Political Therapy

[fohat.digs]

we are simply applying the brakes to slow the train so that we don't derail.

Not a realistic option.

Republicans have been standing on the brakes ever since Reagan took office, and all that has been accomplished is that the the rest of the developed world is leaving the US behind to languish in the quagmire of trivial squabbles over minutiae like "religion" and "morals" instead of nation-building (our own nation, that is).

[Spopepro]

we are simply applying the brakes to slow the train so that we don't derail.

Not a realistic option.

Republicans have been standing on the brakes ever since Reagan took office, and all that has been accomplished is that the the rest of the developed world is leaving the US behind to languish in the quagmire of trivial squabbles over minutiae like "religion" and "morals" instead of nation-building (our own nation, that is).

I don't think you're altogether wrong, but I think you might be confusing party prominence with certain actions and policy. It's true that the profile of party membership and partisanship in general went on the rise starting around when Regan got elected. But you might also recall a fractured republican party being somewhat adrift allowing Ross Perot to gather ~20% of the popular vote. You would probably enjoy this essay: http://web.stanford.edu/~mfiorina/PARTIES%20AND%20PARTISANSHIP.pdf

However, I would say the "give me what I want or I'll shut it down" tantrum politics has been a more recent phenomenon, say the last 10 years or so. Neither side has been immune, with house republicans threatening (and sometimes executing) shutdowns over funding bills, democratic state legislators fleeing the state to prevent laws from being passed... Regardless of if you agree with the policy reasons for doing such things, using a spanner-in-the-works approach only fuels discontent and frustration, making it harder to negotiate in good faith in the future.

And very possibly a turning point could be identified in the 2000 presidential primaries. At the time, McCain was building momentum, was moderate on a lot of issues (being a POW puts a damper on wanting to sent soldiers into conflict everywhere) and was looking good for the nomination. Bush the Second brought out the nasty and mobilized the evangelicals in South Carolina (and many other places) and rode the wave of "I'm the moral Christian candidate" to the win. This particular event was largely responsible for the ensuing years of bat-****-crazy McCain, who now believed you needed the "moral-right" to win an election. I'm sure many others have received the same playbook.

But hey, at least we aren't electing fascists? (I'm looking at you UKIP, Lega Nord, Front national...)

[kurplop]

I strongly disagree with this notion that several people have put forward, painting the "left" and "right" with the same brush.

The differences are stark and huge.

Of course you would. People on the extreme right or left tend to not see the folly in their own positions.

These are generalizations and not every extremist is guilty of these, but here are some of the similar characteristics I've noticed:

1. They are prone to speaking in sometimes irrational absolutes.
2. They have a blind inability to even consider the other side's perspective.
3. They display an unwillingness to compromise in order to move forward.
4. They tend to assume the worst intentions to explain their opposition's actions.
5. They are frequently volatile, irritable, accusing, and fear and hate mongering.
6. People at dinner parties try to avoid them because of their loud ranting and threatening gesticulations.
7. Doctors warn them that their elevated blood pressure will surely lead to a shortened life and suggest deep breathing exercises.

Sound familiar?

[Spopepro]

I strongly disagree with this notion that several people have put forward, painting the "left" and "right" with the same brush.

The differences are stark and huge.

Of course you would. People on the extreme right or left tend to not see the folly in their own positions.

These are generalizations and not every extremist is guilty of these, but here are some of the similar characteristics I've noticed:

1. They are prone to speaking in sometimes irrational absolutes.
2. They have a blind inability to even consider the other side's perspective.
3. They display an unwillingness to compromise in order to move forward.
4. They tend to assume the worst intentions to explain their opposition's actions.
5. They are frequently volatile, irritable, accusing, and fear and hate mongering.
6. People at dinner parties try to avoid them because of their loud ranting and threatening gesticulations.
7. Doctors warn them that their elevated blood pressure will surely lead to a shortened life and suggest deep breathing exercises.

Sound familiar?

Fohat can defend himself, but if you think his comments have been extremist, I worry about those you will meet in the future.

Besides, the whole "intellectual moderation" crowd seems to largely present argument for sport on the internet (and would you look at those demographics!) I mean, if it wasn't just navel-gazing, you could surely elect *someone*, right?



Source: https://voteviewblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/alpha-nominate-on-the-114th-house-update/

[fohat.digs]

Sound familiar?

If you are accusing me of these things, then I resent it but mostly feel sorry for you.

But, of course, I see myself as a middle-of-the-road moderate, and see people like Cruz and Ryan as racing down the road taken by all the failed totalitarians and ideologues down through history, with the cowering lapdogs of the remainder of the Republican party in tow.

This is not a scenario where "compromise" and "working together" are really possible, since the former "left" has already granted massive concessions and moved too far to the center, if not somewhat right-of-center, in recent years in its efforts to appease and work with the "New Right". But that is a significant victory for the "Tea Party, etc" nonetheless, in shifting of the entire spectrum dramatically rightwards, and we moderates (Republicans and Democrats alike) resent it greatly.

As a very mature, well-educated, well-read, and thoughtful man whose has seen and learned a lot in my lifetime to get to where I am today, I have found the majority of your emotion-based arguments weak to the point of being lame. If you cannot start backing up your opinions with something better than Bible quotes, Fox-esque platitudes, and accusations of prejudice on my part, I cannot engage in any more of this banter with you.

In the US today, while the "Radical Right" insists on attempting to take the "moral high ground" their behavior, in general, anything but "moral".

I consider the "Radical Right" in the US today to be the 2nd-greatest threat that the US has ever faced in its history, behind only the Institution of Slavery, to which it bears a deeply troubling resemblance.

[kurplop]

If you are accusing me of these things, then I resent it but mostly feel sorry for you.

I do appreciate your concern but stand by my earlier analysis with one correction stated below.

Fohat can defend himself, but if you think his comments have been extremist, I worry about those you will meet in the future.

I think I should have better stated what I meant by extremists. I should have wrote extremists on the right and left instead of extreme left and extreme right. One  speaks to policy positions the other to behavior.

I'm actually open to different options left or right. I just don't have an appetite for being force fed closed minded dogma and bullying manipulations from either position. It's the difference between a calm discussion and chants at a rally.

Regarding your link to the report analyzing the changes in partisanship since the early 80's. It was an interesting read. Was there something in particular you wanted us to glean from it?

[Spopepro]

Regarding your link to the report analyzing the changes in partisanship since the early 80's. It was an interesting read. Was there something in particular you wanted us to glean from it?

There's a perception among many that the political "game" drastically changed starting with Regan. Fohat's observations are particularly valuable because he's speaking from first hand experience as one of our more stately members. The perception of change is correct, but what exactly changed and the effect on political action is not. The essay (note that while academic in nature, and well cited, it is not peer-reviewed) does a good job of confirming the rise of partisanship, but also recognizing the limited effect of party on policy in the 80s and 90s. Therefore it's a response to fohat tracing a bad political fight to a point in time that I don't agree with. He puts it around Regan's win, I put it around the 2000 South Carolina primary. Ultimately, we agree that there's a political faction in the USA that is outright dangerous wielding not insignificant power. But to fully follow that argument, you would need to understand how radicalized militants in the Middle East are being recruited and trained, and then look at the types of relationships that exist between certain governments and non-uniformed combatents and then carefully look at the policy and open position among a certain set of people in power in this country and see the connection to the planned parenthood attack, the Giffords assassination attempt, and so on.  But there's more reading to be done around this than can reasonably be asked in a keyboard forum (and I'm reaching my "someone's wrong on the Internet" comic moment) and I worry that the "intellectual moderate" will automatically recoil at the suggestion that there may be political and public action in the states with the same intended effect as the powers we (USA) are fighting in other parts of the world.

[kurplop]

Thanks for the clarification. I read the report and got the gist of it but must admit that some of it went over my head.

[fohat.digs]

I worry that the "intellectual moderate" will automatically recoil at the suggestion that there may be political and public action in the states with the same intended effect as the powers we (USA) are fighting in other parts of the world.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/10/electoral-integrity/

TL;DR version:

[azhdar]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

[HoffmanMyster]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

Welcome to the two-party system.

[fohat.digs]

Welcome to the two-party system.

That is it, precisely.

The worst thing that you can possibly do is to  *NOT*  vote for the least of the 2 evils.

[swimmingbird]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

Welcome to the two-party system.

Welcome to the world

Pepsi or Coke?

[Oobly]

So yesterday (sunday), France was voting for regionals. In a lot of regions, the Front National ("far right") came first and already won some regions (when they were above 50% ).
We're voting the second round upcoming sunday, both left wing and right wing formed an alliance: in some regions there are still 3 peoples to vote (left,right,far right). So if the right or the left is third, they surrender to decrease the chances of the Front National to win. And they tell their voters to vote against Front National.

Mfw democracy.

Welcome to the two-party system.

Welcome to the world

Pepsi or Coke?

But I want Fanta.

I'm quite satisfied with how politics works here in Finland (8 main parties with a number of other minority ones). Although right now, we've got a bit of a problem with the three main elected parties trying to come to some kind of agreement over the new employment contract conditions for workers. It's needed for financial relief, to help save the economy of the country. And yet we're still spending huge sums on helping the refugees. I don't think that should stop, but I do think it's interesting that a country that has absolutely nothing to do with the situation there, is many thousands of kilometers distant and has no real political "responsibility" is helping out despite the economy being in trouble. Finland is good people.

And US is doing this: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/

The absolutely massive difference in culture and climate also creates tensions that are hard to resolve (particularly amongst those who don't recognise that they should respect the culture of the country that's giving them sanctuary). And crime statistics (particularly rapes) show some unsettling trends.

[vivalarevolución]

Donald Trump, wtf.

[trenzafeeds]

Donald Trump, wtf.

Lol. Getting at the real questions

[Photekq]

Donald Trump, wtf.

I mean he's not any worse than any of the other candidates.

Cuz erryone a raciss

[trenzafeeds]

I mean he's not any worse than any of the other candidates.

You don't even live in america.

[Photekq]

You don't even live in america.

But the American presidential election affects me and everyone else in the world, since America insists on having a substantial global presence, so my forming an opinion on the candidates is perfectly reasonable.

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

[trenzafeeds]

You don't even live in america.

But the American presidential election affects me and everyone else in the world, since America insists on having a substantial global presence, so my forming an opinion on the candidates is perfectly reasonable.

haha, no, I know. I think that Donald Trump wouldn't honestly make a huge difference for you in the UK versus the other candidates maybe, because he thinks of you folks as an ally, but can you imagine what he'd do to the citizens and some other countries he dislikes? I can totally relate to the jaded every candidate is the same position, but while others wouldn't really make an change, Trump would actively change things in an insane (not right wing, but insane) direction.

[Photekq]

haha, no, I know. I think that Donald Trump wouldn't honestly make a huge difference for you in the UK versus the other candidates maybe, because he thinks of you folks as an ally, but can you imagine what he'd do to the citizens and some other countries he dislikes? I can totally relate to the jaded every candidate is the same position, but while others wouldn't really make an change, Trump would actively change things in an insane (not right wing, but insane) direction.

It doesn't matter if he sees the UK as an ally. Name one presidential candidate who doesn't.. I'm not worried about any of the presidential candidates wanting to attack the UK, I'm worried about what we might get dragged into as an ally. Trump was against the war in Iraq, and is against Obama's disastrous military intervention in Syria. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Besides, if you think that any one person becoming the President of the United States will significantly reduce or increase your involvement abroad you're overestimating the power of the president and underestimating the true power : money power.

Out of curiosity, what are the insane things that Trump is proposing? Reduced immigration? That isn't insane.

[vivalarevolución]

Donald Trump, wtf.

Lol. Getting at the real questions

Seriously though.  Despite that Trumps acts in a manner that is self serving, attention seeking, narcissistic, sociopathic, xenophobic, sexist, and generally hateful, he is only a symbol of the problem.  The problem is that he has so much support.  It is indicative of the widespread culture of fear and paranoia and misdirected hate that still boils strongly in the USA.

Of course, he is only a symptom of the problem, as our political system and democracy are very sick, if they were ever that healthy at all.

[trenzafeeds]

Out of curiosity, what are the insane things that Donald  Trump is proposing? Reduced immigration? That isn't insane.

Mandating identification badges on all muslims? Specifically turning away immigrants based on religion? Sounds like fascism to me.

[Photekq]

Mandating identification badges on all muslims? Specifically turning away immigrants based on religion? Sounds like fascism to me.

Ehhh, this is the one area where he's gone over the top after the Paris attacks. I have severe doubts that he would ever actually consider doing the former; I think it's just him attempting to get more attention (and succeeding). The latter is more realistic, but considering his attitudes towards immigration on the whole I doubt it would make much difference even if implemented. Also, I very much doubt that it would be anywhere near as severe as that description. It's more likely to be that more attention and scrutiny will be paid towards potential immigrants of certain religions.

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

[trenzafeeds]

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

[hwood34]

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

Sanders has basically no chance whatsoever

[Signature]

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

Sanders has basically no chance whatsoever

Not with that attitude

[hwood34]

I'm torn between Sanders and Trump for who I'd like to come out on top. I hope it's between them.

Sanders has basically no chance whatsoever

Not with that attitude

not with any attitude

[kurplop]

Out of curiosity, what are the insane things that Donald  Trump is proposing? Reduced immigration? That isn't insane.

Mandating identification badges on all muslims? Specifically turning away immigrants based on religion? Sounds like fascism to me.

Keep in mind that this is the latest of many extreme statements that Trump has used to dominate the press. After the dust settles, he usually modifies his position (he would say clarify) to make it sound more acceptable to the press and public. I am personally disappointed by the size of his following. I think it's an overreaction to the overall dissatisfaction to our current situation and even more, the fragmented and impotent Republican party.

Based on his past positions, I question whether Trump  really has strong conservative leanings. I think he's a great rabble rouser and could have tailored his message to be equally effective in either party. Either way, I'm cautious of anyone whose methods are so pragmatic.

[Photekq]

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

I agree absolutely and completely with the economic aspect of fascism. The state exerts a strong influence over all investment, some industries are nationalized, and most importantly private individuals being able to own businesses/land/property hinges on whether or not it benefits the country on the whole, both socially and economically. This would stamp out globalism if executed on a global scale (of course this will never happen).

My thoughts on the social aspect of fascism are ongoing. I have always strongly believed that in a democracy everyone should have absolute free speech; without it there cannot be the free flow of ideas and opinions, and therefore there can be no true democracy. However, I can see the disadvantages of free speech and also the advantages of fascism.

That said, fascism has the potential to create the strongest and most happy country, and it also has the potential to create the most oppressive country. An example of the former would be Nazi Germany prior to the war. For the German people it was the most prosperous and happy nation in the recent history of Europe.

[Signature]

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

Does it matter? Can't you have opinions and not be branded into a specific group?

[fohat.digs]

Donald Trump, wtf.

I love Donald Trump and I hope that he stays in the race as long as possible.

The more his mouth moves, the more likely the apathetic majority will understand what the Radical Right really stands for.

[trenzafeeds]

It doesn't sound like fascism to me. It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism. The two are often confused, and the words fascist/fascism are misused even more often.

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

Does it matter? Can't you have opinions and not be branded into a specific group?

No, and Photekq gave me exactly what I expected from him, a complex answer that describes his ideology. However, that answer would have been a lot longer if he had explained exactly what the economic aspects of fascism are, instead of just saying what he did and having me generally understand.

[trenzafeeds]

For the German people it was the most prosperous and happy nation in the recent history of Europe.

My ancestors weren't too stoked about their shower system though. 

As for your economic section, that's very interesting, because what you described is very similar in some aspects to the earlier-middle stages of socialism. It never ceases to amuse me how the "right" and "left" labels we put on things end up being a circle that converges at both ends, rather than a spectrum.

[Spopepro]

I actually meant to ask you, which part of the right wing do you lean towards? Libertarianism or fascism?

That said, fascism has the potential to create the strongest and most happy country, and it also has the potential to create the most oppressive country. An example of the former would be Nazi Germany prior to the war. For the German people it was the most prosperous and happy nation in the recent history of Europe.

Happy for all except those who, you know, were systematically killed as part of ethnic cleansing and property seizure.

With all due respect: **** you Photekq.

[Photekq]

Happy for all except those who, you know, were systematically killed as part of ethnic cleansing and property seizure.

With all due respect: **** you Photekq.

Did you fully read what I said?

I said it was the most prosperous and happy nation for the German people.

Ok, perhaps I could have been a little more specific. For the indigenous German people who did not oppose Nazism. The other guys didn't have a very nice time of it, and I never said otherwise. I didn't mention them since it was not relevant in regards to what I was saying.

[trenzafeeds]

For the indigenous German people who did not oppose Nazism.

I don't really want to argue about this, because I know it's not your point in the fascism thing, but you're treading on some pretty thin ice here man. I have ancestors who can trace back their family very far as both germans and jews. I think what you mean to say is the regime was best for the people it was intended to be best for. Now I hope this can be the end of this.

[Photekq]

I don't really want to argue about this, because I know it's not your point in the fascism thing, but you're treading on some pretty thin ice here man. I have ancestors who can trace back their family very far as both germans and jews. I think what you mean to say is the regime was best for the people it was intended to be best for. Now I hope this can be the end of this.

And excluding Jews of course. How could I ever forget.

As for your economic section, that's very interesting, because what you described is very similar in some aspects to the earlier-middle stages of socialism. It never ceases to amuse me how the "right" and "left" labels we put on things end up being a circle that converges at both ends, rather than a spectrum.

I think my description is perhaps where the similarities end. To expand a bit further: big business is generally encouraged under fascism, so long as it is still economically and socially beneficial to the country and its people, therefore unions tend to disappear. The state often aids businesses rather than the people under the thought process that it is better to create jobs rather than give hand outs. The state favours the strong rather than the weak.

Every form of Fascism that has manifested has been different, but I'll use the British Union of Fascists as an example. Oswald Mosley proposed isolationalism: that Britain should focus inwards rather than outwards, prohibiting trade outside of the British Empire. This was in response to the coming of global business and cheap "Coolie" labour which has now changed the world immeasurably. I imagine this would have been the attitudes of other Fascist states, but Germany and Italy didn't really need to worry about international trading, as they never did much to begin with aside from trading with neighbouring countries.

[trenzafeeds]

As for your economic section, that's very interesting, because what you described is very similar in some aspects to the earlier-middle stages of socialism. It never ceases to amuse me how the "right" and "left" labels we put on things end up being a circle that converges at both ends, rather than a spectrum.

I think my description is perhaps where the similarities end. To expand a bit further: big business is generally encouraged under fascism, so long as it is still economically and socially beneficial to the country and its people, therefore unions tend to disappear. The state often aids businesses rather than the people under the thought process that it is better to create jobs rather than give hand outs. The state favours the strong rather than the weak.

Every form of Fascism that has manifested has been different, but I'll use the British Union of Fascists as an example. Oswald Mosley proposed isolationalism: that Britain should focus inwards rather than outwards, prohibiting trade outside of the British Empire. This was in response to the coming of global business and cheap "Coolie" labour which has now changed the world immeasurably. I imagine this would have been the attitudes of other Fascist states, but Germany and Italy didn't really need to worry about international trading, as they never did much to begin with aside from trading with neighbouring countries.

Yes, you make a good point. Many political ideas will sound similar enough when described in exceedingly general terms.
Of course, fascism is state focused enough that at the end of the day it comes down to whether or not the state is people-focused. As for isolationism, I think it ofter depends heavily on the resources (especially natural ones) of the nation in which you are trying to implement a system. Not every nation has the means to isolate.

[fohat.digs]

It sounds like authoritarianism, but not fascism.

Or Totalitarianism.

Discussions of the political philosophies of Socialism or Communism rarely last more than a few minutes before somebody freaks out and points to all of the examples in the modern world where even what was, at the outset, a "pure and clean" socialist system very rapidly devolved into a totalitarian environment that was usually far worse than whatever it had replaced.

The Founding Fathers looked at the US as an "experiment in democracy" and for over 2 centuries it has generally been successful, if not without its fair share of problems, and has served as a model for the world.

There has not been a successful "experiment in socialism" so far, in the modern world, because, for whatever reasons, the power elites have always seized control quickly and wielded an iron hand. Unfortunately, this also started to happen with ever-increasing momentum even here in the US since the mid-late-1970s.

Modern Europe has spawned a number of extremely successful systems of democratic socialism and this is what Bernie Sanders would strive to emulate here. I agree, this is the way of a rational sophisticated modern society in the "global village".

And, as I always add, there needs to be a viable and realistic world government.

[trenzafeeds]

world government.

Literally one piece.

There has not been a successful "experiment in socialism" so far, in the modern world

Take a look at mandrigan, although it may be too small scale to really count.
As for the socialist experiments you're undoubtably referring to, you have to keep them in context. Lenin took an extremely poor, spread-out nation that was stuck in a feudal system, and pulled it out of war, industrialized it, and significantly increased the quality of living for the average citizen. Sure, they were still much worse off than the US, but this is after only a couple years of the system. You just can't compare capitalism in its finest moments to communism in its worst, which is what I feel like people often do.

[Photekq]

And, as I always add, there needs to be a viable and realistic world government.

Why do you think there needs to be one?

[swimmingbird]

And, as I always add, there needs to be a viable and realistic world government.

Why do you think there needs to be one?

Because many problems facing the world are global in nature and if governments act in their own interests it will be a tragedy of the commons

Doesn't mean that they should legislate everything but maybe some things

Emissions trading schemes/ climate change is a good example of this

[fohat.digs]

Why do you think there needs to be one?

Disagreements are inevitable and the final arbiter needs to be something besides warfare.

[fohat.digs]

Lenin took an extremely poor, spread-out nation that was stuck in a feudal system, and pulled it out of war, industrialized it, and significantly increased the quality of living for the average citizen.

I agree, particularly the part about "this is after only a couple years of the system" at which point Stalin turned it into a hideous abomination.

Likewise, Hitler oversaw the rebuilding of an even more devastated Germany into a superpower in a mere decade.

Could these efficiencies could be maintained without an inevitable descent into a hellish Orwellian "1984" world? Who knows?

That is why I believe that the "democratic" and "socialist" components must be carefully applied in equal measure.

[Oobly]

ANY political system that works well in one country is not guaranteed to work in another. Countries have individual identity and culture and it should stay that way. People should have more respect for each others' cultural identity and culture, though. I strongly believe every country should have it's own governance and something like the UN is the closest to a "world government" as we should get.

I've lived in three different countries with very different cultures and know for a certainty that what works so well politically in Finland has very little chance of working in South Africa for instance. Every country has it's own political needs and they should be tailored for the populace. There are some political systems and ideals that simply won't work in any country long term, though. Fascism and communism being two of these. People will eventually want more self-governance and independence. One person or party can only decide what's best for the country in certain "top level" systems. In the lower levels there needs to be autonomy and self-governance, or efficiency will be lost and people will rebel.

America is an interesting case. It is very diverse and has such a large population and land area that having a single ruling party that has systems that work for everyone is pretty difficult. Perhaps local state governance should have more control and national goverment less, with only the "core" ideals and systems that make sense for a united group of states. Like a mini version of UN. The balance of benefits for particular groups from national and state elections should be roughly equal.

In essence, for a large country a two-level democracy is closest to ideal, IMHO, but there need to be more than two parties and "systems of ideals". For small countries, a single level democracy can suffice. In all political systems and all countries, though, education should be a priority, along with a certain level of social support, especially for health.

[baldgye]

Lenin took an extremely poor, spread-out nation that was stuck in a feudal system, and pulled it out of war, industrialized it, and significantly increased the quality of living for the average citizen.

I agree, particularly the part about "this is after only a couple years of the system" at which point Stalin turned it into a hideous abomination.

Likewise, Hitler oversaw the rebuilding of an even more devastated Germany into a superpower in a mere decade.

Could these efficiencies could be maintained without an inevitable descent into a hellish Orwellian "1984" world? Who knows?

That is why I believe that the "democratic" and "socialist" components must be carefully applied in equal measure.

..but Hitler bankrupted his country in the process, the UK after the war was in financial trouble and took out massive loans to get its self back on its feet, loans our generation is now paying for. You can't simply turn around a country just like that without there being massive downsides.

[Oobly]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

[baldgye]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

You mean working like Italy? Which operates it's laws and also has 'gods laws' which cannot change and that prevent Italy from allowing gay marriages etc?

[Oobly]

Just wanted to add a couple things..

I believe strongly in personal land ownership, separation of church and state and a policing system that includes a small task force that has rights to investigate and charge ANYONE, up to and including the president. Also a law system that places judgment of case merits in the hands of judges so ridiculous claims get thrown out and commonsense has a chance to prevail.

In one sense an authoritarian state can do well, but only if the leader is "perfect". Since no leader is "perfect", the system cannot work in the way the idealists claim and hope for it to. Corruption and greed are quite often present in the highest levels of these types of governments. Just take a look at Zimbabwe, or many other African nations.

You mean working like Italy? Which operates it's laws and also has 'gods laws' which cannot change and that prevent Italy from allowing gay marriages etc?

Separation of church and state... as in the churches have no political influence and are governed and administered independently.