I don't know how successful they'd be nationally but I know that they were extremely successful in Louisiana. Some of his stuff seems rather like Roosevelt's 'New Deal' but more practical.
AH challenge:more liberal america
- Thread starter Straha
- Start date
- Status
I think that there were three factors in the grown of America's pretty extreme form of conservatism. One was Monetarism
Secondly Conservatives from the 70s REALLY got themselves organized
Thirdly Liberals and Progressives have ALLOWED themselves to be intimidated
Secondly Conservatives from the 70s REALLY got themselves organized
Thirdly Liberals and Progressives have ALLOWED themselves to be intimidated
Mike Collins
Banned
Im gonna take a different course on this one just to think out of the box!
Read a book years back called Vietnam: The Necessary War by a guy named Lindh. He went into surprisingly great depth on the different political mindsets in America. He goes somewhat like this. The Northeast culture is liberal because it was colonized by people from East Enlgand (mostly) who left the Old Country for moral/spiritual reasons (pilgrims) and tended to be more communal. The South was colonized by folks from South and West England who came for commercial reasons and tended to be culturally more militaristic. There is also a "Highland" culture in parts of the South (Texas High Country, Arkansas, Tennessee are examples) that came from Scots/Irish immigrants. Its a combination of both but leans towards the conservative/militarist tendencies of the South. As the US expanded, New Englanders colonized the Northern Tier and the Southerners colonized to South and Southwest. Lindh doesnt get much into which is dominant. He more focused on there being a constant friction between North and South. But I would agree from my experience that Americans tend to be more conservative than the other Western nations.
What if the people from South and West England went to South Africa or India instead of the American colonies and there was a bigger influx of East Engalnders and Scots/Irish? That might bring the USA more in line with the rest of the Western Nations.
Read a book years back called Vietnam: The Necessary War by a guy named Lindh. He went into surprisingly great depth on the different political mindsets in America. He goes somewhat like this. The Northeast culture is liberal because it was colonized by people from East Enlgand (mostly) who left the Old Country for moral/spiritual reasons (pilgrims) and tended to be more communal. The South was colonized by folks from South and West England who came for commercial reasons and tended to be culturally more militaristic. There is also a "Highland" culture in parts of the South (Texas High Country, Arkansas, Tennessee are examples) that came from Scots/Irish immigrants. Its a combination of both but leans towards the conservative/militarist tendencies of the South. As the US expanded, New Englanders colonized the Northern Tier and the Southerners colonized to South and Southwest. Lindh doesnt get much into which is dominant. He more focused on there being a constant friction between North and South. But I would agree from my experience that Americans tend to be more conservative than the other Western nations.
What if the people from South and West England went to South Africa or India instead of the American colonies and there was a bigger influx of East Engalnders and Scots/Irish? That might bring the USA more in line with the rest of the Western Nations.
Quick question.
Am I the only one who seems to find the majority of the changes in the US, cited by Ian to be postive?
(I'll get you your flamewar, PM)
Am I the only one who seems to find the majority of the changes in the US, cited by Ian to be postive?
(I'll get you your flamewar, PM)
labor/labour party
I think part of the problem may lay with the US's lack of a labor Party, together with the poor light that unions are seen in, unlike most English speaking western democracies. As a result socialism tends to be equated with communism, and the collapse of the soviet union means therefore that socialism - which = communism in a lot of peoples minds - (and its implications of caring for the havenots of society) is therefore perceived to weak/flawed/stupid. This would explain the changes Ian has qouted for the past decade or so. So having said that an organised political party to represent the rights of the working man that attracts broad support could possibly result in a more liberal US.
Its interesting to compare some of the changes - despite a tightening up Australia still has more generous unemployment assistamne than the US, yet has roughly the same percentage unemployed. We have a deeply conservative political leader (at least compared to his predeccessors ove the last 30 years) in John Howard who actually pushed through MUCH tougher gun laws than the US, and was able to get widespread popular support, despite the fact the gun buy-back was funded via a surcharge on the medicare levy (for the unitiated medicare is Australia's universal health system). Surveys in Australia have indicated the majority of Australians would rather see increases in health and education than minor tax cuts.
Also, compulsory voting means that those elected have to take in to account the views of ALL Australians, rather than just those who vote, as in the US.
Having said that, I think the trend towards conservatism is a world wide phenomena. Look at the growth of the right in France, for that matter here in Australia (one nation - Australia's home grown far right party, attracted approx 600 000 votes a few years ago - a large number when there are only about 12 million voters). I think 911 and Bali have accelerated this process - it has tended to make many westerners xenophobic, and equate all muslims with terrorism. Fear has made people insular.
I think part of the problem may lay with the US's lack of a labor Party, together with the poor light that unions are seen in, unlike most English speaking western democracies. As a result socialism tends to be equated with communism, and the collapse of the soviet union means therefore that socialism - which = communism in a lot of peoples minds - (and its implications of caring for the havenots of society) is therefore perceived to weak/flawed/stupid. This would explain the changes Ian has qouted for the past decade or so. So having said that an organised political party to represent the rights of the working man that attracts broad support could possibly result in a more liberal US.
Its interesting to compare some of the changes - despite a tightening up Australia still has more generous unemployment assistamne than the US, yet has roughly the same percentage unemployed. We have a deeply conservative political leader (at least compared to his predeccessors ove the last 30 years) in John Howard who actually pushed through MUCH tougher gun laws than the US, and was able to get widespread popular support, despite the fact the gun buy-back was funded via a surcharge on the medicare levy (for the unitiated medicare is Australia's universal health system). Surveys in Australia have indicated the majority of Australians would rather see increases in health and education than minor tax cuts.
Also, compulsory voting means that those elected have to take in to account the views of ALL Australians, rather than just those who vote, as in the US.
Having said that, I think the trend towards conservatism is a world wide phenomena. Look at the growth of the right in France, for that matter here in Australia (one nation - Australia's home grown far right party, attracted approx 600 000 votes a few years ago - a large number when there are only about 12 million voters). I think 911 and Bali have accelerated this process - it has tended to make many westerners xenophobic, and equate all muslims with terrorism. Fear has made people insular.
Well, I can't speak for foreign nations, but labor unions in the US tend to be pretty bad and corrupt on their own, and kinda deserve to be looked down upon. My mother used to have union fees that were about equal to her paycheck (after insurance was taken out). This same union promotes poltical candidates that my mother doesn't support. Hell, my grandfather was a union leader and even he hated unions.
Then there's the mob ties...
Then there's the mob ties...
Grey Wolf
Donor
Interestingly, here in the Uk because of the rightwards shift of the Labour Party several unions have allowed their branches to affiliate to other parties than the Labour Party - eg the Scottish Socialist Party. Today the Labour Party has tried to ban the whole union (RMT) - if it succeeds it will see a steady exodus of other unions which can no longer in this day and age support the Labour Party simply on the basis that they have always done so. It ought to make politics more interesting, but the right wing shift of Labour under Blair means that they get most of their monies for election years from business and special interests. So it will simply be a sign that Blair is a Tory at heart and nothing much in reality, except the SSP will get a bit more money that it would have done otherwise
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
DominusNovus said:
Yes, I definitely think that if anything the corruption of unions and the death of the "Old-left" contributed to the decline of Liberalism in the US. Liberalism took on a less respectable, "peacenik" reputation among a lot of people. Think about it, we went from having FDR, Truman, and Kennedy to having... Jimmy Carter. Perhaps if we were to limit the corruption of the unions, eliminate Vietnam and other factors that led to the "New Left", and give it a more populist bent than in OTL and it could drastically improve in its influence and popularity in the USA.
Come to think of it, Liberalism really only declined towards the end of the Cold War, oddly enough...
Last edited:
My opinion is based on reading loads of social science and opinion surveys (some of which I referred to earlier in this thread). Racism isn't something unique to Americans. Especially the mild sort of racism of a person who would never actually vote for segregation or something like that, but does have an instinctive dislike/distrust of people of different races. It is EXTREMELY common in societies (not just the US) for people to have an instinctively greater dislike/distrust of other races, viewing them more of an "outsider" group rather than one of "us". Even if they intellectually believe in equality, even if they can make friends with individuals of other races once they've gotten to know them, the negative attitudes are still there very very often. More negative attitudes toward people who obviously seem "outsiders" (another race, culture, religion, etc) are basically a fundamental and common element of human psychology.
But while such reactions are found to some extent all over the place, it is the US which actually has a large, obvious racial minority that remains highly segregated and impoverished at the end of the 20th century. Basically race continues to have a big and obvious presence in US society in a way which it doesn't elsewhere. And this isn't just an effect that produces difference between nations. I've seen research indicating that within the US, the level of prejudice among whites is associated with the number of black people living nearby. The more blacks, the more prejudice, and not just in the south.
Specifically, when an Americans thinks of criminals or poor people, it usually means a white American thinking of black criminals and poor black people. And not in proportion to reality, either - research has shown that Americans consistently overestimate the portion of criminals and welfare recipients that are black. So basically when an American today thinks of poverty and crime, they're more likely than people in other countries to consider those things the problem of an "outsider" group. Someone who is not like them. So the dislike and distrust of outsiders gets heaped on top of the normal distrust of criminals and poor people. This isn't speculation - psychological experiments have shown that Americans really are disproportionately likely to think of blacks when they think of crime or welfare. Some of the stuff is really interesting. For example there was one experiment where (IIRC - it's been a while since I read it) after watching news reports about criminals, people were likely to "remember" more of the criminals being black than actually were.
To get more specific, it's quite true that people don't like murderers and rapists of any color. But I wasn't talking about murder and rape, crimes which are punished severely around the world. The US doesn't stand out for its treatment of murderers and rapists (it often applies the death penalty, but it's not like long prison terms are a slap on the wrist). It stands out for its treatment of nonviolent offenders, and non-criminal poor people. Basically, for people who have problems but are not great dangers to society. When they think of such "borderline cases", people are more likely to be sympathetic and assume the best about others who are similar to themselves, and to be harsh and assume the worst about others who are very different from themselves. Most Americans think of criminals and poor people as being more different from themselves - darker colored, for starters, though also more urban - than people in other countries do.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Let's be honest, though, white anxieties are not entirely unjustified; 90% of interracial crimes are committed against whites, and the rate at which the white percentage of the population is shrinking is disconcerting, and would be anywhere - in fact it would likely be violently resisted just about anywhere else. Whites will be a minority in about 50 years - I'd like to see ths French reaction if that happened in France.
That "legalized crimes" are committed against minorites consistently is more or less inarguable, but this is not likely to be perceived by the public.
There is really nothing that can be done about the sense of "other"; it is human nature, and in any case is not limited to being an interracial phenomenon.
That "legalized crimes" are committed against minorites consistently is more or less inarguable, but this is not likely to be perceived by the public.
There is really nothing that can be done about the sense of "other"; it is human nature, and in any case is not limited to being an interracial phenomenon.
Ian Montgomerie said:
Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. Your psychological examples prove this. Just because they congregate into seperate groups, that does not make either "group" racist.
Ian Montgomerie said:
Nope. That's where your wrong. Every nation has conflict between races simply because those races, generally, have different goals and agendas. Stick two groups with different objectives together for long enough, and you're going to get a fight. It's unstoppable and natural. No matter which group is in the right, they will come into conflict.
Examples of other nations with race problems: France (French vs. Algerians) / Germany (Germans vs. Turks) / Russia (Russians vs. Chechans) / Yugoslavia (Muslims vs. Christians / Israel (Jews vs. Muslims). There are countless other examples.
Ian Montgomerie said:
Nope. The examples of above prove this wrong. The only reason why Americans, in your opinion, view blacks as criminals more than other nations is: A) when you turn on the news, it does sometimes appear that blacks commit a disporportionate amount of crimes (whether it's true or not I don't know), and B) there just aren't that many black people in Europe. Here they make up >12% of our population. There they make up <4% of the population.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
---and the rate at which the white percentage of the population is shrinking is disconcerting----
Why is that? Afraid you couldnt handle losing both (in)equality of opportunity ( better opportunities) and outcome (top of the heap)? White -Americans really dont have to worry about their descendants being in the minority in the US-no matter what that old Sci-fi show Time Trax depicted. We minorites will be sure our descendants practice " delayed Chrisitan charity" as you have done and treat your decendants the same as we were treated
Why is that? Afraid you couldnt handle losing both (in)equality of opportunity ( better opportunities) and outcome (top of the heap)? White -Americans really dont have to worry about their descendants being in the minority in the US-no matter what that old Sci-fi show Time Trax depicted. We minorites will be sure our descendants practice " delayed Chrisitan charity" as you have done and treat your decendants the same as we were treated
Grey Wolf
Donor
Walter_Kaufmann said:
Well, I might agree with the final point, but I am not sure I see at all that it is 'natural' for people of different races to not mix. I live in an area where Asians, black, chinese and white all mix. In my small street half are black, half are white and there's a Chinese family too. It doesn't feel at all weird, its just how it is....
Walter_Kaufmann said:
Um, what agenda does a black family have in the area I live in ? Or an Asian one or a Chinese one ?
I am not sure your argument works for different ethnicities living within one country
Grey Wolf
Michael E Johnson
Banned
--Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. ----
Incredible! Where do you think this "seperation " in America comes from? It is directly descended from "enforced segreagtion" The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.
ps since its Feburary maybe,you know for shits and giggles, reading some books about the black experience in the US would help you get more informed on these issues?
Incredible! Where do you think this "seperation " in America comes from? It is directly descended from "enforced segreagtion" The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.
ps since its Feburary maybe,you know for shits and giggles, reading some books about the black experience in the US would help you get more informed on these issues?
A more liberal America - easy!
Sometime in the 1990s Rupert Murdoch (Fox TV/New York Post and other media in the US and around the world) has a heart attack or a fatal accident. News International shares plunge as his underlings fight each other rather than working together, plus, they don't have Rupert's business sense, plus, maybe they discover he's from the Conrad Black/Robert Maxwell school of creative accounting.
George Soros (billionaire stock market genius and liberal do-gooder) uses his vast personal fortune to buy a commanding share in NI, and suddenly some media that used to be conservative are now liberal. Over the years, I would have thought this was bound to have an effect on US public opinion.
BTW, for those of you who think US prisons are too comfy I can recommend a recent first-hand account "You Got Nothing Coming" by Jimmy A. Lerner. Read it.
Sometime in the 1990s Rupert Murdoch (Fox TV/New York Post and other media in the US and around the world) has a heart attack or a fatal accident. News International shares plunge as his underlings fight each other rather than working together, plus, they don't have Rupert's business sense, plus, maybe they discover he's from the Conrad Black/Robert Maxwell school of creative accounting.
George Soros (billionaire stock market genius and liberal do-gooder) uses his vast personal fortune to buy a commanding share in NI, and suddenly some media that used to be conservative are now liberal. Over the years, I would have thought this was bound to have an effect on US public opinion.
BTW, for those of you who think US prisons are too comfy I can recommend a recent first-hand account "You Got Nothing Coming" by Jimmy A. Lerner. Read it.
Here's an interesting statistic for you guys:
10 years ago,
40% of Americans identified with the Republican Party
49% identified with the Democrat Party
Now,
45.5% of Americans identify with the Republican Party
45.2% of Americans identify with the Democrat Party
Really interesting, considering that the Republicans won Congress 10 years ago.
10 years ago,
40% of Americans identified with the Republican Party
49% identified with the Democrat Party
Now,
45.5% of Americans identify with the Republican Party
45.2% of Americans identify with the Democrat Party
Really interesting, considering that the Republicans won Congress 10 years ago.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Let's be honest, though, white anxieties are not entirely unjustified; 90% of interracial crimes are committed against whites,
Uh...who else could they be committed against? Blacks are still a minority so if there are interracial crimes of one against another at all they will disproportionately seem to be of the smaller against the larger if you consider rates alone. Examine the raw nos and I think the picture will be different. I've seen this example before. A math major might be helpful here to explain this to us as yet another example of "figures don't lie but liars figure"
OTOH
The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.
How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you? My grandmother of 90 was the last white resident in an all black neighborhood until the gang members actually told her they would kill her if she stayed. Imagine being forced to leave where you had grown up and stayed all your life, and the b*****ds acted like they were doing her a favor! People don't sell their homes at a loss and leave on a whim, but self-preservation overrides most other instincts.
Uh...who else could they be committed against? Blacks are still a minority so if there are interracial crimes of one against another at all they will disproportionately seem to be of the smaller against the larger if you consider rates alone. Examine the raw nos and I think the picture will be different. I've seen this example before. A math major might be helpful here to explain this to us as yet another example of "figures don't lie but liars figure"
OTOH
The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.
How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you? My grandmother of 90 was the last white resident in an all black neighborhood until the gang members actually told her they would kill her if she stayed. Imagine being forced to leave where you had grown up and stayed all your life, and the b*****ds acted like they were doing her a favor! People don't sell their homes at a loss and leave on a whim, but self-preservation overrides most other instincts.
- Status