Politics Who do you want to win the 2012 US presidential election?

[sparkey]

Similar to how I was curious to hear what Eupedia forum members thought about the French election, I'm curious as to who everyone is pulling for in the US election. This isn't a question of who you think is likely to win, so don't be shy in voting for third parties, if that's who you really like best.

 

[JFWR]

Sparkey,

Libertarian? Come on, mannn....

I am a Romney supporter. I'm a conservative politically and Obama has been an unmitigated disaster on everything but killing OBL (which was itself botched due to the lack of photographs and other evidence).

 

[JFWR]

Um, where did my post go?

That was weird...

Anyway, come on, Sparkey, libertarian?

I'm a conservative politically and Obama has been an unmitigated disaster, so I shall be voting for Romney. Excepting OBL's death (which was botched heavily with the photographs not being released) Obama has not done anything of worth.

 

[sparkey]

Um, where did my post go?

That was weird...

Sorry, the American Affairs forum is set up to flag almost every post as requiring mod approval, so it might take a while before your posts show up.

Anyway, come on, Sparkey, libertarian?

Sure. I'm not precisely a libertarian... I figure I fit more closely to some of the European right-wing liberal parties like the Swiss FDP... but since such a thing doesn't exist in the US, the Libertarian Party is a good approximation. Gary Johnson in particular has been one of my favorite US politicians for some time.

What do you figure puts you closer to Republicans than Libertarians? Social and foreign policy?

 

[L.D.Brousse]

I pray to god Obama does not get a 2nd term. I think he will destroy our nation and all it stands for. I don't like Mitt I think they are both bad for America but you have to choose the lesser evil which is Mitt

 

[Taranis]

Interesting question, Sparkey.

In my opinion, one issue that always troubled me about the American political system is that it doesn't seem to be allowing for a healthy political landscape as it is seen in most European countries, and instead is preferential to a two-party system. The third parties have virtually no chance. It's not particularly democratic if you have just the effective choice between two parties. That doesn't feel right.

I pray to god Obama does not get a 2nd term. I think he will destroy our nation and all it stands for. I don't like Mitt I think they are both bad for America but you have to choose the lesser evil which is Mitt

Funnily L.D. Brousse, there would be many people on this side of the Atlantic (as well as on yours, I guess) who would say exactly the same about Mitt Romney. I'd like to know from you though why you think that Obama would do that, and how he would do it. And, well, what does America stand for to you?

Regarding Obama's presidency, I think calling it a "disaster" is an overstatement, because, I'd like to remind you that very little could be expected from him in the first place: I'd like to remind that he inherited the huge pile of debt from the Bush administration, two unfinished war theatres (Iraq and Afghanistan), a severely damaged foreign reputation (I think that is one of the few successes that I can unanimously say that Obama has achieved fixing) and alas the financial crisis (the Lehman Brothers bancrupcy occured while Bush was president, if you recall). Anybody else at his position would not have performed any better. So, given the obstacles and limited resources that Obama started out with, I think he performed reasonably well. At least, I do not see how McCain (who had the shot at this, but got beat by Obama) would have performed any better. At that note, I think McCain was probably far more capable than Romney appears to be. The depressing thing from the European perspective is that compared with the large number of radical wildcards that attempted to compete against Romney (Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul), I think Romney was the least bad option that the Republicans could send into the field.

In so far, my opinion is, if Obama gets re-elected, America gets another four years Obama, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[julia90]

if i were american i would be republican, but i would want medical cures for everybody

 

[L.D.Brousse]

He has many hidden agendas they will surface on a 2nd term when he has nothing to lose.
To me the guy is Un American as one can be and it's not due to his skin color I feel this way
You can not blame GW Bush 4 years after the fact Obama had a democratic congress early in his term and did nothing. His dream act for illegal immigrants on a cash strapped America that tax payers have to pick up the tab for. Just to get the Hispanic vote The average American wants these 12 Million Illegal's out of this country come in the right way or don't come!!!!!!!!

 

[JFWR]

Sorry, the American Affairs forum is set up to flag almost every post as requiring mod approval, so it might take a while before your posts show up.

Sorry for double posting, then. I had no idea this sub-forum was different. Did you have a lot of 9-11 truthers or something?

Sure. I'm not precisely a libertarian... I figure I fit more closely to some of the European right-wing liberal parties like the Swiss FDP... but since such a thing doesn't exist in the US, the Libertarian Party is a good approximation. Gary Johnson in particular has been one of my favorite US politicians for some time.

I'll have to check them out more. I can't find a succinct explanation of their political views juw now.

What do you figure puts you closer to Republicans than Libertarians? Social and foreign policy?

Yes, I'm more socially and foreign-policy conservative than Libertarians. I'm not a neo-conservative though, and I am not for endless adventurism around the globe, entering into wars without our national interests, internationalism in trade, et cetera. I just prefer a robust and violent foreign policy when necessary.

Socially, I'm opposed to drug legalization, abortion, gay marriage, and other such things. I also recognize the government has some role in providing for things beyond merely law and order and military defense. I'm a paleoconservative, so I believe in tariffs, support for infastructure projects (within reason and our budget), et cetera. A pure liberatarian is a minarchist that is one step from an anarchist, advocates for free-trade, and is generally socially liberal. I'm opposed to that, though I'd prefer a libertarian to a far left guy.

 

[JFWR]

Interesting question, Sparkey.

In my opinion, one issue that always troubled me about the American political system is that it doesn't seem to be allowing for a healthy political landscape as it is seen in most European countries, and instead is preferential to a two-party system. The third parties have virtually no chance. It's not particularly democratic if you have just the effective choice between two parties. That doesn't feel right.

Our political system may allow for only two parties, but the two parties are broader than the specialist parties found in Europe. In some sense the two parties are coalition parties with different wings. Example:

Republicans -

Neoconservatives
Liberatarians
Christian conservatisms
Fiscal conservatists
Law and order types
Center-right moderates

Democrats:

Neoliberals
Social welfarists/socialists
Social liberals
Enviromentalists
Minority activists - including gays.
Center-left moderates
Keynesians

The national platform of each party is a combination of all of the above.

 

[sparkey]

Yes, I'm more socially and foreign-policy conservative than Libertarians. I'm not a neo-conservative though, and I am not for endless adventurism around the globe, entering into wars without our national interests, internationalism in trade, et cetera. I just prefer a robust and violent foreign policy when necessary.

Socially, I'm opposed to drug legalization, abortion, gay marriage, and other such things. I also recognize the government has some role in providing for things beyond merely law and order and military defense. I'm a paleoconservative, so I believe in tariffs, support for infastructure projects (within reason and our budget), et cetera. A pure liberatarian is a minarchist that is one step from an anarchist, advocates for free-trade, and is generally socially liberal. I'm opposed to that, though I'd prefer a libertarian to a far left guy.

I think you point out a lot of our political differences succinctly here, at least on social policy (your foreign policy is a bit vague). I favor drug legalization, legalized abortion, gay marriage, and "other such things." I'm against tariffs, at least protectionist ones. I don't always oppose infrastructure projects, though, but I don't think most libertarians hold a blanket opposition to all infrastructure projects. Anyway, you can see how my views approach libertarianism.

Our political system may allow for only two parties, but the two parties are broader than the specialist parties found in Europe. In some sense the two parties are coalition parties with different wings. Example:

Republicans -

Neoconservatives
Liberatarians
Christian conservatisms
Fiscal conservatists
Law and order types
Center-right moderates

Democrats:

Neoliberals
Social welfarists/socialists
Social liberals
Enviromentalists
Minority activists - including gays.
Center-left moderates
Keynesians

The national platform of each party is a combination of all of the above.

I find that to be part of the problem, though. By systematically lumping all of the possible different parties into two parties, individual politicians are pushed to either toe the mainstream party line or become pariahs. The choice for which direction a party goes becomes linear ("A more moderate or more conservative Republican Party?"). Each voter is left with one of two choices, with no chance that their vote will affect policy if they disagree with both choices. And those who are poor fits to the center of either major party end up with few who meaningfully speak for them in government. It causes apathy and disenfranchisement. I don't think the viewpoints I hold are too unusual in the context of American politics, and yet, who can I look to as somebody I agree with in power? I guess I admire Justin Amash, and maybe the Paul family in a stretch (just don't make me defend everything they do!). I'm really grasping at straws here.

All that changes under a proportional representation scheme, though. I personally like the Dutch scheme best, but I suppose that something like the German scheme would fit better with the American mentality. Either way, I think we'd immediately see an alleviation to all the problems I mentioned earlier. We'd probably end up with a half dozen important parties, with shifting coalitions, and with the Democrats and Republicans still dominant (at first), but not a duopoly.

My guess is the party scheme would look like this:
Republicans: Right-leaning, social conservative, hawkish
Democrats: Left-leaning, social liberal/moderate, moderate foreign policy
Party 3: Right-leaning, social liberal, dovish (Libertarian Party or Reform Party?)
Party 4: Left-wing, social liberal, dovish (Green Party?)
Party 5: Right-wing, Paleoconservative (Constitution Party?)
Party 6: Left-leaning, social conservative, hawkish (some kind of populist party that seems very conservative but supports quasi-socialism, an "old people party" of sorts... I think there's an opening here)

The Germans end up with something like this... CDA is sort of like the Republicans in that scheme (less conservative maybe, but then the whole German paradigm is shifted from the American one); SPD is sort of like the Democrats; FDP is like Party 3; Greens and/or Left are like Party 4; and NPD somewhat bridges Party 5 and Party 6.

In the Netherlands, CDA is like the Republicans (bearing in mind a similar paradigm shift from America as in Germany); PvdA is like the Democrats; VVD is like Party 3; SP and/or GL are like Party 4; and PVV, CU, and SGP are different approximations of Party 5 and Party 6.

I could go on, but I'm having too much fun with this, and diverging from my point. Which is that the European proportional representation model is better.

 

[JFWR]

I think you point out a lot of our political differences succinctly here, at least on social policy (your foreign policy is a bit vague). I favor drug legalization, legalized abortion, gay marriage, and "other such things." I'm against tariffs, at least protectionist ones. I don't always oppose infrastructure projects, though, but I don't think most libertarians hold a blanket opposition to all infrastructure projects. Anyway, you can see how my views approach libertarianism.

Yes, you seem to fall squarely in the libertarian camp if you aren't backing these things for leftist reasons.

I find that to be part of the problem, though. By systematically lumping all of the possible different parties into two parties, individual politicians are pushed to either toe the mainstream party line or become pariahs. The choice for which direction a party goes becomes linear ("A more moderate or more conservative Republican Party?"). Each voter is left with one of two choices, with no chance that their vote will affect policy if they disagree with both choices. And those who are poor fits to the center of either major party end up with few who meaningfully speak for them in government. It causes apathy and disenfranchisement. I don't think the viewpoints I hold are too unusual in the context of American politics, and yet, who can I look to as somebody I agree with in power? I guess I admire Justin Amash, and maybe the Paul family in a stretch (just don't make me defend everything they do!). I'm really grasping at straws here.

All that changes under a proportional representation scheme, though. I personally like the Dutch scheme best, but I suppose that something like the German scheme would fit better with the American mentality. Either way, I think we'd immediately see an alleviation to all the problems I mentioned earlier. We'd probably end up with a half dozen important parties, with shifting coalitions, and with the Democrats and Republicans still dominant (at first), but not a duopoly.

My guess is the party scheme would look like this:
Republicans: Right-leaning, social conservative, hawkish
Democrats: Left-leaning, social liberal/moderate, moderate foreign policy
Party 3: Right-leaning, social liberal, dovish (Libertarian Party or Reform Party?)
Party 4: Left-wing, social liberal, dovish (Green Party?)
Party 5: Right-wing, Paleoconservative (Constitution Party?)
Party 6: Left-leaning, social conservative, hawkish (some kind of populist party that seems very conservative but supports quasi-socialism, an "old people party" of sorts... I think there's an opening here)

The Germans end up with something like this... CDA is sort of like the Republicans in that scheme (less conservative maybe, but then the whole German paradigm is shifted from the American one); SPD is sort of like the Democrats; FDP is like Party 3; Greens and/or Left are like Party 4; and NPD somewhat bridges Party 5 and Party 6.

In the Netherlands, CDA is like the Republicans (bearing in mind a similar paradigm shift from America as in Germany); PvdA is like the Democrats; VVD is like Party 3; SP and/or GL are like Party 4; and PVV, CU, and SGP are different approximations of Party 5 and Party 6.

I could go on, but I'm having too much fun with this, and diverging from my point. Which is that the European proportional representation model is better.

I don't see a meaningful difference between having two parties that are implicitly coalition, and multiple parties that are explicitly coalition, when the end result is coalition aspects to begin with.

Basically, by voting for your local representative, governor, senator, et cetera, you're voting for distinctive coalitions in your party which, when they reach the national stage, coalesce to make meaningful change (for good or ill). There is some process of homogenization by virtue of being in the same party, but this is just the same as in Europe in this regard (all coalition governments are more homogenous than the individual parties are).

The main difference is that the American system tends to favour stability. I prefer our elections peaceful, our policies more consistent, and our general political process slower (in a good way) compared to the chaos of Europe.

As a note, though: The Reform Party was, at least under Perot, was pretty much a paleoconservative and socially conservative on everything but abortion. THe libertarian party is closer to number 3.

 

[sparkey]

I don't see a meaningful difference between having two parties that are implicitly coalition, and multiple parties that are explicitly coalition, when the end result is coalition aspects to begin with.

Basically, by voting for your local representative, governor, senator, et cetera, you're voting for distinctive coalitions in your party which, when they reach the national stage, coalesce to make meaningful change (for good or ill). There is some process of homogenization by virtue of being in the same party, but this is just the same as in Europe in this regard (all coalition governments are more homogenous than the individual parties are).

There are several differences, the most important being that the minority wings are underrepresented in the implicit coalition model, as I showed in my attempt to find people in American government that approach my viewpoints (basically Party 3 in my scheme). Also, the minority wings tend to be less distinctive from majority wings than minority parties are from majority parties, and they're also much less likely to break from them during coalition building, which gives them far less leverage. Basically, even with the presence of different wings, 2 dominant viewpoints arise in the American system to a degree not seen in proportional European systems, and voters outside those 2 end up underrepresented (if not unrepresented) and discouraged.

The main difference is that the American system tends to favour stability. I prefer our elections peaceful, our policies more consistent, and our general political process slower (in a good way) compared to the chaos of Europe.

What are you comparing to, Belgium? America, even if it did adopt PR, doesn't really have the dynamic of the sorts of countries that I'd describe as chaotic during elections. It seems to me that the stability mechanism in American government is constitutional law, rather than the electoral system.

As a note, though: The Reform Party was, at least under Perot, was pretty much a paleoconservative and socially conservative on everything but abortion. THe libertarian party is closer to number 3.

Yeah, I was more thinking of the direction it went with Ventura.

 

[JFWR]

There are several differences, the most important being that the minority wings are underrepresented in the implicit coalition model, as I showed in my attempt to find people in American government that approach my viewpoints (basically Party 3 in my scheme).

Maybe in California. But most moderate Republicans (which tend to be found in the NE now as the Republican party is all but dead in California) support you on many of your positions, and Libertarians (as you said - the Pauls) would be more supportive than that.

Also, the minority wings tend to be less distinctive from majority wings than minority parties are from majority parties, and they're also much less likely to break from them during coalition building, which gives them far less leverage. Basically, even with the presence of different wings, 2 dominant viewpoints arise in the American system to a degree not seen in proportional European systems, and voters outside those 2 end up underrepresented (if not unrepresented) and discouraged.

I don't think this is especially so. There is definitely some divergence in Europe, but coalitions tend to be far more restrained in general. Those radical minority voices tend to become far more line-towing once they're in a coalition with the normal folks.

What are you comparing to, Belgium? America, even if it did adopt PR, doesn't really have the dynamic of the sorts of countries that I'd describe as chaotic during elections. It seems to me that the stability mechanism in American government is constitutional law, rather than the electoral system.

I think a good majority of governments in Europe have been far less stable over the periods that America has been. This is true of France, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, et cetera, to varying extents.

Constitutional law does assist that, too, yes. We have base laws which are extremely difficult to change because of our constitutional system, whereas European countries run more of a full on democracy with all its pitfalls.

Yeah, I was more thinking of the direction it went with Ventura.

Sadly, he went off the cliff really, really quickly. He was pretty legitimate to begin with, but now he talks about how evil the government is, 9-11 is an inside job, blahblahblah. His pro-wrestling theatrics have murdered his sense.

 

[oriental]

I think the US is corrupted but in a very sophisticated way. I studied at a US university in the Midwest state which is full of Irish and Germans. The US Constitution as laudable as it is, has weaken the government allowing criminals to control the government. There is no background check on those who incorporate a company. Many criminals during the Prohibition went "legit" and went into business. Look at all the corporate criminals and Wall Street crime. This is the root of the world wide recession. All the politicians are on the hook from lobbyists and PACs. I think politicians are bought by the highest bidder so that is why most voters are disenchanted with all the candidates.

 

[Finalise]

The republican party is pretty much rich folks who aren't very conservative at all, that pretend to be "conservative" a.k.a. to pander to the racists in the country ( a large number) to get political power. Then later they use that political to allow corporations to do whatever they want, as long as the corps pay these conservative politicans a fair share, and donate to their campaigns. They use outlets like Fox News, to pretty much brainwash people by consistently making things seem worse than they are, since perception is truth.

The democrats are actually right wingers, but they are labelled as marxists by republicans, again to win the racist/ignorant vote. The democrats are corrupt as well, but not as much as republicans. They are still bought by corporations and lobbyists. I.e. war in afg, no gun control, no gay marriage. Lately, they've started launching personal attacks like their political counterparts.

I think the democrats are the lesser of two evils. What republicans call "freedom" is pretty much letting corporations and bankers do what they want, crush the little people, provide zero social programs. Democrats at least try to set limits on bankers, but that has failed.

 

[oriental]

I looked at Clint Eastwood's Republican speech. He tried to appear folksy but he could follow his logic or maybe forgot his lines. I like his movies. It seems a lot of cowboys stars are right wingers e.g. John Wayne, Charlton Heston (Moses), James Stewart (but he seems a nice guy). I think it makes little difference who wins. They are peas in the same pod at different ends. All the corporations put money in both parties so no matter who wins they are covered. Five years have passed and none of the Wall Street perpetrators been charged. Many of the Democrats even work for Wall Street. Former mayor Daley works for Chase Manhattan.:useless:

 

[Michel Gilson]

I am new here but for the record I have nor voted for a major party candidate since 1988 and I did they reluctantly. I vote for either one of the two major parties says I am happy with the way things are so give me more of the same. I am not happy with the way things are and don't want more of the same. The lesser of two evils is still evil. We need to return a constitutionally limited republic.