American political spectre

[politicus]

The current political spectre in the US is to the right of almost any other Western nation apart from micronations like Liechtenstein and Andorra (and to a certain degree Switzerland and regions like Alberta and Bavaria). This is the case both regarding economic and social policies.
Which historical factors can explain why Americans are more rightwinged than Europeans, Canadians and Australians?

[Redalgo]

Not sure if these are on mark, and I am not much of a history buff, but five ideas come to mind:

1. National Myth

In the United States it glorifies personal autonomy from the state, self-reliance, and building an exceptional, wholesome "shining city on a hill" as an example for how all nations ought to be developed. Anglo-Saxon culture had more mainstream acceptance than any other, despite the unpopularity of acknowledging it at the time, and it could perhaps be argued that amongst its influences were enduring tendencies of liberalism and imperialism as values. Add that to a lack of American experience with feudalism and it makes sense that the public was generally far more suspicious of the government than they were of organized (protestant) religion or economic elites.

2. Immigrants

The impression I have is that many of the early leftists in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were either immigrants recently arrived from Europe or part of organizations that often tried to appeal to their common interests. A certain level of cultural and economic concern, suspicion, and mistrust regarding newcomers to the country existed just as much back then as it does nowadays (e.g., Mexicans, and people of Islamic faith).

3. Peace at Home

No armed conflicts have ravaged the American homeland since the Civil War, which came well before the ideological clashes of the 20th century. Political leaders were able to satisfy labor interests moderately, suppress radical elements, and preside over an economy doing alright more often than not. Without a major national crisis, the established order retained legitimacy.

4. Propaganda

Fascism, then Marxist-Leninism made great fodder for PR campaigns presenting the States as a global paragon of liberty, affluence, and wholesome values to compare to new systems that seemed oppressive, un-Christian, and non-individualistic. The affect may have been enhanced by the lack of public attention paid to authoritarian tendencies in their own country, and by a populist sentiment that the People, through common sense, know what is best for the nation - which at times expressed itself as hostility directed at intellectuals and "un-American" ideas.

5. Two-Party System

The Democratic Party did not make the leap from social liberalism and corporatism to social democracy and democratic socialism. There is one right-wing and one more or less centrist option when it comes to major parties. Yes, there is debate over the legislation of cultural norms, but not so much on what kinds of fundamental changes should be made concerning the economy and role of government. So long as elections are first-past-the-post and other impediments to a multi-party system remain in place, the U.S. will not have a truly viable left.

What do you think? I am curious to hear which thoughts folks have here.

[Jerseyrules]

Or American people are just a more conservative people...  I mean really?  We're in power because of propaganda?  Sorry, but that sounds a bit petty, redalgo

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Part of it could be that we're a newer nation and thus haven't progressed like other nations have.

[Redalgo]

Or American people are just a more conservative people...  I mean really?  We're in power because of propaganda?  Sorry, but that sounds a bit petty, redalgo

As a contributing factor, absolutely. The average Joe doesn't know a lot about how alternative forms of government and other political-economic systems work, but they do get instructed on how the current system operates and are immersed in a culture that vaguely depicts socialism as interchangeable with Leninism, uses fascist as a vague pejorative for "big government," and tends to lavish the Founders and early Constitutional principles with adoration. Promoting mainstream values and marginalizing alternatives promotes biases; this is a byproduct of communitarian tendencies espoused more often by social conservatives and traditionalists than libertarians such as yourself. The underlying message sent is that we have freedom, yes, but that it is only socially acceptable for one to use it to think and behave in certain ways. To be fair, I do not think it is quite nearly as pronounced now as in many decades past.

I should have chosen my words more carefully, but my opinion is that - probably without any ill intent - our educational system, many media outlets, a variety of interest groups, the major parties, and much of the public itself are promoting certain biased, distorted perceptions of reality that make left wing ideologies less popular in the United States than they otherwise would be. A more significant number of Americans would identify as social democrats, greens, and democratic socialists... and to a lesser extent perhaps communists and anarchists, if they understood their options better and there were not such a stigma associated with belonging to such groups. This does not strike me as unreasonable to say, given that "liberal" is still used by some folks as an insult for social liberalists - as if being so were somehow radical rather than indicative of a centrist or centre-left placing on the basic political spectrum. xD

[LastVoter]

Or American people are just a more conservative people...  I mean really?  We're in power because of propaganda?  Sorry, but that sounds a bit petty, redalgo

As a contributing factor, absolutely. The average Joe doesn't know a lot about how alternative forms of government and other political-economic systems work, but they do get instructed on how the current system operates and are immersed in a culture that vaguely depicts socialism as interchangeable with Leninism, uses fascist as a vague pejorative for "big government," and tends to lavish the Founders and early Constitutional principles with adoration. Promoting mainstream values and marginalizing alternatives promotes biases; this is a byproduct of communitarian tendencies espoused more often by social conservatives and traditionalists than libertarians such as yourself. The underlying message sent is that we have freedom, yes, but that it is only socially acceptable for one to use it to think and behave in certain ways. To be fair, I do not think it is quite nearly as pronounced now as in many decades past.

I should have chosen my words more carefully, but my opinion is that - probably without any ill intent - our educational system, many media outlets, a variety of interest groups, the major parties, and much of the public itself are promoting certain biased, distorted perceptions of reality that make left wing ideologies less popular in the United States than they otherwise would be. A more significant number of Americans would identify as social democrats, greens, and democratic socialists... and to a lesser extent perhaps communists and anarchists, if they understood their options better and there were not such a stigma associated with belonging to such groups. This does not strike me as unreasonable to say, given that "liberal" is still used by some folks as an insult for social liberalists - as if being so were somehow radical rather than indicative of a centrist or centre-left placing on the basic political spectrum. xD

I can't believe how accurate is this post.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think you have to be careful with this kind of thing. It isn't that Americans as a whole are 'naturally' more right-wing than people in other 'Western' countries (you only have to look at the strength of America's really quite unique radical democratic - small 'd' important - tradition to see that) so much as the (quite obviously related) facts that it has a political system that is inherently conservative and that social democracy independent of that was a brief and fleeting thing.

[tpfkaw]

I'd first of all dispute that the "political spectre" in the US is actually to the right of the "first world" at large.  The Heritage Foundation ranks the US as being less economically free than Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, or Ireland, and tied with Denmark(!!!).  On social issues, the law (if not popular opinion) on abortion is to the left of nearly every European country (most of which restrict it to the first and sometimes early second trimester), and it would be considered an extremist position in pretty much every other first-world country not to advocate deporting illegal immigrants, nor would reducing the level of legal immigration be considered a non-mainstream idea.

The word "socialism" is disliked in America for the same reason why you can't call yourself "right-wing" in France; to say one is a "socialist" means to most people that you wish to establish a dictatorship, just as calling oneself "right-wing" means the same thing in France.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, but you don't have anything that could seriously pass for a welfare state elsewhere. Which is certainly something that needs explaining.

[Redalgo]

Which hints at an embarrassing reality that once-radical American ideas have become stagnant enough in a few respects that some of the countries with much more extensive welfare regimes have also managed to find ways to reconcile socialist and capitalist principles sufficiently well to reap more benefits from each side than has the States, which has become so wrapped up in preserving its Constitution that it is stifling political-economic innovation. There are countries in the West with better social services that still manage to pursue market-oriented preferences.

In terms of economic freedom, for instance, we find an example in Denmark of how some variations of the Nordic Model have made social democracy less hostile to businesses than most Americans would expect. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada share with the United States a British cultural influence - it is just that their liberal tendencies are a bit more moderate by global standards than are those in the United States.

In regards to social issues, I think Wormy raises a point that illustrates well how clumsy a bipolar gauge of ideologies can be. My understanding is that many European countries have a lot of Christian Democrats, who are socially conservative but tend to be a lot more comfortable with a mixed economy than being hardcore capitalists (at least if one compares them to the Religious Right in the States). In that sense it is reasonable to say that Americans in general are more to the right or left of folks elsewhere in the world depending on the context in which we are making the comparisons. There is far more variation in American political perspectives on social issues or how we should deal with cultural diversity than when it comes to political-economic views.

[tpfkaw]

Yes, but you don't have anything that could seriously pass for a welfare state elsewhere. Which is certainly something that needs explaining.

That's also, once again, a myth:

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Er... what does that have to do with what I mentioned? Is this one of these 'divided by a common language' moments, or are you being willfully obtuse?

[tpfkaw]

Non-military government spending is perhaps overbroad (though there is precious little of it that leftists dislike), but even going by more narrowly-tailored definitions...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/05/25/who-spends-more-on-social-welfare-the-united-states-or-sweden/

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And yet that still has remarkably little to do with what I was getting at.

[politicus]

Government spending doesn't necessarily equal welfare. Defence is a good example of a none welfare related government expense.

Also the question was about your political spectre ie. party system, social attitudes, strength of ideologies. Laws and social system obviously reflects attitudes and party system. But not 1 to 1.

[politicus]

Just to clarify what I meant, when I said the US is to the right on the political spectre.

1. Few people identify as left wing. Only about 20% self identified liberals. Socialism considered out of the mainstream. 40% self identified conservatives.

2. A lot of social issues that are won by the left/ liberals elsewhere are still highly divisive: death penalty, abortion, gun control, same sex civil union, gays in the military, evolution. Feminism is considered out of the mainstream, unions are seen as a negative thing by large segments of the population. Denying climate change is not seen as extremist.

3. The Republicans are more right wing economically and socially than any other major conservative party I can think of.
The Democrats are essentially centrist with a significant conservative Blue Dog wing.
No national left wing party with any strength.

[Jerseyrules]

Or American people are just a more conservative people...  I mean really?  We're in power because of propaganda?  Sorry, but that sounds a bit petty, redalgo

As a contributing factor, absolutely. The average Joe doesn't know a lot about how alternative forms of government and other political-economic systems work, but they do get instructed on how the current system operates and are immersed in a culture that vaguely depicts socialism as interchangeable with Leninism, uses fascist as a vague pejorative for "big government," and tends to lavish the Founders and early Constitutional principles with adoration. Promoting mainstream values and marginalizing alternatives promotes biases; this is a byproduct of communitarian tendencies espoused more often by social conservatives and traditionalists than libertarians such as yourself. The underlying message sent is that we have freedom, yes, but that it is only socially acceptable for one to use it to think and behave in certain ways. To be fair, I do not think it is quite nearly as pronounced now as in many decades past.

I should have chosen my words more carefully, but my opinion is that - probably without any ill intent - our educational system, many media outlets, a variety of interest groups, the major parties, and much of the public itself are promoting certain biased, distorted perceptions of reality that make left wing ideologies less popular in the United States than they otherwise would be. A more significant number of Americans would identify as social democrats, greens, and democratic socialists... and to a lesser extent perhaps communists and anarchists, if they understood their options better and there were not such a stigma associated with belonging to such groups. This does not strike me as unreasonable to say, given that "liberal" is still used by some folks as an insult for social liberalists - as if being so were somehow radical rather than indicative of a centrist or centre-left placing on the basic political spectrum. xD

I really don't like the media (which is not funded by the government, therefore not propaganda by definition), constantly throwing names around, which is why I also don't care for some left-wing people, such as Bill Maher (I don't like Palin or Bachman either, but he's an ass), but I don't think these right-wing networks represent the American people.  I believe many of them are libertarian-leaning conservatives, but not raging neocons.  I think many are inclined to like Ron Paul, as well as the Brothers Buckley in terms of political positions, although they are probably more in line with Rand Paul than his father (let's face it, Ron's just laying the groundwork for his son at this point).  Most Americas aren't trigger happy interventionist loons, which is why they turned away from the right in 08 and Obama now.