That assumes you understand or realize what the system actually does. Sometimes the what is not obvious to the outsider observer. I once worked at a place that developed a new software development process designed to streamline internal development by making it more explicit. Most of us saw that the real intent was to force internal IT customers to stop asking for anything and demand we buy stuff externally instead, since the process was an enormous obstacle to even starting something new. The what took time to realize.
Excellent article, IMO. I did have one thought here:
> Real-world policies frequently contradict their rhetoric, as seen in various domains: .... Unemployment benefits: Benefits vary widely across states, often misaligning with political stereotypes and cost of living differences (e.g., Texas offering more generous unemployment benefits than California).
One could make the argument that Reagan, being the tip of the metaphorical spear that was the austerity movement here in the United States getting his start as Governor of California, could explain the oddity. The movement gathered it's steam in the Golden state, after all, a big part of which was the spread of the (largely completely made up) notion of the welfare queen, and how people were living large on the Government dole.
I've said it elsewhere here and I'll keep repeating it. The Democrats are largely a conservative party. They hold to liberal ideas of democracy and free markets. The vast majority of progressives around the world would call them a centrist-right wing party. The fact that they're the furthest left in the US structure doesn't make them actually leftist in the slightest, and neither does the fact that they're opposed primarily by theocratic fascists.
We don't have a right and left here. We have a right and less-right.
I cannot overstate this: As a leftist, I have NO representation of my ideas in American politics. None. I vote Democrat because the alternative is, again, theocratic fascism and I definitely don't want that. But that doesn't mean I have even one iota of love for the Democrats. They do not represent me or what I want for the world on the vast majority of issues.
Ive lived in Japan for a few years now, and see the left right thing doesnt really serve a purpose as a mental tool. Japanese seem to support what would be considered left wing policies, but under very right wing justifications.
This way to divide up politics into two sides doesnt work. Your argument here boils down to "The world sees all American politics as right wing and you dont want to be percieved as right wing now do you so you better convert." That is not a strong argument based in reason.
If you cant tell the difference between a democrat and a libertarian, and think american republicans are fascist you probably need a few new feature dimensions.
The high taxes and strong medical insurance program is not because "medical care is a human right". Its for Japanese. Americans would see this as nationalism.
The trains, government market control, subsidies etc are not to protect humanity from capitalism, its to provide safety and convenience for Japanese people. Freedom be damned either way so calling it right wing doesn't work.
Imagine if Bidens political goal was universal healthcare for all white people. Or if trump wanted strict gun control to protect the nation.
Left right just isn't real.
I see it as analogous to before the world knew about microorganisms and thought your health was determined by good and bad humors. There were experts in humors, jokes, art, writing. Im sure it seemed like a very real thing at the time.
> Your argument here boils down to "The world sees all American politics as right wing and you dont want to be percieved as right wing now do you so you better convert." That is not a strong argument based in reason.
My argument is that the Democrat party largely supports conservative political ideas, the dictionary definition outlining it as:
> (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
The Democrats adhere strongly to free enterprise, private ownership, other austerity politics. They're less socially traditional than most Republicans in the US, though still very socially traditional in isolated topics, things like largely still holding to Christian values and standards, the monogamous model of marriage as a pillar of society, rugged individualism and American exceptionalism, etc. etc. I'm not saying these are necessarily bad things (though as a polyamorous person, it would be nice to enshrine both of my partners legally as I would want but that's a niche digression), I'm just saying, it's not so simple as "American politics are called all right wing" as though it's an arbitrary decision on the part of leftists. Leftists point out Democrats are centrist and even right wing on many issues because they are: because their political actions align with a conservative agenda.
> If you cant tell the difference between a democrat and a libertarian
To be perfectly blunt I think I could articulate that difference better than you, based on the way you've spoken so far on the subject.
> and think american republicans are fascist
I wouldn't say they are fascists, but I would say the conservative movement as it exists in the US is highly amenable to fascism, if it enables their political project. And given their last president quite famously got within shouting distance of an actual coup, I don't think that's an unreasonable position to hold. Now whether you want to draw a line between "fascist" and "largely okay with fascism if it does the right harms to the right people" or not is up to you personally.
Much if the initial man effort put down to start the democratic united states was by a bunch of illiterate farmers going to battle, sometimes to establish their own government. Sometimes just out of anger charging at town hall with pitchforks.
Not saying I agree with a physical act in consideration, but the idea that any physical defiance of your government is fascist is denying the history of this country. Think of it like an ultra riot.
>the Democrats adhere strongly to free enterprise, private ownership, other austerity politics
So does every mainstream political party in every country in the world (except for North Korea. Even supposedly "Communist" countries like China accept that you aren't going to be a prosperous nation without them these days). Nobody is a Bolshevik any more -- everyone wants a market economy and private property. What makes the parties in other countries different than the US is that they generally support more social programs and a heavier tax burden on the rich to support it.
Yeah, if this article wanted to be remotely even-handed, examples are plentiful. How many times has the Laffer Curve been trotted out to claim that reducing taxes on rich people will increase receipts, only for it to not happen that way? Or social cuts rationalized for the purpose of balancing the books, only for the savings to be spent on reducing taxes for rich people, leaving the books unbalanced? The purpose of a system is what it does.
Of course, the article didn't want to be even handed. Its primary intent wasn't really to explore POSWID as a general concept that applies nearly everywhere in politics. Its purpose is what it did.
> How many times has the Laffer Curve been trotted out to claim that reducing taxes on rich people will increase receipts, only for it to not happen that way?
Never. The problem with debating the Laffer Curve is that tax receipts always go up, only occasionally dipping for recessions. It's not possible to correlate tax receipts to tax policy in that way without inventing your own model for what would have happened under your alternative policy (which can of course say whatever you want it to say). Taxes decreased, receipts go up. Taxes increased, receipts go up. The only thing that stops receipts from going up year-on-year are big recessions, and even then they always bounce back to higher than pre-recession levels afterwards.
> This year, the Houston City Council unanimously approved support for 17 new affordable (multifamily and multiunit) housing proposals—far more than the 16 in San Francisco,
Far more? It seems like exactly one more, and the relative sizes and qualities of the proposals are not discussed.
