Why is the US so conservatives and far right compared to other first world countries?

[Lilymoon]

Why is there no working class movement in the US or far left party in the US? why is the US so hard core conservatives and far right? How could someone vote for Trump two times? Shows just how far right the US is and the MAGA movement.

Like how could someone vote for Trump two times? Just shows how the US shifted more to ultra right and hard core conservatives. Why is the US like this and what is causing this?

[Jakob]

far left party in the US?

You mean this one?

Many Trump voters are just centrists who were tired of the inane culture wars, as well as the actual warmongering of the Democrat Party, who has been the favorite party of the military-industrial complex for at least a decade now.

[Lilymoon]

That interesting I heard Trump is much softer on Russia than the Democrat Party making threats all the time go to war with Russia. And was making head way the last time with North Korea.

But strange that Trump is very hard on China and Iran.

[caltrek]

far left party in the US?

You mean this one?

The Democratic Party is not "far left." At most it is a very diverse party that includes elements that one might consider to be "far left" as well as more centrist elements.

Many Trump voters are just centrists who were tired of the inane culture wars,

It is the Republican party that wages culture wars with great intensity. You may have a point in that a lot of voters find the Republican party perspective on those culture wars to be appealing.

as well as the actual warmongering of the Democrat Party, who has been the favorite party of the military-industrial complex for at least a decade now.

I don't think that the Democratic party is "the favorite party of the military-industrial complex." Still, Biden did represent a return to the old cold war values as he himself was a product of the old cold war. Many Americans may be relatively indifferent to the success of democracy in other countries and therefore indifferent to protecting democracy in the Ukraine. They are therefore isolationist in nature which may (or may not) imply a hostility to the military industrial complex. They were also hostile to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and even the invasion of Afghanistan. Hence their receptivity to leadership that displaced the old Republican establishment as represented by the Bush and Cheney families.

"May not" in that many favor a "fortress America." This is where the U.S. is strongly isolationist, yet also supports a strong military well supplied by the latest in modern weaponry.

Many were also upset by Israel's genocidal policy in Gaza and felt the U.S. should have done more to dissuade Israel from pursuing that policy. That would have included cutting off weapons shipment to Israel, or at least overtly threatening such a course of action to induce Israel to pursue a more moderate course of action. We will have to see the results of post-election polling and analysis but I think this induced many to stay home or not vote for either party at the top of the ticket. Some may have even supported Trump despite his strong and unconditional support for Israel. Perhaps hoping that he would somehow arrive at a better solution.

[caltrek]

Speaking of “post-election polling and analysis."

Voters in Arab American Strongholds Likely Helped Tip Michigan in Trump’s favor
by Michael Traugott

November 9, 2024

Extract:

(The Conversation) In 2020, the Biden-Harris team had won almost 69% of the vote in Dearborn. In 2024, Harris got just 36% – with Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, taking 18%.

In Dearborn Heights, Trump defeated Harris by 44% to 38%. Stein received 15% of the vote.

In just these two communities, plus Hamtramck, Trump received 50,332 votes.
…
In the swing state of Michigan, Harris’ inability to win over Arab Americans played a small but significant role in allowing Trump to win by 80,618 votes.

Read more here: https://theconversation.com/voters-in- ... r-242854

[Powers]

And so republicans learned about intersectionality for the first time.

[Speed]

I know you’re asking a serious question, but I have a hard time taking it seriously. When I hear “the squad”, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, just about any cabinet member, especially Haris or Biden speak, consistently, the subject matter is extremely left-leaning and ridiculous to a centrist. Since when is defending our border, and enforcing laws that were democratically and acted considered to be anything other than centrist?

[caltrek]

I know you’re asking a serious question, but I have a hard time taking it seriously. When I hear “the squad”, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, just about any cabinet member, especially Haris or Biden speak, consistently, the subject matter is extremely left-leaning and ridiculous to a centrist. Since when is defending our border, and enforcing laws that were democratically and acted considered to be anything other than centrist?

Since enforcing those laws means that a target is set to deport (or place in concentration camps) ten million people.

[caltrek]

Fundamentally, I think there is a misunderstanding among self-declared conservatives about the nature of wealth accumulation in the United States. It is imagined that this country has acted strictly according to free market principles and that the wealthy have achieved their wealth through such free market conditions. There may be some truth to that in the fast-food industry and perhaps a handful of other sectors of the economy. Yet history points to heavy government involvement in wealth formation. This started even prior to the American revolution of the late 18th century when certain individuals were granted huge tracts of land by the crown that they then sub-divided and sold off at a handsome profit for themselves. It continued in the nineteenth century when railroad barons were also granted large tracts of land to develop the nation's rail system. Especially that part of the system that connected east with west. Such barons then enjoyed a monopoly over rail service which sometimes even choked off economic development for everybody else.

In the twentieth century the mania for dam construction often meant that large scale farmers received massively subsidized water from federally financed water projects. (See Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner for a discussion and documentation of this point). World War II also meant that the military industrial complex went into full swing, which resulted in opportunities for many to gain wealth through government contracts. The lease of federally controlled lands to oil interests at low prices combined with tax incentives meant to benefit the petroleum industry also resulted in the creation of an economic sector involving an enormous concentration of wealth. Finally, the development of the internet and new medicines and medical procedures often involved government financed research.

Free market ideologies have never dominated actual U.S. government behavior when it came to creating or sustaining an economic elite. Yet, efforts to assist the poor or middle class through government programs have often met considerable resistance with charges of “socialism” or even “Communism” leveled at such policy proposals. Ditto a truly progressive tax system. The result has been socialism for the rich, and free market competition for everybody else. Hence this country’s conservative or even reactionary orientation.

[Doozer]

I think it's largely in part due to its size compared to other countries, compared with the pressures that come with its superpower status.

[Speed]

I know you’re asking a serious question, but I have a hard time taking it seriously. When I hear “the squad”, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, just about any cabinet member, especially Haris or Biden speak, consistently, the subject matter is extremely left-leaning and ridiculous to a centrist. Since when is defending our border, and enforcing laws that were democratically and acted considered to be anything other than centrist?

Since enforcing those laws means that a target is set to deport (or place in concentration camps) ten million people.

Well, in a true democracy, legally enacted laws are generally enforced. When Obama started picking laws, he decided he didn’t want to take seriously, democracy took a backseat to logic. What’s the point in having laws if we don’t enforce them, or retract them?

[firestar464]

You see, his deportation target exceeds the estimated total amount of undocumented migrants in the US. Furthermore, it's not that uncommon for laws to fall into disuse. The Comstock Act and the Logan Act are two examples.



British democracy has not been harmed by the unenforcement of these laws, it's worth pointing out.

[caltrek]

I know you’re asking a serious question, but I have a hard time taking it seriously. When I hear “the squad”, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, just about any cabinet member, especially Haris or Biden speak, consistently, the subject matter is extremely left-leaning and ridiculous to a centrist. Since when is defending our border, and enforcing laws that were democratically and acted considered to be anything other than centrist?

Since enforcing those laws means that a target is set to deport (or place in concentration camps) ten million people.

Well, in a true democracy, legally enacted laws are generally enforced. When Obama started picking laws, he decided he didn’t want to take seriously, democracy took a backseat to logic. What’s the point in having laws if we don’t enforce them, or retract them?

That very much depends upon the laws in question. Fascist regimes often put extremist laws on the books. That doe not mean that their enforcement is moderate in nature. I would argue this holds true even if the laws are enacted in a "democratic" society if those laws are not respectful of human and civil rights. Here is something I elicited from the Bing Co-pilot:

Q: Can you provide me with examples of extremist laws being enacted under fascist regimes?

A: Fascist regimes have historically enacted a range of extremist laws that severely restricted freedoms and targeted specific groups. Here are a few notable examples:

Nuremberg Laws (Nazi Germany): Enacted in 1935, these laws stripped Jews of their citizenship and prohibited marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans.

Italian Racial Laws (Fascist Italy): Introduced in 1938, these laws discriminated against Jews, banning them from public office, education, and many professions.

Anti-Communist Laws (Various Fascist Regimes): Many fascist regimes, including those in Spain under Franco and Italy under Mussolini, enacted laws that banned communist parties and persecuted their members.

These laws were part of broader efforts to consolidate power and suppress opposition. Fascist regimes often used legal frameworks to enforce their ideologies and maintain control over their populations. It's a stark reminder of the dangers of authoritarianism and the importance of protecting democratic values.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe

I quoted the ten-million-person target for deportation. Subsequently, I have read that the target is one million a year. Still extreme in my books.

[Ken_J]

there are people I am forced to deal with who voted trumplestiltzkin 3 times. They are all Military Families... and if you are asking me, it's a factor of military desire to favor authority and unquestionable loyalty. When a higher rank tells an army man to do something, he is trained that questioning orders gets people killed, and the place for criticism is in the analysis afterwards. Throw in a zero sum game of late stage capitalist scarcity economy (and pandemic economic effects), fueled by indoctrination of capitalisms war against communism, and a country that fetishizes military might (still glorying in victories during WW2 and being the last superpowers stand after the cold war saw the collapse of the communist enemy) and imagining they proved their superior rank, and thus authority, on the world stage...

add in that mix throw in the Republicans old reputation as fiscally conservative, like a branding campaign from the 1930s, it doesn't even register that the republican administrations are always the worst economies for longer than most people have been alive, their branding says they are the economists, so if you have concerns about the economy you buy Republicans... and they'll tell you how corrupt unions are and bribe (I mean lobby) law makers to cripple unions.

Then throw in some old classics of cult ( I mean branding) like blood libel 'they are eating the pets.' and 'schools are giving kids sex changes without parental approval' & 'won't someone protect the children'.

Because at the end of the day the cults leaders told you who you are and what the brands identity is, and that includes who the opponents are in the zero sum game they are playing. If they claim themselves to be the capitalist genius economists who will cut taxes and save the economy, while protecting children, defending freedom, and a meritocracy of rugged independence... then the opponents are the opposite: wasteful spending, taxing the struggling into the ground, who blow up the economy while creating a welfare state, diluting the American culture with outsiders who come here to take what is ours and enforce their own cultures on us and tell us what we can and can't say or do...

then throw in media and social media echo chambers... ta-fuckin-da!

[firestar464]

It's also a really chauvinistic ideology. They feel as if though problems could be solved if only the country had a strong "family father" with a set of corresponding "family values" to go along with that. Just my personal observation.

[Powers]

It's also a really chauvinistic ideology. They feel as if though problems could be solved if only the country had a strong "family father" with a set of corresponding "family values" to go along with that. Just my personal observation.

Don't forget the autarky bit.

[Vakanai]

It's also a really chauvinistic ideology. They feel as if though problems could be solved if only the country had a strong "family father" with a set of corresponding "family values" to go along with that. Just my personal observation.

That might explain comments I've seen about people against Trump "not knowing a good father's discipline" or some such nonsense. Which is weird af considering that despite him being an actual father he is very clearly not someone with anything remotely resembling family values.