How Liberal Jews can stay progressive and love Israel, too

Just the other day, a secular, liberal Jewish friend approached me for advice. He noted with some consternation that the leftist friends he cherishes are increasingly turning away from Israel. At the same time, he also loves his ultra-Orthodox relatives. How to navigate his personal relationships in light of his connection to Israel?

Liberal Jews are increasingly finding themselves in this situation, and not only because of the well-known tension that can befall friends and family who part company on politics. Liberal Jews may identify with their leftist friends because of their friends’ politics, while they love their ultra-Orthodox relatives in spite of their relatives’ religious orientation.

But what I most continue to be struck by is the apparent automatic marrying of values to policy. Instead of a person’s values coming to carefully inform one’s opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what I’m seeing is the reflexive taking of sides. What could be a very fruitful discussion about values, ethics and policy instead comes to resemble a boxing ring, with everyone in their corners primed to fight.

Let’s take religion. As I tell my students, religion can be either a stubborn obstacle to peace, or a powerful force for contemplating change. The perception of religion as giving rise to inflexible stances is compounded when rocks and dirt are attributed sacred status. How do you divide land deemed holy?

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/the-fifth-question/how-liberal-jews-can-stay-progressive-and-love-israel-too-1.396796

>secular
>Jewish

uhhh....

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

to be a "secular person" while holding to the tenants of a religion. The corner stone of all of the Abrahamic religions is a set of dogma pulled directly from their so called holy books. And really if you aren't trusting in the infallibility of the god you worship then why do you claim any religion at all? Why not just consider yourself a secular humanist and avoid the (largely) negative brand that religions carry within the communities devoted to the discussion of moral and ethical living.

this is one of those really dumb ethnocentric atheist type statements:
Why not just consider yourself a secular humanist and avoid the (largely) negative brand that religions carry within the communities devoted to the discussion of moral and ethical living.

mainly because only a "secular humanist" would make such a claim.....secular humanists hardly have a lock on morality, in fact it could easily be argued that the "secular humanist" is one of the more immoral philosophies that have come out of the 21th century.

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. As such, a religious person's world view and cultural beliefs are necessarily directly informed by their religion. The reality of the situation is that most people claim to be religious but don't believe or follow the guidelines or tenants of the religion they claim to hold. If you are a "follower" of an Abrahamic religion and put in the position of Abraham and told to kill your child but did not then you are not a believer in the religion you claim to follow and if you would kill your child in that situation then you can hardly claim to be a moral or good person.

But good job challenging the assertion without providing ANY information to support your position.

As well as a secular and liberal one. I believe G-d is a manifestation of infinity. I am not dogmatic and question everything within my power to question. I don't believe any religion carries an intrinsically negative brand -- only positive or negative attributes specific to individuals.

To judge any religious person (or areligious person) solely on the basis of the religion to which they subscribe is plain and simple prejudice -- or didn't you get that memo?

Yeah, that one is pretty well ingrained in the institution itself.

And it isn't prejudice because of the nature of being a member of a particular group. If you do not hold the beliefs of your religion then in what sense are you a member of said religion? The fact that most followers of Abrahamic religions don't do or believe, as individuals, all of the things in their books doesn't negate their indirect endorsement of the heinous things in there (genocides by and endorsed by God/Allah, death penalty for many things including apostasy).

For yourself, a more accurate description would be "spiritual" since you claim you don't ascribe to a religion and thus aren't religious.

i would argue that most rapes and robberies and murder in western cities today are done by the non religious seculars....

and your going to claim that they are the more "moral group"......btw wasn't the secularist that did the genocide thing in germany? the gulag thing in the USSR, the camps in N. Korea? dropped the bomb on japan?.....gotta love that secular morality....

The fact that the crimes aren't religiously motivated doesn't mean or indicate that the person committing the crime doesn't consider themselves religious.

But if you want to make that assertion then you had best bring some numbers in to back yourself up. Hitler btw, since you decided to already go Godwin in here, was baptized a Roman Catholic, never renounced his faith, was never excommunicated for his crimes, was assisted by the Catholic church in Germany as well as supported by it in Italy and Spain, and had religious inscriptions on the uniforms of his soldiers. So the claim that he was secular is completely unfounded.

so whenever you buy something your expressing your belief in god?

your argument that hitler crimes were because he was religious?, he was baptized ...I hate to destroy your simplest argument that the church helped him, as proof that his crimes were religious based, but so did a lots and lots and lots of seculars......(they don't count?)

and notice how you forgot about stalin, pot pol, china, n. korea, cuba....all secular

whats were seeing here in your argument is the exact same argument that any religious persons uses.....yours just happens to be "secular humanist" with its own brand of intolerance and "moral' superiority for the other. (and you too will have your own symbolism and "holy" writs...(more flexible than the older religions, as yours is much younger, but probably related to HR or perhaps Ghia or is your high council of priests the UN?)

And the crimes in those other instances weren't in the name of secularism, they were in the name of assuming more power. Hell, the North Korea example is a counter example because Kim Jong Ill is LITERALLY placed as a religious figure.

A secular humanist doesn't operate under any dogma or the idea that morals are fixed points that are to be rationalized around (as religious individuals do).

But frankly, you're boring me. If you cannot bring your level of discussion up to the point of presenting at least SOME level of factual claim or rationally supporting the claims you're making then we're done here.

a secular humanist is very much in want of power.....the secular humanist religion wants to convert everyone to its own version of moralities and like all religions denounces all others as being "heretics"
You want to create laws that others will have to follow because its for "their own good'...

You guys just use different terminology, but the way you have defined other religions on these few posts, have declared yourself an authority of them, makes it crystal clear, that you are no better, no more tolerant than any other religious person.

There is no such thing and you are arguing at a point you don't even have the slightest understanding of. A secular humanist is an atheist who holds to ideals of humanism as their core goals and values. It is in no regard a religion of any sort.

the most glaring and starting off point is the moral superiority of its value system that (you) the faithful express, and the need to proselytize to others about it moral superority and the need to bring them into the fold.

The second glaring aspect is the intolerance for others of different faiths, this too you showed with your disdain for others

i can't say if this is part of your version:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/humanism.shtml
It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values

the key most glaring fanatical aspect is the "natural values" now who decides what those natural values are?....any anthropologist will tell you that those are your "high priests" and the books they write will have the same value as any bible. It may be a group effort, but then all religions have their leaders and their councils.

the problem with the fanatics of all religions, and here i would include you, is the inability to look at their own religion/belief and understand that it is nothing more than a religion and has the same intolerance that other fanatics of other religions have....you can believe that your beliefs are morally superior to others.... just be aware that so do "they"

Disclaimer first of all: my comments have nothing to do with Israel, for or against, and nothing to do with Judaism, for or against. Indeed, not only is it quite possible to be an atheist Jew; but many forms of religious Judaism have a lot in common with secular humanism, in that they tend not to seek converts; emphasize 'doing good' rather than specifics of belief; and are more concerned with the effects of their actions in this life than with earning rewards in the hereafter.

And Israel, whatever else one may say for or against it, is run far more on secular-humanist principles than any other Middle Eastern country, at any rate at present.

My concerns come much more from the relatively small, but increasing, religious-right element in the UK.

The propaganda is basically: (a) Secular humanism is exactly the same thing as old-style communism and means murdering or at least legally banning religions and worship, in favour of some version of Stalinism (no, it doesn't, any more than Christianity means cthe Inquisition); (b) Laws against discrimination against gays, and permitting reproductive rights for women, are equivalent to 'forcing a secular tyranny' on society.

Of course, secular humanism like any other ideology can sometimes be invoked in the cause of antisemitism or Islamophobia; but that does not mean that keeping religion out of laws is in itself tyrannical.

and i believe in the total superiority of western moral/ethical civilization......but human secularism is very much like a religious belief. We too have our fanatics, our moderates,....we too like the religious jews and muslims have to keep our fanatics at bay.

Our "religion" in its humanism lets in other cultures and religions to be part of it...but only if they are moderates. We too are intolerant of those who don't adhere to the party line..... (usually related to ecology....). We may have some interesting traits such as letting in other religions to be part of ours, but we are definitely religious in our beliefs.

We're a young religion so were still sorting out the holy stuff, and we have a large variety of factions (like the jews for jesus), but we have the UN as our holy council, we have the geneva convention as one of our holy texts etc.

but intolerance of the other to me is the most telling factor of a religion....

I've just been having a bit of an overdose of the likes of Andrea Minichiello Williams and Christian Concern, a bit too close to my doorstep (google them if you don't mind risking nausea!)

let me explain why if us secular types want to claim moral superiority why tolerance is the key. The fanatics are not going away, even if you have a closed environment and have everybody of the same "secular head" its not going to work, they will still be around.

The kibbutzim were an incredible experiment in just that socialist utopia, and there were all kinds of shades of kibbutzim, some split in two over philosophical arguments. So what happened to the socialist utopia?...children, kids, thats what happened. They grew up in a society that had the whole country admiring them.....everything you could fantazie about for your utopian society was there, yet some of those children wanted something different.....some didn't want being told what to do, where they were going to work, etc, others wanted an education that was not "allowed" others wanted more things and others found god.

Most kibbutzim in their own beliefs and rigidness and intolerance folded up and are no longer kibbutzim, they couldn't adapt to a changing environment and people. A few, a very few opened their arms to those that rejected many of their original values and adopted to fit those "others in", meaning they were tolerant of those who have different values...and they are surviving so far.

the point is, there is no point in being fanatical in rejecting those moderates who's values you don't agree with, they will always be around and you might as well learn to live with them, be they on the right or the left, religious or secular.

the real enemy is the intolerance of the other. You may believe you are 1000% right, your kids however or their kids, may reject your values....so you might as well get use to the idea of tolerating other ideas, otherwise no matter what your "morality" i find little difference between the intolerant groups: be they the taliban, human secularist, environmentalist, hamasnkim, extreme settlers, far right/left...they all "saving the world" from people like me.

... you are qualified to hold yourself as an authority on my beliefs.

What I believe is between me, my G-d and the ultimate authority -- my Jewish mother.

If you're claiming to be one thing but then contradicting yourself in the next sentence then you ought to clarify what you mean. Are you religious (a person who believes in/follows the teachings of a religion) or are you spiritual (basically that pantheistic position you claimed to have in the previous post).

... of Judaism (a rich and diverse faith with thousands of years of scholarly teachings) I can understand your not understanding that pantheism and Judaism aren't mutually exclusive. G-d is one, the most sacred tenet of Judaism, means LITERALLY G-d is one with the universe. Read Maimonides and perhaps you'll understand.

while constantly changing what you claim to believe in, then you bore me and I'm done with you.

... that child rape is a tenet of Catholicism? Can you please point me to the papal edict that endorses that? Or is it permitted by individual archdiocese?

... negative brands given them by their detractors. I've even heard some people feel negatively about Judaism, but I don't believe it. Do you think I should believe everything people say about self-righteous atheists?

Until you learn to separate the teachings of any group from the actions of some of their followers, you will never be free of prejudice.

for child rape because of its detractors and not because of the excessive child rape?

They identify with many of the cultural components of Judaism without necessarily adhering to the religious tenets.

Can you cite some secular cultural components of Judaism that aren't religious tenants?

It's a common enough error... there's nothing contradictory about being a secular Jew. Judaism is (on its most basic level), a nationality. There's a religion attached to that nation, sure, just as there's also a language. But it is not necessary to practice or even believe in the religion in any way to qualify as Jewish.

Why not just consider yourself a secular humanist and avoid the (largely) negative brand that religions carry within the communities devoted to the discussion of moral and ethical living.

I am a secular humanist. I'm also a Jew. The two are in no way mutually exclusive any more than being born Irish precludes me from being Buddhist.

genealogical heritage in the same way that a person might call themselves African if their parents or grandparents were from Africa. And Judaism is not a nationality, Israeli is. The fact that Israel claims not to be a theocracy yet calls itself a Jewish nation is a contradiction on the same level as the modern Republicans.

i like your system....define other peoples identities based on simplistic definitions, ignoring their own internal discussions and arguments over hundreds of years of their own definitions

and state yours as "the fact".

can i do the same about "humanists" and their morality of of their belief in the "natural values" ------you guys actually believe in "natural values",...now thats a god like reference if there ever was one, we just have to dig a little to find out who and what defines those "natural values" and we'll find your "god"

now i know we can declare you a member of the "humanistic religion"

Israel is a nation-state, which are often based on nationality. Nationality is a self-determined group or tribe that usually has cultural, linguistic and/or historical commonalities.

Judaism is defined in the torah as a nationality. Look up the definition. You're totally wrong.

Israel is a theocracy and worthy of no respect from those who consider themselves progressive.

If Israel was run entirely according to Jewish law then it would be a theocracy.

It is not.

no matter how much the rightwing judges who declare otherwise want it to be. You can't have it both ways.

Most of us Jews consider it a Nationality.

We get to decide , NOT you .

;)

that wouldn't make them correct in their assertion.

Jews are a nation of 12 million and we Jews are ethnically a people ( the Jewish people).
Some Jews are religious and some are atheist .
We have a homeland and half of us live in the diaspora .

We get to decide if we are a nationality or not.

You may not like it . Your opinion on this is not unique, but it is irrelevant .

;)

If i were going to pronounce that the Kurds are not a people
they would rightfully say " who the fuck am I to tell them they are not a people"

Got it ?

Good.

I didn't say that the Jews weren't a heritage or an ethnicity, which they surely are. I simply said that it is not a nationality. Asserting otherwise suggests that religious texts are valid as a legal rationalization in an otherwise secular world, which is not acceptable.

Let us say that Israel withdraws all settlements and disavows any claim to any territory beyond the Green Line. A Palestinian state is established in all of the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Green Line serves as the eastern border between Israel and the newly established Palestinian state.

Do you think that this would be the end of the BDS movement?

lets say israel and the PA come to an agreement that is not the green line, but there is an agreement between the two....would that end the BDSM movement?

I think that no two-state agreement would completely end the BDS movement (most BDSers want two states; some do not), and any agreement would massively shrink and weaken it; the extent and speed of the shrinkage would depend on the nature of the agreement.

to tell the local Palestinian govt what is right for them?..is that not the epitome of "colonial interference".

Probably lots of time. You can't kill ideas. But BDS type actions have to be large to have any effect, so in the sense of being effective, or being an important issue, I think it would end it.

I mean the John Birch Society is still around: http://www.jbs.org/ Anti-semitism is not going away either. Ideologies seem to live forever.

The security guarantees (for both sides) are what matter, and the economic arrangements about sharing of natural resources etc. It's going to be ugly no matter what, in the short run, many parties on both sides do not want a political settlement, but it is always the case that it can be more ugly or less ugly depending on what you do. The question is always what sort of situation do you want to move towards.

I think a wholesale withdrawal from the West Bank would cut off BDS at the knees. Whether or not they would agree to go quietly, politically they would be finished.

Withdrawal from the West Bank would cut off BDS at the knees? Politically they would be finished?

I realize it's a hypothetical, but it is hard to believe that you could think this.

and bear in mind, I am as pro-Palestinian as virtually anyone. I don't think anyone, apart from a very, very small fringe would have any time for BDS if Israel withdrew from the West Bank.

Not with your position as far as you are concerned, of course, but with your general view of what would become of the movement should Israel withdraw from the West Bank entirely.

My opinion is that this would strengthen the movement which would view that development as a victory, at least in part, for their approach.

I think they would shift their focus to conditions within Israel and would receive a similar, if not larger, degree of support from like-minded individuals who supported their initial actions (and were encouraged by the success of their techniques).

would have resulted in an increase of the level of boycotts against South Africa.

One thing that supporters of Israel such as yourself consistently ignore is that there is very little push from leftists to see Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights. I myself do not see the Golan Heights as a humanitarian issue. Israel treats the Golani Syrians decently, and allows them access to the same services as Israeli citizens. The Golani themselves would prefer to be living in Israel rather than Syria.

Israel treats Druze (including the Golani Druze) decently and its other Arab citizens semi-decently. It does not treat the Palestinians decently and this is the basis of most criticism of Israel.

In time, it may be that Israel faces a civil-rights type struggle from its Arab citizens who are fed up with the differential treatment accorded them, planning permission for housing being a prime example. But I do not presume that that will happen.

one thing that supporters of Israel such as yourself consistently ignore ....

your actually comparing the druze in the golan to the Palestenians in the west bank and their actions living under the occupation?

really? ...perhaps you would like add the parts missing of any factual fair analysis of their actions as an occupied people in regards to israel- you know the parts your ignored? and why there are such differences?
_______

seriously, you should keep your arguments for other forums where the knowledge is much less and perhaps you can be declared an 'expert" or someone who really knows what their talking about..but here?.....your too obvious

the point of my post is that the situation of the Golani Druze is not similar to the Palestinians but rather different.

i must be on a roll.....been happening in real life too

You can't seriously think that, can you? I'm not always sure when you are "playing dumb" for humorous effect.

No, obviously, by that logic the collapse of apartheid would not have resulted in an increase of the level of boycotts against South Africa.

In reality, the South African example very aptly illustrates the point that I am making. A small degree of success - easing of some restrictions, a "softening" of apartheid, if you will, led to an increased profile of and support for the movement which then pushed for (and got) greater and greater changes, buoyed by the initial small successes.

Most people within the BDS movement support two states. If two states becomes a reality, then its mission accomplished for them and they can go onto other things.

I don't think it was the "softening" of apartheid that led to a collapse of support for the regime. It was on the cards for some time.

Sometimes, like you, I play dumb for humorous effect, but not this time.

I think you are way wrong about what most people within the BDS movement support.

I can tell you for sure that most of them do not support the way the non-Jewish population of Israel is treated within Israel itself, irrespective of what is going on in Gaza or The West Bank.

I think nearly all Westerners, including me, would be satisfied with that, but that some Muslims, especially in Arab countries would not.

If you look at the website for the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (a US, i.e. Western organization) you will see that a primary reason for the boycott is in direct protest of the policies within Israel itself.

There are hundreds of individuals and dozens of groups who have signed on as endorsers of this organization, large numbers of whom are non-Muslim, Westerners, not located in Arab countries.

Similarly, the website for the global BDS movement identifies three primary goals, two of which would not be satisfied by Israel's complete withdrawal to 1967 lines.

I don't think that they are. Is one a sub-set of the the other? Still don't think so. How do you define them?

Some people seem to identify those two terms as being distinct from one another but I am not sure entirely how.

Historically, in policy, in fundamental attitudes.

whereas in the west they seem to have combined the two..us in israel do not:

my learning has been the following (short version).

progressives have multiple standards, that are very flexible to apply to any situation, good and bad are not held up to a standard, the "standard" is adjusted to fit the environment and desired outcome
liberals stick to a single standard that is applied, good and bad are decided by the actions based on that single standard

progressives do not believe in the "consequence for ones actions" as a basic foundation of a moral code...actions can and are excused, depending upon the environment (flexible standards)
liberals believe in responsibility for ones actions, the consequences that result of ones actions are primary the responsibility of those who started the initial actions

And can be used in very different ways: indeed 'liberal' in some countries implies 'economically right-wing'; and many Conservatives like to claim that they are 'progressive'.

But if I were to propose a basic distinction: it is economic. A liberal accepts capitalism and the free-market, but with a safety-net for those who otherwise would not survive. A progressive/left-winger wants either at the extreme a totally state-run economy, or more usually a mixed economy with a large role for the public sector.

Israel's foundation is socialist. Its religious parties that are ripped by progressives for being rightwing want massive subsidies on everything. You'll note that not one "progressive" here who routinely bashes Israel for its rightwingery had anything positive to say about the recent J-14 social protests that brought together some 300-500,000 Israeli Jews and Arabs.

The "Leftwing progressive" Israel bashers here cannot find anything right about Israel's socialist tendencies (gov't funded healthcare, tuition or food subsidies) and liberal values WRT civil rights, women, gays or all the peace offers. Worse, they can find little to nothing wrong outside of Israel in the mideast WRT civil rights or government economic kleptocracy within the PA, incitement to hatred, war, etc. Whenever the rightwingery of Israel's neighbors is brought up, the "leftwing progressives" here try equating (and rather poorly at that) Israeli actions with Hamas' or the PA in an attempt to run interference in deflecting any and all criticism of extreme rightwing Palestinian leadership.

WRT human rights, these same Israel bashers could care less about socialists, seculars, leftwingers, progressives, liberals, christians, or muslims suffering under Sharia throughout the mideast, let alone within the Palestinian territories. They only "care" when Arabs are perceived to be the victims of Israeli oppression.

Traits of rightwingers, not "leftwing progressives" or liberals.

the harder left. I do agree that a basic difference between liberals and progressives is economic but there are also other areas of difference many of which can be issue specific like in the IP conflict where liberals are overwhelmingly pro-Israel but progressives are split with the farther left spectrum of progressives being more pro-Palestinian.
As a liberal just like almost all liberals I support as you said capitalism and the free market but with a social safety net. Many progressives also do support capitalism and the free market with a social safety net except with more regulation and a larger safety net but many progressives on its farther left spectrum support a far more mixed or socialist based economy.

This all goes to the point I am trying to make that it seems liberals are in far more general agreement on positions with each other while progressives it seems can differ on issues so widely that they suffer from what can be called an identity crisis in trying to define themselves and a progressive position. I see it on this board and other boards all the time with many arguments and accusations between progressives with one saying that this or that is not a progressive position and the other saying yes it is.
While liberals can certainly and do differ widely on some issues, these wide differences are far fewer so you really don't see such differences causing anything like the problems that it causes between progressives.

i agree with you in your definitions..amongs the liberal "elite"..those guys who writes books about liberalism that are bought only by their family and students (its on their required reading list), argue amongst themselves about when can a liberal use "illiberal techniques to defend liberalism. (you might want to read that 2x), but not so much about the definition of liberalism

they argue about "can liberal cultures defend local neighborhoods that are essentially illiberal, that have "illiberal education (think haridi)". The liberal doctrine is clearly defined due to its single standard and principles, in terms of freedom of liberty, economics, education.

the progressive definition is basically free flowing without a clear definition that can be applied universally. What i do find is much more "splitting of definitions" during a discussion with progressives. Up in the iran thread, one progressive claims that 'removing the zionist regime" is not a threat to israel. I assume they are defining the word "remove" as one would a piece of dirt on a shelf. From a liberal perspective the that 'splitting of hairs" is absurd.

Americans don't like to identify as social democrats or democratic socialists so they refer to themselves as "liberals" even though both major political parties in the US fit within the broad liberal tradition.

Then they became uncomfortable with being called "liberals" so they invented a new term "progressives".

In Australia, the term "small-l liberal" or "progressive" is used to describe generally middle-class people that are progressive on social concerns but usually quite dry on economic issues (ie, happy about gay marriage but not so enthused about unions or progressive taxation).

Typically, these people were served by parties such as the Australian Democrats or the Liberal Democrats in the UK. However, in both the UK and Australia the Labour party has moved so far to the right that these parties now find themselves to the left of Labour on just about everything, even on economic issues.

Part of that is just partisanship. Part of it is just typical American playing fast and loose with the language. Part of it is to confuse the rest of the world about what we're talking about. How are we doing? Also, you're right about Americans disliking any identification with the term "socialist" in it. What happened was that conservatives began to equate "liberal" with "socialist" which made Democratic politicians uncomfortable. So liberals became progressives.

political propaganda in the US mainstream press to be more or less synonyms for "left" and "right", which is just wrong. Both terms have deep roots in US politics. The most important distinction between the two (IMHO) is that progressives tend to be populists, favoring direct democracy, government by or according to the popular majority will, over the representative but authoritarian government attitude favored by the major party hacks, who like to think of themselves as elected rulers, even emperors, rather than elected public servants. US national politicians want to be big-shots, rulers, not servants of the "little people". The US' political classes have always taken a fond view of the Roman republic, which was far from "progressive". Nevertheless, there is a persistent and occasionally strong populist-progressive strain in US politics that can be traced all the way back.

rather than a conservative party, outside of the US.

The UK Conservative Party (bear in mind that is where conservatism originated) espouses typical grey cardigan, pro-austerity, take-your-medicine conservatism. The Republican party is more about rainbow gumdrops, sunny optimism and staking out populist positions on gay marriage and abortion.

The US Republican party was about fiscal conservatism once upon a time however it got tied in with religion and all that goes with that now-a-days they are about social conservatism ie no abortion or gay marriage among other things along with fiscal conservatism of an increasingly extreme sort or Social Security being 'welfare' for old people think Grandma as a welfare queen
The strange part is that things like gay marriage and abortion have in recent polls been shown to be favored by a majority in the US albeit a narrow one

All that being said if you look around 'upstairs' you find that those with left of center politics are generally not broken down into hair splitting subgroups such as they are here on this forum

Americans seem to think it means cutting taxes. The definition elsewhere is more along the lines of not spending more than you take in. A rather critical distinction in some ways.

Certainly the Republicans are the more socialist party in some ways. Agricultural subsidies for instance - if there is an agrarian socialist party it would be the Republicans.

I think another manifestation of the populist nature of the Republican party is that it does not oppose socialism necessarily, just not for people that it considers undesirables. Veterans get government health care, as do the old, children, the disabled, the bankers get their bailout, farmers get their subsidies. Everyone gets their slice of pie except for those grotty working class proles.

I agree that the Republicans were once a conservative party, certainly there were in the days of Eisenhower, although by the time Reagan was in power the transition to a populist party was complete.

you have the majority of Americans and I would not be too sure about veterans either the Republicans are not too keen on spending more on them either

you have the DVA, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other agencies providing healthcare to different groups. If they had one universal health care scheme it would only cost 50% more than what the US is currently paying in public healthcare now.

You are quite right about the Republicans not giving a shit about veterans, particularly when they make up one-third of the people sleeping on the streets. If I was a Democratic politician I would rail on them long and hard on that.

The British Conservative Party has several strands. There is a traditionalist aristocratic paternalistic wing (nothing new should ever be tried for the first time; the Rich should be kind to the Poor so long as the Poor stay in their place); a right-libertarian wing (worships Maggie Thatcher; everyone should have a chance to Get Rich, not just the tradtional upper classes; but if you're poor it's your own fault, and the devil take the hindmost!) and indeed a right-wing populist wing. The right-wing populists of Britain are normally not so preoccupied as their American counterparts with religiously-influenced social issues like gay marriage and abortion; though some are, and it's getting worse, possibly under the American RW influence; but have an obsessive hatred of immigrants, racial minorities, and unemployed people and other benefit claimants. Right at the moment there is an extremely ugly campaign against disabled people who claim benefits.

The current government, partly due to the coalition with the LibDems, partly to Cameron's personal characteristics, tends to be economically conservative and socially liberal. I have always considered that such a policy is implicitly 'social liberalism only for those who can afford it'; but under the present government, and especially since the riots last summer, the attitude of libertarianism for the well-off and authoritarianism for the poor is becoming increasingly *explicit*.

The strongest ideologies of right-wing populism, where most things are the fault of Johnny Foreigner, everything's got worse since the days of Good Queen Victoria, and key domestic policy involves getting exploited working people to HATE the very poor and the benefit claimants rather than their bosses, are to be found more in the RW press than in the government. But the RW press is incredibly powerful and has great influence on governments, especially minority governments like the present one; though the effects of the Murdoch scandals may be clipping its wings a bit.

Populist insurgencies are always co-opted, side-tracked, and grounded out to nothing, either by losing the race (Goldwater, Wallace, George McGovern, John Anderson, Eugene McCarthy, etc.) or by winning and then not pursuing the promised reform (Obama, Carter, Clinton, LBJ, Nixon) The object is to maintain the current class system and corporatocracy. We have dozens of little tiny third parties that nobody pays much attention to, all remnants of this or that populist movement for this or that reform. It's been like that since the Civil War, at least. It's hardly a thing unique to this counrty either, if the people rule then political elites do not, and they know it anywhere you go, and once they convince themselves that they OUGHT to be running things, the whole sorry charade follows, the lies, the public dog-and-pony shows, the emotional hyperbole, the secrecy and hidden violence, and all for our own good, of course.

LB's description of UK politics sounds very similar, which is no surprise, UK society is even more class-ridden than ours, here it's just about money, how much, how long, how tastefully spent. I would expect some of the same patterns in Australia and other British ex-colonies too.

Edit: oh yeah, I forgot Perot, classic example, both the candidacy and the 3rd party collapse afterwards.

Love and hate is something I associate with football teams, bands, and books. But loving or hating a country? I just don't get it. I thought for a while love translates as patriotism, but that doesn't work coz in the case of Israel, it's mainly Americans I see going on about how they love Israel, and when I mixed it with foreign tourists very recently I was sheltering from the pouring rain outside my hotel in Sydney late at night, a smoking American tourist stood next to me and told me how much he loved my country. In his case I think it was short-hand for 'even though it's pissing down rain and cold, and smokers get treated like lepers here, I'm having a fantastic holiday.' So I'm guessing it's an American thing maybe. Hell, I don't even love my own country, though I could easily grow to love any country that has no taxation, universal healthcare, a 15 hour week, maximum retirement age of 40, and where the official religion is Pearl Jam.

I can tell you that loving countries is pretty much par for the course around here.

With respect to American Jews, I think, for many, loving Israel is part of the Hebrew school/synagogue experience.

Of course, this is not universally true - there are lots of exceptions. But you will find that love of Israel often comes from a combination of the liturgy (Israel and Jerusalem are exalted in many Jewish prayers) combined with Jewish history and especially Holocaust study - the notion of the Jewish people needing a homeland as a bulwark against antisemitism and historical persecution.