Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America

Not true RosaL.

In the US, the term 'liberals' is used in pretty much the same way as 'the left' is here.

Certainly, the whole political spectrum is more right in the US, but that doesn't explain entirely why leftists get included under the liberal rubric.

A lot of it has to do with the intense polarization in the US. With that the word 'liberal' gets a lot of negative freight around it. That being the case, there is no need to dismiss leftists by calling them that- lumping them in with the liberals is sufficient.

The word 'leftist' has fallen out of disuse in the US- but not because there are categorically fewer of them in the country.

Canadians by and large just don't understand the pervasiveness of this intense polarization. And associated with it, that there is a big lump of people not firmly polarized on whom the outcome of all national elections hinges.

Which is why Obama would disown his pastor over those old comments. You can say all you want that come hell or high water he never should have done it. But wait till you have lived in a situation where if he does not do it, he will not be Preseident. Absolutely certain.

And it isn't just Obama who is choosing. Along with him the hopes of multitudes for some relief from the relentless steamroller.

Mind you, Obama and Rev. Wrights comments touches on something related but distinct, that it is very difficult for Canadian's to understand.

9/11 is a very emotional touchstone for Americans. And that's a severe understatement.

People know that. To which the answer is that they are clouded with ideology and you have to start picking it apart somewhere.

Clouded with ideology they are. And it does need to be worked on.

But given all the battles like that there are to fight, the last place to [i]start[/i] is on the front where it is absolutely guaranteed you will be [i]immediately[/i] mowed down if you venture out on the national stage with any defense of comments like the Rev. Wright made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
[b]A lot of it has to do with the intense polarization in the US. [/b]

---

This intense polarization is more apparent than real.

The tiny crack of daylight between Obama and McCain is proof enough that there is no real political polarization in mainstream US politics.

Obama had to rush to distance himself from comments made by his pastor (comments that were neither false nor particularly "left-wing"). If there is any polarization apparent here it is between the pastor on the one hand and the Obama-Clinton-McCain political mainstream, a polarization between truth and lies.

Whatever polarization there is is not reflected or expressed in the mainstream political process, which is based on a neoliberal, centre-right consensus. The very fact that there is no room for Obama to take more liberal positions without placing himself in the unelectable category is proof of that.

As it seems to be in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]If there is any polarization apparent here it is between the pastor on the one hand and the Obama-Clinton-McCain political mainstream, a polarization between truth and lies.[/b]

---

I think this is a good point. This Jeremiah Wright issue has really got me thinking that the rift in American politics is between dissent on the one hand and "what's safe to say" as determined by the media on the other.

Having said that, I think there are important contextual differences between liberals in the US and liberals in Canada.

A liberal in the US is more likely to be aligned with unions than a liberal in Canada, but also with various groups representing America's many "underclasses" for lack of a better term.

Congress clearly shows this more than the presidency. There are very real, substantive, left-right differences between, for example, Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich on the left and Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul on the right.