maybe this thread has been made before, but i didn't see one... why is it that the U.S. in general, along with a few other nations world wide seems to be right leaning, as opposed to the majority of europe, russia, mexico/canada, and south america? does the fact that they all hold strong beliefs in the catholic church have someting to do with it, or am i off on that assumption?
Historically, paranoid protestant Americans think the Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan, so for the US and some areas of Europe that would be a big no.
I think that it is easier for the wealthy to just buy conservative politicians with TV money. Most of the other democracies limit the outright power of the wealthy few to "outvote" the vast mass of people through political contributions. Also, organized labor, which is usually the way that ordinary people can counteract the political power of the wealthy few is weaker in the US. See how the wealthy can put in their candidates to create unfavorable laws to inhibit unions. Of course, the press controlled by the wealthy creates the negative attitudes toward unions.
most of the muslim world is very conservative along with china. i guess we need to know which aspect of leaning right that you are referring to. further if you looked at the traditional hispanic family you would probably think they were a conservative family if you just went on their beliefs and activities rather than social background.
Either that or the corruption, historic ties to organized crime, inflated wages driving up the price of goods, or the harrasment of independent workers. Let's not pretend that the big, bad, ultra-conservative media is the only thing giving unions a bad name.
I see you have you're up on your conservative media. Thanks for proving my point. Please detail personal experiences as a union member, not stuff you heard on Fox News.
In college I worked at Bush Stadium in St. Louis, selling beer during games. When we came to the part in the orientation where we were supposed decide whether we wanted to sign up for the Union, the union person didn't even mention that it was for a union, they simply said "sign this card." I didn't because I read the card and I didn't like the way that they were not making it clear what the card was for. Over the next couple of weeks I was constantly browbeaten, told that I was required by law to sign up for the union (I wasn't), told that I was going to be fired right away if I didn't sign, etc. And this was at a crappy little ultra-low wage part time job at a baseball stadium.
Why the US seems to be more right leaning has more to do with the history and geography of the US. The early US was settled by entrepeneurs, prisoners and religious extremists who all had an interest in being suspicious of big government and more interested in individuality. As settlers pushed further westward the pioneer ethos of self-reliance also took hold since there was so much land and relatively few people. From that most of the US never developed much of a sense of urbanism or collectivism which happened in Europe. People living spread out and having to rely on themselves more than larger society tend to stick to more traditional beliefs since they aren't confronted as often with different people and ideas whereas living in large cities tend to lead to more liberal ideas since ideas are constantly being exchanged. As for the Catholic Church I'm not sure about its influence. For most of its history its been a force for cultural conservatism but the settlement pattern that the church encouraged also favored the development of cities and learning centers that may have played a role.
I think your question over simplifies global politics. One of the problems is the definition of right vs. left is every changing. IMHO- Limited federal government, with a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution supporting strong individual rights, strong state rights and individual responsibility and liberty would be considered a 'right' leaning. Strong centralized government, with a progressive view of the Constitution, strong federal responsibility, limited state rights and government responsibility for human services would be considered a 'left' leaning. By these definitions I would say that the U.S. would fit quite nicely to the left with the governments mentioned.
I don't think the majority of Americans are "right-leaning." In my opinion, a minority of Americans that most definitely are right-leaning have grabbed hold of political power, because they organized, and they voted. They are a minority. If the majority, who I believe to be moderate to liberal in their thinking, with progressive being the word I would prefer, were to get off their butts, organize, and vote, we wouldn't see the unmitigated disaster of a government we currently have in power. Progressives, it's time to stop complaining, and join the political party that most represents your ideals, despite all it's flaws, and turn it into the party it can and should be... a progressive Democratic Party. Those who find that too difficult to do, ideologically, should work within the Republican Party, after the disaster that will befall it this Fall, a disaster it desperately needs to cleanse itself of the far-right radicals that have seized power from more moderate, progressive Republicans, and turn it away from intolerance and prejudice, and into a more progressive Republican Party that holds true Republican ideals, not the incredibly offensive thing it is today... a GOP that has passed record deficits, caused record debt, promoted war as an agenda, alienated our friends and allies, and turned much of the world against us, since the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Good Luck. Keep D&D Civil.
Hey, I mostly grew up in St.Louis. I am still a Cardinal fan. Same thing happened to me almost when I was serving beer at basketball games. I was just a naive college kid. Later realized I did not see the big picture Well that at least was some experience. I don't think that compares with the good that the labor movement has done for the middle class in America. Ideally everyone would be free to freeload on those who organize, but it creates problems. Have you always had nothing but the best most honorable experiences in business, corporate or academic environments?
Typical glynch. You ask for a personal experience (as if one personal story would disprove anything), you get one, and then respond that we can have a subpar experience within academia or the corporate world as well, lol. There are a plethora of valid criticisms of unions (I worked at Kroger when I was younger and one guy was getting $24 an hour to stock the milk section because of the union - no offense, he was a nice guy and had been with Krogers for awhile, but that's a ridiculous wage). To dismiss those as products of a conservative conspiracy is just silly. Further, can you please substantiate your claim that 70% of the wealthy are conservative? Unions had their place in American history - and served the people well. Their time is past - too many negatives and not enough positives in today's world. lol, too true. his list just got smaller.
I generally have nothing against unions, but like everything else in this world they look out for their own best interests. I definitely agree that they are beneficial in that their interests more closely parallel those of the poor working man, and that they tend to balance the monolithic force of the corporate entity. One should understand that they are their own entity and they should be watched just as closely as one watches any other large group. They are not some benevolent church-like entity. Even the various churches aren't in practice church-like entities. In the final equation to me they are generally the tragic example of why many of the beautiful social ideas of the 19th century generally don't work as planned in practice. In the end, everybody's looking out for themselves. I just didn't think it was fair to say that StupidMoniker couldn't have a legitimate opinion on unions unless he had direct involvement with one. It reminded me of some posters here saying that one can't have a legitimate opinion on China unless one speaks Chinese, or on Iran unless one speaks Farsi. It strikes me as a debating bully tactic with little actual merit.
I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that two major wars have not been faught on the US soil in the past 100 years, like most of Europe.
