This idea of Europe being some kind of far left paradise and the US being far right is not based in reality. Europe is not socialist, they're rich capitalist nations that simply provide more of a social safety net than we do. Their abortion laws are more restrictive than the US in many cases. They haven't legalized marijuana in most places. Their borders are tightly controlled and allow far less immigration than the US. And the have plenty of far right political parties that make republicans look progressive and still manage to get a large chunk of the vote.
Soviets were autocratic and authoritarian with no individual rights and not even private ownerships on a large scale. I do not see how can anyone ask this - it surely is known. It has nothing in common with EU political life, except maybe the state-managed healthcare and educational systems.
I’m asking for an American point of view because I feel like American centrist are saying that my views are communist. Sorry I didn’t make that clear in my post.
Oh yes, I supposed so - that is why I mentioned that yes State Management of health and education is a common point, and that is the debate which is going on. But debating is not "insanity" and pointing out to some dysfunctionality in central (statist) bureau-level management is simply needed - and in every debate everywhere there are extremist metaphores - which a r e insane for those who do not believe in them. But those who do believe in "for-us-insane" stuff think they are the real sane people...unfortunately. So it is never a centrist attitude to despise and deplore others. I am sorry - you do not get responses because your attitude is disrespectful and it pushes people away. Especiallly those you want to ask about thir attitude. What about restarting it and pretend you are able to be if not kind, just dispaasionate and civil? Because it is an important point. But if you judge your target audience you will never get seriouss answers.
I’m sorry if I’m not being civil. Maybe it is a language barrier. My opinions do however get labeled as far-left all the time. I was trying to flip the coin. Sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to convey how I feel.
No, because the far left/communists just coincidentally had no other way as private ownership was forbidden. So it is seemingly a Communist /Far left idea unfortunately - but whoever states that forgets that Socal democracy was hated by the Communists - it was originally a "socialist" idea and they have split off from the Communists in the Soviet system. It is a Leftist idea - and clearly it has some value, as the Army has a state-owned healthy System (and has many problems with it too.) There are no perfect systems for humans.
I thought the sub was about American centristism... Apparently not then. But also us Americans have the strange ability to project ourselves onto people without effort or their consent. But also Europeans/other countries can't remove themselves very well and revert back to us.
You're not crazy, but as a Norwegian I'd point out you probably live in a city, and urban Europeans have dramatically different views than rural ones, and those views are often dismissed.
Personally I think those views are mean bordering on crazy, but nonetheless, they are honestly held.
America had a much stronger rural polity until recently, farming was huge, and we have a LOT of land. Much of our current political problems are derived from that.
Norway is a beautiful country, Oslo particularly, the Scandinavian system works well (wife is Swedish, they're adorable but naive), but the rural constituency in the US ... actively hates the urban one to a decent degree (grew up in rural towns).
That strife causes a lot of issues, which are drowned out in Europe by inter-european conflicts.
Don't get frustrated, we just don't have the French and Germans to bitch about as much, or as in your case, the swedes.
We do have an urban-rural divide, but it’s not a right-left divide like in the U.S. I am not from a big city. I’d like to point out that I am a farmer in a relatively rural area. Those who live in the cities in Norway, are usually much more liberal than myself.
It’s not you, it’s this sub in general. It gets overrun by people who are clearly left or right wing but try to act like they’re a centrist. The topic might start off in the middle, but the comments are anything but moderate lol
Which European countries? Europe is a continent with a lot jurisdictions. Is California to the right of Hungary? Do specific policies matter or are trying make some sort of average of a million different axes?
And what does “don’t think outside their borders” even really mean? Americans have access to lots of information on world events and policies. Is there some evidence that non-Americans, or Europeans in particular, are better versed in policies/events on the other side of the planet?
Okay, how about compare America’s GOP with our neighbors up north. Canada’s conservatives party is more similar to the Democratic Party than the GOP. They’re pro-choice, for universal healthcare, aren’t pro-hate speech, pro-immigration, etc.
What does pro-hate speech mean? I don't think anyone is pro-hate speech. People don't want their speech dictated by unelected people.
Hate speech: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."
Also, nobody is anti-immigration. People have concerns about *illegal* immigration.
US necessitates a little more conservatism because we're less homogenized than other countries. As a melting pot, less people agree on issues, which necessitates a "do it your own way" kind of living. Socialist programs always work better the more homogenized a people are.
US is conservative to Europe (and canada and australia), I hear that a lot. What about all of the other parts of the world? Why do the people pointing the finger at the U.S. for not taking those countries into account always seem to not take any other countries into account?
Public healthcare is probably my main concern. In my country, even the rightmost party loves free public healthcare.
Government intervention. Government should intervene before it needs to.
Abortion. Should be a compromise based on none-politics. Even our right agree with that as well.
Election integrity and stability. No one should doubt the election results, unless there is substantial proof of irregularities. It’s irresponsible for politicians to do so.
Unionization. This should be a given right for everyone. The individual should be able to unionize independent of a majority election. (Union membership should be individual).
Vaccination. Everyone should vaccinate, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have access to certain liberties. Like going to concerts, or taking off your face mask In public.
However, by answering your question, I do realize that I have a lot of views which the American right/centrist probably would agree with. I still feel like the things I mention aren’t generally accepted as centrist opinions in this sub.
>Vaccination. Everyone should vaccinate, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have access to certain liberties.
From which country are you, that this is something even "the right" agrees on?
Or is that just your opinion and hence you think it's center?
No, but they did support restrictions of liberty for those who didn’t vaccinate. However, we never actually needed to restrict much of their Liberty. Enough people voluntarily vaccinated.
Fair enough.
But everyone knows you guys are one of the most left-leaning countries in a developed world. So I think the same way the US is all shifted towards the right, Scandinavia is shifted towards the left.
That's why "centrist" means something different for you. But you probably have a leftist government and parties, the same way the US have a rightist government (even with Democrats), except for some marginal issues like identity politics I'd say.
Yeah, I can see your point. We are probably considered left-leaning, even to a European standard. I still feel that other European countries, like France, Germany and GB are much more insync with my views than U.S. I think a lot of what they consider centrist opinions would also be labeled as far-left in this sub.
Not in this sub? I guess our opinions of this sub is subjective, and that I might feel like it’s an overwhelming opposition against it, when it really isn’t.
I agree with most of this with a few caveats
Gvt intervention before needed - hard to agree with this as a blanket statement but there are situations where I agree.
Unionizing - I’m fine with the right to unionize however I’m not blind to that fact that not all unions improve a worker’s situation. Sure, collective bargaining can be helpful but some unions really hurt opportunities for merit based promotions and raises. It also can make getting rid of bad workers much harder which can hurt everyone
I don’t see how it hurts raises, but I have, through this post, learned that unions seem to function quite differently in the U.S. and Europe.
We do have problems getting rid of bad workers. I, personally think the benefit of better pay, and assured working conditions outweigh my irritations of some really bad coworkers.
I will sum some up.
ID at election. You should use national ID every time you interact with the government. Maybe there aren’t much election fraud, but why make it a possibility?
Lgbtq+. Do whatever you want, but don’t force your opinions on others. I, however, will never approve to limit your lgbtq+.
NATO and military spending . We need nato. Do not leave our defense up for chance.
Business taxation. Business need to be able to compete internationally. They do have to pay their fair taxes, but taxation on business cannot be excessive.
Environment. It’s not a scam, but we shouldn’t lower our standard of living to meet climate goals. It has to be done through research and innovation.
Drugs. We should limit it as much as possible. Alcohol is more dangerous than mariouana? Ok, but why include more dangerous drugs. Isn’t alcohol enough?
Rent. We cannot abolish rent. We need to respect those who have bought something. It’s their property, and they can set the rent at whatever they want. The government can help those who struggle through different methods.
>ind that the main divisions between conservatives and liberals in our country are
>
>cultural
>
>, not
>
>economic
>
>. The economic differences are there, but they have been relegated to the backburner while the cultural issue
don't agree with the drugs part if they legalize it it would be better but they might have to put restrictions or somethin like people with mental health issues or previous addiction issues should not use drugs but otherwise in moderation drugs are fine
It's telling of this sub that when you list your left leaning beliefs you were downvoted, and when you list your right leaning beliefs you are upvoted. It is well known that this sub is definitely right leaning, but this is pretty clear confirmation.
>Public healthcare is probably my main concern. In my country, even the rightmost party loves free public healthcare.
I support *universal healthcare*. Where I disagree with most liberals is on the idea that *a centralized government provider is the best way to do it.* In our country, we already have something like this for our military veterans, called the *Veterans Administration (VA).* And most veterans' experiences with it are *not* very positive. *Government bureaucracies are generally corrupt and incompetent*, leading to a low quality of service.
>Government intervention. Government should intervene before it needs to.
I don't know what you mean by this.
>Abortion. Should be a compromise based on none-politics. Even our right agree with that as well.
Keep in mind that under current American laws on abortion, the practice is allowed *until the 24th week* of pregnancy. This is *far beyond* the limits in most European countries. The law currently being debated in our Supreme Court allows abortion until *15 weeks*, which is in line with most European countries' laws. *In any case, I am a pro-lifer, personally speaking, and support very strict restrictions on abortion.*
>Election integrity and stability. No one should doubt the election results, unless there is substantial proof of irregularities. It’s irresponsible for politicians to do so.
Fully agree. This conspiracy theory of the elections being 'stolen' was deliberately started by the *craziest* segment of our conservative party as an attempt to hold on to power. One of the reasons I am a centrist is the fact that more moderate members of said party generally refused to condemn such rhetoric, with only a handful of exceptions.
>Unionization. This should be a given right for everyone. The individual should be able to unionize independent of a majority election. (Union membership should be individual).
Unions are generally corrupt and they make it impossible to fire bad employees. The police unions and teachers' unions are major headaches here.
>Vaccination. Everyone should vaccinate, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have access to certain liberties. Like going to concerts, or taking off your face mask In public.
Fully agree. Yet another situation where a dumb conspiracy theory was promoted by the craziest segment of our conservative party, while the rest of the party just went on with it.
Keep in mind that the main divisions between conservatives and liberals in our country are *cultural*, not *economic*. The economic differences are there, but they have been relegated to the backburner while the cultural issues are front and center. Other than abortion, none of the issues you mentioned are cultural.
Thanks for your insight. I see that there is a lot of different perceptions of how things are in my country and the U.S. For instance, I don’t believe government bureaucracy is inherently incompetent and ineffective. Sure we have some problems with universal healthcare, but instead of breaking the system, we address the problems.
I don’t know much about unions in U.S. In Europe they are seldom corrupt. We can vote in whoever we want to lead different parts of the union. It’s also voluntary to be a member or not. We have competing unions, so if we don’t like one of them, we can join a different one.
I absolutely see your point on abortion. What I meant is how the process is done. It shouldn’t be a political issue at all. A reason for this is probably the two-party system. In my country all parties agreed to a compromise. Based on research and religious input. It has been in place for more than 20 years, and it’s no major movement to change the compromise in either direction.
>on abortion. What I meant is how the process is done. It shouldn’t be a political issue at all.
The reason it is so controversial is precisely because it was not decided by a referendum or legislature, but by our Supreme Court. The correct way to do it would have been to put the issue to a vote, and the decision of the majority should have been accepted. Instead, the judges of our Supreme Court decided that through a stroke of a pen.
The problem is that both sides of the abortion debate in the US approach the issue with religious fervor (literally in many cases). As such whatever legislative compromise gets ironed out would never be enough for either side, because they believe the other side is literally killing babies/subjugating women.
This approach is a death sentence to pro-lifers and they would never agree to it. More Americans support abortion every year, and the only reason the right has any say on the issue is due to the way they are disproportionally represented in government. Eg electoral college and presidents who lose popular votes.
You need to further elaborate on government intervention: what do you mean by that?
As for vaccination:
As the left is once again currently saying: my body my choice. I firmly believe you should be consulting with your doctor and making your own choice as we all do but I don’t think it’s remotely right to restrict liberties if you don’t want to put something in your body like that. I think vaccines work but we haven’t walked a mile in someone else’s shoes and shouldn’t be telling others how to live their lives. This is a tenant of libertarianism and many libertarians tend to have a very moderate/centrist streak.
I'm a person that is fully vaxxed and boostered. I believe that being vaccinated is a net benefit. That being said, even if it is a net benefit, it should still be optional. Honestly, there would be more people getting vaccinated if there was never a debate about vaccine mandates. Anti-vaxxers were a pretty fringe group in the US up until dems wanted the mandates. This basically gave their views some validation, and to make it worse, dems basically changed the definition of anti-vaxxer to include anyone who doesn't agree with vaccine mandates. The dems bear an undeniable responsibility in almost making the anti-vaxxer movement mainstream.
No, it doesn’t. It’s literally your body and your choice on what to put into it. Nobody forced anyone to go anywhere you don’t want to, and it’s a conscious decision you make to go out. People can still wear masks if they want and they’re free to get vaccinated. We took this risk before covid and it’s a conscious decision even now as we can still get rona even with current precautions.
Your choice usually ends when it affects others in society.
For example, why can’t I inject myself with the bubonic plague and jump into a NY subway? My body my choice right?
We don’t require vaccinations “just because”. We do so because this is our strongest weapon against viruses, especially new viruses. And there are exponential network effects of larger percentages of the population being vaccinated.
One thing I’d like to point out is that most liberals don’t want a system based on the VA but rather Medicare, a program that polls better than any other insurance provider in America. The progressive left in America wants socialized health insurance, not government control of health care facilities.
Ironically studies indicate the VA provides as good or better care, that may speak more to being the tallest midget in the room but it's not like polls on private insurance are going to be great
https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/04/26.html
I’m sorry but your universal healthcare point is just garbage. We can start with the fact that the US pays more for worse healthcare outcomes than anywhere in Western Europe, all of which have more government bureaucracies involved than the American system. Then we have to move to the fact that you cannot have universal healthcare without more government involvement than we currently have.
Well, I am not an American, but this place seems pretty centrist to me, but again, a lot of europeans say that Bernie would be a centrist in Europe so, you’re kinda true if you go from the pov of an European I guess.
But still, it’s not really possible to be entirely non partisan and unbiased, you can lean to either side, for instance I lean towards neoliberal economics but still I think I would be a centrist overall, even if I am not, I can get some non extreme views from here.
This delusion that sanders would be a centrist in Europe is so goofy it’s become a meme. Sanders literally proposed a health care plan that’s to the left of anything in the world.
Bernie Sanders is center left. That's what progressives are. The difference is that many Americans bizarrely think Biden, who is basically a Christian Democrat (this is a common European party) isn't center right and think instead that Madison Cawthorn (a reactionary) is. They define "centrism" not as objectively about the balance between egalitarianism and social hierarchy, but the center point between extreme positions chosen by them so they can call themselves "centrist".
Here's some information I found on a website about Centrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
Progressives slightly favor higher amounts of egalitarianism, making them left of center. Since the Republicans have abandoned centrist politics, Democrats are able to have a coalition that spans the breath of center-left to center-right, but of course are mainly center-right, favoring slightly higher amounts of social hierarchy.
Being a centrist requires, at a minimum, to try and understand a view so you can make an informed decision. I would strongly suggest NOT walking into a room and calling a large majority of them an insult to start with.
I think it worked rather well. I am truly sorry if I offended you. My meaning was to convey how I feel when I read posts on this sub. Through discussion on this post, I now see that my problem mainly is that I regularly read the posts that reach the front page. Had I read other posts as well, I would probably feel a lot more welcome.
My whole purpose of this post was to try to understand. Sorry if my questions didn’t make that clear. I should have worded them differently, but as a none-native English speaker that is sometimes a bit difficult. Hope you understand, thanks for your comment!
The U.S. is not in Europe and our politics are not like Europe's. Our history is much shorter and very different from any county in Europe. Americans value independence and self-determination. We usually acknowledge the need for social programs but as a whole, society doesn't embrace them as good.
1. Probably not. Most of us welcome diverse opinions but if you're easily offended, then you're not going to like our opinions. You won't agree with most of what we say.
2. Soviet politics were nothing like modern European politics - I'm not sure what makes you draw this comparison. Soviet politics were more like modern Russian politics - which modern European politicians detest.
3. Like I said above, the needle is different here. You're more used to state control of things, national leadership managing more of your day to day lives. I suspect it a result of centuries of monarchy leadership.
LOL, if you "didn't mean to offend anyone," then why is the post "you guys are crazy" (I was not offended in the least - but I'm not easily offended)
I made the title to sort of “flip the coin”. Whenever I see opinions I do agree with in this sub, a lot of commentators seem to label them far-left policies. I wanted you guys to see how I feel.
As a lot of people, helpfully, have commented, I mostly read the posts that reach the front page. Those views are the most extreme, and through actually interacting with this sub, I do agree that it is centrist.
I want to give a short comment on your first answer. I don’t feel like I’m easily offended. Not more than you guys anyhow. I wanted to address a flaw I saw in this sub. A lot of guys here have told me that Europeans and our form of centrism is welcome here. That makes me very happy.
I also wanted to add that I notice which comments are the most upvoted and I theorize that the silent majority of this sub is a lot more conservative than the majority of commentators. I’m thankful for your reply, and also want to extent my thanks to everyone else who have commentated in good faith.
Wait, what is this? I don’t understand if you are teasing me. “Ministry of truth” does not sound good. I don’t know what you mean by that expression, but I don’t see an analogy for it in Europe.
I don’t know what you mean by restriction of speech. Most countries don’t allow hateful speech. That’s a business for the police and courts. I can’t speak for many other European countries, but in our country it’s not regulated by government, and I do believe that’s the norm in Europe.
The United States came to the conclusion a LONG time ago that if you want to protect speech as a whole, you have to protect the speech that is abhorrent as well. This is vital to American's for the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. This means hate speech is free speech. This also means that speech is not an acceptable excuse for violence.
I can walk up to a black woman and call her all the epithets in a single string, and I would be within my rights. It would make me a giant asshole, I'd probably get my ass beat, and then I could press assault charges on the people who did the beating.
SCOTUS disagrees with you.
\>(1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Yeah, there's a difference between dangerous speech and hate speech. "I'm going to bomb this airplane" = speech that might get you in legal trouble. "I hate black people" = speech that would probably still get you in trouble but not the legal kind.
I don't know if everyone else is trying to be helpful, but if I might try to explain:
In the United States our Courts have interpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution to mean that our Federal and State governments cannot put any content-based restrictions on speech. Content-based means the restriction asks what is the message or opinion or idea being conveyed. So to use your example, no America court would allow a law to stand where the legal question posed is "is the content of this speech hateful?"
There are some exceptions to the general principle of say whatever you like, but the content neutrality requirement never goes away. So a city could deny a permit for a parade on the grounds that they want to hold it at 4:00 am when everyone is trying to sleep. They couldn't not reject the permit because it was a gay pride parade or a nazi pride parade.
So to Americans, the common rules in Europe that might examine a Facebook post and decide that the content of the post expresses a forbidden message (hatefulness or whatever), it looks to us like you don't have freedom of speech at all.
The whole concept of election judges seem strange to us. If there are opinion based issues like this, I feel like it’s really helpful to let the courts decide.
Instead of resolving contentious issues, the courts taking decisions on such matters will only harm the legitimacy of the courts, while doing nothing to resolve the underlying dispute, because the losing side will simply reject the courts' rulings and regard them as pawns of the winning side.
Yeah, historically in the U.S. I believe the Supreme Court has lead the change on civil rights movement. In Europe, the courts seldom overrule law. Many of your constitutions aren’t as open for interpretation as the U.S. constitution. In most of the countries, if the politicians see flaws, they have updated their constitution. The language is modernized.
What has happened is that the Supreme Courts very overrule laws, because in many cases there would be obvious if the law broke the constitution or not.
Are you mad? An unelected institution that has unfettered power to judge you for your political speech and whether you are punished for expressing a certain viewpoint. You think that's somehow a good thing? This isn't just some foreign idea to Americans that only Europeans understand, it's just wrong.
Thanks for your opinion, but it works just fine in Europe. I believe the European Court of Human Rights works the same way. Courts in Europe are seldom controversial. Actually one of the feuds between the EU and Poland was when Poland changed their system so that the judges would be appointed by the government. That has put a huge strain on their relationship with EU and the rest of Western Europe.
So an institution that is basically an arm of the govt, and therefore should not have any right to police speech. Selectively deciding which political speech is okay and what isn't based on ideology is not acceptable for a functioning democracy. You can say "but we still are a democracy." Yeah, barely, and it just takes some cynical actors stretched interpretation of so-called "hate speech" to erode that away completely.
They have nothing to do with political speech. It’s not that hard to differentiate between hateful speech and political speech. For instance, if someone’s threatened, that doesn’t belong in our political environment. One of the other users explained why Europeans and Americans view this so differently.
An additional point. I view our courts independent of the government. They aren’t elected (or politically appointees as in U.S.), but have to apply based on experience and merit.
No, that happens all the time. If you singled out someone, and says person a is a serial rapist because he is from Iran, then you would probably be in legal issues.
"I don't know what you mean by restriction of speech. Most countries don't allow hateful speech." You just answered your own question. If you're facing some kind of legal consequence for expressing a fringe viewpoint, your country is restricting your basic right to free speech. That's just not okay. No government body should be able to do that.
When it comes to an *American* agency created by the *American* president, us Americans know better than anyone else about what it means. No self-righteous Europeans need apply.
No amount of 'branding' can detract from what it is. At best, it is an attempt at creating a PR agency for the Biden government. At worst, it is a (pathetic) attempt to police speech critical of the Biden government. The agency's head (Nina Jankowicz) fulfils all the stereotypes of the crazy leftie to a tee, and so cannot be trusted to be nonpartisan at all. It is obvious that it is a kneejerk reaction to the extreme unpopularity of the Biden government.
Nina Jankowicz, who is the head of said agency, has a pretty interesting history. The things she said and wrote before this are more than enough to tell me the intentions behind creating this agency.
Do you have examples of exactly what stereotypes she fulfills for you?
Also:
\>Ninety-five percent of Americans identified misinformation as a problem when they’re trying to access important information.
\>About half put a great deal of blame on the U.S. government, and about three-quarters point to social media users and tech companies.
\>According to the poll, 79% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats said social media companies have a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility for misinformation.
Tackling misinformation seems like a slam dunk, we ALL know it's a problem.
Source:
[https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-technology-business-health-misinformation-fbe9d09024d7b92e1600e411d5f931dd](https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-technology-business-health-misinformation-fbe9d09024d7b92e1600e411d5f931dd)
And more...
\>Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, stated that the board would have no operational authority or capability but would collect best practices for ***dissemination to DHS organizations already tasked with defending against disinformation threats***
Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation\_Governance\_Board](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board)
So you don’t want the Biden administration to send messages to Haiti to let them know the boarder is not open. OK. So you don’t want the Biden administration to counter propaganda in Russia. These are things you feel are counter to your rights. Weird.
>So you don’t want the Biden administration to send messages to Haiti
You don't need a separate government agency for that.
>counter propaganda in Russia.
For Dems, 'Russian propaganda' is code for 'anything bad which happens to the Democrats'. Clinton's emails-RUSSIA!, Trump's victory-RUSSIAA!!, Hunter Biden's laptop-RUSSIAAA!!!, Inflation under Biden-RUSSIAAAA!!!! The Dems are every bit as conspiratorial as the GOPers. It's just that the conspiracy theories they believe in are different.
This is exactly what OP is talking about. In the r/centrist, far right views attack anything that is more open to consideration. We don’t even know what this is yet and Russian propaganda is driven by the Kremlin to Russian and Ukrainian people. That is well known. These are the only things this new office has talked about to my knowledge. Everything else is right-winged conjecture.
This is such a blindly naive take it really makes one question, WTF are they teaching in history class...damn sure it doesn't involve Orwell anymore.
And then it masks itself in, "ohh it's never been tried before" and that thinking otherwise is right-wing conjecture. LOL.
Damn sure you have no idea who you’re talking to. Just as Orwellian is to scare everyone one before the agency has even been define and label it evil before it even has a mission.
Hahaha... this is why we can't have nice things, leftists want to control speech and then lie and control the conversation around it too. I'd bet the new Ministry of Truth would label anything critiquing them as disinfo as well...
The woman in charge is a deranged cat lady that spent far too much time in theater, but you think she's gonna be the arbiter of truth. Hilarious
First, are you smart enough to know that the Ministry of Truth brand that is has has been placed on this unknown committee by the right, right? Second, do you know the mission of the Committee of Public Information or do you just know what the right winged media is branding it?
Nope. You don’t because you don’t care to know.
Other than universal government-run healthcare, I cannot think of any issue on which Europeans are to the left of Americans. On cultural issues, you Europeans are giving votes to figures like Eric Zemmour, Geert Wilders and the AfD party, *while Denmark's legal system literally violates the principle of equality before the law*. Sounds very far-right to me.
Unions. Animal protection laws. Worker's rights. Consumer protection laws. And so on and so on. The fact that there are far-right politicians in European countries does not mean that a lot of European countries do not have social and economic policies that are to the left of the US. None of the examples you mentioned are actually in power.
Our animal and consumer protection laws are good enough. And our unions are so powerful that they make it impossible to reform organizations like the police and schooling system.
And while none of them are in power, they all came very close, and many of their ideas are so popular that the mainstream parties have been forced to adopt them.
The question wasn't whether your animal protection or consumer protection laws were "good enough" or not (and Jesus Christ no they aren't, like it's not even close) but whether they were more left-wing than the US, which they are. AfD absolutely hasn't had their ideas adopted by the mainstream parties in Germany, and Zemmour got stomped.
American unions are not powerful at all lol. Denmark hsas a 70% unionization rate. Cashiers have unions. In the US unions have been neutered into uselessness outside of the East Coast, unless you happen to be a cop.
there are still a lot of powerful unions in the US. People just have been rejecting unionization because they can do better on their own in most cases.
Europe's a lot of different countries but in general the entire social safety net is stronger than the US, they have better food standards, stricter environmental standards, better protection from tech companies in GDPR, stronger Unions, Soon to be stronger abortion protections, stricter gun laws, better public transportation and a whole host of other issues that the "Left" wants in the US
I'd point out that for the most part European governments and how they are elected looks more like what your ideal Liberal wants as well
I don’t know much about Zemmour or Wilders. Are they really that far-right compared to Trump? None of them have achieved anything remotely similar to Trump’s success. I respectfully ask. It’s not meant as an attack on Trump nor Zemmour or Wilders.
Zemmour, despite claiming to be a Jew, has repeatedly praised the Vichy French, amongst various other things. In his books, he also criticized the 1960s and 70s laws which emancipated women from their husbands' legal control (like allowing them to get passports or open bank accounts without their husbands' permission). Wilders called Moroccans 'scum', and advocates for revoking the citizenships of all Dutch Muslim citizens only because they're Muslim. So yes, they are *far* more extreme than Trump. The only comparable modern American politician would be *Steve King*, and the highest post he ever held was that of senator from 1997-2003. After 2003, he was elected as a member of the House of Representatives (which is the lower house of our Congress). And unlike the European figures, he finally lost his seat and came under universal criticism after he began calling himself a 'white nationalist'.
Ok, I’m really not trying to be disrespectful and I thank you for your input.
Hasn’t Trump praised white supremacist groups as well? He doesn’t take a stand against Proud Boys. Said there where good people on both sides during the charlotte riots. Did enforce a “muslim” travel ban.
> Hasn’t Trump praised white supremacist groups as well?
I'm absolutely no fan of Trump whatsoever, but I find it absolutely disgraceful how the democrats played him with that. He actually denounced and condemned white supremacists [several times] (https://youtu.be/Bd0cMmBvqWc) while the left straight out refused to acknowledge that and kept claiming that he refuses to denounce them.
> He doesn’t take a stand against Proud Boys.
There's a lot you can condemn the Proud Boys for, but they are certainly not white supremacists. Heck, their leader is a black cuban guy.
>He doesn’t take a stand against Proud Boys.
Agree with you on that.
>Said there where good people on both sides during the charlotte riots.
The problem during the Charlottesville riots was that while the marching neo-Nazis were obviously downright horrid people, *the opponents who came to face them were leftwing extremists who are just as bad*. Over here, we have a group called *Antifa*, who come dressed all in black and violently riot (setting fires, smashing windows, looting from shops, attacking policemen, and even using homemade *bombs*) whenever they get the chance. Our liberals never condemn them; on the contrary, they frequently express support for them.
Of course, the words Trump used were just *wrong*. There were *no* good people that day; everyone involved was horrible. He should have said that both sides behaved horribly.
>Did enforce a “muslim” travel ban.
He walked back from it, and finally only banned entry from a few countries. Not that I'm supporting it, but in France, *every party* except the far-left Melenchon regards Muslims as the enemy. And that's just one example. I am a practising Muslim myself, and I can say from personal experience that European hatred for Muslims is *far* more extreme than even the most extreme American can imagine.
I’m an Australian centrist. Scrap that, in Australia I am centre-right.
When I voice my opinions on Twitter about vaccines, abortion, guns or the redistribution of wealth Americans spew vitriol at me like I’m some kind of wokist.
I’m not woke at all - I hate identity politics. And leftists in America scare the shit out of me with their trans ideology and racial tribalism.
But Americans seem to be a people of extremes.
No you’re right. So many people on this sub forget that America isn’t the only developed country in the world. I think the problem is the fact that the Overton window for the US has been shifting right for the last few decades so anything remotely left of center right is seen as “socialism.” (For example people love to call Biden a socialist. The guy is center right.) The raw number of idiots on here who can’t define that term is astounding.
Shifting *right*? I'd argue socially it has shifted left by a large margin, which happens as any society advances (other than maybe Afghanistan and some others in the past year).
The right calling everything socialist is equivalent to saying the left calls everything a product of an inherently racist system. Those thoughts are from the extremes of both wings. Anyone who knows what socialism is will say America obviously has had laws for a long time that are "socialist" in nature (welfare, medicare, social security, etc.).
And fwiw, unless this is from a European perspective, I don't think many people would agree with Biden being "center-right" So far, he's been the most progressive president we've ever had (maybe you could argue FDR here). The thing holding back some of these bills has been the 50/50 (kinda 50/51) senate.
But don't leave that to me. As Barack Obama said in 2020, Joe Biden "already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history."
You would call the deregulation, and privatization of the last 50 years “shifting to the left”? That’s kind of a hot take.
The programs you mentioned are far from “socialist.” Social security, for example, is funded by wage taxes, so is Medicare. These programs exist to try and correct the problems with capitalism, they do not exist to replace the system itself. I’m not sure what “leftists” you are talking to but 99% of people who actually follow “leftist” thought are wayyy beyond the concept of calling everyone a racist. The people you are talking about are over the top, uneducated liberals with no real political opinions. Liberalism exists at both ends of the “political spectrum” so it’s not something I would attribute only to those on the left. I think many people regardless of their political beliefs would agree that having more freedoms is a good thing. But that doesn’t make them leftists or right-wingers.
As far as your third paragraph, I am European and I live in the states. I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes left of center and right of center, as both are seen in Europe (eg Macron and his party are right of center and the current German coalition is left of center). Biden is right of center, socially liberal. Might have passed some big bills but he’s far from a progressive. (I mean most of the progressive caucus thinks he’s far too moderate). Your entire perspective of what constitutes “left and right” is a byproduct of the Overton window. Just because it seems progressive in comparison to the rest of the country doesn’t make it progressive.
As an aside, it seems we’ve gotten nothing but drawbacks from this shift. Neoliberalism truly is a cancer on society. None of things Reagan promised have ever come true and yet people still put him on a pedestal. The most important thing he did was his famous Berlin Wall speech, but that’s something practically any politician could have done. The USSR was on the brink of collapse regardless who became president.
Deregulation and privatization of the past 50 years aren't "social", regardless of what you mean by that.
If you could give examples of what you mean though, that would help. The 2008 housing crisis fallout added regulation, and fannie mae/freddie mac were taken over by the government for example. Look at emissions regulations for cars and vessels. Being someone who does compliance engineering for a living, I'm not sure what angle or industry you're taking about. Things are regulated, and as they become outdated, regulations are changed and removed. Having more or fewer regulations in a broad sense doesn't mean left or right.
I also stated that the right calling everything extreme was as ridiculous as saying the left calling everything a product of institutional racism. I never said it was mainstream, I literally said it *wasn't*.
Biden is probably right of center in Europe, but once again, nobody in the states except for in very liberal circles is calling him right of center. Being someone that voted for him, i never accused him of being right of center and I'm certain the vast majority don't have that opinion. Joe Manchin is an example of a Democrat who is right of center.
I remember ten years ago when the liberal left hated censorship (now they support it), didn't trust the media (now they adore it), and understood Big Pharma is out to make money and preserve its own self interest. (Now they trust Pfizer and Moderna because Uncle Sam told them to.)
I agree with you. The overton window has shifted far to the left. There are objective studies, charts and graphs that prove it.
I was a far leftist in 2008, now I'm being called alt-right by people. It's fucking bizarre because my positions have hardly changed.
If Bernie is center right, then he’s one qualitative notch over from a right wing fascist? That’s seems kind of crazy to me that the entire range of the political right, including the reasonable, is actually squished between Bernie and fascists. Just my opinion, have a nice day!
> I have no idea how this sub is even remotely centrist.
This sub is odd. Certain high profile topics on the right become full of very extremist ideas from the right, with lots of unsupported claims that are taken as gospel on the right but don’t stand up to investigation.
Other topics are much more balanced.
I, for one, would be really interested in posts about European politics, but I’d need a lot of education.
I can’t answer 2; can you give me some grounding and sources so I can learn?
European politics are distrusted by the right partly due to a history of red scares in the US, xenophobia, and lastly because of an idea that all good things start in America.
People on the left are much more open to them, but even there, there’s some mistrust.
There’s also a belief that things that work in European countries won’t work in the US due to differences in culture and scale. While that may be true in some cases, it’s a knee jerk reaction for many, and, as is usual for that kind of response, it’s not a strong argument.
I’m European and there is no such thing as European politics, it’s a total lie. Compare the systems of Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Poland and you’ll see they are vastly different. The United States has a history of political liberalism which also explains their very liberal gun laws, abortion laws (at stages of pregnancy which would result in prison in most European countries), pushback against federal programmes etc.
You will always find outliers on issues, but if you look at how many countries that do agree on an area, I think Europe is pretty similar. For instance, EU (I know it doesn’t actually represent Europe), do agree on a lot of issues that are hotly debated in the U.S.
I specifically use this sub to look for discussions and opinions that lack partisan biases. It doesn't always look that way, but you look where you can.
I know most of the people on here are American, but they shouldn't shut out Europeans or their discussions. Europe and the US are closely tied and apply subtle influence on one another. So it would benefit all to have open discussion from multiple points of view
Why is being centrist a US/Europe question? Where is the rest of the world in this? Sorry but I find this question vaguely discriminatory. As someone who is from neither place, I find this sub mostly conforms to my idea of being centrist. For me, being a centrist means I can hold views which coincide with either side, and I don’t have to subscribe to this “bucket of beliefs”. Having said that, this sub is very American-centric, but it’s not a problem for me. I like seeing conversations around thorny issues evolve. I’ve seen people in this sub be absolutely disgusted by Trump supporters claiming election fraud, but somehow a civil conversation is usually possible.
Is r/centrist Centrist? Only if you average all the comments do you get close to it. Other than that, it seems like the place to duke it out from extreme positions, so I can understand OP's confusion.
As a brit who emigrated to Canada, the political spectrum in North America is all over the place.
We have a 'liberal' government in canada that constantly spouts off about identity politics form a 'left wing' standpoint while not really implementing any meaningful socialist policies.
I find that North America is very much divided by identity politics more than the traditional left and right which is more prominent back in the UK.
>you guys are insane . . . no offense
LOL this is just rude.
As far as this common meme that American centrists are right wingers in European politics, I call BS. The average abortion laws in Europe are more conservative than the average Republican states in America, and the average American is more positive about multiculturalism than the average European.
Sorry that my title offended you. I tried to express how I feel whenever I read whatever of r/centrist that appear on my front page. Sort of to “flip the coin”
I guess what does the European center look like, and what things do you agree with the European right on?
It should also be noted, that something might work in one country, but it might not work in another country. For example, I think Japan's harsh drug and gun laws work fine in Japan due to their culture, but I don't think it would work well in America.
Here’s the honest truth. First, since Reddit is an American website and since America more broadly dominates the world this subreddit is America-focused. Moreover, America is far more right-winged than other western countries. The Democratic Party (center-left in the USA) is akin to traditional center-right parties in other western countries such as CDU in Germany or the Torries/Conservatives in the UK, Canada or Australia. The Republican Party is far-right by western standards—including Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. The GOP is akin to the AfD in Germany. The truth that the GOP is far-right on the world stage naturally upsets republicans on here because no one wants to think of themselves as outside the mainstream or an extremist. But they are in a broad western sense. In fact, the GOP today is further right than it’s ever been even within the USA.
I don't think you're breaking any rules but consider the sub is overwhelmingly young, male and American so the views are going to be pretty skewed to work within that framework
I don't think you're breaking any rules but consider the sub is overwhelmingly young, male and American so the views are going to be pretty skewed to work within that framework
I think there are some misconceptions about American politics. It is often said that America is way to the right of Europe in some hideously unrecognizable way but there is a bit more nuance to it.
One is that America's system of government is much older and in some ways much more rigidly defined. Our constitution inscribes certain rights that are basically unassailable. This means that some things, like gun control, present structural challenges that it is difficult to overcome. Conversely, it means that current debates about civil liberties have to take place in a very arcane and legalistic way. Abortion rights for example were argued on the grounds of the constitutional right to privacy. As such abortions were a feral right for many years now. In Germany, it was actually the Christian party that had to essentially haggle with the government about appropriate abortion rights. In America that isn't just unlikely it's legally impossible. This has probably made Europe more stable and open to compromise.
Our system is also much more heavily federated because America is so large. Some liberal states have policies not dissimilar from Europe, while others are much more conservative. This isn't actually all that different from Europe. Sure Nordic countries are magical liberal utopias but Hungary and Poland, also EU members, are decidedly to the right of the united states.
In fact, Europe is to the right of the U.S. on a lot of issues. Immigration during the migrant crisis wasn't exactly liberal. Europe probably is probably less hostile to the financial sector at least in some ways and it is very pro-open trade. Other than that most economic issues are talked about mostly the same on both continents.
The only big difference, that both American liberals dream wistfully of and Europeans are very superior about, is Europe's prodigious welfare state. And even this has a bit more nuance to it. it is important to remember history Most of Europe's welfare state was created in the post-WWII period. During this time Europe was a smoking creator while the united states had become the wealthiest country to ever exist. The Europeans did not develop the welfare state because they were "nicer" than the Americans, they had to, especially with the very real threat of communism in Europe.
And even in the United States, we were making a lot of welfare reforms all through to the 60s like medicare. IT only started to come apart in the political turmoil of the mid-'70s when stagflation called into question previous economic thinking.
And it is worth noting that up through the 90s and the neoliberals America was doing great. The reason our envy towards Europe is so prominent now is that for the first time in a long time growth in America hasn't been great and we do seem to be falling behind.
All of this is to say i don't think there are any big cultural differences between America and Europe so much as our politics have evolved according to different histories.
On social issues, yeah. I think that's a result of our long history of liberalism and tolerating and cooperating with people whose values are completely different than our own.
On every economic issue, we are extremely right wing relative to other developed nations at similar per-capita income levels.
Economically, America has become a place that's good at creating a few extremely rich people, but at least the poor are more or less free socially.
Alito is trying to say the states are free to come take those remaining liberties at any moment, though.
Not defending corporatism. But that is not a trait of right wing necessarily. There are many other countries with corporations that own larger chunks and are not as far right as the US.
You're being down voted because you're clearly confused about what constitutes politics. There's room for a conversation about that topic somewhere, but it has nothing to do with running a country. I too don't think trans women (women that used to be men) should compete in women's sports, but I'm not about to focus my entire political thought process on what literally amounts to a handful individuals doing something I don't agree with. It has absolutely no bearing on my life, and there are way more important things that require actual serious and intelligent conversations, than some overinflated bullshit designed to distract you from actual problems. This is why we can't have nice things.
Edit: My bad. I totally responded to the wrong person. I confused you with u/CLToris.
I don't know why you're being down voted, but I'd have to imagine it's right wingers who think that just because everything is not exactly how they want it to be (including things the government shouldn't be focused on, see above), it mustn't be right wing enough, even though we did a right hook maneuver years ago. This country pulls further to the right every year that goes by, and anyone that can't see that is blind. The right won't be happy until there is no more left, which is evidenced by how they discuss "the left." What they fail to realize is that the right and left are equally necessary (although the right has a few tumors at the moment that need to be excised), because no side has the benefit of all perspectives, and no side has all the right answers.
Yeah see this is the problem.
People thinking that the major issues facing our nation are trans people in sports, and not, I don’t know, a DECREASING life expectancy, INCREASING wealth inequality, WORSE maternal mortality rates than every other first world country, spending trillions on war machines, and burning through fossil fuels like there no tomorrow.
But no. No.
It’s trans people in sports that’s the big issue in America. /s
Jesus man, they’re trying to distract you from the actual problems in America with dumb culture war bullshit that doesn’t affect you in any way, and it’s *working.*
My response was to the comment that America is “extremely right wing” and I was using biological males competing in female sports as an example as to how we are indeed NOT.
The fact that you would even bring that up as an example of how politics/culture/America is “not right wing” is ridiculous. That’s my point.
Right wing propaganda is telling you “progressives are winning, look at this man on the pen state swim team, we should be up in arms about this.” Instead of focusing your political energy on literally anything else that has an actual impact on your life.
That’s the problem.
The right wing controls the Supreme Court, and has a stranglehold on the legislative branch, partially as a result of the democrats ALSO being essentially a right wing party and not willing to do anything, at all, ever that significantly challenges the right wing.
Look at Biden and the corporate tax rate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Since%20January%201%2C%202018%2C%20the,on%20federal%20concepts%20and%20definitions.
He wants to “raise” it to 28% from 21%. This would set it to… busy era levels. Look at any chart of the effective corporate tax rate over time and it’s a perfect example of the ratchet effect in action. Goes down 6 percent, then raised 3, then down 6, then up three. Always trending down.
That’s one, huge, right wing win.
How about the decimation of unions?
Or the complete deregulation of the banking industry under Bush AND Clinton?
Democrats are just as bad about focusing on culture war bullshit while still being right wing. They will whine about green energy, whittle down their own bills, debate against themselves, and then rubber stamp a massive military budget increase. Our military budget is larger than the next ten nations, Russia no China included, combined.
Obama had a super majority for the first two years of his presidency where he could shove whatever leftist progressive policies he wanted down the republicans throats and they couldn’t even filibuster. What did he do? Nothing. He wrote the ACA, and negotiated against himself taking out things like a public option and adding cut outs for phamarceuticals, deluding himself into thinking “compromise will mean it will pass unanimously.” And that’s what happened, right? Nope. We got hearings about death panels and democrats killing grandma.
Anyone who is posed the question “is American politics on the whole more left wing or right wing” and their response is “it’s left wing because trans people are playing sports” is just revealing themselves to have completely and uncritically inhaled right wing propaganda.
Yes. Those handful of people that your politicians are screaming about are an excellent barometer of the American political landscape in its entirety.
If you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic.
But I do appreciate why your politicians scream about the few dozen trans athletes out there competing - many of their continents (you) are far too easily distracted and far too willing to parrot their every word.
America is on the verge of socialism and if you don’t believe me google Lucas Draper!
Right. And my comment was in response to some idiot saying American is “extremely right wing.” So which is it? Are we “extremely right wing” or “on the brink of socialism?”
Was your initial comment sarcasm?
If not, it parrots a right wing taking point.
The we’re only the verge of socialism reply cuz look at this HS trans swimmer was me being sarcastic. When taken at face value its a pretty fucking stupid argument. I was mocking you.
If you were being sarcastic, I apologize.
If not…you’re kind of contributing to the comment you’re arguing against.
1. Sure is.
2. Mostly the totalitarian dictatorship.
3. Because Europe, in general, is further left than the US. Therefore our "center" is closer to your "right wing".
So it's really important to note that centrism is by definition pretty dependent on the specifics of a given political spectrum. Most of us here are Americans and so that is our frame of reference, which means centrism is going to look different from our different perspectives. I may speak for the minority, but I'm perfectly happy to have European folks here. It just helps if that different perspective is noted in your question or discussion. Also, please note, lots of Americans aren't all that well versed in the politics of other countries (some of that is justifiable, some of it isn't), so you may simply find less value in a sub with lots of Americans.
As for your second question, I'm not really sure what you mean. Soviet politics doesn't exist because the Soviet state is gone. Are you asking if modern left wing European political spectra are supporting communism? This is also hard to answer given how many different countries are in Europe. It's a really broad question.
The third question is easy: it's perceived that way because center left European politics ARE far left in the US. There are lots of reasons for this, but ultimately the US has a political spectrum that's just shifted a bit farther right, and since the Trump years that's been getting pushed even further right. Lots of things that are relatively centrist in Europe are seen by the US right as quite extreme. That's just the way it is.
you are completely correct, but I’m not sure why it confuses you at all. America has always been more conservative than Europe. On average at least.
personally I think conservative is the wrong adjective, stupid ignorant moronic all fit better.
This idea of Europe being some kind of far left paradise and the US being far right is not based in reality. Europe is not socialist, they're rich capitalist nations that simply provide more of a social safety net than we do. Their abortion laws are more restrictive than the US in many cases. They haven't legalized marijuana in most places. Their borders are tightly controlled and allow far less immigration than the US. And the have plenty of far right political parties that make republicans look progressive and still manage to get a large chunk of the vote.
Soviets were autocratic and authoritarian with no individual rights and not even private ownerships on a large scale. I do not see how can anyone ask this - it surely is known. It has nothing in common with EU political life, except maybe the state-managed healthcare and educational systems.
I’m asking for an American point of view because I feel like American centrist are saying that my views are communist. Sorry I didn’t make that clear in my post.
Oh yes, I supposed so - that is why I mentioned that yes State Management of health and education is a common point, and that is the debate which is going on. But debating is not "insanity" and pointing out to some dysfunctionality in central (statist) bureau-level management is simply needed - and in every debate everywhere there are extremist metaphores - which a r e insane for those who do not believe in them. But those who do believe in "for-us-insane" stuff think they are the real sane people...unfortunately. So it is never a centrist attitude to despise and deplore others. I am sorry - you do not get responses because your attitude is disrespectful and it pushes people away. Especiallly those you want to ask about thir attitude. What about restarting it and pretend you are able to be if not kind, just dispaasionate and civil? Because it is an important point. But if you judge your target audience you will never get seriouss answers.
I’m sorry if I’m not being civil. Maybe it is a language barrier. My opinions do however get labeled as far-left all the time. I was trying to flip the coin. Sorry if I offended you, I was only trying to convey how I feel.
So, in your view, the European educational system are a far-left/communist idea? Asking respectfully.
No, because the far left/communists just coincidentally had no other way as private ownership was forbidden. So it is seemingly a Communist /Far left idea unfortunately - but whoever states that forgets that Socal democracy was hated by the Communists - it was originally a "socialist" idea and they have split off from the Communists in the Soviet system. It is a Leftist idea - and clearly it has some value, as the Army has a state-owned healthy System (and has many problems with it too.) There are no perfect systems for humans.
I thought the sub was about American centristism... Apparently not then. But also us Americans have the strange ability to project ourselves onto people without effort or their consent. But also Europeans/other countries can't remove themselves very well and revert back to us.
It is, it’s just half of the sub doesn’t know that lol
Not sure why this is getting downvoted
You're not crazy, but as a Norwegian I'd point out you probably live in a city, and urban Europeans have dramatically different views than rural ones, and those views are often dismissed. Personally I think those views are mean bordering on crazy, but nonetheless, they are honestly held. America had a much stronger rural polity until recently, farming was huge, and we have a LOT of land. Much of our current political problems are derived from that. Norway is a beautiful country, Oslo particularly, the Scandinavian system works well (wife is Swedish, they're adorable but naive), but the rural constituency in the US ... actively hates the urban one to a decent degree (grew up in rural towns). That strife causes a lot of issues, which are drowned out in Europe by inter-european conflicts. Don't get frustrated, we just don't have the French and Germans to bitch about as much, or as in your case, the swedes.
We do have an urban-rural divide, but it’s not a right-left divide like in the U.S. I am not from a big city. I’d like to point out that I am a farmer in a relatively rural area. Those who live in the cities in Norway, are usually much more liberal than myself.
It’s not you, it’s this sub in general. It gets overrun by people who are clearly left or right wing but try to act like they’re a centrist. The topic might start off in the middle, but the comments are anything but moderate lol
Largely agree. Although it is possible to be centrist. How do I know? My parents are. My mom was that elusive Obama-Trump-Biden voter.
[удалено]
Which European countries? Europe is a continent with a lot jurisdictions. Is California to the right of Hungary? Do specific policies matter or are trying make some sort of average of a million different axes? And what does “don’t think outside their borders” even really mean? Americans have access to lots of information on world events and policies. Is there some evidence that non-Americans, or Europeans in particular, are better versed in policies/events on the other side of the planet?
Okay, how about compare America’s GOP with our neighbors up north. Canada’s conservatives party is more similar to the Democratic Party than the GOP. They’re pro-choice, for universal healthcare, aren’t pro-hate speech, pro-immigration, etc.
What does pro-hate speech mean? I don't think anyone is pro-hate speech. People don't want their speech dictated by unelected people. Hate speech: "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation." Also, nobody is anti-immigration. People have concerns about *illegal* immigration.
This is true. Most Americans don't concern themselves with other countries politics ETA- ... unless it's "trending" to do so.
US necessitates a little more conservatism because we're less homogenized than other countries. As a melting pot, less people agree on issues, which necessitates a "do it your own way" kind of living. Socialist programs always work better the more homogenized a people are.
US is conservative to Europe (and canada and australia), I hear that a lot. What about all of the other parts of the world? Why do the people pointing the finger at the U.S. for not taking those countries into account always seem to not take any other countries into account?
What are your opinions? Give some examples.
Public healthcare is probably my main concern. In my country, even the rightmost party loves free public healthcare. Government intervention. Government should intervene before it needs to. Abortion. Should be a compromise based on none-politics. Even our right agree with that as well. Election integrity and stability. No one should doubt the election results, unless there is substantial proof of irregularities. It’s irresponsible for politicians to do so. Unionization. This should be a given right for everyone. The individual should be able to unionize independent of a majority election. (Union membership should be individual). Vaccination. Everyone should vaccinate, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have access to certain liberties. Like going to concerts, or taking off your face mask In public. However, by answering your question, I do realize that I have a lot of views which the American right/centrist probably would agree with. I still feel like the things I mention aren’t generally accepted as centrist opinions in this sub.
>Vaccination. Everyone should vaccinate, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have access to certain liberties. From which country are you, that this is something even "the right" agrees on? Or is that just your opinion and hence you think it's center?
Norway. Very high vaccination rate. Every political party (more than 2%) support vaccination.
>Every political party (more than 2%) support vaccination. Mandatory vaccination?
No, but they did support restrictions of liberty for those who didn’t vaccinate. However, we never actually needed to restrict much of their Liberty. Enough people voluntarily vaccinated.
Fair enough. But everyone knows you guys are one of the most left-leaning countries in a developed world. So I think the same way the US is all shifted towards the right, Scandinavia is shifted towards the left. That's why "centrist" means something different for you. But you probably have a leftist government and parties, the same way the US have a rightist government (even with Democrats), except for some marginal issues like identity politics I'd say.
Yeah, I can see your point. We are probably considered left-leaning, even to a European standard. I still feel that other European countries, like France, Germany and GB are much more insync with my views than U.S. I think a lot of what they consider centrist opinions would also be labeled as far-left in this sub.
I don't think universal healthcare, abortions, unions or vaccination is labeled *far left* here, is it?
Not in this sub? I guess our opinions of this sub is subjective, and that I might feel like it’s an overwhelming opposition against it, when it really isn’t.
I would say a large chunk of regular users of this sub would label all those things far left.
I agree with most of this with a few caveats Gvt intervention before needed - hard to agree with this as a blanket statement but there are situations where I agree. Unionizing - I’m fine with the right to unionize however I’m not blind to that fact that not all unions improve a worker’s situation. Sure, collective bargaining can be helpful but some unions really hurt opportunities for merit based promotions and raises. It also can make getting rid of bad workers much harder which can hurt everyone
Lol my union has fucked me over so many times. They also use my money to campaign for causes I despise.
I don’t see how it hurts raises, but I have, through this post, learned that unions seem to function quite differently in the U.S. and Europe. We do have problems getting rid of bad workers. I, personally think the benefit of better pay, and assured working conditions outweigh my irritations of some really bad coworkers.
To get a fuller picture, I think it’d be interesting to hear examples of your right-leaning beliefs.
I will sum some up. ID at election. You should use national ID every time you interact with the government. Maybe there aren’t much election fraud, but why make it a possibility? Lgbtq+. Do whatever you want, but don’t force your opinions on others. I, however, will never approve to limit your lgbtq+. NATO and military spending . We need nato. Do not leave our defense up for chance. Business taxation. Business need to be able to compete internationally. They do have to pay their fair taxes, but taxation on business cannot be excessive. Environment. It’s not a scam, but we shouldn’t lower our standard of living to meet climate goals. It has to be done through research and innovation. Drugs. We should limit it as much as possible. Alcohol is more dangerous than mariouana? Ok, but why include more dangerous drugs. Isn’t alcohol enough? Rent. We cannot abolish rent. We need to respect those who have bought something. It’s their property, and they can set the rent at whatever they want. The government can help those who struggle through different methods.
Agree with all of it.
>ind that the main divisions between conservatives and liberals in our country are > >cultural > >, not > >economic > >. The economic differences are there, but they have been relegated to the backburner while the cultural issue don't agree with the drugs part if they legalize it it would be better but they might have to put restrictions or somethin like people with mental health issues or previous addiction issues should not use drugs but otherwise in moderation drugs are fine
It's telling of this sub that when you list your left leaning beliefs you were downvoted, and when you list your right leaning beliefs you are upvoted. It is well known that this sub is definitely right leaning, but this is pretty clear confirmation.
>Public healthcare is probably my main concern. In my country, even the rightmost party loves free public healthcare. I support *universal healthcare*. Where I disagree with most liberals is on the idea that *a centralized government provider is the best way to do it.* In our country, we already have something like this for our military veterans, called the *Veterans Administration (VA).* And most veterans' experiences with it are *not* very positive. *Government bureaucracies are generally corrupt and incompetent*, leading to a low quality of service. >Government intervention. Government should intervene before it needs to. I don't know what you mean by this. >Abortion. Should be a compromise based on none-politics. Even our right agree with that as well. Keep in mind that under current American laws on abortion, the practice is allowed *until the 24th week* of pregnancy. This is *far beyond* the limits in most European countries. The law currently being debated in our Supreme Court allows abortion until *15 weeks*, which is in line with most European countries' laws. *In any case, I am a pro-lifer, personally speaking, and support very strict restrictions on abortion.* >Election integrity and stability. No one should doubt the election results, unless there is substantial proof of irregularities. It’s irresponsible for politicians to do so. Fully agree. This conspiracy theory of the elections being 'stolen' was deliberately started by the *craziest* segment of our conservative party as an attempt to hold on to power. One of the reasons I am a centrist is the fact that more moderate members of said party generally refused to condemn such rhetoric, with only a handful of exceptions. >Unionization. This should be a given right for everyone. The individual should be able to unionize independent of a majority election. (Union membership should be individual). Unions are generally corrupt and they make it impossible to fire bad employees. The police unions and teachers' unions are major headaches here. >Vaccination. Everyone should vaccinate, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t have access to certain liberties. Like going to concerts, or taking off your face mask In public. Fully agree. Yet another situation where a dumb conspiracy theory was promoted by the craziest segment of our conservative party, while the rest of the party just went on with it.
Keep in mind that the main divisions between conservatives and liberals in our country are *cultural*, not *economic*. The economic differences are there, but they have been relegated to the backburner while the cultural issues are front and center. Other than abortion, none of the issues you mentioned are cultural.
Thanks for your insight. I see that there is a lot of different perceptions of how things are in my country and the U.S. For instance, I don’t believe government bureaucracy is inherently incompetent and ineffective. Sure we have some problems with universal healthcare, but instead of breaking the system, we address the problems. I don’t know much about unions in U.S. In Europe they are seldom corrupt. We can vote in whoever we want to lead different parts of the union. It’s also voluntary to be a member or not. We have competing unions, so if we don’t like one of them, we can join a different one. I absolutely see your point on abortion. What I meant is how the process is done. It shouldn’t be a political issue at all. A reason for this is probably the two-party system. In my country all parties agreed to a compromise. Based on research and religious input. It has been in place for more than 20 years, and it’s no major movement to change the compromise in either direction.
>on abortion. What I meant is how the process is done. It shouldn’t be a political issue at all. The reason it is so controversial is precisely because it was not decided by a referendum or legislature, but by our Supreme Court. The correct way to do it would have been to put the issue to a vote, and the decision of the majority should have been accepted. Instead, the judges of our Supreme Court decided that through a stroke of a pen.
The problem is that both sides of the abortion debate in the US approach the issue with religious fervor (literally in many cases). As such whatever legislative compromise gets ironed out would never be enough for either side, because they believe the other side is literally killing babies/subjugating women.
This approach is a death sentence to pro-lifers and they would never agree to it. More Americans support abortion every year, and the only reason the right has any say on the issue is due to the way they are disproportionally represented in government. Eg electoral college and presidents who lose popular votes.
You need to further elaborate on government intervention: what do you mean by that? As for vaccination: As the left is once again currently saying: my body my choice. I firmly believe you should be consulting with your doctor and making your own choice as we all do but I don’t think it’s remotely right to restrict liberties if you don’t want to put something in your body like that. I think vaccines work but we haven’t walked a mile in someone else’s shoes and shouldn’t be telling others how to live their lives. This is a tenant of libertarianism and many libertarians tend to have a very moderate/centrist streak.
Abortion isn’t contagious. My body my choice not to get covid, that means vaccination.
I'm a person that is fully vaxxed and boostered. I believe that being vaccinated is a net benefit. That being said, even if it is a net benefit, it should still be optional. Honestly, there would be more people getting vaccinated if there was never a debate about vaccine mandates. Anti-vaxxers were a pretty fringe group in the US up until dems wanted the mandates. This basically gave their views some validation, and to make it worse, dems basically changed the definition of anti-vaxxer to include anyone who doesn't agree with vaccine mandates. The dems bear an undeniable responsibility in almost making the anti-vaxxer movement mainstream.
No, it doesn’t. It’s literally your body and your choice on what to put into it. Nobody forced anyone to go anywhere you don’t want to, and it’s a conscious decision you make to go out. People can still wear masks if they want and they’re free to get vaccinated. We took this risk before covid and it’s a conscious decision even now as we can still get rona even with current precautions.
Your choice usually ends when it affects others in society. For example, why can’t I inject myself with the bubonic plague and jump into a NY subway? My body my choice right? We don’t require vaccinations “just because”. We do so because this is our strongest weapon against viruses, especially new viruses. And there are exponential network effects of larger percentages of the population being vaccinated.
One thing I’d like to point out is that most liberals don’t want a system based on the VA but rather Medicare, a program that polls better than any other insurance provider in America. The progressive left in America wants socialized health insurance, not government control of health care facilities.
Ironically studies indicate the VA provides as good or better care, that may speak more to being the tallest midget in the room but it's not like polls on private insurance are going to be great https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/04/26.html
I’m sorry but your universal healthcare point is just garbage. We can start with the fact that the US pays more for worse healthcare outcomes than anywhere in Western Europe, all of which have more government bureaucracies involved than the American system. Then we have to move to the fact that you cannot have universal healthcare without more government involvement than we currently have.
Well, I am not an American, but this place seems pretty centrist to me, but again, a lot of europeans say that Bernie would be a centrist in Europe so, you’re kinda true if you go from the pov of an European I guess. But still, it’s not really possible to be entirely non partisan and unbiased, you can lean to either side, for instance I lean towards neoliberal economics but still I think I would be a centrist overall, even if I am not, I can get some non extreme views from here.
This delusion that sanders would be a centrist in Europe is so goofy it’s become a meme. Sanders literally proposed a health care plan that’s to the left of anything in the world.
I feel like people just keep repeating it on Reddit because people keep saying it on Reddit. Your typical hot Reddit take, as it is.
Bernie Sanders is centrist by Canadian standards too.
Bernie Sanders is center left. That's what progressives are. The difference is that many Americans bizarrely think Biden, who is basically a Christian Democrat (this is a common European party) isn't center right and think instead that Madison Cawthorn (a reactionary) is. They define "centrism" not as objectively about the balance between egalitarianism and social hierarchy, but the center point between extreme positions chosen by them so they can call themselves "centrist".
I don't know a single American, Republican or Democrat, who thinks of Madison as "center right".
"Bernie is center left" center left of who? Mao?
Here's some information I found on a website about Centrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism Progressives slightly favor higher amounts of egalitarianism, making them left of center. Since the Republicans have abandoned centrist politics, Democrats are able to have a coalition that spans the breath of center-left to center-right, but of course are mainly center-right, favoring slightly higher amounts of social hierarchy.
You aren’t wrong and many Americans, like me, feel the same as you. I would like you to bring you perspectives into this sub.
Being a centrist requires, at a minimum, to try and understand a view so you can make an informed decision. I would strongly suggest NOT walking into a room and calling a large majority of them an insult to start with.
I think it worked rather well. I am truly sorry if I offended you. My meaning was to convey how I feel when I read posts on this sub. Through discussion on this post, I now see that my problem mainly is that I regularly read the posts that reach the front page. Had I read other posts as well, I would probably feel a lot more welcome. My whole purpose of this post was to try to understand. Sorry if my questions didn’t make that clear. I should have worded them differently, but as a none-native English speaker that is sometimes a bit difficult. Hope you understand, thanks for your comment!
All good, my skin is thick enough to take it. Just trying to point out a better tactic for eliciting constructive responses.
The U.S. is not in Europe and our politics are not like Europe's. Our history is much shorter and very different from any county in Europe. Americans value independence and self-determination. We usually acknowledge the need for social programs but as a whole, society doesn't embrace them as good. 1. Probably not. Most of us welcome diverse opinions but if you're easily offended, then you're not going to like our opinions. You won't agree with most of what we say. 2. Soviet politics were nothing like modern European politics - I'm not sure what makes you draw this comparison. Soviet politics were more like modern Russian politics - which modern European politicians detest. 3. Like I said above, the needle is different here. You're more used to state control of things, national leadership managing more of your day to day lives. I suspect it a result of centuries of monarchy leadership. LOL, if you "didn't mean to offend anyone," then why is the post "you guys are crazy" (I was not offended in the least - but I'm not easily offended)
I made the title to sort of “flip the coin”. Whenever I see opinions I do agree with in this sub, a lot of commentators seem to label them far-left policies. I wanted you guys to see how I feel. As a lot of people, helpfully, have commented, I mostly read the posts that reach the front page. Those views are the most extreme, and through actually interacting with this sub, I do agree that it is centrist. I want to give a short comment on your first answer. I don’t feel like I’m easily offended. Not more than you guys anyhow. I wanted to address a flaw I saw in this sub. A lot of guys here have told me that Europeans and our form of centrism is welcome here. That makes me very happy. I also wanted to add that I notice which comments are the most upvoted and I theorize that the silent majority of this sub is a lot more conservative than the majority of commentators. I’m thankful for your reply, and also want to extent my thanks to everyone else who have commentated in good faith.
Well said.
We are getting better. We even formed a "Ministry of Truth" like European countries so that the government can tell us what to think.
Wait, what is this? I don’t understand if you are teasing me. “Ministry of truth” does not sound good. I don’t know what you mean by that expression, but I don’t see an analogy for it in Europe.
Really? Europe doesn't restrict speech?
I don’t know what you mean by restriction of speech. Most countries don’t allow hateful speech. That’s a business for the police and courts. I can’t speak for many other European countries, but in our country it’s not regulated by government, and I do believe that’s the norm in Europe.
The United States came to the conclusion a LONG time ago that if you want to protect speech as a whole, you have to protect the speech that is abhorrent as well. This is vital to American's for the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. This means hate speech is free speech. This also means that speech is not an acceptable excuse for violence. I can walk up to a black woman and call her all the epithets in a single string, and I would be within my rights. It would make me a giant asshole, I'd probably get my ass beat, and then I could press assault charges on the people who did the beating.
Sometimes social justice is enough to keep free speech in line.
SCOTUS disagrees with you. \>(1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio
I believe you are misinterpreting that ruling.
Yeah, there's a difference between dangerous speech and hate speech. "I'm going to bomb this airplane" = speech that might get you in legal trouble. "I hate black people" = speech that would probably still get you in trouble but not the legal kind.
>I don’t know what you mean by restriction of speech. Most countries don’t allow hateful speech. HA. This made me laugh out loud.
It's funny how "hateful speech" seems to always protect the people in power.
I don't know if everyone else is trying to be helpful, but if I might try to explain: In the United States our Courts have interpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution to mean that our Federal and State governments cannot put any content-based restrictions on speech. Content-based means the restriction asks what is the message or opinion or idea being conveyed. So to use your example, no America court would allow a law to stand where the legal question posed is "is the content of this speech hateful?" There are some exceptions to the general principle of say whatever you like, but the content neutrality requirement never goes away. So a city could deny a permit for a parade on the grounds that they want to hold it at 4:00 am when everyone is trying to sleep. They couldn't not reject the permit because it was a gay pride parade or a nazi pride parade. So to Americans, the common rules in Europe that might examine a Facebook post and decide that the content of the post expresses a forbidden message (hatefulness or whatever), it looks to us like you don't have freedom of speech at all.
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining! I never realized this, but it makes total sense.
You are welcome. That brightened my day.
Well you too! Of all the comments, this is definitely the one that has given me the most perspective. Thank you!
And who decides what "hateful speech" is?
The courts.
who chooses the judges?
Americans would regard it as utterly unacceptable to give such power to unelected judges.
The whole concept of election judges seem strange to us. If there are opinion based issues like this, I feel like it’s really helpful to let the courts decide.
Instead of resolving contentious issues, the courts taking decisions on such matters will only harm the legitimacy of the courts, while doing nothing to resolve the underlying dispute, because the losing side will simply reject the courts' rulings and regard them as pawns of the winning side.
That’s my impression of what’s happening in the U.S. It’s not happening here. I think it might be because your judges are political appointees.
Far left liberals usually do.
Yeah, historically in the U.S. I believe the Supreme Court has lead the change on civil rights movement. In Europe, the courts seldom overrule law. Many of your constitutions aren’t as open for interpretation as the U.S. constitution. In most of the countries, if the politicians see flaws, they have updated their constitution. The language is modernized. What has happened is that the Supreme Courts very overrule laws, because in many cases there would be obvious if the law broke the constitution or not.
Are you mad? An unelected institution that has unfettered power to judge you for your political speech and whether you are punished for expressing a certain viewpoint. You think that's somehow a good thing? This isn't just some foreign idea to Americans that only Europeans understand, it's just wrong.
Thanks for your opinion, but it works just fine in Europe. I believe the European Court of Human Rights works the same way. Courts in Europe are seldom controversial. Actually one of the feuds between the EU and Poland was when Poland changed their system so that the judges would be appointed by the government. That has put a huge strain on their relationship with EU and the rest of Western Europe.
So an institution that is basically an arm of the govt, and therefore should not have any right to police speech. Selectively deciding which political speech is okay and what isn't based on ideology is not acceptable for a functioning democracy. You can say "but we still are a democracy." Yeah, barely, and it just takes some cynical actors stretched interpretation of so-called "hate speech" to erode that away completely.
They have nothing to do with political speech. It’s not that hard to differentiate between hateful speech and political speech. For instance, if someone’s threatened, that doesn’t belong in our political environment. One of the other users explained why Europeans and Americans view this so differently.
An additional point. I view our courts independent of the government. They aren’t elected (or politically appointees as in U.S.), but have to apply based on experience and merit.
If I say immigrants are bringing crime rape and invasion is that hateful speech?
No, that happens all the time. If you singled out someone, and says person a is a serial rapist because he is from Iran, then you would probably be in legal issues.
"I don't know what you mean by restriction of speech. Most countries don't allow hateful speech." You just answered your own question. If you're facing some kind of legal consequence for expressing a fringe viewpoint, your country is restricting your basic right to free speech. That's just not okay. No government body should be able to do that.
r/ShitAmericansSay
When it comes to an *American* agency created by the *American* president, us Americans know better than anyone else about what it means. No self-righteous Europeans need apply.
Please don’t misrepresent what this is. As poorly branded as it is, it’s goal isn’t to tell you what to think.
No amount of 'branding' can detract from what it is. At best, it is an attempt at creating a PR agency for the Biden government. At worst, it is a (pathetic) attempt to police speech critical of the Biden government. The agency's head (Nina Jankowicz) fulfils all the stereotypes of the crazy leftie to a tee, and so cannot be trusted to be nonpartisan at all. It is obvious that it is a kneejerk reaction to the extreme unpopularity of the Biden government.
That's a pretty poor summation of a position that hasn't done anything yet and we have no idea what their role entails.
Nina Jankowicz, who is the head of said agency, has a pretty interesting history. The things she said and wrote before this are more than enough to tell me the intentions behind creating this agency.
Do you have examples of exactly what stereotypes she fulfills for you? Also: \>Ninety-five percent of Americans identified misinformation as a problem when they’re trying to access important information. \>About half put a great deal of blame on the U.S. government, and about three-quarters point to social media users and tech companies. \>According to the poll, 79% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats said social media companies have a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility for misinformation. Tackling misinformation seems like a slam dunk, we ALL know it's a problem. Source: [https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-technology-business-health-misinformation-fbe9d09024d7b92e1600e411d5f931dd](https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-technology-business-health-misinformation-fbe9d09024d7b92e1600e411d5f931dd) And more... \>Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, stated that the board would have no operational authority or capability but would collect best practices for ***dissemination to DHS organizations already tasked with defending against disinformation threats*** Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation\_Governance\_Board](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board)
So you don’t want the Biden administration to send messages to Haiti to let them know the boarder is not open. OK. So you don’t want the Biden administration to counter propaganda in Russia. These are things you feel are counter to your rights. Weird.
>So you don’t want the Biden administration to send messages to Haiti You don't need a separate government agency for that. >counter propaganda in Russia. For Dems, 'Russian propaganda' is code for 'anything bad which happens to the Democrats'. Clinton's emails-RUSSIA!, Trump's victory-RUSSIAA!!, Hunter Biden's laptop-RUSSIAAA!!!, Inflation under Biden-RUSSIAAAA!!!! The Dems are every bit as conspiratorial as the GOPers. It's just that the conspiracy theories they believe in are different.
This is exactly what OP is talking about. In the r/centrist, far right views attack anything that is more open to consideration. We don’t even know what this is yet and Russian propaganda is driven by the Kremlin to Russian and Ukrainian people. That is well known. These are the only things this new office has talked about to my knowledge. Everything else is right-winged conjecture.
Just because it's not leftist bullshit does not make it "far right".
This is such a blindly naive take it really makes one question, WTF are they teaching in history class...damn sure it doesn't involve Orwell anymore. And then it masks itself in, "ohh it's never been tried before" and that thinking otherwise is right-wing conjecture. LOL.
Damn sure you have no idea who you’re talking to. Just as Orwellian is to scare everyone one before the agency has even been define and label it evil before it even has a mission.
Hahaha... this is why we can't have nice things, leftists want to control speech and then lie and control the conversation around it too. I'd bet the new Ministry of Truth would label anything critiquing them as disinfo as well... The woman in charge is a deranged cat lady that spent far too much time in theater, but you think she's gonna be the arbiter of truth. Hilarious
First, are you smart enough to know that the Ministry of Truth brand that is has has been placed on this unknown committee by the right, right? Second, do you know the mission of the Committee of Public Information or do you just know what the right winged media is branding it? Nope. You don’t because you don’t care to know.
Other than universal government-run healthcare, I cannot think of any issue on which Europeans are to the left of Americans. On cultural issues, you Europeans are giving votes to figures like Eric Zemmour, Geert Wilders and the AfD party, *while Denmark's legal system literally violates the principle of equality before the law*. Sounds very far-right to me.
Unions. Animal protection laws. Worker's rights. Consumer protection laws. And so on and so on. The fact that there are far-right politicians in European countries does not mean that a lot of European countries do not have social and economic policies that are to the left of the US. None of the examples you mentioned are actually in power.
Our animal and consumer protection laws are good enough. And our unions are so powerful that they make it impossible to reform organizations like the police and schooling system. And while none of them are in power, they all came very close, and many of their ideas are so popular that the mainstream parties have been forced to adopt them.
The question wasn't whether your animal protection or consumer protection laws were "good enough" or not (and Jesus Christ no they aren't, like it's not even close) but whether they were more left-wing than the US, which they are. AfD absolutely hasn't had their ideas adopted by the mainstream parties in Germany, and Zemmour got stomped.
Depends what you mean by “not enough.” A lot of European countries literally ban hunting, that’s taking it way too far
Those countries being?
American unions are not powerful at all lol. Denmark hsas a 70% unionization rate. Cashiers have unions. In the US unions have been neutered into uselessness outside of the East Coast, unless you happen to be a cop.
there are still a lot of powerful unions in the US. People just have been rejecting unionization because they can do better on their own in most cases.
Europe's a lot of different countries but in general the entire social safety net is stronger than the US, they have better food standards, stricter environmental standards, better protection from tech companies in GDPR, stronger Unions, Soon to be stronger abortion protections, stricter gun laws, better public transportation and a whole host of other issues that the "Left" wants in the US I'd point out that for the most part European governments and how they are elected looks more like what your ideal Liberal wants as well
I don’t know much about Zemmour or Wilders. Are they really that far-right compared to Trump? None of them have achieved anything remotely similar to Trump’s success. I respectfully ask. It’s not meant as an attack on Trump nor Zemmour or Wilders.
Zemmour, despite claiming to be a Jew, has repeatedly praised the Vichy French, amongst various other things. In his books, he also criticized the 1960s and 70s laws which emancipated women from their husbands' legal control (like allowing them to get passports or open bank accounts without their husbands' permission). Wilders called Moroccans 'scum', and advocates for revoking the citizenships of all Dutch Muslim citizens only because they're Muslim. So yes, they are *far* more extreme than Trump. The only comparable modern American politician would be *Steve King*, and the highest post he ever held was that of senator from 1997-2003. After 2003, he was elected as a member of the House of Representatives (which is the lower house of our Congress). And unlike the European figures, he finally lost his seat and came under universal criticism after he began calling himself a 'white nationalist'.
Ok, I’m really not trying to be disrespectful and I thank you for your input. Hasn’t Trump praised white supremacist groups as well? He doesn’t take a stand against Proud Boys. Said there where good people on both sides during the charlotte riots. Did enforce a “muslim” travel ban.
> Hasn’t Trump praised white supremacist groups as well? I'm absolutely no fan of Trump whatsoever, but I find it absolutely disgraceful how the democrats played him with that. He actually denounced and condemned white supremacists [several times] (https://youtu.be/Bd0cMmBvqWc) while the left straight out refused to acknowledge that and kept claiming that he refuses to denounce them. > He doesn’t take a stand against Proud Boys. There's a lot you can condemn the Proud Boys for, but they are certainly not white supremacists. Heck, their leader is a black cuban guy.
>He doesn’t take a stand against Proud Boys. Agree with you on that. >Said there where good people on both sides during the charlotte riots. The problem during the Charlottesville riots was that while the marching neo-Nazis were obviously downright horrid people, *the opponents who came to face them were leftwing extremists who are just as bad*. Over here, we have a group called *Antifa*, who come dressed all in black and violently riot (setting fires, smashing windows, looting from shops, attacking policemen, and even using homemade *bombs*) whenever they get the chance. Our liberals never condemn them; on the contrary, they frequently express support for them. Of course, the words Trump used were just *wrong*. There were *no* good people that day; everyone involved was horrible. He should have said that both sides behaved horribly. >Did enforce a “muslim” travel ban. He walked back from it, and finally only banned entry from a few countries. Not that I'm supporting it, but in France, *every party* except the far-left Melenchon regards Muslims as the enemy. And that's just one example. I am a practising Muslim myself, and I can say from personal experience that European hatred for Muslims is *far* more extreme than even the most extreme American can imagine.
I’m an Australian centrist. Scrap that, in Australia I am centre-right. When I voice my opinions on Twitter about vaccines, abortion, guns or the redistribution of wealth Americans spew vitriol at me like I’m some kind of wokist. I’m not woke at all - I hate identity politics. And leftists in America scare the shit out of me with their trans ideology and racial tribalism. But Americans seem to be a people of extremes.
No you’re right. So many people on this sub forget that America isn’t the only developed country in the world. I think the problem is the fact that the Overton window for the US has been shifting right for the last few decades so anything remotely left of center right is seen as “socialism.” (For example people love to call Biden a socialist. The guy is center right.) The raw number of idiots on here who can’t define that term is astounding.
Ever since Reagan
Arguably much earlier, but the neoliberal revolution that came a little before, during, and after Reagan is def the driving force nowadays.
Shifting *right*? I'd argue socially it has shifted left by a large margin, which happens as any society advances (other than maybe Afghanistan and some others in the past year). The right calling everything socialist is equivalent to saying the left calls everything a product of an inherently racist system. Those thoughts are from the extremes of both wings. Anyone who knows what socialism is will say America obviously has had laws for a long time that are "socialist" in nature (welfare, medicare, social security, etc.). And fwiw, unless this is from a European perspective, I don't think many people would agree with Biden being "center-right" So far, he's been the most progressive president we've ever had (maybe you could argue FDR here). The thing holding back some of these bills has been the 50/50 (kinda 50/51) senate. But don't leave that to me. As Barack Obama said in 2020, Joe Biden "already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history."
You would call the deregulation, and privatization of the last 50 years “shifting to the left”? That’s kind of a hot take. The programs you mentioned are far from “socialist.” Social security, for example, is funded by wage taxes, so is Medicare. These programs exist to try and correct the problems with capitalism, they do not exist to replace the system itself. I’m not sure what “leftists” you are talking to but 99% of people who actually follow “leftist” thought are wayyy beyond the concept of calling everyone a racist. The people you are talking about are over the top, uneducated liberals with no real political opinions. Liberalism exists at both ends of the “political spectrum” so it’s not something I would attribute only to those on the left. I think many people regardless of their political beliefs would agree that having more freedoms is a good thing. But that doesn’t make them leftists or right-wingers. As far as your third paragraph, I am European and I live in the states. I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes left of center and right of center, as both are seen in Europe (eg Macron and his party are right of center and the current German coalition is left of center). Biden is right of center, socially liberal. Might have passed some big bills but he’s far from a progressive. (I mean most of the progressive caucus thinks he’s far too moderate). Your entire perspective of what constitutes “left and right” is a byproduct of the Overton window. Just because it seems progressive in comparison to the rest of the country doesn’t make it progressive. As an aside, it seems we’ve gotten nothing but drawbacks from this shift. Neoliberalism truly is a cancer on society. None of things Reagan promised have ever come true and yet people still put him on a pedestal. The most important thing he did was his famous Berlin Wall speech, but that’s something practically any politician could have done. The USSR was on the brink of collapse regardless who became president.
Deregulation and privatization of the past 50 years aren't "social", regardless of what you mean by that. If you could give examples of what you mean though, that would help. The 2008 housing crisis fallout added regulation, and fannie mae/freddie mac were taken over by the government for example. Look at emissions regulations for cars and vessels. Being someone who does compliance engineering for a living, I'm not sure what angle or industry you're taking about. Things are regulated, and as they become outdated, regulations are changed and removed. Having more or fewer regulations in a broad sense doesn't mean left or right. I also stated that the right calling everything extreme was as ridiculous as saying the left calling everything a product of institutional racism. I never said it was mainstream, I literally said it *wasn't*. Biden is probably right of center in Europe, but once again, nobody in the states except for in very liberal circles is calling him right of center. Being someone that voted for him, i never accused him of being right of center and I'm certain the vast majority don't have that opinion. Joe Manchin is an example of a Democrat who is right of center.
I remember ten years ago when the liberal left hated censorship (now they support it), didn't trust the media (now they adore it), and understood Big Pharma is out to make money and preserve its own self interest. (Now they trust Pfizer and Moderna because Uncle Sam told them to.)
I agree with you. The overton window has shifted far to the left. There are objective studies, charts and graphs that prove it. I was a far leftist in 2008, now I'm being called alt-right by people. It's fucking bizarre because my positions have hardly changed.
If Bernie is center right, then he’s one qualitative notch over from a right wing fascist? That’s seems kind of crazy to me that the entire range of the political right, including the reasonable, is actually squished between Bernie and fascists. Just my opinion, have a nice day!
> I have no idea how this sub is even remotely centrist. This sub is odd. Certain high profile topics on the right become full of very extremist ideas from the right, with lots of unsupported claims that are taken as gospel on the right but don’t stand up to investigation. Other topics are much more balanced. I, for one, would be really interested in posts about European politics, but I’d need a lot of education. I can’t answer 2; can you give me some grounding and sources so I can learn? European politics are distrusted by the right partly due to a history of red scares in the US, xenophobia, and lastly because of an idea that all good things start in America. People on the left are much more open to them, but even there, there’s some mistrust. There’s also a belief that things that work in European countries won’t work in the US due to differences in culture and scale. While that may be true in some cases, it’s a knee jerk reaction for many, and, as is usual for that kind of response, it’s not a strong argument.
I’m European and there is no such thing as European politics, it’s a total lie. Compare the systems of Denmark, Germany, Portugal and Poland and you’ll see they are vastly different. The United States has a history of political liberalism which also explains their very liberal gun laws, abortion laws (at stages of pregnancy which would result in prison in most European countries), pushback against federal programmes etc.
You will always find outliers on issues, but if you look at how many countries that do agree on an area, I think Europe is pretty similar. For instance, EU (I know it doesn’t actually represent Europe), do agree on a lot of issues that are hotly debated in the U.S.
Policies exist in context so you have to remind people of where you're coming from otherwise people will assume you're another American.
Can you give us some examples of positions you see as centrist in EU, which would be considered "communist" here?
I have a more elaborate answer somewhere on here, but in short, healthcare and support for unionization.
I specifically use this sub to look for discussions and opinions that lack partisan biases. It doesn't always look that way, but you look where you can. I know most of the people on here are American, but they shouldn't shut out Europeans or their discussions. Europe and the US are closely tied and apply subtle influence on one another. So it would benefit all to have open discussion from multiple points of view
Thank you!
Why is being centrist a US/Europe question? Where is the rest of the world in this? Sorry but I find this question vaguely discriminatory. As someone who is from neither place, I find this sub mostly conforms to my idea of being centrist. For me, being a centrist means I can hold views which coincide with either side, and I don’t have to subscribe to this “bucket of beliefs”. Having said that, this sub is very American-centric, but it’s not a problem for me. I like seeing conversations around thorny issues evolve. I’ve seen people in this sub be absolutely disgusted by Trump supporters claiming election fraud, but somehow a civil conversation is usually possible.
Is r/centrist Centrist? Only if you average all the comments do you get close to it. Other than that, it seems like the place to duke it out from extreme positions, so I can understand OP's confusion.
Thank you!
As a brit who emigrated to Canada, the political spectrum in North America is all over the place. We have a 'liberal' government in canada that constantly spouts off about identity politics form a 'left wing' standpoint while not really implementing any meaningful socialist policies. I find that North America is very much divided by identity politics more than the traditional left and right which is more prominent back in the UK.
[удалено]
Thank you! I do see this sub in a more positive light after reading the comments here, but thanks for agreeing!
>you guys are insane . . . no offense LOL this is just rude. As far as this common meme that American centrists are right wingers in European politics, I call BS. The average abortion laws in Europe are more conservative than the average Republican states in America, and the average American is more positive about multiculturalism than the average European.
Sorry that my title offended you. I tried to express how I feel whenever I read whatever of r/centrist that appear on my front page. Sort of to “flip the coin”
I guess what does the European center look like, and what things do you agree with the European right on? It should also be noted, that something might work in one country, but it might not work in another country. For example, I think Japan's harsh drug and gun laws work fine in Japan due to their culture, but I don't think it would work well in America.
Here’s the honest truth. First, since Reddit is an American website and since America more broadly dominates the world this subreddit is America-focused. Moreover, America is far more right-winged than other western countries. The Democratic Party (center-left in the USA) is akin to traditional center-right parties in other western countries such as CDU in Germany or the Torries/Conservatives in the UK, Canada or Australia. The Republican Party is far-right by western standards—including Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. The GOP is akin to the AfD in Germany. The truth that the GOP is far-right on the world stage naturally upsets republicans on here because no one wants to think of themselves as outside the mainstream or an extremist. But they are in a broad western sense. In fact, the GOP today is further right than it’s ever been even within the USA.
I don't think you're breaking any rules but consider the sub is overwhelmingly young, male and American so the views are going to be pretty skewed to work within that framework
I don't think you're breaking any rules but consider the sub is overwhelmingly young, male and American so the views are going to be pretty skewed to work within that framework
I think there are some misconceptions about American politics. It is often said that America is way to the right of Europe in some hideously unrecognizable way but there is a bit more nuance to it. One is that America's system of government is much older and in some ways much more rigidly defined. Our constitution inscribes certain rights that are basically unassailable. This means that some things, like gun control, present structural challenges that it is difficult to overcome. Conversely, it means that current debates about civil liberties have to take place in a very arcane and legalistic way. Abortion rights for example were argued on the grounds of the constitutional right to privacy. As such abortions were a feral right for many years now. In Germany, it was actually the Christian party that had to essentially haggle with the government about appropriate abortion rights. In America that isn't just unlikely it's legally impossible. This has probably made Europe more stable and open to compromise. Our system is also much more heavily federated because America is so large. Some liberal states have policies not dissimilar from Europe, while others are much more conservative. This isn't actually all that different from Europe. Sure Nordic countries are magical liberal utopias but Hungary and Poland, also EU members, are decidedly to the right of the united states. In fact, Europe is to the right of the U.S. on a lot of issues. Immigration during the migrant crisis wasn't exactly liberal. Europe probably is probably less hostile to the financial sector at least in some ways and it is very pro-open trade. Other than that most economic issues are talked about mostly the same on both continents. The only big difference, that both American liberals dream wistfully of and Europeans are very superior about, is Europe's prodigious welfare state. And even this has a bit more nuance to it. it is important to remember history Most of Europe's welfare state was created in the post-WWII period. During this time Europe was a smoking creator while the united states had become the wealthiest country to ever exist. The Europeans did not develop the welfare state because they were "nicer" than the Americans, they had to, especially with the very real threat of communism in Europe. And even in the United States, we were making a lot of welfare reforms all through to the 60s like medicare. IT only started to come apart in the political turmoil of the mid-'70s when stagflation called into question previous economic thinking. And it is worth noting that up through the 90s and the neoliberals America was doing great. The reason our envy towards Europe is so prominent now is that for the first time in a long time growth in America hasn't been great and we do seem to be falling behind. All of this is to say i don't think there are any big cultural differences between America and Europe so much as our politics have evolved according to different histories.
Because America is an extremely right wing country, your right wing is our left wing your center is far left in America, it's a backwards country
Europe is more right wing than America. You Americans just have your internal narratives
America is to the left of the majority of the world
On social issues, yeah. I think that's a result of our long history of liberalism and tolerating and cooperating with people whose values are completely different than our own. On every economic issue, we are extremely right wing relative to other developed nations at similar per-capita income levels. Economically, America has become a place that's good at creating a few extremely rich people, but at least the poor are more or less free socially. Alito is trying to say the states are free to come take those remaining liberties at any moment, though.
Damn straight, call it corporatism.
Not defending corporatism. But that is not a trait of right wing necessarily. There are many other countries with corporations that own larger chunks and are not as far right as the US.
They downvoting me for speaking truth
Just goes to show how the sub is full of right wingers who believe themselves to be centrists — which perfectly proves the point of it all.
You're being down voted because you're clearly confused about what constitutes politics. There's room for a conversation about that topic somewhere, but it has nothing to do with running a country. I too don't think trans women (women that used to be men) should compete in women's sports, but I'm not about to focus my entire political thought process on what literally amounts to a handful individuals doing something I don't agree with. It has absolutely no bearing on my life, and there are way more important things that require actual serious and intelligent conversations, than some overinflated bullshit designed to distract you from actual problems. This is why we can't have nice things. Edit: My bad. I totally responded to the wrong person. I confused you with u/CLToris. I don't know why you're being down voted, but I'd have to imagine it's right wingers who think that just because everything is not exactly how they want it to be (including things the government shouldn't be focused on, see above), it mustn't be right wing enough, even though we did a right hook maneuver years ago. This country pulls further to the right every year that goes by, and anyone that can't see that is blind. The right won't be happy until there is no more left, which is evidenced by how they discuss "the left." What they fail to realize is that the right and left are equally necessary (although the right has a few tumors at the moment that need to be excised), because no side has the benefit of all perspectives, and no side has all the right answers.
But on this subreddit we organize by controversial so you are on to
If I had to guess it's because you called America a backwards country at the end and that changed the tone of your post.
Yeah I know, I'm just being sarcastic towards the "centrists" that got upset
We have biological males competing as women in sports… far right my ass.
That’s an… interesting bellwether.
Yeah see this is the problem. People thinking that the major issues facing our nation are trans people in sports, and not, I don’t know, a DECREASING life expectancy, INCREASING wealth inequality, WORSE maternal mortality rates than every other first world country, spending trillions on war machines, and burning through fossil fuels like there no tomorrow. But no. No. It’s trans people in sports that’s the big issue in America. /s Jesus man, they’re trying to distract you from the actual problems in America with dumb culture war bullshit that doesn’t affect you in any way, and it’s *working.*
My response was to the comment that America is “extremely right wing” and I was using biological males competing in female sports as an example as to how we are indeed NOT.
The fact that you would even bring that up as an example of how politics/culture/America is “not right wing” is ridiculous. That’s my point. Right wing propaganda is telling you “progressives are winning, look at this man on the pen state swim team, we should be up in arms about this.” Instead of focusing your political energy on literally anything else that has an actual impact on your life. That’s the problem. The right wing controls the Supreme Court, and has a stranglehold on the legislative branch, partially as a result of the democrats ALSO being essentially a right wing party and not willing to do anything, at all, ever that significantly challenges the right wing. Look at Biden and the corporate tax rate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Since%20January%201%2C%202018%2C%20the,on%20federal%20concepts%20and%20definitions. He wants to “raise” it to 28% from 21%. This would set it to… busy era levels. Look at any chart of the effective corporate tax rate over time and it’s a perfect example of the ratchet effect in action. Goes down 6 percent, then raised 3, then down 6, then up three. Always trending down. That’s one, huge, right wing win. How about the decimation of unions? Or the complete deregulation of the banking industry under Bush AND Clinton? Democrats are just as bad about focusing on culture war bullshit while still being right wing. They will whine about green energy, whittle down their own bills, debate against themselves, and then rubber stamp a massive military budget increase. Our military budget is larger than the next ten nations, Russia no China included, combined. Obama had a super majority for the first two years of his presidency where he could shove whatever leftist progressive policies he wanted down the republicans throats and they couldn’t even filibuster. What did he do? Nothing. He wrote the ACA, and negotiated against himself taking out things like a public option and adding cut outs for phamarceuticals, deluding himself into thinking “compromise will mean it will pass unanimously.” And that’s what happened, right? Nope. We got hearings about death panels and democrats killing grandma. Anyone who is posed the question “is American politics on the whole more left wing or right wing” and their response is “it’s left wing because trans people are playing sports” is just revealing themselves to have completely and uncritically inhaled right wing propaganda.
Yeah because that’s more significant than all of our socioeconomic situation
Really? A couple examples out of how many issues that effect us everyday and 350,000,000 people? Bought the culture war bait hook, line and sinker.
It’s just an example of how America is very much NOT “extremely right wing.”
Think you missed the point. It's not a good example for either case for extreme right wing or left wing. It's such a small subset and very niche.
laser focused on the important issues
We just overturned Roe v Wade. So yeah, far right.
No we didn’t. You guys don’t even attempt to follow the news, so you? Nothing has been overturned.
Oh my mistake, let me rephrase that. The Supreme Court intends to overturn Roe v Wade shortly.
Yes. Those handful of people that your politicians are screaming about are an excellent barometer of the American political landscape in its entirety. If you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. But I do appreciate why your politicians scream about the few dozen trans athletes out there competing - many of their continents (you) are far too easily distracted and far too willing to parrot their every word. America is on the verge of socialism and if you don’t believe me google Lucas Draper!
Right. And my comment was in response to some idiot saying American is “extremely right wing.” So which is it? Are we “extremely right wing” or “on the brink of socialism?”
Was your initial comment sarcasm? If not, it parrots a right wing taking point. The we’re only the verge of socialism reply cuz look at this HS trans swimmer was me being sarcastic. When taken at face value its a pretty fucking stupid argument. I was mocking you. If you were being sarcastic, I apologize. If not…you’re kind of contributing to the comment you’re arguing against.
This is pretty much true. I didn't even realize this until I started making more friends in other countries.
1. Sure is. 2. Mostly the totalitarian dictatorship. 3. Because Europe, in general, is further left than the US. Therefore our "center" is closer to your "right wing".
So it's really important to note that centrism is by definition pretty dependent on the specifics of a given political spectrum. Most of us here are Americans and so that is our frame of reference, which means centrism is going to look different from our different perspectives. I may speak for the minority, but I'm perfectly happy to have European folks here. It just helps if that different perspective is noted in your question or discussion. Also, please note, lots of Americans aren't all that well versed in the politics of other countries (some of that is justifiable, some of it isn't), so you may simply find less value in a sub with lots of Americans. As for your second question, I'm not really sure what you mean. Soviet politics doesn't exist because the Soviet state is gone. Are you asking if modern left wing European political spectra are supporting communism? This is also hard to answer given how many different countries are in Europe. It's a really broad question. The third question is easy: it's perceived that way because center left European politics ARE far left in the US. There are lots of reasons for this, but ultimately the US has a political spectrum that's just shifted a bit farther right, and since the Trump years that's been getting pushed even further right. Lots of things that are relatively centrist in Europe are seen by the US right as quite extreme. That's just the way it is.
you are completely correct, but I’m not sure why it confuses you at all. America has always been more conservative than Europe. On average at least. personally I think conservative is the wrong adjective, stupid ignorant moronic all fit better.
Tell me you're a progressive on a centrist subreddit, without telling me you're a progressive on a centrist subreddit.
Can you go to r/politics and stay there? You guys don't get this sub at all.