Do you think that is any different than the idea of the Left here? To me the main difference is backing unions which the Left in the US has been giving up. Its still a thing, just not as big here.
Strong belief in the welfare state and unions
harder to fire people
government for the people, not just the wealthy
Ban gunsStrong belief in the welfare state and unions
harder to fire people
government for the people, not just the wealthy
Ban guns
Cameras on every corner
I don't think they ban guns...they just don't let every tom,dick and harry own oneBan guns
Cameras on every corner
Hard to back unions when the rightwing state governments vote their demise by enacting right to work legislation..Do you think that is any different than the idea of the Left here? To me the main difference is backing unions which the Left in the US has been giving up. Its still a thing, just not as big here.
The European left are nowhere near as left as they used to be, prior to,say, the 90s. It's converged somewhat with the US.
And it varies depending on which part of Europe. The UK is actually a bit more like the US than Germany, in that the Anglophone countries have a history of oppositional politics and class conflict, whereas Germany had repeatedly adopted a more corporatist, co-operative mentality. Even before WW1 the German left was the most reformist and accommodating in Europe. Bismark, after all, introduced the welfare state, very early on, from the right, in order to avert the growth of the far left.
Which actually makes the UK left more prone to radical positions than the German left, but also makes the UK right more neo-liberal than the Germans.
Frankly, the German model seems to have worked better, but Germany seems to be changing as well, with things like the creation of 'mini-jobs' and the complete absence of growth in German workers' incomes, it might be very slowly moving in a more Anglo direction.
Then there are the Scandanavian countries which have a different approach again. I don't know much about them, but they have a very specific kind of 'model' for the economy, but I do wonder how sustainable it is.
Oh, and Eastern Europe appears to be sliding towards the far right, and not the libertarian/neo liberal kind.
From a European perspective I struggle to see someone like Hillary Clinton as being of 'the left'. She'd be a Lib Dem here, probably even to the right of Blair.
The most glaring thing though, to me, is that compared to Western Europe if not necessarily the East, the US has an astonishingly strong strand of social-conservatism. I suppose that's what allows people like Chlinton to appear as 'left', because on social issues the right is so far out there that taking what would be a mainstream stance on social issues in much of Europe attracts the kind of hostility and rage that you'd have to embrace full-on Bolshevism to stir up in Europe.
The US doesn't have a viable leftist party while in Europe they do...that's the main difference i see....Do you think that is any different than the idea of the Left here? To me the main difference is backing unions which the Left in the US has been giving up. Its still a thing, just not as big here.
Hard to back unions when the rightwing state governments vote their demise by enacting right to work legislation..
Don't take your 2016 loss out on me.
Government cameras?
There’s also the demonization towards unions that began during the Reagan years..Even in states that are not Right controlled. I think the losses are due to the public in general not wanting them like before. Look at CA which peaked in 2008 and has been on a slight decline from that point. CA is pretty blue and yet its not even close to being the top.
The US doesn't have a viable leftist party while in Europe they do...that's the main difference i see....
mainly because the Dems aren't left imoViable as in the Dems here dont get much done, or do you mean something else? Obama got a record number of things done if I'm not mistaken.
There’s also the demonization towards unions that began during the Reagan years..
mainly because the Dems aren't left imo
There’s also the demonization towards unions that began during the Reagan years..
mainly because the Dems aren't left imo
What issues do you think the EU Left is for, that the US Left is not for. Or is it a function of accomplishments?
Both the US left and the European left are hugely broad categories and deeply divided, to a ridiculous degree when you compare different European countries with each other, but even within countries. So I don't think you can speak of single 'issues', its a matter of how comparatively strong different strands are within different countries' versions of 'the left'.
Also many parts of 'the right' in Europe often holds stances associated with 'the left' in the US. E.g. socialised health care or accepting the existence of nationalized industries.
And then there are the issues that don't neatly fall into left and right categories, like gun control or ideas about free speech. Even immigration is not a simple left-right issue.
The Clinton Democrats are, for example, very hawkish on foreign policy and war when compared to much of the European left. Indeed that's been the case historically, e.g. LBJ failing to persuade Wilson to get the British to join in the Vietnam war. But you can easily find anti-war US leftists or pro-war European ones, it's just a matter of relative numbers and power.
European Left seems to do the occasional radical thing in one country or other. Like Universal Daycare, shorter Work Weeks, etc. Some of those stay and spread elsewhere, some get abandoned. They are quite innovative and willing to try programs others see as impossible.
European Left seems to do the occasional radical thing in one country or other. Like Universal Daycare, shorter Work Weeks, etc. Some of those stay and spread elsewhere, some get abandoned. They are quite innovative and willing to try programs others see as impossible.
Right... but surely people can detail out more than just Unions and Labor laws that make it difficult for businesses. What policies define the European Left? It sounds a lot like people are describing the American Left.
In what way, have they abandoned Unions and Workers?
Illustration of Clintonian Triangulation . Long before the 1990s, Clinton employed the idea of moving to the right to win elections, thereby gaining campaign contributions; one of his key strategies was moving against labor unions.
But once in office, Clinton and his allies turned their backs on the labor movement that had made their careers possible, largely in hopes of discouraging anti-union companies from funding potential rivals or to undermine potential rivals on the left. Although political commentators date the birth of Clintonian triangulation—i.e. adopting some of your opponent’s policies to distance yourself from your base, move to the center, and broaden your electoral appeal—to the aftermath of the 1994 elections, Bill Clinton along with Pryor and Bumpers began employing it in the 1970s and the Arkansas labor movement was the target.
There is no better example of this triangulation than the Labor Reform Bill of 1978. As anti-union enterprises found new ways to circumvent the National Labor Relations Board procedures—dragging out certification processes, illegally firing union activists and taking years to litigate challenges to these dismissals, and purposely violating laws knowing that the minimal fines would be a small price to pay to keep unions at bay—unions sought relief in the form of a new law to eliminate these practices. But Bill Clinton, Pryor, and Bumpers worked enthusiastically against the bill. Pryor made opposition the cornerstone of his 1978 senate bid. Bill Clinton, with the help of political consultant Dick Morris, wrote a series of ads for Pryor’s campaign warning that unions were “disastrous for the economy of Arkansas.” Bumpers joined the Senate filibuster that killed the bill.
Triangulation made Clinton and his allies nearly unbeatable. Work with liberals on social issues and gestures to the black community allowed them to retain the backing of much of the left (who really had no one else to support), and their labor policies attracted the support (with various degrees of enthusiasm) of business conservatives. Unable to counter employer aggressiveness during a period of rampant inflation and trade pressures, Arkansas’s labor movement and the liberalism that it did so much to sustain withered, and the state began a political shift to the right. The Big Three easily accommodated themselves to this shift, supporting free trade, economic deregulation, and other elements of neoliberalism.
Hillary Clinton joined the shift in the Democratic Party toward flouting unions; she joined WalMart corporation Board in the 1980s, when it was escalating its anti-union agenda.
Throughout the 1980s, the ties between the Big Three and stridently anti-union Arkansas enterprises grew. Hillary Clinton joined Walmart’s board of directors, and Pryor and Bumpers became especially close to Tyson Foods and the poultry industry. As a new pro-business economic consensus formed, social and cultural concerns became the defining issues in electoral politics, and the economic needs of workers fell off the Democratic agenda.
Clinton took the strategy that he and Pryor and Bumpers perfected in 1970s Arkansas onto the campaign trail in 1992. He traveled the country, telling everyone that he was a “different kind of Democrat,” scolding trade unionists for their outdated economic ideas and touting his close ties to Tyson and Walmart. For the first time since the early 1930s, the Democratic presidential nominee refused to embrace the labor movement and the politics of class.
Much has been made in the recent campaign about the alienation of working-class whites from the Democratic Party. Understanding Bill Clinton’s Arkansas not only helps explain why but also makes it clear that the Democratic Party has to support the labor movement and economic policies that are friendly to workers if it wants to reclaim its status as champion of all working people.
Both the US left and the European left are hugely broad categories and deeply divided, to a ridiculous degree when you compare different European countries with each other, but even within countries. So I don't think you can speak of single 'issues', its a matter of how comparatively strong different strands are within different countries' versions of 'the left'.
Also many parts of 'the right' in Europe often holds stances associated with 'the left' in the US. E.g. socialised health care or accepting the existence of nationalized industries.
And then there are the issues that don't neatly fall into left and right categories, like gun control or ideas about free speech. Even immigration is not a simple left-right issue.
The Clinton Democrats are, for example, very hawkish on foreign policy and war when compared to much of the European left. Indeed that's been the case historically, e.g. LBJ failing to persuade Wilson to get the British to join in the Vietnam war. But you can easily find anti-war US leftists or pro-war European ones, it's just a matter of relative numbers and power.
Britain seems to be seeing a minor resurgence of more traditional leftism, with serious calls for renationalisations of many industries, for example. I don't see any equivalent to that in the US.