[NYCFarmboy]

September 18, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/wo...gewanted=print
Sweden’s Governing Party Voted Out After 12 Years

By SARAH LYALL and IVAR EKMAN
STOCKHOLM, Sept. 17 — Sweden swept away 12 years of center-left government on Sunday, voting to reject its longtime prime minister, Goran Persson, in favor of a conservative candidate who has pledged to revise the Swedish welfare state.

With almost all the votes counted by 11 p.m., three hours after the polls closed, the right-of-center coalition led by the leader of the Moderate Party, Fredrik Reinfeldt, had taken 48.1 percent of the vote, compared with 46.2 percent for the Social Democrats and their left-of-center allies.

The Social Democrats received just 35.2 percent, their worst showing since universal suffrage began in Sweden in 1921. Mr. Persson, 57, who has been prime minister since 1996, said he would step down as party leader in March.

One of the world’s most consistently successful political parties, the Social Democrats have governed Sweden alone or in coalitions for 65 of the past 74 years. The party’s defeat reflects a feeling not only that Mr. Persson has become complacent in office, but also that Sweden’s celebrated social welfare model, with its high tax rate and generous benefits, has encouraged too many people to stay out of work for too long.

Speaking to jubilant party members after declaring victory, Mr. Reinfeldt, 41, went out of his way to welcome people who had voted for the first time for the Moderates, the conservatives. During the campaign, they were repackaged as the new Moderates, signaling a shift to the center.

“Tonight, people who never had thought of voting for us have given us their vote,” Mr. Reinfeldt said. “We want them all to feel at home with the new Moderates.”

Conceding defeat, Mr. Persson told members of his party that he took responsibility for the poor election results. Voter turnout was around 80.4 percent in a country of 9 million people and 6.9 million voters. The Social Democrats won 177,000 fewer votes than they did in the last election four years ago.

“We will work hard to be a powerful opposition,” Mr. Persson said. Pressing home one of the major themes of his campaign, that Mr. Reinfeldt’s party represented a seismic, rightward turn in Swedish politics, he said: “We will never accept the system shift of the right. We will fight back.”

Nicholas Aylott, a political scientist at Sodertorn University, said in an interview: “There’s a sense that the government has become tired, that it’s been drifting, really. It hasn’t been clear where the Social Democrats want to lead Sweden.”

Mr. Reinfeldt successfully made unemployment a major issue in the campaign. By most measures, Sweden is thriving economically: the economy is growing this year at a projected annual rate of 4.1 percent, and the official unemployment rate is 5.7 percent.

But with its generous social services and high unemployment benefits, Mr. Reinfeldt argues, it has encouraged a vast swath of people to fall out of the labor market, a particularly acute problem with an aging population. Taking into account the number of working-age people who are not working or in school — including early retirees, people in job training and those on long-term disability — the unemployment figure is close to 21 percent, he says.

Styling the Moderates “the new labor party,” Mr. Reinfeldt said that in Mr. Persson’s view, “Security is living on subsidies.” By contrast, he said in a recent interview, his party is “saying that security is the ability to work and to stand on your own two feet.”

Mr. Reinfeldt has pledged to revitalize the economy by cutting payroll taxes for low-income workers, reducing unemployment benefits from the current high of 80 percent of a worker’s last salary, raising educational standards to prepare students for work in a competitive market and encouraging employers with tax credits to hire the long-term unemployed.

“The election’s big issue was the poor functioning of the labor market,” Mr. Aylott said. “The fact that so many people don’t have work has to be considered a major failing of the Social Democratic government, given that they’ve presided over such a long period of economic growth.”

But in a country that likes stability, Mr. Reinfeldt has been at pains to cast his plans as a fine-tuning, rather than a full-scale overhaul, of Sweden’s economic model. “The Nordic welfare model is in many aspects a good model,” he said as he campaigned Sunday, “but it needs more of a choice for individuals.”

But in a series of television and radio debates, Mr. Persson tried to portray his opponent as a classic conservative in disguise, saying the conservatives would tamper with the country’s successful formula of high taxes, a large public sector, and generous benefits.

In the previous election four years ago, Mr. Reinfeldt’s party was trounced at the polls when it ran on a traditional platform of big tax cuts and deep reductions in social security benefits. When he became party leader, Mr. Reinfeldt acknowledged that such a stance was unlikely to win any elections in a country that is essentially happy with its underlying big-government, high-tax system.

So he moved the party to the center and settled on unemployment as an issue on which the government would be particularly vulnerable.

On Sunday, there was a feeling in the air that something momentous was afoot.

“This year, you’ve felt vibrations that you haven’t felt before,” Mattias Jonsson, a 30-year-old banker who was voting for the Moderates, said in an interview outside a Stockholm polling station. “This time, there is a real alternative.”

Magnus Rosander, a 44-year-old computer engineer who said he had a nervous breakdown after losing his job four years ago and had not worked since, said he had voted for the Social Democrats and was worried about what would happen under the Moderates.

“I’m dependent on social welfare,” Mr. Rosander said outside a subway station in central Stockholm. “If Fredrik Reinfeldt wins, we will get less money and he will force me to work even though my doctor says I’m not ready yet.”

Some voters said that regardless of the differences between the parties, they felt simply that the Social Democrats, and Mr. Persson, had been in power too long.

Frida Henriksson, who is 26 and works in telephone sales for a large Swedish company, said she voted for Mr. Reinfeldt because “it feels like I have a lot more in common with him” than with Mr. Persson.

“It’s time for a change, to see what someone else can achieve,” she added.


,,,,,,

ol' rule 8 posting: Posted as I found this article interesting and was wondering what others thought of it and its implications?

[Big Mac]

Cool. Perhaps the Socialist grip on western Europe will weaken gradually.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Cool. Perhaps the Socialist grip on western Europe will weaken gradually.

The Moderates are more to the left than the Democrats though

[goMac]

For context, here are the sub parties of the "right wing" Alliance for Sweden Party that this article is about:

Moderata Samlingspartiet (The Moderate Party) led by Fredrik Reinfeldt, a liberal conservative party currently with 97 of 349 seats (26.1%) in the Riksdag.
Folkpartiet (The Liberal People's Party) led by Lars Leijonborg, a social liberal party currently with 28 of 349 seats (7.5%) in the Riksdag.
Kristdemokraterna (The Christian Democrats) led by Göran Hägglund, a Christian democratic party currently with 24 of 349 seats (6.6%) in the Riksdag.
Centern (The Centre Party) led by Maud Olofsson, a centrist party currently with 29 of 349 seats (7.9%) in the Riksdag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Sweden

They're still pretty gosh darn left.

[Pendergast]

I wonder if the "so-called right" versus "so-called left" issue is the same as it is in the U.S.. I know for a fact that canadian conservatives are not as "right" as they are in the U.S., and our "left" is not as "left" as it is elsewhere.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I wonder if the "so-called right" versus "so-called left" issue is the same as it is in the U.S.. I know for a fact that canadian conservatives are not as "right" as they are in the U.S., and our "left" is not as "left" as it is elsewhere.

I would argue that the left and right in the US aren't as polarized as the media portrays. The far left and right are simply very vocal... and the other side likes to portray all of their opposition as the extreme.

Oh well...

[Sky Captain]

From what I read, they promised to cut taxes and welfare.

[analogika]

As mentioned above, what Americans call "left" (as in Democrat) is actually right-wing conservative (as in, way to the right of the Swedish winning coalition), with the Republicans only slightly to the right of that, tending towards the reactionary.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I would argue that the left and right in the US aren't as polarized as the media portrays. The far left and right are simply very vocal... and the other side likes to portray all of their opposition as the extreme.

Perhaps you're right, but I think major contributor to this sense of polarization is the - perceived or real - inability of our Congressional representatives to compromise and reach agreement on domestic issues. I suspect this is why our current Congress is so widely unpopular.

Anyway, I agree with the earlier posts that the political spectrum in the US is more conservative than Canada and Western Europe.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogika

As mentioned above, what Americans call "left" (as in Democrat) is actually right-wing conservative (as in, way to the right of the Swedish winning coalition), with the Republicans only slightly to the right of that, tending towards the reactionary.

Only a European could mistake Nancy Pelosi's party for the right-wing.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Only a European could mistake Nancy Pelosi's party for the right-wing.

Well, yeah.

[itai195]

"Nancy Pelosi's Party"

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Cool. Perhaps the Socialist grip on western Europe will weaken gradually.

The Swedish right is a communist party compared to the left in the US. All parties agree on socialism in Scandinavia. Now they're just bickering over how and when they're going to privatise some more government property.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Only a European could mistake Nancy Pelosi's party for the right-wing.

Only an American would confuse the Religious Fascist party for the right-wing. Yeah, the Republicans.

V

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by voodoo

The Swedish right is a communist party compared to the left in the US. All parties agree on socialism in Scandinavia. Now they're just bickering over how and when they're going to privatise some more government property.

V

Moderaterna would never be called a right-wing party outside of Scandinavia. They're probably more to the left than Labour in the UK.

So no, socialism isn't being rejected in Sweden. It's simply what priorities people have. Socialism will always be alive and well in Sweden.

And this happens every 3rd-4th election in Sweden. The rightwing parties are only able to stay in power for one election. I predict the same will happen now.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I would argue that the left and right in the US aren't as polarized as the media portrays. The far left and right are simply very vocal... and the other side likes to portray all of their opposition as the extreme.

Oh well...

Have you been in a coma!?

The Republican party has been hi-jacked by evangelicals and fundamentalists and the nutbar president (puppet) is looking forward to Armageddon.

I think also the democratic party would be considered right wing in most other countries

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

... and our "left" is not as "left" as it is elsewhere.

The uber-rich elitists and leadership of our "left" is as "left" as it is elsewhere.

They just hide their true views because once exposed, they wouldn't come close to being elected.

[analogika]

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The uber-rich elitists and leadership of our "left" is as "left" as it is elsewhere.

Funny, this is the second time I've heared the American "left" reffered to as "elitist"? Why is this?

The "Democratic" party would be considered "center-right" in most European countries.

[PER3]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Funny, this is the second time I've heared the American "left" reffered to as "elitist"? Why is this?

The "Democratic" party would be considered "center-right" in most European countries.

Because the people who say such things don't actually know what it means.

It's like when a nine year old uses a long word they've just heard to make themselves sound intelligent.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Cool. Perhaps the Socialist grip on western Europe will weaken gradually.

Big misunderstanding here. You project your own right vs. left categories on other countries.
Just as a little exercise, try to find out which government was in charge of all the big welfare reforms in Germany, conservatives or social democrats

[Dave Brasgalla]

Actually, to be literally correct, Socialdemokraterna is the party that received the clear majority of votes, but the different parties are organised into two "blocks" with all parties within a block pooling their votes, and the alliance of Moderaterna combined garnered 178 districts to the the Left's 173.

It was actually very, very close. More Swedish voters voted for SD than any other party - but in Sweden, your party can get the most votes, and you can still lose the election.

In my opinion, two major factors shaped the outcome:

- the murder of Anna Lindh two years ago was a hammer blow to Persson and SD, as she was being groomed for party leader for this election (and I believe she would have been fantastic). Persson has visibly lost dynamism since this happened (she was also his best friend), and consequently, the party has lost momentum as well. People in the alliance have commented on this, and I tend to agree with them. Persson's speech announcing his resignation as party leader seems to show that he acknowledges this.

- after the racism scandal that hit Moderaterna at the finish of the 2002 election and the resignation of Bo Lundgren as party leader (he took the fall for the fruitcakes from KD), Reinfeldt very cleverly repositioned the party much closer to the center and repackaged it to the public as "Nya Moderaterna" - the "New Moderates" (they even informally call themselves the new labour party!).

Combined with the lassitude of SD over the past two years, it was enough to tip the balance in the alliance's favor. They even somehow managed to skip free of a wiretapping scandal that Folkpartiet (an alliance member party) got caught in the middle of a few weeks ago.

All in all, an exciting and tense election, even if I am very disappointed in the outcome. We had an 80% voter turnout, which we consider disappointing - we've been as high as 98%.

But no, no one is planning on getting rid of social democracy here in Sweden, and Socialdemokraterna is still the most popular party - they just need to get their act together.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Funny, this is the second time I've heared the American "left" reffered to as "elitist"? Why is this?

I'm not sure, but maybe it's because so many of them are spoiled hypocrits that do not practice what they preach. One example that comes to mind are the elites in Academia who rake in capitalists dollars while preaching that capitalism is the root of all evil. Many of them espouse communism as the way to acheive utopia and even claim to be communist, yet make their money off of the capitalist system. Another example are the college hippies that drive around in the Jeeps their parents bought for them with money earned under a capitalist system. I could go on but just one more example is how many of the political leaders on the left will say that Americans that buy SUV's aren't patriotic, while they they themselves fly around in private jets , get driven around in limosines, and live in homes that use more energy in a month than the average American's home uses in a year.

Oh, I have to give just one more example. Rosie O'Donnell being an activists for gun control who believes the second amendment should be reversed, hired armed body guards to protect her when she had a stalker.

I don't know, maybe it's just that so many on the left that espouse such strong convictions, seem to think they are too special or priviledged to live by those same convictions. Like all those moviestars that claim that Bush is morally equivalent to Sadam Hussein, I notice not too many of them go live in places like Iraq, Iran, Cuba, et cetera. If they hate the U.S. so much and those places are equally as good places to live because afterall the leaders are no worse than ours, why do they stay here? They have enough money to move their families out of this nation they consider so awful. Hypocrits! Spoiled hypocrits!

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Many of them espouse communism as the way to acheive utopia and even claim to be communist, yet make their money off of the capitalist system.

Do you think, given the opportunity, they would live in a culture! similar to their own - but with a socialist economic system?

One thing that had not occurred to me until recently is that there has never been an English speaking socialist country to this date. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Another example are the college hippies that drive around in the Jeeps their parents bought for them with money earned under a capitalist system.

Believe me, having gone to college in Boulder, you cannot hate these people more than I do.

Whenever you talked to them about socialist ideas, they would always start with some "ecological" BS or gender roles etc. They had no sense of social justice, nor were they particularly interested in anything besides getting stoned and listening to that awful music.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

I could go on but just one more example is how many of the political leaders on the left will say that Americans that buy SUV's aren't patriotic, while they they themselves fly around in private jets , get driven around in limosines, and live in homes that use more energy in a month than the average American's home uses in a year.

That's true, - it would certainly make them hypocrites - but "elitists"? I would consider Bill Gates or Steve Jobs rich and politically "left". But are they actually elitist?

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

I don't know, maybe it's just that so many on the left that espouse such strong convictions, seem to think they are too special or priviledged to live by those same convictions.

Yea, but, again, how do you live a socialist life in a capitalist system (and, no, being "poor" or simply not "consuming" has nothing to do with it)

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Like all those moviestars that claim that Bush is morally equivalent to Sadam Hussein, I notice not too many of them go live in places like Iraq, Iran, Cuba, et cetera.

You mean "visit", not live.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

If they hate the U.S. so much and those places are equally as good places to live because afterall the leaders are no worse than ours, why do they stay here? They have enough money to move their families out of this nation they consider so awful. Hypocrits! Spoiled hypocrits!

I think quite a few of them have moved already.

But sorry, being against Bush and his cronies in no way makes these people un-American or not worthy of living in the US, IMHO.

These days I actually believe that the US should be 2 different countries (or maybe each state should be it's own country?) - but I guess we'll never see that happen.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

If they hate the U.S. so much and those places are equally as good places to live because afterall the leaders are no worse than ours, why do they stay here? They have enough money to move their families out of this nation they consider so awful. Hypocrits! Spoiled hypocrits!

You consistently fail to recognize that one of the greatest things to love about the U.S. (and real democracies) is that one can be a true patriot: acting for the benefit of the Nation.

And that necessarily includes being able to work against politicians one considers harmful to the nation.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Yea, but, again, how do you live a socialist life in a capitalist system (and, no, being "poor" or simply not "consuming" has nothing to do with it)

Found a relatively insular society which lives by such standards, and interact with the outside world as need be. If you would rather not found one yourself, there are still quite a few in the US: not as many as in their heyday, but enough if you know where to look.

I think quite a few of them have moved already.

But sorry, being against Bush and his cronies in no way makes these people un-American or not worthy of living in the US, IMHO.

You're totally right, but the idea behind "Leave if you don't like it" actually does have a strong philosophical base. Athens was the only democratic city-state in ancient Greece, yet all Greeks considered themselves free men: why? Their idea of freedom included the idea that if you disliked the rules you society lived by, there were other societies that lived by different rules and you could join those if you wished. This same ideal was held by, among other people, the Framers. This is one of the major reasons that the Constitution tried to decentralize power as much as possible, in fact: to set up a system whereby people could do this within the borders of a single nation.

This is one of the major reasons for the traditional Republican concern for "states' rights": to set up a system where states still have maximum ability to determine the rules under which they'll live. The theory goes that as long as freedom to move and travel is maintained, people will migrate toward whatever systems appeal to them, and in the end people will be content living under rules they can live with.

I'm probably going to regret bringing the death penalty into this, but it illustrates the theory well enough. People who oppose the death penalty can easily live in societies without it, if they so choose. People who support it, meanwhile, can live in societies which have it. But if this is mandated one way or the other on a federal level, then one of these groups will have nowhere to go. Is that freedom? The Framers, and the Greeks before them, would have disagreed.

These days I actually believe that the US should be 2 different countries (or maybe each state should be it's own country?) - but I guess we'll never see that happen.

Some people agreed with you on this about 150 years ago. Things didn't turn out so well for them.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Millennium

But if this is mandated one way or the other on a federal level, then one of these groups will have nowhere to go. Is that freedom? The Framers, and the Greeks before them, would have disagreed.

There is a major flaw to this kind of thinking though.

Moving from Illinois to California isn't exactly like moving from the US to Italy.

First of all, whithout citizenship, you don't have unlimited stay let alone a guaranteed work permit.

Secondly, a move within the US has the advantage of being able to maintain almost all of your cultural identity but the great disadvatge of having to abide by some of the federal rules you are trying to escape from (the death-penalty is (might be?) one of them)

So yes, I too agrre with the decorum "love it or leave it" - BUT I don't think it's as easy a task as many make it out to be.

And then there is always the question of who should be doing "the leaving".

Originally Posted by Millennium

Some people agreed with you on this about 150 years ago. Things didn't turn out so well for them.

Maybe it should be tried again.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

There is a major flaw to this kind of thinking though.

Moving from Illinois to California isn't exactly like moving from the US to Italy.

First of all, whithout citizenship, you don't have unlimited stay let alone a guaranteed work permit.

Exactly, which is why states'-rights advocates consider the concept to be so important: it removes barriers to free movement, resulting in greater freedom overall.

Secondly, a move within the US has the advantage of being able to maintain almost all of your cultural identity but the great disadvatge of having to abide by some of the federal rules you are trying to escape from (the death-penalty is (might be?) one of them)

The federal government has a death penalty within its own jurisdiction, but in practice it only carries that penalty out very rarely. Individual states decide the matter for their own jurisdictions.

However, once again, this is why states' rights advocates tend to be keen on "smaller government": it's about reducing the federal government to a minimal core needed to defend the nation as a whole, facilitate matters between states, and ensure that this "Greek freedom" is maintained using a minimal structure that pushes as much power toward the states as possible.

And then there is always the question of who should be doing "the leaving".

Ah, the other problem with modern politics: both sides claim that only they truly understand the American ideal.

Maybe it should be tried again.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The Civil War established that states do not have the right to secede, however, so it would almost certainly take another civil war to reverse that.

[Sky Captain]

So how are the leftists doing in Hungary?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Perhaps, perhaps not. The Civil War established that states do not have the right to secede, however, so it would almost certainly take another civil war to reverse that.

A state can petition to the Federal Government for secession, but it has to be approved by the other states.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by PER3

Because the people who say such things don't actually know what it means.

It's like when a nine year old uses a long word they've just heard to make themselves sound intelligent.

A prime example of why I use "elitist" to describe many...

Instead of attempting to debate the actual point or statement I made, the "elitist" in you simply refers to me and others as being stupid or dumb, inferring without display that you are somehow superior.

That, folks, is the epitome of being "elitist". Similarly, we've all heard from the left how Bush supporters are stupid, or that they're simpletons.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The federal government has a death penalty within its own jurisdiction, but in practice it only carries that penalty out very rarely. Individual states decide the matter for their own jurisdictions.

Just out of curiosity, are there any states that don't have the death penalty?

Originally Posted by Millennium

Ah, the other problem with modern politics: both sides claim that only they truly understand the American ideal.

Well, this actually wasn't what I was getting at at all.

I just can't think of a country in history that has been divided on so many issues and didn't have a civil war or secession to settle the matters. Not that I would ever be for a war, but I haven't seen anything productive coming from this kind of partisan bickering.

Dissent is an important part of any democratic society, but in this case, the differences in both political approach and social conduct are actually only counterproductive to cultural progress (or social identity).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Just out of curiosity, are there any states that don't have the death penalty?

No current death penalty statute: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

Quick overview.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Kr0nos]

Do you think, given the opportunity, they would live in a culture! similar to their own - but with a socialist economic system?

We are pretty socialized here. Education is publicly funded. We have public housing, a lot of welfare programs, medicaid, medicare, social security. Even those without healthcare are not allowed to just die in the streets (not that I'm advocating that). From my experience in working in a County Hospital, it's the ones that are "self-pay" or on medicaid that get pretty much everything they need more so than everyone else who is not rich or on a very good plan. The health-care system needs fixing but we certainly have a great deal of socialism in our overall economy.

That's true, - it would certainly make them hypocrites - but "elitists"? I would consider Bill Gates or Steve Jobs rich and politically "left". But are they actually elitis

There are plenty of rich leftists, which makes them not only hypocritical, but elitists, IMO.

Yea, but, again, how do you live a socialist life in a capitalist system (and, no, being "poor" or simply not "consuming" has nothing to do with it)

Sure it does. There are no laws that stop people from giving away all of their money and living frugal lives. That is what they are advocating for all of us afterall when they advocate communism. Communism makes sure that poverty is equally shared among all, with the exception of those in power.

But sorry, being against Bush and his cronies in no way makes these people un-American or not worthy of living in the US, IMHO.

Being against Bush does not make one Un-American. However, the fact that they choose to live where the best opportunies are for them to be successfull and live in luxury, while denouncing the very things about a free market economy that allowed them to do achieve this, is quite telling.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by analogika

You consistently fail to recognize that one of the greatest things to love about the U.S. (and real democracies) is that one can be a true patriot: acting for the benefit of the Nation.

And that necessarily includes being able to work against politicians one considers harmful to the nation.

I have no problems with that. I have exercized my right to disagree with our govt on many, many occassions. But those that say vile things about our country and paint it as a nation that is basically evil with evil intentions, may be exercizing their right to dissent, but are not patriots. One can dissent without demonizing our nation as a whole. I find it a bit odd that people holding up signs calling Bush "Hitler" are admired by some simply because they are exercizing their right to dissent. I wouldn't take that right away from them, but I'm not going to say that because they are exercizing their right to dissent, that they must be true patriots either.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Millennium]

The theory goes that as long as freedom to move and travel is maintained, people will migrate toward whatever systems appeal to them, and in the end people will be content living under rules they can live with.

Which is why we see embassies all over the world lined up with people trying to get here and very few Embassies in the U.S. lined up with Americans trying to get out.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

There are plenty of rich leftists, which makes them not only hypocritical, but elitists, IMO.

You are radicalizing the position of liberals in the US. Liberals in this country are not communists. If they were, then it probably would be hypocritical for a liberal to be rich. And if conservatives here were fascists, then it would be hypocritical for them to oppose people without healthcare dying in the streets. Fortunately neither group is that radical in this country, so being rich is acceptable and dying in the street due to lack of healthcare is unacceptable.

Engaging in class warfare is something Republicans used to accuse Democrats of doing, by the way. I guess when the shoe is on the other foot it's acceptable.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by itai195

You are radicalizing the position of liberals in the US. Liberals in this country are not communists. If they were, then it probably would be hypocritical for a liberal to be rich. And if conservatives here were fascists, then it would be hypocritical for them to oppose people without healthcare dying in the streets. Fortunately neither group is that radical in this country, so being rich is acceptable and dying in the street due to lack of healthcare is unacceptable.

Engaging in class warfare is something Republicans used to accuse Democrats of doing, by the way. I guess when the shoe is on the other foot it's acceptable.

I wasn't talkig about all liberals. There most certainly is an element of liberals in this country that are communists. I don't know of any conservatives that openly advocate for an "alternative to the capitalist economic model". The universities now days are like communist re-education camps of our young and those aren't conservative professors indoctrinating that. Most liberals advocate far more socialism in this country than what we presently have. Most seem to want a large, central govt charged with equally distributing the wealth as well as managing the economy rather than letting the free market do it on it's own with little interference. It's quite a paradox, that the same people who want to give the fed govt just about complete control over our economy, don't want them having any control to fullfill their number one mandate which is to defend the nation from national threats. Many liberals seem to always be on the opposite side of any and every action the govt takes on National Security. They seem to be on the opposite side of law enforcement in general. I don't get it. The same govt they trust to handle all of our money, is not to be trusted with our general safety?

There is a radical element to the liberal movement. Fortunately, it's mostly the young college kids who have had little real life experience but while living within the cocoon of a University, spend their days getting credit for tearing down this country. Also fortunately, most of them eventually grow up and become recovering liberals.

[itai195]

I doubt that the 'rich leftists' that you previously referred to are college students. If they are rich, I presume they derived their wealth via capitalist means, and thus probably wouldn't support a lot of what you're accusing them of supporting. However, my point was simply that you're generalizing and I'm sure you'd find it absurd if someone did the same regarding conservatives (e.g. wanting to see poor people dying in the streets).

Number one mandate, by the way? I don't see any prioritizing in the below:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by itai195

I doubt that the 'rich leftists' that you previously referred to are college students. If they are rich, I presume they derived their wealth via capitalist means, and thus probably wouldn't support a lot of what you're accusing them of supporting. However, my point was simply that you're generalizing and I'm sure you'd find it absurd if someone did the same regarding conservatives (e.g. wanting to see poor people dying in the streets).

Number one mandate, by the way? I don't see any prioritizing in the below:

The original question I responded to was why people use the term "elitist". In my response I gave examples of what I considered to be elitists on the left. I did not say that all of those on the left are elitists. I simply gave an explanation of what I consider to be leftist elitists.

You then accuse me of generalizing about all liberals. I clarified for you that I was not talking about ALL liberals. I also do not see how it is that you confuse this with the statement I made about how MOSTof the liberals seem to be young college kids who are emulating their barking moonbat demented leftists professors who make their living out of tearing down this country and the system that allows them to do so. Just for clarification in case you are still confused, of course there are still some on the far left that have not lost ALL of their common sense yet.

[itai195]

I said that it sounds like you are generalizing about liberals. You called rich liberals elitists and hypocrites, and when I pointed this out you backed it up by talking about college students.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by itai195

I said that it sounds like you are generalizing about liberals. You called rich liberals elitists and hypocrites, and when I pointed this out you backed it up by talking about college students.

Okay, this is just boring now. You obviously choose to cherry pick individual sentences rather than view them in the context of the overall and ongoing discussion. I made it painfully obvious that I was talking about the rich liberal elitists that espouse the virtues of one thing and then live their lives in complete contrast to that. I even gave several examples of just what I was talking about. The term elitist has the connotation of being special or better than others. While that is not the literal definition, the term has taken on that connotation over time. Hence, my opinion on why it is people use that term and why I have used that term in referring to some on the left.

Those that claim to be for one thing like conservation and then lives as a glutten is both an elitist and a hypocrit and there are many like that on the left. Those that stand for gun control and then hire armed body guards for self-protection are both hypocritical and elitist (because they think they are too special to live by the same principles they think everyone else should. those that tear down this country based on the philosophy that capitalism is the root of all evil while driving 50,000 dollar cars and living in half million dollar homes are both hypocritical and elitist (ie, they think they are too special to give up the good life for the social good, but all those other rich and middle-class idiots should feel guilty for being so selfish).

Did I once say that all liberals are rich? That all liberals are elitists? That they are all college students?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

The health-care system needs fixing but we certainly have a great deal of socialism in our overall economy.

Socialism does not only refer to healthcare and welfare, you know that, don't you?

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

There are plenty of rich leftists, which makes them not only hypocritical, but elitists, IMO.

elitism
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY <elitism in choosing new members>
3 : consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

How does somebody being rich and socialist automatically make them a leader? How are they selective? How are they especially "conscious" of belonging to an elite?

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

There are no laws that stop people from giving away all of their money and living frugal lives. That is what they are advocating for all of us afterall when they advocate communism.

Errrr, no. I'm beginning to think you really have no idea what you are talking about. Socialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with wanting people to be poor. As a matter of fact, it's the complete and total opposite.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

However, the fact that they choose to live where the best opportunies are for them to be successfull and live in luxury, while denouncing the very things about a free market economy that allowed them to do achieve this, is quite telling.

Being born in a specific place doesn't automatically make it anybody's "choice". Most people who immigrate to America are usually very keen on capitalism, and will be the first one's to fiercely defend it's merits.

[Spliffdaddy]

Under socialism - nobody can be rich or poor. These are relative states of wealth. To be poor, there must be somebody else who has more.

So, no, I don't agree with your assessment that it's "the complete and total opposite".

If this was a socialist country, I guarantee you I'd do less work than anybody else. There wouldn't be any reason for me to get out of bed.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

To be poor, there must be somebody else who has more.

Poor

1 a : lacking material possessions b : of, relating to, or characterized by poverty
2 a : less than adequate : MEAGER b : small in worth
3 : exciting pity <you poor thing>
4 a : inferior in quality or value b : HUMBLE, UNPRETENTIOUS c : MEAN, PETTY
5 : LEAN, EMACIATED
6 : BARREN, UNPRODUCTIVE -- used of land
7 : INDIFFERENT, UNFAVORABLE
8 : lacking a normal or adequate supply of something specified -- often used in combination

No.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So, no, I don't agree with your assessment that it's "the complete and total opposite".

That's certainly your perrogative. But you'd be wrong.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If this was a socialist country, I guarantee you I'd do less work than anybody else. There wouldn't be any reason for me to get out of bed.

So what? Do you think anybody would care?

BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[itai195]

I'm going to take your post slightly out of order.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Did I once say that all liberals are rich? That all liberals are elitists? That they are all college students?

No, this is what you said, actually, and is what I responded to:

There are plenty of rich leftists, which makes them not only hypocritical, but elitists, IMO.

You're saying rich liberals are hypocrites and elitist, sounds like a generalization to me. You also seem to have some irrational hatred of academia, but I wonder where you think the education and research necessary to support our capitalist economy comes from?

Those that claim to be for one thing like conservation and then lives as a glutten is both an elitist and a hypocrit and there are many like that on the left. Those that stand for gun control and then hire armed body guards for self-protection are both hypocritical and elitist (because they think they are too special to live by the same principles they think everyone else should. those that tear down this country based on the philosophy that capitalism is the root of all evil while driving 50,000 dollar cars and living in half million dollar homes are both hypocritical and elitist (ie, they think they are too special to give up the good life for the social good, but all those other rich and middle-class idiots should feel guilty for being so selfish).

Do you only find hypocrisy and elitism on the left? Is it hypocritical to call oneself a Christian and support torture? Is it hypocritical to call oneself compassionate and seek to marginalize homosexuals? Is it elitist and hypocritical to strut and talk with a southern drawl even though one is from Connecticut and went to Yale and Harvard? Is it hypocritical to claim the need for small government yet support massive spending deficits? Is it hypocritical to claim terrorists 'hate our freedom' while one supports curtailment of civil liberties? Is it hypocritical to be pro-life and support the death penalty? Is it elitist to proclaim the importance of 'individualism' yet want to do away with the estate tax? Is it hypocritical to claim unregulated capitalism is the best economic choice when one consistently fails at business and lives off the generosity of his/her parents?

Anyway, if you're so bored then don't bother responding.

[PER3]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Under socialism - nobody can be rich or poor. These are relative states of wealth. To be poor, there must be somebody else who has more.

So, no, I don't agree with your assessment that it's "the complete and total opposite".

If this was a socialist country, I guarantee you I'd do less work than anybody else. There wouldn't be any reason for me to get out of bed.

There are no gradations of Socialism?

A nation is either Socialist or not?

The system in the US contains no elements of Socialism?

Your argument reveals very primitive reasoning.

Do you consider Sweden to be an example of a socialist country? I think you would, judging by your comments.

Do people get out of bed and work each morning? Yes.

Has the country performed well economically over the last century? Yes.

Does its government take good care of the country's disadvantaged? Yes.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Kr0nos]

Socialism does not only refer to healthcare and welfare, you know that, don't you?

In other words, you have no salient argument but still disagree anyways, and needed something to say................LOL.

elitism
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY <elitism in choosing new members>
3 : consciousness of being or belonging to an elite

How does somebody being rich and socialist automatically make them a leader? How are they selective? How are they especially "conscious" of belonging to an elite?

Guess you skipped right over the part where I said that the term "elitists" has a connotation to it as meaning one who thinks they are special. You do know what the term "connotation" means don't you? Otherwise, I might need to copy and paste the definition from websters on-line............LOL.

I also have given special ed tutoring for those of you that can't keep up in spite of my repeated explanations as to why I think that term "elitists" is used in refering to some on the left as elitists, due to the connotation of the term. Run along and play now, you have failed remedial tutoring.

Errrr, no. I'm beginning to think you really have no idea what you are talking about. Socialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with wanting people to be poor. As a matter of fact, it's the complete and total opposite.

Some socialism in a wealthy country is necessary and less damaging to the overall economy and culture than without it. Complete socialism does not inspire excellence and results in inefficiency, corruption due to consolidation of power, medicracy, and often times tyranny.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE=Kr0nos].

That's certainly your perrogative. But you'd be wrong.

Lets say for arguments sake that we could convince half the people in America that 100% socialism is the key to happiness and justice and we implemented it. What would we do about all those that are much more lazy and less altruistic than people like you and refuse to devote all of their talents, energy, hard work, and tireless efforts to the social good? The flaw with the utopian ideal of socialism is that it is not congruent with the true nature of people. Most are not willing to do what it takes to become an engineer, doctor, or even a college professor, when the reward for doing so is that they live no better off than the cab driver next door. No offense to cab drivers or anything, but do you believe that an engineer should make a salary that is marginally higher than a cab drivers? Or just that he or she should make much more but then have most of it confiscated to give to cab drivers, bus drivers, and even those able bodied people who refuse to work at all but much prefer to sit home and get stoned all day?

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

In other words, you have no salient argument but still disagree anyways, and needed something to say.

Well, you are constantly referring to socialism in terms of "social benefits" and welfare. I was just pointing out that there is more to socialism than that.

Taking a personal jab at me in response to my post though shows that you're probably the one who is running out of "salient arguments".

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Guess you skipped right over the part where I said that the term "elitists" has a connotation to it as meaning one who thinks they are special.

And you must have missed the part where when making generalizations about people you don't even know it not only makes you look like a complete and total dumbass, but also renders the point you are making completely invalid.

Good try though. Too bad you failed, again.

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

…inefficiency, corruption due to consolidation of power, medicracy, and often times tyranny.

This almost looks like you're describing capitalism to a T. Except you failed to spell mediocrity correctly. Which is odd, because it seems like a term that best describes the content of your posts.