Because what the US considers left (universal health care, helping the poor, school lunches and affordable education) is considered middle of the road normal stuff in Europe and other developed countries.
Even the historical, biggest right wing party in Denmark would not remove any of the things you mentioned, except school lunches.
As a proud American wingnut, I vehemently denounce these so-called “benefits” that you claim are merely considered middle-of-the-road in other parts of the world. Let us break it down for the sake of argument.
First off, Universal Health Care is nothing more than a government-controlled monopoly on healthcare services. This is the first step toward socialized medicine, which has proven to be detrimental to the medical industry worldwide. In the name of equality, doctors will no longer strive to excel in their fields, as their paychecks will not reflect their efforts. The result? A decline in quality of care, longer wait times, and diminishing innovation in the field. This is how the slippery slope begins!
Next on your list is ‘helping the poor.’ While this sounds like a noble cause, it must be understood that government intervention is neither necessary nor effective when it comes to uplifting individuals out of poverty. It’s time we stop enabling dependence on handouts. Instead, we should promote personal responsibility and self-reliance—core American values, after all. Only by standing on one’s own two feet can a person truly gain an appreciation for life’s hardships, and ultimately, its rewards.
Moving onto school lunches, let us examine our Founding Fathers’ vision for the country. They cherished individual freedom above all else. By providing free meals to students, we’re essentially stifling entrepreneurship by removing the incentive for young people to start businesses that could potentially provide lunch services to schools. Additionally, such measures only serve to deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots. Why should children who are fortunate enough to receive these free lunches continue working hard if they know they’ll always be provided for?
Last but not least, affordable education is nothing more than a clever Trojan horse for communist brainwashing. When the cost of higher education is reduced, the barriers to entry for subversive ideologies also decrease. We cannot sit idly by while our youth are corrupted with socialist propaganda. In fact, the price tag of college tuition serves as a natural selection process that ensures only those who value their education will pursue it, consequently maintaining the quality of graduates entering the workforce.
In conclusion, I implore you to reconsider your support for these so-called “middle of the road” concepts. These policies may sound pleasant in theory, but make no mistake; they’re merely disguised stepping stones toward a godless society where individuals cease to think or act independently. The American Dream would die a slow and painful death under this system. First, free lunches, next COMMUNISM!
This hurts to read.
I know it’s satire, but this is like… 5% more satirical than actual beliefs on the topic at some points. The helping the poor section in particular.
I guess the downvoters either didn’t get the joke, or completely agree with what you typed and noticed the sarcasm. 🤷🏻♂️
I’m tempted to downvote because the “parody” is also literally what a lot of people on the right literally think. There’s zero difference between this comment written in jest and the same comment written totally honestly. That means this potentially spreads that idea, however absurd it sounds to us.
In the end I didn’t downvote because I think if people are here they probably understand how stupid it is for it to be serious. If this were Reddit I would probably downvote because odds are some right-wing idiots would think it agrees with them and see the upvotes as confirmation of their ideas.
This post is more reasonable and well written than plenty of stuff I have seen from actual right wingers. I worry when people cosplay too hard, sometimes it becomes real.
A lot of people have left-leaning economic views ( tax the rich ) but there’s basically no political or media representation of those views. ( because the rich run the media and government )
Easy: even if you vote for Bernie that’s still at best center-left. The US just really, really leans right overall: there’s center-right (democrats) and far-right (republicans) and that’s about it.
You guys are so afraid of socialism no party dares venture the true left.
Americans being afraid of socialism is proof that propaganda works. It’s literally for the people.
As does decades of systematically defunding education. The decades of leaded gas/paint by prior generations probably weren’t helping…
Joe Biden is now the Nickelback /Big Bang Theory of Presidents.
There’s nothing really bad about him, nothing really great, but they’ve been told to hate on him, so that’s what they’ll do.
Ill hate his fucking guts as long as I live for his handling of Israel and Gaza
Fair enough.
I think your statement is true in a purely national sense. We’ve had better but we’ve had worse. Globally, he’s majorly dropped the ball and caused too much suffering to ignore.
nothing really bad about him
Uh, except his racism? FFS, we can demand better.
Here in Czechia, we had socialism a few decades ago. Pretty much everyone old enough to remember it hates it.
Socialism is not a ‘one thing’ . It’s a concept as a whole. You can have good or bad socialism and everything in between.
The world is far more nuanced than that.
Do you have working examples of good socialism?
I’ll give some examples of great implementations of socialism that drives welfare in today’s democracies, as I personally believe that socialism can’t exist without democracy, as it’s one of the core values of the concept, that’s it’s controlled by the people.
One of socialisms ultimate goals are also equality, which my examples will show.
- Free education
- UBI if you get fired
- UBI for old people
- UBI for students
- Free health care (duh)
- Free dental (normally only till age of 18 today)
- Basic insurance paid by the government
These are just the big ones that really helps to make sure that very few people are actually poor and are getting desperate because of it.
Also, it’s always important to say that socialism and capitalism are NOT mutually exclusive. It’s perfectly normal to have all these concepts from socialism in a capitalist country.
I think we can agree that a country with 100% capitalism or socialism is not the best way to go.
Good explanation. Just one nit to pick over word choice: “Capitalism” is not a synonym for “free market”.
Capitalism is a separate ideology that champions (even romanticizes) the acquisition and hoarding of wealth at all costs. It leads to trusts, monopolies, stifling of competition and, eventually, the death of the free market.
In other words: Socialism and free markets are compatible. Socialism and Capitalism are not.
Because the American left would be considered right wing in most of the world.
The Democrats would be the conservative party in my country. The Republicans would be watched by law enforcement for fascistic tendencies, or already outright illegal.
Which country?
Germany. We learned our lessons about fascism. The US didn’t, and if they don’t get their acts together, they soon will. Then may God help us all.
and yet we both have a significant problem with neo-nazis and right wing fascism.
and its because, despite laws and common sense, media goes easy on them and gives them a soft hand.
Didn’t the CDU dominate Germany for decades? Christian Democrats are much more socially conservative than the American Democratic party. Weird flex, not okay.
CDU is center-right.
I would not rate the German CDU as more conservative than the US Democrats, at least not significantly.
It’s really as simple as this. The left in countries like the UK and Ireland would be radical to the US.
Google the term Overton window
Oberton I think
If you’d have googled it, you’d know it’s overton
Happens to the best of us
No, they were right the first time.
Yeah, I know, so I was expressing empathy to the oberton commenter.
Because there is no party available to elect, who care for the workers/people.
You have a system that is designed to take money from the poor and lower class and give it to the rich. You don’t have proper workers rights, spend about twice the amount for healthcare compared to an European person and get substantially less out of it. People work more than 40h/week in more than one job and can’t make ends meet… There are vast rural parts that look more like a third world country. Everything is made for commerce and nobody cares for LGBT people or women unless there’s some money or publicity in it.
And you have about 2 parties who both participate and stand for that scheme.
I agree. In my opinion there are two huge dominating factors.
First is the almost ubiquitous winner-takes-all election structure in the US, leading to the two party system. There is, bar none, no fair competition in US government at a level high enough to matter.
Second, the lack of term limits allows certain people in certain positions to perpetuate momentum. In part this happens by hand picking successors through brute-force out funding the competition (in part due to the economic disparity that others in this thread have mentioned).
Sure. Also silly tactics like Gerrymandering need to stop.
I’m not sure if these are the most pressing topics.
I think for one lobbyism needs to go for good. It’s deeply undemocratic to give people money and then they’ll pass your laws. And not the ones that’d benefit the people who elected them.
Maybe the members of the senate should be exchanged. Seems to me they’re playing kindergarten games all day, blocking everything instead of doing their job.
And media is a big part if a democracy. And the media situation in the US seems beyond bad. People need actual information to make good decisions who to elect. Not a show filled with emotion where two old men compete against each orher like in a staged wrestling match.
And you need more parties. And they need to get like 10-15% of the votes. For example a party addressing the young people who complain that they never can afford to buy a house like their parents were still able to buy. A party catering to the people who don’t live in the big cities. The farmers and rural people with different needs. A party who stands for the lower class people, the workers. Maybe something green, repairing the power grid in Texas and adding some more solar in the sunny south to the oil.
This image from 2020 sums it up decently…
Also: you guys messed up the colors for the parties, red is for left leaning parties, blue is for right leaning. But I guess that is just the US being the US, like temperature, weight and distance units.
I guess because they switched positions a long while ago.
Wait, Reps used to be left of Dems?
The Republican party was Lincoln’s party. Look at were they stand now.
For 30 years it was the same way as the UK, based on the system. It wasn’t until Gore v Dubya that the NYT printed it in colour with red being republican. The reason? Both red and republican start with R… They really knew their audience!
Because liberals are just center of right. If you go too far left things become better for workers and not the ruling shit heads.
Lol
what happens when you go far left??
my last interaction with them convinced me they aren’t any different from the alt right.
Allow me to enlighten you by illustrating how both sides are absolutely not the same
Some highlights:
There is a stark difference in the means with which the two groups engage in acts of extremism. In a study evaluating Left-Wing and Right-Wing domestic extremism between 1994 and 2020, there was one fatality as the result of Left-Wing extremism, versus 329 fatalities resulting from Far Right extremism in that 25 year period. [5]
The Far-Right movement is the oldest and most deadly form of domestic terrorism in the United States, and The Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism found that the Far-Right is responsible for 98% of extremist murders in the U.S. [24] Furthermore, for nearly every year since 2011, Far-Right terrorist attacks/plots have accounted for over half of all terror attacks/plots in the United States. [21]
In the U.S., Right-Wing extremism was responsible for two-thirds of all failed, foiled, or successful terror attacks in 2019, and was responsible for 90% of attacks in the first half of 2020 alone. [21] Since 2013, Far-Right extremism has been responsible for more terror attacks/plots than the Left-Wing, ethnonationalism, or religiously motivated attacks/plots. [21]
These are excerpts from a blog post of mine, but I have ads turned off and do not benefit in any way from it.
so,same shit different pile??
Did you read any of that?
I did,it compared right wing extermism to left wing extremism. one had more death than the other but extremism nonetheless…hence same shit different pile.
or are you suggesting being a left wing extremist is the better option than say being in the middle ground…because death??
One death from left wing extremism in 25 years, versus 329 from the right, 32900% more. To say that this is the “same shit” is clearly absurd. We aren’t discussing the merits of the middle ground. You seem to be suggesting that just because something is labelled as “extremist” it is automatically bad, regardless of what it actually is or what harm it causes.
one extreme isn’t exactly better than the other. they are extremes and should be regarded as such.
left extremism does not represent good neither does it represent evil,same goes for right wing extremism.
what i find interesting is people seem to think left wing extremism is the ONLY way to go,ignoring the fact that left wing extremism also practice discrimination, ostracism,bigotry and racism,not that much different from right wing extremism.
This simply means you’re either a liberal or a fascist.
If the party I vote for in Germany would be one in the US they probably would be banned for being communists or something like that while here they’re a widely accepted part of the goverment.
Which party is that?
Lol, and it’s not even our leftest party :D
Good choice thoughIt doesn’t feel like a good choice, just the least bad one
Doesn’t sound that different from the US’s Green Party, honestly.
Because all the true is gone.
A few years ago I would have agreed with this statement. But lately, I’ve seen a change described in several press articles and news pieces. The younger generations in the US demand true social justice and aren’t afraid to say they’re socialists, against capitalism or consumerism. It’s a burgeoning revolution of course, since the establishment is still in control of traditional political parties. But this crack in the old broken system could bring about positive change in the long run. At least I hope so.
Examples of true left would be codeterminisn in Germany and banning tuition fees in Finland.
Compared to the rest of the first world countries, our farthest left candidates are relatively moderate.
If one were to gather political parties from around the world and sort them as left-leaning, center, or right-leaning, one could do so. However when it came time to compare the left-leaning parties of other developed nations with the left-leaning parties of the united states, it would quickly become apparent that the “most-left” party in the united states aligns with center-right and far-right parties of other developed nations. So, doing such analysis you quickly come to realize that the united states has no true left-wing party. We have conservative and conservative-light. It should also be noted that the conservative party in the united states is much further right than most other developed nations.
Also, remember, right-left is a duopoly, much like Pepsi and Coke. There are so many more dimensions to politics than right-left, there’s a thousand different parties for every ideology. For more info on this, check out the podcast linked at the end. Support ranked choice voting if you want to take steps to end this duopoly. What do you have to lose? Entrenched life-long, un-removeable politicians. What do you have to gain? Choice. Variety. More direct democratic representation and politicians that better reflect their voter’s interests.
Freakanomics
Episode 356
America’s Hidden Duopoly
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/@return2ozma@lemmy.world One way to think about “the left” is that it values freedom from domination. Who in the US is fighting to reduce the level of domination we experience in important areas of life (health care, education, food, housing to name a few)? Should we really have to pay and put ourselves into debt–thereby becoming dominated–to go to school, live somewhere, or maintain our health? Even the so-called left in the US supports this arrangement generally; at best they fight over the details, not the structure itself.
It also funnels down to freedom from bureaucracy too. Look at how hard it is in many places to legally build a non-fancy home on your own property. Endless restrictions, regulations, permits and inspections. Nobody is trying to free us from this.
Right! And the US Democratic party seems to be obsessed with means testing, so that many times when there is government assistance available people who need it are forced to subject themselves to intrusive surveillance, frequent paperwork and sometimes shifting requirements, etc. It’s rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs, let alone make substantive moves to change it.
It’s rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs
Do you know anyone on disability / social security?
Yes.
I think there’s value in what you’re calling attention to.
“Freedom” vs “domination” though has nothing to do with the left or right of a government (in theory). You’re actually referring to libertarianism vs authoritarianism, which is (again, in theory) independent from economic structure.
@genie@lemmy.world I did not draw a dichotomy nor make a universal definition. I stated that the left is concerned with freedom from domination, which is undeniably true. What else do words like “equality” and “equity” mean? I did not state or suggest that this was the only concern, but it’s clearly an important one.
I didn’t say that you did?
I respectfully disagree that “the left is concerned with freedom from domination” is “undeniably true”. I think there’s a lot of room for debate here that you’re frankly not interested in.
@genie@lemmy.world You don’t have any idea what I’m interested in.
I am definitely not interested in being condescended to, that’s for sure, so bye.
Nah bud. you can’t separate social theory from economic theory in general terms. They are one and the same. How your currency is used and controlled and by who for what is social theory.
They are related (in practice) but I disagree that they’re one “and” the same. Freedom from domination can exist in the left or the right.
Demonizing the views that you don’t hold as inherently opposed to freedom is how the US got to this point in this awful no spectrum of views two party system in the first place.
(By the way, just noticed your username. How’re’ya’now bud?)
Oh yah know
The reason that type of left is ignored because it’s dumber than libertarianism. At least the mirror of it realizes someone has to pay for it (perhaps those want to use it), and just doesn’t like the coercive mandate. You, though, both don’t want to be coerced AND think it all oughtta be free because…forcing people to give you free shit is not being dominated? “I want to be a lazy bully” isn’t the intellectual flex you think it is.
@John_McMurray@lemmy.world Thank you for supplying the “someone has to pay for it” canard, which is one of many reasons the US doesn’t have a functional left politics. Neoclassical economics brain poisoning.
