A lot of mistakes are being made Don. I actually wonder whether the same people are really in control and have just shifted their money East. A democracy free of worries about demons beyond its gates has been the aim for a very long time and we don't seem to get it. We've all swallowed ideologies of one kind or another - I find it had to distinguish between the crap advertising everywhere and the miserable propaganda jingles I was subjected to living behind the Iron Curtain years ago. Government doesn't come bigger than it is in China - so we really ought to wonder again about what a good system would be. We are stuck with old Parties and old ideas.
On 4 Oct, 22:43, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > I was aware that Euro-libs were for limited government(unlike > Amero-libs) so my comment was slightly tongue in cheek. Thanks for > the break down of party sentiments over there; this is very > interesting to me. Sounds like the Euro-liberal is much like our > Libertarian Party here in the States. Although the Libertarian Party > is much too isolationist for my liking. > > A few short years ago it didn't really affect us over here one way or > the other but in our current and probably prolonged weakened state > Euro politics will likely have much more of an influence. I am, > however, appalled at the increased influence of Russia and their > totalitarian government. I see our hegemony(your continent and N. > America's) crumbling before my very eyes and I don't like it. Even > considering all our mistakes; does the world think China and Russia > will do a better job? There is too much I don't know but what might > happen is Russia forming a relationship with China much like we've > enjoyed for the past 30 years. I can't believe Obama would let > something like this happen but he comes across so weak and innocent I > just don't know. > > Our politics are shaking up here as well. Both Democrats and > Republicans have proven themselves massive government increasers. An > influential third party is almost guaranteed. I hope it remains > organized and funded and acts as a huge lobby to curb government > power. After Republicans see this new party stealing members and > money left and right perhaps they will start acting like conservatives > again. Perhaps. > > dj > > > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:17 AM, frantheman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 4 Okt., 04:42, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Liberals across the pond are so much more > >> sensible then they are here. > > > The comment that England and the US are two nations divided by a > > common language is usually attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Don, > > something which can be clearly seen with respect to the use of the > > word "liberal." In Europe generally, even most of the conservative > > parties would have to regarded as dangerously liberal from a US > > conservative point of view. > > > While many of the European parties which claim the designation > > "liberal" for themselves have strong historical roots in an older > > 19th. and 20th. Century tradition in which the the term refers to to a > > bourgeois (using the term as a synonym for "middle class" rather than > > in a Marxist context where the word is used to distinguish from > > political groups which have their roots among the workers/proletariat) > > attitude which stressed the importance of the rights of the individual > > against the power of privilege, statist control and/or national- > > security/conservative viewpoints, such positions are accepted today by > > all major political parties apart from those of the far left and > > right, with only some differences of shading and emphasis. (The UK > > liberals have an even more complex history, one strain of which goes > > back to the "Whig" group which emerged in parliament at the end of the > > 17th. Century and which was originally the "party" of the upper > > aristocracy (the dukes and earls) as opposed to the Tories (ancestors > > of today's Conservatives), which was the party of the smaller gentry.) > > Most European liberals today can be better defined as those parties > > who represent the view that state influence should be minimised in the > > economic area and enthusiastically argue in favour of the interests of > > business and for a reduction of state involvement in the social area > > and in the area of regulation in general. > > > Most of them retain a patina of their liberal origins in that they > > would be in favour of such things as curtailment of the rights of the > > state to observe and collect information about its citizens for > > whatever reason, the strict seperation of church and state, and sexual > > liberation. The leader of the German liberals (and putative future > > foreign minister), Guido Westerwelle, for example, is openly > > homosexual and is frequently accompanied by his partner at official > > functions. That is just not an issue here, something I could not > > imagine in the USA. > > > But the German Free Democrats' (as the liberals officially call > > themselves) main thrust is what could better be called neo-liberal - a > > stalwart espousal of themes such as deregulation, the primacy of > > untrammeled free markets and the rights of employers. They are often > > referred to as party of the "better-off" (Besserverdienenden) > > although, to be fair to them, they (publicly) don't like this > > description. Their history in the past thirty years has been > > punctuated by a number of scandals, usually involving groups of > > wealthy business people who have been hell-bent on illegally providing > > them with covert funding which, when such cases have been made public, > > they have always officially explained as being the work of individual > > party functionaries about which the general party leadership has never > > known. (Anyone wanting to know more about such affairs can google the > > names, Otto Graf Lambsdorff and Jürgen W. Möllemann.) > > > The increase of their vote by a third to 14.6% in the German elections > > last week, which will see them as taking place in government, was > > largely at the cost of Merkel's Christian Democrats, the larger of the > > two partners in the forthcoming coalition. Both the Christian > > Democrats and the Social Democrats who made up the Grand Coalition > > which governed for the past four years lost votes; the SPD losing > > drastically to the Left Party (an alliance of a group which has its > > roots in the former East German communists and a disgruntled group of > > Social Democrats who left their party five years ago in protest at > > what they regarded as Schröder's unsocial reform course). In fact, the > > Christian Democrats and the liberals together increased their combined > > share of the vote, compared to 2005, by just 3.4%, much of which can > > be explained by a fall in voter turn-out from 77.7% to 70.8%. In other > > words, more of those likely to vote "left" (SPD, the Left Party and > > the Greens) simply stayed at home. But that's the way parliamentary > > democracy works and, in this case, the swing was enough to cause a > > (partial) change in government (Merkel's CDU will remain in power, > > just this time with a different partner). > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
