[reformguy]

The liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives for ruining the United States. The liberals have misguided and lied to the American people just as much as the conservatives. They do it because they believe the American people only have two choices. They believe there are only two parties in the United States. That is why I am no longer a Democrat. I am now a member of the Reformist Party, because I want to let both the Democrats and the Republicans know that I have more than two options.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It might help discussion if you say what you think the Democrats are doing wrong. And if your point is that Democrats and Republicans both make mistakes in the US, and something else is needed (and it'd help if you said what is needed too), you might be better off discussing it in the North America forum - unless you have a point specific to liberalism.

[Cartertonian]

you might be better off discussing it in the North America forum

That was my impression, too. 'Liberalism' means something different to the RoW...

[Wolfman]

America has a major Liberal Party?

[PBVBROOK]

That is why I am no longer a Democrat. I am now a member of the Reformist Party, because I want to let both the Democrats and the Republicans know that I have more than two options.

If you count the Democrats and the Republicans then add another party to the mix that would be two choices. There is no substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Now you said:

The liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives for ruining the United States.

No they aren't. Not by a long chalk. Why? Because there are probably 4 liberals in the Senate (I can think of three) and maybe 30 in the house. Liberalism has no real voice in American politics. At least not in office.

If you believe that America is being "ruined" then it is being ruined by conservatives and moderates. They hold all the power in Washington. And from a global perspective our moderates are conservatives most everywhere else in the western world.

[Todd D.]

Why must we play this semantic game every time someone says "liberal" instead of just addressing the points the guy makes? He very clearly was referring to the liberal wing of the US Congress. That is to say, liberal compared to the Republicans, just as "Conservative" in the US means "Conservative relative to the Democrats".

[Wolfman]

He could just as easily say it's the Libertarian's fault since the problem was partly caused by the GOP, which is the Libertarian wing of Congress.

Point being: You cannot blame a group for something they had nothing to do with.

[Todd D.]

I suppose you COULD, but "Libertarian" is not a term common to US politics to define half of the political spectrum, so it wouldn't really make as much sense. "Liberal" IS a term common to US politics to define the leftist half of the political spectrum, including the moderates, so the claim is far more acceptable.

"Libertarian" is more commonly defined as the "extreme right", or "beyond conservative", the same way "Socialist" is used in a "beyond liberal" type in the US. The definition is misleading, of course, but in the context of US politics it's a bit more common.

[Wolfman]

Except there are plenty of Republicans who claim to be Libertarians (either directly, or who claim to have the same principles), so I think the response is justified.

[Todd D.]

Like I said, I suppose you could, I'm just saying that popular nomenclature doesn't really make it a good comparison.

[PBVBROOK]

If there was any evidence that the democrats were forwarding ANY liberal agenda I would accept that you could call them liberals. The problem is twofold. First the complete idiots who are running the republican party - Limbaugh - Beck - Hannity, use the term liberal incorrectly; deliberately trying to turn it into a derogative term. That is ignorant, the republicans use the tactic and I resent it. So I will point out their deliberate slam everytime I see it.

Secondly. The democrats ARE NOT forwarding a liberal agenda. There is simply not enough difference between the parties to justify describing them as separate political ideologies.

So we will continue to have the discussion. Or would you prefer me to call all republicans big-government neocons and chicken-hawks. For that is as true as calling democrats liberals.

Both parties are simply sold-out to big government, pro-business and solely dedicated to remaining in power largely by confining their efforts to passing legislation that will garner them the most campaing money.

Both parties are conservative. Plain and simple.

And Todd. I know you are educated and well read enough to know the difference between these bozos and people like TR, Goldwater and Buckley on the right and Franklin, FDR and Jefferson on the left. Yes the left.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Todd, they guy didn't make any points that we could address. The Reform Parties (there appear to be at least 2, squabbling) seem to be the remains of Ross Perot's attempt at the presidency. We have no idea what reformguy's grievances are. The most we can say is he was once a Democrat. He didn't give his reasons for leaving, apart from 'lies'. The Reform Parties seem to tend towards the right wing, but we've no idea what this guy finds attractive in them.

So we may as well have a discussion about the definition of 'liberal', given the uselessness of the original post.

[Leuthas]

PBVBROOK, I'm curious, could you explain in some detail why you see Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity as running the Republican party?

I am also very curious why you put Goldwater on the right separate from Jefferson and Franklin on the left, yet pile FDR in with them?

Once more, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind denying the U.S. as a soveriegn government by applying strict English traditions to it. Because the United States is a well established government, nation etc., there is a tradition of the U.S. individually to conserve, and therefore we have American Conservatives, who seek to conserve American traditions in government. An American Liberal is one who doesn't seek to conserve American governmental traditions, but rather to formulate and impliment something else entirely - something new, something different. Yes "liberal" can be translated directly to "free" in Latin, but it's been reversed.

It's like soccer. Entirely different meanings, entirely different cultures. Do I think this is appropriate or beneficial? Of course not, it's ridiculous. I'd so much like to be able to refer to myself as liberal, and see both a Brit and American understand what the hell I'm saying.

Can this not explain why there are, "Conservative," "Liberalism," and "Libertarianism" forums on this here board?

Nevertheless, I agree to the idea that both the Republican and Democratic parties are rather similar, especially due to their race to the center.

The liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives for ruining the United States. The liberals have misguided and lied to the American people just as much as the conservatives. They do it because they believe the American people only have two choices. They believe there are only two parties in the United States. That is why I am no longer a Democrat. I am now a member of the Reformist Party, because I want to let both the Democrats and the Republicans know that I have more than two options.

The United States, by a long shot, has not been ruined simply due to the legislation and actions of politicians in the last 10 years. Politicians misguide people, and lie to them, simply because they believe their duty is to give something more to the people through legislation, to provide something new and amazing for the people. And also, because many haven't any idea what they're doing, and if they do, shame on them.

A strong party system may also be responsible for what is happening, and has been for more than one hundred years. Established parties allow much greater communication between the Executuive and Legislative departments of government, making any legislation much easier to pass.

[QatzelOk]

America has a major Liberal Party?

America has two liberal parties, by the European definition of "liberal."

It means run by business interests with no involvement of any kind of aristocracy (monarchy, church, nobility).

It has lead America into becoming fascist - the state married to the largest private interests. Like in Germany and Italy in the mid 20th Century. And Spain just before that. And Iraq under Saddam.

That is the "system" Americans are so proud of. Power concentration without noblesse oblige.

[Genghis Khan]

That is why I am no longer a Democrat. I am now a member of the Reformist Party

Which means what?

[DanDaMan]

It might help discussion if you say what you think the Democrats are doing wrong.

I would start at the current Democratic fundamental morality of taking (stealing) from others in order to obtain Social Justice.
If your foundation is corrupt to begin with nothing of any good can stand upon it and last.

[legalboxerbriefs]

It has lead America into becoming fascist - the state married to the largest private interests. Like in Germany and Italy in the mid 20th Century. And Spain just before that. And Iraq under Saddam.

I consider myself to be pretty left-of-center, but this is just ridiculous. You simply can't compare life in the United States to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy across the board. We might share some minor similarities with those countries on an economic level, but in terms of political freedoms -- despite the civil liberties curtailed under the Bush administration -- the United States remains one of the freest in the world.

[PBVBROOK]

PBVBROOK, I'm curious, could you explain in some detail why you see Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity as running the Republican party?

Gladly. Limbaugh and Hannity command enormous audiences, almost all identified with the republican party. They are the republican pit bulls. There is recent evidence of Fox News complicity with the Republicans too. These two guys could make or break any republican candidate.

I am also very curious why you put Goldwater on the right separate from Jefferson and Franklin on the left, yet pile FDR in with them?

Are you saying that Jefferson was on the right in his time? I think not. Franklin as well. FDR was clearly more left-leaning than most politicians of his day and therefor on the left with Jefferson and Franklin. Goldwater was a conservative. He was NOT a neocon in any way, shape or form. He was a fiscal conservative and social libertarian ala Buckley. Goldwater wrote "The Conscience of a Conservative". If you have not read it I recommend that you do. Agree or not it is an iconic work along with Buckleys "God and Man at Yale".

Once more, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind denying the U.S. as a soveriegn government by applying strict English traditions to it.

Are you referring to me? Where did I say anything of the sort?

Because the United States is a well established government, nation etc., there is a tradition of the U.S. individually to conserve, and therefore we have American Conservatives, who seek to conserve American traditions in government. An American Liberal is one who doesn't seek to conserve American governmental traditions, but rather to formulate and impliment something else entirely - something new, something different. Yes "liberal" can be translated directly to "free" in Latin, but it's been reversed.

And this is just wrong. I am a liberal and I very much wish to conserve American governmental traditions. These include the American tradition of extending universal sufferage to more and more people. It includes the American tradition of freeing people from tyranny whether that tyranny is that of a government or that of some private institution. Can business become tyrannical? I say yes and it is in the great tradition of American liberals to protect the people from it. From the trust-busting TR to the wage and price controller/universal healthcare advocate Richard Nixon, the American tradition is to preserve the fruits of our freedom for ALL Americans. Not just the wealthy. I am for preserving our traditions in government. For example those traditions that gave us the bill of rights, repealed slavery, dismissed separate but equal, gave women the vote, protected the rights of the disabled and disenfranchised. I want to preserve our government tradition of perserving our natural resources from predation and of preserving our private lives from government intrusion. Shall I go on?

Nevertheless, I agree to the idea that both the Republican and Democratic parties are rather similar, especially due to their race to the centre.

Good. Because they are both centrist parties and have been for 100 years. (As you indicate below.)

A strong party system may also be responsible for what is happening, and has been for more than one hundred years. Established parties allow much greater communication between the Executuive and Legislative departments of government, making any legislation much easier to pass.

Well I don't know about that but I will tell you there is not much difference in their agendas. The Republicans oppose government health care prefering rather to keep it in the private sector. The democrats SAY they want government health care but when they got a chance to do it they kept health care firmly in the hands of the private sector. Why this divergence of opinion and unanimity of result? Because both parties took a fuck of a lot of money from the insurance industry to ensure that they would not upset the apple cart. They both feed at the same trough. They are both the same kinds of pigs. One is black and one is white. Both are pork.

[Zerogouki]

The democrats ARE NOT forwarding a liberal agenda.

This is so much abject bullshit that it's not even funny. In the past 40 or 50 years, democrats have been behind every loss of freedom with regard to taxes, guns, or medicine, while the Republicans have been behind balancing the budget and starting and escalating the War on Drugs. The current Democrat mantra on abortion is "safe, legal, and rare".

The Republicans oppose government health care prefering rather to keep it in the private sector. The democrats SAY they want government health care but when they got a chance to do it they kept health care firmly in the hands of the private sector.

Wrong. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from 1955 to 1995, and that was the same time period during which our medical system went from #1 in the world and 100% privately controlled to being a wasteful, ineffective piece of shit that made up a third of our budget. Meanwhile, the Republicans haven't done shit to re-privatize it. They're really only concerned with keeping the Federal government from screwing it up even more than it already has.

learn 2 history, n00b.

[Figlio di Moros]

If there was any evidence that the democrats were forwarding ANY liberal agenda I would accept that you could call them liberals.

What about the great society, responsible for expanding our entitlement programs at expense of infrastructure? Or blocking any attempt to control illegal immigration? Or the recently passed healthcare bill?