Left of Center Governments in Trouble?

[Broken Glass Can]

The mismanagement of years of Left of Center governing in the major democracies of the world is catching up to them.

Germany hits record post-WWII unemployment.
Germany scrambles to limit jobs backlash (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-02-03T103425Z_01_ZWE337837_RTRUKOC_0_GERMANY-JOBLESS.xml)

Blair is vunerable in his upcoming election.

Canada's Liberals are looking vunerable for their social engineering (gay marriage).

Are the people of Western Democracies beginning to realize the perils of Liberal government?

Is 2005 going to be the year that the Western democracies turn to the practical Right of Center governments?

I am looking forward to the elections of this year.

[nicky g]

I just saw this.

"Blair is vunerable in his upcoming election."

A. Blair ism't at all left of centre.

B. Blair is isn't remotely vulnerable in the election. On current form there is no way he won't win, although his majority may be reduced somewhat.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
A. Blair ism't at all left of centre.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the voter spectrum determines this. To say that the Labour PM might be right of center along with the Tories, only leaves the kooky leftists to be left of center. I reject this.

He may be to the right of you, be he isn't to the right of the majority of the people.

I do agree though, that he seems likely to win again.

[nicky g]

It isn't just about being to the right of me. I think many observers would agree that the New Labour project has shifted so that the Conservatives and New Labour are now in similar territory, with their positions on the left-right axis varying on positions rather than being fixed. It is relative to a degree, but if both parties move far to one direction it makes no sense to continue to cast one as left-wing and one as right-wing. There is almost nothing you could pin on Blair as what would conventionally be regarded as a left-wing position. Some are centrist, some somewhat right-of-centre. Certainly there are left-wingers in his party, but he's not one of them.

[whiskeytown]

he's vulunerable cause he let the US talk him into a bullshit war - thanks to your boys...

rb

[zaxx19]

Yes the war is looking like a bigger and bigger mistake each passing day....democracy in Iraq, a budding peace process in Israelstine, elections upcoming in Saudi... a stable and democratic Afghanistan..what a total quagmire he has lead us into.

[Felix_Nietsche]

of the same from these governments.....

[LomU]

[ QUOTE ]
The mismanagement of years of Left of Center governing in the major democracies of the world is catching up to them.

Germany hits record post-WWII unemployment.
Germany scrambles to limit jobs backlash (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-02-03T103425Z_01_ZWE337837_RTRUKOC_0_GERMANY-JOBLESS.xml)

Blair is vunerable in his upcoming election.

Canada's Liberals are looking vunerable for their social engineering (gay marriage).

Are the people of Western Democracies beginning to realize the perils of Liberal government?

Is 2005 going to be the year that the Western democracies turn to the practical Right of Center governments?

I am looking forward to the elections of this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here in New Zealand, things are actually going very well. Massive surplus, unemployment below 4%, newly anounced wealth distribution policies to put us firmly in line with Scandanavia [eg. tax breaks for the lowest wage earning families], and the Labour government looks quite untouchable, with the right wing party trailing by 10 points. Labour may not even need a coalition to govern this time round.

Some leftist governments could take a leaf out of the New Zealand Labour Party's book, whilst they have stayed true to their very liberal social policy[prostitution legalised, attempting to get pot decriminalized, gay marriage legalised etc etc], they have also manged the economy in a very efficient manner.

[nicky g]

"he's vulunerable cause he let the US talk him into a bullshit war - thanks to your boys..."

Given that the main opposition party supported the war, this makes little sense. And he absolutely is not vulnerable. Noone seriously believes he will lose.

[Felix_Nietsche]

to show them how to run their governments. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

Despite the opinions of serious political analysts (such as yourself and Felix Nietzsche /images/graemlins/grin.gif) to the contrary, western Europe is not ruled by "leftist" governments, let alone driven by "leftist policies".

Tony Blair's government, in Britain, is pro-business, fanatically pro-US, anti-union, pro-private enterprise, pro-royalist, etc etc. (BTW, Dame Thatcher has repeatedly praised Blair's "leadership" and bemoaned the lack of same in her own party.) You would be hard put to see a difference between the politicla positions of the Conservative Party in the UK and New Labour. Their differences essentially boil down to "we can do it better than the other folks".

Germany? See Britain. (The right wing Christian Democrats in Germany are just as opposed to American policy in Iraq, btw, as the left-of-center Social Democrats currently in power.)

Italy? It's the right wing Forza Italia in power. Berlusconi's tenure looks quite unstable, however, only because of his misguided support for American policies in Iraq.

France? The country has a right wing President and a right wing government! (People say that the next government might be Socialist - but you seem to know better. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Spain[/b] had a right wing government which, despite being ahead in the polls, scored an own goal come election time when it tried to put the blame for the Madrid terrorist attack on ..ETA! The Spaniards promptly voted the liars out and replaced them with the Socialists. (Who promptly started off on a free economy platform!)

Ireland has embarked, in the last 4-5 years, on the most ambitious corporate tax lowering and business incentive program ever undertaken within the EU! Greece is solidly right wing since last year. Luxembourg too. Austria as well. is ruled by a right-of-center coalition. [b]Holland already has a right-wing coalition in government.

...You people! You need to get out more in the world.

[Felix_Nietsche]

France Right Wing?

Care to share your defintions of left wing/right wing?

My instincts tell me your definitions will be quite bizarre....

[superleeds]

From an historical perspective, all current Western democracies (and this includes the US) are hugely left wing.

The reason - progress.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"France Right Wing? Care to share your definitions of left wing/right wing?"

[/ QUOTE ]

In France, there are political parties of the Extreme Right (FN), the Right (UDR, RPR), the Center-Right (Liberals, etc) , the Center-Left (PS), the Left (PCF) and the Extreme Left (various Troskyiste and Maoist groups).

Chirac is from the Right. So are the Prime Minister and the government. You can look it up.

Of course, you could argue that the whole spectrum of politics has shifted leftward in western Europe, including France, which would mean that those self-labelled Rightists are, actually, at best, Center or even Center-Left. Fair enough. If you'd want to claim that, fine -- although I'd claim the opposite! And justify it.

Mind you, we would agree that, yes, compared to America, the western European parties always appear more to the left on economic policies. (Note that the same claim is made about American politics! A lot of policies followed at the time by Nixon's GOP, for instance, would be considered anathema and "pinko liberalism" by today's GOPsters. Ergo, the political parties in the US have shifted their ideologies rightward.)

Summary: IMHO, and broadly speaking, the governing ideologies in both the US and western Europe have shifted rightward, across time. However, the political and economic ideology of western Europe still remains "to the left" (perhaps even "far to the left") of American political and economic ideology.

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
From an historical perspective, all current Western democracies (and this includes the US) are hugely left wing. The reason - progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct when you are placing the historical perspective centuries back.

However, in the United States, the pendulum, since FDR and more markedly since the 60s, has swung towards the right (more reactionary foreign policies and regressive economic policies) with a vengeance.

[Broken Glass Can]

The Right of Center Coalition (led by the Liberal Party) has won reelection in Denmark. This is the first time ever that the Liberals won reelection in Denmark. The Socialists are besides themselves. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

Real GDP growth since the Reagan revolution has been astounding in the U.S. Reagan policies led to an end of the cold war and we're now seeing democracies emerge in other parts of the world. Given that welfare reform of 1996 basically acknowledged that the 60's "Great Society" initiative was a failure; viewing the very real financial problems with Social Security; and looking at the out of control spending in medicare/medicaid which cannot be supported due to the changes in U.S. demographics if these represent "progress" you can keep you progressive programs thank you very much. Does this represent progress in Germany?

Welfare Uber Alles


By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
January 10, 2005; Page A13


BRUSSELS -- Rolf John was living the American Dream -- German style. For several years, the unemployed ex-banker received about $2,400 a month in German welfare checks to pay for his Miami Beach apartment, living expenses and a housekeeper who also doubled as his driver.


This is, of course, much more money than Mr. John, better known in Germany as "Florida Rolf," would have ever received in the fatherland -- but you see, it's not his fault that the cost of living in sunny Florida is so much higher than in Osnabrück, his rainy hometown in northern Germany. And Mr. John could not be expected to return to Germany because such an imposition might have worsened his depression, his psychiatrist feared.


Upon reading Florida Rolf's story in the mass circulation Bild-Zeitung in 2003, millions of Germans, this writer included, found themselves joining Mr. John in depression, wondering whether it's not an imposition for most Germans to live in their country. If you are forced to fork out half of your salary to the government so that it can pay for, among other excesses, Florida Rolf's year-round tan in a gated community in Miami, complete with swimming pool and sauna, you are entitled to occasional cynicism.


Granted, this is an extreme case, but it is also a symptom of a deeper malaise: Such abuse can only happen in a welfare system that has spun completely out of control. One third of Germany's GDP goes to social spending -- and the trend points upward. As even Germany's punishing payroll taxes are no longer enough to pay for the country's burgeoning unemployment, welfare, health care and pension costs, the government is forced to pile on more and more debt, which has already reached 66% of GDP and keeps rising. Some 25% of the federal budget goes just to interest payments.


To complain about the "entitlement mentality" among his fellow Germans, as Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder just did a few months ago, is to miss the point. For the [censored] oeconomicus germanicus, it makes perfect sense to demand and accept every possible government handout. After all, as long as Germans have a job, (almost 11% of the work force is without one), they are paying a lot into the system. Moreover, when living on the dole is more profitable than hard work, it is absolutely rational behavior to queue for those welfare checks. It's the system that needs fixing, not the German people.


At last, this year will bring some progress. Not least thanks to stories like that of Florida Rolf, Germans are more ready than ever to accept economic reforms. Particularly within the mainstream media, there is broad agreement -- bridging the usual left-right divide -- that reforms are necessary.


Among the Continent's three big economies, Germany, France and Italy -- which together account for almost 70% of euro-zone output -- Germany must be considered the one-eyed among the blind. It is not only ahead in the reform debate but has also actually begun to implement some reforms. While reform has come in fits and starts, one of the changes that recently came into effect will dramatically change Germany's hitherto incredibly generous unemployment benefits.


Until last year, Germany's unemployed received up to 67% of their last salary for one year and after that up to 57% almost indefinitely. Given this generosity, it is no coincidence that of the 4.4 million unemployed, more than 1.7 million have been jobless for a year or more. This January, though, the benefits for long-term unemployed were drastically cut. In return, the government broadened the possibilities for those out of work to beef up their welfare checks by taking up low-paying jobs. As a matter of fact, the unemployed will now have to accept almost any job or risk further benefit reductions.


This is all to the good. Sadly, however, the Schroeder government didn't have the courage to implement the necessary labor-market deregulation, such as easing hiring and firing rules, to help assure that all unemployed Germans suddenly expected to show more initiative can actually find work.


Moreover, except for some cosmetic changes, Germany hasn't even started to tackle its huge social security problem. As in most industrialized countries, Germany's society is aging, putting enormous pressure on the country's pay-as-you-go pension system. For U.S. citizens worried sick about their country's own social security liabilities, a word of comfort: If Germans had America's Social Security system, they would consider their pension problems solved. Mandatory contributions of only 12% of gross salary? That sounds like utopia in Germany, where contributions make up around 20% of gross salary. Even those calling the loudest for social security reform in Germany would think it an enormous success if the country were able to hold its current contributions stable -- not very likely though under the current conditions.


The longer the government drags its feet, however, the more painful the inevitable reforms will be. One way or the other, the German dream will soon end. Six weeks' paid vacation, a 35-hour workweek and early retirement at 58 will soon be something German schoolchildren will read about in history books. As if remembering an era not yet quite lost, a theater in Hamburg recently organized an evening under the motto "No Work -- a Hymn to Laziness," with songs and texts all in praise of sloth. In homage to Florida Rolf, the venue was decorated with tropical decors and the organizers offered cocktails and exotic food.


Florida Rolf himself, meanwhile, had to return home last May, despite his allergy to his homeland -- but at government expense, of course. The public outrage about his welfare abuse triggered one of the fastest legislative acts in German history. In record time, the government passed the "Lex Florida Rolf" to curtail welfare payments to Germans living abroad. Mr. John immediately sued to be allowed to go back to Florida -- with his welfare checks fully reinstated, naturally. The case is still pending, but who knows, Mr. John, now 65, may yet enjoy his state-funded retirement on Miami Beach, margarita in hand.

[Il_Mostro]

Not to comment on the article itself, but
[ QUOTE ]
the unemployed ex-banker received about $2,400 a month in German welfare checks to pay for his Miami Beach apartment, living expenses and a housekeeper who also doubled as his driver.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can get a beach apartment, a houskeeper/driver and pay for living expenses with 2400$ a month in Miami? I don't know much about Miami, but that doesn't sound all that credible, what does the author mean?

[adios]

I agree. BTW isn't Social Security based on an expotential population growth model?

[Il_Mostro]

Not necesarily, but at the very least it is based on the demographics not changing too much, which is where a large part of the problem lies today, aging popluation, fewer shall support more people.

So I wouldn't say it's based on "an expotential population growth model". But I would say that as it is constructed today it is based on an exponential growth model when it comes to the economy.
Which will get us in the end...

[Cyrus]

This is the second time that you put the words "Con man" on the title of a post addressed to me. If you are implying insincerity on my part, Tom, why do you bother responding in earnest?

As a side note, please provide a link to the article you are quoting at such length.

[adios]

Economies tend to grow as their population base grows so methinks your employing circular reasoning. I chuckle a little when people point to slow growth in GDP in some countries in Euroland where those countries have a declining population base. It makes perfect sense why these countries would have slower GDP growth when you think about it and it doesn't necessarily mean that the country in question is weaker economically. Social Security is most certainly based on a model of unfettered population growth when you realize that workers today have to support yesteryears workers - todays retirees.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Economies tend to grow as their population base grows so methinks your employing circular reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I don't think I am. But I agree with you, economies tend to grow as population grows. Which is one reason while it always strikes me as strange when economists and other declare that overpopulation is not a problem, since population will stop growing. Well, doesn't that pose a whole new set of circumstances that we have never encountered before? And as every engineer knows (even one that makes mistakes in the number of zeroes /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), if you havn't tested it, it doesn't work...

[ QUOTE ]
Social Security is most certainly based on a model of unfettered population growth when you realize that workers today have to support yesteryears workers - todays retirees.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we agree in principle. But I also don't think that it would be entirely impossible to devise a system where todays workers support todays retirees, if the ratio is kept the same. I should say I don't think this is impossible in theory, in practice I'm not so sure.

[Cyrus]

This is the first time (OK, the second, the first was when MMMMMM vowed never to post again on Politics - and started posting cats and dogs!) that I see someone posting something contrary to what he is supporting as something good for what he is supporting!

Here's Broken Glass Can :

[ QUOTE ]
The Right of Center Coalition (led by the Liberal Party) has won re-election in Denmark.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that this means that Denmark already had a right-wing government, don't you?

And you do remember that what you originally posted (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1664847&page=160&view =expanded&sb=6&o=) at the beginning of this thread is that"the people of Western Democracies [are] beginning to realize the perils of liberal and left-of-center governments", right?

..So, thanks for reminding me about Denmark! I forgot to include it in my post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1694774&page=160&view =expanded&sb=6&o=&vc=1) about right-wing policies (UK, Germany, France, Spain) and right-wing governments (Italy, Greece, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Austria, etc) already in place throughout western Europe!

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Wow....A well thought out response. Very good Cyrus /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Although I'm not a big fan of defintions based on relative factors. E.g. Chirac is right wing because the alternative parties are more left wing. But Chirac would be considered left wing in the USA because the Republicans are more right wing...

True defintions should be like the Rock of Gibralter and never change. For example;

(1)Conservative: believes in principle that smaller/less intrusive governments are more desirable and more effective.
(2)Conservative: wanting to keep the status quo.

The second definition is silly since someone like Rush Limbaugh could be conservative one day and liberal the next depending on what laws where passed. I don't know which definition you subscribe to but I read too many posters here cite the second defintion as what defines a conservative.

If France elected a new party into power similiar the American Republican party, then Chirac and his party would be considered, left wing....

[InchoateHand]

Aging will be THE crisis facing most "developed" nations over the next fifty years. Even countries like Singapore, which saw sustained twenty year periods of 7++% growth will be slammed by this event. In fact, many of the "Asian Tigers" owe a part of their successes to an amazing demographic gift, a gift that has come to a close. The US will forestall some of these problems, but ethnically/culturally more homogeneous states (like Norway or Japan) are really going to be pressed to the coals.

FWIW, China is just now riding into its "demographic gift," one more reason we should all be learning Mandarin.

[Il_Mostro]

Well. No. It's not THE crisis, not if we are talking 50 years. It's one of them, true. But a far worse crisis is oil depletion, to which we stand almost completely unprepared.

[natedogg]

Left of center govts? You mean like the USA?

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
True definitions should be like the Rock of Gibraltar and never change. For example:
<font color="white"> . </font>
(1) Conservative: believes in principle that smaller/less intrusive governments are more desirable and more effective.
(2) Conservative: wanting to keep the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, geographical definitions have always seemed relative to me! I am saying Near East and Far East but for a person living in Lebanon or Korea, how can these terms possibly be helpful? They are not.

Perhaps on ideological positions, there is probably (I'm not too set on this) a chance of being something of an absolutist.

The Jacobins in the 1789 French Revolutions were considered the Leftists of their time; they would probably be communists or terrorists today (hey, they were actually the ones that introduced the term Terreur into the political lingo!). But then so would be Jesus Christ, especially if allowed to preach to a WalMart (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_canada_8) union! Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party was the standard bearer of anti-slavery but the Democrat Party in the 20th century was the party of blacks. Etcetera.

I think political positions change with time.

We can speak either in very specific terms (addressing each and every issue separately and thoroughly that someone/a party suypports) or in broad terms (such as Left, Center-Right, etc). When speaking broadly, we face the conundrum of people having different opinions on issues: surely you know of people who are "fiscal" conservatives (i.e. in favor of tight budgets and against large government) but "morally" liberal (e.g. pro-abortion). Or other such mixes. So someone can be a "Rightie" on economics and a "Lefty" on morals -- of course, he appears like that to persons supporting the respectively opposite positions!

[ QUOTE ]
If France elected a new party into power similiar the American Republican party, then Chirac and his party would be considered, left wing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only party to the right of Chirac in terms of immigration and foreign policy is the Front National. (Which is to the left of Chirac's Gaullist party on economic issues!)

[tolbiny]

Not to mention rising oil prices which have provided enourmous profits for Iran and Saudi Arabia. A lack of attention to North Korea during which time they have resumed their nuclear program.

[tolbiny]

"(1)Conservative: believes in principle that smaller/less intrusive governments are more desirable and more effective."

This is a traditional definition of conservative, but today's republican party doesn't seem to follow it.
As a general party platform it pushes a definition of marrige, laws against abortion, laws against stem cell research, and had increased government spending in previous years. Even No child left behind is a "leftist" program as the original plan pused for more funding for public schools.
The two parties have become more defined by the "conservative" or "liberal" agendas of their religious groups. I agree with the official stance of the republican party of lowering taxes, and useing a smaller government to influence our lives, but i have not seen it put into practice at all. The patriot act i feel is pretty hardcore in its willingness to give a lot of basically unfettered power to government agencies.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Some people are social conservatives...
Some people are fiscal conservatives...
Some people are both...

There are social conservatives that are conservative on some social issues and not others.
There are fiscal conservatives that are conservative on some fiscal issues and not others.

There are so many political issues and opionions it is practically impossible to find a pure conservative or pure liberal. Almost ALL conservatives believe that self-defense of a state is a proper use of government power. So many conservatives could vote for the patriot act and feel COMPLETELY true to their conservative values...

The adjective "conservative" is used to describe a GENERAL political belief... It is folly to expect *ONE WORD* to describe a person's entire political belief system... To expect any one person to be a 100% conservative or 100% liberal is a waste of thought...

Also there are plenty of conservatives who a very political who are willing to sacrifice a few conservative issues in the short term if this means in the LONG RUN, more conservatives will gain power.

For example, one theory about Bush43, is he has turn left on several issues (perscription drug benefits, farm subsidies) to win voters in the middle and solidfy Republican power in the House and Senate. Not too many fiscal conservatives were thrilled with these spending increases, but the Republicans have certainly increased their power...

Any way the words conservative/liberal are very useful in gaining a general understanding of a person's political beliefs. To expect anyone to be 100% conservative or 100% liberal is a waste of energy...

[tolbiny]

"Some people are social conservatives..."

Thats right. But if you take your first definition of a "conservative"

"(1)Conservative: believes in principle that smaller/less intrusive governments are more desirable and more effective."

Then the group that most embodies social conservatism is the ACLU.

"The adjective "conservative" is used to describe a GENERAL political belief... It is folly to expect *ONE WORD* to describe a person's entire political belief system... To expect any one person to be a 100% conservative or 100% liberal is a waste of thought..."

I am not disagreeing with you. But my points were against the Republican party, which claims to be conservative. in rece3nt years the Rupublicans have moved away from a conservative agenda and moved toward policies that it thinks will win elections.

"For example, one theory about Bush43, is he has turn left on several issues (perscription drug benefits, farm subsidies) to win voters in the middle and solidfy Republican power in the House and Senate. Not too many fiscal conservatives were thrilled with these spending increases, but the Republicans have certainly increased their power..."

I agree.

"So many conservatives could vote for the patriot act and feel COMPLETELY true to their conservative values..."

I don't buy this at all. I am all for a strong effective military, i am all for fighting people who attack us. I even agree with attacking those who have immenient plans to attack us. But i don't think the patriot act accomplishes anything towards these goals. It was formed more of a rallying cry to solidify republican power. The number of "conservatives" who fought aginst prisoners in guantonamo bay having access to lawyers was disgusting.

[David Steele]

[ QUOTE ]
Canada's Liberals are looking vunerable for their social engineering (gay marriage).


[/ QUOTE ]
Only because the US are interfering with the process. Here is a link:
Link (http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&amp;nid=24485)

D.