America’s democratic party is not “left.” About the closest thing you have to left is Bernie Saunders. Obama has some left-wing influence in his background. But then, in general, “left” in the US resides in the black community, to reference a white influence there would be to mention the influence of Herbert Marcuse on groups like the Black Panthers.
I don’t know anyone who defines the United States as anything but hard right. America and Britain, with Reaganomics and Thatcherism. US gun running as a core economic activity, in particular. Hard Right.
If you’re talking about the US, then it has a centrist President, and a Democratic caucus overwhelmingly dominated by the centre-left.
Many of the policies that have been practically implemented or implicitly endorsed by the Democrats are in fact to the right of the policies followed by right wing parties in other developed nations. Obamacare is a good example: the signature Democrat policy of the past two decades, it is to the right of the health care systems of pretty much any other developed nation. Australia has universal health care, and not even the most right wing of our politicians are advocating to replace it with a US-style system.
Same thing for gun control, incarceration, military imperialism, minimum wage, labor rights, tertiary education fees, and a host of other issues. The things that progressive Democrats argue for, which in the US are cast as “far left”, are usually things that already exist in most other developed nations, and which are for the most part widely endorsed by parties left and right.
We had one mass shooting, and our right-wing Prime Minister John Howard immediately introduced strong gun control laws, and that was the end of that.
The problem in the US is not that there is partisanship, it is that the right wing has become so extreme it has fallen into madness.
So did many people! But he has drifted further to the extreme right, and recently has been sending (unsubtle) coded signals that align with Nazism.
Has been that way for a long time. Bush escaped being charged for war crimes, but people haven’t forgotten that the US “legalized” torture. Canada paid $20 million to an individual here who was incarcerated in Guantamo after being caught in Afghanistan as a child soldier, and our hard right monster of a PM Stephen Harper did everything he could do to stretch our Constitution into the domain of illegality. Huge stink. Really precarious situation with the US.
Yup. Finally Canada has movement to actually collect guns and not simply make them against the law. Go online to all the BC gun worshipping sites and find … Americans … bragging about how they modified their guns once they brought them across the border, bragging about how they escape our laws.
I feel this topic ties into Bhante @Khemarato.bhikkhu 's Stop glorifying centrism thread. Somehow if you aren’t on either side of the political spectrum , you are in the sane and well-balanced, neutral center. Really? I find many people I know who say they aren’t for either left or right, overwhelmingly vote conservative ( I’ve noticed this within immigrant communities. When they first arrive in the country, they tend to lean towards socialist policies. If they aren’t distracted and ‘scared off’ by issues like gay, aboriginal or minority rights or teaching sex ed in schools touted by vote hungry conservative politicians, they overwhelmingly vote left. Once they settle down-i.e get wealthy, they make a hard right . I don’t know if it’s the tax breaks or what, but it’s a very curious observation)
I’m unashamedly left in my politics. I don’t see any shame in admitting that when I see the alternative.
For anyone in this thread that hasn’t yet, I highly recommend the podcast and article linked in this thread.
One concept in the article I find quite useful is “reactionary centrist.”
Reactionary centrist (n) — Someone who says they’re politically neutral, but who usually punches left while sympathizing with the right.
Given we have a large-scale effort by Trump and his supporters to invalidate the 2020 election - despite a complete lack of evidence - it seems a bit disingenuous to talk about left-wing denialism as if that were the problem.
“Bhikkhus, do not engage in the various kinds of pointless talk, that is, talk about kings, thieves, and ministers of state; talk about armies, dangers, and wars; talk about food, drink, garments, and beds; talk about garlands and scents; talk about relations, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries; talk about women and talk about heroes; street talk and talk by the well; talk about those departed in days gone by; rambling chitchat; speculation about the world and about the sea; talk about becoming this or that. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
“When you talk, bhikkhus, you should talk about: ‘This is suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. ’ For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is beneficial, relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”
This being a forum on EBTs and Early Buddhist doctrine, I’d say that anybody can say whatever they want, but it won’t necessarily lead to developing the path.
The Buddha himself gave a set of guidelines to decide what should be said, to be in accordance with the Dhamma: Is it true? Is it beneficial (as in, leading to dispassion and cessation)? If neither, then it’s best left unsaid. If both but it would hurt someone’s feelings, then it’s best to find the right time (and way) to say it.
Additionally, I’d urge you to re-consider if free speech is indeed being suppressed in the USA. As a Latin American, writing from a country where journalists are routinely killed for reporting on politicians and criminals, I can confidently say that people refusing to listen to other viewpoints is categorically not a suppression of free speech. Is it harmful? Potentially. Does it lead to more polarization? Yes. But people don’t exploit the political machine in real life to take away gendered bathrooms, or the right to refuse wearing a mask.
there is no inherent form to follow that would suggest the right thing to say by the right people what exists are conditions, causes and effects. We can move toward the skillful action without presupposing any inherent morality. existence is amoral we determine morality for ourselves. its faster to just ask what is skillful and good (by our own approximation) rather than determine what ought always be the case.
Sadhu! One reason I am glad for Dhamma. We can measure any idea or policy against the wisdom and ethics foundations of Dhamma, and come to some level of equilibrium as to what might be a sane and reasoned approach to an issue. Not that the Dhamma is political, but that on issues such as healthcare, gun control, education, et al, in my view the Dhamma gives us some fairly strong foundations by which to guide views on these these issues.
Something for you to read. I have a hard copy. Since it’s about the only one of its kind, if you find it valuable, you might consider a hard copy for your shelf.
