U.S. and UK Politics Are Mirror Images

LONDON -- It's remarkable how often British and American politics resemble each other; often only the accents differ.

Following a disastrous defeat at the hands of Prime Minister David Cameron's Tories, the Labour Party appears ready to elect as its next leader one Jeremy Corbyn, a hardcore leftist, self-described socialist and member of Parliament, who recently compared ISIS to the U.S. military and has called the terrorist group Hamas a "friend." Corbyn also wants to renationalize some British industries and increase taxes on "the rich," who are already paying more than half their earnings in income taxes, as well as a nationwide Value Added Tax of 20 percent.

Betty Boothroyd, a former speaker of the House of Commons and former Labour Party member, who is now an independent, took to the pages of last Sunday's London Times in opposition to Corbyn's election as party leader. She wrote: "The hard left is deluding a new generation with the same claptrap that it took my generation decades to discard." She's not alone. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who successfully moved Labour closer to the center and scored impressive electoral victories, has said Corbyn's election as party leader would doom Labour's prospects for years to come.

In the United States, another self-described socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is appealing largely to a younger generation that apparently knows little about the history of leftist ideology and its failures.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates seem more interested in attacking each other than in naming and shaming the consequential domestic and foreign policy failures of liberalism exemplified in the presidency of Barack Obama.

Commentator Jeff Greenfield, writing in Politico magazine, critiques the decline of the Democratic Party, which parallels its wrong-headed domestic and foreign policies.

Here's Greenfield: "Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression -- even if Hillary wins." He might have added that if she does win, she will only make things worse because she subscribes to the same policies as Obama, which she helped enact as secretary of state. The two are joined at the political hip.

The decline in the number of congressional Democrats from a high of 60 senators and 257 House members in 2009, compared to 46 senators and 188 House members today, suggests that the tide of liberalism, which crested with Obama's first election -- and has been ebbing ever since -- provides an opportunity for Republicans to convince a majority of voters not to continue down the road that has led to decline and dysfunction at home and overseas.

David Cameron made the case not to go back to the failed policies of the past and won another national election. When American liberal Democrats speak of failed policies of the past, the policies of the Reagan administration are often mentioned, though many Republicans believe they were largely successful. Foreign policy under George W. Bush is a notable exception. Which is worse: a bad foreign policy (Bush) or none at all (Obama)?

As in America with Republicans and Democrats, so, too, in the UK where members of one party are never expected to concede defeat and change course when their ideas prove unworkable and their policies wrong. This is fanaticism and it is one reason that, at least in America, people are fed-up with both parties. It is also why some conservatives are angry and frustrated enough to flirt with the improbable: Donald Trump as president of the United States.

Thanks Impy. Cal Thomas may be onto something:
Following a disastrous defeat at the hands of Prime Minister David Cameron's Tories, the Labour Party appears ready to elect as its next leader one Jeremy Corbyn, a hardcore leftist, self-described socialist and member of Parliament, who recently compared ISIS to the U.S. military and has called the terrorist group Hamas a "friend." Corbyn also wants to renationalize some British industries and increase taxes on "the rich," who are already paying more than half their earnings in income taxes, as well as a nationwide Value Added Tax of 20 percent.
In 1968, RFK won the California Demwit primary, then was gunned down by a "Palestinian" activist. The blowhard opportunist VP Humphrey went on to the nomination, because despite his association with the corrupt cheater and war-monger, LBJ and his administration, he was a doctrinaire liberal. Ultimately he lost the election to Nixon by a margin almost as close as the one in 1960 when Nixon was defeated by JFK.
Betty Boothroyd, a former speaker of the House of Commons and former Labour Party member, who is now an independent, took to the pages of last Sunday's London Times in opposition to Corbyn's election as party leader. She wrote: "The hard left is deluding a new generation with the same claptrap that it took my generation decades to discard." She's not alone. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who successfully moved Labour closer to the center and scored impressive electoral victories, has said Corbyn's election as party leader would doom Labour's prospects for years to come.
In 1972, the Demwits nominated a (fake) antiwar redistributionist, the father of Food Stamps, who advocated a version (ahem) of Friedman's negative income tax. McGovern's first running mate turned out to be damaged goods; McGovern stated that he was behind him "one thousand percent", and then Eagleton took himself off the ticket (at McGovern's request). One hasty replacement later and the doomed Demwit ticket started its downward spiral. I remember watching an informal press conference in McGovern's back yard -- he was shirtless I think, but regardless, he was cleaning their inground pool, having taken a few days off from campaigning. When asked about the wisdom of suspending his efforts even for a few days to clean a pool, he joked that he liked doing something where he could see some progress. Only Massachusetts voted for McGovern -- but that was attributed to Nixon's having closed the small navy base in Boston (the USS Constitution remains there). We all know what happened to flip the White House back into the lap of the Demwits -- but it didn't last long, because Carter was a bungler, loser, and sellout.
In the United States, another self-described socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is appealing largely to a younger generation that apparently knows little about the history of leftist ideology and its failures.
No, I don't think so. Anecdotal evidence from yours truly suggests that Sanders' main supporters are Gen-X and Gen-Y, along with hormone-addled angry teens (who can't vote) egged on by various online agitprop distributors. The main draw from Sanders' campaign -- in fact, maybe the only draw -- is his brain-dead idea of so-called free college ed for all. While we're at it, let's save even more money by making free gov't health care!

Free gov't anything reminds me of an old bit on the Hee Haw tv show -- one rube is crying, what's the problem asks the other. The first rube details how he's been mail-ordering those gasoline-saving scam products, added one too many, and now the gas tank has overflowed.
Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates seem more interested in attacking each other than in naming and shaming the consequential domestic and foreign policy failures of liberalism exemplified in the presidency of Barack Obama.
Or Clinton. Or Sanders. Or A.K.A. DeBlasio. Or the plagiarist, "Plugs" Biden. And BTW, the above paragraph is supposed to get us all to infer that he's talking about Trump, instead of his many attackers.
Commentator Jeff Greenfield, writing in Politico magazine, critiques the decline of the Democratic Party, which parallels its wrong-headed domestic and foreign policies. Here's Greenfield: "Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression -- even if Hillary wins." He might have added that if she does win, she will only make things worse because she subscribes to the same policies as Obama, which she helped enact as secretary of state. The two are joined at the political hip.
And I'm sure that, if one made an issue-by-issue check, one would find that Jeff Greenfield and most of the rest of the shills at Politico, are in 100 percent agreement with Obama, as well as will Hillary, except where their positions diverge (or appear to).
The decline in the number of congressional Democrats from a high of 60 senators and 257 House members in 2009, compared to 46 senators and 188 House members today, suggests that the tide of liberalism, which crested with Obama's first election -- and has been ebbing ever since -- provides an opportunity for Republicans to convince a majority of voters not to continue down the road that has led to decline and dysfunction at home and overseas.
Obama's election wasn't idealogical -- it was 100 percent RACIST. Other than the dunces who always vote straight-ticket Demwit (with some overlap) everyone who voted for Obama did so because of his skin tone.
David Cameron made the case not to go back to the failed policies of the past and won another national election.
Ed Milleband was one of the least popular UK politicians of all time. One of the regulars on the UK show "Mock the Week" (view it on YouTube, but be prepared for non-worksafe language) joked that Ed's numbers were minus 47, which means he'd have to improve his standing by 47 points just to get to the level where no one liked him.
When American liberal Democrats speak of failed policies of the past, the policies of the Reagan administration are often mentioned, though many Republicans believe they were largely successful. Foreign policy under George W. Bush is a notable exception. Which is worse: a bad foreign policy (Bush) or none at all (Obama)?
There's no actual difference between Reagan's and either Bush's foreign policies, other than the younger Bush having had to fight a war, and that it took Reagan to finally pick up a club and beat the USSR to death.
As in America with Republicans and Democrats, so, too, in the UK where members of one party are never expected to concede defeat and change course when their ideas prove unworkable and their policies wrong. This is fanaticism and it is one reason that, at least in America, people are fed-up with both parties. It is also why some conservatives are angry and frustrated enough to flirt with the improbable: Donald Trump as president of the United States.
Usually, when Pubbies are more or less in charge in the US, the left calls for "reform" of the Constitution to bring in a parliamentary system, because under a parliamentary system, whichever party gets the larger plurality (this has been a two-way contest for the length of a human lifetime, at least; new, minor parties have flickered into and out of existence many times) forms the gov't and gets its way (with some bones for coalition partners) on every vote, and what does and doesn't come up is predictable. Watching the UK parliament sessions can be entertaining, but its largely for show. When the Demwits have to share power, they immediately condemn "gridlock" because they are constrained (often by their own internal problems, obviously) and can't just jam their agenda down all our throats.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.