WA Delegate: The ⚔Banhammer Delegate⚔ of Goncar (elected )
Founder: The Republic of Ainland
Last WA Update:
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.
Regional Power: Very High
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.
|1.||The Magnificent Kingdom of Avaerilon||Civil Rights Lovefest||“Ylf ī'n Qidīol īr Fyr Aspar (I am True to My Spirit)”|
|2.||The Capital of Holtmimir||Liberal Democratic Socialists||“ᴀʟʟ ɍᴀᴛʜᴇʀs ᴄᴀʀᴇ ɍѳʀ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ sѳɴs”|
|3.||The Federal Republic of Euphion||Left-Leaning College State||“for freedom and liberty!”|
|4.||The Union of Bramley Garden||Civil Rights Lovefest||“With great power, comes great responsibility.”|
|5.||The Republic of Jamilkhuze||Left-Leaning College State||“Life is but a harmless enigma we make terrible.”|
|6.||The ⚔Banhammer Delegate⚔ of Goncar||Left-Leaning College State||“With freedom comes responsibility”|
|7.||The Grand Union of Mikhailgrad||Civil Rights Lovefest||“Par mus, par vīriesis — For us, for the people”|
|8.||The Liberal Republic of Sheren||Left-Leaning College State||“Liberty and Equality”|
|9.||The Eco-Socialist Assembly of Davidianian||Left-wing Utopia||“Technology & Environment”|
|10.||The Federal Democratic Republic of Vancovaria||Left-Leaning College State||“Freedom isn't freedom without equality”|
- : The United Kingdom of Admiral Dewey arrived from The Union of Democratic States.
- : National emus ceased to exist.
- : The United Kingdom of Vetoland and Taome arrived from Balder.
- : The Republic of Valdria departed this region for Democratic Nations Assembly.
- : The United Peoples' Kingdom of Lamatama arrived from Osiris.
- : The United Socialist States of Lesliei arrived from Democratic Socialist Assembly.
- : Soviet liberal union ceased to exist.
- : Owyen ceased to exist.
- : New yorkeland ceased to exist.
- : Mallkuist peru ceased to exist.
Social Liberal Union Regional Message Board
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.
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".
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?
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 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.
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.
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.