[OwlBoy]

I feel like the only person in the world who don't know what it means to be left, right, conservative, a democrat, a republican, green...

Is there a site that explains all these terms? I would get a whole lot more out of the news if I knew what exactly they ment.

-Owl

Edit: and don't make it "Such and such means they are retarded ****s" or anything.

[RAzaRazor]

Google is your friend:
http://www.usnewsclassroom.com/resou...act010604.html

Look down to the "Activity" section. It's a little simplisitic, but I think it will do.

[OwlBoy]

thanks. Now NPR will make more sense.

-Owl

[Developer]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Google is your friend:
http://www.usnewsclassroom.com/resou...act010604.html

I don't agree with their definition. They got it the wrong way around.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
I feel like the only person in the world who don't know what it means to be left, right, conservative, a democrat, a republican, green...

Is there a site that explains all these terms? I would get a whole lot more out of the news if I knew what exactly they ment.

I often feel the same way... the problem is, I've found out, that it varies from country to country...

My flatmate and I would get really confused talking about this, 'cause what we call red, they call blue, what we call right, they call center, what they call left, we call... erm, the ceiling... or something...

Which I suppose is kind of stupid, but there ya go...

(Erm, this was in no way an answer to your question if you hadn't noticed, just a random obversation...)

PS: Is obversation a word? It both looks and sounds really strange all of a sudden...

Edit: Found out why it looked so strange... observation of course...

[Millennium]

This is the best set of short defintions I've found. It doesn't go into specific parties, but does define the basic descriptive terms:

Radical - The system is fundamentally flawed, and must be completely replaced.
Liberal - The system needs many changes, but the basics are sound.
Moderate (sometimes called Centrist)- The system is more or less OK, but could stand some changes here and there.
Conservative - The system is good; change should be resisted.
Reactionary - A previous system was better; we should return to it.

Progressive - Seeking progress. Unfortunately, the definition of "progress" has not been defined very well, and so everyone seems to have their own definition.
Regressive - Not seeking the speaker's definition of progress. This is not an official term, but is included for completeness, as it is often used as an insult.

Extremist - Willing to obtain goals by any means necessary, including methods which are illegal. This term has a connotation of murderous intent.

This probably isn't exactly what you wanted; it does not define anything about specific political parties, namely because I don't see any way to define them that isn't guaranteed to piss people off. However, it's not too hard to make some broad classifications (NOTE: this is very US-centric):

Radical - Communist, Nazi (they technically exist in the US but have never won any elections), Anarchist (yes, there is an Anarchist Party, oxymoronic though that may be)
Liberal - Green, Natural Law
Moderate - Democrat, Reform (pre-Buchannan)
Conservative - Republican, Reform (post-Buchannan)
Reactionary - "Constitution" (don't let the name fool you), "American Heritage" (again, don't let the name fool you), most other parties with ultra-partiotic-sounding names.

[OreoCookie]

Well, this may be accurate for the US, but a cross country comparison is still impossible.

In the European Parliament, there are many `interest groups' (as there are no European parties yet), so especially in the case of the conservative block, you notice a wide range of opinions. For instance, the German conservatives were (and are) very much in favor of the EU (just take a look at their track record in the 90s), whereas many other conservative parties in Europe (e. g. in Britain) are Euro-sceptics.

Moral: name-calling across boundaries is useless.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, this may be accurate for the US, but a cross country comparison is still impossible.

True, but Owlboy's question was obviously US-based. He asked about Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives.

Incidentally, none of the definitions so far have mentioned libertarians. That's very odd considering that this nation was founded (no, I'm not talking about the Puritans) by people with strongly libertarian views and it is still very influential.

So I'll add the classical definition: Libertarianism is the belief (as Jefferson put it) "that government is best that governs least." It's basically a belief in small government and individual liberties.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, this may be accurate for the US, but a cross country comparison is still impossible.

Of course. You'll note that all my definitions were defined in terms of "the system", but I never defined that "the system" is.

That's the point where it all becomes relative. For example, in the US Communists are considered radicals, but in Russia they would be considered reactionaries, because Communism has held power in Russia before. Many European liberals scoff at their counterparts in the US, finding them to be little more than crypto-conservatives (forgetting that both are relative terms).

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Moderate - Democrat, Reform (pre-Buchannan)

Since when do we consider Democrats as Moderates??? Last time I checked, they tended to be liberals. Of course there are just as many Moderate Democrats as Republicans.....

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
True, but Owlboy's question was obviously US-based. He asked about Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives.

Incidentally, none of the definitions so far have mentioned libertarians. That's very odd considering that this nation was founded (no, I'm not talking about the Puritans) by people with strongly libertarian views and it is still very influential.

So I'll add the classical definition: Libertarianism is the belief (as Jefferson put it) "that government is best that governs least." It's basically a belief in small government and individual liberties.

Yes, and obviously these definitions need some updates.
The Bush administration (somehow the notion of `neoliberals' was coined for them) has created a lot of bureaucracy (Department Of Homeland Security for instance). Without going further into the line of `but the Democrats would have created even more of it', I just want to point out that there are so many different political mixtures that coining terms like `liberal', Republican, Democrat, or conservative doesn't quite fit.

Bush supporting the abolishment of same-sex marriages, abortions, etc. could be described as socially conservative, but with his public spending record as well as government involvement in personal lives, IMHO the term conservative in this context would be misplaced.

Instead, I try to avoid any `name-calling' and I think the world is too complex to settle an issue with `you're a [insert political party/faction here], so we all know what kind of things you'd support.' Think for yourself and question everything. Question what the government says, question what the opposition says.

[Sven G]

... As for Jefferson's libertarian quote on government, it is interesting to note that Henry David Thoreau took that a step further - or, better, brought it to its implicit, radical conclusions:

I heartily accept the motto "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe - "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

Note the words when men are prepared for it...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Instead, I try to avoid any `name-calling' and I think the world is too complex to settle an issue with `you're a [insert political party/faction here], so we all know what kind of things you'd support.' Think for yourself and question everything. Question what the government says, question what the opposition says.

It's not name-calling. We simply use these terms as convenient ways to identify which group or set of political preferences we are talking about. None of them are used strictly the way a political scientist would use them. And sometimes we have to be a little more precise. For example, distinguishing between liberal views, and classical liberal views.

But by and large, when people use terms like liberal and conservative, there is little misunderstanding about who it is or which set of policy preferences are being referred to.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not name-calling. We simply use these terms as convenient ways to identify which group or set of political preferences we are talking about. None of them are used strictly the way a political scientist would use them. And sometimes we have to be a little more precise. For example, distinguishing between liberal views, and classical liberal views.

But by and large, when people use terms like liberal and conservative, there is little misunderstanding about who it is or which set of policy preferences are being referred to.

I think there is misunderstanding here all the time and name-calling, too. This is particularly true when non-Americans participate and are called `liberals' although this needn't be true from their country's perspective. (Many of my French friends here are conservatives but still hold many views that would make them an American die-hard liberal.) Just because of the constituency of this forum, I think it's neither useful nor accurate enough to use those terms.

Also: the political landscape has changed so much that the attributes to `liberal' and `conservative' just don't fit anymore (see my post above). Those notions trigger images that just don't describe the current state of affairs anymore.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I think there is misunderstanding here all the time and name-calling, too. This is particularly true when non-Americans participate and are called `liberals' although this needn't be true from their country's perspective.

That's not name calling either. It's just because you are participating in what is very much a US-centric forum. The terminology is US-centric, but really, how often is anyone confused by this? After all, a huge percentage of the posts here revolve around US-centric issues. It is rare indeed that we have a thread about the internal politics of any other country. When, for example, was the last time we had a thread where SPD-supporting Germans debated CDU-supporting Germans? It has been a long time -- if it ever happened.

In any case, there isn't any way around this because there are no terms that could be used that would be neutral. They all depend somewhat on the political context of the country we are talking about. The alternative is to get very pedantic about using the kind of terminology political scientist would use. But how realistic is that? If I started describing Troll a monist and a Wilsonian Internationalist, how many beside Troll would know what the hell I was talking about?

It's easier to just go with the flow and with what most people understand. If we have a topic (for example, about German politics) where it makes more sense to use the terminology from another country's politics, then by all means do so. Just tell us what you mean, and I am sure we will understand.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's not name calling either. It's just because you are participating in what is very much a US-centric forum. The terminology is US-centric, but really, how often is anyone confused by this? After all, a huge percentage of the posts here revolve around US-centric issues. It is rare indeed that we have a thread about the internal politics of any other country. When, for example, was the last time we had a thread where SPD-supporting Germans debated CDU-supporting Germans? It has been a long time -- if it ever happened.

In any case, there isn't any way around this because there are no terms that could be used that would be neutral. They all depend somewhat on the political context of the country we are talking about. The alternative is to get very pedantic about using the kind of terminology political scientist would use. But how realistic is that? If I started describing Troll a monist and a Wilsonian Internationalist, how many beside Troll would know what the hell I was talking about?

It's easier to just go with the flow and with what most people understand. If we have a topic (for example, about German politics) where it makes more sense to use the terminology from another country's politics, then by all means do so. Just tell us what you mean, and I am sure we will understand.

That wasn't the main point of my criticism.
My main point is that even in the US the traditional notions simply don't apply anymore.

And yes, it does lead to name-calling, in particular, some members are just called `l�berals' (somehow the word has become a curse word) without seeing the rest of their political views.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
some members are just called `l�berals' (somehow the word has become a curse word) without seeing the rest of their political views.

No different from "conservative" or "right wing." Those are terms (especially the latter) that get thrown around here a lot.

As I said, liberal and conservative aren't so much used for accuracy as they are used as shorthand. Nothing wrong with that providing it doesn't cause confustion. And by and large it doesn't.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No different from "conservative" or "right wing." Those are terms (especially the latter) that get thrown around here a lot.

As I said, liberal and conservative aren't so much used for accuracy as they are used as shorthand. Nothing wrong with that providing it doesn't cause confustion. And by and large it doesn't.

Yes, sure, that goes both ways.
But I now see where we disagree: I think it doesn't cause confusion, but is misused as curse word. It isn't rare, but quite common.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Since when do we consider Democrats as Moderates??? Last time I checked, they tended to be liberals.

Only compared to some. The Democrats are an interesting case because at different times, they've spanned almost the entire political "spectrum". Currently they're more or less moderate. This was one of the big issues of Dean's campaign: the Democrats were becoming too moderate for his taste, and he wanted to take them back to their previous, more liberal state. I guess you could say that makes him a reactionary liberal.

Of course, Republicans have had their share of the political spectrum as well; their roots are actually radical. But as they've achieved their goals, they've moved more and more towards conservative, not jumping around nearly as much. There was a time, though, then the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats were conservative. Just something to keep in mind.

Of course there are just as many Moderate Democrats as Republicans.....

Oh, indeed. I'm only talking about general tendencies within the parties themselves.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Radical - The system is fundamentally flawed, and must be completely replaced.
Radical - Communist, Nazi (they technically exist in the US but have never won any elections), Anarchist (yes, there is an Anarchist Party, oxymoronic though that may be)

I'll only talk for anarchism (social anarchism, the "flavour" which I find the most interesting political view, currently)... Well, I'd disagree that "radical" means "replacing everything": rather, it would mean, for a social libertarian, maintaining the good preexistent things, while enhancing them and adding new features - in the complex process of political, individual and social transformation.

... And an Anarchist Party? What's that? That would be rather controversial, indeed...

P.S.: Were the fascists and the nazis "radical"? Probably not, as they were, after all, the result of a capitalist class in extreme crisis: they even retained the usual "democratic" structures (Parliament, etc.), even if in a rather "unusual" (!) manner...

[dgs212]

Originally posted by Millennium:
there is an Anarchist Party, oxymoronic though that may be)

Technically, an Anarchist party is not in any sense oxymoronic or paradoxical. Anarchy means "without rulers," not "without laws."

From the Greek An- (without) -Arkhos (ruler).

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Technically, an Anarchist party is not in any sense oxymoronic or paradoxical. Anarchy means "without rulers," not "without laws."

From the Greek An- (without) -Arkhos (ruler).

It's still a paradox, though, because how could an anarchist party field any kind of candidates for office? Without candidates, how could one vote anarchist, and if you can't vote anarchist then what's the point of a party?

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's still a paradox, though, because how could an anarchist party field any kind of candidates for office? Without candidates, how could one vote anarchist, and if you can't vote anarchist then what's the point of a party?

Well, a candidate for office isn't necessarily a leader of the party, is he? A representative of the party would be okay, just no leaders... no?