The differences between US & UK politics

[Emma two]

Emma, The use of the terms, 'left wing' and 'right wing' differ from Nation to Nation.

 

You understand the concept of left and right ONLY as it is applicable to the Country in which you reside.

 

The terms originate from the Post Revolution period in France.

 

I can't remember the full explanation I was given once but broadly speaking, People consider left and right in Political terms as a straight line with either party sat on the end with liberal in the centre, this is in fact not so, in broader political terms, Political thought is a circle, the more you move to the extreme of one side, the closer you become to the extreme view of the opposition.

 

It's true that the meanings of 'left' and 'right of politics differ across states, and also across time, for example, as you point out the origins of the term come from revolutionary France, in the early revolutionary era, when the monarch still sat as head of state with his supporters seated to the right. The left were seen as opposing the monarchists, however things quickly became less clear, with 'some' leftists arguing for a British style constitutional monarchy.

 

In different societies, Left and Right have been clearly differently interpreted, and the more the concepts are moved from their 18th century origins the more muddled they become and some would even argue about the usefulness of the terms at all. To many in the mid 20th century 'right' meant little more than an opposition to Bolshevism.

 

I don't wholeheartedly agree with your comment, 'You understand the concept of left and right ONLY as it is applicable to the Country in which you reside'., For if that were the case no outsider could claim an understanding of any foreign political system, and that clearly isn't the case, 'experts' in alien political systems abound and the resources necessary to analise contemporary American politics are readily availiabe. While that particular subject isn't one in which I am so interested as to claim especial fluency, I belive my grasp is sufficient to maintian my original case that a wider gap between what is percieved as left/right would be healthier for both UK and US politics.

 

We see some Americans widening the gap which doesnt exist anyway, 'Obama is a 'Marxist'. perhaps we are missing something in US humour here, for surley they are not serious?

 

The fact that we are even so interested in a foreign powers election is a stark illustration that sadly the decision of the US electorate is liable to impact upon all of us. Perhaps given that the President of the US is to be the most powerful person on earth, then the whole of the planets population should be voting, not just the Americans?

Edited October 30, 2008 by Emma two

[five bellies]

I over heard a conversation yesterday, a colaegue of mine stated to a group of poeple some of wich where Americans "I dont see why the US presidential race is being coverd so much on our news, It dosnt interest me in the slightest"

one of the Americans replied It should do, the out come will dictate British forgien policy for the next four years. I believe her Statment to be true!!

whatever the political persausion of our goverment.

Edited October 30, 2008 by five bellies

[Alan Stubbs]

I hope that I am aware enough to realise that the Americans we see on our televisions and via the internet are the ones which for whatever reason someone has decided we should see. I hope that much of what we do see isn't truly representative of the whole population. I find it worrying to see and hear over and over that 'god' and how christian (or not) the candidates are in the eyes of voters is s serious variable when considering their suitabilty for office

 

. Is the ridiculous childish name calling confined to only a minority shown on film? for example Obama is called, Marxist, Socialist, Muslem 'Baby Killer' and a terrorist!.

 

Their is a dichotomy here. On one hand you hope to be aware enough to realise that editorial control is being exerted on tv and internet, but accept it; yet will not accept the same editorial control when exerted by a newspaper journalist.

 

On another thread you wrote "Nor I. The only thing in newsprint which I would belive is the price on the front. There are easier ways of being (mis)informed of whats going, one doesn't need sheets or rubbish lying around."

 

This calls some of your pontifications into question as television journalists, almost to a person have had print media experience prior to being given television work. Logically then, they have already honed their disemblement skills and so make their utterances less believable on transferring their trade to television rather than the newspaper.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Alan Stubbs

[Huge_Vitae]

I don't wholeheartedly agree with your comment, 'You understand the concept of left and right ONLY as it is applicable to the Country in which you reside'., For if that were the case no outsider could claim an understanding of any foreign political system, and that clearly isn't the case, 'experts' in alien political systems abound...........

Better to have lived and learned than learned then lived.........

[corydoras]

I over heard a conversation yesterday, a colaegue of mine stated to a group of poeple some of wich where Americans "I dont see why the US presidential race is being coverd so much on our news, It dosnt interest me in the slightest"

one of the Americans replied It should do, the out come will dictate British forgien policy for the next four years. I believe her Statment to be true!!

whatever the political persausion of our goverment.

I agree. I don't think I have ever been so interest in a foreign presidential election, even surpassing my interest in the last French presidential election and that affected the daily life of my family and I much more.

[Emma two]

Their is a dichotomy here. On one hand you hope to be aware enough to realise that editorial control is being exerted on tv and internet, but accept it; yet will not accept the same editorial control when exerted by a newspaper journalist.

 

On another thread you wrote "Nor I. The only thing in newsprint which I would belive is the price on the front. There are easier ways of being (mis)informed of whats going, one doesn't need sheets or rubbish lying around."

 

This calls some of your pontifications into question as television journalists, almost to a person have had print media experience prior to being given television work. Logically then, they have already honed their disemblement skills and so make their utterances less believable on transferring their trade to television rather than the newspaper.

 

Hold on, how on earth do you deduce from my comment...

 

' hope that I am aware enough to realise that the Americans we see on our televisions and via the internet are the ones which for whatever reason someone has decided we should see[/b]. I hope that much of what we do see isn't truly representative of the whole population'

 

That I consider television jouralists any more reliable than newspaper ones? Or that they are any more or less prone to biased editing? Who do you imagine I was referring to by saying 'easier ways to be misinformed'? I am just as cynical towards the box in the corner of the room, but it's 'easier' to get news from, it doesn't need buying from a shop daily and it serves other purposes.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Emma two

[Alan Stubbs]

Hold on, how on earth do you deduce from my comment...

 

' hope that I am aware enough to realise that the Americans we see on our televisions and via the internet are the ones which for whatever reason someone has decided we should see[/b]. I hope that much of what we do see isn't truly representative of the whole population'

 

That I consider television jouralists any more reliable than newspaper ones? Or that they are any more or less prone to biased editing? Who do you imagine I was referring to by saying 'easier ways to be misinformed'? I am just as cynical towards the box in the corner of the room, but it's 'easier' to get news from, it doesn't need buying from a shop daily and it serves other purposes.

 

 

What I was trying to point out was the absudity of bothering with any form of news media if your opinion of them is so lacking in belief. Wilfully allowing oneself to be mislead seems to indicate a a case of Dagenham East.

[DavyR]

seems to indicate a a case of Dagenham East.

 

Not familiar with that expression, Alan - sounds as though it ought to mean "Nowhere left to go"?

[Emma two]

What I was trying to point out was the absudity of bothering with any form of news media if your opinion of them is so lacking in belief. Wilfully allowing oneself to be mislead seems to indicate a a case of Dagenham East.

 

FFS! I said that I don't buy newspapers.....I don't

 

I said that the television and internet shows me lots of Americans behaving like knobs, but I dont belive all I see there either.

no 'dichotomy, in whatever context you locate the word, and certainly no 'pontification' (judgemental and dogmatic).

 

Please phrase future criticism in words which you understand the meaning of.

 

I have no idea of what you are talking about, 'Dagenham East' ??.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Emma two

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I was not going to comment on this one, but having just listened to this Inspiring Link against my better judgment here goes.

 

Dear old Arnold fiscal statement is probably the most damaging speech to date even putting Ms Palin in the dark.