4 ms·

from EU: left and right are pretty volatile concept, they don't apply the same worldwide. Simply because all parties (nearly) accept public healthcare in a coun

from EU: left and right are pretty volatile concept, they don't apply the same worldwide. Simply because all parties (nearly) accept public healthcare in a country, doesn't mean that country is more "left" than another.

nelox 2y ago
Indeed, you touch upon a crucial point that is often overlooked in political discourse. The simplistic transplantation of ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels across different countries is not just misleading; it’s intellectually negligent. The political spectrum is not a one-size-fits-all template that neatly categorises societies based on a single policy like public healthcare. In many European nations, universal healthcare is a settled matter - a consensus that transcends traditional partisan divides. To assume that this places a country further to the ‘left’ ignores the complex historical, cultural, and social nuances that shape each nation’s political landscape.
- uniqueuid 2y ago
  Although you probably agree: If someone wants to describe politics with a one-dimensional scale, left-right is not so bad. And that's why and how it developed.
drooopy 2y ago
Depending on who you ask, the EU is both a far left, communist hellhole and a far right neoliberal, capitalist hellhole.
- devjab 2y ago
  Most of Europe is varying degrees of Social Democracy. We pretend we have conservatives, socialists, “climatists”? communists, neoliberals, populists and so on, but for the most parts it’s all just Social Democratic parties with a flavour.
  - kybernetikos 2y ago
    As far as I can tell, In the not so distant past, you were either in favour of rule by the monarch and the aristocracy or you were a Liberal. Pretty much every party in a modern democracy is a flavour of Liberal. Its only because liberalism comprehensively won that we find it useful to separate out the different strands.
    - devjab 2y ago
      We had a lot of worker reforms when people got fed up later which formed very strong unions which then lead to the modern social democratic ways.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Not to forget farmers. Which technically are often right-wing as land owners, but with different goals that industrialist.
onetoo 2y ago
Also from EU, additional tidbit: Not being a first-past-the-post two-party system allows for political parties to be more nuanced than a simplified left-right spectrum.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > Not being a first-past-the-post two-party It depends on the country though. France is effectively first-past-the-post. Technically (rarely in practice) you can even get 3-4 candidates in the second round if the turnout is very high. Two-round is not fundamentally a huge improvement and de facto is what US has with party primaries (of course unlike in France third parties can't really survive in such a system). Arguably of course having a three way stalemate might be occasionally preferable than 1 party having near absolute control because of controlling 50%+1 seats. Thankfully US has all sorts of checks and balances and it might take a while for a single party to get control of the House, Senate, White House and the Supreme court (for instance in the UK where there are basically no checks an balances and the parliament has absolute power if a pseudo-Fascist party somehow managed to win they could more or less do anything they wanted and they'd only need 30-40% of all votes for that). IMHO electoral systems matter but extreme polarization is the real problem. Back in the 70s even a Republican president like Nixon could somewhat effectively work with the Democrat controlled congress. Yet now a split congress can't even pass legislation that technically both parties support (e.g. the border billy)
  - onetoo 2y ago
    > Thankfully US has all sorts of checks and balances and it might take a while for a single party to get control of the House, Senate, White House and the Supreme court The fact that "it is good when government is deadlocked and ineffective" is an actual argument people use is baffling to me, but for the sake of the argument and out of assumed mutual respect, I'll do my best to stay objective for following: > IMHO electoral systems matter but extreme polarization is the real problem I absolutely agree that extreme polarization is a major issue. I believe that FPTP inevitably leads to extreme polarization, when given enough time: FPTP inevitably converges to a two-party system (due to strategic voting), and a two-party system inevitably leads to extreme polarization (due to strategic politicians playing into strategic voting). The argument for the latter goes something like this: Disenfranchised voters can be coaxed to vote for a least-worst option when the most-worst option looks worse enough. So it becomes more politically effective to demonize your opponent rather than argue your own politics. Additionally, it is politically beneficial for you when things stay bad while your opponent is in charge, and especially so if things get worse. You can use their perceived incompetence as ammunition to further demonize them. So it becomes beneficial to use what government power you might have in order to hinder your opponent's attempts at improving things, even if what they're trying to do is something you agree with and would yourself do if you were the one in power. Depending on your preferred political party, I'm sure you can think of examples of the above.
devjab 2y ago
It’s more of an American concept which has unfortunately spread. Which is sort of silly considering that virtually every European country has several political parties, some is which sometimes form government coalitions across “the middle”. In Denmark we currently have a government formed of what has been the two major political parties in Denmark for the past few decades + a third. During the election one would be leading the “blue side”, the other leading the “red side”. So it was sort of hilarious when they joined to form a government and the media graphics didn’t work. Of course after a couple or days they just kept the “red” vs “blue” thing and started talking about when it would fall apart and how they were still “enemies” despite being in a joint government. That being said, it is sort of true to say that most European countries are much more “left” leaning than the US. In Denmark the US Democratic Party would be to the far right of 94% of the votes for political parties cast here.
- Certhas 2y ago
  Left and right as concepts actually originated in the french revolution. When seating the parties in an assembly you have to go with some order from left to right. Of course what the political tribes are, and what their actual positions are changes. Republicans went from the party of Lincoln to the party of Trump.
- crote 2y ago
  > So it was sort of hilarious when they joined to form a government and the media graphics didn’t work. In The Netherlands the media solved this by calling it a "purple government". They ruled from 1994 to 2002.
wheels 2y ago
I'd actually say the US is moving in the direction of Europe -- historically "left" in the US was social-democratic, whereas "right" was classical liberalism (again, these labels get wonky across cultures -- what Americans call libertarianism). That US picture does at least point to two different ends of something that's basically the same spectrum. In Europe "left" mostly means socialist, and "right" mostly means nationalist. But socialism and nationalism aren't opposites, and can often go together, so you see things like the author of this article pointing out that the "right" doesn't want to completely dismantle the social safety net. The US is, however, in the process of realigning to the European style.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  In Europe, "right" usually means EPP, or center-right. Their member parties may call themselves conservatives, christian democrats, the national coalition, or something like that. They tend to be economically similar to US Democrats but often less progressive. Then there is S&D, or center-left, with their members typically calling themselves social democrats or socialists. They are another big traditional mainstream group. And even the ones who call themselves socialists are more like social democrats. The third traditional mainstream group is currently called Renew Europe, which consists mostly of various centrist / social liberal parties. Some of which are socially quite conservative. Then there are usually two center-left to left, mostly progressive / liberal, mostly environmentalist parties. The differences between them vary from country to country. Their current groups at the EU level call themselves Greens and The Left. Some actual socialists exist within these groups, but they tend to be mostly harmless weirdos who didn't get the message that the 80s already ended. The conservative / nationalist right mostly emerged in the last ~15 years. They often resemble US Republicans. Their EU level groups tend to split and merge all the time, because they often make very different conclusions from the same ideological positions due to historical and geopolitical reasons. Such as whether Putin is a good guy or a bad guy.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  Historically most countries Europe had generally been "tripartite". With progressive and/or classical liberals in a weird spot between left-right. But even then I think it get's very messy when we leave Britain. Traditionally in most continental countries you usually had two major (social-capitalist/paternalist) Christian Democrats and some Social Democrat style parties. But in reality they often shared more with each other than with various fringe left(Communist, radical-socialist), right(reactionary conservative but almost (pseudo-modernist) Fascists) parties all of which usually had some weird-missmash of traditionally left and right policies. e.g. Weimar Germany was an extreme example republic where it was Christian Democrats + Socialists + Liberals vs everyone else regardless of exact social/economic policies. But modern France, Italy and Germany are kind of similar (of course both the fringe and the centrist parties are still thankfully a lot more moderate). I guess you can fit all of the on a single left-right axis if you squint hard enough but you'd really need 2-3 axes to get a somewhat accurate/meaningful picture.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
Left and right are political concepts that have broadly held since they were created in the French Revolution (with the names originating to where the people were sitting in Parliament) and still shape politics today. In France, the main change occurred during the 19th century that started with the right being more Monarchist and the left staunchly Republican and ended with basically everyone being Republican. But overall, right and left do mean something and that is still the case throughout Europe and the world and the difference are mainly relative to the centre.

nelox 2y ago

Indeed, you touch upon a crucial point that is often overlooked in political discourse. The simplistic transplantation of ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels across different countries is not just misleading; it’s intellectually negligent. The political spectrum is not a one-size-fits-all template that neatly categorises societies based on a single policy like public healthcare. In many European nations, universal healthcare is a settled matter - a consensus that transcends traditional partisan divides. To assume that this places a country further to the ‘left’ ignores the complex historical, cultural, and social nuances that shape each nation’s political landscape.

uniqueuid 2y ago
Although you probably agree: If someone wants to describe politics with a one-dimensional scale, left-right is not so bad. And that's why and how it developed.

drooopy 2y ago

Depending on who you ask, the EU is both a far left, communist hellhole and a far right neoliberal, capitalist hellhole.

devjab 2y ago
Most of Europe is varying degrees of Social Democracy. We pretend we have conservatives, socialists, “climatists”? communists, neoliberals, populists and so on, but for the most parts it’s all just Social Democratic parties with a flavour.
- kybernetikos 2y ago
  As far as I can tell, In the not so distant past, you were either in favour of rule by the monarch and the aristocracy or you were a Liberal. Pretty much every party in a modern democracy is a flavour of Liberal. Its only because liberalism comprehensively won that we find it useful to separate out the different strands.
  - devjab 2y ago
    We had a lot of worker reforms when people got fed up later which formed very strong unions which then lead to the modern social democratic ways.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Not to forget farmers. Which technically are often right-wing as land owners, but with different goals that industrialist.

onetoo 2y ago

Also from EU, additional tidbit: Not being a first-past-the-post two-party system allows for political parties to be more nuanced than a simplified left-right spectrum.

Wytwwww 2y ago
> Not being a first-past-the-post two-party It depends on the country though. France is effectively first-past-the-post. Technically (rarely in practice) you can even get 3-4 candidates in the second round if the turnout is very high. Two-round is not fundamentally a huge improvement and de facto is what US has with party primaries (of course unlike in France third parties can't really survive in such a system). Arguably of course having a three way stalemate might be occasionally preferable than 1 party having near absolute control because of controlling 50%+1 seats. Thankfully US has all sorts of checks and balances and it might take a while for a single party to get control of the House, Senate, White House and the Supreme court (for instance in the UK where there are basically no checks an balances and the parliament has absolute power if a pseudo-Fascist party somehow managed to win they could more or less do anything they wanted and they'd only need 30-40% of all votes for that). IMHO electoral systems matter but extreme polarization is the real problem. Back in the 70s even a Republican president like Nixon could somewhat effectively work with the Democrat controlled congress. Yet now a split congress can't even pass legislation that technically both parties support (e.g. the border billy)
- onetoo 2y ago
  > Thankfully US has all sorts of checks and balances and it might take a while for a single party to get control of the House, Senate, White House and the Supreme court The fact that "it is good when government is deadlocked and ineffective" is an actual argument people use is baffling to me, but for the sake of the argument and out of assumed mutual respect, I'll do my best to stay objective for following: > IMHO electoral systems matter but extreme polarization is the real problem I absolutely agree that extreme polarization is a major issue. I believe that FPTP inevitably leads to extreme polarization, when given enough time: FPTP inevitably converges to a two-party system (due to strategic voting), and a two-party system inevitably leads to extreme polarization (due to strategic politicians playing into strategic voting). The argument for the latter goes something like this: Disenfranchised voters can be coaxed to vote for a least-worst option when the most-worst option looks worse enough. So it becomes more politically effective to demonize your opponent rather than argue your own politics. Additionally, it is politically beneficial for you when things stay bad while your opponent is in charge, and especially so if things get worse. You can use their perceived incompetence as ammunition to further demonize them. So it becomes beneficial to use what government power you might have in order to hinder your opponent's attempts at improving things, even if what they're trying to do is something you agree with and would yourself do if you were the one in power. Depending on your preferred political party, I'm sure you can think of examples of the above.

devjab 2y ago

It’s more of an American concept which has unfortunately spread. Which is sort of silly considering that virtually every European country has several political parties, some is which sometimes form government coalitions across “the middle”. In Denmark we currently have a government formed of what has been the two major political parties in Denmark for the past few decades + a third. During the election one would be leading the “blue side”, the other leading the “red side”. So it was sort of hilarious when they joined to form a government and the media graphics didn’t work. Of course after a couple or days they just kept the “red” vs “blue” thing and started talking about when it would fall apart and how they were still “enemies” despite being in a joint government. That being said, it is sort of true to say that most European countries are much more “left” leaning than the US. In Denmark the US Democratic Party would be to the far right of 94% of the votes for political parties cast here.

Certhas 2y ago
Left and right as concepts actually originated in the french revolution. When seating the parties in an assembly you have to go with some order from left to right. Of course what the political tribes are, and what their actual positions are changes. Republicans went from the party of Lincoln to the party of Trump.
crote 2y ago
> So it was sort of hilarious when they joined to form a government and the media graphics didn’t work. In The Netherlands the media solved this by calling it a "purple government". They ruled from 1994 to 2002.

wheels 2y ago

I'd actually say the US is moving in the direction of Europe -- historically "left" in the US was social-democratic, whereas "right" was classical liberalism (again, these labels get wonky across cultures -- what Americans call libertarianism). That US picture does at least point to two different ends of something that's basically the same spectrum. In Europe "left" mostly means socialist, and "right" mostly means nationalist. But socialism and nationalism aren't opposites, and can often go together, so you see things like the author of this article pointing out that the "right" doesn't want to completely dismantle the social safety net. The US is, however, in the process of realigning to the European style.

jltsiren 2y ago
In Europe, "right" usually means EPP, or center-right. Their member parties may call themselves conservatives, christian democrats, the national coalition, or something like that. They tend to be economically similar to US Democrats but often less progressive. Then there is S&D, or center-left, with their members typically calling themselves social democrats or socialists. They are another big traditional mainstream group. And even the ones who call themselves socialists are more like social democrats. The third traditional mainstream group is currently called Renew Europe, which consists mostly of various centrist / social liberal parties. Some of which are socially quite conservative. Then there are usually two center-left to left, mostly progressive / liberal, mostly environmentalist parties. The differences between them vary from country to country. Their current groups at the EU level call themselves Greens and The Left. Some actual socialists exist within these groups, but they tend to be mostly harmless weirdos who didn't get the message that the 80s already ended. The conservative / nationalist right mostly emerged in the last ~15 years. They often resemble US Republicans. Their EU level groups tend to split and merge all the time, because they often make very different conclusions from the same ideological positions due to historical and geopolitical reasons. Such as whether Putin is a good guy or a bad guy.
Wytwwww 2y ago
Historically most countries Europe had generally been "tripartite". With progressive and/or classical liberals in a weird spot between left-right. But even then I think it get's very messy when we leave Britain. Traditionally in most continental countries you usually had two major (social-capitalist/paternalist) Christian Democrats and some Social Democrat style parties. But in reality they often shared more with each other than with various fringe left(Communist, radical-socialist), right(reactionary conservative but almost (pseudo-modernist) Fascists) parties all of which usually had some weird-missmash of traditionally left and right policies. e.g. Weimar Germany was an extreme example republic where it was Christian Democrats + Socialists + Liberals vs everyone else regardless of exact social/economic policies. But modern France, Italy and Germany are kind of similar (of course both the fringe and the centrist parties are still thankfully a lot more moderate). I guess you can fit all of the on a single left-right axis if you squint hard enough but you'd really need 2-3 axes to get a somewhat accurate/meaningful picture.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Left and right are political concepts that have broadly held since they were created in the French Revolution (with the names originating to where the people were sitting in Parliament) and still shape politics today. In France, the main change occurred during the 19th century that started with the right being more Monarchist and the left staunchly Republican and ended with basically everyone being Republican. But overall, right and left do mean something and that is still the case throughout Europe and the world and the difference are mainly relative to the centre.