Talk:Centre-left

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance in Politics.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Liberal Party

Not that I am a fan, but the Liberal Party of Canada has a social liberal agenda, supports government intervention in areas such as child care, healthcare, and public broadcasting. They might not be as progressive as the NDP, but I think that since the end of the Jean Chretien era anyway centre-left is a term that describes them accurately. I don't overly like the fact that this article exists as in many cases the distinction between centre-left and left of centre can be blured. Take for example the NDP, historically a democratic socialist party, considered by most to be on the Left, opposes globalization and supports an expansion of government services and regulation, yet on the other hand provincially in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario at various times in government has followed a very centrist agenda. Maybe this article should be merged? (Canadianpunk77 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Also to call the Democratic Party U.S.A., "centre-left" is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps if Howard Dean were their presidential candidate? Social policies and economic policies cannot be measured the same way and as far as economic policies are concerned the Democrats favoured fairly conservative fiscal policies at least during the Clinton era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpunk77 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger suggestion

This should be merged into Left-Right politics. -- Kaihsu 17:12, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

Or perhaps Left-wing politics should have a centre-left subsection? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I disagree completely. Left-Right politics has its place, but I should note that there is also a Left-wing politics page, a Right-wing politics page, and a Centre-right page to go along with this one. If we attempted to fit everything into the Left-Right politics page, that page would be split due to wiki policy (re: length). All of these pages relate to each other, and, as such, an effort should be taken to minimize repetition. However, this does not mean that all left and right related pages should be merged into one specific page. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

I also think that it should be merged with Left-Right politics the blurring of distinctions between Left and Centre-Left makes the list of "centre-left" political parties on this article misleading and confusing. Take for example the NDP, currently if you look at ideology the BC NDP, Yukon NDP, Alberta New Democrats, Ontario NDP and Maritime parties all have leftwing, democratic socialist agendas while the Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP's are very firmly planted in the centre. The NDP has gone back and forth from supporting strong government intervention and regulation, not too mention a large social safety net to supporting "competetive" taxation and spending restraint on social programs. The same contrasts exist within the British Labour Party, French Socialist Party, German Social Democrats, Australian Labor Party, even the African National Congress not too mention numerous others. Besides democratic socialists favour a gradual move towards public ownership, should they really be listed as belonging to the centre-left? (Canadianpunk77 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Norway

This just doesn't make any sense. And it is all wrong. Like Norway. The Norwegian Red-Green Coalition and the Labour Party itself are not center-left. They are left-wing.

Don't hesitate to make changes. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Yeah I also think that the Red Green Coalition should be removed, the Norwegian Labour Party may consider itself to be centre-left, but I highly doubt that the Socialist Left Party would refer to themselves as such! (Canadianpunk77 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] USA Parties

I removed the Libertarian Party from the list of center-left parties. While they do uphold many of the same viewpoints about civil liberties, their fiscal policies are completely inconsistent with "center-left" ideology. Many Libertarians also dislike the simplistic notion of a left-right spectrum, which is why they represent themselves on a graph with both a social freedom and a fiscal freedom axis. Therefore, despite their social views, it is likely that Libertarians would take issue with their inclusion on this list. Rob Shepard 10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I previously signed at the top somehow so I just removed that. Rob Shepard 10:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually Libertarian ideology is the height of simplicity, but I agree that they are an extreme right-wing party and don't belong on the list.Nwe (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Party USA

The Socialist Party USA supports the gradual nationalization of the American economy and creation of a socialist state. That makes them a party of the Left, not the centre-left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Democratic Party mixture of centre left and right

Someone please explain to me how the Republican Party is a mixture of centre right and right-wing but the Democratic Party is so balanced between centre left and centre right. What makes someone right-wing and what makes someone left-wing? And you say Dennis Kucinich is centre left??? I respect your opinion, but I just have a really hard time believing Dennis Kucinich is anything but left-wing. What credible source do you have to support your claim?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the American political system is skewed towards the right. Many people in the Democratic Party hold decidly centre-right views on key issues (eg. on death penalty, private healthcare, workers' rights, gun ownership, support for American foreign policy, business-influence on political parties), much more mainstream Republicans are likely to hold extreme right-wing views on religion, the markets or foreign policy, while conversely only the rarest examples are likely to hold noticeably centre-left views. Kucinich is obviously centre-left. His policy positions have left-wing connotations (he's not anti-capitalist, opposed to every aspect of American foreign policy by default etc.). His opinions fit with general centre-left, social-democratic values.Nwe 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion, what issues/beliefs make someone left-wing and are there any major left-wing politicians in the United States?--Lucky Mitch 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already given you some of them above; anti-capitalism is the most important example. There are very few major left-wing politicians in the US, such is the nature of politics in America. Even people like Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader are centre-left by international standards. For various historical reasons the US has never had a proper socialist political tradition and hence has no real major left-wing politicians. There are plenty of left-wing writers and intellectuals and so, arguably, is Michael Moore; aswell as most of the many Socialist parties and, previosly, the Socialist Party of America. But this is really mostly besides the point. In the context of this discussion the most important fact to remember is that the mainstream policy Democratic Party for most of last 20 yaers has been undeniably centre-right, as are the apparent stalwarts of the current Democratic Party, the Clintons, and is most closely affiliated in terms of ideology with the European Christian Democratic tradition.Nwe 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, so you're saying that a left-winger is automatically a socialist? So is a right-winger automatically a facist?--Lucky Mitch 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is not the opposite of socialism, you should know that. Socialism is a far more popular and inclusive term than Fascism, to make a complete understatement. No mainstream centre-right party is called the "Fascist Party", as opposed to mainstream centre-left parties, in fact no party in the world calls itself "Fascist". You're unlikely to get 20-50% of populations describing themselves as "Fascists". Most left-wingers are likely to be at least fairly close to socialism (although a lot of self-described socialists are more centre-left). By right-wing we generally mean a strict, ideological adherence to the free-market, as well possibly devout religiosity. Both ideals have a strong thread in the Republican party, Socialism does not have a strong position in the Democratic party, which is closest to the Christian Democrats.Nwe 13:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right I do know that fascism is not the opposite of socialism. I was merely trying to set you up to see if I couldn't catch you on it, but I see you know better. You put up a very persuasive argument. But I still have another question; wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Democratic Party is a mixture of centre and centre left? I mean Rudy Giuliani shares some left-leaning ideals but I don't think that would make him centre left or even centre. I just fail to see how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or some of the other Democratic politicians of the United States could fit into the centre right position. Forgive me for sounding stubborn; I really am open to what you're saying--Lucky Mitch 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. With regards to the centre-right issue. Yes its true that Giuliani, for example, holds some left-leaning views, but, as you say, that isn't his general position. Clinton, and many mainstream democrats, hold fundamental values that mirror an explicit centre-right political position. This is the case with respect to economic and social issues in particular. But also foreign policy, proximity to corporate interests etc. At the half the Congressional Democratic Party, I'd guess, would, if transferred to most other national political, would fit most conveniently into a mainstream centre-right party. They'd be there with the moderate Republicans. Describing the the Democrats as "centre and centre left" would simply be misleading. It would simply imply some sort of particularly moderate leftism as its ideological basis, which is fundamentally untrue.Nwe 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments next to party names

Left-wing does not mean the same thing as far left, it includes both the far left and the center-left so right off the bat saying a party is "a mixture between center-left and left-wing" doesn't even make sense. Many of these comments next to the party names are both uncited and highly debateable. Also, a party can only be in one spot on the political spectrum. A party may have some different tendencies but it lands in the general center-left or far left area thus it can only be either center-left or far left not a mixture of any kind.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct parties

Should defunct parties like the US Natural Law Party remain on the list? levin-bj84 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)