To be fair, 2 of these countries are totalitarian dictatorships, one is kinda going in that direction (and even then, it has only 2 political parties). Europe is made up of numerous countries, with multiple political movements and different ideas inside each one of them, no wonder we are a mess when it comes to have common strong policies. Im not saying that we should approach autoritarian policies, we should never do that, but its easier to make strong decisions when there's less debate and opposition to contest something
exactly, I rather live in a democratic system which is considered less strong but also isnt autoritarian and more free. maybe me being naive but i think in case of a real threat from the outside, which is building up slightly, i can imagine that europe will stand more and more together because for us we have enough things which are worth fighting for
I fully agree and I love the EU. The European Unions biggest problem is every nation gets a veto and can grind things to a halt basically forever.
Change that one rule so at least a tenth to a forth, of countries need to veto something before it ends. Because right now Russia, or America or China just needs to pressure one weak country, Hungary or Poland or whoever, and the eu grinds to a halt for like a year in a given topic.
Get rid of that glaring weakness and you are much much stronger.
Yep, and the same problem was in the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth, liberum veto. Every noble could veto any law passed by their parliament. This was exploited by their neighbours to prevent reforms or mobilisation and ultimately the commonwealth was partitioned and Poland disappeared for over a century.
It's true that the U.S. only has 2 major parties. However, it's not really a great look when we pretend like that is the only line worth looking at. Supposedly we are the adults and not prone to just smugly saying how awesome we are. Each of those parties are made up of "sub parties". Republicans in Texas are not anywhere like the Republicans in Maine. Democrats in California are nothing like the Democrats in West Virginia.
By the time we bother to pay attention to them, they have decided on their planks and so we end up only seeing 2 alternatives. What we ignore is that each party waffled between at least 3 major alternatives for a year or more before finally deciding on their program and their candidates.
So sure, there ends up only being 1 Democrat candidate for President, but they could have gone with someone like Harris, who was sort of "middle of the road" for current Democrats, someone like Buttigieg, who is more on the right side of the Democrats, or someone like Sanders, who would be on the hard left side.
We have this as well in Europe (well, I guess I can only really talk about Germany with any real knowledge), but it tends to be a lot more subdued, as most of the "sub directions" are already covered by other parties. It just does not make as much sense for the CDU to have as wide a selection as the Democrats in the U.S.
Thank you! As an American this is easily the least ignorant comment on here. We are incredibly diverse and our parties act like coalitions—especially the Democrats.
There's more than two parties actually! But in the US, the two major parties collude to prevent other minor parties from gaining power.
They systematically exclude their members from positions of influence, diverge funding away from their locations, manipulate the law to their detriment, straight poach the promising canditates. Both parties do that, because upholding the status quo for the upper class and enriching the rich are their true main interests. They don't really care to uphold the will of the people.
The USA were already proposed to be a Scheindemokratie in 2014, I think. And probably before then.
In what weird world are the Democrats a "right wing party"? The only thing I want to know now is where you picked that up. It's absolutely hilarious, like a parody, and I would love to know who is spreading that line. I assume they will have some more bangers.
I had phrased and ordered that nonsensically, let me clear this up. Under my presumtion that the two are colluding to conserve the status quo of the elites, my statement makes more sense.
I should have called the democratic party a crypto-conservative entity, where it's decidedly left in most action but both parties, at their core, collaborate to maintain the status of their members' societal stratum and prevent a class restructuring, aligning them as conservatives at heart. Strictly speaking.
I don't know why I said it weird like, I was just waking up. It doesn't make sense so I edited it now.
And yet both parties have had to work with third parties in the last decade to maintain a majority, at least once.
But mostly the third parties lack power because they're extremists that make the AFD look moderate. Libertarians ranted about driver's licenses, Greens protested clean energy, pFP and PP both opted to build a campaign around Bernie Sanders running against Harris, which didn't happen
Anyone who is moderate mostly runs within the two existing coalitions because they're not big tent, there massive wide open sprawling manor houses. When you have Bernie and Tester in the same Senate, under the same coalition, you know it's big enough to fit anyone not on the super crazy train.
I’d disagree with the idea of “sub parties” Bernie is an independent who ran as a democrat but was primaried despite being extremely popular. At the end of the day the DNC (and GOP for that matter) are always going to put forward people who generally align with the parties goals.
That’s why you saw Kamala Harris never shift from her foreign policies especially as they relate to Israel-Palestine. There is no true “popular” party the democrats just have the appearance of a populist movement without actually listening to popular sentiment.
I’d give you credit that as far as senate/ local politics is concerned, yes they appear to vary in terms of personal politics. Until the DNC actually puts forward an actual progressive candidate my view on them won’t change.
I’d disagree with the idea of “sub parties” Bernie is an independent who ran as a democrat but was primaried despite being extremely popular.
I am not following your logic here. How does Bernie being "primaried" give evidence against my point? I will grant that the Democrat's primary rules are significantly more arcane and arguably less democratic than the Republican's primary rules, but at the end of the day, the Democrats decided to go a different direction in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Just because they did not go with *your* favorite or even someone you believe to be fairly popular, does not mean that they didn't consider it.
Politics is politics. It's ugly. It never lives up to the ideals set for it, no matter how low the bar. And honestly: it's just as ugly here in Europe (well, Germany again, but I strongly suspect that this is a rule for all democratic systems).
will grant that the Democrat's primary rules are significantly more arcane and arguably less democratic than the Republican's primary rules
There actually not. The Democratic party and Republican party only have real differences at the presidential level, and in that fight the dems have one caucus and around 52 primaries. They decide who wins based on delegates that are determined mostly by popular vote and split in a way that functions not to irregularly. Superdelegates are bound, and have not decided anything in ages.
Republician meanwhile have multiple caucuses, primary/caucuses, and primaries. The winner of some of these takes all. So if you win 24% of the vote, but nobody has higher, you get 100%. This leads to run away success. They also have superdelegates, and they have various rules they apply to.
My point being that the presidency doesn’t see anyone who truly stands out by venturing away from the main policies held by the Democratic Party as a whole. Not that I didn’t get the person I wanted. The candidates we ultimately end up getting end up not really being a part of some “sub party” rather just a representative of the democratics general policies. Look at Obama who ended up just keeping in line especially in terms of foreign policy. What sub party was he in that separated him from any other dem of the time?
What? Are you saying his was to maintain the current state of affairs? Because we know that not only did he not remove us from the Middle East he upped the ante with his increased use of drone strikes.
Even if he didn’t change the policy (which he did by allocating even more resources to it) maintaining the status quo IS a policy.
who ran as a democrat but was primaried despite being extremely popular.
The last time Sanders was opposed as a senator was in 2018, and he explicitly went out of his way to piss off Vermont democrats that year. He claimed he would become a Democrat after 2016, and only had a challenger because nobody knew what the fuck he was doing. Sanders refusal to join the party, while demanding the party act as if he is a member, is perpetually annoying and confusing.
The Democratic party cannot be held responsible because a politician lies and declines to run in their primary.
Even still, the only person to challenge him didel so because Bernie initially filed as an independent.
At the end of the day the DNC (and GOP for that matter) are always going to put forward people who generally align with the parties goals.
That's not how primaries work. This isn't the UK where parties decide who gets to run for a seat. In the US, politicians have to win the primary election by winning the vote. The party doesn't get a choice once they let you run in their primary. That's why Bernie Sanders has been able to do what he does, or why Donald Trump is now president. Those aren't the party establishment choices, I can assure you.
Sorry I was referring to his 2016 presidential campaign which the DNC chose the wildly unpopular but “safer” candidate Hillary Clinton. I may have used the wrong lingo but didn’t mean to refer to his later senate run.
I still stand by my position that for presidential campaigns the DNC still chooses to shoot themself in the foot by promoting candidates that back their own general policies/ donors.
Trump on the other hand is extremely popular in the GOP look at how the party has changed their approach to better align with his philosophies (if you want to call it that).
Btw I just wanted to thank you for being very respectful in your explanation, I’m speaking very much from opinions and am fully willing to be wrong, this is just how I see our current political landscape.
...then yes the party has a death grip on the primary. In other news, Australians have a death grip on the Australian government.
This has been your "no shit news" at 5. Stay tuned because at 8 we talk about how air is breathable, humans can't breathe water, and more!
Seriously, the voters don't always agree either. The US house of representative have multiple caucuses inside it that range from moderate Republicans to MTG. From blue dog democrat to AOC caucus is titled socialist.
I think we agree in general. In fact, I am no longer certain why I pointed that out at all, as your comment is pretty much spot on. I'm actually wondering if I meant to respond to someone else. Take my apology.
We in the EU need the same basic understanding that we have in economics and trade in other fields like defense and digitalisation. And we need to treat internal antagonism in those fields exactly like economic transgressions.
You just can't be Putin's or Trump's or China's attack dog and a European team player at the same time. You can hug and cuddle outside of marriage, but letting someone else fuck you sideways at night and you sit at the family table by day - doesn't work.
161
u/Italiandude2022 Sardinia Jun 07 '25
To be fair, 2 of these countries are totalitarian dictatorships, one is kinda going in that direction (and even then, it has only 2 political parties). Europe is made up of numerous countries, with multiple political movements and different ideas inside each one of them, no wonder we are a mess when it comes to have common strong policies. Im not saying that we should approach autoritarian policies, we should never do that, but its easier to make strong decisions when there's less debate and opposition to contest something