I have a rule: a political party is usually the exact opposite of its name. Hence, the Liberal Party of Australia is not liberal, the National Party is not national, the Labor Party does not represent those who work, and Family First... well, what can one say?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'll get to creationism in a bit, but first...
Last week, Yves Smith started a wee lil' ruckus among progressives with a post titled "Bribes Work: How Peterson, the Enemy of Social Security, Bought the Roosevelt Name." In that post, she argued:
Bribes work. AT&T gave money to GLAAD, and now…
Rusty Lopez has reacted to my post about Bush backing away from the Federal Marriage Amendment with this strangely myopic post. He says:
Speaking of venturing out of the "ghetto," Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, seems to think that because President Bush is now not pushing…
This is about Australian politics, for the passersby.
The wife of the present Labor leader and would-be prime minister of Australia is a successful business woman, running a company that places contract workers. After a slip in which an acquired set of contracts were substantially below what one…
They are now toadies of the Exclusive Brethren, who fund campaign advertisements for the Liberal Party.
Add to this Cardinal George Pell's support, Catholic minister Tony Abbott's attempts to control who can use RU486 on an individual basis (i.e., never), Peter Costello's links with Hillsong,…
Same for science - the venerable scientific institutions all have really boring names like the "Royal Society" or the "American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences", whereas the crackpots have public-friendly soothing names like "Truth in Science".
Another example I can contribute: the Radical party in Argentina exists since the 1890s and ceased to be radical in the 1910s or 1920s. It is now mostly centrist and middle-class based.
The Danish and Norwegian parties called "Venstre" (meaning "left" in English) are better described as moderate conservatives. The name was appropriate in late 1800's, when it was taken to use.
Since nobody has mentioned the US parties, I won't mention them either.
I understand that the original Tories were Irish outlaws.
This Nebraskan also finds the US parties unmentionable.
Both Republican and Democratic are misnomers, and this situation is a sad sick joke.
When I was a kid we learned in our government class the difference between republics and democracies. Later I learned that distinction was a great steaming pile.
The referent is any system of government where the people participate in their own government. We have three familiar terms, each from a different base language.
From Latin, republic. From Greek, democracy. From English, commonwealth.
If a new party is to arise, and conform with the rule, maybe it should be the Happy Happy Happy Party.
Personally, I always had a soft spot the UK's Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Here in the US, Kinky Friedman seems to be quite a sensible chap as well.
Going by ol' wossisname's principle, though, what we should do is form the IDIC Party. We'd sell it to the proles as the Intelligently Designed and Irreduceably Complex Party but only we would know it secretly exists to promote the agnostic and logical Vulcan philosophy of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination.
Live Long and Prosper.
Federally, Canada has had the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party (since 1961) and the Conservative Reform Alliance Party for a brief moment. The Conservative government called itself the Canada's new government for two years.
At the provincial level, BC and Quebec have Liberal Parties that are actually conservative (and the federal Liberals are "liberal"). The Yukon and Saskatchewan have the Yukon and Saskatchewan Parties; Quebec has the Parti Quebecois (which, when you think about, says nothing about what they actually stand for).
I think Canada wins the stupid party name contest.
It is interesting to see what you think about political parties, to me, it is a challenge to decide who to support, never does any party fit my beliefs and thus, even though a paid up member of the Labor Party (I joined them during the Kennett years:) I find myself on occasion agreeing with what the Liberals (Conservatives to you yanks) and even what the Greens have to say. I do, however have issue with single issue parties. Fortunately, our Proportional Representational democracy can support such odd balls.
It is a pity science has taken a back seat so much since the heady days of the 60's and 70's with the space race etc.
Sigh.......We can only hope and pray sound rational policies will prevail.
Cliff in Frankston
Ah yes ... a special case of the phenomenon "It's a good thing you told me what it's called, otherwise I couldn't have known based on its content".
Other examples: "No Child Left Behind" Act, PATRIOT Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Discovery Institute, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, People's Republic of China.
Comparing the names of these things to their actual contents always makes me think "antonym" instead of "synonym".
The Nazis were known as National Socialists, but they didn't do much socialism. In fact, they were violently anti-Communist.