Dr Martin Rundkvist is a Swedish archaeologist, journal editor, public speaker, skeptic, atheist, lefty liberal, bookworm, and father of two. This is the world's #1 archaeology blog according to 
This is the first time that I'm aware of the US primary elections. I've never been very interested in the news, having at best a hazy idea even of Swedish politics. Blogging is entirely responsible for my heightened awareness of US political matters over the past two to three years. I've taken to reading US blogs and hanging out in web forums dominated by Americans. And what I've learned scares me.
US politics often look absurd from a European perspective, since the entire bipartisan system maps onto the conservative half of European politics. A case in point is that the US "Left" is called "the liberals", while the Liberal Party in Sweden is part of the Right wing. How could it be otherwise? Liberalism is about free-market capitalism, small government, low taxes, all Right-wing ideals. Yes, both US parties advocate low taxes. Normal taxes are 30% to a Swede. And that's rock bottom, before adding the effect of progressive taxation. That's how we can afford universal health care. Hint, hint.
So, believe me, US politics don't have a Left. Looking at the presidential candidates, I am frankly appalled. None of them would be a viable politician in Sweden. They all support the death penalty, none advocates strict gun control and all make frequent mention of their religious beliefs in public. These are extremist stances. Not even the tiny Christian Democrat party mentions God publicly in Sweden, for fear of alienating the pragmatic rationalist majority.
From a European perspective, US politics are an ongoing battle between the extreme Right and the middle Right. The Republican presidential candidates are really, really scary people in my view. So all of us in the world at large who live under the shadow of US political hegemony are holding our breaths, hoping that Clinton or Obama will make it into office. They're pretty bad, but the alternative would be unspeakably dreadful.
Update 5 February: Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, chairman of the second-most conservative party in the Swedish Parliament, said today that he agrees with Barack Obama's policies. This confirms what I said above very nicely. One of the most conservative viable politicians in Sweden is apparently on the same page as one of the most progressive US presidential candidates.
Blog reactions: Pharyngula, Uncertain Principles, PhysioProf, ~C4Chaos, Anthology of Ideas, Chymico-Physico Elucidations, Shaman Sun, Questionable Authority, Evolving Thoughts, Quaint Recusant, Awesome Title for a Blog, Lakeshore, Too many topics, too little time, Unfiltered Perception, Daily Awesome, Crimes & Corruption, Khannea, Stemmetje, Liberté, égalité, fraternité Remote Central.
[More blog entries about politics, primaries, obama, clinton, huckabee, romney, mccain; politik, usa, primärvalen, clinton, obama, huckabee, mccain, romney.]
Politics
Comments
No left! that was strange to know. Every economy should have a left side. Indian Politics has a left party and its very active. Intereting post,keep up the good work.
Indian Equity Investment Guide
Posted by: Indian Equity Investment Guide | February 3, 2008 5:57 AM
"hoping that Clinton or Obama will make it into office. They're pretty bad, but the alternative would be unspeakably dreadful."
Well, in my opinion it would be cool to see Ron Paul in the office, even tho its very unlikely :D
Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2008 7:21 AM
Welcome to our fucking world, dude. Progressives in the US have been bitching and moaning about this for years.
But please don't confuse this rightwards skew in the positions taken by politicians with the absence of substantial support for progressive goals among the citizens of the US. One of the major progressive projects in the next decade or so is to (1) understand why the right wing has so effectively dominated electoral politics even though their policies do not command anything close to majority support in the citizenry and (2) to make this stop happening.
Posted by: PhysioProf | February 3, 2008 7:25 AM
From a European perspective, US politics are an ongoing battle between the extreme Right and the middle Right.
Of course, it would be perfectly equivalent to say "From a US perspective, European politics are an ongoing battle between the extreme Left and the middle Left." In fact, right-wing commentators in the US say that sort of thing on a regular basis, and people tend to get pissy about it.
I don't disagree with you, mind, but there's a smug overtone to this sort of statement that really gets up my nose.
Posted by: Chad Orzel | February 3, 2008 8:08 AM
It's not just a matter of position on a spectrum, it's a matter of scope across it. The maximum difference of opinion between members of the US Congress is far less than the maximum difference between party lines in most European parliaments.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 8:13 AM
I don't think this is universally the case. Franklin Roosevelt proudly wore the liberal label and he greatly expanded the role of government and increased the tax rate. It's that liberal tradition that our current Democratic party tries to pay homage to. I know it means other things elsewhere, but in the US it was originally in line with standard left wing ideology.
Posted by: Issac | February 3, 2008 8:20 AM
Thought about the exact same thing this morning, reading the Swedish newspapers.
All three of the republican candidates seem to take a stance against abortion. These are questions the swedish christian democrats would hardly dare to raise - even though some, or most, of them probably are opposed to abortion. To seriously suggest a prohibition would be too costly, in terms of votes and co-operation. (And the 3 other right wing parties are definately pro-abortion.)
To see that ALL presidential canditates profess a belief in god, is surprising to. (Personally I can't believe they aren't making that up, but maybe that's presumptous to say.)
As for the taxes, yes... 30% (base) income tax is just the beginning ;) Then we have the "moms" (vat?) and other taxes on consumer goods (significantly higher than in the US, I think). Not to mention all the "avgifter" which are taxes except with a fancier name...
Posted by: zooey | February 3, 2008 8:24 AM
Isaac: John Locke, father of liberalism, published Two Treatises on Government in 1689. Franklin D Roosevelt was US president 1933-1945.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 8:27 AM
I think that is just a common misconception. I think you are missing just how right-wing our right wing is. There are congress members who would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion and same-sex marriage. There are congress members who think rounding up and deporting tens of millions of immigrants is a viable policy. The are congress members who would put prayer back in public schools at the drop of a hat. There are congress members (too many in fact) that think torture is acceptable for a democratic nation to torture people.
And there are congress members who are opposed to all of that, and do oppose the death penalty and support a variety of gun control and environmental conservation measures.
I wish we were further left, but the differences are huge. The differences are Al Gore vs. George Bush.
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 8:28 AM
Martin: As a politically engaged person of the Left in the US, you are 100% correct, at least if you are talking about electoral politics. The labor movement has been decimated here and even before that happened it tended to reactionary trade unionism, not industrial unionism. There is a long and rich left wing political tradition in the US but it is invisible in the media and electoral politics. The 60s were its most visible moment in recent history and there are signs it is making a comeback, but even if it comes to full flower it will only be a pale imitation of what is a full player in Europe. This may have served US economic interests in the past but it is a new world now and is hobbling the country. With a significant price of new cars devoted to paying health insurance for workers, US carmakers are becoming noncompetitive and the truly enormous sums the country is sinking into non productive military expenditures is not only bankrupting the country but making it less attractive for its intellectual elite. It never occurs to most Americans that countries have natural histories and the US is past its peak and on the downhill side. It's quite likely IMO there will be no US in 100 years as the "national system" (which itself is less than 400 years old, dating from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648) begins to fade in the face of new supra national structures like the EU. My grandchildren could easily be living in some kind of North and South American Federation or some other structure like the EU.
Your original point is exactly corrrect, though. The US governing elite goes from A to B, far right to right of center.
Posted by: revere | February 3, 2008 8:28 AM
I was clearly not refering to the original definition. Political terms have a way of been twisted based on historical use.
My point was that Roosevelt is essentially the modern father of liberalism in America and he certainly supported expanded government and increased tax rates. You can argue that FDR had a twisted view of liberalism, but it's hard to argue he was right wing or pro-small government. And it is that concept of liberalism that built the modern Democratic party.
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 8:34 AM
Taxation is just a collective way of funding projects. No Swedish parent wonders if s/he will be able to send the kids to college.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 8:34 AM
Isaac: still, the Democrat candidates aren't looking very lefty. Other than in the sense Mike Huckabee uses the word.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 8:39 AM
I agree that the Democratic candidates are not very left wing. I have a somewhat knee jerk reaction when people say there isn't much difference between the parties. That thinking got us George Bush's "compassionate conservatism" in 2000 over Al Gore. There is obviously a difference between the two, but that same thinking could give us President McCain in 2008.
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 8:43 AM
No chance of getting a President Chomsky, Dylan, Zimmerman or Newell Osterberg, though.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 8:47 AM
The situation in the Republic of Ireland might be a useful contrast to the typical European left/right divide. The two main parties that have ruled the country since independence are both pretty much of the centre right. They actually were originally the same nationalistic party that won the first election in 1919 but later split during partition and the subsequent civil war(for nationalistic reasons rather than left right ideology - one party, Fianna Fail, rejected partition while the other Fine Gael (whose forces won the civil war) - accepted it. Ever since then it has been primarily a personality based situation as they both advocate very similar policies. Growing up with a father who was involved in local politics (as an independent) it was very enlightening for me to see voting patterns at the polling stations. The best way to describe it would be tribal - a high percentage of people voted for the party that their parents voted for and virtually nothing could sway them to do otherwise. There is a degree of contingency in how the political situation developed in Ireland (if there was no civil war I guess it would be much more like the standard european model). Once a political situation gets entrenched then it is very difficult to change it - look at the number of successful new political parties started in the US since 1900.
Posted by: MartinC | February 3, 2008 8:52 AM
You're misconstruing the use of the word "liberal" in American politics. The definition you're using is what Americans call "Classical Liberalism" and bears no connection with the beliefs of the modern American liberal movement, of which the mainstream proponent is the Democratic party. The Democratic party advocates positions closer to your assertion of standard Swedish politics - the regularly advocate in favor of gun control, in favor of abortion, in favor of increased government services and lately in favor of universal health care.
Again, the main issue might be one of definition. Read up on the difference between liberalism and classic liberalism and that should help.
Posted by: Tag | February 3, 2008 8:54 AM
So basically the Democrat presidential candidates aren't representative Democrats, then.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 8:59 AM
On the liberalism debate, in the UK the Liberals are seem as wooly and on the left.
I think the confusion is because the underlying principle of liberalism is that individuals should be able to (largely) do as they desire. This, I think, has evolved in two directions:
1. To the right, by arguing from it that the government should keep out of the way of individuals trying to do what they want.
2. To the left, with the argument that the government's role is to give the individual the opportunity to do what they want. As in, helping the less fortunate so that they are in a position to take up strange hobbies or become professional idiots.
In the UK and US, the political system has evolved so that the fiscally liberal are often closely aligned with the morally illiberal, on the right of politics.
One British Labour politician once observed that the Tories found themselves in sex scandals, whilst Labour MPs had financial scandals. His complaint was that the Tories were having all the fun.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | February 3, 2008 8:59 AM
"So basically the Democrat presidential candidates aren't representative Democrats, then."
Oh, my! That person wouldn't be "a viable candidate", that person wouldn't be "electable", so everyone runs off and supports some centrist who can be. And then gets po'd when said centrist (who usually skews a bit right in European eyes) acts like a centrist. The extreme right in this country has managed to shift the US center pretty far right, to the point where (some? most? a lot of) people here actually think Hillary Clinton is a liberal.
Posted by: The Ridger | February 3, 2008 9:06 AM
You clearly haven't read up on Ron Paul.
He's the saviour for politics in this country.
Posted by: FLC | February 3, 2008 9:13 AM
"Saviour"? That word is only really used in churches over here.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 9:16 AM
I would say that the Democratic candidates aren't representative of American liberalism. They are fairly representative of the party as whole. It's really sad because the republicans will fight and shout about who is the "true conservative", but you'd never see Democrats arguing over who is the "true liberal".
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 9:16 AM
It's just as weird to us Canadians.
Posted by: Sergiy Grynko | February 3, 2008 9:21 AM
FLC, a racist anti-choice libertarian is going to save us?
The guy is the exact opposite of what Martin is talking about, and the exact opposite of what this country needs. He voted against funding the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. Racist newletters were published in his name for nearly two decades, and he claims to not know about it even though he's got endorsements and funds from major white supremicists. He's against essentially all government spending on scientific research, which would cripple our fading edge in research and technological innovation. He's against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The guy is a joke. Thank goodness he can't be elected. He would destroy this country.
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 9:25 AM
The Swedish cognate of "conservative" is generally only used as a smear-word. Nobody wants to bee seen as conservative. Our Conservative Party calls itself "the Moderates".
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 9:25 AM
You've just described paradise to me.
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 9:29 AM
Your point is illustrated in a very nice way visually on this map, where the presidential candidates are plotted on the political compass. As you'll see, both Democrats as Republicans lie in Right-Authoritarian corner. If you were to take the test, you would find yourself squarely in the lower left corner (Left-Libertarian).
Posted by: Jeroen Van Goey | February 3, 2008 9:30 AM
It's a good place to live, though it's fucking dark & dreary half of the year.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 9:33 AM
No chance of getting a President Chomsky
Good! Agree with the rest of what you have written though.
Posted by: SteveF | February 3, 2008 9:37 AM
Marin - You are right about there being no real "left" in US politics. When you say that "Liberalism is about free-market capitalism, small government, low taxes, all Right-wing ideals," you're being a bit myopic. Traditional liberalism of the sort advocated by Locke is based on certain moral ideals: freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of inquiry, freedom of association -- PLUS the notion that freedoms can be legitimately constrained only on a showing that it is necessary for the maintenance of a well-ordered society. It's all about limiting the role of coercive force in social life. Leftists usually don't like the stringency of that last bit, since it would prevent them from imposing their view(s) of the good life on the whole of society.
Posted by: bob koepp | February 3, 2008 9:39 AM
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
Here, this should clear things up. Yes, the US does tend righty and authoritarian. It's much easier to make a contest out of it when the candidates' positions are /this/ far apart... I'm pinching my fingers together.
Some like Ron Paul because he's less authoritarian than many, specifically, fiscally. However, his socially illiberal tendencies are a sore spot for myself.
Personally, according to the chart, I'm a righty libertarian. I don't want high taxes, shocking as that may sound. I'm not unequivocally opposed to universal health care, and if push comes to shove, I'll pay the higher taxes - however, when we're already paying exorbitant taxes to the black hole that is our failing Social Security system...
Let me put it this way. Right now, our economy is failing. It is in a slump with our currency failing more and more as our debt to other countries builds. Currently, we are getting more into debt just paying the interest on our national debt. In such a situation, radically conservative fiscal politics are necessary to curtail the profuse bleeding. Then we should talk about letting the hoi polloi of the US what "liberalism" means to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, all we're going to get is another damn centrist.
Posted by: Lulu | February 3, 2008 9:42 AM
Well, in the Swedish context I identify as a left-wing liberal. I've voted variously for the Greens and the Social Democrats. I think the technical term in the US would be "pinko Commie".
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 9:43 AM
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 9:48 AM
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 9:50 AM
http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html
"- There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund, it has all been spent. A record has been kept, so we know what's supposed to be there and who borrowed and spent the money (hint: other government agencies, and it's part of the National Debt).
- Currently workers are paying more into Social Security than beneficiaries are taking out. Money going into the program is paying the benefits, and what's left over is being "borrowed" by government for general budget spending.
- By 2018, using the current rates, there will less going into Social Security than it is paying out. Then the Social Security Administration will have to call in the debts. [Where is that money going to come from?]"
It's failing because when I retire, I'm not going to get a cent. There is no Social Security trust fund left.
Posted by: Lulu | February 3, 2008 9:54 AM
Watch the movie "Spin" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114512/. Watch it 25 or 50 times if you have to. The answer to question number 1 is "Pat Robertson".
The answer to question number 2 is "politicizing Jesus". He basically pushed socialism. These quotes need to appear on billboards, the back of cars ... everywhere - progressiveness needs to be promoted through quoting the synoptic gospels from the KJV. Go to redstate or foxnews and read the comments ... all of them. Then come back and read this again.
You still think it's left field? Turn on your AM dial, your FM dial, go through the stations. Listen to them - entire broadcasts - take notes and go back and read the comments on the main stream news sites. Look at the policies promoted, who gets elected, and the campaigns they run on.
You can't fight wars with flowers. The best way is to match in tactic - we have the darn book on our side anyway. Men kissing men and embracing them out number the anti-homosexual passages about 30:1. We need to use them.
Alright, done.
Posted by: chris | February 3, 2008 9:54 AM
Such an interesting discussion - and one which I wish mainstream Americans would think about. It's interesting, too to understand that much of American's views on their alignment with political party is directly influenced by a very limited number of media - almost all of whom are owned and directed by military/industrial corporations with direct profit and market share stakes in the influence and outcome of elections and officials.
Most of the progressive political discussions and media are now found on the blogs of the internet. The traditional, or mainstream, media does not address the issues and concerns of progressives. In fact, the candidates most closely allied to progressive points of view were deliberatley denied media coverage (Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd). The Republicans have successfully managed to influence large swaths of the electorate to vote against their self interests by conflating fundamental christianism religious dogma with political platforms.
There are millions of Americans who feel fully disenfranchised with the extant government, who are horrified at the de-coupling of the elected officials with doing the will of the people in favor of doing the will of the corporatist/military elite, and who are most aggrieved at the programmatic destruction of the Constitution and the failure of the three branches of government to provide for adequate checks and balances, which is their rightful charge.
Posted by: Annie | February 3, 2008 9:56 AM
You also neglect to point out that nothing changes from a practical standpoint in 2018. It only means we have to dip into the Trust fund for a portion of the benefits each year. There would is money for everyone to receive their full benefits into the 2040's. It's disturbing because it's unsustainable, but it's easily fixed. Ending the borrowing by other government programs was the whole point of Al Gore's "lock box". The whole problem is easily fixed by implementing that lock box now, and raising the cap on Social Security taxes.
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 9:59 AM
For fairness' sake, too, here's a source with an opposing view. http://zfacts.com/p/784.html
I'm not saying privatization is the answer. But it sure as hell feels like I'm giving my money to a black hole, supporting a program that's doomed to fail.
Posted by: Lulu | February 3, 2008 10:00 AM
Saying Social Security is doomed to fail when it requires very minor changes to be solvent for the next 60 years, which is how far the assessment looks, and current age of the program is ridiculous. Not to mention privatizing has conservatively been estimated to cost over $1 trillion. Where will that money come from?
Posted by: Isaac | February 3, 2008 10:05 AM
A case in point is that the US "Left" is called "the liberals", while the Liberal Party in Sweden is part of the Right wing.
"Liberalism" is a word with a pretty complicated history, and you'd have saved yourself some embarrassment if you would have read up on it. Firstly, Folkpartiet are social liberals, not classical liberals. Secondly, the Swedish word "liberal" usually translates more properly to "libertarian", not to its American homonym. As I said, it's pretty complicated. At any rate, it's certainly no obvious "point in case".
Other than that, I agree that US politics looks rather weird when viewed through a Swedish lens. Though I would also say that if you seriously think Chomsky would make a good president, you are flirting with political extremism yourself. Someone like him would not be a viable candidate in Sweden either.
Posted by: John | February 3, 2008 10:10 AM
I don't quite think there's enough communication here.
Yes, the point is spectrum range rather than spectrum placement. There are parties in Europe as far right as the Republicans. They are seen as the extreme right, and on an all-inclusive political scale (including fascists, anarchists, communists, liberals, socialists, libertarians, liberals, conservatives etc) that is where they do indeed sit. See www.politicalcompass.org for example. The difference between Europe and North America is that Europe has parties from all over the political map, and the communist parties are the ones seen as on the extreme left. In America, the Democrats - a centre-right party - are seen as the left, and centrist parties are seen as the extreme left. In my native Australia, this has also become the case in recent decades.
"Liberal" in America and a large part of the English-speaking world refers to "modern liberalism" or less leftist "social democracy", while in Europe it still refers to "classical liberalism" or "modern libertarianism". In Europe "libertarianism" often means "libertarian socialism". In Australia, "libertarianism" can mean classical liberalism or libertarian socialism, and liberalism can mean modern liberalism, classical liberalism or, mostly, conservatism: Our major right-wing party, somewhat equivalent to the Republicans though not quite so extreme (but close!), is the Liberal Party.
Side note - you'd never get a President Chomsky, because Chomsky believes electoral politics to be fruitless.
Posted by: Switch | February 3, 2008 10:10 AM
As an American, you are absolutely right. The right-wing in this country has worked tirelessly-- and insidiously-- for more than a century to eliminate any actual left wing. There is now a left wing in name only, but truly every politician in the US is a conservative, and most of them frighteningly so.
Posted by: Ric | February 3, 2008 10:22 AM
Bob O'H says:
To which I says, that depends entirely on where you are and who you are talking to.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 3, 2008 10:22 AM
President Gould would have been good though. Actually, S.J. Gould still being alive at all would have been good. I like to imagine that he would have spoken out against Pope Ratzi.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 10:24 AM
I agree that Martin is correct in his assessment of current US electoral politics, unfortunately. However, revere makes an excellent point that there is a substantial history of Left and progressive political victories in this country, and I'm enough of a cockeyed optimist (most of the time) to think that such policies can gain support here once again.
From talking with my European and South American friends, I have the impression that people outside the US don't realize the pervasiveness of narcissism in American culture. Narcissism is a dysfunctional and selfish attitude, and yet it dominates social, environmental, and political decision-making in this country. I suspect it might even drive our economy, which is also in trouble. How did we turn the positive characteristics of individual expression and self-determination into a national personality disorder, in less than a century?
Posted by: Barn Owl | February 3, 2008 10:28 AM
Lulu,
From your description of why SS is failing, it sure looks like the problem is not SS, but other government agencies raiding SS. The program isn't a failure, people are just stealing from it. Stop the theft, save SS.
And privatizing it has got to be, hands down, the most disastrous thing anybody ever proposed. You might have noticed, from time to time, how the stock market isn't exactly stable? You'd do just as well investing in lottery tickets.
Posted by: mothworm | February 3, 2008 10:29 AM
I would totally vote for SJ Gould, even Zombie SJ Gould, at this point.
Posted by: mothworm | February 3, 2008 10:33 AM
"Taxation is just a collective way of funding projects. No Swedish parent wonders if s/he will be able to send the kids to college."
Well in all truth, pretty much anyone in the US can too, if they are willing to take out student loans etc, it just won't be a Harvard or a Columbia or something.
As for Ron Paul, he's a bigoted old nut job creationist who is anti-abortion, not a viable candidate.
Posted by: thadd | February 3, 2008 10:36 AM
Ursula LeGuin is probably too old now. But R.U. Sirius would be awesome!
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 10:36 AM
Here is a perspective worthing looking into...
www.wsws.org
And growing.....
Posted by: John | February 3, 2008 10:37 AM
Sweden hasn't got an Ivy League. Nine million people, less than ten large universities, all of comparable quality.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 10:38 AM
"Well, in the Swedish context I identify as a left-wing liberal. I've voted variously for the Greens and the Social Democrats. I think the technical term in the US would be "pinko Commie"."
The Swedish social democrats would definately run the risk of being called communists. Not only when looking at them from an american perspective.
Quite a few people in Sweden - right wing people, conservatives, liberals - call social democrats communists, and compare their politics with communist politics. Sometimes it's hard to see much of a difference. Liberal is actually a label I wouldn't put on social democrats. (Not libertarian either.)
As for parents worrying about getting an education for their children - yes, parents who didn't agreee with the social democratic politics have been worried about this for many, many years. Now the situation is somewhat better - there are choices. When I was a kid, the only schools available were the public schools, where socialist propaganda was fed to the children.
So - for those who didn't agree with that, where to send the child to school was a huge problem and worry. Social democrats never had a problem with it, though.
Posted by: zooey | February 3, 2008 10:41 AM
Well, as someone in the US who has gone to two affordable state universities and one expensive Ivy, I can say that it's possible to get a good education at the state schools, which really anyone can pretty much afford on loans etc. At Ivy's you might get some bigger names etc, but what you really end up paying for is a nicer environment and a lot of less bureaucracy and a student body that really wants to be there, at least in my experience.
Posted by: thadd | February 3, 2008 10:44 AM
Haha, Zooey, you prefer schools with right-wing propaganda? (-;
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 10:45 AM
"Sweden hasn't got an Ivy League. Nine million people, less than ten large universities, all of comparable quality."
Ivy League, no. But it matters a lot were you get your degree. The 10 universities don't rank as equal, not at all. Maybe they are comparable, but there are definate differences in quality and status. (Some of the most prestigeous schools aren't even universities - like KS and HHS.)
Posted by: zooey | February 3, 2008 10:47 AM
The same comparison may be made with Canada. From a Canadian perspective, U.S. politics has no left wing.
The Republican candidates are perhaps similar to our old Social Credit movement, or perhaps the traditionalists of the Reform Party. Obama and Clinton are, at best, more like traditional conservatives. Even people like Edwards and Kucinich could at best be thought of as members of the centerist Liberal Party in Canada.
There is no American equivalent to the left wing of the Liberal Party, and nothing remotely on the landscape resembling the socialist New Democratic Party (which obtains decent showings in Canadian federal elections and actually governs several provinces).
Finally, a note to PhysioProf
> Welcome to our fucking world, dude. Progressives in the US have been bitching and moaning about this for years.
The hardest thing for American progressives to understand, I have found, is that *they* are right-wing compared to the rest of us. I know you all *think* you are very left wing, but when we do a belief by belief analysis, it turns out that you'd be more comfortable voting Tory in our elections.
Posted by: Stephen Downes | February 3, 2008 10:51 AM
There's real decent candidates in the US, too... people like Kucinich. Unfortunately, they don't have a snowball's chance in hell, but they do exist.
Posted by: AmericanExpat | February 3, 2008 10:53 AM
"Haha, Zooey, you prefer schools with right-wing propaganda? (-;"
I don't have children, so it isn't an issue. The point is, if I did, why would I want to send them to schools where the world and society is interpreted through socialist eyes?
No, of course I wouldn't. But that's what public school was like, 25-30 years ago.
I'm not a socialist. Lot's of people in Sweden aren't. Obviously, if I have to live with any propaganda, I personally prefer right the wing/liberal stuff... it corresponds better to my own views.
Posted by: zooey | February 3, 2008 10:55 AM
Said Zooey, "Maybe they are comparable, but there are definate differences in quality and status. (Some of the most prestigeous schools aren't even universities - like KS and HHS.)"
To my knowledge, the size of your trust fund is irrelevant when you apply to them.
Posted by: Martin R | February 3, 2008 11:04 AM
It's practically useless to argue what the labels really mean. Most Americans haven't the foggiest idea what they mean and, because the corporate media use the labels as wedges, the labels help persuade many Americans to vote against their individual interests.
The divide in America is not the Individual vs. Big Government. Despite what they say, both sides want Big Government so long as it transfers wealth in their direction. The real divide is the Individual vs. the Corporation. Both parties side with the Corporation. By Corporation I mean cultural and religious organizations as well as the companies that make the toys we love and provide the services we think we need. There really is no political party that sides with the Individual in an important way.
When the Democrats won the 1992 presidential election with a minority (a third party split the Republican opposition), I had hopes for the progressive agenda. Within a year those hopes were dashed. For example.... Despite their election promises and their best efforts, the Clintons institutionalized the Closet with Don't Ask Don't Tell -- corporate rights of the military trumped individual rights. The Clintons tried and failed to produce a single-payer health plan -- again, the rights of insurance companies and the health-care industry trumped those of individuals. It was downhill from there, the Clintons simply adopted much of the conservative agenda while trying to sound progressive.
For the most part Democrats and Republicans have depended on corporate support. I won't go so far as to say they are virtually the same party but their similarities certainly outweigh their differences, at least in issues important to me. Worse, they conspire to keep other voices effectively out of the political system. For the most part state legislatures, which are run by the two parties, make it difficult for third parties to enter races, especially at the national level. Petition requirements are very stringent for third parties and successful petitions are often challenged by the Dems and Reps. Again, this is another example of the Corporation over the Individual. I would support the Socialist Party USA but they don't even have a presence in my state (Delaware) and no socialists at the national level have been on the ballot since I moved here.
Posted by: mikey | February 3, 2008 11:06 AM
> Normal taxes are 30% to a Swede. And that's rock bottom, before adding the effect of progressive taxation. That's how we can afford universal health care. Hint, hint.
Hey, while we're talking about Sweden, why don't we look at some other demographics, shall we?
Sweden has a state sponsored religion, the Church of Sweden? How positively quaint! Oh, and 78% of the population is affiliated with this church. Huh.
A dominant, all white population, you say?
A single, dominant language, you say?
Surely this is just a coincidence, right? And surely the social fabric would not be at ALL upset by the introduction of different peoples and cultures, right?
Oh, what's this? According to ``Race and crime'' in Wikipedia:
Immigrants are overrepresented in Sweden's crime statistics. During the period 1997-2001, 25% of the almost 1,520,000 offences were committed by people born overseas, while almost 20% were committed by Swedish-born people with a foreign background. Those from North Africa and Western Asia were overrepresented.[12]
Huh.
Posted by: Michael B | February 3, 2008 11:11 AM
The United States rounded up, jailed, exiled, and politically destroyed the left during the McArthy Red Scare of the fifties. While Europe was rebuilding with a socialist model after WWII, the United States perceived itself caught in an existential conflict with the Soviet Union. This permanent war-time paranoia lead the elevation of religion and militarism. It's ugly. I read George Orwell (Homage to Catalonia) and think about America in the 20th century, and have to conclude America has much more in common with fascist Germany & Italy than anyone else. Terrorism is the new bogey-man, replacing the Russians, and it has motivated a policy completely unconnected from reality (Iraq war).
The Social Security issue is an interesting example. Here is the logic: Social Security will be taking in less money than it is giving out. It is therefore "broken." This is just ridiculous in an atmosphere where money is spent freely. Nobody says, "The Iraq War is costing more money than it's making for us. We should get out." Nobody says, "Our military commitments overseas aren't making us more money than they are taking in." It's just insane to me that people complain about a government program that, shit, actually has a net-cost associated with it. I find it particularly ridiculous that such a discussion is taken seriously in the media.
My only conclusion can be that Americans are some species of fucking morons.
Look -- the United States has been the richest and most powerful country for the past 50 years. What have we done with that power and money? Established a global military empire, implemented some minimal social programs, and had one helluva deficit. No politician (except for Ron Paul -- who I am not endorsing) has made any mention of the frightening levels of deficit spending, the wastefulness of our imperial budget, that we are sending far too many people ot prison, and that Universal single-player health care is the only thing that makes any goddamned sense. Our politics have become completely divorced from reality.
And guess what else: The days of American hegemony are fading. Our dollar is owned by the Chinese, and the rest of the world is not going to keep propping up our currency. America is headed for an Argentina-style economic crash, and when that happens, the politics are only going to become MORE reactive, and MORE regressive. America has its chance to create a socialist, European style system. We blew it. I don't think we'll get another chance.
Which is why I am seriously planning on moving to Canada. I don't have a lot of hope for American politics. Candidate Hillary Clinton? Plese.
I apologize for the length, but its something I've spent a lot of time thinking about. It's not an easy decision to leave the country of one's birth.
Posted by: inkadu | February 3, 2008 11:11 AM
That centre is right of most of Europe, but still well left of the USA. Most of the social claims here are true of the UK as easily as Sweden. The economics are closer to America, but you still don't get people cheerleading for the death penalty.
Posted by: Paul Schofield | February 3, 2008 11:13 AM
How's Sweden on accepting new immigrants into their country... leftist, secularist immigrants... in droves?
Posted by: Anatoly | February 3, 2008 11:24 AM
Regards to the social security running out of money crap. That site has to be the stupidest site i have seen in a while. They are quoting Luskin of all people as an authority on SS.
Its the same lame old argument that just doesnt float: Either the social security trustfund is real and government bonds is still worth something (gosh, if they really were not then some bondtraders and the bankingsystem and the chinese are gonna be sad pandas) and then it doesnt matter 2 cents if more money goes out than comes in in 2018. Guess what, you sell goverment bonds.
If the trustfund is just a sham and it just part of the general budget then 2018 doesnt matter either. What you have here is not a social security crisis, its the cold fact that the American goverment has been borrowing like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse with a creditcard. If its a general funds problem then why talk about social security. You could argue that you think that social security is the least worthy program it the federal goverment and that you prefer cuts in social security to raising taxes or decreasing military spending. Thats fine.
But STFU about a "social security crisis", its profoundly dishonest.
Posted by: Tomas | February 3, 2008 11:24 AM
There is actually one official Socialist in Congress, you know.
Posted by: Chet | February 3, 2008 11:25 AM
Isaac: "I wish we were further left, but the differences are huge. The differences are Al Gore vs. George Bush."
This just proves Martin's point. Here's an excerpt from Gore's book Earth in the Balance:
"Bacon's moral confusion - the confusion at the heart of much modern science - came from his assumption, echoing Plato, that human intellect could safely analyze and understand the natural world without reference to any moral principles defining our relationship and duties to both God and God's creation."
And Gore is really as far left as one can go in the US. Makes you wanna cry. Instead, he was rewarded a Nobel prize. In Sweden. What the hell...?
Posted by: Tea | February 3, 2008 11:26 AM
"To my knowledge, the size of your trust fund is irrelevant when you apply to them."
Yes, that's correct. But that doesn't imply there aren't differences in quality, which was what you seemed to suggest by saying that all universities were comparable in quality.
Posted by: zooey | February 3, 2008 11:27 AM
Lulu: " when we're already paying exorbitant taxes to the black hole that is our failing Social Security system..."
You do know where most of our taxes go, right? See:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxchart_iframe/100/%3F and
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/10/29/business/20061030_ENERGY_GRAPHIC_2.html
Not on SS, not on healthcare (although that's significantly more expensive per capita and less efficient than in Europe or Scandinavia), not on energy R & D, and certainly not on education. No, most of our taxes fall under the somewhat euphemistically-termed category "defense". Our military spending is way out of line with the priorities of the RotW. If I weren't cynical, I'd have to guess that this reflects a heightened sense of paranoia, even though -- until recently -- the RotW had nothing but admiration for our nation.
Posted by: MeltyMan | February 3, 2008 11:27 AM
You have a complete grasp of the political situation here in the United States. Pretty damned depressing, isn't it? An just think how many nukes President Huckabee would have his hands on!
Posted by: Enkidu | February 3, 2008 11:28 AM
In actual practice, the US has one political "party", the Business Party. It has two factions, the Republicans and the Democrats. They differ mainly in their tactical approach on how to safeguard the power of the rich elites. This is why they expend so much energy on the "Culture War" and its permutations; it's the only real area of disagreement.
Posted by: spike | February 3, 2008 11:29 AM
tea wrote:
"And Gore is really as far left as one can go in the US. Makes you wanna cry. Instead, he was rewarded a Nobel prize. In Sweden. What the hell...?"
The laureates of the Nobel peace prize are decided by a Norwegian committee and the prize ceremony is held in Oslo. The committee members are all Norwegian.
Posted by: zooey | February 3, 2008 11:31 AM
Thanks for these comments. I'm an American that has been trying to point this out to my friends. They just don't get it. Maybe your post here will help.
Posted by: Chefranden | February 3, 2008 11:33 AM
US politics are not like Sweden's because the US is not like Sweden. Here in the US, we moved towards Sweden-style liberalism in the sixties, but the result were not so great: a huge crime wave which still puts large parts of our cities off-limits to ordinary people (and they did not feel safe or that they could rely on the police - hence the support for private ownership of guns and the death penatly). Minority interest groups morphed from wanting equality to wanting special treatment, which caused a backlash. And taxpayers seem less inclined to give away 30% of their paycheck to people they perceive as lazy, undeserving, and "other" (Remember Reagan's successful campaign against implicitly black welfare queens in Cadillacs?) That's why the US moved away from Sweden-style politics in 1972 with the election of Nixon, which was a backlash against the sixties.
There's also a tendency for people who switch from one political side to another over one or two issues to take on ALL of their new side's views. We saw that a lot in the US recently, when some 9/11-traumatized liberals became war-hawk neocons - and then ended up taking on the non-liberal views on things like social security reform. It's just a herd instinct, I guess. That explains, at least in part, why the US is more conservative on non-diversity or crime related issues like abortion.
If the US had been a homogenous, safe, boring country like Sweden, the results would have been better, the left would have probably continued to gain ground, and we'd probably be a lot more like Sweden. That's so obvious that it's almost a tautology - if the US was more like Sweden (in one way) it would be more like Sweden (in other ways).
Likewise, as Sweden becomes more diverse - more like the US - demographically, it'll probably become more right-wing - more like the US - politically (though it'll be a decades-long process). It's not like there's something magical about the water in either country. We just have predictably different responses to different environments and experiences, which you might be able to understand if you get beyond your shock and horror of our cultural differences and try to just see things as they are.
Posted by: c23 | February 3, 2008 11:33 AM
Nothing is left in the United States. LOL
Posted by: Dzho | February 3, 2008 11:36 AM
zooey,
You're right, I forgot about the peace prize.
Posted by: Tea | February 3, 2008 11:42 AM
Good point, but what's with the religion-bashing? What does that have to do with left-and-right? Must left-thinkers be atheists? Seriously?
Posted by: Robert V | February 3, 2008 11:43 AM
That's not entirely true, there are people in Congress like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, but it's true there are not many of them.
The cause is the American election system. I guess Sweden has a proportional system, just like the Netherlands. We have 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, which means less than 1% of the vote is needed for a seat. We therefore have a fundamentalist christian party that does not allow women membership (SGP) and the Freedom Party, which wants to ban the Koran opposite green and socialist parties. In the US electoral system it is useless to vote for a candidate out of the mainstream and it's even completely useless to vote if you e.g. a conservative christian in San Francisco or a left-wing atheist in Salt Lake City.
Posted by: Martijn ter Haar | February 3, 2008 11:53 AM
Robert V. -- you don't have to be an atheist to be left wing, but the sad fact is that religion (fundamentalist religion, specifically, but they do claim to represent religion in general) has an extremely strong and consistent correlation with right wing stances. And many right wing stances are explicitly and overtly based on religious doctrine. The left does not have this kind of association, at least last I'd heard.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | February 3, 2008 11:56 AM
"And Gore is really as far left as one can go in the US. Makes you wanna cry. Instead, he was rewarded a Nobel prize. In Sweden. What the hell...?"
Gore won the Peace prize, which is awarded in Oslo, not Stockholm if I recall.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 3, 2008 12:00 PM
Not likely. New York and California are much more progressive than Montana or New Hampshire, which are actually quite Sweden-like.
Posted by: Martijn ter Haar | February 3, 2008 12:01 PM
"So, believe me, US politics don't have a Left. Looking at the presidential candidates, I am frankly appalled. None of them would be a viable politician in Sweden. They all support the death penalty, none advocates strict gun control and all make frequent mention of their religious beliefs in public. These are extremist stances. Not even the tiny Christian Democrat party mentions God publicly in Sweden, for fear of alienating the pragmatic rationalist majority."
LOL. exactly!
i've lamented on this same issue on my blog, specifically on universal health care.
thanks for sharing your observation and confirming my disappointment ;)
~C
Posted by: ~C4Chaos | February 3, 2008 12:02 PM