is the Democratic Party of the USA a left or right-wing organizaiton?

[© tweed]

by the definition of the original left-right divide (pro-change / pro-status quo) it is, quite clearly, nearly as right-wing as is imaginable.

[Verily]

by the definition of the original left-right divide (pro-change / pro-status quo) it is, quite clearly, nearly as right-wing as is imaginable.

The original left-right divide was anti-monarchy/pro-monarchy. Considering that the Democrats do not support the establishment of a monarchy, by the original definition they would be left-wing.

[© tweed]

that was also when a monarchy was in place so anti-monarchists were the forces of change.  current monarchists in the USA would certainly be pro-change as the USA has never had a monarchy.

[Verily]

that was also when a monarchy was in place so anti-monarchists were the forces of change.  current monarchists in the USA would certainly be pro-change as the USA has never had a monarchy.

Untrue, actually. The pro-monarchists also supported change, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy instead of the previous absolutist monarchy.

[Boris]

Operating under Tweed's definition of 'left' and 'right' wing, what incentive exactly does either party have to change the status-quo? It benefits them; they just rotate in and out of power periodically.

[© tweed]

that was also when a monarchy was in place so anti-monarchists were the forces of change.  current monarchists in the USA would certainly be pro-change as the USA has never had a monarchy.

Untrue, actually. The pro-monarchists also supported change, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy instead of the previous absolutist monarchy.

it originated in the French legistlative assembly based on seating arrangements, at which point the King still was in power.  but neither way does that refute my point.

[Ebowed]

Operating under Tweed's definition of 'left' and 'right' wing, what incentive exactly does either party have to change the status-quo?

Well, they kind of don't have one.  One of the best illustrations of this is that although the Republicans have had numerous opportunities to criminalize abortions, including all third trimester ones, they refuse to.  Similarly the Democrats' universal health care plans will all benefit the insurance companies just as much as the Republicans' non-universal plans.

[© tweed]

Operating under Tweed's definition of 'left' and 'right' wing, what incentive exactly does either party have to change the status-quo? It benefits them; they just rotate in and out of power periodically.

not really relevant to my question, but you seem to forget that the party is not just a mafia of aristocrats (although that's who controls it), but also is comprised of millions of normal Americans who certainly would benefit from change.

[Boris]

Operating under Tweed's definition of 'left' and 'right' wing, what incentive exactly does either party have to change the status-quo? It benefits them; they just rotate in and out of power periodically.

not really relevant to my question, but you seem to forget that the party is not just a mafia of aristocrats (although that's who controls it), but also is comprised of millions of normal Americans who certainly would benefit from change.

Sure, they would benefit from change, but regardless of whether or not that change actually occurs, they will still vote Democratic. For example, did Clinton really see a massive drop in support among the poor in the 96 campaign despite welfare reform? And of course, each party risks negative fallout through the process of implementing change; see the Dems with healthcare back in 94 and the GOP with social security in 2005.

Bottom line, the [right-wing] status-quo is of great benefit to both political parties. Thus, the Democratic aristocracy (whose primary concern is political power) has little incentive to divert from it.

[Eraserhead]

Most American Democrats are center-right which puts them to the left of the far right Republican Party.

[© tweed]

Operating under Tweed's definition of 'left' and 'right' wing, what incentive exactly does either party have to change the status-quo? It benefits them; they just rotate in and out of power periodically.

not really relevant to my question, but you seem to forget that the party is not just a mafia of aristocrats (although that's who controls it), but also is comprised of millions of normal Americans who certainly would benefit from change.

Sure, they would benefit from change, but regardless of whether or not that change actually occurs, they will still vote Democratic. For example, did Clinton really see a massive drop in support among the poor in the 96 campaign despite welfare reform? And of course, each party risks negative fallout through the process of implementing change; see the Dems with healthcare back in 94 and the GOP with social security in 2005.

Bottom line, the [right-wing] status-quo is of great benefit to both political parties. Thus, the Democratic aristocracy (whose primary concern is political power) has little incentive to divert from it.

you're still missing the point and continue to define the elite as the 'Democratic party' and the people as the subjects.

[Ogre Mage]

It is neither or both, depending on the general issue.  Moreso than the Republicans, powerful segments of the Party and related interest groups have interests that are in conflict.  Both parties, for example, are very friendly to business interest groups.  But in the Democrats case, these groups include labor unions and environmental organizations who often have conflicting agendas with the corporate sectors that the Democrats support.  This often leads to very strong disagreement within the party.  However, business generally has more lobbyists and more money to donate.

On social issues the party veers more clearly to the left.  There are little financial repercussions for taking the more liberal position as liberal social interests groups (ACLU, People For The American Way, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, etc.) are as strong as those on the Right (Family Research Council, Focus On The Family, Federalist Society, etc).  The stark difference of opinion here most clearly shows up on the issue of judges, where the type of judicial nominees supported by Democrats is in stark contrast to those supported by the Republicans.

Short answer -- the party is centrist to slightly right-leaning when it comes to business and economics and center-left on social issues.  The Democrats were willing to nominate a pro-business Democrat like Bill Clinton to retake the White House.  But they would never nominate a pro-life Presidential Candidate. 

[Lief 🗽]

The Republicans are the right to far-right party in America, while Democrats hold the center to the center-right.

[Willy Woz]

The Republicans are the right to far-right party in America, while Democrats hold the center to the center-right.

Oh, brother.

The Democrats are REALLY liberal.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The Republicans are the right to far-right party in America, while Democrats hold the center to the center-right.

Oh, brother.

The Democrats are REALLY liberal.

Prove it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The democrats are strongly conservative while the republicans are borderline fascist.

[Boris]

Operating under Tweed's definition of 'left' and 'right' wing, what incentive exactly does either party have to change the status-quo? It benefits them; they just rotate in and out of power periodically.

not really relevant to my question, but you seem to forget that the party is not just a mafia of aristocrats (although that's who controls it), but also is comprised of millions of normal Americans who certainly would benefit from change.

Sure, they would benefit from change, but regardless of whether or not that change actually occurs, they will still vote Democratic. For example, did Clinton really see a massive drop in support among the poor in the 96 campaign despite welfare reform? And of course, each party risks negative fallout through the process of implementing change; see the Dems with healthcare back in 94 and the GOP with social security in 2005.

Bottom line, the [right-wing] status-quo is of great benefit to both political parties. Thus, the Democratic aristocracy (whose primary concern is political power) has little incentive to divert from it.

you're still missing the point and continue to define the elite as the 'Democratic party' and the people as the subjects.

I'm defining the 'Democratic Party' as its elected officials, none of whom have any incentive to go through the hurdles to implement any real change. Thus, by your definition, they are right-wing.

It's irrelevant whether the Democratic Party's members are left or right-wing, because they don't vote on nor implement legislation. They only nominate candidates who talk like, depending upon the office, populists, progressives, or centrists, but, in reality, are all part of the same problem.

[opebo]

They are the essential center-right-posing-as-center-left part of a two-party right-wing system.  Their 'opponent' is the extreme-right-posing-as-center-right part of the same system.  And of course it is reasonable to analyze both these parties by their function and by those who control them - the aristocrats.

But the status quo, built as it is upon bloodletting, probably cannot be changed without a very great deal of the same.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

These results are funny given what the forum was like three years ago.. alot of Cynicism has seem to have crept in. Not of course that I consider that all and all a bad thing.

Obviously, as I have said before both parties are different sides of the same coin - their aims are somewhat similiar (mostly; at least among party leaders. Though admit differences between members of the house from Tancredo to McDermott) even if they try and go about in the same way.

Of course I'm of the "We get the politicians we deserve" school of thought; so what does it say about American voters then? (Probably good things given that turnout is low compared to Europe; though neither party really needs turnout to increase at all but will pay lip service to do so "for democracy".)

[Willy Woz]

The Republicans are the right to far-right party in America, while Democrats hold the center to the center-right.

Oh, brother.

The Democrats are REALLY liberal.

Prove it.

They are in favor of abortion on demand, marijuana legalisation, gay marriage, etc.

Just because maybe they don't compare with your "European parties" that dosen't mean they aren't extremely liberal. Especially by Third World standards.

[Verily]

The Republicans are the right to far-right party in America, while Democrats hold the center to the center-right.

Oh, brother.

The Democrats are REALLY liberal.

Prove it.

They are in favor of abortion on demand, marijuana legalisation, gay marriage, etc.

Just because maybe they don't compare with your "European parties" that dosen't mean they aren't extremely liberal. Especially by Third World standards.

We measure our politics by third world standards now? How low has the bar fallen?

FWIW, the Democratic Party favors only abortion of the positions you mentioned, and abortion enjoys 55-60% support in the US anyway, which hardly qualifies as extremely liberal.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The Republicans are the right to far-right party in America, while Democrats hold the center to the center-right.

Oh, brother.

The Democrats are REALLY liberal.

Prove it.

They are in favor of abortion on demand, marijuana legalisation, gay marriage, etc.

Just because maybe they don't compare with your "European parties" that dosen't mean they aren't extremely liberal. Especially by Third World standards.

Um, no they don't. I wish they did but they don't. The best we get from the dems these days is some voting to stlal GOP soc`ial reacitonism.

[minionofmidas]

that was also when a monarchy was in place so anti-monarchists were the forces of change.  current monarchists in the USA would certainly be pro-change as the USA has never had a monarchy.

Untrue, actually. The pro-monarchists also supported change, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy instead of the previous absolutist monarchy.

it originated in the French legistlative assembly based on seating arrangements, at which point the King still was in power.  but neither way does that refute my point.

More to the point, the first estate sat on the right, the second on the center-right, and the third (which had as many deputies as the other two combined, although voting was originally intended to be by estates so that didn't matter) sat on the left and center-left. That is to say, the nobles as the highest-ranking class sat in the traditional place of honor, to the host's (the king's, although he didn't in fact attend) right. (Seen from the back of the hall, they actually sat on the left.)
The "original" meaning then, ie the one from which the one still broadly used is descended, is that the party of the left is the party of the common people. In that sense, both parties in the US straddle the divide although the Dems are still marginally to the Reps' left.

[Ogre Mage]

A certain amount of skepticism is healthy.  But lest we get too jaded, I would note this from an editorial by Mark Morford in the SF Gate:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/11/16/notes111607.DTL

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Left-wing (normal).