile ramblings of any college freshman. Vaya con Dios.

 

[Idog1976]

So again what is your grand theory of how social relations work? I'm feeling like you're good with critique but short on big picture. And your critique's are pretty weak sauce thus far. You are excellent at being insulting in an arrogant tone however!

That doesn't take away from the fact that your initial post could have been the puerile ramblings of any college freshman.

So what pearls of wisdom will you lay before us swine? I see alot of mainstream right wing thinking thus far which is to say lacking in critical thinking.

 

[Idog1976]

I think you raise some good points Denny but i think that unfortunately this:

The thing about the USA is, at least my hope is, that we have certain values that give us the moral authority to use military force on rare occasions for the general welfare of the entire world. Though that's not our mandate as a nation, it's likely in our own best interest that the world is as free from war and criminal dictators as possible and that we have free nations to trade with

is no longer true. I agree that say in the 1940's we were a beacon of moral values in comparison to the rest of the world and certainly the fascist states. Unfortunately, 60 years of increasingly immoral advertising and a decaying public education system have rendered this country as one of the least values driven in the world. Unless, you consider the value of an item at Walmart being something to drive your values. I also can't help but think of the Founding Fathers warning us against seeking dragons to slay abroad and the avoiding of foreign entanglements. Really our power began to wane due to the incredible expense of the Vietnam war and the parallel plunge in trade where we went from a trade surplus to a deficit. Once Nixon cut the Gold Standard and made us DeFacto an Oil backed currency (the only currency that could be used to buy oil) things got really out of hand. Since then the power elite have spent alot of time whipping up frenzy's over gay marriage, the war on drugs, the war on crime, abortion and other civil issues to direct our attention away from the real action in economics.

I do however completely agree with this:

I've actually given this a bit of thought over the years. If a company is going to do business with the government, then they should be restricted from dealing with foreign powers.