Political Theory

There are two fundamental principles of democracy: the majority rules, but the minority still has rights. The latter part is often ignored, however (as, for example, when the majority of voters in the state of California decided to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, after the courts had correctly ruled that same-sex marriages must be allowed, in order to give equal rights to everyone). Democracy works only to the extent that people make it work. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Answer 2:

Quoting the US Government on the subject (US Manual of Citizenship Training, v.1932) "A Democracy is mobocracy, rights are subjected to the will of the majority without any regard to the principles of law. That is why the United States was founded as a Republic, a Nation of Laws." Quoting Thomas Jefferson: "A Democracy is the ability of 51% of the people to vote away the rights of the other 49%"

The liberals write the history books. They do not describe the massive historical failures of their policies. You may have heard about the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks. The textbooks were silent about the hundreds of millions killed by the communists. "One death is a tragedy. Millions of deaths are statistics," Joe Stalin. The liberals write the history books. They claim their programs work. Their claims get them elected to office.

answer 2. Indeed this is usually an attempt to improve self measure or self worth. Seldom is a moderate descriptor chosen, and almost never, a negative one.

In New Zealand, folk who live in the north, commonly refer to those in the south as The Deep South. But a dictionary of antonyms will show that this derogatory naming is a two edged sword.

Even Fascism, originally created to counter Communism, has failed to hold its lustre.

Parliament House is the name of government buildings in several countries, and a gay resort in Orlando, Florida, USA. Generally the government buildings are (or were) used by the national legislatures.

Government Buildings

• Parliament House (Edinburgh, Scotland) The Parliament Hall in Old Town of Edinburgh dates from 1639 and the buildings now house the Supreme Courts of Scotland. A modern building for the Scottish Parliament was completed in 2004 in Holyrood.
• Parliament House (Canberra, Australia) The Provisional Parliament House was the seat of government from 1927 to 1988. (From 1901 to 1927, the legislature met in Parliament House in Melbourne.) A modern Parliament House was opened in 1988. There are also existing halls named Parliament House in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart, Perth, and Sydney.
• Parliament House (Wellington, New Zealand) Although built to replaced an older hall destroyed in 1907, the new Parliament building was not used until 1918, and not completely finished until 1922. The official dedication by Queen Elizabeth II did not take place until 1995.
• Parliament House (or "Jatiyo Sangsad Bhaban", Dhaka, Bangladesh) The building was completed in 1982 to house the National Assembly.
• Parliament House ( or "Sansad Bhavan", New Delhi, India) Built between 1921 and 1927 to house the Council of State, the Central Legislative Assembly and the Chamber of Princes.
• Parliament House (Islamabad, Pakistan) Houses the Majlis-e-Shoora (Council of Advisors) of Pakistan : the lower house is the National Assembly and the upper house is the Senate.
• Parliament House (Singapore) The name given both the old legislative structure and the modern one opened in 1999.

The New Parliament House Resort (Orlando, Florida)The 130-room hotel and resort is built on Rock Lake in Orlando. It opened in 1975 as the "Parliament House Motor Inn", and underwent a major renovation and expansion in 2000 and 2001.

Well , the definition of "democracy" is "rule by the people", so yes.

But:

Not all (or maybe i should say very, very few) governments that call themselves "democracies" actually are democratic.
It depends on who you ask and it depends on who you ask if it is a positive thing. Pure democracy is in essence mob rule, it forces people to look at two extremes as a "one size fits all" approach which often times trivializes the issue at hand. Pure democracy can lead to situations akin to banning people from writing with their left hand because the majority of people are right-handed and therefore the majority (right-handers) can enforce their will on the minority (left-handers). It is for this reason that the US government was designed first as a limited government with a democracy secondary. It is why there is the bill of rights, set things that the government cannot overrule even with a majority vote. In most cases rule by each person individually is a better and more free way of looking at things. For example, rather than preventing left-handed people from writing with their left hand, both sides simply let each person choose which hand to write with because it doesn't affect them. The opposite of pure democracy is not a dictatorship, communism or socialism, yes, that can be a opposite, but its not -the- opposite. The ability for each individual to choose their own path that doesn't affect others harmfully, is in direct contrast to traditional concepts of democracy, but allows the rule of the people, meaning each person in a nation individually rather than the people as a unified whole which often times leads to abuse. I will close with this statement: Yes, this is opinion, there are many people who have all different views on the subject, but since you asked an opinion question, I am giving you my opinion, that isn't to say it isn't backed up with facts, but I'm sure if another answerer on here would answer this question you might get a radically different answer.

Opinion 1:

In one person's opinion, Greta van Susteren fits this spot. Alan Colmes, a frequent guest on various shows, can also be categorized here. Others include Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers and Juan Williams

Opinion 2:

Since Fox News is a propaganda vehicle for large corporations, they like to make the world seem simple by offering the voters only choices between Democrat and Republican.

Instead of offering real debate about the issues, a Fox News democrat is portrayed as a whiny, skinny, sniveling indecisive person of weak morals who pales in comparison to the moral giants of the right wing republican mainstream. Even his physical build is lesser than the representatives of the right.

To see where the wealthy learn these tactics, read "The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads" by Walter Lippman, one of the founding evangelists of the use of media influence over public opinion.

You should be able to see where the idea of media control of voter thought gained impetus in America. Modern Social Psychologists have expanded on his premise. Read "Influence" by Robert Cialdini or "The Age of Propaganda" by Eliot Aronson, or if you are really having trouble going to sleep at night, you could tackle "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky.

If you read between the lines and think how buying media outlets and twisting the message in favor of the wealthy might pay off, it will explain a lot. By controlling the six minutes of news the average voter watches each day, you can own that vote. Social Psychology is too powerful a science to resist.

For historical context from other societies, Hitlers' Germany and Chinese Communists used propaganda almost as effectively. They did not have the benefits of TV news and Washington think tanks, but they did pretty well with what they had.

The frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, depicting the Sovereign as a massive body wielding a sword and crozier and composed of many individual people.

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

For example ...many people believe they get free health care... but its not,,,they collect the money from the people...they would say we get the money from mean rich people and business...but they too just charge more money....its a great scam to get control and power...

Some tout socialist policy because they believe in it?

Answer

Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.

As an earlier respondent to this question stated, socialism involves the government providing things for people regardless of their ability to pay. Promoting these policies pays a double benefit to politicians. The first benefit is that they get to sound like they "really care" about the "little guy". The second benefit, and the most important one to many politicians, is that they perpetuate dependence on government. Thus, they guarantee for themselves the continued loyalty of those dependent people by being the ones who promise to keep paying.

In other words, people who would prefer to spend their days watching Jerry Springer rather than getting a job and becoming productive members of society will repeatedly vote for the politicians that will enable them to keep watching Springer by providing for them whether they produce or not.

It's taking money from the producers, and using that money to buy the votes of the lazy.

I like Americans but one of the things I don't understand about America is the fact that many Americans seem to be incapable of telling the difference between Socialism,social democracy,liberal democracy,communism and almost every other ism.

Socialsim is a political idea which has been around for a long time,certainly since the French Revolution. Like all other idea it has changed over the years and there are different strands. In the 19 century people putting forward the idea of social welfare laws might have been called socialist but by the mid 20 century most politicians would be for some welfare laws.

There is a book about American history called "THE LAND OF PLENTY" and it puts forward the idea that because Americans can move around if the local ecomomy goes bad or they fall out with their neighbours or employer then they fail to make the class and community connections that European people often do so they are more individual in out look than europeans. Wheter they are actually better off is another story. So mant Americans have had problems understanding the idea of socialism and of course the problem of communism meant that socialist ideas never became popular in America. western democratic socialist such as the British Labour Party believe in democracy,indeed Britain would not be a democracy without them. They are not communists and they do not want the state to onw or do everything,but they think in the rral world the state is always going to be there and it may as well help the people and not just lock them up.

The American view of the state seems odd to us europeans. The average American does not approve of the state having a role in the economy unless it is giving tax payers money to farmers and to what Eisenhower (not a socialist) called the military industrial complex. FDR created a sort of American welfare state to stop socialsm or communism or facism not to help it. The world has changed and so has political ideas. Most of the democrats in the US are not socialists or social democrats bur what if they were,it is not illegal. Most republicans are not closet Nazis,so try and look at things a bit deeper and not just call people names. Can anyone explain to me why old people in America get free health care no matter how much money they have but poor working people do not always get this.

I would like to point out that the NAZIS were socialists.

"That's what socialism is, Fred. The government provides everything."

no. as it has been pointed out there are different strands of socialist theory as there are with any other. i believe marxism to be the most historically comprehensive.

marx proposed socialism as a path to communism. communism is the idea of a society without a central state power, where producers own the means of production instead of a wealthy class that simply pays a wage, seeking minimum benefit to the worker. from this we should understand that the terminology "Communist Government," regime, dictator or whatever is oxymoronic. if there is a ruling class, it is not communism or socialism.

socialism as a path to communism is essentially a step of reform in which the state is maintained but with greater control by producers than the typical hierarchal forms. so it is not that the government provides everything, the government becomes a tool for producers- that is, those who create the things we use, also called workers- to use to create the social programs they find desirable or necessary.

it's also not that everyone is just a laborer with no one allowed to organize or invent things. the concepts are largely a response to industrialization which requires a fairly robotic workforce and has minimized independent trades.

i would argue that it is our current structure that encourages laziness as people seem to expect big business and politicians to solve all of our problems. the soviet union made claims to being socialist or communist to take advantage of the popular movement as a facade for totalitarian rule. as such, our politicians will say whatever they think the public wants to hear, but it has little effect on the core policies of maintaining a power elite.

the freedoms we have are the result of ongoing struggle. the ruling class must give in just enough to keep the people from revolting, yet the gap between rich and poor has consistently expanded. technically we have the freedom to choose our path but being born into wealth, receiving the best education, obviously provides greater opportunity. socialist and communist theory is principled on changing this disparity of privilege. whether you think that's a good idea or you're more of a social darwinist is not for me to say.

Answer

This question requires an opinionated answer. So any of these answer can be correct if that is how you feel. Politicians could honestly feel that socialism or social policies is what America needs? Or perhaps they know something about history that drives them towards it? But why? This is a very good topic/answer set. To directly answer the question. This is how I see it, and believe why politicians tout socialist policy.

Politicians who try and sell social policies to the masses in my books, are anti-American. Firstly, their are two parties and a few independents in the great USA. (Land of the free, Home of the brave, our capitalist, free enterprise, republic!) There is no socialist party, and if there was I'd pray to all things, they never get elected, and doubt they would. If you want to have a social, or even progressive outlook on governance, perhaps you should be in a socialist or progressive party?

Secondly, taking a social stance on topics typically aims to inspire a state of dependance. A variety of examples; (1)Shared tips, now you are dependent on your fellow workers to make that extra cash you worked extra hard to get. Sorry there Billy, 'most' people don't put in that extra work. Though because you did, you get to share it with your fellow lazy workers. Thanks there Billy. Should not the effort be rewarded, not vice-versa? (2)Heath care, OK. So again my opinion. I break my leg, I get cancer, anything. Why should I expect everyone else to pay for my misfortune. I'm sorry I just don't feel that way, maybe some people do though. I would rather not burden the entire masses, keep in mind it will not only be you, and force everyone to pay for my mistakes, misfortunes, or mistreatments. I will sort that all out myself thank you very much. A hot topic, and will state nothing more on that here. (3) Welfare, who is going to pay me the most to do absolutely nothing? Hummm. Let me go cast my vote. This third example is an importantly noted one. I feel that if you are on welfare, your voters registration should be temporary restricted from use until you are off welfare. Voting while on welfare as far as I can see, is bribery. Social policy leads to dependance, but then again, perhaps you like dependance and want someone to tell you what to do, I do not. I like to make all my own choices, suffering or benefiting accordingly.

Or perhaps it is jealousy that drives the socialist movement. The fact that others families worked to get where they are over time, or perhaps lucked out, and the fact that other families did not, I believe doesn't come into question with these people. A need to force a level of equal wealth amongst the people is strange to me (in thinking). I see it happen across the world, It saddens me. Anyone can see that if everyone was equally worth the same, had the same house and the same care, not only would life be very bland, but the economy simply could not work. Some people have more expensive tastes than others, and there is nothing wrong with that. Typically these people make the jobs, and create the wealth of the Country. They start major flows of cold hard cash. Appreciate these people, or bring yourself to their level, and have a say yourself. Do not drag everyone down to a level you see fit. That is the flaw of all social thinking. Or be satisfied to do your own socialist thing, act how you feel, don't force your thinking into policy. Free market environments are most fair.

Beware of the touting Socialtician.

Only my opinion.

But, you are right. Charity should start in your own Country first. I'll give you that one, and that one only. People should be donating their income, not having it stolen by Government.

Socialism, as defined, is a political system of communal ownership. Socialism, as practiced here in the U.S., is a social rather than political system. If you look at the U.S. budget, more money is spent on social programs than many countries GNP. I see the usual America bashing going on here, which is upsetting. What makes you think we don't understand the various -isms of the world? We do. Many of still believe that it's the individual's responsibility to provide for themselves, rather than the European model of "cradle to grave" government assistance. That attitude, and American industry is what has twice kept vast portions of Europe out of the hands of the Germans. In WWII Communists bore the brunt of destroying the NAZI (National Socialist) war machine. 75% of German soldiers who died were killed by Communist troops. The U.S. provided men and materiel to all fronts of the war, and that materiel kept Europe and the USSR alive until we could open other fronts.

Having said that, we should allow Ireland, being the world power that it is, to provide all the aid and assistance that the U.S. now provides to so many disaster struck countries. Whether you like it or not, the first question asked isn't "When are the Irish coming?", but "When are the Americans coming?". Guns, guns, guns. Boring, boring, boring. Yes, we have them. The IRA doesn't? We have the Second Amendment because the first thing the British did when we wanted our freedom was to try and disarm us, and because our Constitution calls on American citizens to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression by the government. We are noisy, brawling, have our problems, and are generous to our friends and defeated enemies, funloving, brave, and come to the aid of any that call us. We make mistakes. Show me a country that doesn't. We have meddled. Europe hasn't? When you point your finger at us, you have three pointing back at you. I like our system, I like our country, and I love our people. So do the millions of people from other countries that come here to be free. The United States- where people from other nations come to celebrate their cultures. Maybe we're not so bad after all. For those of you that don't like us, no worries. The next time you have a problem, turn to Canada, Mexico, or the African nation of your choice. Just don't mock us on one hand, and dial for help with the other any more. Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.