by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Social Liberal Union RMB

WA Delegate: The ⚔Banhammer Delegate⚔ of Goncar (elected )

Founder: The Republic of Ainland

Last WA Update:

Board Activity History Admin Rank

Most Influential: 15th Most World Assembly Endorsements: 16th Most Nations: 107th+30
Most Cheerful Citizens: 442nd Nicest Citizens: 463rd Most Compassionate Citizens: 470th Most Rebellious Youth: 525th Most Inclusive: 585th Best Weather: 670th Largest Welfare Programs: 682nd Most Pacifist: 781st Most Cultured: 800th Most Beautiful Environments: 812th Most Eco-Friendly Governments: 963rd Most Advanced Public Education: 965th Smartest Citizens: 994th Most Extensive Public Healthcare: 1,030th Most Popular Tourist Destinations: 1,167th Healthiest Citizens: 1,180th Most Advanced Public Transport: 1,198th Longest Average Lifespans: 1,315th Highest Foreign Aid Spending: 1,369th Safest: 1,420th Largest Publishing Industry: 1,456th Highest Poor Incomes: 1,512th Largest Governments: 1,620th Least Corrupt Governments: 1,664th Most Scientifically Advanced: 1,836th Most Developed: 1,874th Most Subsidized Industry: 1,890th Largest Information Technology Sector: 1,931st Most Secular: 1,935th Lowest Crime Rates: 2,001st
World Factbook Entry

A region for democratic socialists and socially minded liberals.

The SLU is a region dedicated to democracy, social welfare, equality and freedom of opinion; debate is encouraged.


+++ Welcome! Please endorse the Delegate, Goncar, and Linkhave a cookie. (::) +++

NO RECRUITMENT: The SLU is a longstanding signatory to the LinkArnhelm Declaration.


About: LinkRegional Forum 📰 (LinkRegister) | LinkRegional Discord Chat 💬 | LinkFounding Statement 🏴 | LinkConstitution 📜 | LinkLibrary of Parliament 📚 | Link Map📍

In the Open Parliament:
LinkMARCH 2019 MINISTERIAL NOMINATIONS


Events:
LinkWA Resolution Drafting


CUDA Level:
LinkYellow



Embassies: Democratic Socialist Assembly, International Democratic Union, A Liberal Haven, The Leftist Assembly, The Union of Democratic States, Yggdrasil, The Versutian Federation, The Internationale, The Communist Bloc, Interregional Legislative Coalition, and Pacifica.

Tags: Democratic, Enormous, Featured, Liberal, Map, Offsite Chat, Offsite Forums, Regional Government, Role Player, and Socialist.

Regional Power: Very High

Social Liberal Union contains 134 nations, the 107th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Most Efficient Economies in Social Liberal Union

Nations ranked highly are the most ruthlessly efficient at translating raw resources, including people, into economic output.

As a region, Social Liberal Union is ranked 7,364th in the world for Most Efficient Economies.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Magnificent Kingdom of AvaerilonCivil Rights Lovefest“Ylf ī'n Qidīol īr Fyr Aspar (I am True to My Spirit)”
2.The Capital of HoltmimirLiberal Democratic Socialists“ᴀʟʟ ɍᴀᴛʜᴇʀs ᴄᴀʀᴇ ɍѳʀ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ sѳɴs”
3.The Federal Republic of EuphionLeft-Leaning College State“for freedom and liberty!”
4.The Union of Bramley GardenCivil Rights Lovefest“With great power, comes great responsibility.”
5.The Republic of JamilkhuzeLeft-Leaning College State“Life is but a harmless enigma we make terrible.”
6.The ⚔Banhammer Delegate⚔ of GoncarLeft-Leaning College State“With freedom comes responsibility”
7.The Grand Union of MikhailgradCivil Rights Lovefest“Par mus, par vīriesis — For us, for the people”
8.The Liberal Republic of SherenLeft-Leaning College State“Liberty and Equality”
9.The Eco-Socialist Assembly of DavidianianLeft-wing Utopia“Technology & Environment”
10.The Federal Democratic Republic of VancovariaLeft-Leaning College State“Freedom isn't freedom without equality”
1234. . .1314»

Regional Happenings

More...

Social Liberal Union Regional Message Board

Eriadni wrote:Ainland

As mentioned before, you did like to look at real world policy and results rather than ideology. Can you deny that “centrism” is a form of politics that offers platitudes whilst retaining the most repulsive elements of the status quo?

For example: Blairite Labour and the Third Way brought Britain into the Iraq War. A war that was proved to have been started over false pretences. They never found the chemical weapons did they?

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was lauded as a “centrist” yet his government hammered the nails into the Australian union movement and slashed pay rates for full time workers.

Joe Biden, hailed as a “centrist” democrat, refused to apologise for allegations of inappropriate behaviour, and hid behind the excuse “times have changed”.

Emmanuel Macron was elected on a “centrist” platform, yet consistently favoured the interests of major banks over the majority population of France. This has resulted in the infamous gilet jaunes protests which continue today.

In my honest opinion, centrism is itself a utopia. There are ideas that cannot be reconciled - the political clime does not allow it and it is not in the interests of the powerful to change anything.

Centrism is the art of maintaining the status quo. The status quo that continues to erode civil liberties, pursue power over humanity, and push our environment to the edge.

In my very humble opinion, centrism is the cure all of a snake oil merchant. It’s proponents talk the talk, but fail to walk the walk and assist the needy, the poor and the vulnerable.

EDIT: Typos

Radical centrism in itself is a deluded concept solely designed to suppress any actual leftwing governments while allowing rightist extremists to proliferate freely and blame said centrists (Albeit correctly, but unfortunately from the wrong side) for the country's woes and economic inequality, while fostering their own agenda. I wouldn't be surprise if Macron failed to even make it to the 2nd round in 2023, let alone win the presidency, and if anything, Le Pen of all people has a higher chance to win if it is again between her and Macron at this point, especially after Les Gilets Jaunes sprouted up.

fishhook theory ≫ horseshoe theory

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:Radical centrism in itself is a deluded concept solely designed to...

I'm afraid I find this approach disingenuous. I appreciate that there are those on the far left who are very passionate about their views. But in debating different ideas, it is my view that it is not productive to accuse those who adopt different positions of being deluded or dishonest. I also find it unhelpful to conflate ideas with specific regimes or people.

You might have had the basis for a fair point if you wanted to demonstrate how dissatisfaction with moderate leaders could lead to polarisation to the extremes. It is unfortunate that instead, you chose to characterise radical centrism as being "solely designed to suppress any actual leftwing governments while allowing rightist extremists to proliferate freely..."

Omerica wrote:fishhook theory ≫ horseshoe theory

I think that horseshoe theory seeks to demonstrate how, if you go to the extremes of either side of the political spectrum, you move towards a socially authoritarian position, albeit with different goals. That seems valid to me.

I would argue that centrism is about being wary of ideology and instead being pragmatic and realistic about the problems that face us. This means that ideas can come from across the political spectrum, focussing on evidence over emotion or ideology. It may be that dissatisfaction with this approach pushes people to the extremes - this appears to be the case with the Labour party in Britain at the moment. But I don't think that this is evidence for centrism being a deliberate cover designed solely to suppress the left. I believe there are people who are genuinely keen for a sensible, pragmatic approach that favours negotiation and compromise over ideology and dogma.

Ainland wrote:I'm afraid I find this approach disingenuous. I appreciate that there are those on the far left who are very passionate about their views. But in debating different ideas, it is my view that it is not productive to accuse those who adopt different positions of being deluded or dishonest. I also find it unhelpful to conflate ideas with specific regimes or people.

You might have had the basis for a fair point if you wanted to demonstrate how dissatisfaction with moderate leaders could lead to polarisation to the extremes. It is unfortunate that instead, you chose to characterise radical centrism as being "solely designed to suppress any actual leftwing governments while allowing rightist extremists to proliferate freely..."

I think that horseshoe theory seeks to demonstrate how, if you go to the extremes of either side of the political spectrum, you move towards a socially authoritarian position, albeit with different goals. That seems valid to me.

I would argue that centrism is about being wary of ideology and instead being pragmatic and realistic about the problems that face us. This means that ideas can come from across the political spectrum, focussing on evidence over emotion or ideology. It may be that dissatisfaction with this approach pushes people to the extremes - this appears to be the case with the Labour party in Britain at the moment. But I don't think that this is evidence for centrism being a deliberate cover designed solely to suppress the left. I believe there are people who are genuinely keen for a sensible, pragmatic approach that favours negotiation and compromise over ideology and dogma.

Well, said "pragmatic" approaches and "enlightened centrism" tanked his approval ratings to an alltime low, brought the country on the brink of near civil war (There is civil unrest in the country for sure as evidenced by the mass working class Gilets Jaunes protests and riots every week) started mass deregulation and privatization of the economy and weakening of labour rights, massive handouts to the ultra-wealthy oligarchs, and imposition of regressive tax hikes that disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

And now look where Le Pen is in the polls. Still in a solid lead above Macron, despite her sharp turn to the right. Even Donald Trump is more popular than Emmanuel at this point. Pivoting towards neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus is what you don't wanna do to stem support for the far right, as more income inequality and the seeming out of touch "left" (Such as the "Socialist Party" in France or the Labour Party in U.K. who turned sharply towards Tory or UDR-lite in the 1990s-2000s and eventually led to the whole "PASOKification" phenomenon that paved the rise of populism) who betrayed the working class is the best recipe to fan the flames of anti-democratic demagoguery.

And in the end, an attempt to satisfy both sides and offer milquetoast half-measures will end up pissing off both sides and would in the end worsen the situation even more (As happened with Obama passing a rebranded version of Romneycare as his hallmark health reform instead of going for proper NHS-style healthcare, even when he had a literal veto-proof supermajority in both chambers of congress and a much more friendly SCOTUS) than before said centrist got elected, because seriously, if I wanted a government that is rightist and laissez-faire on the economy, I would've voted for the conservatives, NOT the "progressives" or "democrats".

If picking the middle road somehow makes us worse off than trying to pick the least bad extreme, then there is no hope for us. The center must hold. Let the extremists be pissed, reasonable people should not care.

All this political talk is confusing me lol

Typica wrote:If picking the middle road somehow makes us worse off than trying to pick the least bad extreme, then there is no hope for us. The center must hold. Let the extremists be pissed, reasonable people should not care.

Middle-roading is what led us to this whole hubbub of rightist extremism and income inequality to begin with, because when both the mainstream left and the right adopt Reaganomics and laissez faire Gilded age trickledown economics, who on earth should one turn to as an alternative to neoliberalism?

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:
Middle-roading is what led us to this whole hubbub of rightist extremism and income inequality to begin with, because when both the mainstream left and the right adopt Reaganomics and laissez faire Gilded age trickledown economics,  who on earth should one turn to as an alternative to neoliberalism?

Extremist discontent is nothing new as far as I know. You're drawing conclusions that can't be verified and I don't agree with. As far as who to vote for, that's everyone's problem and good policy should appeal to as many people as possible.

Typica wrote:Extremist discontent is nothing new as far as I know. You're drawing conclusions that can't be verified and I don't agree with. As far as who to vote for, that's everyone's problem and good policy should appeal to as many people as possible.

As long as you don't sell out or betray the very people you should be representing to begin with (If you are an leftist). Inclusivity is good, but specific policies must not be watered down or flipflopped on just to satisfy your opponent, as you might as well not bother running against him to begin with.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:Well, said "pragmatic" approaches and "enlightened centrism" tanked his approval ratings to an alltime low, brought the country on the brink of near civil war (There is civil unrest in the country for sure as evidenced by the mass working class Gilets Jaunes protests and riots every week) started mass deregulation and privatization of the economy and weakening of labour rights, massive handouts to the ultra-wealthy oligarchs, and imposition of regressive tax hikes that disproportionately affect the lower and middle classes.

And now look where Le Pen is in the polls. Still in a solid lead above Macron, despite her sharp turn to the right. Even Donald Trump is more popular than Emmanuel at this point. Pivoting towards neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus is what you don't wanna do to stem support for the far right, as more income inequality and the seeming out of touch "left" (Such as the "Socialist Party" in France or the Labour Party in U.K. who turned sharply towards Tory or UDR-lite in the 1990s-2000s and eventually led to the whole "PASOKification" phenomenon that paved the rise of populism) who betrayed the working class is the best recipe to fan the flames of anti-democratic demagoguery.

I am afraid I haven't been able to extract any evidence at all from this statement to support the claim that Macron's centrism is the cause for support of far-right policies in France, as opposed to if Macron had been a socialist.

Macron's approval ratings appear to be following roughly the same trend as Sarkozy's based on his time in office, and certainly much higher than Hollande's. Protest is nothing new in France, it is a fantastic thing about the country that the right to free and fair protest has long been alive and well. Another fantastic thing about France is that their presidential election system is so open. Macron stood quite clearly on a centrist, social liberal platform and beat his socialist opponents. I see no evidence that there has been a significant change in his ideology since taking office.

The British electorate had the choice between a right wing government or a socialist government in 1979. They chose right wing. The same choice in 1983 resulted in the same outcome. Yet again in 1987, and again in 1992. Then the Labour party underwent a fundamental change. It relaunched itself, moving to the centre and rebranding as New Labour. The party won by a landslide in 1997, 2001 and 2005. It would be disingenuous to disregard or attempt to explain this away when it is so central to your claim that centrism results in the rise of the right.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:And in the end, an attempt to satisfy both sides and offer milquetoast half-measures will end up pissing off both sides and would in the end worsen the situation even more (As happened with Obama passing a rebranded version of Romneycare as his hallmark health reform instead of going for proper NHS-style healthcare, even when he had a literal veto-proof supermajority in both chambers of congress and a much more friendly SCOTUS) than before said centrist got elected, because seriously, if I wanted a government that is rightist and laissez-faire on the economy, I would've voted for the conservatives, NOT the "progressives" or "democrats".

In a democracy, you cannot expect the leader to adopt your own style of polarised, binary thinking, and implement a full-scale socialist agenda, to suit your individual reasons for voting for him. I don't think Obama ever promised a single-payer healthcare system. If you think that Obamacare has done no good at all and that you would have been no different voting conservative, then there is probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. But in a democracy, you don't get to be happy with everything your leader does, even if you voted for him. There are many more people than just you in America.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:As long as you don't sell out or betray the very people you should be representing to begin with (If you are an leftist). Inclusivity is good, but specific policies must not be watered down or flipflopped on just to satisfy your opponent, as you might as well not bother running against him to begin with.

I think this exposes a fundamental difference between us, which likely explains our differing approaches to ideas like negotiation, compromise and pragmatism. It is my view that, in a liberal democracy, the leader's duty is to represent the whole nation, not just the socialists.

Forum View

Advertisement