[Zerogouki]

I've seen a lot of leftists, like Brook, who seem to be under a grand delusion that they're relatively centrist and everyone else in the world (like the Democrats) is right-wing to some extent or another. This delusion seems to be especially popular in Europe. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me? Europe is not centrist by any reasonable standard.

[ThereBeDragons]

I feel as though it is unreasonable to define an objective center. Different societies will have different standards for centrist than others. America thinks its in the middle (Europe is left-wing, fascists are right-wing, socialists are super far left wing); Europe also thinks its in the middle (America is right-wing, socialists are left-wing, fascists are super far right wing.)

[Zerogouki]

No, it's totally reasonable to define an objective center. It's halfway between the extreme far-left smacktards (Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich) and the extreme far-right smacktards (Pat Buchanan).

[hip hop bunny hop]

Well, if you're trying to define a center, it'd be useful to define it in the context of nations most similar to the USA.

Those nations would largely be Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, & New Zealand, yes?

edit:

So, let's compare the Democrats to the major parties in those countries. But on what issues shall we compare them? The environment? Reproductive rights? Foreign policy?

[ccdan]

I've seen a lot of leftists, like Brook, who seem to be under a grand delusion that they're relatively centrist and everyone else in the world (like the Democrats) is right-wing to some extent or another. This delusion seems to be especially popular in Europe. Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

It depends on what you understand by "left" or "right"

Europe is not centrist by any reasonable standard.

what is it then?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Because someone on an internet forum says so, everyone else's collective and considered opinion goes out of the window?

[Zerogouki]

Well, if you're trying to define a centre, it'd be useful to define it in the context of nations most similar to the USA.

Those nations would largely be Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, & New Zealand, yes?

In terms of GDP per capita and who our friends were during the cold war, yeah, that would make sense.

In terms of things like freedom of speech, free markets, and the right to bear arms, not so much.

It depends on what you understand by "left" or "right"

Left = baby-killing tree-hugging feminazi hippy queers like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader who hate corporations because they hate wealth and prosperity.

Right = greedy bible-thumping fascists who drink the blood of Iraqi children and... uh... whatever else Brook says they do.

Does that clear it up?

what is it then?

Most of Europe is pretty far left, though there are some former Warsaw Pact countries that lean slightly more libertarian.

Because someone on an internet forum says so, everyone else's collective and considered opinion goes out of the window?

No, but Europe's does.

If Iran said that they were centrist and everyone else was far left, you'd call that bullshit, right? Same principle.

[The Clockwork Rat]

No, but Europe's does.

If Iran said that they were centrist and everyone else was far left, you'd call that bullshit, right? Same principle.

I call your comparison bullshit.

In 2009 the population of Europe was estimated to be 830.4 million according to the United Nations,[1] which was slightly more than 12% of world population. The precise figure depends on the exact definition of the geographic extent of Europe. The population of the EU was 499 million as of 2008. Non-EU countries situated in Europe in their entirety[2] account for another 94 million. Five trans-continental countries[3] have a total of 240 million people, of which about half reside in Europe proper.

[1] - http://esa.un.org/unpp
[2] - Albania 3.6, Belarus 10.3, Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.4, Croatia 4.4, Iceland 0.3, Republic of Macedonia 2.0, Moldova 4.4, Norway 4.5, Serbia+Kosovo 9.7, Switzerland 7.5, Ukraine 45.4 (millions)
[3] - Russia 142, Kazakhstan 15.2, Turkey 70.5, Georgia 4.7, Azerbaijan 8.6 (millions)

Population of EU - 499,000,000
Population of Europe (excluding trans-continental countries) - 593,000,000
Population of Europe (including trans-continental countries) - 830,400,000
Population of USA - 307,619,000
Population of Iran - 74,196,000

So, Zerogouki, you are the minority opinion.

[hip hop bunny hop]

In terms of GDP per capita and who our friends were during the cold war, yeah, that would make sense.

In terms of things like freedom of speech, free markets, and the right to bear arms, not so much.

?

You missed why I picked those countries for comparison. I'm of the opinion that, as countries approach similar levels of development, they tend to have been confronted with similar problems. So, by comparing ourselves to nations of similar development - that tend to face similar problems - we can figure out who tends to go right and who tends to go left.

I think this would be more fruitful than simply comparing ourselves to nations which have similar laws, yes?

Anyways, looking at those nations, I think America sticks out in a few ways:

1. The foreign policy tends to be the most hawkish of the bunch.
2. The social safety net is not nearly as extensive as that of the Western Europeans.
3. Our labor laws are relatively weak.
4. Our environmental laws are quite weak.

...

So, yeah, I think it'd be fair to say the USA is generally a right-wing nation when compared to nations who have a similar level of development.

[ccdan]

Left = baby-killing tree-hugging feminazi hippy queers like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader who hate corporations because they hate wealth and prosperity.

Right = greedy bible-thumping fascists who drink the blood of Iraqi children and... uh... whatever else Brook says they do.

Does that clear it up?

I don't know, there's something wrong with this kind (left-right) of classification... I used to think of left-right only in terms of economic policies, but it's clear to me that people tend to associate a wide range of things with left or right... and I noticed the following thing:

- left wingers are primarily concerned with the distribution of wealth, mainly through high levels of taxation and/or nationalizations/opposition to privatization/state instutions with many employees... while they tend to fare somewhat better (at least at times) with regard to (certain) personal freedoms, this is a secondary and often negligible concern

- right wingers are primarily concerned with the imposition of laws against behaviours that are in cotradiction to their (almost exclusively religious and often extreme) views, thus drastically limiting personal freedoms... while they tend to have a better attitude (at least at times) towards businesses, this is a secondary concern

in short, left wingers are against businesses and care less about personal freedoms while right wingers are against personal freedoms and care less about businisses .. and the differences between far left wingers and far right wingers are mostly superficial

now back to Europe and centrism... is Europe somewhere in the middle? I don't know and I'm not sure that "centrism" makes much sense, since left and right are not really the opposite of each other... is Europe leftist? well, not really, or at least not all of it... in many countries, incluing western ones, taxation is lower than in the US

[Figlio di Moros]

ccdan, by that definition, how do you explain georgists or fascists? Economic policy is relatively independant of right-left dichotomy, whereas nationalism, libertinism, etc. are far more important descriptive factors.

[Zerogouki]

Population of EU - 499,000,000
Population of Europe (excluding trans-continental countries) - 593,000,000
Population of Europe (including trans-continental countries) - 830,400,000
Population of USA - 307,619,000
Population of Iran - 74,196,000

I don't see what this has to do with anything that I said, unless I somewhere asserted that Iran has a bigger population than Europe. I'm pretty sure that I didn't.

I'm of the opinion that, as countries approach similar levels of development, they tend to have been confronted with similar problems.

That's a highly questionable assumption.

I think this would be more fruitful than simply comparing ourselves to nations which have similar laws, yes?

Yes, but not nearly as fruitful as looking at all nations around the world.

- left wingers are primarily concerned with the distribution of wealth, mainly through high levels of taxation and/or nationalizations/opposition to privatization/state instutions with many employees... while they tend to fare somewhat better (at least at times) with regard to (certain) personal freedoms, this is a secondary and often negligible concern

- right wingers are primarily concerned with the imposition of laws against behaviours that are in cotradiction to their (almost exclusively religious and often extreme) views, thus drastically limiting personal freedoms... while they tend to have a better attitude (at least at times) towards businesses, this is a secondary concern

in short, left wingers are against businesses and care less about personal freedoms while right wingers are against personal freedoms and care less about businisses .. and the differences between far left wingers and far right wingers are mostly superficial

If you're talking about Democrats and Republicans, then yes, they do seem to follow that pattern. However, they're not really the best representatives of pure leftist and pure rightist ideologies. Those honors belong to the Green and Constitution parties, respectively.

[PBVBROOK]

I've seen a lot of leftists, like Brook, who seem to be under a grand delusion that they're relatively centrist and everyone else in the world (like the Democrats) is right-wing to some extent or another.

This is the kind of nonsensical garbage I have come to expect from you. Your knowledge of world politics is so shallow that you don't realize how idiotic this statement is. I am not going to engage with you on this. I will let your idiotic personal attack speak for me.

If I did dismantle your drivel there would be those here who accused me of shooting fish in a barrel.

[Infidelis]

I've seen some righties make this claim as well...I think that centrists are seen as being the most reasonable group in politics and have the most willingness to hear out both sides.

Also, they're able to claim some sort of validity in their stances due to their ability to piss off and please progressives and conservatives.

[Cartertonian]

Left = baby-killing tree-hugging feminazi hippy queers...blah, blah, blah.

Right = greedy bible-thumping fascists who drink the blood of Iraqi children...blah, blah,blah.

So, if one is equally repulsed by both of these positions, what other label might there be than 'centrist'?

Frankly, Zerogouki, this thread is just another attempt to insist, 'you're either with us (whoeverthefuck 'us' happens to be in any given debate) - or you're against us'.

If both sides of an argument are talking crap - why should I be expected to sign up to either imebecilic position?

(Note sig below... )

[hannigaholic]

Europe is not centrist by any reasonable standard.

it's totally reasonable to define an objective centre

Define centrist. It seems 'reasonable' to me to define it in terms of the proportion of GDP spent by government, with closer to 0% being the extreme right, and closer to 100% being the extreme left. As most European countries' government spending takes up roughly 40-50% of GDP, I'd say that makes them pretty centrist from an objective point of view.

[The Immortal Goon]

1. It's a fallacy to compare a congressional party for a country as big as the United States to a parliamentary (or in France's case congressional) party in a smaller less diverse state.

2. The Democratic Party is by a good margin the largest party in the US. It's hard to say that the what the majority of the country thinks is moderate is extreme, without coming off as biased.
2a. The reason the Republicans do so well against a party larger than them is because they do better in rural areas and urban centers are largely disenfranchised from power via the cap in the House; the House's legal status as the lower house; the Senate over represents rural areas; and the Electoral College.

3. Saying the Democratic Party is extreme makes you sound like some kind of extremist.

[Zerogouki]

This is the kind of nonsensical garbage I have come to expect from you. Your knowledge of world politics is so shallow that you don't realize how idiotic this statement is. I am not going to engage with you on this. I will let your idiotic personal attack speak for me.

If I did dismantle your drivel there would be those here who accused me of shooting fish in a barrel.

You mean you're going to make personal attacks instead of addressing the actual issue? What a goddamn shock.

Starting now, I'm going to keep track of how many times you've done this. I'll probably have the results in a few days to a week.

So, if one is equally repulsed by both of these positions, what other label might there be than 'centrist'?

Well, there's libertarianism and anarchism at one corner, there's fascism and communism in another, and then there are the fun types who pick extreme beliefs from all over the map. And then there are the people who don't give a damn about politics... whatever they're called.

And those stereotypes were jokes, in case you couldn't tell.

Frankly, Zerogouki, this thread is just another attempt to insist, 'you're either with us (whoeverthefuck 'us' happens to be in any given debate) - or you're against us'. :roll:

Given that I bash right and left-wingers with equal abandon, and that I'll even smack some of the libertarians around on a few issues, there really is no "us" for me to associate myself with. Your assertion is therefore impossible.

If both sides of an argument are talking crap - why should I be expected to sign up to either imebecilic position?

Don't. I certainly didn't.

Define centrist. It seems 'reasonable' to me to define it in terms of the proportion of GDP spent by government, with closer to 0% being the extreme right, and closer to 100% being the extreme left.

This is really an accurate indicator of absolutely nothing except the size of government. If a government spent a huge chunk of GDP on the military and law-enforcement, but not a penny on social welfare programs, that would be pretty far right-wing by any normal standards, but left-wing by yours.

most European countries' government spending takes up roughly 40-50% of GDP

Holy shit, are you serious? The government consumes an entire HALF of the WHOLE GODDAMN ECONOMY? That's so completely beyond batshit insane that I don't even know where to begin... Why did we even bother saving these people from the USSR?

1. It's a fallacy to compare a congressional party for a country as big as the United States to a parliamentary (or in France's case congressional) party in a smaller less diverse state.
2. The Democratic Party is by a good margin the largest party in the US. It's hard to say that the what the majority of the country thinks is moderate is extreme, without coming off as biased.
2a. The reason the Republicans do so well against a party larger than them is because they do better in rural areas and urban centers are largely disenfranchised from power via the cap in the House; the House's legal status as the lower house; the Senate over represents rural areas; and the Electoral College.
3. Saying the Democratic Party is extreme makes you sound like some kind of extremist.

Who here is talking about the Republicans and Democrats? I'm talking about the extreme far-left smacktards like the Green Party, not the pseudo-leftist corporate whores in the Democratic Party.

[The Clockwork Rat]

@ Zerogouki
If you are in a minority culture, your opinion is already in a minority. This is ignoring the fact that you are, from most perspectives, pretty far right-wing, so anyone will appear left-wing to you. It's like me being short, everyone else is tall.

[greysnow]

^ I am sorry to correct you, but if you are in a minority culture, that does not necessarily mean that your opinion is a minority of all people concerned here. Your opinion could be such a vast majority in a slightly minority culture, that, with some bolstering from the majority culture, you could actually be in a majority across the board. (I hope this does not sound confusing, if it does, blame my English.) What I mean is: suppose 90% of Americans are Libertarians while 40% of Europeans are. By your numbers, that would mean that there are 276,857,100 Libertarians in America + 332,160,000 Libertarians in Europe (counting Europe including trans-continental countries) = 609,017,100 Libertarians in total, which is a ca. 53.5% majority of the total population of 830,400,000 + 307,619,000.

Now, I am glad that this is not so, and I don't believe for a minute that there ever would be such numbers of Libertarians allowed on the streets. I just wanted to do some nitpicking of my own.

As regards the original topic, I guess your viewpoint is a matter of what you're used to. One culture's centrist is another's leftist. Also, the leftist-rightist axis is hardly a fine enough tool for analysis and grouping of the sum total of political ideas.