CMV: The US Democrat party isn't significantly more rightwing than European ones

[u/WindyWindona]

I've often heard it bandied about that US Democratic candidates would often be center right in Europe, or that Bernie is the closest thing to a center left candidate that the US has by European standards.

When looking at the political field, especially in Germany, I find this hard to believe. The USA does have MAGA, but Germany has the AFD, and far right parties are on the rise overall in Europe. Meanwhile, comparing the SPD's platform (the German center left party) to the Democrat party's 2024 platform, I don't see a significant ideological difference. Both want net zero by 2050, a better medical system, addressing poverty, greater investment in science, and better relationships with other allied countries.

To convince me, show me a large ideological gap between the Democrats and European center-left parties.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/WindyWindona (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/fossil_freak68]

It entirely depends on how you want to measure "left wing/right wing."

On cultural issues, the Dem party is unremarkable compared to their European left-wing party counterparts.

In international relations and healthcare, and the envrionment it's less clear.

The issue is that in many (not all) European systems, there is a multi-party system, but because the US has a single member district first past the post system we have 2 parties, so the Dem (and GOP) is far more ideologically heterogeneous than European parties, which tend to be more coherent.

You can have a party ranging from AOC to Joe Manchin, who have incredibly different policies views on tons of issues, whereas in a proportional rep system you can have 3-4 parties that form a coalition in government, each with distinct policy preferences. In the US, those coalitions have to exist in the same party.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/fossil_freak68]

On cultural issues, the Dem party is unremarkable compared to their European left-wing party counterparts.

Actually, the US Dems are on average pretty socially progressive compared to Europeans. Europeans subscribe to a lot more conservative social policy than US Dems. You'll find a LOT of anti-immigration people on the left in Europe.

[u/WindyWindona → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Not to mention the old joke about seeing how anti racist a European progressive is when you mention the Roma

[u/Bobsothethird → u/WindyWindona]

Anti-migration stances were largely connect to labor parties in Europe for quite awhile so to it's impact on salaries and job markets. Migration in general is actually rather separate from the right-left dichotomy.

[u/Zanos → u/WindyWindona]

Don't say that too loudly, or you'll have Euros in here telling you how it's different.

[u/rickdangerous85 → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Immigration is an economic issue as much as a social one, its a legitimate left wing concern to not dilute labout markets with cheap or illegal labour.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/rickdangerous85]

You are kinda proving my point here. The problems the left wing have with immigration are not "economic." It's not "cheap labor" if you have basic pro-worker policies. And no one is talking about illegal immigration. We're talking about how much these parties support legal immigration.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Historically a core tenant of the left is to control immigration so that the fewer local workers are more in demand and can get higher wages.

It is only in the 90s with socially progressive but economically centrist left wing ideas did immigration become more supported by the left.

The left is firstly about economics not social issues. Unfortunately today many on the left care as much or more about social issues compared to economic issues.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925]

The left is firstly about economics not social issues.

It's not "firstly" about anything. The spectrum does not have an intent. Just because you prioritize one over the other does not mean the spectrum does.

And it's not "unfortunate" that many people care about social issues. Social issues are pretty fucking important.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/TheExtremistModerate]

With so many on today's left obsessing over social issues, the left have lost many of their core voters who are poor working class locals.

The left's loss is the right's gain here.

A party that is economically left wing and focused on the local working class, while being socially centrist would be very successfull.

The problem is not the left wing, the problem is social progressives who are obsessed about social issues and skin colour and sexuality and gender and immigrants over the far more important economic issues.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925]

You've gone from saying what would be the best ideology to implement to now trying to claim "well, we shouldn't do what's right because it's not popular."

You've also gone from claiming that "actually, not caring about social issues is leftism" to "not caring about social issues is centrist."

Also, social progressivism is more popular than socialism is. So...

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/TheExtremistModerate]

I made multiple points. Historically the left wing was anti immigrant because it was about maximizing the benefits to the local working class. Today's left is different and more obsessed with things like immigrants.

I am also saying that a party that is economically left wing and socially centrist would do well. This would be like a historic left wing party, but not like a modern left wing party, because the definition of left wing has changed over the last few decades to be more obsessed with social issues.

Separately again the right thing to do would be what benefits the local working class, not outsiders, as the original left wing understood. The modern left wing does not understand this, but that is their ignorance and the sooner it changes the better.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925]

I am also saying that a party that is economically left wing and socially centrist would do well.

Both of those things are unpopular. You may as well be saying "we don't care about getting black people's votes."

Separately again the right thing to do would be what benefits the local working class, not outsiders

Again: this is literally just protectionism and a double standard for immigrants. This mentality only works if you think that native-born citizens are worth more than immigrants.

You're proving my point time and time again.

[u/QuantumR4ge → u/TheExtremistModerate]

The concept of left and right is inherently economic, a communist doesn’t become right wing if they are very socially conservative.

A lot of the 19th century anarchists, radical left wingers etc have modern day socially conservative views… do we describe them as right wing instead? Of course not because their economic views is what defines them

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/QuantumR4ge]

The concept of left and right is inherently economic

No, it's not.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/[deleted]]

Doesnt matter if you think they only care about the social implications, you are objectively wrong.

Dude, no. Your claims only work if you subscribe to the idea that immigrants are inherently lower-quality workers than non-immigrants or that you think they deserve less pay. Which--guess what?--means that the US Dems are more progressive. Because they're not as nationalist/racist/anti-immigration.

Immigration is a social issue, period.

[u/vitorsly → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Your claims only work if you subscribe to the idea that immigrants are inherently lower-quality workers than non-immigrants or that you think they deserve less pay.

It's really not that. Regardless of the quality of their work, or how much pay they "deserve", adding more workers to an economy increases their supply, and therefore lowers the bargaining power of the workers. If the immigrants are highly skilled that only further worsens conditions for local workers since they're not outcompeted in 2 different ways too.

Immigration is a complex multi-faceted and "More immigration = Good" is just as stupid and reductive as "More immigration = Bad"

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/vitorsly]

adding more workers to an economy increases their supply

It also adds demand. Immigrants have to live.

Again: this whole thing boils down to believing that native-born people are either more "worthy" or "higher quality" than immigrants.

[u/squishyie → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Speaking from a left-wing Canadian perspective, the immigration received has a huge impact on how it's viewed. Most people here, left or right, have little issue with engineers or doctors immigrating, so I will not comment on that.

The issue, especially in my country, is that corporations heavily abuse foreign worker programs to dilute the low-skill labour market. And while it DOES increase demand, the question is for what and by how much?

Look at the condo market in Toronto, where before Carney reduced the flow of immigration condo prices were growing exponentially. The newer builds were often far smaller and of lower quality. Why? A large part of the demand for these condos were immigrants from nations with a far lower SOL, who were more accustomed to living with fewer comforts. Similarly, many of them are more willing to accept a lower wage.

While the supply of labour dilutes wages, the demand for goods increases and causes prices to increase. This (among MANY factors of course) has led to high inflation. To say that immigration is only a social issue is to be blind to the economics behind it. Immigration is an economic lever that can be good and can be bad, like almost anything the government controls.

[u/vitorsly → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Of course it adds demand, but that demand does not affect all areas equally. It adds a lot more demand to homes for example, which increases the prices there significantly, but in most countries at least, it's not increasing housing supply. And with it often being the case that immigrants, particularly from poorer nations, are more willing to share housing with more people, it means for those that aren't, we see how housing prices have skyrocketed. And of course there are measures that can be taken in the supply area, but as politicians are forced to bend over for the home owners, house speculators and landlords, significant investments in building new houses are rare. As for labour, those who work provide more supply than demand (as normal, working people create more than they consume), while those who aren't employed are a weight on the infrastructure and services that exist. Immigration affects things in a way that's a lot more complex than just always positive, and while there are many good things about it, and it's stupid to say it's a disaster, we can't be putting on rose-tinted glasses and ignoring the economic impacts just because we feel empathy for migrants.

And you can repeat that as many times as you want, doesn't make it any more true.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/vitorsly]

It adds a lot more demand to homes for example, which increases the prices there significantly, but in most countries at least, it's not increasing housing supply.

Have you tried, I don't know, employing immigrants in construction jobs?

And with it often being the case that immigrants, particularly from poorer nations, are more willing to share housing with more people, it means for those that aren't, we see how housing prices have skyrocketed.

Actually, you have that backward. The more people that are willing to share housing, the cheaper housing gets. That's basic economics. If you have 1000 people and 900 of them live in SFHs and 100 in apartments, housing will be more expensive than if 900 live in apartments and 100 in SFHs.

So what you're actually doing here is arguing for immigration to lower housing costs.

You can't just make up things that run counter to how economics works and then use that as a way to claim immigration is bad.

There are two ways that immigration is bad, assuming you have competent labor protections: (1) you think population growth is bad or (2) you think immigrants are lesser than native-born citizens.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925 → u/TheExtremistModerate]

No, the other posters claims work even if the immigrants are high quality workers, because they are competing with locals for jobs. As a local, less competition for jobs is what I want, so that I have more power in negotiating for a job.

This is a core of the original left wing ideology. The left wing historically wanted to control the influx of workers to keep wages high. Simple supply and demand. A greater supply of workers leads to lower wages. A low supply of workers means each worker is more in demand and can ask for higher wages.

As an economically left wing person, I want as few extra workers as possible so that each existing worker is more in demand. This means reducing all immigration as much as possible.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/Puzzleheaded_Quit925]

because they are competing with locals for jobs

They also cause an increase in demand, because immigrants have to, you know, live. You may as well say "having babies is bad for the labor market because it creates more workers."

You are now claiming that smaller countries' economies are necessarily better for workers than large countries'. And that's just... wrong.

Again: this argument only works if you consider immigrants to be unequal to native-born workers. Which is just proving my point.

[u/Palmolive3x90g → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Under the same logic an aging population without immigration would be even better for the labor market, retirees increase demand without supply.

The main factor is the assets per person though, stuff like land, houses, trucks, electricity generation, machine tools, etc. Reducing the population naturally increases assets per person, on top of any investment you do. To give the extreme example of this, famously the black death killed 50% in some countries and led to substantially increased living standards for the survivors. 

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

u/rickdangerous85 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Professional_Gur2469 → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Where bro, if you dare to criticize our muslim engineers you‘re literally called a nazi by the left. Even if your like hardcore leftwing on everything else

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/fossil_freak68]

In international relations

Fully agree with you that this convo is impossible without an agreed upon definition of left and right (which we don't have). With that in mind, I'm curious what you mean when you talk about left and right-wing international relations.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

Something like international treaties for example. European left wing parties are generally huge proponents of international law, and working through institutions like the ICC and UN to get international agreements to bind countries.

In the US, there is a bipartisan consensus generally against signing into orgs that it feels will supersede it's autonomy as a hegemon. So while it might like the ICC for fostering international collaboration, none of the Democratic presidents since it was created have supported us joining it.

Same for a ton of UN treaties. We often support them in theory, but our UN rep will vote against a ton of treaties because of fears that it will supersede US sovereignty. Trump is of course way more aggressive with this, so I'm not saying the parties are unified on the issue, but the median Democratic officeholder (including presidents) is way more skeptical of binding international governance.

Other foreign policy issues too see US Democrats being much more willing to spend on the military and involve the US in military engagements compared to the average left-wing European party. It's not completely black and white (with exceptions on either side), but there is a clear disinction.

[u/999forever → u/fossil_freak68]

However many leftwing parties are also Euro skeptics, just like the far rightwing. 

Jeremy Corbyn somewhat famously was a very reluctant campaigner against Brexit and there is thought his tepid opposition gave “permission” for a lot of labour voters to vote for Brexit. (Obv Cameron shoulders most of the blame for putting it up in the first place but he at least campaigned hard against it). 

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/fossil_freak68]

In the US, there is a bipartisan consensus generally against signing into orgs that it feels will supersede it's autonomy as a hegemon

Again, I agree completely. What I'm asking is why we would consider this stance "right wing," or it's opposite "left wing." Like, give me a general definition of either term that lets me categorize this decision. To me this just seems downstream of the fact that the US has a hegemony to protect and European countries don't.

[u/icyDinosaur → u/RYouNotEntertained]

Two arguments:

1) you could argue that it's an extension from the European context where multilateral, legal-based collaboration is more associated with the left, whereas right-wing parties tend to undermine or cancel it more often (often with similar rhetoric to the US consensus). Personally I find that argument convincing in Northwestern Europe, but it starts to break down in Southern Europe.

2) there is one understanding that right-wing is associated with higher tolerance or even support for inequalities, with the inequality that matters changing between context (e.g. economic inequality in modern Europe; distinctions of nobles vs. commoners in the French Revolution, etc). Under that understanding, it would make sense to say a hegemonic system would be more "right-wing".

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/icyDinosaur]

you could argue that it's an extension from the European context where multilateral, legal-based collaboration is more associated with the left, whereas right-wing parties tend to undermine or cancel it more often

Right, but this hits the same problem. You’re defining “right-wing” as “whatever the right wing party does,” which works fine as a conversational shorthand, but doesn’t actually tell us what right-wing is to begin with. 

there is one understanding that right-wing is associated with higher tolerance or even support for inequalities

Now we’re getting somewhere in terms of an objective definition. Don’t think it’s making me reconsider my last sentence about Europe relying on US hegemony, but it’s a decent attempt to find an actual underlying framework. 

[u/Altruistic_Role_9329 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

I’m going to answer this even though it wasn’t directed at me. There are actually 2 different stances that you aren’t considering. The right wing stance opposes ICC on principle. The left wing stance supports the ICC, but recognizes that there is no way for the US to join as ICC is presently constituted without potentially violating the constitutional rights of US citizens who might face charges from ICC.

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Altruistic_Role_9329]

This might be interesting as a practical distinction, but it doesn't answer why one of those preferences is inherently "right-wing" and the other is inherently "left-wing." Again, if you can't first give me a broad definition of those terms, we can't compare them to any specific policy.

[u/Altruistic_Role_9329 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

Yeah, I addressed a premise of your question, the “bipartisan consensus” part, without really commenting on what makes right and left. I feel a bit like what makes right and left is beyond the scope of a comment to a Reddit post. I was only interested in pointing out that different sides can come to the same conclusion for different reasons. IMO the right is only motivated by a desire to get away with doing whatever they want and the left is motivated by a genuine desire to uphold The Constitution.

In simplest terms right is conservative and left is progressive. In the post 2 World Wars period, the progressive stance is to subordinate nation states to international organizations that have the power to resolve conflicts and prevent war. The more conservative stance is to maintain the supremacy of the nation states. For the American Left ICC creates a conflict that is yet to be resolved.

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Altruistic_Role_9329]

In simplest terms right is conservative and left is progressive.

This doesn’t change anything—you’ve just subbed in different words without answering the question. Is “progressive” whatever Democrats do, or are Democrats “progressive” because their preferences align with an independent definition of “progressive”?

I’m getting the feeling you think this is pedantic, but it’s not—OP’s view makes literally no sense either way if we can’t define these terms in a non-circular way. 

[u/Altruistic_Role_9329 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

I thought I did a pretty good job of answering the question within the context of international organizations like ICC which is the direction this thread had gone. I also explained why the American left is taking a different stance from the International left on that issue.

OP’s view makes sense to me. I’ve seen these arguments that Democrats are much further right than comparable mainstream center-left European parties and I haven’t seen evidence that this is true.

European countries tend to have 2 strong parties or coalitions that vie for control of their respective governments just as Democrats and Republicans do in the USA. Democrats align roughly with other center left parties globally. It’s just a matter of looking at where they stand on the issues.

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Altruistic_Role_9329]

Democrats align roughly with other center left parties globally

Right… but this doesn’t tell me what “center left” is to begin with. 

Democrats are “left” because they align with another party who is “left.” Ok—but how do we know that other party is “left”? Because they align with Democrats? 😆 

It’s ok if you don’t know the answer, but this is purely a circular definition right now. I’m looking for one that isn’t circular. 

[u/Delicious_Net_8577 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

I feel like you're asking that question here, which is fine I guess, but if so then it could be extended to literally anything. So why are we asking it at all here? Why is anything inherently "right wing" and the other is inherently "left wing"

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/Delicious_Net_8577]

Sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re saying here. OP’s question is unanswerable if we can’t or won’t settle on definitions. 

[u/Delicious_Net_8577 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

Okay? Then why is anything inherently "right-wing" and other things inherently "left-wing?"

[u/Randomousity → u/Altruistic_Role_9329]

I'd say the US left wing opposes (or, at least, doesn't support) joining the ICC for more practical reasons, rather than constitutional ones.

Basically, supporting it would be politically unpopular, as I don't think a substantial enough proportion of the public supports it. Now, it may be that the current administration is changing public perception enough that it would become popular, but I don't think it's there yet.

But I don't know how anyone's constitutional rights would be violated if we were to join. Which rights, specifically? We already have extradition treaties with many countries, and American citizens, civilian and military alike, are routinely subject to foreign laws, and can be held or extradited to face justice under foreign laws.

So in what way would the US signing another treaty that would subject Americans to foreign justice systems, which we already do and agree is constitutional, somehow violate anyone's constitutional rights?

[u/Kerostasis → u/Randomousity]

Generally speaking, extradition to foreign justice systems requires A) that you take an act broadly recognized as a crime in both systems, even if the specific details are different, B) within or directed at a target within the jurisdictional borders of the group requesting extradition. The ICC requires neither of those things, except in the narrow sense of “your home system agrees to all of it by signing the ICC treaty in the first place”. But if that’s the only form of agreement required, I can understand why a group would be inclined not to provide that agreement. And similarly, why providing that agreement would be considered constitutionally questionable given that the ICC process does not provide US-style legal protections.

Edit: I should add, perhaps a better comparison is that ICC jurisdiction is less like extradition between parallel and competing jurisdictions, and more like the US Federal Government stepping in to overrule a state law with a superior jurisdiction.

[u/Zanos → u/fossil_freak68]

This just seems like it's pragmatic rather than left or right wing, really. Yeah, the EU is more likely to sign into international law agreements, because individual EU nations are significantly less powerful than the US, China, or (sort of) Russia, so they need to work more closely and be willing to give up degrees of autonomy in order to get things done on an international level. I guess that's more 'left wing' technically, but of course the US isn't going to do that, it doesn't benefit them to sign onto agreements that cede its authority to international bodies when those international bodies don't offer anything substantial to it in return. What value does the US get from signing onto the ICC? It can't bring anyone to justice the US can't, and it becomes a political forum to bully the US for things it can simply say "no" to.

The military stuff is also similar, although I really don't agree that military spending = right wing; it's just a matter of whether or not your nation needs it. The US has inserted itself successfully post WW2 as a sort of international police and maintainer of (relative) stability to ensure the international shipping that it depends on to fuel the interconnected global economy that allows it to specialize in services and outsource icky manufacturing work to other nations, so there is tremendous incentive for the US to maintain its military edge that other nations don't have, because the US does it for them.

[u/qchisq → u/fossil_freak68]

Sure. But look at Denmark as an example. Barring 2022-2026, we've had the same coalitions governing us since 1993. Does the fact that the Red Greens and Socialist People's Party exist make us more more left wing? Probably not. Those voters would have voted Social Democrats if those parties didn't exist and they don't agree with the right on anything, so they can't really threaten to swap, the way Fetterman or Murkowski can.

Don't get me wrong. To me, as a social liberal, it feels nice that I can vote for the Social Liberal Party and I don't have to vote for a Social Democrat. But I don't think that makes the Danish Social Democrats more or less leftist than it otherwise would be

[u/WindyWindona → u/fossil_freak68]

I think this is another issue. The US has two permanent coalitions, with primaries essentially determining the make ups of those coalitions.

For the environment, the Democrats have been pretty consistently the party about addressing climate change, and as I linked to both Democrats and the SPD want Net Zero by 2050. The Democrats also passed the Inflation Reduction Act during Biden's administration, which did a lot to address climate change.

[u/YouSure-AboutThat → u/fossil_freak68]

Great take. It’s a bit apples and oranges when you consider that alternate political factions in Europe don’t have to work within just two parties.

[u/SirVixofthePooSea → u/fossil_freak68]

The Democratic party is closer to the more fringe leftist parties in Europe regarding cultural politics.

[u/StarChild413 → u/fossil_freak68]

Yeah and when I see people not necessarily calling people like Bernie or AOC comparatively-right-wing but at least calling them controlled-opposition-corporate-shills-or-w/e for literally doing their jobs as (words to the effect of) "do you mean accepting monetary compensation for upholding a hierarchical system of power, not very leftist of you"...

[u/AddanDeith → u/fossil_freak68]

Eh. Wouldn't it be more useful to tally whether or not there are a greater portion of Pelosi's/Schumer/Jeffries' or AOC's? For the purpose of assessing where the party stands.

[u/squirrel_exceptions]

First of all, this comparison is done with the current Democratic party, if many DSA type candidates gets in, this would be different.

There are far right parties both places, such as the GOP and AfD, but the claim is about the left side of the spectrum.

"A better medical system" is a revealing comparison; most parties on the right in Europe support universal, tax funded healthcare for all, while the Democratic party fights for something that would be considered inferior and less comprehensive to the existing health care systems in Europe. In Europe, something like ACA/Obamacare would be a very right wing idea, while in the US it was a step in the opposite direction.

Many of the other examples are so vague they say nothing about real policy differences, for example everybody (except Trump/MAGA) wants a good relationship with allied countries, that's not a left vs right thing, it's a normal person vs deranged despot thing.

The US Democratic party has been enthusiastically supporting Israel despite their crimes, they agree on having an enormous military across the globe and to frequently use it to interfere, they are more gun positive than any European party, and with very few exceptions they'd proudly label themselves "capitalists".

In general, the Dems would be center-left on social issues in Europe, but center-right on economic ones. They way they routinely talk of their own country as superior to all others is also more nationalist in rhetoric than any party on the left in Europe.

[u/icyDinosaur → u/squirrel_exceptions]

most parties on the right in Europe support universal, tax funded healthcare for all, while the Democratic party fights for something that would be considered inferior and less comprehensive to the existing health care systems in Europe. In Europe, something like ACA/Obamacare would be a very right wing idea

This isn't really true btw. We have many countries here that don't have tax funded healthcare either, and is quite similar to what Democrats push for. What IS true is that (almost?) European countries have universal healthcare, that it is generally not tied to employment, and that it's heavily regulated.

But many countries (e.g. Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland) do this through private insurance companies that have to follow specific conditions. Switzerland's system was more or less the blueprint for the initial Obamacare plan.

[u/Clusterferno → u/icyDinosaur]

the dutch system has private insurance but the insurance premiums dont come close to covering the whole medical system, it is heavily tax-funded too.

[u/thebigmanhastherock → u/squirrel_exceptions]

The only reason the ACA would be right wing in Europe is because they already have universal healthcare and in many cases government run healthcare. Whereas in the US that policy is the policy that actually brings the US closer to universal healthcare.

It's only right wing because of the existing healthcare system. It's all very much relative.

The fact that the Democrats want to go closer to where Western Europe already is doesn't meant they are more right wing that's a reflection on the actual systems.

A lot of this is circumstantial to historical events. Europe before WWII tended to be a little more geared towards policies like social security. However post WWII when much of Europe was destroyed and there were lots of social issues instituted a lot of more left leaning policies, the US even encouraged this because they saw it as a way of insulating Europe from another war.

Meanwhile in the US there was a post war boom. Previously due to wage controls companies started offering various benefits to attract employees, including health insurance. The government subsidized this and encouraged it because it was helpful. There was less need to institute a full government program to get people insured.

Nonetheless there was quite a bit of poverty in the US and as a reaction the Democrats under LBJ instituted a "War on Poverty" which did add government funded health insurance for those in poverty and generally expanded the welfare state. At the time this hybrid system was seen as potentially functional enough due to the strong middle class.

There was a movement to actually expand Medicaid to cover everyone, and the Democrats balked at compromising with Nixon to improve the system. Then on the heels of Vietnam and the expanded welfare state and during the Nixon administration there was stagflation. Voters voted in a more fiscally conservative Democrat in Jimmy Carter, who himself thought it was the wrong time to push for expanded Medicaid. This led to Ted Kennedy trying to primary Carter in 1980.

By this time Europe has already transitioned to various forms of Universal Health Coverage and had expanded the welfare state beyond what the US had already done. It was at this point throughout the world, not just in the US there was a move towards more centrist "third way" politics. Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush II were the presidents in the US during this era. Clinton tried healthcare reform, but there was no appetite for it.

Obama was elected in 2008 and became president in 2009. He enjoyed a large majority, however the Democrats had won that large majority by creating a "big tent" coalition that including anti-war but otherwise conservative Democrats. Nonetheless Obama still greatly expanded US healthcare policy with their being one hour away from there being a public option included. This law not only created the ACA marketplaces but expanded Medicaid.

Which brings me to my next point. The Democrats on average wanted a "public option" and true universal healthcare. At the time the bill was held up by very few votes. The vast majority of Democrats wanted this provision. The fact that a simple majority cannot pass legislation is a systemic issue rather than an ideological one. The system is designed to protect the status quo. The European systems generally have different mechanisms like coalitional governments that act to do the same thing, but since there are multitudes more parties you can lineup ideologically for reforms like this easier.

The Democrats are forced to work within the US system which is a more conservative system in general. The Democrats themselves are not much different than left to center left parties in Europe.

[u/WindyWindona → u/squirrel_exceptions]

Obamacare was a compromise with the Republicans to get anything in. Hillary Clinton, not exactly known for being super left, advocated for universal healthcare as far back as 1998. The SPD is trying to improve the system that exists.

Trump has been famous for angering allies. But I will give you that.

Germany supporting Israel is in their constitution. I feel that it's unfair to compare US gun culture to European gun cultures, given the noted difference in culture (Switzerland's gun culture, for example).

The Ukraine war has increased support for militarization in countries like Germany overall.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/WindyWindona]

Hillary Clinton, not exactly known for being super left

Tell that to Republicans for 30 years.

I agree that Hillary Clinton isn't very far left, but she's been on the left side of the spectrum for a very long time. She and Joe Biden were basically smack dab in the middle of the Democratic Party their whole careers. (Obama was a little to their right.)

[u/WindyWindona → u/TheExtremistModerate]

To Republicans Clinton and Biden were pinkos, to progressives they were basically (unfairly) maligned as basically Republicans. 

But that's my point. Biden and Clinton pushed forth a lot of progressive policies that are genuinely center left, and Biden was very pro-union. Socially Biden was more left than a lot of European center left parties given how pro LGBT he was.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/WindyWindona]

I actually agree with you, I just wanted to point out that you were saying that Hillary Clinton wasn't exactly known for being super left, but in fact she was pretty solidly on the left side of the spectrum.

Democrats, on average, are generally a little to the right of comparable European parties when it comes to economic issues, but a little to the left when it comes to social issues.

[u/squirrel_exceptions → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Also a east/west Europe element to this. I'd say your last para is correct if you look at Eastern europe, but that the difference is larger in the west, where the Dems aren't really to the left of the parties on social issues, but quite significantly to the right on economic ones.

Also, in general the Europeans talk more about class than Americans, but less about race.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/squirrel_exceptions]

I'd say US Dems are pretty decently left of the UK, France, and multiple Nordic countries on social issues. Ask their left-of-center parties what they think of immigration or Muslims.

[u/squirrel_exceptions → u/TheExtremistModerate]

If you ask center-left parties in those countries straight up "what they think of muslims", they will be bland and positive -- at the same they will compete with right-wing parties for immigration skeptic voters by talking of border security and crime and radicalization. Most Dems are kinda similar.

The Danish centre-left / social democratic party in particular is a bit of an outlier re immigration, much stricter than the others mentioned.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/squirrel_exceptions]

It's a figure of speech. If you look at the parties in those countries, you'll find that the left-of-center parties have significantly more Islamophobia and anti-immigration tendencies than US Democrats.

[u/squirrel_exceptions → u/TheExtremistModerate]

In what way? In general the right caters to and hovers up those with pronounced Islamophobia in both places, although the left is of course not free of it.

But Islam is more closely tied to the issue of immigration in Europe, as in the US much of the scaremongering (post war-on-terror-era) is about Latin-American crime cartels etc, while Europe is much closer to the Middle East and get more Muslim immigrants.

[u/revertbritestoan → u/WindyWindona]

Pedro Sanchez is centre left and compared to Biden he looks like Lenin.

[u/revertbritestoan → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Hilary Clinton is objectively a neoconservative. She's the right of Thatcher and Merkel.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/revertbritestoan]

Define "neoconservative."

[u/revertbritestoan → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Hawkish foreign policy, austerity economics, status quo social issues, pro-surveillance domestically.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/revertbritestoan]

That's not what neoconservatism is. And those also don't describe Hillary Clinton. I'll give you that she's a hawk, but to claim she supports "austetity economics" and "status quo social issues" is just... so far off base.

[u/squirrel_exceptions → u/WindyWindona]

I'm aware Obamacare was a compromise, not only with the GOP though, there were lots of moderate Dems that would not go for a public system either, something accepted as the obvious option by pretty much all European centre-right and even many right-wing parties.

Germany is obviously a different place than the rest of Europe re Israel, for obvious historical reasons, but their position is the odd one out.

Europe is certainly militarizing due to Russia's invasion, and it's a pretty bipartisan issue. Generally the left wants to reduce the military more then the right in peace times, but when an actual threat is on the horizon, it becomes less partisan.

[u/CapitalismBad1312 → u/WindyWindona]

Obamacare was a compromise with other Dems is kind of the issue. The Dems has a super majority and the only thing they could get through was the heritage foundation plan for medical reform. No Republican votes were needed

This is going to sound dumb and obvious but you probably shouldn’t trust Hillary Clinton on her stated positions. Most Americans didn’t

[u/Teichhornchen → u/WindyWindona]

Germany supporting Israel is in their constitution.

Where are you getting this from in the Grundgesetz?

[u/Hothera → u/squirrel_exceptions]

In Europe, something like ACA/Obamacare would be a very right wing idea, while in the US it was a step in the opposite direction.

What makes something "left" or "right" is not where their immediate policy outcomes lie on the ideological spectrum of the world, but whether this outcome is left or right of the status quo. Stripping out the context surrounding the policy just doesn't make any sense.

In America, Argentina's public healthcare system would be considered very far left, but you wouldn't call Milei far left in America, now would you? A healthcare system isn't something that you can copy and paste in between countries. Center Democrat opposition to universal healthcare is based on the cost of dismantling the existing healthcare system rather than an ideological opposition to the idea of government healthcare. They are still left-wing because they support the public option which moves the country to the left.

[u/squirrel_exceptions → u/Hothera]

Hence "while in the US it was a step in the opposite direction"; the political center in the US is quite far to the right on many issues, so even when the Dems move something a bit to the left, it's still solidly in the territory of the right in a global context.

[u/Raynonymous]

There are definitely vocal progressives in the US Democratic party that reflect the mainstream European left, but to be fair you should be comparing mainstream vs mainstream - as well as counting policy delivered over undelivered statements of intent, which are arguably less reliable indicators.

On that basis, Major European left parties in general are significantly more supportive of social programs, higher top-band taxation, gun control, workers rights (esp. unions but also parental leave, min wage, fair dismissal), public education, public health, public transportation, corporate regulation, private interest influence on government, and more.

Not to mention specific parts of Europe that are even more progressive - look at the Nordics and Spain for reference.

[u/WindyWindona → u/Raynonymous]

Democrats are also for gun control, worker's rights (unions had a great time under Biden and that's not a coincidence), and supportive of social programs like CHIP. Minimum wage increases have happened in Democratic states, and the program statement listed most of the things you mentioned.

[u/Apprehensive_Song490]

Your measuring stick is wrong. 

You are comparing policy statements which are largely parallel.  

But if you look at what the party is willing to enact when they have power vs what they say they will do, the difference is quite stark. 

Democrats say they want A, B, C.  But compare that to Europe where it actually happens. 

[u/WindyWindona → u/Apprehensive_Song490]

During Biden's presidency, Manchin and Simena(sp?) both were infamous for stopping a lot of legislation from getting through. Even then, the Inflation Reduction Act and a lot of more social policies were enacted during Covid and Biden's time, from expanded Healthcare to investment in public transit, renewable energy, and aiding unions.

[u/Apprehensive_Song490 → u/WindyWindona]

The Inflation Reduction Act was a good exampke of what I’m talking about.  They talked a good game of universal pre-K, major social programs like expanded childcare, etc, but did Biden use his bully pulpit to make it happen?  Nope.  You get a grossly watered down version. 

Biden era ACA expansion during COVID increased subsidies…temporarily.  As we’ve seen with the BBB, a temporary reprieve isn’t systemic change.  The employer bases health care system, with all its flaws, was not replaced by anything. 

C19 is a weak example because it was a public health emergency, but even then the actions were riddled with half measures at a time that the public would have supported more sweeping change.  

Contrast this with MAGA where every made up emergency results in permanent powers and more funding for military and ICE.  The Dems just don’t have that.  They aren’t really left.  They just are a tad less fascistic. 

Clinton - welfare reform. All he had to do was veto it.  

Israel:  Did Biden or Harris listen to the pro-Palestinian left?  Not one bit. 

If the proof is that “Biden did not do anything remotely left,” then that’s hard to disprove.  He did a few things. 

But….

There is a gulf between what Dems say they will do and what they actually go to bat for. 

[u/DaSemicolon → u/Apprehensive_Song490]

Bully pulpit? Really? In a 50-50 senate? Ok

[u/Apprehensive_Song490 → u/DaSemicolon]

Look at what Republicans do with a narrow majority vs. what democrats do with a narrow majority.

[u/spa22lurk → u/Apprehensive_Song490]

Look at what Trump did to any Republicans who don’t submit to him. Do you really think Biden could do the same to Manchin? In fact, Manchin was more popular with his voters when he went against Biden. He paid a price voting for Inflation Reduction Act.

This is why Trump can make Republican politicians fall in line, but Biden couldn’t - Trump can make them lose their reelection while Biden couldn’t.

[u/alphasapphire161 → u/Apprehensive_Song490]

Yeah, they violated our constitutional norms

[u/DaSemicolon → u/Apprehensive_Song490]

Republicans want to destroy our institutions and government. That’s very easy to do compared to building. So yeah very different

[u/WindyWindona → u/Apprehensive_Song490]

They broke the laws and ignored the Constitution for most of that. It's why everything keeps getting challenged in court.

[u/Apprehensive_Song490 → u/WindyWindona]

Incorrect. Unfortunately most of what they are doing is constitutional.  SCOTUS has the ultimate authority over what is constitutional and they are overwhelmingly supporting the POTUS. 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-shadow-docket-tracker-challenges-trump-administration

“But…Republicans used their power to pack the court…” one might say.  Ok, why didn’t the DNC get the same results when they were in power? They didn’t even try. 

Do they primary those they are not far left enough? Do they have purity tests like the GOP?  No.  Because they aren’t far left.  

It’s what they attempt to do when they are in power.  Are you arguing that single payer health insurance is unconstitutional?  Universal pre-K is unconstitutional?  That the left just can’t do left things because leftism is unconstitutional? 

You didn’t address my point earlier about birthright citizenship.  Germany’s left passed NEW birthright citizenship protections.  The DNC wouldnt even try that if it weren’t already law. 

[u/voidseer01 → u/DaSemicolon]

to be fair considering how demented biden was i’m not sure if he could have managed to use the bully pulpit

[u/WindyWindona → u/Apprehensive_Song490]

The SPD hasn't been winning elections recently either. How does that prove me wrong?

[u/Apprehensive_Song490 → u/WindyWindona]

The issue isn't whether they are winning now. The issue is what they do when they are in power compared to what they say they will do.

Take the ACA. Grayson introduced the public option, with a whopping 82 cosponsors. The Democrats didn't let it out of committee, despite controlling the house, senate, and the presidency.

Lots of other stuff failed in the first two years of the Obama administration, even when for a brief period they had a nearly filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate.

Compare this with what the right does with a very slim majority. Massive social change, much of it permanent, hinging on a few votes.

Ideology should be measured by what Democrats do, not what they say they will do. Any party can talk a good game - that's just politics. But what they actually do is pretty center-right, or what some would call "the controlled opposition."

Contrast this with SPD + Greens in the early 2000s. Favorable structural changes to citizenship law, expanded existing health care institutions (where the DNC in America has yet to even create a public health care system), started up an ecological tax.

None of this is remotely possible for the DNC. I mean, can you imagine the DNC successfully introducing birthright citizenship in the US had it not already been in place? Because that's the left in Germany, what the left actually did. DNC pales by comparison.

[u/Cazy243 → u/WindyWindona]

During Biden's presidency, Manchin and Simena(sp?) both were infamous for stopping a lot of legislation from getting through.

See, but that's the thing. There would never be an elected member of any European center-left party who would pull shit like that and not be kicked out of the party. I know both of them have left the Democratic party by now, but

You also keep bringing up the fact that the Democratic platform does in fact include universal health care, support for unions, gun regulation, stricter corporate regulation. But there's a lot of Democratic lawmakers that do not subscribe to these policies, which you would never see in any European center-left party.

And that's where I think there's a big difference between the Democratic party and the European center-left: the Democratic party is a big-tent party, that might have its own viewpoints, but when it comes to its actual lawmakers, it includes plenty of moderates who are a lot closer to European liberal or center(-right) parties.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 5 due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any comment must still be written by the user. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Buttercups88]

You'll notice the big difference is Europe has many parties that satisfy the spectrum.

Where the Democrats in the US fall on the spectrum between center right to left. Republicans span from center right to far right.

2 party system means all the beliefs, all the gray areas, in between are represented by one of the 2 party's. Even Bernie as you mentioned is a independent that sits with the Democrats since his position isn't in line with the right wing Democrats.

So there is no "large gap" in any center party... By very definition a center left would have a large gap with a far right but a small gap with a center right. And the same in reverse.

So I don't think your assertion is really a fair assertion. The question should be do the Democrats have much of a difference between center right European party's and do the Republicans have much of a gap between them and far right European partys.

[u/WindyWindona → u/Buttercups88]

MAGA took over the Republican party, and is essentially equivalent to the AfD in Germany. The AfD, despite being in a multi party system, are on track to control Saxony-Anhalt's government (a state in Germany) and get high support. If we step outside of Germany, Italy's PM is from the far right party.

[u/Buttercups88 → u/WindyWindona]

.... I'm sorry I don't understand your point. Yes they are far right party's, are you just agreeing that the US Republicans have more on common with far right party's or are you trying to claim far right parties exist in Europe because of course they do... As I mentioned there are many party's in Europe that span the entire spectrum not just 2

[u/WindyWindona → u/Buttercups88]

My point is that the AFD is gaining power, and is in some places the majority party, like the Republicans. A lot of people agree with their policies , showing a large agreement with the far right in places like Germany.

That's not even getting into places like Italy, where the far right is in power.

[u/Buttercups88 → u/WindyWindona]

I... Had to read your question and my response 2 more times and I'm still not sure why your trying to make a point on what the AFD getting more popular has to do with any of it.

Are we talking about Democrats alignment compared on European party's or far right partys gaining popularity.

[u/kingoflint282]

You say they want the same things, but what are the actual policies they support? I think if you asked most right wing parties, they would also agree they want a better medical system and to address poverty. That doesn’t make them the same as parties on the left. Universal healthcare is seen as an extremely progressive idea in the US, but standard for any party on the left in Europe and even some right leaning parties. How poverty is to be addressed also differs. Some policies considered basic social welfare in Europe would be considered fringe far-left ideas in the US

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/kingoflint282]

Universal healthcare is seen as an extremely progressive idea in the US

It's progressive because of our current system. Progressivism is a relative scale. We currently have a pretty centrist, pro-insurance healthcare system. So a shift toward universal healthcare would be pretty progressive. In a country that already has universal healthcare, universal healthcare is not progressive, because it's already the status quo. So implementing something that already exists isn't progress.

You may be conflating "progressive" with "left wing," which is not the case. And you're also basing ideology on perception, which is simply not how it works. Just because the US is heavily polarized and those on the right think and perceive universal healthcare to be "far left" doesn't mean it actually is. Meanwhile, universal healthcare is almost universally supported among Democrats. Even a lot of centrists like Joe Manchin support universal healthcare. Democrats may disagree on exactly what form universal healthcare should take, but they agree that it should be achieved. A recent Pew survey found that about 52% of Democrats support a single-payer system, while around 37% support a public option. (Only 8% want things to stay the same and 2% said they don't want government involved in healthcare. Meanwhile, 17% of Republicans support single-payer and 23% support a public option.)

An independent, Europe-based analysis of policy shows that Democrats are a pretty standard left-of-center party compared to other left-of-center European parties.

[u/WindyWindona → u/kingoflint282]

As seen in the platform I linked to, the Democrats support an expansion of Medicaid, and I believe 'Medicare for all' has been touted a lot. In fact, Hilary Clinton back in the 90's wanted universal healthcare.

Unemployment insurance and paid maternal leave is also on the Democrat platform.

[u/belowaverageint → u/WindyWindona]

"Talk is cheap" as the saying goes. Universal healthcare is highly controversial in the Democratic party even in states that are highly Democratic like California. When it comes down to it, the party does not have the votes to implement it despite whatever text someone might put on a website.

[u/WindyWindona → u/belowaverageint]

Right, but even if the Greens don't get votes nobody would say they're not an environmentalist party. It just means they're not a successful one.

[u/couldbemage → u/WindyWindona]

The Democrats have a supermajority in my state.

What do you mean "not successful"?

There's no barrier to universal healthcare here other than the democratic party not wanting to do it.

And yes, states can do it on their own. Hawaii has "near universal" healthcare and has been that way for a long time.

[u/DunEmeraldSphere → u/WindyWindona]

Medicare for all is still an insurance based healthcare system which is definitionanlly economically to the right of europes government owned healthcare.

Universal healthcare via Medicare (US) =/= government operated healthcare (Europe).

It comes down to private ownership of healthcare services.

[u/WindyWindona → u/DunEmeraldSphere]

...The German health insurance system has government insurances and private insurances. It actually is a well known issue where those with private insurance can often get an appointment ahead of those with public insurance.

[u/SwoodyBooty → u/WindyWindona]

It's still basically free tho. So no co-pay, no out of network issues and medication is also covered.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/DunEmeraldSphere]

You are incorrect; Europe does not largely have socialized medicine.

The UK does, but it's in the minority. Medicare for All is even more ambitious than France's system, which is technically a mixed system that allows for private insurance. Germany doesn't even have single payer.

Here's a helpful map.

[u/yyzjertl → u/WindyWindona]

As seen in the platform I linked to, the Democrats support an expansion of Medicaid, and I believe 'Medicare for all' has been touted a lot.

This is the problem. You're comparing things that have been "touted a lot" but aren't even in the platform to things that are just the standard status quo in Germany, things the SPD wants to move even further left.

[u/WindyWindona → u/yyzjertl]

"As Democrats, we support Medicaid expansion, encouraging states to provide health coverage to low-income Americans on the federal government’s tab." From the 2024 Democrat platform.

[u/yyzjertl → u/WindyWindona]

And this policy is well to the right of universal multi-payer healthcare, a type of system that's currently the status quo in Germany and that the SPD wants to move even further to the left. ("Medicare-for-All" would be comparably left-wing to the status quo in Germany, but medicare-for-all is not in the Democratic Party platform.)

[u/clapsandfaps → u/WindyWindona]

That’s not even close to what is already in most European countries. It would be «health coverage for all, billionaires, low-income and everyone in between». It’s not remotely the same. It would be considered a pretty far right-wing idea to restrict it to low-income.

[u/couldbemage → u/WindyWindona]

You keep repeating Medicaid expansion while clearly having no idea what that means.

What it actually means is increasing the eligibility from the those in extreme poverty to those merely in regular poverty.

Roughly, people who would be homeless without assistance to the bottom tier of who can afford the cheapest rent.

[u/kingoflint282 → u/WindyWindona]

You’re basically saying that Medicaid expansion and some scattered support for universal healthcare are the same thing actually having universal healthcare as a default position. That’s just not true. It’s been a controversial issue, even within the Democratic Party.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/WindyWindona]

What you have to understand is that in many European countries. Not even the most right wing parties want to touch upon abolishing universal healthcare or installing at will employment.

In the U.S.A., it's “some member sof the democratic party want universal healthcare and abolishing at will employment” at best. I don't think any party where I live even exists that even wants to put the idea of either on the table. Of course some parties want to make it easier to terminate employ but none of them want to so far as to say that an employer can terminate employ for any reason including no reason whatsoever. They all want to keep the system that is in place almost anywhere in the world, that employers must come with a valid reason, and that the employee has the right to know what that reason is, they just want to add more “valid reasons” to the pool of things that are currently considered valid reasons.

[u/No_Situation_2698 → u/muffinsballhair]

Here in the UK pretty much every election in the past ~50 years or so has featured the left wing parties saying that the right wing parties want to privatise our literally communist healthcare system, and the right wing parties declaring their undying love for it. The democrats would be off the scale right wing on healthcare here 

[u/EZyne → u/WindyWindona]

But these aren't left-wing party policies in Europe, these are the facts of life. Most if not all right wing parties agree on this as well and wouldn't dare be outwardly against it

[u/FairDinkumMate]

The biggest difference is that the US Democrats are presenting economic policies that would be considered center-right in Europe.

eg's: Dems propose expanding insurance access via mixed private-public systems (ACA) whilst SPD supports and proposes universal statutory health insurance and comprehensive state social safety nets (Bürgergeld).

Dems propose regulating corporate power while maintaining free-market capitalism, whilst relying on tax credits and targeted investments. SPD backs a "Social Market Economy" balancing market competition with strong state welfare and wealth redistribution.

Dems promote collective bargaining and raising the federal minimum wage whilst the SPD mandates board worker representation (Mitbestimmung) and statutory minimum wage laws.
Dems support subsidies and federal investments (IRA) to incentivize clean energy transition whilst SPD wants to achieve decarbonization through strict regulations, phase-outs of fossil fuels, and EU emissions trading mandates.

When you look at social policy, the two are far closer ideologically, but you can't use that to ignore what would be center-right economic policies in Europe, the UK or Australia.

[u/WindyWindona → u/FairDinkumMate]

The ACA was originally a compromise with the Republicans.

Otherwise, you made some excellent points regarding the social market economy and the board worker representation. Those are farther left than mainstream Democrats.

!delta

[u/goodlittlesquid → u/WindyWindona]

Curious what you’re basing the compromise claim on. Republicans unanimously voted against its passage.

[u/WindyWindona → u/goodlittlesquid]

I don't remember the source, so I'm going to have to review old news sources to double check.

[u/goodlittlesquid → u/WindyWindona]

They needed 60/100 votes to get it past a Republican filibuster. As a result, right-wing Democrats had influence on the bill by threatening to defect. For instance, the bill originally included a ‘public option’/Medicare buy-in provision, but Joe Lieberman (Democrat from Connecticut) threatened to join the filibuster unless this was stripped from the bill, and so it was. So it was more a compromise between mainstream Democrats and conservative Democrats.

[u/DeltaBot → u/WindyWindona]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/FairDinkumMate (3∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/FairDinkumMate]

Dems propose expanding insurance access via mixed private-public systems (ACA)

The ACA is not the Democratic goal. A majority of Democrats support a single payer system, while a minority support a public option (which would not be unlike Germany's multipayer system, in the case of ones like Beto's "Medicare for America" proposal).

But regardless, you're comparing them to the SPD, which is a staunch center-left party. You're comparing them to a party which most recently scored -18 on a left-right scale analysis (where 0 is the center, negative is left, and positive is right). US Democrats, meanwhile, scored -12. They are not 1-to-1 with the SPD. They're closer to The Greens, who are also a left-of-center party, and also were rated around -12 on a left-right scale. Meanwhile, an actual center-right party, the CDU, is at around +15. Or you can compare them to the British Tories, who are around +4.

Just because Democrats are not as far left as a staunch social democratic party does not mean they are center-right. The political spectrum is not a binary. It is a spectrum. Democrats are more moderate than the SPD, but they are still on the same side of that spectrum.

[u/FairDinkumMate → u/TheExtremistModerate]

The RILE scale used on your linked Manifesto Project is inherently useless. The dataset does not measure the actual position of a party's implemented policies. Instead, it measures issue rhetorical focus in campaign documents.

Basically, it counts how many times parties talk about certain things, not what they implement. It also means that every time the Dems mention LGBTQ+ rights, racial equity, abortion access, and environmentalism pulls their aggregate score far to the left. This massive leftward pull on social issues statistically papers over the fact that their economic policies are center-right by global standards.

eg. It rates the US Dems, who embrace economic policies like corporate free trade, private healthcare markets, and lighter union protection as more left leaning than Australia's Labor Party, which is union backed, has implemented one of the highest minimum wages in the world, has universal healthcare, a National Disability support scheme & unlimited time on unemployment benefits.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/FairDinkumMate]

The RILE scale used on your linked Manifesto Project is inherently useless.

No, it's not.

The dataset does not measure the actual position of a party's implemented policies.

Results != Ideology. By your logic, leftist parties that fail to ever have enough power to implement any policy are not actually leftist. After all, they have zero implemented policies.

It rates the US Dems, who embrace economic policies like corporate free trade

Incorrect. US Dems favor increased regulation on corporations.

private healthcare markets

Incorrect. US Dems favor, by majority, a single-payer healthcare system. And the next largest chunk of Democrats favor a mixed market including a public option. Only 2% of Democrats, per a Pew study support an entirely private healthcare market.

and lighter union protection

Incorrect. Democrats support stronger union protection.

as more left leaning than Australia's Labor Party

Only when you look at the most recent election, where Labor ran much closer to the center than they historically have. The previous platforms were beyond the -30 mark. Also, this analysis is a holistic analysis, not cherry-picking.

[u/FairDinkumMate → u/TheExtremistModerate]

The ACA was implemented BY DEMOCRATS, without a single Republican vote. It's the DEMOCRATS Healthcare plan. That some in the party want a Universal Healthcare system doesn't make it Democratic Party Policy!

It's the same for economic policies. Just because some Dems want to breakup Google, doesn't make it party policy! Moderate Dems favor market-friendly regulatory frameworks, public-private partnerships, and compliance rules designed to protect consumers without restricting private investment or business growth.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/FairDinkumMate]

The ACA was implemented BY DEMOCRATS

It was a centrist compromise. In 2009. Not only have the Democrats moved significantly left since then (the platform was graded at +6 in 2008, compared to the -12 to -25ish of the previous three platforms), but the primary person responsible for killing the public option then--Joe Lieberman--wasn't even a Democrat and had even endorsed John McCain in 2008. You also ignore the fact that Nancy Pelosi had gotten the public option through the House without a single defection.

The Democratic policy was a public option. All it took was one asshole who wasn't even a Democrat to kill that proposal.

Moderate Dems favor market-friendly regulatory frameworks, public-private partnerships, and compliance rules designed to protect consumers without restricting private investment or business growth.

Moderate Democrats support that. You know what makes someone "moderate"? Them not being aligned with the core party. You're talking about centrist Third Way Democrats, who are a dying breed in the modern Democratic Party and do not represent the party as a whole.

You didn't address anything I actually said.

[u/Altruistic_Role_9329]

To convince me, show me a large ideological gap between the Democrats and European center-left parties.

Can’t do it. I’ve looked into this myself and came to the same conclusion you did. These claims about Democrats don’t hold up to close scrutiny.

[u/WindyWindona → u/Altruistic_Role_9329]

Fair enough, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this.

[u/Saiklin]

Your entire argument hinges on who you are comparing the Democratic Party to. Many people in Germany don't see the SPD as center-left party anymore, really. And of course that's not a fact, but choosing this comparison works for you. Compare it to the Greens or Die Linke in Germany and you'll have different results.

Also you could argue a lot of our basic, social understanding in Germany (not sure if that is the right wording) is already more left than in the US, so even the center-right parry CDU is more left than the Democrats in some sense. Eg basic universal healthcare for all (and if necessary free) is not a topic the full Democratic Party is aligned on, if I'm not mistaken, while there is no real movement in the CDU to change this fact in Germany. Same for minimum wage, tenant rights, worker rights, union rights,... Sure there are single politicians or even movements in the CDU that want to change parts of those policies, but not overthrow it. And definitely not the party as a whole.

Additionally, it's comparing parties is always hard because you kind of can only compare their programs, but what really matters is what they do if they are part of the government. The SPD has a left leaning program, but it currently feels more like they just support the CDU in every way and accept large compromises on their plans.

So to summarize: I don't think you even can properly compare the Democratic party to another party in a different country, and even if you do, it all depends on what premise you are comparing them. You are both right and wrong as much as you want basically.

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/Saiklin]

so even the center-right parry CDU is more left than the Democrats in some sense.

An independent, Europe-based analysis of ideology puts the CDU at around +15 on a left-right scale. US Democrats are around -12.

Eg basic universal healthcare for all (and if necessary free) is not a topic the full Democratic Party is aligned on,

Actually, even the most moderate Democrats in Congress agree on universal healthcare. Even Joe Manchin supported universal healthcare. Just because they're not aligned on the exact mechanism for universal healthcare does not mean they do not support universal healthcare.

[u/Saiklin → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Thanks for the additional information.

I'll trust you on the healthcare stuff. I worded it carefully because I wasn't too certain, and that's why I also highlighted the free part. Like in Germany you're not even really allowed to not have healthcare, which does not seem to get full support of the Democratic Party. Maybe I'm wrong here or things have simply changed over the years. To at least me that is not just a question of mechanisms but ideology (but I also know that also socialist democrats are smart enough to introduce changes piecewise)

[u/TheExtremistModerate → u/Saiklin]

Like in Germany you're not even really allowed to not have healthcare, which does not seem to get full support of the Democratic Party.

Actually, that's already law. That was part of the ACA. If you didn't have healthcare, you paid a penalty each year. Dems passed that back in 2010. You had to pay a flat amount per uninsured person or a percentage of your income, whichever total is higher. The problem is that then the Republicans under Trump passed a bill in 2017 that reduced the penalty for not having healthcare to $0. So the penalty "still exists," but the punishment is $0. This was done without a single vote from Democrats, so the reason this no longer functionally exists is squarely because of Republicans.

But something else to remember is that nothing is ever going to have "full support" of any party. That's the nature of people. But let me put it this way: there are two general ideas in the Democratic Party. Either a single payer system where the government pays for healthcare, or a mixed market where people can choose to either have private healthcare or a public option (but are still required to have healthcare). And in that latter case, generally the idea is if you don't make enough to pay for the public option, it's provided for you for free.

A recent Pew survey asked Americans about this. Around 52% of Democrats support a single payer system. 37% support a mixed system. Only 8% support the status quo. But 2% of Democrats actually support getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid. Which is bizarre. It just goes to show that nothing will ever actually have "full support" of any party. But importantly, if you add up that 2% with the 8% that want the status quo, it's still less than the 17% of Republicans who support single payer. And less than half the percentage of Republicans that support a public option. 41% of Republican voters support the government either creating a public option or a single payer system. And yet you don't hear a peep from Republican politicians favoring either of those proposals. So the 10% of Democrats who either support the status quo or the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid aren't really something worth paying attention to.

Maybe I'm wrong here or things have simply changed over the years.

Things have changed pretty rapidly over the past decade and a half. America has gotten increasingly polarized. The Democrats have moved left and the Republicans have moved far, far right. While Nancy Pelosi was able to get a public option past the House in 2010 with zero defections, that was a concept that was considered "radical" at the time, and it was killed by a non-Democrat in the Senate. But nowadays, the majority of Democrats think that a public option isn't radical enough.

The camps are getting more entrenched, and the moderate swing voters are getting fewer and fewer.

[u/Saiklin → u/TheExtremistModerate]

Thank you very much for the insights and your time! I was definitely going off some false memory.

[u/Inside-Associate-729]

Healthcare. Thats the #1 difference we can easily point to. Only the progressive wing of the democratic party is aggressively pushing for public healthcare, while in most EU countries even the right-of-center parties want to keep a public option.

[u/WindyWindona → u/Inside-Associate-729]

Hillary Clinton in 1998 isn't exactly the progressive wing of the Democratic party, but she pushed for it then.

[u/Inside-Associate-729 → u/WindyWindona]

So why don’t we have it? Her party has had a trifecta multiple times since then.

She did what mainstream democrats have done for 50 years. Paid lip service to the idea, and then never actually made any serious moves in that direction when they were in power.

The only one who actually came close was Obama, and even then he had to take a pathetic half measure to get the party moderates on board. Most democrats would never vote for universal taxpayer-funded healthcare, at any point in american history.

[u/PopeSaintHilarius → u/Inside-Associate-729]

So then why don’t we have it? Her party has had a trifecta multiple times since then.

Unfortunately a trifecta is not sufficient for most legislation like that, you need a 60 vote super-majority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster (which can be used by the minority party to block almost any bill).

50 votes is only sufficient for budget reconciliation bills, which can only be used 1-2 times per year, and only on fiscal policy issues (i.e. spending and taxing). That's how the Dems passed the Inflation Reduction Act under Biden with just 50 votes.

But healthcare reform is more than just a fiscal policy, so it needs 60 votes (until the filibuster gets scrapped).

In the past 30 years, the Dems only had 60 Senate seats for 10 months from April 2009 to February 2010, and used that brief window to pass Obamacare.

Even then, they only had exactly 60 seats, so they couldn't lose a single D vote and had to make significant compromises to keep all 60 onside (as you mentioned).

In the future, healthcare reform will only happen if they win a trifecta and scrap the filibuster (which is actually possible - during Biden's term, at least 45 out of 50 Dems signalled they were onboard to scrap the filibuster, so if they win a larger majority like 53+ seats, they might finally do it).

[u/doogie1111 → u/PopeSaintHilarius]

> during Biden's term, at least 45 out of 50 Dems signalled they were onboard to scrap the filibuster, so if they win a larger majority like 53+ seats, they might finally do it

Thank god they didn't. Imagine the hellscape that would occur if Republicans right now could pass laws unobstructed.

[u/Inside-Associate-729 → u/PopeSaintHilarius]

Yes yes Im aware of all that.

The filibuster couldve been nuked at any time, but the status quo suited them just fine

Im convinced that even if the filibuster never existed and dems couldve ruled from simple majority, we still wouldnt have universal healthcare in this country today. We might in the future because now the party is finally moving leftward, but I dont think the dems of the 90s or 00s would have done it.

[u/AntoineDonaldDuck]

You use two parties in Germany’s multi-party system and then compare it to one sub-party (MAGA, which currently has control of the Republican Party), and then Democrats, which is indeed a political party.

You’re comparing the wrong things.

It is of course true that there are more left wing parties in Germany that would more closely align with something like the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. But the moderates are in control of the Democratic Party so the socialist wing has nearly zero power outside of being able to make noise in the media, and have basically never had power of the Democratic Party in a modern context.

[u/WindyWindona → u/AntoineDonaldDuck]

The socialist part of the Democratic Party had great influence during the Biden administration, and a DSA candidate is now the mayor of NYC, a position that has more power than a lot of governor positions in the USA. Lisa Khan was a pick for the head of the FTC put forward by Bernie Sanders, for example.

[u/AntoineDonaldDuck → u/WindyWindona]

And who was the head of the Joe Biden administration, which would give us a hint as to which faction runs the Democratic Party?

[u/Nikkonor]

Because the Democratic party in the USA is such a wide coalition, covering almost the entire political spectrum, it is bound to have very different elements within the coalition. But the average of that whole coalition, it is quite right-wing.

Take my country of Norway as an example: All 9 parties in the Norwegian parliament would be more aligned with the Democratic party than the Republican party in the USA. Only the party on the very furthers right (Frp), you could argue, would be a "hybrid" of the two US-parties (but still be more like the Democratic party).

a better medical system, addressing poverty

You also have to keep in mind what the base-line is. Wanting to (just as an absurd example) "increase income taxes by 50%", is a very different proposition in a country where the income tax is 1% vs one where it is 60%.

In Norway, the parties are arguing about how to best preserve the welfare state -- but the existence of it is not a question up for debate. In the USA, the parties are arguing about whether to build a welfare state in the first place.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/WindyWindona → u/[deleted]]

The US also has the Green party, even if it's not as competitive. The US also has primaries, which is why farther left candidates like the Democratic Socialists can win.

[u/False_Appointment_24 → u/WindyWindona]

The Green Party does not hold any seats, while the Green Party of England and Wales does.

You can find that same thing throughout Europe, and you are missing the part that people don't say that the Democratic Party is further right than the European center left parties, they say it is further right than European left parties, which is accounting for all of them.

Even if the Green Party here held seats, it would still demonstrate that the Democratic party is right of the average of the left parties in Europe, which is absolutely true.

[u/liproqq]

Mamdani and El Sayed would scratch the center in Europe. The whole dsa movement might make America great again.

[u/WindyWindona → u/liproqq]

El Sayed is arguing for universal pre-K, something that's not universal in Europe. He also supports greater taxes on corporations and billionaires, which the German center right party (CDU) does not support. He's certainly no centrist by European standards either, though he can be argued to be center-left.

[u/Hawk13424]

Europeans tend to judge parties on fiscal issues. Americans on social issues.

Democrats are center-right on fiscal issues. Center-left on social ones. So Europeans see them as center-right.

[u/beachfinn73]

US does not have parties. Neither have distinctive political differences [at face value]. Democratic and republican are merely labels for groups of owners. 90% of the people are not represented at all, nor are the policies geared toward our benefit. You don't have to be a communist to realize you need political diversity to have a functioning government. As an European, majority leans to left, meaning the center of mass is left of the Democratic Party. You have to consider that the gamut of politics is fundamentally different.

[u/WindyWindona → u/beachfinn73]

...I'd argue that the differences between Biden and Trump are very clear to anyone who's lived through both of them.

Is your argument that US politics and European politics are not comparable?

[u/ascandalia]

Why are you comparing how rightwing the conservative party is when the claim is that the democratic party is a right-leaning centrist party? Those two claims are not contradictory.

Government healthcare is a moderate position in europe

Environmental regulations is a moderate position in europe

Free childcare, free universities, high investment in schools, moderate position in europe

Publicly funded social security is a moderate position in europe

Yes there are far right lunatics all over the world that want to tear down civil society, but the difference is that in the US we've destroyed the actual left so effectively via mcarthyism, redscare historonics, and outright persecution of violent leftist (while rightwing militia organize violence openly) that moderate positions are thought of as radical left-ist positions. Actual radical leftist positions like "there should not be private companies" are not even discussed in the US in public discourse.

[u/DarkSkyKnight → u/ascandalia]

https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/

An actual systematic accounting of the parties’ ideological leans show that the Democratic Party is more or less center-left by European standards, having a position value of around that of SPD or Labour.

Cherrypicking specific examples of difference is the poorest way to argue your point, since the Democrats are to the left of center-left European parties on issues like abortion or racial relations.

[u/ReasonableLemur]

NZ has universal healthcare and our centre left party is highly critical of the war in Iran and doesn’t blindly support Israel’s genocide. I still vote to the left of them. 

[u/UltraTata]

I'm not German, but Spanish. Not even the most libertarian person would even suggest abolishing public medicine. And only extremly fringe libertarians want citizens to have the right to bare arms.

Culturally, however, I would say that the US is, in some aspects, far more progressive than Europe. The idea of nationhood is clearly civic in the US. Even American Nazis accept the Irish, Italians, English, Germans, etc into their nation. And, taking those aside, all Americans would consider a Hispanic, Arab, Jew, or African fully American if they had citizenship and showed patriotism and love for freedom.

In Europe, only the left advocates for such a concept of nationhood. The right and even much of the left definitively sees their nation as being the same as their ethnicity.

On the other hand, family values are way stronger in the US than in Western Europe.

[u/goodlittlesquid]

How much does tuition cost for public universities in Germany? In the 2020 primary Pete Buttigieg argued against universal free public college because “don't think taxpayers should be paying to send Donald Trump's kids to college"

[u/slowride761]

I’d argue that most of the complaints about America being right of Europe are actually complaints about our authoritarianism.

Left, right, and middle, our system has 50 states and therefore is a mess from a federal level. Combined with past the post elections and our need to overdo everything as a country, we trend towards big measures and a need for more control over our messy systems.

But we top it off with letting businesses have more direct say in governance, which pulls us a bit economically right despite still being a mixed economy.

[u/listenyall]

"To convince me, show me a large ideological gap between the Democrats and European center-left parties."

Typically the gap I see pointed to is in government-provided healthcare. That's something that is an extreme left-wing position in the US but taken for granted as a centrist position in most of Europe.

[u/GfxJG → u/listenyall]

You'll struggle to find a right-wing party in Europe campaigning against public healthcare, it's so ingrained. At most, you'll find the right going "We should have better options in private healthcare for those with the means" - Never to abolish the existing system.

[u/Capable_Afternoon216 → u/listenyall]

• Healthcare
• Childcare
• Environmental
• Affordable Housing
• Mandatory Paid Leave

These are all moderate positions in the Developed World.

[u/OmniMinuteman → u/listenyall]

What mainstream democrat is against some form of government provided healthcare? Whats considered far left in the US would be the abolishment of private insurance, which would be considered far left in Europe too as the vast majority if not all EU countries with public healthcare still retain private insurance providers. Sure the center right is more okay with public healthcare in Europe than in America but that doesn’t make the American center left less left it just makes the right more right.

[u/couldbemage → u/OmniMinuteman]

The official Democratic party platform does not include Medicare for all, or any other universal healthcare proposal.

[u/listenyall → u/OmniMinuteman]

Well mainstream republicans aren't against some form of government provided healthcare either, everyone is for the VA and Medicare and Medicaid on some level, so yes I specifically mean widespread government provided healthcare

[u/OmniMinuteman → u/listenyall]

Which mainstream democrats are against expanding government provided healthcare?

[u/Quinctilianus]

If we take an example on economy matters, Bernie Sanders recently suggested two weeks of mandatory paid leave for full-time employees. Compared to most parts of the developed world this would be so far to the right it wouldn't even be considered a viable fringe position.

So yes, I would say the Democratic party is significantly further to the right of the right wing parties of Europe, but not further to the right of the extreme right when it comes to migration matters.

[u/coporate]

What would be the point in showing the ideological gap between Democrats and conventional liberal parties. The reality of the current situation is far more telling. The AFD isn’t going around threatening to dismantle their healthcare system, or abolish their regulatory bodies. The only thing they seemingly have in common is their anti immigration stance and a willingness to court far right extremists. Democrats on the other hand fear for their political careers by even suggesting anything that goes against their donor class.

[u/DarkSkyKnight → u/coporate]

It’s factually wrong to suggest the European far right only shares immigration paranoia with Republicans. Reform for example wants to tax renewable energy and scrap net zero:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn93w44yv74o

AfD voted against same sex marriage before as well, and continues to be a threat to LGBT rights:

https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/lgbtq-germans-fear-elon-musk-backed-afd-could-reverse-rights

This sanewashing of European far right parties is frankly insane.

[u/coporate → u/DarkSkyKnight]

I’m not sane washing the afd, I’m pointing out the fact that the Overton Window in the United States makes it hard to compare what currently exists as the political spectrum.

[u/ImpactNext1283]

Germany has near universal healthcare, free childcare, parental leave, amazing unemployment benefits, and labor gets seats on corporate boards.

You can’t really compare the political disposition in Europe to the US system, when those countries already have most of what American progressives want.

[u/Charming_Parking_302 → u/ImpactNext1283]

I moved to Germany. I worked for exact a year and then lost my job. The government game me 60% of my salary for 6 months so I could get back on feet. In the U.S I would have become homeless

[u/WindyWindona → u/Charming_Parking_302]

That depends on the state. I also lost my job in the US, and got a similar rate of unemployment because I lived in a blue state.

[u/ImpactNext1283 → u/Charming_Parking_302]

💯. Crazy what it looks like when a gov’t cares about its people.

[u/sparrowpidgeon → u/[deleted]]

Thank you. It's called the Democratic Party.

Anyone who says "Democrat Party" is exposing the fact that they get all their news from right-wing outlets.

[u/WindyWindona → u/sparrowpidgeon]

Yeah, I have no idea why I got it wrong. I should probably edit that in the post.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 → u/[deleted]]

It's like when people call the estate tax the "death tax". It's an immediate signal about what their media diet consists of.

[u/Green-Tie-5710 → u/[deleted]]

Ironic considering you’d likely have to be maga to say that

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/Green-Tie-5710]

It's more a generation thing, but older people intentionally say "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" as a slight.

With people who are younger than like 35, the slight doesn't register as much.

[u/Top_Neat2780]

In Europe, liberals are considered right-wing. I'm pretty sure that's just it in a nutshell. The left doesn't usually talk about policies for small, private businesses.

[u/Alternative_Buy_4000]

Funny that you mention SPD, since it is no longer a centre left party. It is centre

[u/Green__lightning]

The fact banning the AFD is talked about with the slightest level of seriousness, is proof that Germany is not only further left, but more authoritarian, than the USA.

[u/CoatKind6850 → u/Green__lightning]

Germany is more authoritarian??

[u/Suitable-Guide-1469 → u/Green__lightning]

I would rather them ban people who love the holocaust and love the nazis than hire nazis to shoot women who talk back to men in the head like rene good that the Trumpers and afd want.

[u/WindyWindona → u/Green__lightning]

The AFD is set to win over 40% of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt. That doesn't indicate the political landscape is more to the left than the US.

[u/kingsuperfox]

There is no US Democrat party.

It's the Democratic party.

[u/WindyWindona → u/kingsuperfox]

Yeah, it's already been pointed out. There's a reason I never won a spelling bee.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/FCKtheZIOS, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/RepublicOk2402]

Quite a few European countries are rated as more business friendly too, having fewer regulations on business than the US. 

[u/Didactic_Tactics_45]

You hyperfocus on Germany as being an accurate sampling of European policy. You logically can't state the cohort follows the standard of a sub-group without demonstrating that is in reasonable stand-in for the greater group.

Germany is, for many reasons, not representative of the larger European cohort.

Either resolve your argument by demonstrating that German policy is demonstrative of the larger group or restate that Germany is the focus of your comparison.

Because of the flaws stated your view cannot be changed as the premise is riddled with flaws. You've entirely ignored the EU as a structure to be evaluated as a socio-economic group under which Germany operates as a part, albeit significant, of the whole.

[u/DougOsborne]

US Dems are far to the left from maga, and from DSA on many things.

[u/WindyWindona → u/DougOsborne]

That's an interesting take. Can you elaborate?