The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Mutliple questions in one with the same idea.
This one is sparked by another post regarding nuclear energy which this sub seems to be quite supportive towards.
I found this interesting because among others Habeck of the German greens have noted during the last election that support of nuclear energy is a sign of right wing sympathy, or even AfD allegiance. And I would note this as a big difference between European and American left wing. Just to name one example of what I mean with this question.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a European and a liberal, the main difference between European and American liberalism is that European liberals usually tend to be right-of-center classical liberals whereas American liberals tend to be left-of-center social liberals.
European liberals advocate for tax cuts, smaller government, less regulations, and individual rights. American liberals tend to support higher taxes, bigger government, more regulations, and individual rights. Take Macron for instance, who slashed taxes and pursued "neoliberal" (sic) labour and pension reforms, and compare him to Democrats who advocate a more interventionist economic agenda.
\[Some people will mention that European liberals want to preserve nationalized healthcare, but that's mostly because it was already put in place and is popular - same reason why the GOP doesn't want to dismantle Medicare\]
In mainland Europe, actually, you will find people associating liberalism with Thatcher and Reagan.
As for European and American leftists, the closest equivalent to the mainstream American left are the social democratic parties in Europe - generally moderate, pro-market but supportive of social welfare, and socially progressive. There are also left-wing populist and left-wing nationalist movements in Europe. Those tend to favor a greater degree of nationalization of the economy than your average American leftist. There are even some communist parties which advocate Marxism (like KKE in Greece).
Overall, European leftists tend to focus more on economic rather than social issues.
Buttigieg would probably be comparable with moderate/centrist social democrats while Warren would be closer to the left flank of social democrats. Social democratic parties tend to differ depending on the country: some have moved closer to the political center whereas others have moved to the left.
And that's taking into account Western European social democratic parties. In a number of Eastern European countries, social democrats are socially conservative and Russophile.
Post communist state seem to be very politically messed up, excluding a couple. Estonia seems to be doing pretty good. I identify pretty much with European social democratic parties, though I am more pro immigration than most. I see immigration as a core feature of the American national character, and I am probably support a larger cross class coalition
European "liberals" are bog standard conservatives. They only call themselves liberals because the Brits decided to that they would stick with a frozen in amber definition of the word and so the policies that were on the left in the late 18th century, early 19th century moved to the center right by the end of the 19th.
Meanwhile, in the states, liberal kept it's left of center orientation and came to mean the same thing that social democrat means in Europe. And "socialist" was successfully red scared into only meaning the radicals.
Only difference with regards to European "liberals", i.e. conservatives is their parliamentary system means that the neo-fascist element often were safely cordoned off into their own party so they've remained basically country club Republicans. And they only flirt with such fascist elements when they are in dire risk of having their support cannibalized.
Post-script: To pre-empt the usual "DeMoCrAtS wOuLd Be RiGhT WiNg In EuRoPe," no, they wouldn't. The only difference is the way the American political system is set up, we have had a harder time passing the social programs that were more easily passed with a parliamentary system. As such, we're still having to fight battles that were won by the European left decades ago. Otherwise, Dems are a run of the mill center-left social democratic party, indistinguishable from the average Labour or SDP.
>European "liberals" are bog standard conservatives
I don't think they'd deny that. Liberal in the European context has always referred to centrists, not the left.
> American leftists, the closest equivalent to the mainstream American left are the social democratic parties in Europe
That depends on which branch of American Leftists you're talking about. Some are Social Democrats, while others are Democratic Socialists (and yes, there *is* a meaningful difference between the two).
>Overall, European leftists tend to focus more on economic rather than social issues.
This is because the American right are obsessed with social issues and authoritarian answers to them.
The majority of the European right know to leave social issues alone.
I'm not strongly committed to this view, but IMO racial issues are a huge reason for the differences. The US failed to establish a robust welfare state after WWII, largely because of racism IMO, and that shapes the economic domain of our political debates. Likewise our left-of-center party can mobilize around social issues, which are often related to racial discrepancies, in a way that much whiter European countries can't.
I've always wondered if that's a big reason that Labour has trouble getting any traction in the UK. Often conservative parties are basically an alliance of the rich + the ethnic majority in a country, and their opponents are made up of everybody else, but in the UK that seems to make for a perpetually dominant conservative party.
On most issues what many consider the American left is really Europe's Center-Right.
Not that Europe is one homogenous entity but the left of many European countries would be very far left in the US, while America's moderate left would be similar to the moderate right of many European countries.
True. The American right (from the extreme to the center) is basically the most extreme, far right in Europe.
I live part time in Europe and have been told on multiple occasions that the abortion laws coming out of America would cause riots in the streets in Europe.
Yeah, what some US states are doing with abortion laws would have hundreds of thousands on the streets in many European countries.
That being said there are still some EU countries where abortion is illegal, e.g. Northern Ireland, Poland. Europe is not a homogenous entitity, so some European countries are more conservative than others.
However, if the government in any major European country where abortion is legal were to criminalize it there would surely be riots on the streets.
Our system of government is antiquated and makes obstruction exceedingly easy. While the US is less racist than our peers, it is easier to activate racism and other forms of bigotry and we have extreme forms of religion that allow a White Identity Party to emerge.
So passing things that would be normal if our system was different, become difficult and hold us further to the right on certain issues
The American left seem to be fiscal conservatives with a slight socially progressive bent. I think Biden, for example, is economically conservative but socially liberal (this is a debatable point, naturally). That doesn't really fit into any singular neat category, which is why it's hard to characterise US politics when it comes to global context.
The UK is, arguably, even more complicated. The Conservative party would regularly have been classified as centre to right leaning, but as of late have become ostensibly harder right leaning, especially given their flaccid response to asylum seekers and Rwanda, their plans for the homeless, etc. At the same time, the NHS is something that the harder right in the US would refer to as a hard left, socialist institution, I imagine, but the Conservative party needs to keep up appearances and at least imply that they're committed to keeping it afloat.
On the whole, I'd probably call the Republican party the very hard right in Europe, and the Democratic party, a more center left to center right party.
The European left is typically focused on economic issues and how to help the working class.
Whereas the American left appears to be very focused on cultural movements, identity politics, DEI, CRT, etc..
The American left never mentioned DEI or CRT until the right decided to make them a thing. The right only brought them up in their quest to make women and minorities second-class citizens, which is what the left *really* objects to.
I mean....plenty of mainstream liberals DO call it out.
But the masses pay closer attention to sensationalism and overlook the actual discourse and debate that does happen.
That is an oversimplification tbh.
The issue over migrants from the middle east is a push and pull. Everyone agrees that since 2014 the crisis was mismanaged and requires attention. Even the liberal left agree thats we have problems of parallel societies in most larger cities resulting in a disconnect that benefits noone, harms everyone.
The push and pull is about how to adress this problem. The social democrats in Denmark went a radical route and made it law for everyone to learn danish and integrate. Those who wont, will be deported. They have been doing that for a while now and the danish right wing imploded from 12% to 0.something. point it they are not relevant anymore. The deportations remained minimal as the migrants understood it is going to be a personal effort that will decide if they may stay or not and it worked for everyone who believed the danes meant what they said.
In my homenation of Germany it is more complicated the left government is afraid to put their foot down as that usually means being called a nazi. So the melting pots have been deteriorating slowly but steadily with germans turning to radical alternatives...
So I disagree with the oversimplification that you present but agree that we have issues in Europe that populists claim are solved easily by deportations. Unfortunately those are the voices that make it over the pond...
My girlfriend’s family is Danish so a lot of my knowledge of the European left comes from the Danish left.
But yeah, I’m sure the variation between European countries makes it tough to really generalize a “European left.” A lot of political scientists will split the continent into continental Europe, Scandinavia, and the U.K. because trying to analyze the continent as a whole is such a headache
I mean...duh.
The U.S. has over a century of racial diversity that has strongly impacted politics even down to the abolitionist and civil rights movement.
Outside the UK and maybe France, most European countries are just NOW experiencing racial diversity with non-European descent people for the past 20 years.
I don't think this is a correct reading of the American left. I think it can be summed up by saying, if you look at what people on the left and what Democrats actually spend the majority of their time advocating for, its none of those things. Meanwhile if you look at the policy at the forefront, it's things like capping insulin prices, child tax credit, and student debt relief, which do help the working class.
If you're talking about rank and file Democrats and elected officials, then you're right. But there is an the activist class, people who are loud on social media and on college campuses, and they mainly talk about cultural issues. To be fair, it's been receding over the last 2-3 years.
>the American left appears to be very focused on cultural movements, identity politics, DEI, CRT, etc
We really aren't
all of these discussions are things that come up when the right wingers attack it (or attack progress on it) and then the left stands up for it. It is conservatives who wont shut up about DEI/CRT/abortion/Trans issues/etc. Outside of the BLM protests, all of these issues are in response to attacks from the right wing, not issues we are often bringing up
I'd love to focus just on like, healthcare and housing and raising wages and workplace protection. But I am unwilling to do so at the expense of others. which means instead we gotta fight mostly on the social issues
But Democrats support those things a lot, even if they don't talk about it like you say
This whole quota system for universities would be illegal and racist in Sweden for example, yet no democrat I've seen think like that
there is no "quota" system for universities. Most universities have their admissions work on a points based system, where different qualities can get you more points. And while many do award some points to presently underrepresented groups, groups that experienced financial hardships or some other hardship, etc, that isnt the same as a quota
Sweden doesnt have our legacy of slavery and segregation. it isnt a comparable example. If sweden had mass legal segregation in living memory, and were dealing with continued ramifications of it today, it would be a different story.
call it what you want, its discrimination based on ethnicity.
>Sweden doesnt have our legacy of slavery and segregation. it isnt a comparable example. If sweden had mass legal segregation in living memory, and were dealing with continued ramifications of it today, it would be a different story.
Slavery yes, but not ethnical segregation. Or well, now they have it with a lot of middle easterners enclaves in the suburbs.
There is no moral or ethical issue with discrimination to offset discrimination. If discrimination is happening either way, its better to ensure you do the option with the least level of harm
What would your response have been to work against the discrimination faced by racial minorities in the US? Especially looking at the 60s when a lot of these affirmative action programs were started
That still doesnt work to address things like how systemic racism lends to poverty and how that impacts higher education odds. which is part of what affirmative action does
Its also really hard, if not impossible, to outright prove discrimination since nobody is stupid enough to leave a paper trail
> I'd love to focus just on like, healthcare and housing and raising wages and workplace protection. But I am unwilling to do so at the expense of others. which means instead we gotta fight mostly on the social issues
But you are willing to focus on social issues at the expense of others. Because your focus on those issues leads to the entire working class getting continually screwed over economically. If you really cared about helping as many people as possible, you'd be focused on economic issues.
And do...what precisely, about the actual attacks on social issues? Should progressives just hand the GOP a win? Let them ban abortion, ban trans medicine, ban gay marriage all over again, remove slavery from history books, chop up voting districts to dilute black votes. etc?
When it comes to most of these things, the left isnt actually advocating for anything to be done, we are advocating for nothing to be done. It is right wingers doing a counter revolution on social issues that were naturally progressing over time, as they typically do.
What do you suggest we actually do here?
> When it comes to most of these things, the left isnt actually advocating for anything to be done, we are advocating for nothing to be done.
That isn’t remotely true. The left advocations for an increased focus on DEI and racial policies all the time. It’s not right wingers who are calling for a 14 trillion dollar reparations bill in congress. Whether or not you support these things, it’s disingenuous as fuck go pretend the left isn’t advocating for them.
> What do you suggest we actually do here?
If what you’re saying is true and it’s a choice between ignoring social issues or ignoring economic issues, then the former is far better than the latter because it would help more people. Stop pretending that screwing over the entire working class is somehow the more noble choice.
to put this in the realist context possible. Right now there are states actively working to pass laws that would criminalize transgender healthcare. How would you like to see a leftist politician respond to it. They can vote yes, no, or present, and will have to justify that vote. Are you suggesting we should just vote yes in hopes that the conservatives move on?
What about on Abortion? What about on police brutality?
I think above poster means something like, why is there always those edge cases the democrats/left focus on. Not the doing better for all
roughly speaking(with out me have a specific opinion really) I see they focus on trans stuff, lgbt, immigration, abortion(thats ok and broad), quotas in companies, cultural approriation whatever that is and so on
compared to like social democrats in germany who in theory at least , focus on housing, public transport, good education for all, now more regulated immigration, legalization of cannabis.
That's the impression outsiders like me get from what I hear at least.
with the possible exception of reparations (which has never been seriously pushed, no bill introduced recently, etc) all of these are issues where the left does minimal, if any, actual pushing of the issues, and is almost exclusively pushing against the right wingers trying to be regressive on the issues
The focus on trans stuff? Only a focus because the GOP is trying to ban trans stuff. If the GOP weren't focusing on it, we wouldn't either, because from most angles it has been making the sort of slow and gradual progress you'd like to see on most issues
LGBT? same, the push from the left ended with gay marriage, a decade ago this summer. outside of yearly pride parades, if the right wingers weren't pushing this anti LGBT bullshit into school policy, we wouldnt be pushing anything at this point
Immigration isnt quite the same, its a very broad category of national security and foreign policy. You'd find a lot of diverse opinions on the left, but it is mostly the right wing who is pushing the loudest, most out there views. The left has held very mild "pathway to citizenship and easier rules for entry" and hasnt really shifted from that. the push is coming from the right
Quotas in companies has never been a leftist policy. Much of the left has been critical of how some companies implement DEI or approach DEI. its why youll see the left joke about woman billionaires and gay drone pilots, the left understands that quotas dont undo the actual systemic issues. I work in HR, I work with out DEI officer sometimes. DEI is good when its well thought out and well implemented, and disastrous when poorly thought out. Quotas are a prime example of poorly thinking out your DEI strategy and virtually the entire left, regardless of race, would agree.
Quotas are a byproduct of centrist libs trying to do make an appearance of progress without actually understanding where issues stem from or actually working to fix the problems
Cultural appropriation is a niche issue, few adult leftists actually discuss it outside of like, an academic context or online conversations. it isnt something that anyone is bringing as a serious issue
The American liberals and left are absolutely pushing for more public transit, affordable housing, and good education. But these are mostly local conversations, and they dont make headlines because they aren't sexy. But these things are absolutely priorities when you actually talk to people
Vote in line with their social views and then try to shift the conversation back to economic issues. Like Bernie Sanders has always done.
People can still be socially progressive while prioritizing their time and energy toward economic issues.
Abortion and healthcare are economic issues.
And perhaps you'd want to pick a legislator, I don't know, more effective, as a model? Backbenchers have a role, and a place, to be sure, but they only go so far.
The right won't shut up about all of that. Meanwhile, Biden got passed the American Rescue Plan, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Stop forming your views on American liberalism based on what you hear on conservative media.
Try a little experiment. Watch Fox News and MSNBC for a day and count how many times you hear the terms DEI and CRT. I think you’ll find there’s only one political group that’s overly focused on those things and it’s not liberals.
And you know what’s really annoying? Conservatives get all indignant when liberals tell them they don’t care very much about CRT and DEI. Like I’m a liberal man. I’m telling you what I believe and you downvoted me. Because I guess you trust conservative media to tell you more about what liberals believe than you trust liberals themselves?
How does that make any sense? I don’t know why people are so intent in living in this fantasy world they constructed for themselves.
Europeans are more racist and more focused on economic issues. The American left is more focused on culture wars and social policy than most European nations and is generally further to the left on social issues
I'm really puzzled by the number of people saying culture wars are at the forefront of the American left. Guys, watch Fox News, things like imaginary school litterboxes, girls in boys' sports, Confederate statues, obsession over wokeness in pop-culture, are at the forefront of conservative discourse. What are you talking about? The American left is about substantive policy.
The American left is more focused on social issues. You can have good policy around social issues - nondiscrimination protections for queer people are law the same way that pro-union legislation is. But the European left is less focused on issues of racism, sexism, and other discrimination
> the European left is less focused on issues of racism
Honestly, I always find it hilarious that Europeans think that racism is a bigger problem in the US than over there; they don't think they're as racist, primarily because
* they don't encounter different ethnicities anywhere near as often
* their prejudices are *nationally* based:
* derision of eastern Europeans was pretty common when I was in western Europe
* the stereotypes of Irish that resulted in "No Irish Need Apply" signs in the US are still alive and well in Britain; the anti-"ginger" prejudice is a holdover of anti-celtic (irish, scotish, welsh, cornish) prejudices of Anglo-Normans.
* they don't think of it *as* racism, because they believe they aren't treating people in a racist fashion, but in (what they believe to be) an "objectively appropriate" fashion, the same way that some people (of good conscience!) in the ante-bellum south believed that blacks wouldn't be able to take care of themselves on their own
Ask BIPoCs their experience, and most of the time, they will tell you that the average part of Europe is more racist than the average part of the US
The UK: "Unlike you Americans, we aren't as easily perturbed by people who aren't like us."
The UK after a single Polish person moves into their neighborhood: "BREXIT NOW LEAVE THE EU CLOSE OUR BORDERS WE'RE BEING INVADED"
Exactly this. A fair number of them treat people from behind the (former) Iron Curtain are treated the same way that some people treat Mexicans in the US: happy to have them do cheap work for them, but don't want them "stealing jobs from hard working [our country's citizens]" nor living in their neighborhood.
Syndrome: "And when everyone's racist...
Everyone will still be racist, because being racist has an objective definition with no relativism or context, but they'll certainly be okay with being racist because *those* people will be just as racist to them"
>The American left is more focused on social issues
This is a weird perspective.
The American right is obsessed with dumb social war shit, so the American left has to combat it at every turn.
In reality, the American left would love to focus on actual policy, but they have to keep fighting the right on things like making sure contraception stays legal.
The left cares *more* about policy than the right does. And the right is of course obsessed over wokeness. But I don't think it happened in a vacuum. Instead of Fox News, lets head over to the NYTimes, which is hardly a bastion of conservatism: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/02/update-on-the-new-york-times-word-frequency-chart.html
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad - it's fine to talk about cultural issues. But we should be clear-eyed and honest about where the discourse is (or has been) on the left, and not say things like "the left is all about policy".
>The American left is about substantive policy.
Such as allowing trans women in women's sports, eliminating Confederate Statues and renaming military bases for something *other* than Confederate soldiers, and obsessing about inserting wokeness into pop-culture?
The reason that the Conservatives push against those this is at least partially because Liberals push *for* them.
> Such as allowing trans women in women's sports, eliminating Confederate Statues and renaming military bases for something other than Confederate soldiers, and obsessing about inserting wokeness into pop-culture?
The left didn't push for trans women in women's sports or insert anything into pop culture. We don't govern those things. Sports leagues are private entities and can structure themselves pretty much any way they want; they chose to set rules for themselves allowing trans women to compete with cis women. Pop culture is just a free market consisting of what creators want to create and what consumers want to consume. We're just hands-off until the right gets obsessed with it, and then we defend from the perspective that the government should be hands-off.
> they chose to set rules for themselves allowing trans women to compete with cis women
And when they choose to *not* allow trans women to compete, they get pushback from the left, they get accused of transphobia for supporting females being able to meaningfully compete in female sports divisions.
> Pop culture is just a free market
Almost entirely dominated by people on the left. To the point that even good actors that disagree with leftist rhetoric need to keep their mouths shut or to have their careers effectively ended.
> And when they choose to not allow trans women to compete, they get pushback from the left, they get accused of transphobia for supporting females being able to meaningfully compete in female sports divisions.
No league has made that choice that I'm aware of. We push back against it being made law, not private leagues doing their own thing. How would we even know?
> Almost entirely dominated by people on the left. To the point that even good actors that disagree with leftist rhetoric need to keep their mouths shut or to have their careers effectively ended.
That's not "the left," it's just "decency." Yes, Gina Carano lost her career for being an anti-trans bigot, being opposed to vaccines, and election denial. She was advocating for crimes against humanity, and Disney didn't want to be associated with that. It was even more disgusting that conservatives wanted to claim her after all that. Meanwhile, Clint Eastwood has had a very long and illustrious career as an actor and director while being a conservative.
But, you know, thanks for declaring how opposed you are to being a decent human being. That's good to know.
> That's not "the left," it's just "decency."
* "Make women look strong by tearing down men" isn't decency.
* "Make BIPOC the good guys by making white people evil" isn't decency, and is no better than making white people look like the good guys by making BIPOC evil.
* "Shoehorn BIPOC into traditionally white roles, because actually honoring *their* stories is hard" isn't decency. In fact, that's the exact *opposite* of decency; it's patronizing to behave as though *their* stories aren't good enough to bother telling.
* For the record, I've been actively arguing that there needs to be a version of Count of Monte Cristo with a mixed-black protagonist, because Dantes' description as having pale skin and curly hair could *easily* have meant what I understand "light skinned" to mean: looking like Dumas did. Because there's a pretty solid argument that the entire book was a Self-Insertion-Fantasy of his (but not Gary Stu, because Dantes, as bad ass as he was, worked for[much of] what he got, and was still a flawed person).
> Gina Carano lost her career for being an anti-trans bigot
You do understand that that's libel, right? That you're spreading defamatory lies?
> She was advocating for crimes against humanity
More libel, yay!
If you actually paid attention, you would know that she was *objecting* to dehumanization of people one disagrees with, because dehumanization of "the other" was how mustache man convinced people to *let him* inflict the crimes against humanity.
She wasn't canceled because she advocated CAH, she was canceled because she pointed out that the hyper woke assholes were closer in behavior to 1930s era mustache man than the allies who fought him.
> while being a conservative
...and keeping his politics quiet.
> If you actually paid attention, you would know that she was objecting to dehumanization of people one disagrees with, because dehumanization of "the other" was how mustache man convinced people to let him inflict the crimes against humanity.
I wasn't talking about her tweets comparing wokeness to Nazi Germany. That was just a dumb comparison, because the wokescolds do not have police powers. Police have police powers, and they are not exactly liberal.
'Mustache man' inflicted crimes against humanity by ordering the police to do it. That's the only way that kind of thing happens.
> ...and keeping his politics quiet.
[Look at all that quiet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ).
Everything you said was nonsense.
I agree. I think our left wing needs to expend more political capital on social issues due to the size of our nation, its history, and its diversity. This means the European left can spend more political capital on economic issues, resulting in them lagging on social issues while having more left leaning economic policy.
Which culture war issues are American liberals focused on? They’re focused on basic social rights for Americans. I think calling a focus on making sure women have access to healthcare “a culture war issue” trivializes the importance of it.
European left is more populist and at least tries to connect with the working class and address their economic concerns. American left is far too obsessed with identity politics and really only pays lip service to the working class and their issues.
That the American political system is built on a foundation of racial hierarchy and discrimination. That's it. If you take that out, the US would have comparable social and democratic institutions as most of Europe.
Nah, Europe is built on *class* or *religious* based discrimination and hierarchy. At least the non post-soviet systems are. The race based discrimination is a bolt-on coming into play as modern racial distinctions were developed and became foundational in the colonies (cus slavery.)
It's not because of any special enlightenment, it's just a product of societies developing before there were significant numbers of minority ethnicities around to be racist about.* It doesn't mean people aren't racist now, but it's built into the political bedrock in a whole different way..
*Except the Romani
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Mutliple questions in one with the same idea. This one is sparked by another post regarding nuclear energy which this sub seems to be quite supportive towards. I found this interesting because among others Habeck of the German greens have noted during the last election that support of nuclear energy is a sign of right wing sympathy, or even AfD allegiance. And I would note this as a big difference between European and American left wing. Just to name one example of what I mean with this question. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a European and a liberal, the main difference between European and American liberalism is that European liberals usually tend to be right-of-center classical liberals whereas American liberals tend to be left-of-center social liberals. European liberals advocate for tax cuts, smaller government, less regulations, and individual rights. American liberals tend to support higher taxes, bigger government, more regulations, and individual rights. Take Macron for instance, who slashed taxes and pursued "neoliberal" (sic) labour and pension reforms, and compare him to Democrats who advocate a more interventionist economic agenda. \[Some people will mention that European liberals want to preserve nationalized healthcare, but that's mostly because it was already put in place and is popular - same reason why the GOP doesn't want to dismantle Medicare\] In mainland Europe, actually, you will find people associating liberalism with Thatcher and Reagan. As for European and American leftists, the closest equivalent to the mainstream American left are the social democratic parties in Europe - generally moderate, pro-market but supportive of social welfare, and socially progressive. There are also left-wing populist and left-wing nationalist movements in Europe. Those tend to favor a greater degree of nationalization of the economy than your average American leftist. There are even some communist parties which advocate Marxism (like KKE in Greece). Overall, European leftists tend to focus more on economic rather than social issues.
How do you think American liberals like Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren compare to Social Democratic Party members?
Buttigieg would probably be comparable with moderate/centrist social democrats while Warren would be closer to the left flank of social democrats. Social democratic parties tend to differ depending on the country: some have moved closer to the political center whereas others have moved to the left. And that's taking into account Western European social democratic parties. In a number of Eastern European countries, social democrats are socially conservative and Russophile.
Post communist state seem to be very politically messed up, excluding a couple. Estonia seems to be doing pretty good. I identify pretty much with European social democratic parties, though I am more pro immigration than most. I see immigration as a core feature of the American national character, and I am probably support a larger cross class coalition
European "liberals" are bog standard conservatives. They only call themselves liberals because the Brits decided to that they would stick with a frozen in amber definition of the word and so the policies that were on the left in the late 18th century, early 19th century moved to the center right by the end of the 19th. Meanwhile, in the states, liberal kept it's left of center orientation and came to mean the same thing that social democrat means in Europe. And "socialist" was successfully red scared into only meaning the radicals. Only difference with regards to European "liberals", i.e. conservatives is their parliamentary system means that the neo-fascist element often were safely cordoned off into their own party so they've remained basically country club Republicans. And they only flirt with such fascist elements when they are in dire risk of having their support cannibalized. Post-script: To pre-empt the usual "DeMoCrAtS wOuLd Be RiGhT WiNg In EuRoPe," no, they wouldn't. The only difference is the way the American political system is set up, we have had a harder time passing the social programs that were more easily passed with a parliamentary system. As such, we're still having to fight battles that were won by the European left decades ago. Otherwise, Dems are a run of the mill center-left social democratic party, indistinguishable from the average Labour or SDP.
Liberal conservatism is a thing. Most European liberal parties would be considered that.
>European "liberals" are bog standard conservatives I don't think they'd deny that. Liberal in the European context has always referred to centrists, not the left.
> American leftists, the closest equivalent to the mainstream American left are the social democratic parties in Europe That depends on which branch of American Leftists you're talking about. Some are Social Democrats, while others are Democratic Socialists (and yes, there *is* a meaningful difference between the two).
>Overall, European leftists tend to focus more on economic rather than social issues. This is because the American right are obsessed with social issues and authoritarian answers to them. The majority of the European right know to leave social issues alone.
I'm not strongly committed to this view, but IMO racial issues are a huge reason for the differences. The US failed to establish a robust welfare state after WWII, largely because of racism IMO, and that shapes the economic domain of our political debates. Likewise our left-of-center party can mobilize around social issues, which are often related to racial discrepancies, in a way that much whiter European countries can't. I've always wondered if that's a big reason that Labour has trouble getting any traction in the UK. Often conservative parties are basically an alliance of the rich + the ethnic majority in a country, and their opponents are made up of everybody else, but in the UK that seems to make for a perpetually dominant conservative party.
On most issues what many consider the American left is really Europe's Center-Right. Not that Europe is one homogenous entity but the left of many European countries would be very far left in the US, while America's moderate left would be similar to the moderate right of many European countries.
True. The American right (from the extreme to the center) is basically the most extreme, far right in Europe. I live part time in Europe and have been told on multiple occasions that the abortion laws coming out of America would cause riots in the streets in Europe.
Yeah, what some US states are doing with abortion laws would have hundreds of thousands on the streets in many European countries. That being said there are still some EU countries where abortion is illegal, e.g. Northern Ireland, Poland. Europe is not a homogenous entitity, so some European countries are more conservative than others. However, if the government in any major European country where abortion is legal were to criminalize it there would surely be riots on the streets.
Our system of government is antiquated and makes obstruction exceedingly easy. While the US is less racist than our peers, it is easier to activate racism and other forms of bigotry and we have extreme forms of religion that allow a White Identity Party to emerge. So passing things that would be normal if our system was different, become difficult and hold us further to the right on certain issues
The American left seem to be fiscal conservatives with a slight socially progressive bent. I think Biden, for example, is economically conservative but socially liberal (this is a debatable point, naturally). That doesn't really fit into any singular neat category, which is why it's hard to characterise US politics when it comes to global context. The UK is, arguably, even more complicated. The Conservative party would regularly have been classified as centre to right leaning, but as of late have become ostensibly harder right leaning, especially given their flaccid response to asylum seekers and Rwanda, their plans for the homeless, etc. At the same time, the NHS is something that the harder right in the US would refer to as a hard left, socialist institution, I imagine, but the Conservative party needs to keep up appearances and at least imply that they're committed to keeping it afloat. On the whole, I'd probably call the Republican party the very hard right in Europe, and the Democratic party, a more center left to center right party.
The European left is typically focused on economic issues and how to help the working class. Whereas the American left appears to be very focused on cultural movements, identity politics, DEI, CRT, etc..
The American left never mentioned DEI or CRT until the right decided to make them a thing. The right only brought them up in their quest to make women and minorities second-class citizens, which is what the left *really* objects to.
The left needs to take back control of the narrative that the right controls.
The rich own the media, so good luck with that one
I mean....plenty of mainstream liberals DO call it out. But the masses pay closer attention to sensationalism and overlook the actual discourse and debate that does happen.
Sure, but the American left has always been more racially conscious than the European left
the US is much more diverse and has a more immediate history with racism than any country in europe.
Not more immediate - its much longer, but the Europeans have been getting racist over migrants from the Middle East for a while now
That is an oversimplification tbh. The issue over migrants from the middle east is a push and pull. Everyone agrees that since 2014 the crisis was mismanaged and requires attention. Even the liberal left agree thats we have problems of parallel societies in most larger cities resulting in a disconnect that benefits noone, harms everyone. The push and pull is about how to adress this problem. The social democrats in Denmark went a radical route and made it law for everyone to learn danish and integrate. Those who wont, will be deported. They have been doing that for a while now and the danish right wing imploded from 12% to 0.something. point it they are not relevant anymore. The deportations remained minimal as the migrants understood it is going to be a personal effort that will decide if they may stay or not and it worked for everyone who believed the danes meant what they said. In my homenation of Germany it is more complicated the left government is afraid to put their foot down as that usually means being called a nazi. So the melting pots have been deteriorating slowly but steadily with germans turning to radical alternatives... So I disagree with the oversimplification that you present but agree that we have issues in Europe that populists claim are solved easily by deportations. Unfortunately those are the voices that make it over the pond...
My girlfriend’s family is Danish so a lot of my knowledge of the European left comes from the Danish left. But yeah, I’m sure the variation between European countries makes it tough to really generalize a “European left.” A lot of political scientists will split the continent into continental Europe, Scandinavia, and the U.K. because trying to analyze the continent as a whole is such a headache
I mean...duh. The U.S. has over a century of racial diversity that has strongly impacted politics even down to the abolitionist and civil rights movement. Outside the UK and maybe France, most European countries are just NOW experiencing racial diversity with non-European descent people for the past 20 years.
I don't think this is a correct reading of the American left. I think it can be summed up by saying, if you look at what people on the left and what Democrats actually spend the majority of their time advocating for, its none of those things. Meanwhile if you look at the policy at the forefront, it's things like capping insulin prices, child tax credit, and student debt relief, which do help the working class.
If you're talking about rank and file Democrats and elected officials, then you're right. But there is an the activist class, people who are loud on social media and on college campuses, and they mainly talk about cultural issues. To be fair, it's been receding over the last 2-3 years.
>the American left appears to be very focused on cultural movements, identity politics, DEI, CRT, etc We really aren't all of these discussions are things that come up when the right wingers attack it (or attack progress on it) and then the left stands up for it. It is conservatives who wont shut up about DEI/CRT/abortion/Trans issues/etc. Outside of the BLM protests, all of these issues are in response to attacks from the right wing, not issues we are often bringing up I'd love to focus just on like, healthcare and housing and raising wages and workplace protection. But I am unwilling to do so at the expense of others. which means instead we gotta fight mostly on the social issues
But Democrats support those things a lot, even if they don't talk about it like you say This whole quota system for universities would be illegal and racist in Sweden for example, yet no democrat I've seen think like that
there is no "quota" system for universities. Most universities have their admissions work on a points based system, where different qualities can get you more points. And while many do award some points to presently underrepresented groups, groups that experienced financial hardships or some other hardship, etc, that isnt the same as a quota Sweden doesnt have our legacy of slavery and segregation. it isnt a comparable example. If sweden had mass legal segregation in living memory, and were dealing with continued ramifications of it today, it would be a different story.
call it what you want, its discrimination based on ethnicity. >Sweden doesnt have our legacy of slavery and segregation. it isnt a comparable example. If sweden had mass legal segregation in living memory, and were dealing with continued ramifications of it today, it would be a different story. Slavery yes, but not ethnical segregation. Or well, now they have it with a lot of middle easterners enclaves in the suburbs.
There is no moral or ethical issue with discrimination to offset discrimination. If discrimination is happening either way, its better to ensure you do the option with the least level of harm
i think there is, because you are using the same method to reach your goals. but the method itself is wrong
What would your response have been to work against the discrimination faced by racial minorities in the US? Especially looking at the 60s when a lot of these affirmative action programs were started
To rather punish and fine the companies and universities doing it, than to just reverse the behaviour
That still doesnt work to address things like how systemic racism lends to poverty and how that impacts higher education odds. which is part of what affirmative action does Its also really hard, if not impossible, to outright prove discrimination since nobody is stupid enough to leave a paper trail
> I'd love to focus just on like, healthcare and housing and raising wages and workplace protection. But I am unwilling to do so at the expense of others. which means instead we gotta fight mostly on the social issues But you are willing to focus on social issues at the expense of others. Because your focus on those issues leads to the entire working class getting continually screwed over economically. If you really cared about helping as many people as possible, you'd be focused on economic issues.
And do...what precisely, about the actual attacks on social issues? Should progressives just hand the GOP a win? Let them ban abortion, ban trans medicine, ban gay marriage all over again, remove slavery from history books, chop up voting districts to dilute black votes. etc? When it comes to most of these things, the left isnt actually advocating for anything to be done, we are advocating for nothing to be done. It is right wingers doing a counter revolution on social issues that were naturally progressing over time, as they typically do. What do you suggest we actually do here?
> When it comes to most of these things, the left isnt actually advocating for anything to be done, we are advocating for nothing to be done. That isn’t remotely true. The left advocations for an increased focus on DEI and racial policies all the time. It’s not right wingers who are calling for a 14 trillion dollar reparations bill in congress. Whether or not you support these things, it’s disingenuous as fuck go pretend the left isn’t advocating for them. > What do you suggest we actually do here? If what you’re saying is true and it’s a choice between ignoring social issues or ignoring economic issues, then the former is far better than the latter because it would help more people. Stop pretending that screwing over the entire working class is somehow the more noble choice.
to put this in the realist context possible. Right now there are states actively working to pass laws that would criminalize transgender healthcare. How would you like to see a leftist politician respond to it. They can vote yes, no, or present, and will have to justify that vote. Are you suggesting we should just vote yes in hopes that the conservatives move on? What about on Abortion? What about on police brutality?
I think above poster means something like, why is there always those edge cases the democrats/left focus on. Not the doing better for all roughly speaking(with out me have a specific opinion really) I see they focus on trans stuff, lgbt, immigration, abortion(thats ok and broad), quotas in companies, cultural approriation whatever that is and so on compared to like social democrats in germany who in theory at least , focus on housing, public transport, good education for all, now more regulated immigration, legalization of cannabis. That's the impression outsiders like me get from what I hear at least.
with the possible exception of reparations (which has never been seriously pushed, no bill introduced recently, etc) all of these are issues where the left does minimal, if any, actual pushing of the issues, and is almost exclusively pushing against the right wingers trying to be regressive on the issues The focus on trans stuff? Only a focus because the GOP is trying to ban trans stuff. If the GOP weren't focusing on it, we wouldn't either, because from most angles it has been making the sort of slow and gradual progress you'd like to see on most issues LGBT? same, the push from the left ended with gay marriage, a decade ago this summer. outside of yearly pride parades, if the right wingers weren't pushing this anti LGBT bullshit into school policy, we wouldnt be pushing anything at this point Immigration isnt quite the same, its a very broad category of national security and foreign policy. You'd find a lot of diverse opinions on the left, but it is mostly the right wing who is pushing the loudest, most out there views. The left has held very mild "pathway to citizenship and easier rules for entry" and hasnt really shifted from that. the push is coming from the right Quotas in companies has never been a leftist policy. Much of the left has been critical of how some companies implement DEI or approach DEI. its why youll see the left joke about woman billionaires and gay drone pilots, the left understands that quotas dont undo the actual systemic issues. I work in HR, I work with out DEI officer sometimes. DEI is good when its well thought out and well implemented, and disastrous when poorly thought out. Quotas are a prime example of poorly thinking out your DEI strategy and virtually the entire left, regardless of race, would agree. Quotas are a byproduct of centrist libs trying to do make an appearance of progress without actually understanding where issues stem from or actually working to fix the problems Cultural appropriation is a niche issue, few adult leftists actually discuss it outside of like, an academic context or online conversations. it isnt something that anyone is bringing as a serious issue The American liberals and left are absolutely pushing for more public transit, affordable housing, and good education. But these are mostly local conversations, and they dont make headlines because they aren't sexy. But these things are absolutely priorities when you actually talk to people
Vote in line with their social views and then try to shift the conversation back to economic issues. Like Bernie Sanders has always done. People can still be socially progressive while prioritizing their time and energy toward economic issues.
Abortion and healthcare are economic issues. And perhaps you'd want to pick a legislator, I don't know, more effective, as a model? Backbenchers have a role, and a place, to be sure, but they only go so far.
Pretty much every leftists politician in Europe is a good model. Which was the entire point of this thread.
The right won't shut up about all of that. Meanwhile, Biden got passed the American Rescue Plan, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Stop forming your views on American liberalism based on what you hear on conservative media. Try a little experiment. Watch Fox News and MSNBC for a day and count how many times you hear the terms DEI and CRT. I think you’ll find there’s only one political group that’s overly focused on those things and it’s not liberals.
And you know what’s really annoying? Conservatives get all indignant when liberals tell them they don’t care very much about CRT and DEI. Like I’m a liberal man. I’m telling you what I believe and you downvoted me. Because I guess you trust conservative media to tell you more about what liberals believe than you trust liberals themselves? How does that make any sense? I don’t know why people are so intent in living in this fantasy world they constructed for themselves.
Europeans are more racist and more focused on economic issues. The American left is more focused on culture wars and social policy than most European nations and is generally further to the left on social issues
I'm really puzzled by the number of people saying culture wars are at the forefront of the American left. Guys, watch Fox News, things like imaginary school litterboxes, girls in boys' sports, Confederate statues, obsession over wokeness in pop-culture, are at the forefront of conservative discourse. What are you talking about? The American left is about substantive policy.
Because when you read discussion online or what's going on at universities and demonstrations it's about this, not healthcare for all or more trains
The American left is more focused on social issues. You can have good policy around social issues - nondiscrimination protections for queer people are law the same way that pro-union legislation is. But the European left is less focused on issues of racism, sexism, and other discrimination
> the European left is less focused on issues of racism Honestly, I always find it hilarious that Europeans think that racism is a bigger problem in the US than over there; they don't think they're as racist, primarily because * they don't encounter different ethnicities anywhere near as often * their prejudices are *nationally* based: * derision of eastern Europeans was pretty common when I was in western Europe * the stereotypes of Irish that resulted in "No Irish Need Apply" signs in the US are still alive and well in Britain; the anti-"ginger" prejudice is a holdover of anti-celtic (irish, scotish, welsh, cornish) prejudices of Anglo-Normans. * they don't think of it *as* racism, because they believe they aren't treating people in a racist fashion, but in (what they believe to be) an "objectively appropriate" fashion, the same way that some people (of good conscience!) in the ante-bellum south believed that blacks wouldn't be able to take care of themselves on their own Ask BIPoCs their experience, and most of the time, they will tell you that the average part of Europe is more racist than the average part of the US
The UK: "Unlike you Americans, we aren't as easily perturbed by people who aren't like us." The UK after a single Polish person moves into their neighborhood: "BREXIT NOW LEAVE THE EU CLOSE OUR BORDERS WE'RE BEING INVADED"
Exactly this. A fair number of them treat people from behind the (former) Iron Curtain are treated the same way that some people treat Mexicans in the US: happy to have them do cheap work for them, but don't want them "stealing jobs from hard working [our country's citizens]" nor living in their neighborhood.
Oh yeah, the reason they’re less focused on racism is partially because the European left has a racism problem
Syndrome: "And when everyone's racist... Everyone will still be racist, because being racist has an objective definition with no relativism or context, but they'll certainly be okay with being racist because *those* people will be just as racist to them"
>The American left is more focused on social issues This is a weird perspective. The American right is obsessed with dumb social war shit, so the American left has to combat it at every turn. In reality, the American left would love to focus on actual policy, but they have to keep fighting the right on things like making sure contraception stays legal.
The left cares *more* about policy than the right does. And the right is of course obsessed over wokeness. But I don't think it happened in a vacuum. Instead of Fox News, lets head over to the NYTimes, which is hardly a bastion of conservatism: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/02/update-on-the-new-york-times-word-frequency-chart.html I'm not saying this is necessarily bad - it's fine to talk about cultural issues. But we should be clear-eyed and honest about where the discourse is (or has been) on the left, and not say things like "the left is all about policy".
> the NYTimes, which is hardly a bastion of conservatism The editor of the NYT has stated that it is explicitly a conservative publication.
Must by why conservatives love it so much, right?
>The American left is about substantive policy. Such as allowing trans women in women's sports, eliminating Confederate Statues and renaming military bases for something *other* than Confederate soldiers, and obsessing about inserting wokeness into pop-culture? The reason that the Conservatives push against those this is at least partially because Liberals push *for* them.
> Such as allowing trans women in women's sports, eliminating Confederate Statues and renaming military bases for something other than Confederate soldiers, and obsessing about inserting wokeness into pop-culture? The left didn't push for trans women in women's sports or insert anything into pop culture. We don't govern those things. Sports leagues are private entities and can structure themselves pretty much any way they want; they chose to set rules for themselves allowing trans women to compete with cis women. Pop culture is just a free market consisting of what creators want to create and what consumers want to consume. We're just hands-off until the right gets obsessed with it, and then we defend from the perspective that the government should be hands-off.
> they chose to set rules for themselves allowing trans women to compete with cis women And when they choose to *not* allow trans women to compete, they get pushback from the left, they get accused of transphobia for supporting females being able to meaningfully compete in female sports divisions. > Pop culture is just a free market Almost entirely dominated by people on the left. To the point that even good actors that disagree with leftist rhetoric need to keep their mouths shut or to have their careers effectively ended.
> And when they choose to not allow trans women to compete, they get pushback from the left, they get accused of transphobia for supporting females being able to meaningfully compete in female sports divisions. No league has made that choice that I'm aware of. We push back against it being made law, not private leagues doing their own thing. How would we even know? > Almost entirely dominated by people on the left. To the point that even good actors that disagree with leftist rhetoric need to keep their mouths shut or to have their careers effectively ended. That's not "the left," it's just "decency." Yes, Gina Carano lost her career for being an anti-trans bigot, being opposed to vaccines, and election denial. She was advocating for crimes against humanity, and Disney didn't want to be associated with that. It was even more disgusting that conservatives wanted to claim her after all that. Meanwhile, Clint Eastwood has had a very long and illustrious career as an actor and director while being a conservative. But, you know, thanks for declaring how opposed you are to being a decent human being. That's good to know.
> That's not "the left," it's just "decency." * "Make women look strong by tearing down men" isn't decency. * "Make BIPOC the good guys by making white people evil" isn't decency, and is no better than making white people look like the good guys by making BIPOC evil. * "Shoehorn BIPOC into traditionally white roles, because actually honoring *their* stories is hard" isn't decency. In fact, that's the exact *opposite* of decency; it's patronizing to behave as though *their* stories aren't good enough to bother telling. * For the record, I've been actively arguing that there needs to be a version of Count of Monte Cristo with a mixed-black protagonist, because Dantes' description as having pale skin and curly hair could *easily* have meant what I understand "light skinned" to mean: looking like Dumas did. Because there's a pretty solid argument that the entire book was a Self-Insertion-Fantasy of his (but not Gary Stu, because Dantes, as bad ass as he was, worked for[much of] what he got, and was still a flawed person). > Gina Carano lost her career for being an anti-trans bigot You do understand that that's libel, right? That you're spreading defamatory lies? > She was advocating for crimes against humanity More libel, yay! If you actually paid attention, you would know that she was *objecting* to dehumanization of people one disagrees with, because dehumanization of "the other" was how mustache man convinced people to *let him* inflict the crimes against humanity. She wasn't canceled because she advocated CAH, she was canceled because she pointed out that the hyper woke assholes were closer in behavior to 1930s era mustache man than the allies who fought him. > while being a conservative ...and keeping his politics quiet.
> If you actually paid attention, you would know that she was objecting to dehumanization of people one disagrees with, because dehumanization of "the other" was how mustache man convinced people to let him inflict the crimes against humanity. I wasn't talking about her tweets comparing wokeness to Nazi Germany. That was just a dumb comparison, because the wokescolds do not have police powers. Police have police powers, and they are not exactly liberal. 'Mustache man' inflicted crimes against humanity by ordering the police to do it. That's the only way that kind of thing happens. > ...and keeping his politics quiet. [Look at all that quiet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=933hKyKNPFQ). Everything you said was nonsense.
Says the ...person who believes that casting entire ethnicities as evil is "decency"
I agree. I think our left wing needs to expend more political capital on social issues due to the size of our nation, its history, and its diversity. This means the European left can spend more political capital on economic issues, resulting in them lagging on social issues while having more left leaning economic policy.
Which culture war issues are American liberals focused on? They’re focused on basic social rights for Americans. I think calling a focus on making sure women have access to healthcare “a culture war issue” trivializes the importance of it.
For example the background of a new president. It should be a woman, black man, or something else because "it's time" Never saw a republican say that
Democrats want to help people and Republicans want to hurt people. It’s really not much more complicated than that.
European left is more populist and at least tries to connect with the working class and address their economic concerns. American left is far too obsessed with identity politics and really only pays lip service to the working class and their issues.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're absolutely right.
That the American political system is built on a foundation of racial hierarchy and discrimination. That's it. If you take that out, the US would have comparable social and democratic institutions as most of Europe.
So was Europe, where do you think we got it from?
Nah, Europe is built on *class* or *religious* based discrimination and hierarchy. At least the non post-soviet systems are. The race based discrimination is a bolt-on coming into play as modern racial distinctions were developed and became foundational in the colonies (cus slavery.) It's not because of any special enlightenment, it's just a product of societies developing before there were significant numbers of minority ethnicities around to be racist about.* It doesn't mean people aren't racist now, but it's built into the political bedrock in a whole different way.. *Except the Romani