Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[Hugor Hill]

7 hours ago, Lancaster said:

One thing I always found amusing is the argument that there are too many old white people who are supposedly racist, bigoted and generally uncaring for others.  

Yet those old white people are the same hippies during the 60's preaching love and stuff, lol.  

Are you sure they are the same people? Back in those days, about as many people supported the Vietnams war as people against it.

The population has always been approximately 50% left and 50% right, give or take a few points here and there. The centre might have changed, but that 50/50 demographic make up has not changed. 

 

 

 

[Lockout Casualty]

21 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

That single mp was the leader. And yes the democrats were big in the South, they had the support of the kkk.

 

Btw champ it was you who said The right has historically been, and continues to be, on the wrong side of every major issue affecting our society.  

 

I have no problem with you guys following American politics, the obsession some have is strange to me.

This is back when the KKK were a leftist, progressive organization, right? 

 

And the new leader was also for entering the conflict while MP. And it was the official position of the CCF. That means your statement that CCF staunchly opposed war is wrong. The only person who opposed was the leader, who was replaced by a pro-war leader at the first opportunity. I would say the leader was chosen when war wasn't the most pressing concern, so his willingness wasn't as consequential to his leadership. 

 

The only obsession I see is yours, with what other posters choose to spend their time on.

[Undrafted]

11 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Left ? Right ? Those are 2 labels that seem to be thrown around by people who have no idea about human nature. How do you define a left leaning person as opposed to a right leaning person ? Not their political views but rather how they treat others first in their own communities and then their attitude to others in the greater community and the planet itself.

Is that a general question or a personal question?

 

If you're asking in general terms, left/right strictly refers to positions along the modern, post-WW2 political spectrum, so it's impossible not to include people's political views.  The political spectrum itself has collectivist statism at the extreme left and plutocratic libertarianism at the extreme right.  In more general terms, the left believe citizens and society benefit most with more government involvement, whereas the right believe too much government interferes with the prosperity of it's citizens, especially when it comes to the free market.  Most centrists/moderates basically seek a workable balance between the two sides.

 

Left and right are also relative, comparative terms: for example, in the US, the Democrats are on the left compared to the Republicans, but along the political spectrum itself, the Democrats closer to the centre-right, not the left at all.  That is why the "centre" in the US is not actually in the centre of the the political spectrum itself; with the Republicans moving towards fundamentalism and the far-right, the space between the Democrats and Republicans is solidly right of the political spectrum.  In Canada, things are similar to a lesser degree--the Conservative party shifted much further to the right than their predecessors in the Progressive Conservative party, while the NDP on the left softened from it's hard-left, socialist-statist position to a more centre-left position (it's impossible to say where the federal Liberal party stands except somewhere vaguely between the two--the truth is that they rarely stand for much of anything).

 

Generally-speaking, MOST people define left-leaning vs. right-leaning relative to which party they support.  For example, in the US, Republican supporters will deride Democrat supporters as "left-leaning", in spite of the fact that the Democrats are technically NOT on the left of the political spectrum.

 

---

 

If you're asking me how I personally define a left-leaning person vs. a right-leaning person, the answer is that my standard is the political spectrum itself.  I consider myself centre-right because I believe in the old conservative axiom of "fiscal responsibility leads to smaller, more efficient government, which further leads to a freer market and less taxation". 

 

My criticism of current conservatives is based on how they've strayed from that axiom in a number of different ways, ranging from including social conservative causes into their platforms (it's more than fair criticism to say that it's hypocritical to claim want less/smaller government interference while at the same time, trying to legislate Christian-based "morality laws" on a secular society) to being completely fiscally irresponsible when they've been in power.  But perhaps my biggest criticism about the current conservatives is that they no longer accept criticism--today's conservative parties have become authoritarian and autocratic, stressing party loyalty above all else.

[Isam]

Ah politics. The squalor of interests masquerading as a conflict of principles.

[Hugor Hill]

On 2018-08-01 at 11:38 AM, taxi said:

This line of thinking is very dangerous IMO.  If you think the centre has become far right, then you haven't been around very long. Society's attitudes  towards homosexual marriage, abortion, drug use, mental health, etc...have all changed dramatically towards the left. For example, 30 years ago the debate wasn't about whether gay marriage should be legal, but whether being gay should be legal and what kind of punishment should be associated with homosexuality. Now the centre has generally accepted that gay marriage is legal.

 

What has changed is that the amount of people on the centre has become smaller, as more people lean towards the extremes. The most common rationale for heading towards the far left/right seems to be that the rest of the world has become to far right/left, so I need to counterbalance them. 

Socially, society has become more liberal. You are correct.

Economically, however, not a single North American elected politician is willing to raise taxes to support social services. 

 

 

[Kragar]

4 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Socially, society has become more liberal. You are correct.

Economically, however, not a single North American elected politician is willing to raise taxes to support social services. 

 

 

Am I misunderstanding something?

 

BC NDP raise taxes to pay for programs to help with housing and healthcare premiums

https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/budget-2018-ndp-powering-its-government-with-5-5-billion-in-tax-hikes-where-the-new-money-will-come-from

 

California Dems proposing tax increases for social programs

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/20/california-dems-propose-surcharge-on-businesses-to-fund-social-programs.html

 

Federal Dems to repeal tax cuts, thus raising taxes, to pay for a variety of things, including universal high-speed internet

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/07/senate-democrats-tax-cuts-infrastructure-392523

 

Quote

In the record, there are many instances in which Obama supported actual tax increases. We found more than 20 examples, such as an August 2007 vote on legislation to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that called for increasing the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack, to $1. Obama also supported a plan enacted in June to pay for a new veterans’ education benefit by levying a new 0.5 percent surtax on individuals who make more than $500,000 or couples who make more than $1-million in adjusted gross income annually.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/07/john-mccain/94-not-even-close/

[Hugor Hill]

3 hours ago, Kragar said:

Am I misunderstanding something?

 

BC NDP raise taxes to pay for programs to help with housing and healthcare premiums

https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/budget-2018-ndp-powering-its-government-with-5-5-billion-in-tax-hikes-where-the-new-money-will-come-from

 

California Dems proposing tax increases for social programs

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/20/california-dems-propose-surcharge-on-businesses-to-fund-social-programs.html

 

Federal Dems to repeal tax cuts, thus raising taxes, to pay for a variety of things, including universal high-speed internet

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/07/senate-democrats-tax-cuts-infrastructure-392523

 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/07/john-mccain/94-not-even-close/

These tax increases are so small they will have so little affect on anything.

[Lancaster]

15 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Are you sure they are the same people? Back in those days, about as many people supported the Vietnams war as people against it.

The population has always been approximately 50% left and 50% right, give or take a few points here and there. The centre might have changed, but that 50/50 demographic make up has not changed. 

 

 

 

Unless those former hippies are dying en-mass, the split should still be the same.  Yet we hear lots of rhetoric against the "old white people".  

I guess it is possible the political spectrum has changed... or maybe the old adage that when you are young, you're a socialist, but when you're older you're a conservative.  

 

Just so happens that the nowadays young'un are the most vocal yet and are attacking those who were the same as them decades back.  

[Kragar]

21 minutes ago, Hugor Hill said:

These tax increases are so small they will have so little affect on anything.

5.5 Billion is 10% of the province's revenue, I would hardly call that small.

 

The Senate plan calls for a trillion dollars to be funded by repealing Trump's cuts.  Small?

 

You said 

9 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Economically, however, not a single North American elected politician is willing to raise taxes to support social services. 

It didn't take much to show you were being hyperbolic.  I'm sure I could find more if I put in the effort.  There are plenty of politicians in our fine countries that are willing to increase taxes for social programs.

 

Can you guess how Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez plan to pay for free tuition, healthcare, and income?  Can these be small too?  

Quote

Mr. Sanders has proposed a headline top tax rate of 52 percent, applying only to incomes over $10 million. But that’s just the federal income tax. When you combine it with other taxes that apply to income, like existing payroll taxes and new ones Mr. Sanders would impose to pay for Social Security, single-payer health care and family leave, and then add those on top of taxes levied by state governments, it would add up to a combined tax rate of over 73 percent on the highest incomes, more than 20 points higher than today. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/upshot/bernie-sanderss-tax-plan-would-test-an-economic-hypothesis.html

 

And just in case you think his plan only impacts those making 10M, think again... everybody pays more:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/sponsor-story/motley-fool/2016/05/12/motley-fool-bernie-sanders-income-tax-brackets/32607881/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFYYWcx9rSs

BTW, I am curious why Factcheck hasn't called her out for "lying" about the amount of federal student loan debt.  She was only off by a fact of three.

[Hugor Hill]

8 hours ago, Kragar said:

It didn't take much to show you were being hyperbolic.  I'm sure I could find more if I put in the effort.  There are plenty of politicians in our fine countries that are willing to increase taxes for social programs.

 

Naturally, yes. I am glad that they exist.

[Hugor Hill]

11 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Unless those former hippies are dying en-mass, the split should still be the same.  Yet we hear lots of rhetoric against the "old white people".  

I guess it is possible the political spectrum has changed... or maybe the old adage that when you are young, you're a socialist, but when you're older you're a conservative.  

 

Just so happens that the nowadays young'un are the most vocal yet and are attacking those who were the same as them decades back.  

People do get more conservative as they age. Polling numbers reflect that.

The 50/50 split does not take into account of age. So as hippies age and move over to the right, young people 'appear' and replace them. So yes the overall numbers stay the same over time.

Having said that, I do very much doubt that people move all the way across the spectrum over their life; people don't change that much.

 

 

 

[Kragar]

3 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Naturally, yes. I am glad that they exist.

Of course you do.  I wouldn't have thought otherwise.

 

The only question is why did you originally say they didn't exist.  Not that it really needs answering.  It's clear enough to me.

 

I'll even take your earlier statement one step further.  Since Republicans appear to be decreasingly incapable in cutting spending, the Republicans are inching towards the center.  Trump and Bush surely had no interest in cutting spending, or to return spending to within the country's means.  Also, I may be wrong, but IIRC, recent "Conservative" efforts up north haven't shown much interest in dealing with that either.

 

As support for people like Bernie continue to rise, and the Republican Party becomes more and more less conservative, it is pretty easy to see which direction the political spectrum is shifting.

 

And I am sure you are glad about all that too.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 7/31/2018 at 6:39 PM, Lockout Casualty said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

This article shows "all doctors" being 46% Republican, meaning 54 56% are Democrats. Any more? 

 

Look at subset of physicians - you can do it, only takes reading another paragraph.    One word at a time - you can make it happen!   

[Hugor Hill]

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

Of course you do.  I wouldn't have thought otherwise.

 

The only question is why did you originally say they didn't exist.  Not that it really needs answering.  It's clear enough to me.

 

I'll even take your earlier statement one step further.  Since Republicans appear to be decreasingly incapable in cutting spending, the Republicans are inching towards the center.  Trump and Bush surely had no interest in cutting spending, or to return spending to within the country's means.  Also, I may be wrong, but IIRC, recent "Conservative" efforts up north haven't shown much interest in dealing with that either.

 

As support for people like Bernie continue to rise, and the Republican Party becomes more and more less conservative, it is pretty easy to see which direction the political spectrum is shifting.

 

And I am sure you are glad about all that too.

What? LOL! EPA? Education? NASA? ACA?

 

 

 

[Nucksfollower1983]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 11:09 AM, xereau said:

The media has always been a fifth column rather than the fourth estate.  Molding, shaping the minds of the people for the social engineers.  I think that now everyone is just now realizing this.

 

 

[Kragar]

3 minutes ago, Hugor Hill said:

What? LOL! EPA? Education? NASA? ACA?

I never said they were liberal.  Just less conservative.

 

Bush, Trump, and Republican Congress had/have little intention to make meaningful cuts, and the debt continues to rise.  How often are Trump's small proposals to cut thwarted by Republican Congress?  Trump wants to spend more than Obama did on infrastructure stimulus, which aside from the interstate system is generally outside of the fed's jurisdiction (as are Education and ACA, for that matter).  Almost every politician loves to be seen spending money, one way or another.

 

When we start to see programs and departments disappear or get hit with consistent significant reductions at the hands of Republicans, and reasonable attempts at reducing the debt, that will be a sign of restoring our parties' places on the political spectrum.  Until then, both sides are driving the bus towards the cliff, finger-pointing as they go.

[Hugor Hill]

49 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I never said they were liberal.  Just less conservative.

 

Bush, Trump, and Republican Congress had/have little intention to make meaningful cuts, and the debt continues to rise.  How often are Trump's small proposals to cut thwarted by Republican Congress?  Trump wants to spend more than Obama did on infrastructure stimulus, which aside from the interstate system is generally outside of the fed's jurisdiction (as are Education and ACA, for that matter).  Almost every politician loves to be seen spending money, one way or another.

 

When we start to see programs and departments disappear or get hit with consistent significant reductions at the hands of Republicans, and reasonable attempts at reducing the debt, that will be a sign of restoring our parties' places on the political spectrum.  Until then, both sides are driving the bus towards the cliff, finger-pointing as they go.

"Build the wall!"

"Drain the swamp!"

Objectively, I don't fully agree with your statement. But I can how your perspective can be generated, 50% of the time. 

[189lb enforcers?]

12 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

People do get more conservative as they age. Polling numbers reflect that.

The 50/50 split does not take into account of age. So as hippies age and move over to the right, young people 'appear' and replace them. So yes the overall numbers stay the same over time.

Having said that, I do very much doubt that people move all the way across the spectrum over their life; people don't change that much.

 

 

 

Reminded me of a this.

Funny because it’s true. 

 

 

[taxi]

On 04/08/2018 at 12:22 PM, Hugor Hill said:

Socially, society has become more liberal. You are correct.

Economically, however, not a single North American elected politician is willing to raise taxes to support social services. 

 

 

I disagree with this too. The amount of Taxes collected go up as inflation does. The marginal rate for anything over $102k is already 40%. On top of that there are new consumption taxes popping up all the time. Canada also raised the tax rate for high income earners and eliminated income splitting.

 

As far as the USA introducing Obamacare was a huge step towards socialism 

[Undrafted]

19 hours ago, Kragar said:

I never said they were liberal.  Just less conservative.

 

Bush, Trump, and Republican Congress had/have little intention to make meaningful cuts, and the debt continues to rise.  How often are Trump's small proposals to cut thwarted by Republican Congress?  Trump wants to spend more than Obama did on infrastructure stimulus, which aside from the interstate system is generally outside of the fed's jurisdiction (as are Education and ACA, for that matter).  Almost every politician loves to be seen spending money, one way or another.

 

When we start to see programs and departments disappear or get hit with consistent significant reductions at the hands of Republicans, and reasonable attempts at reducing the debt, that will be a sign of restoring our parties' places on the political spectrum.  Until then, both sides are driving the bus towards the cliff, finger-pointing as they go.

Fiscal mismanagement doesn't make the Republicans (or other conservative governments/parties) "less conservative".  It simply means they're incompetent and/or corrupt.