| Most Recent Messages of Each Discussion |
Created by |
Politics in US and EU III of V
US and EU Politics: III of V
Because our country is generally polarized between a right and a left, and because any strong candidate has to win support from both sides, everyone's always trying to fight for a position that looks like the center, which will please everyone.
The Independents argue that neither party has solved the social security problem (true), neither party has dealt with the problem of corporate welfare (true) neither party is addressing our failing education system (mostly true), Neither is dealing with immigration "problems" (a really ugly can of worms, no body can agree on what the problems are or if there is a problem.) No solutions on crime (true) our prison system (true) Everyone argues that the Democrats spend way too much and get nothing done (I have a lot to say about that one), and that Republicans always cut taxes so that we don't have any money to get anything done (I can't argue with that).
I'm not convinced, however, that there is any one other party that could do a better job than the democrats do. When there are Republicans in the White house, I just want to hide in my house for four years and pray nobody notices I'm American. I have to confess, I'm pretty ardently partisan. I just have great trouble finding republicans (and on very rare occasions, I do—always at the far left edge of the Republican Party) whose thinking makes any sense to me. I don't see how we can expect single mothers, for example, to get off of welfare, when a week's child care costs more than they can ever make in a month. It just seems that a great many republicans just don't think about what the decisions they make will mean to real people whose lives are not working, or they just assume that nobody would be poor if they weren't lazy and blow it off as if it weren't their problem.
Well, like I've said, I have a lot of strong feelings about this stuff. Please excuse my lecture. My point is that in my view, the differences between republicans and Democrats are huge. I'm not going to go into details now, because that's a really big long letter by itself. But there has always been a liberal party and a conservative party in the US, even since before the revolutionary war.
They always tended to be fairly divided between the concerns of the Northern, industrial, business concerns, which tended to support a stronger federal government, and the Southern, rural, slave-owning interests. Our first parties were Whigs and Tories, spin offs from their English counterparts, with the Whigs supporting independence, and the Tories trying to find ways to make peace between King George and the Colonies.
Continued: See part IV of V
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 10, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Politics in US and EU III of V
US and EU Politics: III of V
Because our country is generally polarized between a right and a left, and because any strong candidate has to win support from both sides, everyone's always trying to fight for a position that looks like the center, which will please everyone.
The Independents argue that neither party has solved the social security problem (true), neither party has dealt with the problem of corporate welfare (true) neither party is addressing our failing education system (mostly true), Neither is dealing with immigration "problems" (a really ugly can of worms, no body can agree on what the problems are or if there is a problem.) No solutions on crime (true) our prison system (true) Everyone argues that the Democrats spend way too much and get nothing done (I have a lot to say about that one), and that Republicans always cut taxes so that we don't have any money to get anything done (I can't argue with that).
I'm not convinced, however, that there is any one other party that could do a better job than the democrats do. When there are Republicans in the White house, I just want to hide in my house for four years and pray nobody notices I'm American. I have to confess, I'm pretty ardently partisan. I just have great trouble finding republicans (and on very rare occasions, I do—always at the far left edge of the Republican Party) whose thinking makes any sense to me. I don't see how we can expect single mothers, for example, to get off of welfare, when a week's child care costs more than they can ever make in a month. It just seems that a great many republicans just don't think about what the decisions they make will mean to real people whose lives are not working, or they just assume that nobody would be poor if they weren't lazy and blow it off as if it weren't their problem.
Well, like I've said, I have a lot of strong feelings about this stuff. Please excuse my lecture. My point is that in my view, the differences between republicans and Democrats are huge. I'm not going to go into details now, because that's a really big long letter by itself. But there has always been a liberal party and a conservative party in the US, even since before the revolutionary war.
They always tended to be fairly divided between the concerns of the Northern, industrial, business concerns, which tended to support a stronger federal government, and the Southern, rural, slave-owning interests. Our first parties were Whigs and Tories, spin offs from their English counterparts, with the Whigs supporting independence, and the Tories trying to find ways to make peace between King George and the Colonies.
Continued: See part IV of V
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 10, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Politics in US and EU II of V
US and EU Politics: II of V
The problem was, Gore and Bush were within a few percentage points of one another in the polls. There was really no telling which way the election was going to go –as the world discovered with all that noise we had about Florida. We had no idea how crazy it would get, but it was obviously going to be a tight race. With the election as close as it was, voting for Nader would amount to a vote for Bush, because it would take a vote away from Gore. I really didn't know what I was going to do, even as I was walking into the polling site. But I finally voted for Gore, and I have never regretted the choice. I would have lost a lot of sleep over Bush's election if I'd voted for Nader.
Now I want to be very clear about what I mean by this, because there are a whole lot of sour grapes democrats in denial about the problems the party needs to deal with these days—the lack of leadership, of strength, of currency with the concerns of voters—that are the cause of the eight years of nightmare we are presently enjoying. Such democrats vilify Nader for being "'a spoiler"' by stealing "'Gore's " (or "Kerry's") votes. The brutal truth is that there is no such thing as a vote that belongs to a candidate. Votes belong to voters, not to candidates. In a free republic, citizens award their votes to the candidate who best convinces them that his political agenda will serve the needs of the country. I get a little emotional about this, because I'm really getting sick of democrats who blame Nader for Bush's electoral victories. It is not Nader's job to get out of the Democrats' way. It is the Democratic Party's job to develop a strategy for dealing with Nader. They failed to do that, and now the whole country is paying the price. People who think Nader "spoiled"' the elections need to go back to civics class get a refresher on democracy. It's not about locking out people who say thing's you don't like. It's about listening to them and taking a risk that you might learn something new and important about the country's needs.
We don't have enough of that under our two party system, and I guess I get a little crazy about hearing from people who want to make the problem even worse by trying to shout down what little diversity of discourse we still have.
As to your question of the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, it's a pretty interesting question, and you'll see a lot of different answers from different people. Of course, the independents make a big deal about how alike the big two are. Naturally, it's to their advantage to convince us that the only meaningful change would be to bring in an independent party candidate, and it's not an empty argument.
Continued: See part III of V
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 10, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Politics in US and EU II of V
US and EU Politics: II of V
The problem was, Gore and Bush were within a few percentage points of one another in the polls. There was really no telling which way the election was going to go –as the world discovered with all that noise we had about Florida. We had no idea how crazy it would get, but it was obviously going to be a tight race. With the election as close as it was, voting for Nader would amount to a vote for Bush, because it would take a vote away from Gore. I really didn't know what I was going to do, even as I was walking into the polling site. But I finally voted for Gore, and I have never regretted the choice. I would have lost a lot of sleep over Bush's election if I'd voted for Nader.
Now I want to be very clear about what I mean by this, because there are a whole lot of sour grapes democrats in denial about the problems the party needs to deal with these days—the lack of leadership, of strength, of currency with the concerns of voters—that are the cause of the eight years of nightmare we are presently enjoying. Such democrats vilify Nader for being "'a spoiler"' by stealing "'Gore's " (or "Kerry's") votes. The brutal truth is that there is no such thing as a vote that belongs to a candidate. Votes belong to voters, not to candidates. In a free republic, citizens award their votes to the candidate who best convinces them that his political agenda will serve the needs of the country. I get a little emotional about this, because I'm really getting sick of democrats who blame Nader for Bush's electoral victories. It is not Nader's job to get out of the Democrats' way. It is the Democratic Party's job to develop a strategy for dealing with Nader. They failed to do that, and now the whole country is paying the price. People who think Nader "spoiled"' the elections need to go back to civics class get a refresher on democracy. It's not about locking out people who say thing's you don't like. It's about listening to them and taking a risk that you might learn something new and important about the country's needs.
We don't have enough of that under our two party system, and I guess I get a little crazy about hearing from people who want to make the problem even worse by trying to shout down what little diversity of discourse we still have.
As to your question of the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, it's a pretty interesting question, and you'll see a lot of different answers from different people. Of course, the independents make a big deal about how alike the big two are. Naturally, it's to their advantage to convince us that the only meaningful change would be to bring in an independent party candidate, and it's not an empty argument.
Continued: See part III of V
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 10, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Politics in US and EU Part I of V
Hi Arnaud. It's great to hear from you again. Busy night on the MLE site. I feel like a kid in a candy shop (idiom). I can hardly figure out where to start.
Well, I start by observing how relative things always are. To you, it seems that we have no left wing politics in our country, yet most Americans will tell you that we have a very powerful left wing called the democratic party. They may seem very conservative in a country where the communist and socialist parties are active. But when I see a democrat standing next to a republican, I see a lot of huge differences.
Of course, that's my point of view. I don't know how visible it is from across the big water over there, be we do have more than two parties. We have hundreds, and that includes the Communist and Socialist parties, both in a number of different flavors. It also includes a lot of other very interesting groups, some of whom make our republicans look very left-wing. The problem here is that we don't have proportional representation here as you do in your country, and the two main parties have such a stranglehold on the system, voting for an outsider is tantamount to throwing away your vote.
For example, in the 2000 elections, I was very upset. I had to choose between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Bush was a no-brainer: He didn't have one, and I knew that he'd be poison for the country. I had some measure of respect for Gore, on the other hand, but I could never see him as "my president," the way I did with Clinton, despite a few issues on which I disagreed with the former president pretty strongly. Obviously, I had not trouble choosing between Bush and Gore.
But if I was going to vote my soul, there was a very easy choice for me. Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate has been running for president for years on our Green Party, an independent group that advocates sustainable practices with respect to the environment, equal rights for all, fair labor practices, low unemployment, and a poverty program that empowers the poor, providing meaningful support to help them care for their families and get back to work. I don't expect it is very different from your own Green party – or at least the Green party in Germany, with which I actually have at least some passing familiarity.
The problem was, Ralph Nader wasn't dealing with reality where it sat. He came to speak at my school where I was attending at the time in the San Francisco Bay area, and I asked him to explain to me how it might be that I could vote for him without voting for Bush by consequence. He recited one of his talking points back at me and went on to another question. Clearly, he was ignoring that issue, and I found that very sad.
Continued: See part II of V
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 10, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Re:French politics.
Hi Arnaud,
Nice to hear from you again. I really enjoyed your explanation of the issues around the EU constitution, unemployment, and other social issues. For all of the vast differences there are between our countries, it seems that there is also quite a bit we share in common. For example, just as your people seem to want to maintain a practical balance between national sovereignty and international cooperative unity with respect to the EU, so have we struggled to navigate the same balance in the UN. Of course, we have many here (in my opinion, a bunch of narrow-minded hotheads) who argue that for the United States to relinquish any of our own sovereign authority to any external body would be a violation of the essential principles that make our country great. I think it would be the best possible affirmation of American principles. We learned in our first 30 years that if our United States were going to be strong, the individual states would have to be willing to cede certain key powers to a central government, or we would never be able to build the unity that we now enjoy under our present constitution, the one that changed our government from a confederacy – a collective of sovereign nations sharing a single flag, to a federal republic, where governing powers are allocated carefully between the national and state governments. The people who argue that the nations of Europe will have to pull together in order to stand against the United States are making good sense. I'd really love to see the EU do that. My country obviously needs to "eat some humble pie" these days. It would be a very healthy thing for my country, and a very healthy thing for the world.
I wasn't sure I understood your comment about Turkey. Are some of your people afraid that Turkey will expand its land area, moving its territory closer to France? Why might they anticipate this?
Since this is too long for one message and the rest of this is not about current events, I hope you won't mind popping over to the opinions board for the rest of my response to your message. I'll see you over there!
Mark
Sacramento, CA USA
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 3, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Re:Re:What is a flip-flop, really? part 3 of 3
I'm sorry about that. Please let me know if there is any way I can help. I'm afraid I don't know enough about what you didn't understand in my long message in order to try to clarify what I said.
I'm afraid there isn't really any accepted way for me to tell you how to reach me off-line (that is, by direct e-mail or other method that does not use MLE), since I am not a gold member and as far as I know, you are not either. There are some people who have resorted to clever, subtle methods of sharing contact information, and these means have sometimes been successful. But I hesitate to do such things because I think it is very important for people to continue to post regularly on My Language Exchange (MLE) and continue to attract new members who may join at the gold level.
The information you offered regarding the general feelings in France towards America and towards George Bush makes a lot of sense. We have not, as a nation, treated Europe, generally, nor France in particular with very much respect. I find that very embarrassing.
I would love to hear more about the politics within France. What are some of the important arguments for and against the European Constitution? What are some of the other internal issues that concern your country?
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Mark Springer
CSUS
Sacramento, CA, USA
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
March 28, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
What is a flip-flop, really? part 3 of 3
This has gone for three messages already, so I'll wrap it up for now, and address some of your other questions in a later message. We might also want to discuss some of this off-line, if you'd like to find me at Sacramento State University (CSUS), where I am registered under my first and last name with a period in between. I don't want to stop our conversations here on the MLE site, where our comments may be of interest to other members, but perhaps being able to write longer messages and discuss personal information of narrower interest may be helpful.
Briefly, in response to my background, I grew up in Southern California in a middle class family that was very aware of social/political/economic issues. We always discussed such things with great enthusiasm at the table during meals. I have an associate degree in liberal arts, a bachelor's degree in English literature, and I'm working on my Master's degree in literature now. I guess it's pretty obvious that my views tend toward the "liberal."
If you'd like some feedback on your English, perhaps you would be willing to re-post the message over in the Vocabulary/Translations area of the board. I think some people are unaware of the categories that this site has been organized into, and it sometimes makes it more difficult to find information we are looking for. I'm trying to encourage people to be a little more consistent about posting messages in the areas where other people will be looking for the kind of information they are posting. I think this will help us all to be more helpful to each other as a community.
Thank you for your very kind and thought-provoking message. I hope you will reply with information about what politics is like in France, and with more information about how you and others in your country view our public antics. I look forward to getting back to you on some of your other questions.
Au revoir,
Mark Springer
Sacramento, CA, USA
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
March 27, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
What is a flip-flop, really? part 2 of 3
Kerry's most famous "flip-flop" occurred around a couple of senate votes an an $87 Billion dollar funding for the war in Iraq. It's important to recall, in the background of this story, that the CIA had presented the president and congress with a report that seemed to make a compelling argument that Hussein was stockpiling WMD's, and that, for whatever reasons, the UN seeemed to be ignoring the facts of this report. At that time, Kerry had supported funding the attack on Iraq, based on the information available to him, which was pretty strong in suggesting that an attack was warranted. Later, the bill was brought up for a vote again with a rider on it – I wish I could remember what the rider was, but it was completely unrelated to the war effort in Iraq, and for Kerry, it was a real big show-stopper. Because of this rider, he had to vote agains the bill when it came up the second time. Later, he said, "I voted for the $87 Billion before I voted against it," which, without further explanation was, admittedly, a really stupid thing to say, and of course, the Bush camp just leaped on that with glee. Thus a world-famous "flip-flopper" was born.
Kerry's political enemies characterize this as a flip-flop, but in my view, it is a perfectly consistent position. Kerry said that he was willing to vote for 87 billion to fight against a rogue dictator who is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (assuming that that is what is going on), but that he was not willing to support this bill if in order to do so, he would have to also agree that abortion will be illegal in the U.S. from now on – or whatever.
Later, when it was discovered that the CIA information was incorrect, Kerry "Flip-flopped" again by saying that we went into Iraq prematurely. Here again, I don't see how people can argue that this is a change of position. He said at the outset that his support for the war was based on the best information then available, and when more information showed that what his initial decision was based on was flawed, his response was far more consistent that George W. Bush's reaction that said, "Gee it's a shame they were wrong on the facts, but I made the right decision and I'm sticking to it." Apparently, in order to avoid the lable of flip-flopper in our country these days, you are expected to be a mindless extremist.
By the way, I don't want to give you the impression that I think we were justified in attacking Iraq when we did, regardless of what the CIA report may have said, even if all of the data were correct. Our invasion was a lawless act of agression, and it was wrong. I don't support Kerry's initial support of the attack on Iraq. I'm only saying I can't agree that he was waffling in his values simply because his conclusions changed when the information available to him changed. To me this is very consistent and shows that he appreciates the subtlety of world affairs.
(Continued)
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
March 27, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
What is a flip-flop, really? part 1 of 3
Hi Arnaud,
I'm going to stick mostly to the political stuff here, since most people on this area of the board are looking for that. Perhaps we could discuss the personal questions either in the "making friends" area or privately off-line.
When I say that citizens of the US treat our politics like our religion, I'm referring to the way we expect others to follow our political / economic views, just as we expect everyone to follow our religion. We have this arrogant view that if everyone really understood our religion, our politics, our economics, they'd all agree with us and see how superior we are.
The problem with this attitude, aside from being obnoxious and alienating the rest of the world, is that it neglects the most basic spiritual principle that underlies all of creation: diversity. There are millions of different species in the world, and even within a given species, no two individuals are exactly alike – not even identical twins. How can we possibly think that there could be a one-size-fits-all religion, political system, economoic system, social system—it's ludicrous. But that's what U.S. citicens often want to think.
Which is why we seem to love G.W. Bush as much as we do. If he has a strength (aside from his indomitable sense of focus), it's his ability to convince people that a simple answer will solve great problems. This is not terribly difficult to do here in the US, because as a nation, we like to believe that great problems can be resolved simply. It sure makes life a whole lot easier. Or at least, it seems like it should.
So it is that if GW tells us that an attack on Saddam Hussein is an attack on Al-Qaida, we want to believe that, and it's certainly a much more attractive proposition than trying to figure out why we don't have Bin Laden yet. It's a great way of looking like we're winning the war on terrorism when we're not.
So what Bush does is he simplifies everything to the point of meaninglessness. So now it's gotten really simple. If you trust George Bush, you're a patriotic "American," and if you don't you're a supporter of terrorism.
(Continued)
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
March 27, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
