I’ve always heard that Democrats in America would be considered a “right leaning” party in Europe, however I’ve wondered about someone who considers themselves progressive, where they would line up on the spectrum in Europe.
For example I want:
- Universal Healthcare
- UBI
- Taxation of the rich
- Marriage and general equality for LGBTQ+ persons
- Better public transport and corresponding social services for all people
Is there something I’m missing in my views, or is that generally what left leaning progressives are looking for in Europe?
One thing which isn’t immediately apparent, even to Americans themselves, is that the large American political parties are less equivalent to individual political parties elsewhere, and are closer to “uneasy coalitions”, like those found in Europe involving multiple parties trying (and maybe failing) to form a government. That makes it harder to draw broad conclusions like “USA Democrats would be right-of-center” because progressives and “DINOs” (Democrats in name only) within the party would be left-wing or right-wing, respectively. Logically, the same applies to the Republican party, although ranging from right-wing RINOs (Republicans in name only) and “moderate Republicans”, to the far-right factions of the party, like neo-Nazis and MAGA.
With that said, what you’re describing sounds similar to social democracy. Not to be confused with democratic socialism, which is generally further along to the left than social democracy, with the goal to reform the state (or specifically, individual US States) away from private ownership of the means of production and away from capitalism. When Bernie Sanders of Vermont says “I am a socialist”, his positions align well to European social democracy, even though he originally described himself as “democratic socialist”.
For an example of democratic socialism activities taking place in the USA, consider that the state of Virginia purchased a 35 mile (56 km) freight railroad west of Alexandria, in order to stop paying rent to privately-owned Norfolk Southern railroad and to enable expansion of the existing state-sponsored Amtrak commuter train service serving that region. The acquisition was both cost-effective and still preserves freight train access, but now it’s the state that controls what goes on those rails, much like how they regulate the weight and dimensions of what travels on the public roadways.
But I must reiterate that the precise definition of political ideology is less important than community-building, since that’s how ideology becomes reality. If you can find a party whose well-stated values you support, then do what you can to help them achieve their goals. That’s going to be more valuable than taxonomy.
America needs to move to a multi party system (only possible with direct representation and without regional representation). This would open up so many possibilities for Americans
We have a multi party system. This is what happens naturally to multi party sustems after many itterations. This has been explained ad neausum all over the internet.
Wdym that they become 2party systems? I disagree this is a result of regional representation and first past the post election systems. Countries that don’t have that, but have more sensible election systems, don’t have 2 parties at all. Many of those countries are much older than the US, by the way :p
Its not a 2 party system. Holy fuck. No wonder you cant understamd.
Let me guess, Republican right? It sounds like you have an ideological reason for keeping things the way they are in the US. What people mean when they say the US has a 2party system friend, is that it is a 2party system in practise, even though not formally. The reason that it becomes 2party in practise, is because of the American first past the post election system and also because its regional representation system. Both keep smaller parties from gaining power and making a threat to the bigger parties. In countries without those 2 systems, like many European countries, democracies commonly have many more political parties in practise, and power switches between them, and there are often coalitions to create a majority. This is both better for minority groups as well as for preventing power becoming entrenched, both of which are good for democracy and freedom. Also your argument that many multi party systems eventually move to 2 parties having lower is really not true, just have a look at all European countries that don’t have regional representation and first past the post election systems.
I don’t want UBI, as that perpetuates money and capitalism, I want universal distribution of resources.
You should check out the last chapter of Bullshit Jobs. The author makes a good case for UBI as a liberating force for people whose lives are tied to demeaning work. His idea is that UBI would free people from being dependent on an economic master in order to have access to basic human needs like shelter, food, water, healthcare, etc. but also less concrete needs such as sociability, leisure, and play. It would have to go hand in hand with some regulation on prices.
He’s an anarchist so he ostensibly has your same aversion (completely warranted) to the perpetuation of money and capitalism.
I question whether that can occur in a good way. I don’t see human greed going away, better to cage it under heavy control and not get complacent.
We have many of the items on the list. I think UBI will take some time, and while the current government is still fighting it, we’ll have to go back to tax the rich before long.
