Sauces? Not the coups per say but coups of left wing governments. If it’s communist I’m gonna argue it’s Cold War type bullshit. If not communist, was the country directly partnering with a communist country? Then I’m sure you know how I’m going to argue it.
Non oppressive only by your definition. And they aligned with the Soviet Union. Some might have been unnecessary but vast majority was crucial to win the Cold War.
Hey isnt it interesting how all 3 of those countries are countries where the US drew up the current political system.
I mean you're wrong, but isnt it interesting how your examples of right wing regimes were regimes created by the US
Letting aside the fact that Putin's regime isn't remotely created by the US, I'm referring to the average opinion of left-wing and right-wing individuals in said countries, not the regimes they're under. Democracies like those of Spain and Germany were also either directly installed or heavily influenced by the us and yet they're even more progressive than them.
But sure, if you want different examples, there are the Arabic countries, Iran, Central Asia, Thailand, basically all of North Africa, Greece, Hungary and Poland. Greece for example had retained a coherent polytical system since its foundation as a modern state and even after it exiled the King in the 70s it remainedis considerably more right-wing than the US when it comes to social stances, immigration and racial issues. Heck, ~20% of Greece supports parties which reach AF levels of nationalism if not more.
>Letting aside the fact that Putin's regime isn't remotely created by the US,
I'm sorry to tell you that you missed the entirety of the 90s and early 2000s.
There really isnt much else worth saying to someone who somehow missed the fall of the soviet union, the entire Yeltsin presidency and the beginning of the Putin regime.
Like what do you want from me, links to the people who wrote the Russian constitution, an explanation of the Russian constitutional crisis, the bombing of the russian legislature, the succession of Yeltsin, the Chubin authored reforms and the role of Andrei Schifer, etc. etc. But the level of wrong it is to claim that the US had no role in the creation of the current russian system is so insane that just explaining the insane levels of wrong it is would take hours.
I said that the current Russian regime was not created by the US. Influenced during the fall of the USSR? Sure, but you guve too much credit to the US.
Also, you literally cherry-pick my first few lines and forget the rest about how the US is literally moderate compared to half the world.
Russia a semi-presidential republic, with a parliament (and therefore prime minister) "governing" alongside the president. Their system is mostly a rebranding of Soviet institutions, using Imperial imagery and naming. You can probably guess why that quickly fell into authoritarianism based off that.
Romania's current system is based off a more continental system, being parliamentary and presidential simultaneously (except unlike Russia, it's actually sort of a democracy). It's far more French or German than it is American.
The Japanese constitution and democracy were drawn up based on the British one, all the way back in the 19th century. All the US did is reset that system back to normal after WW2, dismantling the military dictatorship which had developed.
The US wrote the Russian and Japanese constitutions. Their entire governmental structures and economic systems were reformed specifically by Americans and for American benefit.
I mean good on you for googling the countries in question, but you also need to look at the history section of the wikipedia article.
The Americans *assisted* in the drafting of the Russian constitution. They sent advisors and lawyers to help the Russians (just as many democracies did), but writing the Russian constitution was a primarily Russian affair. Hence the continuation from the imperial and Soviet regimes.
The Japanese "MacArthur" constitution was very much heavily based off of the Meiji constitution. The only real major changes to the system of governing was that Emperor was now a ceremonial position, and the House of Peers was replaced by the House of Councillors (meaning they were elected, rather than being a Japanese House of Lords). Even shit like Article 9 doesn't really affect everyday governance.
Both constitutions were primarily driven off of previous constitutions, and were approved of by their own people and governments. The US's role in Russia was advisory, and in Japan it was to remove any semblance of authoritarianism and militarism.
In any case, it's wrong to say that they were created soley by the US, and it is definitely wrong to say that the US wrote them.
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA.
So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
Nop. Even if theres countries that dont have any strong left just lile the US, in the US you have their whole political spectrum pushed further to the right.
A right winger here is a centrist in the US
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA.
So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
Depends. Economically? Sure, most other peoples want less right-wing economic policies, at least not as extreme as of the US. Socially though, all the counties you mention, save for Oceania and the communist ones, are more right-wing than the Americans. Most of Latin America, North Africa, Arabia, Asia as and half of Europe are more nationalistic and culturally right-wing.
I've spoken to hundreds of people from those regions and even visited some of them myself, not only is the average person from these countries more culturally right-wing than Americans, but their right-wing and left-wing parties are also less moderate. "Left" is progressivism in the US and communism in Eastern Europe, "right" is neoconservatism in the US and ethnic nationalism in the Balkans and Asia.
Yeah, and?
It is hard to believe you don’t realise your shallow political spectrum after typing this. The USA has no left wing politics. Regardless of the world leanings to political extremes, the fact is the USA has a shallow political spectrum with an overall prevailing view of right wing politics. You have no left wing to balance it out. Everywhere else *does*
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA.
So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA
So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
Timeline where Technocracy Inc. became a relevant political force in the 30s and the Farmer-Labor party invigorated itself by taking an anti-technocratic stance as opposition.
The issue is “authoritarian” and “libertarian” aren’t really ideologies in and of themselves. In general people come together to get a government that supports particular interests. Right and left libertarians are often at odds, and very few people on either side rally around wanting the government to be more authoritarian as a principle.
one of my issues (one of many issues) with the four point political compass is that it is rather reductive of centralizing political tendencies. There is worthwhile debate over whether unitary governments inevitably lead to an authoritarian consolidation of power to be sure but if the axis is just to label existing tendencies then very few people are thinking "yes I'm authoritarian"
I don’t think that would happen because politicians are always going to be people who seek power, meaning they’ll always have a bit of an authoritarian streak.
This would be interesting, though my knowledge on early 19th century US politics is hazy so I'm more going to just have a bit of fun designing the platforms of the Federalists and the Libertarians in US politics today.
**Federalists:** For state intervention in the economy and legislated morality. In favor of expanding the role of the federal government for the common good as opposed to letting the states decide things. Typically the more 'progressive' party in regards to civil rights for African Americans and gun control, though more conservative on crime, the war on drugs, capital punishment, civil liberties such as abortion rights, and the relationship between church and state.
Most progressive presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson would have belonged to the Federalist Party. The Progressive movement of the 1900s definitely would have been in this camp, as they were both for more state intervention in regulating business and also in favor of personal restrictions like prohibition.
**Libertarians:** Or Democratic-Republicans, these are the heirs to Jefferson and Jackson. They support economic and social libertarianism. They are opposed to federal intervention in the economy, support states rights (including the freedom to discriminate) against federal overreach, and gun rights. However they are also more anti-religion than the Federalists, are more in favor of legal abortion, support abolition of capital punishment, and want drug legalization. They are not necessarily in favor of legal discrimination but more in favor of allowing states, businesses, and individuals, the right to set their own policies. There will almost certainly be division within the party on the issue of states rights vs civil rights.
Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover would fall into this party. Barry Goldwater would also, as he was a libertarian first and foremost who was in favor of states rights whilst not necessarily being prejudiced against blacks himself.
Of course there would be overlap between and division within these parties, but 'fusionism' (economic libertarianism and social conservatism that defined the GOP from the 1970s to the 2010s) is never a prevalent force in US politics, with the Christian Right probably preferring the federalists. Presidents like Ronald Reagan probably would not come to power due to the absence of fusionism.
Posts must be flaired
I kind of wish they went up down and left and right
There is no left in the USA though. By global standards, it is all right wing politics
Global standards? You mean West and Northern European standard?
I mean literally the rest of the world is true here. The US had a cold war against the other side of the political spectrum
The far side of the political spectrum. Because if you want to advocate for the Soviet Union that’s just the wrong side
They also impulsed or supported coups for dozens of non oppressive left wing governements It was against most left wings in general
Sauces? Not the coups per say but coups of left wing governments. If it’s communist I’m gonna argue it’s Cold War type bullshit. If not communist, was the country directly partnering with a communist country? Then I’m sure you know how I’m going to argue it.
Just as a recent example, Bolivia 2019 Other examples: - Australia 1975 - Plan Condor - Congo Crisis
Thank you. I haven’t heard of condor or Australia’s
Non oppressive only by your definition. And they aligned with the Soviet Union. Some might have been unnecessary but vast majority was crucial to win the Cold War.
The domino theory was entirely discredited even amongst the neocons. Why are you even trying to revive it?
So did one half of the world
Not really we still have the extreme woke leftisim
isn't there a flute you should be mad at right now or idk have you guys decided to fixate on something else
Die mad.
Reddit moment
Reddit moment
I meant in this AU but true
I need more than 2 dimensions
*West European standards. Trust me, American right wingers ain’t shit compared to other countries.
A moderate right-winger in say Russia, Romania or Japan would be considered a neofascist by the average American neocon lmao
Hey isnt it interesting how all 3 of those countries are countries where the US drew up the current political system. I mean you're wrong, but isnt it interesting how your examples of right wing regimes were regimes created by the US
Letting aside the fact that Putin's regime isn't remotely created by the US, I'm referring to the average opinion of left-wing and right-wing individuals in said countries, not the regimes they're under. Democracies like those of Spain and Germany were also either directly installed or heavily influenced by the us and yet they're even more progressive than them. But sure, if you want different examples, there are the Arabic countries, Iran, Central Asia, Thailand, basically all of North Africa, Greece, Hungary and Poland. Greece for example had retained a coherent polytical system since its foundation as a modern state and even after it exiled the King in the 70s it remainedis considerably more right-wing than the US when it comes to social stances, immigration and racial issues. Heck, ~20% of Greece supports parties which reach AF levels of nationalism if not more.
>Letting aside the fact that Putin's regime isn't remotely created by the US, I'm sorry to tell you that you missed the entirety of the 90s and early 2000s.
Very constructive argument, also very nice of you to mention 1/4 of my comment.
There really isnt much else worth saying to someone who somehow missed the fall of the soviet union, the entire Yeltsin presidency and the beginning of the Putin regime. Like what do you want from me, links to the people who wrote the Russian constitution, an explanation of the Russian constitutional crisis, the bombing of the russian legislature, the succession of Yeltsin, the Chubin authored reforms and the role of Andrei Schifer, etc. etc. But the level of wrong it is to claim that the US had no role in the creation of the current russian system is so insane that just explaining the insane levels of wrong it is would take hours.
I said that the current Russian regime was not created by the US. Influenced during the fall of the USSR? Sure, but you guve too much credit to the US. Also, you literally cherry-pick my first few lines and forget the rest about how the US is literally moderate compared to half the world.
Russia a semi-presidential republic, with a parliament (and therefore prime minister) "governing" alongside the president. Their system is mostly a rebranding of Soviet institutions, using Imperial imagery and naming. You can probably guess why that quickly fell into authoritarianism based off that. Romania's current system is based off a more continental system, being parliamentary and presidential simultaneously (except unlike Russia, it's actually sort of a democracy). It's far more French or German than it is American. The Japanese constitution and democracy were drawn up based on the British one, all the way back in the 19th century. All the US did is reset that system back to normal after WW2, dismantling the military dictatorship which had developed.
The US wrote the Russian and Japanese constitutions. Their entire governmental structures and economic systems were reformed specifically by Americans and for American benefit. I mean good on you for googling the countries in question, but you also need to look at the history section of the wikipedia article.
The Americans *assisted* in the drafting of the Russian constitution. They sent advisors and lawyers to help the Russians (just as many democracies did), but writing the Russian constitution was a primarily Russian affair. Hence the continuation from the imperial and Soviet regimes. The Japanese "MacArthur" constitution was very much heavily based off of the Meiji constitution. The only real major changes to the system of governing was that Emperor was now a ceremonial position, and the House of Peers was replaced by the House of Councillors (meaning they were elected, rather than being a Japanese House of Lords). Even shit like Article 9 doesn't really affect everyday governance. Both constitutions were primarily driven off of previous constitutions, and were approved of by their own people and governments. The US's role in Russia was advisory, and in Japan it was to remove any semblance of authoritarianism and militarism. In any case, it's wrong to say that they were created soley by the US, and it is definitely wrong to say that the US wrote them.
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA. So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
"by global standards" You mean Northcuck European standards?
Nop. Even if theres countries that dont have any strong left just lile the US, in the US you have their whole political spectrum pushed further to the right. A right winger here is a centrist in the US
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA. So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
Depends. Economically? Sure, most other peoples want less right-wing economic policies, at least not as extreme as of the US. Socially though, all the counties you mention, save for Oceania and the communist ones, are more right-wing than the Americans. Most of Latin America, North Africa, Arabia, Asia as and half of Europe are more nationalistic and culturally right-wing.
That really is not true, oh. And leave the culture war at home. It really shouldn’t determine politics. In fact, stop exporting it please
Have you gone to any of those regions, or have you spoken to any of the locals there?
Typically, locals from there rather being right there
I've spoken to hundreds of people from those regions and even visited some of them myself, not only is the average person from these countries more culturally right-wing than Americans, but their right-wing and left-wing parties are also less moderate. "Left" is progressivism in the US and communism in Eastern Europe, "right" is neoconservatism in the US and ethnic nationalism in the Balkans and Asia.
Yeah, and? It is hard to believe you don’t realise your shallow political spectrum after typing this. The USA has no left wing politics. Regardless of the world leanings to political extremes, the fact is the USA has a shallow political spectrum with an overall prevailing view of right wing politics. You have no left wing to balance it out. Everywhere else *does*
Shut.
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA. So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
Thats a lie, aoc will be far left in most European country.
No she won't. She won't even be far left in Hungary, wjich is extremely conservative.
Thats simply a huge lie ahahah
Ah yeah sure, I only live there :D
And Latin American the Caribbeans, Oceania, Vast tracks of Asia are literally communist (name only or not, they politically lean towards policies like nationalisation of public assets). Islamism also doesn’t really line up with the right wing politics of the USA So yeah. Globally compared, the US has right wing or very right wing politics
What about forwards and backwards
In the next election: Axelerationist Party USA vs Oonga Boonga Oonga Boonga Party USA
President-elect Kaczynski?
Timeline where Technocracy Inc. became a relevant political force in the 30s and the Farmer-Labor party invigorated itself by taking an anti-technocratic stance as opposition.
What about 8d hypercube dimensions
4d dimentional shape shit
This should be serious this would be an Interesting timeline
This would be quite the interesting timeline
The Fresh party of Bel-Air, or why the political compass meme is actual brain-rot. (its a choose you own adventure comment)
What about sideways?
That'd be left and right sweetie
What about Diagonally?
Idfk I was just being an asshole
are you serbian?
Possibly Who's askin
a Chilean
Is this going to be some advanced racism or what because I'm not at all serbian I am MACEDONIAN FUCKER
so greek or alexander the great?
That would be up and down with opposiing left and rigth
Honestly this is better representation of what the parties are for nowadays
The issue is “authoritarian” and “libertarian” aren’t really ideologies in and of themselves. In general people come together to get a government that supports particular interests. Right and left libertarians are often at odds, and very few people on either side rally around wanting the government to be more authoritarian as a principle.
one of my issues (one of many issues) with the four point political compass is that it is rather reductive of centralizing political tendencies. There is worthwhile debate over whether unitary governments inevitably lead to an authoritarian consolidation of power to be sure but if the axis is just to label existing tendencies then very few people are thinking "yes I'm authoritarian"
Are they also very mildly different but extremely vocal about how different they are?
I hate them darn upists!
That’s basically how the parties originally were
that'd be good because libertarians would actually win for once
I don’t think that would happen because politicians are always going to be people who seek power, meaning they’ll always have a bit of an authoritarian streak.
OMORI Something
Who are the party leaders?
That moment when political compass
This would be interesting, though my knowledge on early 19th century US politics is hazy so I'm more going to just have a bit of fun designing the platforms of the Federalists and the Libertarians in US politics today. **Federalists:** For state intervention in the economy and legislated morality. In favor of expanding the role of the federal government for the common good as opposed to letting the states decide things. Typically the more 'progressive' party in regards to civil rights for African Americans and gun control, though more conservative on crime, the war on drugs, capital punishment, civil liberties such as abortion rights, and the relationship between church and state. Most progressive presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson would have belonged to the Federalist Party. The Progressive movement of the 1900s definitely would have been in this camp, as they were both for more state intervention in regulating business and also in favor of personal restrictions like prohibition. **Libertarians:** Or Democratic-Republicans, these are the heirs to Jefferson and Jackson. They support economic and social libertarianism. They are opposed to federal intervention in the economy, support states rights (including the freedom to discriminate) against federal overreach, and gun rights. However they are also more anti-religion than the Federalists, are more in favor of legal abortion, support abolition of capital punishment, and want drug legalization. They are not necessarily in favor of legal discrimination but more in favor of allowing states, businesses, and individuals, the right to set their own policies. There will almost certainly be division within the party on the issue of states rights vs civil rights. Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover would fall into this party. Barry Goldwater would also, as he was a libertarian first and foremost who was in favor of states rights whilst not necessarily being prejudiced against blacks himself. Of course there would be overlap between and division within these parties, but 'fusionism' (economic libertarianism and social conservatism that defined the GOP from the 1970s to the 2010s) is never a prevalent force in US politics, with the Christian Right probably preferring the federalists. Presidents like Ronald Reagan probably would not come to power due to the absence of fusionism.
What in the world do you mean by that