SultanOfSwing

I know, right? I mean I just don't even ...

FlaviusAetius

Godwin's Law doesn't apply here. I never invoked Hitler or Nazism. I actually had Fascism in mind. Mussolini was one of Europe's leading socialists before he and his movement seized power. He and Lenin followed different paths to socialism. And his model was followed in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, and Germany in the 1930s (very seriously considered here at that time) and Argentina in the 1940s.

I'm simply questioning why and how moving America as far to the left as so many here seem to advocate would make America a "world power again." Aren't we a world power now? If not, how far left is enough to earn us a coveted "world power" slot, and how does that happen?

Do you all trust American socialists/liberals/progressives to stop "transforming America" when they reach the Scandinavian model? My fear is that they would move on the the DDR model (which, by the way, always had CDU MPs in its Volksrat) so that those dastardly Republicans could never reverse their legacy. Socialism does provide those tools and I fear our left-wingers are doctrinaire enough not to be trusted with them. If you don't understand the precedents being set by Obama, you don't understand this system.

sir_eccles

Any attempt to compare US left/right politics to European left/right politics and apply the same labels is doomed to failure. For example the Democrats are about as left wing as the Tory party.

FlaviusAetius

Not true. The European Socialist parties and the current leadership of the Democrat Party all subscribe to the doctrines of democratic socialism. The tories are Labour-lite and the Republican elite leadership is Democrat-lite.

username.exe

It's a very different spectrum here, not least with regards to the 'socialism' label, which has been specifically demonised for years here (not withstanding the fact that not many people seem to understand what true socialism is).

We're comparing apples with oranges.

Oakvillian

This

does not sit easily with this
The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which you rightly indicated was the "path certain nations [such as Germany] took in the 1930s" is known in English either as the National Socialist Party or the Nazi party. How can you be referring to one but not the other?

The rest of your post is so full of frothing loonery that it's not really worthy of comment. If you honestly, truly, think that the aim of the US Democrats is to govern America through a system modelled on the DDR, then there is no hope for you in the real world.

SultanOfSwing

I'm going to regret this, but hey ho ...

OK, for the single, solitary person in this forum who couldn't understand what I was talking about, I know the USA is already a world power, which is why I said they need to get their arses in gear. For example, should a world power, such as we are, have a population with such a high rate of poverty? Such poor delivery of their healthcare? Such a poor social safety net for those in need, or such a crumbling infrastructure?

Is a man who actually cares about the American people, who wants to create jobs, fix infrastructure, get healthcare provision on track and is willing to take on the current oligarchy really someone who has the same goals as Stalin, or Mussolini, or 'he who shall not be named'?

All that crap about East Germany was complete nonsense, and that's putting it nicely. The whole 'moving as far to the left as possible' was a bit disturbing too, if you think a moderate centre-lefter, with a modern European style, is somehow a far-left future fascist.

We have people on the conservative right who publicly state their desire to turn the US into some kind of fascist theocracy where people have marginally less freedom than North Koreans and yet someone who wants to introduce just a bit of progressive social democratic reform and who supports egalitarianism and a fair society for the American worker is the bad guy here.

Mind is boggled. And I'm done.

RoadWarriorFromLP

I've learned that "Flavius Aetius" translated from the Latin means "one who was dropped on his head as a child. Twice."

RoadWarriorFromLP

In Europe, the nutters usually join some sort of identifiable fringe party such as the BNP or Front National. In the US, they become Republicans.

SultanOfSwing

It certainly seems that way.

scrubbedexpat099

Harry Reid is a Republican?

Steerpike

Good post! Worth the effort.

FlaviusAetius

If you're all running a bit short of clever new ad hominem attacks, take a few moments to compare the Labour and Conservative manifestos with the Republican and Democrat platforms and the recent statements of Elizabeth Warren - who is probably the most engaging political thinker of the moment - and honestly state to the world that there is a huge difference amongst the parties. None of them want to tear down the capitalist system, and all of them support social programs, some to a greater extent than others, but it is a matter mostly of degree. The left-right parties in both countries talk about how they would improve existing programs, approaching them from different points.

Interestingly, Labour is tougher on immigration than that right-wing extremist, Marco Rubio. Labour and the Tories are both offering what they consider improvements to NHS. The Republicans want to repeal Obamacare (ACA to you purists), but will replace it with what they consider to be a better system, although they're still trying to come up with something they can all agree on. Most likely they will end up simply renaming and tinkering with the ACA, just as the UK has been tinkering with NHS ever since 1948.

Consider what those "nutter" Republicans have been up to. They got the Interstate Highway system funded and started, they provided the Senate votes necessary to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Nixon got the EPA passed, George HW Bush got the Americans With Disabilities Act signed, the Republicans got welfare reform and NAFTA passed, which Bill Clinton touted as his major legislative contributions and which also helped him to balance the budget, George W. Bush signed Medicare Part D to help the poor and elderly pay for their prescriptions. Finally, much to the frustration of some on the right, the Republicans have NEVER ended any major social programs enacted by the Democrats when they've been in power, nor are they likely to.

SultanOfSwing

Meh. Lighten up, all I said was you were talking crap about East Germany. I won't claim resposibility for what others said of course, and I won't pretend I was paying that much attention to it either.

Water off a duck's back and all that.

This, I know and it is why I got a little excited when Sanders said he was running for nomination. He strikes me as someone who genuinely does want reform, who does want to replace the ACA with a sensible single-payer system, who wants to improve infrastructure and create jobs. Most importantly for me, he seems to be the only candidate thus far who will vocally criticize the 'billionaire class' that has had a stranglehold on US politics for years, holding the country back beyond belief.

I'd like Elizabeth Warren to put her name forward too, to be honest. What I want isn't necessarily President Sanders but for enough progressive voices to speak up so the Democratic mainstream takes notice.

"Nutter" Republicans refers to the current crop. Eisenhower was a fine president, who had many common sense ideas and policies and quite honestly I'd be happy to vote for someone like him. Nixon had his moments, too. Christ, even the Dubya looks sane compared to the likes of Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz

markonline1

Definitely this!!!!!!