Why is the United States so far right-wing?

[rumborak]

One thing you will hear often in European news talking about the US is "The Democrats, the left-wing party of the US, did XYZ. But, that's left-wing for US standards; which is pretty much center-right in the rest of the world."

Any theories how this right-wing affinity of the US came about?

rumborak

[kirbywelch92]

While I would say there are many factors to it, I would say that the age of our nation does have a slight effect. While ~250 years may seem like a lot to us Americans, that's like a child to most European countries. Drastic political changes take time, and Europe has certainly had plenty of that. Plus, patriotism is so much more stressed here and has been for decades, any idea suggesting a significant change is essentially anti-US behavior.

[GuineaPig]

But Canada, who is pretty similar to the US culturally and even younger in terms of the country, is significantly more to the left politically.

[William Wallace]

One thing you will hear often in European news talking about the US is "The Democrats, the left-wing party of the US, did XYZ. But, that's left-wing for US standards; which is pretty much center-right in the rest of the world."

Any theories how this right-wing affinity of the US came about?

rumborak

This is just a guess, but I think it's because the small government mindset is built in to our heritage. If you read any of the writings from late 18th Century America, I think that's pretty clear. Of course, this is by the European standard you're describing. Today I don't think we're very far to the right at all.

[Perpetual Change]

Size, maybe? It's hard to get 50 different territories to move on something democratically, especially when the system was set up to be slow to begin with (and that's when there were only 13 states).

[Super Dude]

All of the above and the failure of socialist and other radical leftist ideologies to truly take root in the political sphere, and not only because of the Red Scare and McCarthyism.  Because the United States became basically a world power around the time social democracy took hold of Western Europe, I think there wasn't enough appeal to American political actors that was working just fine on an intensely capitalist system.  Granted we've adopted some social democratic measures, but I feel like this "don't fix what ain't broke" mentality has a lot to do with it.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

As well as what others have posted, I think religiosity has a lot to do with it as well.

[7thHanyou]

Because, as much as we like to think human beings favor freedom, it seems we prefer to cede as much authority to centralized powers as possible.  And of course, the less of a collectivist mentality we exercise, the more negative the implications for those who favor "social justice" and the like.

As things stand, both the right and the left in America have been supremely collectivist for the past century.  If right-wing means less government power or more capitalism (it's hard to say--"right wing" seems to be a catch-all for anything negative these days), then we are not right-wing enough.

European countries seem to favor collectivist mentalities in general.  For the most part, it seems they don't even accept the libertarian arguments that established our country.

[Super Dude]

...Or perhaps they have more faith in the state to secure the public good, a governmental trust conspicuously missing from American civilian politics.

[7thHanyou]

...Or perhaps they have more faith in the state to secure the public good, a governmental trust conspicuously missing from American civilian politics.

Oh, yeah.  Why should we be skeptical of an institution with a monopoly on force that is run by flawed human beings who allocate more power to themselves with every opportunity?  That can't end badly.

It's a shame that the same continent which yielded philosophers like John Locke should have fallen so far that the march toward individualism has been supplanted by an obsession with the public good.  Not very progressive.

But honestly, how often do you hear about "individual rights" anymore, on either side of the pond?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I trust the government to do those things because there's nobody else to trust. But considering they're 'flawed human beings who allocate moer power to themselves', they do a pretty decent job.

[Perpetual Change]

...Or perhaps they have more faith in the state to secure the public good, a governmental trust conspicuously missing from American civilian politics.

What? The last administration was beaming with the sentiment that you should just put all your trust in W's government and know that history was going reward us.

[William Wallace]

I trust the government to do those things because there's nobody else to trust. But considering they're 'flawed human beings who allocate moer power to themselves', they do a pretty decent job.

How do you think? I obviously disagree but want to know what standard you judge a "pretty decent job."

[Super Dude]

...Or perhaps they have more faith in the state to secure the public good, a governmental trust conspicuously missing from American civilian politics.

Oh, yeah.  Why should we be skeptical of an institution with a monopoly on force that is run by flawed human beings who allocate more power to themselves with every opportunity?  That can't end badly.

It's a shame that the same continent which yielded philosophers like John Locke should have fallen so far that the march toward individualism has been supplanted by an obsession with the public good.  Not very progressive.

But honestly, how often do you hear about "individual rights" anymore, on either side of the pond?

Are you daft?  The post you just quoted is a paraphrase of Locke (although more particularly Montesquieu) himself.

[7thHanyou]

I trust the government to do those things because there's nobody else to trust. But considering they're 'flawed human beings who allocate moer power to themselves', they do a pretty decent job.

How do you think? I obviously disagree but want to know what standard you judge a "pretty decent job."

I'm also curious how there's "nobody else to trust."  I trust myself to use my money wisely.  I don't need bureaucrats dictating where it's spent.

[Super Dude]

Nobody's telling you how to use your disposable income.  Economic policy targets taxes, which I'll remind everyone are currently the lowest they've been in American history since 1953.

[7thHanyou]

Are you daft?  The post you just quoted is a paraphrase of Locke (although more particularly Montesquieu) himself.

Locke was keen on the public good, yes, but I thought we were developing from there, which was my point about "progressiveness."  Locke was still much more liberty-oriented than modern governments are, as he advocated the right to secession, self-defense, and the importance of private property.

As a Nozickian, Locke's philosophy is not perfect IMO.  But it's still better than what we've got.

And I find current politics much more Rousseauesque.

[Super Dude]

Are you daft?  The post you just quoted is a paraphrase of Locke (although more particularly Montesquieu) himself.

Locke was keen on the public good, yes, but I thought we were developing from there, which was my point about "progressiveness."  Locke was still much more liberty-oriented than modern governments are, as he advocated the right to secession, self-defense, and the importance of private property.

As a Nozickian, Locke's philosophy is not perfect IMO.  But it's still better than what we've got.

And I find current politics much more Rousseauesque.

And why do we need the right of secession?  Private property I can understand but we have that, and self-defence to varying extents as well.  But why secession?

I think it's time I asked a question that for some reason is missing from all of these debates on a federal vs. state: why is a strong state government good?  How is a strong state government any less intrusive and "corrupt" than a strong federal government?  Moreover, why do we seek to divide power across the levels vertically rather than horizontally as Montesquieu advocated?

[j]

I trust the government to do those things because there's nobody else to trust. But considering they're 'flawed human beings who allocate moer power to themselves', they do a pretty decent job.

I can't agree with this (the "decent job" part), but pragmatically speaking, one has to trust the government in some areas whether it is incompetent or not.

I think it's time I asked a question that for some reason is missing from all of these debates on a federal vs. state: why is a strong state government good?  How is a strong state government any less intrusive and "corrupt" than a strong federal government?  Moreover, why do we seek to divide power across the levels vertically rather than horizontally as Montesquieu advocated?

Well the idea is that the smaller segments will have more accountability, more efficiency, and be better able to serve the people due to their relative closeness.  Whereas a massive central government is going to naturally operate with some degree of inefficiency, will not effectively represent the people, and will eventually develop completely different interests than would smaller bodies of government; it's painting everything with the same broad brush.  Not only that, but you're giving more power to less people, which is often a recipe for disaster.

I don't know that I buy either one, but I can definitely understand the arguments for more powers being conferred to the states.

-J

[Super Dude]

I guess, but that argument to me sounds essentially like "central government has been shown not to work and be corrupt, so maybe doing the opposite will work better."  I don't know if anyone else gets that vibe.  I just don't see how, even if the state government is closer to the people, that automatically translates into more accountability and efficiency.  Case in point: Dennis Archer and Kwame Kilpatrick, mayors of Detroit.  Yes they're municipal and not state politicians, but their shameful corruption and the continuing stagnation of Detroit until very recently aptly demonstrates how closeness does not equate greater accountability.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I trust the government to do those things because there's nobody else to trust. But considering they're 'flawed human beings who allocate moer power to themselves', they do a pretty decent job.

How do you think? I obviously disagree but want to know what standard you judge a "pretty decent job."

I'm also curious how there's "nobody else to trust."  I trust myself to use my money wisely.  I don't need bureaucrats dictating where it's spent.

Your money is your money. But the stuff you pay to the government is up to them to spend.

And I say decent job because compared to other countries in the world... we get a pretty good deal. At least we're not Zimbabwe.

As for having nobody else to trust.... who would you rather take control of some of these things? The private sector? You're kidding yourself if you think they care about anything other than their bottom line

[7thHanyou]

I guess, but that argument to me sounds essentially like "central government has been shown not to work and be corrupt, so maybe doing the opposite will work better."  I don't know if anyone else gets that vibe.  I just don't see how, even if the state government is closer to the people, that automatically translates into more accountability and efficiency.

It doesn't, necessarily, but for people like me who prefer that government be stripped down to its most basic functions, having governments manage a smaller area is inherently better.  State governments have demonstrated inefficiency and corruption, as well as terribly oppressive laws, but it's on a smaller scale.

There is also the very real fact that several states, at the United States' inception, reserved the right to secede.  I believe this means the federal government does not "own" them.  Either way, I see peaceful secession as a check on federal power, which is a check on inflated government.

I understand that some people see this as extreme and I don't expect widespread agreement.

Your money is your money. But the stuff you pay to the government is up to them to spend.

You mean the money the government forcefully confiscates from me?  I have almost no say what happens to that money, which is actually kind of heinous when you think about it.  I don't ask for the government to provide many of the services it does, but because it has a monopoly, my choices are unnecessarily restricted.

The idea that I have to support something with which I may actively disagree, and that I am subsequently denied alternatives, just strikes me as problematic.

As for having nobody else to trust.... who would you rather take control of some of these things? The private sector? You're kidding yourself if you think they care about anything other than their bottom line

I don't care what they care about, I just want control over my own resources.  A company with which I make a completely consensual contract is directly accountable to me, and I am freer to be directly responsible for my own expenditures.

[Perpetual Change]

I guess, but that argument to me sounds essentially like "central government has been shown not to work and be corrupt, so maybe doing the opposite will work better."  I don't know if anyone else gets that vibe.  I just don't see how, even if the state government is closer to the people, that automatically translates into more accountability and efficiency.  Case in point: Dennis Archer and Kwame Kilpatrick, mayors of Detroit.  Yes they're municipal and not state politicians, but their shameful corruption and the continuing stagnation of Detroit until very recently aptly demonstrates how closeness does not equate greater accountability.

I actually agree that strong central government is a necessity, but for different reasons. In the states? I'm not sure-- the States are big, people still have plenty of room to breathe. There are problems in the inner cities especially that the free-market seems to have failed, but other than that the need for much more government exertion than we have now is, I think, not really necessary.

In Asia where the world's population growth is really apparent it's a lot more obvious why government may need to regulate things involving people's basic living. In Hong Kong where I am now, it's crowded as fuck. People have a pretty decent quality of life, but they wouldn't if it weren't for the vast majority of the population living in publicly operated houses and relying on a very effective public health, education and transportation system. And yet, through all of this, Hong Kong is a world-hub of free commerce and the place libertarians even cite as being the closest thing to what a true libertarian government would look like.

The thing is, the more crowded the world gets and the more people wind-up getting pushed into increasingly smaller spaces, the more reasonable it might seem to be for the government to get involved in, for example, making sure people have modest houses and the potential to fight bacterial infections. I'm not sure 6,8,10,12 billion + people can live on this earth as if they live on islands with populations in the dozens.

Anyway, the moral is (typing this as I fall asleep at the computer) we might need a stronger central government here until we get to space. When the space colonies appear, we can have localization again. Confederacy. Libertarian space confederacy.

And this is the crazy thought I will leave you all with for the week. DTF is my lenten sacrifice  

[AndyDT]

One thing you will hear often in European news talking about the US is "The Democrats, the left-wing party of the US, did XYZ. But, that's left-wing for US standards; which is pretty much center-right in the rest of the world."

Any theories how this right-wing affinity of the US came about?

rumborak

There's an obvious corollary to this question if you ask me.

[Tick]

One thing you will hear often in European news talking about the US is "The Democrats, the left-wing party of the US, did XYZ. But, that's left-wing for US standards; which is pretty much center-right in the rest of the world."

Any theories how this right-wing affinity of the US came about?

rumborak

We elected Obama so were not that far right at the moment. Were a country divided in political ideology like I've not seen in my lifetime.

[Super Dude]

Actually the right-"ness" seems to have come immediately following his inauguration.

[Perpetual Change]

Actually the right-"ness" seems to have come immediately following his inauguration.

lol.

I'm thinking Obama will already be out of office before a single Republican is able to qualify is politics at least 'mostly correctly.'

[William Wallace]

Anyway, the moral is (typing this as I fall asleep at the computer) we might need a stronger central government here until we get to space. When the space colonies appear, we can have localization again. Confederacy. Libertarian space confederacy.

I'm feeling particularly cynical this morning, so I agree with this. We'll allow a strong central government to keep things "stable" until they collapse society by subsidizing everything, fighting the A-rabs, and inflating the dollar into oblivion. Once that happens, the bloc can immigrate to the Libertarian Space Confederacy. We'll either be the crazy southerners of the galaxy, and will be left alone, or the confederacy will flourish and everybody will want in. Either works for me.

[Super Dude]

Actually the right-"ness" seems to have come immediately following his inauguration.

lol.

I'm thinking Obama will already be out of office before a single Republican is able to qualify is politics at least 'mostly correctly.'

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

[j]

I'm not sure what he was getting at there either.

-J

[juice]

I think he means that America will be sure not to reelect him before a republican candidate is chosen to run against him.

[Super Dude]

Unfortunately the numbers they've run at Gallup would disagree with you there; just last month I was reading an article that noted Obama actually stands a good chance at getting re-elected.  Why, I don't know, but that's good enough for me.

[Perpetual Change]

No, I was saying that Republican understandings of Obama's polices are so wildly off-base, and have been since the election, that no Republican will dare even honestly assess his views until well after this partisan struggle is ended.

Maybe some Republican 50 years opposing some liberal leaders will point to Obama's neocon policies and say "remember when Presidents didn't let idealogy get in the way of doing 'what was best for the empire'?

[Super Dude]

1. That second half once again doesn't make sense, please rephrase that.

2. Obama = neocon

[Perpetual Change]

I'm saying Obama so far is so like Bush on all of the important things that he probably could have been Bush's successor. I'm saying that Republicans fail to acknowledge that. And I'm saying that they won't until the distant history, when there's no longer any political leverage to be lost by admitting the guy they tried to hang (Obama) was basically the same as the guy who was their guy (Bush).