|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 07 2018 05:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all? Stardom and getting things done are directly connected. Its why the current generation of leadership in the democratic party is such an anathema to getting anyone excited or getting anything done. The ability to Marshall public opinion on an issue is the core measurement of success for a politician. Hollywood thinks they have this power but they almost never use it well. TLDR: Ronald Reagan? directly connected to what degree? I can agree there's some positive correlation, but there's alot of other factors. I do see your point though. I stand very much by the point that it doesn't lead to good policies. perhaps I used too vague a definition of getting stuff done instead of emphasising it should be about getting good and thoughtful things done in a sound manner. or just used a different word choice. Public opinion wins you elections. Public opinion keeps you in power, Public opinion influences other politicians to follow your idea so they to can win (re)elections.
Note this is about implementing policy, not about 'good' policy.
Look at Trump, his fanatic following got him into power and it makes other Republicans follow along with his stupid idea's if they want to be re-elected.
You can have the most amazing and best idea's ever but if you never get in a position to implement them, what is it worth?
|
On July 07 2018 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all? Getting stuff done and thoughtful policy isn't a useful skill so long as you lose your election. Voters want energy, passion, and to feel like the person they are electing is just as mad as they are. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is so important. There is a swath of people just waiting to be energized. She is our ticket to that. Democrats need to embrace it and realize whiteboard discussions of policy aren't relevant in elections. Save that stuff for post-election. Until then, it is rah rah rah. I would likely switch to unaffiliated, but maybe SDA if only to send a message.
aye, I see your point.
you see mine, right? (just checking to be sure, and cause some people seem to keep ignoring my point to talk past it so it's often hard to tell).
|
On July 07 2018 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
You guys need to stop caring about whether a slogan invites criticism by the republicans, it's not like they're going to stop criticizing you if you're precise enough in your elocution. It's more important to project strength and create energy.
You need to have good slogans which appeal to people. If you have #abolishICE as a slogan and it doesn’t connect with most people because they immediately associate it with the standard criticism of open borders then it is ineffectual. If, on the other hand people don’t have this immediate association then it is a good slogan. Slogans are tactics, you have to use what works.
|
On July 07 2018 06:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all? Getting stuff done and thoughtful policy isn't a useful skill so long as you lose your election. Voters want energy, passion, and to feel like the person they are electing is just as mad as they are. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is so important. There is a swath of people just waiting to be energized. She is our ticket to that. Democrats need to embrace it and realize whiteboard discussions of policy aren't relevant in elections. Save that stuff for post-election. Until then, it is rah rah rah. I would likely switch to unaffiliated, but maybe SDA if only to send a message. aye, I see your point. you see mine, right? (just checking to be sure).
Yes, totally. Do I want AOC sitting down in a room by herself and putting together patch notes for our economy? NO.
Do I want her inspiring and energizing large groups of people who share her dreams for the future? Yes.
We didn't ban all Muslims from the country, but Trump sure has done a lot in that regard. Similar deal with AOC, I imagine. And many people just want the ball to at least get rolling. Currently, many people rightly believe progressive progress is just so insanely stagnant because no one is fighting for us. AOC is important because she shows people there are people willing to fight for the major battles we have ahead of us. I don't want Nancy telling me to calm down.
|
On July 07 2018 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 06:11 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:On July 07 2018 05:41 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 05:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Following politics is such a wild ride. It is fascinating to me that Ocasio-Cortez is, in my mind, the most important "democrat " right now. Never heard of her 2 months ago. The way the DNC treats her will likely be a sign of how well November goes. If they are stupid enough to shit on her, I will change my party affiliation without hesitation. that's the nature of stardom; politics has too much in common with that imho. it's a very much different thing from actually getting stuff done and thoughtful policy. what metric of importance are you using btw? oh, and if such were to occur, what would you change your party affiliation to? no affiliation at all? Getting stuff done and thoughtful policy isn't a useful skill so long as you lose your election. Voters want energy, passion, and to feel like the person they are electing is just as mad as they are. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is so important. There is a swath of people just waiting to be energized. She is our ticket to that. Democrats need to embrace it and realize whiteboard discussions of policy aren't relevant in elections. Save that stuff for post-election. Until then, it is rah rah rah. I would likely switch to unaffiliated, but maybe SDA if only to send a message. aye, I see your point. you see mine, right? (just checking to be sure). Yes, totally. Do I want AOC sitting down in a room by herself and putting together patch notes for our economy? NO. Do I want her inspiring and energizing large groups of people who share her dreams for the future? Yes. We didn't ban all Muslims from the country, but Trump sure has done a lot in that regard. Similar deal with AOC, I imagine. And many people just want the ball to at least get rolling. Currently, many people rightly believe progressive progress is just so insanely stagnant because no one is fighting for us. AOC is important because she shows people there are people willing to fight for the major battles we have ahead of us. I don't want Nancy telling me to calm down.
ok, close enough I reckon.
how do you reach the conclusion that the reason progressive progress is stagnant because noone is fighting for you rather than for the many other possible reasons?
I can agree that many people feel that way; but I'm wondering why you conclude they "rightly" feel that way.
|
On July 07 2018 06:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
You guys need to stop caring about whether a slogan invites criticism by the republicans, it's not like they're going to stop criticizing you if you're precise enough in your elocution. It's more important to project strength and create energy. You need to have good slogans which appeal to people. If you have #abolishICE as a slogan and it doesn’t connect with most people because they immediately associate it with the standard criticism of open borders then it is ineffectual. If, on the other hand people don’t have this immediate association then it is a good slogan. Slogans are tactics, you have to use what works.
Why would people associate it to open borders, other than because the republican party tells them to? If you had the perfect very clear slogan instead, the republican party would still tell them to do that, and that would still work on them. Not much effect on that side of the equation, and on the other side of the equation, since you're already showing weakness before you've started, much less energy created.
|
On July 07 2018 06:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
You guys need to stop caring about whether a slogan invites criticism by the republicans, it's not like they're going to stop criticizing you if you're precise enough in your elocution. It's more important to project strength and create energy. You need to have good slogans which appeal to people. If you have #abolishICE as a slogan and it doesn’t connect with most people because they immediately associate it with the standard criticism of open borders then it is ineffectual. If, on the other hand people don’t have this immediate association then it is a good slogan. Slogans are tactics, you have to use what works.
There are networks of party-unaffiliated peace activists throughout the Rust Belt (and probably elsewhere, but that's where I was in 2008) that will go door-to-door in support of any peace candidate. It's how you get people like Ron Paul, who is pretty much a lunatic, but who would probably also vehemently support that reduction of executive powers which is not only associated with ICE but also with modern US foreign policy.
You don't just need slogans, you need the right message and, as they say, boots on the ground. Certainly for midterms this is very important, I think. But these people would not campaign for a Hillary, for example.
|
On July 07 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:00 a_flayer wrote:Wow, I was just fanboying over the Ocasio-Cortez website, and I read her policy on ICE: It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights. Unlike prior immigration enforcement under the INS, ICE operates outside the scope of the Department of Justice and is unaccountable to our nation’s standards of due process. Now we see the consequences: young children are being ripped from their parents and kept in detention centers without due process and without accountability to Congress. It's like she's reading my mind. *Swoon* Yeah, kind of wonder if GH would understand this if it was said by a politician he (I assume) agrees with. ICE is not "immigration enforcement" as an all encompassing concept. It's a specific organization with a huge scope of jurisdiction, with powers granted from 9/11 reactionary laws.
Hahaha.
I get it they want to reform/rename ICE, and redistribute it's functions. The social Democrats are with the Democrat party on that one, though obviously far more serious about it.
EDIT: I am enjoying (not speaking specifically here) the Hillary supporters who have gone from supporting center-right/neoliberal arguments all the way over to supporting Social Democrats, just hope they can stay at least that far left through 2020.
|
On July 07 2018 06:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 06:14 Grumbels wrote:On July 07 2018 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
You guys need to stop caring about whether a slogan invites criticism by the republicans, it's not like they're going to stop criticizing you if you're precise enough in your elocution. It's more important to project strength and create energy. You need to have good slogans which appeal to people. If you have #abolishICE as a slogan and it doesn’t connect with most people because they immediately associate it with the standard criticism of open borders then it is ineffectual. If, on the other hand people don’t have this immediate association then it is a good slogan. Slogans are tactics, you have to use what works. Why would people associate it to open borders, other than because the republican party tells them to? If you had the perfect very clear slogan instead, the republican party would still tell them to do that, and that would still work on them. Not much effect on that side of the equation, and on the other side of the equation, since you're already showing weakness before you've started, much less energy created.
Well, I’m in favor of open borders, but it’s apparently this great fear many people have and no one mainstream wants to be tarnished with it. That means that your messaging automatically because a bit confused, because you are conceding to conservatives that you need border control to keep poor people out, yet you are still trying to differentiate your position from theirs and come up with humane, progressive immigration reform. That is why liberals need to be tactical about how exactly they advocate for this, and let’s also note that historically they have been abject failures at this, because they have always agreed with the conservative framing of the issue and have always compromised. Obama was deporter-in-chief.
It seems like what differentiates liberals from conservatives is that liberals don’t get excited about pictures of children being abused in cages and that they don’t have this atavistic hatred for people with brown skin colour. But this creates a situation where disagreement is about form over content, you can still have restrictive immigration policy, but you shouldn’t be a total monster about it like ICE is.
So you have these slogans, #abolishICE, #amnestynow, and I strongly agree with them, but can the Democratic party stand behind them without conceding the conservative framing, which would be their instinct? Because they are already quite similar. And of course the GOP will always accuse Dems of wanting open borders, and it becomes tempting for Dems to counter this charge by outflanking the GOP from the right.
That’s my first point, slogans are useless if not backed up by a moral vision beyond preserving the status quo but being nice about it.
And the second point is that slogans are tactical in nature and if the intended audience can’t understand your slogans because they relate to an overly equivocating, complex argument, then they will fail on a tactical level and you won’t be able to stand up against standard conservative counter arguments. Because the average American is really dumb and because all mainstream media will present both liberal and conservative sides of an issue. If the liberal side is confused and complex, then the conservatives win the propaganda war.
My suspicion though, is that Trump’s immigration policy is so unbelievably cruel that these slogans I mentioned will resonate and will be useful. But you always have to think about whether they are effective.
|
On July 07 2018 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 07 2018 05:00 a_flayer wrote:Wow, I was just fanboying over the Ocasio-Cortez website, and I read her policy on ICE: It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights. Unlike prior immigration enforcement under the INS, ICE operates outside the scope of the Department of Justice and is unaccountable to our nation’s standards of due process. Now we see the consequences: young children are being ripped from their parents and kept in detention centers without due process and without accountability to Congress. It's like she's reading my mind. *Swoon* Yeah, kind of wonder if GH would understand this if it was said by a politician he (I assume) agrees with. ICE is not "immigration enforcement" as an all encompassing concept. It's a specific organization with a huge scope of jurisdiction, with powers granted from 9/11 reactionary laws. Hahaha. I get it they want to reform/rename ICE, and redistribute it's functions. The social Democrats are with the Democrat party on that one, though obviously far more serious about it. EDIT: I am enjoying (not speaking specifically here) the Hillary supporters who have gone from supporting center-right/neoliberal arguments all the way over to supporting Social Democrats, just hope they can stay at least that far left through 2020.
Well then, I'm glad you're winning arguments with these mythical "theys".
Two pages after a discussion on arbitrarily boxing people into predefined political groups.
|
If you want to win Republican votes, you could just try "fuck the neoliberals, lets get some jobs" or something to that effect (except you know, in politically correct American puritanism). "dumb" conservatives who are disgusted with Trump will just eat it up and the "smart" liberals will understand the difference just fine and not ever vote Republican anyway, right? Sell the federal jobs program as a replacement for military spending to "build a greater American future at home" or some "American infrastructure first" shit. Reverting the expansion of executive powers such as ICE and terrorism as a "small government" thing...
I could have fucking won Hillary the presidency on my own.
|
On July 07 2018 07:15 a_flayer wrote:
If you want to win Republican votes, you could just try "fuck the neoliberals, lets get some jobs" or something to that effect. "dumb" conservatives who are disgusted with Trump will just eat it up and the "smart" liberals will understand the difference just fine and not ever vote Republican anyway, right? Sell the federal jobs program as a replacement for military spending to "build a greater American future" or some "American infrastructure first" shit. Reverting the expansion of executive powers such as ICE and war as a "small government" thing...
I could have fucking won Hillary the presidency on my own.
And you would have run into the single biggest obstacle, her ego.
|
On July 07 2018 05:00 a_flayer wrote:Wow, I was just fanboying over the Ocasio-Cortez website, and I read her policy on ICE: Show nested quote +It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights. Unlike prior immigration enforcement under the INS, ICE operates outside the scope of the Department of Justice and is unaccountable to our nation’s standards of due process. Now we see the consequences: young children are being ripped from their parents and kept in detention centers without due process and without accountability to Congress. It's like she's reading my mind. *Swoon*
In other slogan-related news, I'm a little annoyed even she is going with the "Medicare for All" buzz (though at least she mentions it's improved and expanded). It feels soooo manipulative not to call it Medicaid for All even when it's far more similar to Medicaid than Medicare at the recipient level *just* to avoid negative associations, and it's such a whack against it ever getting traction with people that are actually ON Medicare but would see vastly better outcomes under what many are calling "Medicare for All" mostly because it would be more like Medicaid from a premium and copay perspective.
That and it just promotes young people's complete misunderstanding of what Medicare is (not that they'll get it, probably).
I guess it's a damned if you do/less damned if you don't kinda deal. But unless conservative leaders stay Trumpish until it's passed and somehow doesn't end up with an opt-out state option from SCOTUS it's going to get called out eloquently eventually.
|
On July 07 2018 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2018 05:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 07 2018 05:00 a_flayer wrote:Wow, I was just fanboying over the Ocasio-Cortez website, and I read her policy on ICE: It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights. Unlike prior immigration enforcement under the INS, ICE operates outside the scope of the Department of Justice and is unaccountable to our nation’s standards of due process. Now we see the consequences: young children are being ripped from their parents and kept in detention centers without due process and without accountability to Congress. It's like she's reading my mind. *Swoon* Yeah, kind of wonder if GH would understand this if it was said by a politician he (I assume) agrees with. ICE is not "immigration enforcement" as an all encompassing concept. It's a specific organization with a huge scope of jurisdiction, with powers granted from 9/11 reactionary laws. Hahaha. I get it they want to reform/rename ICE, and redistribute it's functions. The social Democrats are with the Democrat party on that one, though obviously far more serious about it. EDIT: I am enjoying (not speaking specifically here) the Hillary supporters who have gone from supporting center-right/neoliberal arguments all the way over to supporting Social Democrats, just hope they can stay at least that far left through 2020. Well then, I'm glad you're winning arguments with these mythical "theys". Two pages after a discussion on arbitrarily boxing people into predefined political groups.
Me too. It's important not to limit people to their ascribed political group, or to think our positions can't be generally encapsulated to a couple. Even when we see ourselves as outside a particular group or as blending many together.
While many people will stand by their choice to support Hillary both in the primary and the general, far more now than during the election are embracing the leftward swing candidates like AOC represent. It's not like the party leaders didn't fight tooth and nail against her, rally tons of cash to her primary opponent and try to dismiss her win as not playing in the mid-west/a fluke.
Of course I'm still left of that and find that you don't see the word "capitalism" anywhere on her "issues" section extremely problematic, but I can also see how this recognition of the leftward momentum in the Democratic base and it's motivation for disaffected voters is clearly the direction that Hillary supporters were fighting against and are (at least some) starting not just to accept but embrace.
People can identify however they want and really it's about the ideas and policy one supports rather than some intrinsic characteristic. So while I'm a bit careless with the language sometimes it's their ideas and policies they support that neoliberal, or conservative, revolutionary, or whatever.
|
On July 07 2018 07:15 a_flayer wrote:
If you want to win Republican votes, you could just try "fuck the neoliberals, lets get some jobs" or something to that effect (except you know, in politically correct American puritanism). "dumb" conservatives who are disgusted with Trump will just eat it up and the "smart" liberals will understand the difference just fine and not ever vote Republican anyway, right? Sell the federal jobs program as a replacement for military spending to "build a greater American future at home" or some "American infrastructure first" shit. Reverting the expansion of executive powers such as ICE and terrorism as a "small government" thing...
I could have fucking won Hillary the presidency on my own.
no you couldn't have (re hillary presidency). why make such a hyperbolic and excessive claim? it doesn't enhance your point at all. really your post would work better without it.
|
On July 07 2018 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 07:15 a_flayer wrote:
If you want to win Republican votes, you could just try "fuck the neoliberals, lets get some jobs" or something to that effect. "dumb" conservatives who are disgusted with Trump will just eat it up and the "smart" liberals will understand the difference just fine and not ever vote Republican anyway, right? Sell the federal jobs program as a replacement for military spending to "build a greater American future" or some "American infrastructure first" shit. Reverting the expansion of executive powers such as ICE and war as a "small government" thing...
I could have fucking won Hillary the presidency on my own. And you would have run into the single biggest obstacle, her ego.
I think the absolutely ridiculous level of hatred people have for the woman is a bigger issue than her ego.
Anyone who isn't a Republican and genuinely is happier Trump is in power than Hilary Clinton is probably beyond help. If Roe v Wade gets overturned - which is fairly likely in Trump's second term - that's an entire generation of women who are going to suffer, possibly longer depending on how long it takes to get something else on the books.
|
On July 07 2018 07:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 07:15 a_flayer wrote:
If you want to win Republican votes, you could just try "fuck the neoliberals, lets get some jobs" or something to that effect (except you know, in politically correct American puritanism). "dumb" conservatives who are disgusted with Trump will just eat it up and the "smart" liberals will understand the difference just fine and not ever vote Republican anyway, right? Sell the federal jobs program as a replacement for military spending to "build a greater American future at home" or some "American infrastructure first" shit. Reverting the expansion of executive powers such as ICE and terrorism as a "small government" thing...
I could have fucking won Hillary the presidency on my own. no you couldn't have (re hillary presidency). why make such a hyperbolic and excessive claim? it doesn't enhance your point at all. really your post would work better without it.
Thank you very much for your contribution. Through my lens, I much preferred StealthBlue's funny one-sentence response over your tedious bore of a reply. You really like doing that, don't you?
Put this on Fox:
"You know, we've got our young folk training on military bases, moving rocks from one end of a field to another, and back again. All that, so they can shoot some foreigners in the Middle East. Now, I don't really care about foreigners, do you? Let's bring those American boys and girls home, and have them build us some better homes, roads and utilities for our kids and grandkids. Support the federal jobs program by voting for <so-and-so-stooge-who-hijacked-the-Ocasio-Cortez-program> 2020"
That's 65 million votes right there. (suck it Plansix)
|
On July 07 2018 07:44 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 07:40 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 07:15 a_flayer wrote:
If you want to win Republican votes, you could just try "fuck the neoliberals, lets get some jobs" or something to that effect (except you know, in politically correct American puritanism). "dumb" conservatives who are disgusted with Trump will just eat it up and the "smart" liberals will understand the difference just fine and not ever vote Republican anyway, right? Sell the federal jobs program as a replacement for military spending to "build a greater American future at home" or some "American infrastructure first" shit. Reverting the expansion of executive powers such as ICE and terrorism as a "small government" thing...
I could have fucking won Hillary the presidency on my own. no you couldn't have (re hillary presidency). why make such a hyperbolic and excessive claim? it doesn't enhance your point at all. really your post would work better without it. Thank you very much for your contribution. Through my lens, I much preferred StealthBlue's funny one-sentence response over your tedious bore of a reply. You really like doing that, don't you?
It is almost as useless as someone from the Netherlands claiming they could have won the US presidential elections by promising everyone federal jobs and getting rid of presidential powers. That is almost as useful as me claiming I can win elections in the UK I watch the BBC.
|
On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center).
The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American.
I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example.
|
Mike's got some Russian conspiracy theorist fans too by the looks of this website. I love him already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
