h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is the result of maturity and wisdom.

Some years ago on here we were "playing around" with http://www.politicalcompass.org/ which adds a second axis of authoritarian / libertarian to Left / Right, the addition of your suggestion would also make sense.

re posts 81 and 82:

Thanks. I value your responses

BB, I think I remember taking that test once, but I will take it again now. It might surprise me.

Then again, it might not

We'll see

here are my recent results now:

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13

Conformity/independence might also be a good additional axis.

I heard an axiom today, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." In general, that rings true, but it's definitely a spectrum. Democrats and liberals in general have their fair share of orthodoxy that I object to. A good example is political correctness. We've gone through this before back in the '90s. I do believe in some amount of political correctness, of course, but it always goes too far. Personally, my guide posts are "don't hit down" and "no one has a right to not be offended". Somewhere inbetween those is probably healthy. But once that P.C. ball gets rolling, it's hard to stop. And soon it becomes rather authoritarian.

I'm a little bit to the left, and a little bit toward the libertarian, but I'm not extreme.

And three or four questions were really hard for me to answer.

There was one or two questions I actually couldn't answer, but there was no "don't know" option and the test wouldn't allow me to proceed to the next question without answering

There are presently 14 different parties in the Folketing, our legislative assembly. None of them strong enough to form a government on their own. This forces them to cooperate. At the moment we have a minority government of social democrats who are supported by two parties to the left and one to the right. But in some cases, the social democrats may pass a law with the help of votes from other parties. However, they must be careful using this option, because if these laws are too far-reaching, they may lose their permanent supporters - and face new elections.
Against this background, it is a bit difficult to understand a system like the ones in the US and UK. Of course we hear about (sometimes very) different opinions within the parties, but there must be a lot more discussions behind closed doors.
The republicans have some reasonably sensible members, yes? But they also have some, well, you can probably end this sentence yourself
Likewise there are members among the democrats who are seen by many Americans as socialists and even communists. Not to me, though. A fellow like Bernie Sanders sounds more like our average Scandinavian social democrat.
I remember us talking about the republican (later progressive) præsident Theodore Roosevelt, Baron Grim. Now there's a republican I could probably support. Just like Abraham Lincoln who also used to be republican. But I would need to study them more closely.

I found this quote but I can't remember where

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

I dislike one-party rule.

Teddy Roosevelt was as all-around brilliant as Thomas Jefferson, and he also had empathy.

I also dislike one-party rule of course. But it is probably true that a country like China can at times have an advantage. It can for instance put everything on hold and move people, machinery and other ressources in order to develop and produce stuff like vaccines, medicin and ventilators very quickly. Our ability to do the same is somewhat limited, isn't it?
But maybe we can learn from them and prepare parts of society to copy China? Did you see how fast they built a huge hospital in a few days?

The Han Chinese make up about 18% of the global population, and are the world's largest ethnic group. They constitute 94% of China's population.

The largest ethnic group in Denmark is those of Danish ancestry (86%). So, even with all those parties, I have a feeling that there's a sense of "we're all in he same boat." Plus, Denmark is relatively small, and on the border with a sometimes aggressive neighbor (Germany). These things would likely buttress social cohesiveness in times of stress.

I don't know if someone from such stable societies can even imagine what it's like in the U.S. There is a sense among the non-Hispanic "white" populaiton that they are losing ground as other groups have higher birth rates, and scads of people want to immigrate to the U.S.

We know the politics of immigration over the last fur years . Do non-Chinese people want to move to China en masse? Do non-Danish people want to be in Denmark?

I'm just asking. I think the answer owuld be no, but I could be wrong.

The two major parties in the US changed dramatically in the '60s and '70s with Nixon's "Southern Strategy". The Republican party courted Southern bigots who were fearful of the threat to white supremacy from the civil rights movement. What's really galling for me is when I hear modern republicans try to make some point about how they can't be racist because they're the party of Lincoln, completely ignorant (or just ignoring) that political history.

The party of Lincoln became known for progressive vision, as it was thought to be in the ate 19th and early 20th centuries. The Democrats were entrenched in the Deep South and border states, where Jim Crow came to be a fact of life.

Then the Great Depression came. Herbert Hoover was born in Iowa and died in New York state. Franklin Roosevelt already had been a candidate for vice president in 1920. One of his opponents (Al Smith) had been the party's nominee in 1928. Maybe Smith was thought to have failed one time too many. Or maybe not. John Nance garner, the vice-presidential candidate, was from Texas, so he was sort of a Southernor. JFK used a Texan (LBJ) to unify the party 28 years later.

Maybe the presidency was not a coveted position, owing to the country's awful economic condition.

And then, wonder of wonders, Eleanor Roosevelt put her considerable energy behind letting African-Americans fight in the military in the 1940s. And she championed Marion Anderson's search for a concert venue. The Democratic party could henceforth appeal to people beyond Southern whites.

So, Nixon didn't start the southern strategy. The South was getting alarmed at what the national Democrats were doing.

I'm probably oversimplifying here.

Franklin Roosevelt had considerable appeal across party lines, and was tolerated beyond his second term once we were into the War.

"... there's a sense of "we're all in he same boat." [paulh]
Yes and no. Listening to the rhetoric of some Danish politicians would make you think otherwise. But once cameras and microphones are turned off most of them are actually quite well behaved - some are even close friends off stage. A famous example was made by two female members of the Folketing: One from the Socialist People Party (second from the left so to speak) and one from the Danish People Party (at that time first from the right - our UKIP so to speak). You won't see anything like that in Germany.

"Do non-Danish people want to be in Denmark?" [paulh]
Some do. But it's difficult. Well educated and skilled people from first World countries are welcome but even they may face problems because of our strict immigration policy.

As for others it is important to realize that fugitives don't flee TO a country but away FROM a country. From what I hear most fugitives from Africa and Middle East countries prefer to move to Germany where they expect to find work. And where the climate is milder.

Germany as an attractive destination is a change from the early- to mid-20th century.

And with its deft way of handling Covid-19, Germany has won points this past year.