Lawrence O'Donnell: "British Conservatives Are More Liberal Than American Liberals"

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

Very interesting commentary tonight right now on The Last Word describing the difference between some of Margaret Thatcher's actual economic policies in comparison to the current GOP policies.

For example, Thatcher calling for an increase in funding for the National Health Service, extending unemployment benefits and lowering the top tax rate down to (for US standards a high rate) of 60%.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. On some issue yes.

On others, no. And it depends what "liberals" you're talking about. She despised labor unions and worked to privatize pretty much everything in site.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

4. Right....He was talking about some of the Tories economic policies...not all of them

He also mentioned how she believed in evolution and global warming, yet he did also mention how she called Nelson Mandela a "terrorist" and played a clip of her talking disparagingly about homosexuality.

[liberal from boston]

24. Margaret Thacher

This segment was in response to George Will's comment that Margaret Thatcher killed socialism. Lawrence also laughed at the myth that Reagan & Thatcher were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union & pointed out it was Russia's internal problems & the disaster of their economy. I was surprised at the clips of Thatcher supporting England's pension plan (our Social Security), extending unemployment benefits, public housing & of course Britain's Health care. I am critical of Thatcher's union busting, & also her policy on Ireland. The video is up on The Last Word Blog now. Very thought provoking segment.

[magellan]

2. American liberals or American Dems?

There's a difference. I wouldn't agree with O'Donnell if he actually meant the former. I'm a liberal and would never vote Tory. Neoliberal Dems would find more in common with British conservatives.

[Blue Idaho]

3. I completely agree

But that means British Liberals and waaaaaaay more liberal than American liberals - which is also true. Look at the decisions The British made about the social responsibility of government to provide for its citizens both young and old - not its corporations or its military.

[TimberValley]

8. "not its corporations or its military"

..............like how the UK has one of the world's largest defense budgets?

[Blue Idaho]

26. I didnt say they spent nothing but compared to ours...

Currently, the US defense budget is larger than the next 26 nations combined - 25 of those nations are our allies.

US Defense spending 1.7 TRILLION Dollars

British Defense Spending 67 BILLION Dollars.

After WWII the British decided to provide universal health care and pensions for all citizens, what did we decide to do?

[MADem]

5. Reagan was more liberal than any Republican is nowadays. And Nixon would be a Dem today.

It was a different time.

I can tell you the Welsh coal miners didn't appreciate Maggie's "liberal" views.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. Reagan? Liberal?

Are you kidding? Reagan despised the liberals of his day. As governor of California, he sicced the National Guard on students at UC Berkeley in 1969, and kicked mentally ill people out into the streets. He delighted in telling ridiculous anecdotes about mythical welfare mothers and polluting trees, and claimed there were more forests in the US in 1980 than there were when the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock. He trashed Carter's visionary energy program and got us firmly entrenched in fossil-fuel mode

One of his first acts as president was to fire the PATCO air traffic controllers, and he staffed his Cabinet with people like James Watt and Edwin Meese who were the antithesis of the departments they were heading. He feigned hearing loss when asked about the various scandals that were occurring during his administration (which still holds the record for number of members being indicted and convicted of corruption), and he claimed that the contras in Nicaragua, who were being funded with drug money, were the "equivalent of America's founding fathers". He turned his nose up at Carter's human rights policies by turning a blind eye to the atrocities being committed by his dictator buddies in Central and South America. He raised the SS taxes of the working poor, while reducing the top federal income tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28% and raising the bottom rate from 14& to 15%. He decried Carter's 80 billion dollar deficit, then proceeded to double the deficit that had been accumulated by all his predecessors combined by spending lavishly on "gold-plated military hardware", among other boondoggles.

Reagan was not a liberal in any way, shape or form, even by today's Republican standards.

[MADem]

15. There are plenty of people who are to the RIGHT of Reagan who call themselves Democrats today.

I'm not calling the guy Bernie Sanders, here--please read my remarks in context. Then read this:

Reagan’s record, though, was a bit different. He certainly passed massive tax cuts his first year in office, but then reversed many of them when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). Former Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett wrote in 2003 that “according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.” Moreover, Reagan also backed a $3.3 billion gasoline tax and increased the Social Security tax rate. Sure, the Soviet Union fell soon after his presidency ended, but Reagan met and negotiated with Gorbachev – the head of the “evil empire” as Reagan himself labeled the Soviet Union. As for his reputation as a fiscal hawk, it would be laughable, were it not for the fact that Reagan began the steep slide into deficit spending that inflicted long-term damage. And for a party that has worked tirelessly to destroy the civil rights of homosexuals, Reagan was a maverick in his strident opposition to the Briggs Initiative in California, which would’ve banned gays and lesbians from teaching in the public schools, and his opposition helped defeat the measure. Lastly, let’s not forget that Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in 1986, a position antithetical to current American Taliban ideology.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/21/997013/-Ronald-Reagan-officially-too-liberal-for-modern-GOP

So yes, Reagan WAS a liberal Republican by today's standards. The centerline has moved to the right down the years. And I say that as a person who has a relative who was fucked over by that PATCO business. I'm not blind to the terrible policies he initiated, closing the mental hospitals, playing the welfare queen card, his horrible attitude towards the GLBT community, refusing to fund AIDS research, etc., but if you look at the totality of the guy's policies, he'd be a better senator or rep than any Republican on a LOT of issues, and he'd even do better than a few Dems. That's what I am saying.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. I'm sorry, but I disagree

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Most of the stuff in your paragraph shows why Reagan was NOT a "liberal", even by today's Republican standards. Sure, he raised SS taxes-- *on the working poor*. Sure he raised taxes in general-- but reduced the top federal income tax rate in two increments, from 70% to 28%, while increasing the bottom rate. He also significantly cut the capital gains rate, then raised it slightly after that in exchange for the 28% top tax bracket. He may have granted amnesty to illegal aliens, but it was a cynical ploy to make their cheap labor legal. And today, even some Republicans have reversed their views about gays and lesbians.

And the guy was just itching to use the American military somewhere, so he sent marines to Beirut, where many of them ended up being sitting ducks. To get people's minds off of that fiasco, he suddenly decided that the teeny tiny island of Grenada posed a threat to the entire Carribean, and so invaded the island and deposed its leader. A great military victory for the Great Prevaricator.

There is a reason why Reagan is still canonized by the Republican Party, and it's not because he was significantly to the left of today's bunch of teanuts.

[MADem]

19. He would be driven out of the party for advocating the positions I highlighted in bold.

Now, if that's not "liberal" by GOP standards, I don't know what is.

You're telling me the GOP would hail an illegal-immigrant welcoming, tax raising Reagan?

These bastards don't want ANY taxes raised, and they don't care about "cynical ploys" about undocumented workers--they want those furriners gone, and now--self-deport, hop to it!

Again--since you're plainly not taking my point...I am not calling him Bernie Sanders, I'm saying he was to the left of the current crop of Republicans.

And if we're going to get down to it about the military, I'll ask you this question: How many servicemembers died under CinC Reagan, as compared to how many died under CinC Dubya? Reagan threatened like Little Kim with actual weaponry and capability, but he was VERY careful about getting TOO many people killed. Beirut led to substantial hardening of bases around the world and those techniques continue to be polished to this day (I know--I had to harden mine when that happened). Remember Grenada? Yeah, that was a real dangerous op--not. He was careful about putting people in harm's way. You thought he was "itching" to use the military---but if he was really "itching," he had eight years to scratch and he didn't do much of that at all. What he did do was spend like a drunken sailor on ships and assets we didn't need, bloating the MIC. And his biggest trick was that bullshit Star Wars, which was eighty percent smoke and mirrors, but it scared the crap out of people who didn't know any better.

And again--since you are NOT taking my point for reasons I simply can't fathom--I am not saying Reagan was "lionized" for being a liberal Republican--I'm saying they wouldn't HAVE HIM nowadays.

Any "lionizing" that happens is because the GOP has some VERY selective memory going on. They don't remember any inconvenient decisions he made, because they don't suit their current world view.

To cut to the chase--if he could be revived and brought back in someone else's body to advise his party, they'd reject his ideas as too liberal.

[Art_from_Ark]

20. Reagan didn't "welcome" illegal immigrants

He just realized their "value" as "cheap labor", while cynically telling American citizens who were down and out during his recession to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and "vote with their feet" by going to where the jobs supposedly were. If they didn't, they were "lazy". No different from today's Republicans.

And he LOWERED federal taxes on the TOP earners-- from 70% in 1981, to 28% in 1986. That meshes nicely with today's GOP.

He also LOWERED capital gains taxes-- once again, a move that benefited the top earners. Although he subsequently agreed to raise capital gains taxes after that, it was in return for lowering the top federal tax rate from 50% to 28%.

He RAISED Social Security taxes on the BOTTOM EARNERS, while providing a nice cap for the top earners.

He FIRED PATCO workers-- an act that would still be applauded by today's Republicans.

He had nothing but disdain for the poor, the disadvantaged and unemployed-- fitting in nicely with today's Republican Party.

As you acknowledged, he spent like a drunken sailor on the military. Today, cutting bloated Pentagon spending is anathema to the Republican Party.

And he was itching to use the US military somewhere. What kept him back was the lack of a casus belli, the memory of Vietnam that was still fresh in people's minds, and a Congress that did manage to keep him in check once in a while. Otherwise, he probably would have sent US troops to fight alongside the contras in Nicaragua. Since he couldn't get the Congress to go along, he had to settle for mining the harbor of Managua.

He had disdain for environmental initiatives (such as trying to curb acid rain), and cynically appointed such anti-environmentalists as James Watt and Anne Gorsuch to key environmental positions. No different from today's Republicans.

He vigorously promoted fossil fuels as he systematically trashed Carter's visionary energy plan. How is that different from today's Republicans?

Reagan was gung-ho for corporate deregulation. Just like today's Republicans.

Reagan ran on an anti-abortion platform and was supported by the religious right, counting Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson among his supporters. Sound familiar?

Reagan was opposed to socialized health care. Wow-- just like today's Republicans.

The main "accomplishment" of his attorney general, Edwin Meese, was the Meese Porn Commission Report, which essentially concluded that sex without the objective of making babies was bad.

Really, Ronald Reagan would still be the darling of today's Republican Party.

[MADem]

21. If he let them stay, he welcomed them. There's only one position on them now--and that's "GIT!"

as far as the GOP is concerned. A lot of the things you're listing as the sins of Ronnie are the sins of conservative Dems, too--many of them like to spend, spend, spend--so long as it's in their district. And not every Dem is an environmental darling--otherwise we'd hear more opposition to Keystone. They wouldn't take campaign donations from Big Oil and Big Coal.

Look, you can sit here all day and give me lists of "bad" things he did--I can play that game too (see the link I gave you). The bottom line is that he was more "liberal" than the prevailing GOP nutcase is today.

If he weren't himself, but his brain was encased in another body with a different name, he'd be told to "get correct" and align his views to the right if he wanted to go anywhere in the GOP.

Here's more--please, take the time to peruse this page, it's all about Rush Limbaugh getting schooled on how Ronnie is too liberal for the present day GOP:

http://www.politicususa.com/limbaugh-liberal-ronald-reagan.html

Rush Limbaugh met the brick wall of reality today as a liberal caller to his radio show asked him why Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with terrorist, raised taxes, granted amnesty to illegal aliens, and cut and ran from Lebanon, is a hero to conservatives. Limbaugh could not answer the question, but he did claim that Reagan never raised taxes and that he was the former president was misunderstood.

Here is the audio from Media Matters:

A liberal caller asked Limbaugh why Ronald Reagan is a hero to conservatives when he raised taxes, cut and ran from Lebanon, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and negotiated with terrorists. Limbaugh answered by claiming that the caller didn’t understand Reagan, “Why is a Reagan a hero to conservatives. Given what you said, and I am not trying to avoid the question, I don’t think you’d understand it.”

According to CNN, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were 18.2% under Reagan, which was right in line with the numbers under Jimmy Carter and the 40 year average of 18.1%. Limbaugh evaded all the other correct points that the caller made about Reagan’s legacy, and in typical conservative fashion, he ignored the historical record, and tried to blame the liberal media for facts. Since conservatives can’t handle the truth about Ronald Reagan, they have created their own mythology. Ronald Reagan is their laissez faire Jesus. The facts are ignored as a personification of an ideology is worshiped.

The liberal caller destroyed the myth of St. Ronnie of Tax Cut with one simple question that Rush Limbaugh could not answer. The truth is that conservatives don’t worship Ronald Reagan. They worship what they believe Ronald Reagan to be. The reason why the caller couldn’t understand it is because he was using facts, and the facts have no place in conservative’s discussion of Ronald Reagan.

[Art_from_Ark]

23. I don't disagree that "Conservadems" have done the same shit that I attributed to Reagan

In fact, in an earlier day, they would have been referred to as "Reagan Democrats"

But that doesn't take away from the fact that as president, Reagan himself was NO LIBERAL by ANY standards. And he certainly would have been welcome in today's Republican Party. Because the fact of the matter was, the son-of-a-bitch laid the groundwork for today's Republican Party. He was their "Founding Father", as it were, for the reasons that I have described. While he claimed he had no intention of dismantling the New Deal, he certainly had no compunction against dismantling the Great Society. And while there might be some *minor* disagreements between today's Republicans and Reagan's policies, Reagan essentially laid the groundwork for the shit they are doing today. I was there, I saw the whole goddam thing unfolding.

[MADem]

25. I'm trying--and for some reason you're just not taking the point I am making--to demonstrate

where Reagan sat, politically, if viewed upon the present - day spectrum.

Look, I was there for Kennedy--you're not telling me anything I didn't see with my own two horrified eyes.

Harry Reid used Reagan's very words to admonish the GOP about refusing to play "Let's make a deal" WRT to the debt ceiling:

Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.

http://www.politicususa.com/reagan-debt-ceiling.html

The GOP is so far to the right that Reagan is too "liberal" for them.

[TimberValley]

6. Most of Western Europe is to the left of the United States, isn't it? n/t.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

7. Yes, that was the general point he was trying to make

And put it in comparison to our politics here in the U.S.

[MADem]

17. No, not really. We think that, from a distance. Everything looks nicer from afar.

Check out Marine Le Pen, and her daddy, over in wine-loving France, as an example. Their views--particularly on race-- would curl your hair.

And they're popular.


Berlusconi is no liberal/lefty, either.

Many countries don't care for "dusky" people immigrating, and they make it very clear, too. They set up high barriers so that their "national character" isn't "sullied" by people who aren't like them.

Could you imagine Americans throwing bananas at black athletes?
Examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/world/europe/05iht-letter05.html?_r=0

A Struggle With Identity and Racism

There it is, “identity,” a word that gets flashed like a red card as people struggle to determine what it means to be French, Belgian, British or Russian in an era of large-scale immigration, and economic globalization.

The problem is that this debate typically turns defensive, with identity defined in narrow, exclusive terms. The issue may be a reflection of a popular uneasiness over waves of new arrivals from abroad, but the terms of the discussion are rarely about integration, or tolerance.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/24/159169.html

There has been a backlash against immigrants, and particularly Muslim immigrants, in a number of countries, enabling some far-right parties to enter national parliaments or the European parliament for the first time.

More than 11 per cent of the population in Norway—550,000 people out of 5 million—are immigrants, but that includes people coming from other European countries such as Poland and Sweden. Pakistanis, Iraqis and Somalis account for many of the rest.

Spain has had the highest proportionate influx of immigrants, who now represent 12 per cent of the population. The bulk of these come from Latin America but Morocco and other African countries contributed...Austria, Greece, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all have sizeable immigrant population. The UK’s 62 million people include about 1 million Pakistanis.

Inevitably, immigration creates racial, religious and cultural conflicts, particularly in countries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden that previously had fairly homogenous populations.

European racists put Muslim immigrants in crosshairs. By Ray Moseley


http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2010/10/18/whos-racist-now-europes-increasing-intolerance/

Who's Racist Now? Europe's Increasing Intolerance

The situation in Europe is quite different. Openly racist, anti-immigrant and Islamophobic groupings are on the rise, and they are wreaking havoc on once subdued European politics. Traditional mainstream parties are declining, and the new racist parties can be seen in broad daylight in Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, where populist firebrand Geert Wilders has suggested banning the Koran. In Italy the anti-immigrant Northern League is already hugely powerful.

http://www.thecrimson.com/column/talk-to-the-hand/article/2012/11/29/harvard-europe-racism/

Racism Across the Pond
Why we should worry more about Europe becoming racist than America

In 2010, German chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism had “totally failed” in Germany, that “we feel tied to Christian values”, and that “those who don’t accept them don’t have a place here.”

Imagine an American politician--a national leader--saying something like that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Our Democrats would be Conservatives anywhere else in the world, and our Republicans

hold views that veer toward fascism.

[treestar]

10. My only explanation is the Parliamentary system

When a party is in power, it can enact its agenda.

Whereas our system, with the Senate and its disproportionate representation, allows conservatives to have undue power.

It's not all bad, but sometimes I wish we had that system, and Canada and Australia do. But we were the first to demand independence, were rebelling and had states that demanded power as states.

[Turborama]

11. The British Conservatives' austerity frenzy is probably giving US Teahadists & Libertarians orgasms

This old trope about British Conservatives being more liberal than American Liberals is actually very untrue.

[HiPointDem]

12. oh for god's sake. thatcher started the privatization of NHS and they're delivering the coup de

grace as we speak.

yeah, those british 'liberals'.

[Rowdyboy]

13. I first heard that statement in 1973 in college in a comparative government class. It was true then

and it still is. Brits are far to our left.

[Turborama]

18. No, it's not true

Haven't you been following British politics lately?

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. 60% was what she reduced the top rate of tax to at the start of her term; by the end it was 40%

In practice, you need to look at what a politician in a country thinks is possible. So Thatcher didn't think she could attack the NHS, and couldn't, at first, bring down income tax as much as she wanted (she did increase VAT from 8% to 15%, as soon as she got in). Because her opposition was to her left. But Democrats face the Republicans, and also think their constituents are more right wing than they actually are, so they have a tendency to look to the right. I think if you put the Conservatives in the USA, many of them would take up more right wing policies, because they'd reckon they'd stand a chance of exacting them.

I can't say I can ever remember Thatcher extending unemployment benefits.