Left Wing

All politics is the overlap between the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective.

The sides generally referred to as "left" date from the time, in Europe, of battles between monarchists ("Right") and uprising peasants ("Left").

Because a strong state is good for the average peasant (except for the few who are sumarily executed), sometimes the Right wins. And because respecting individuals' rights is always good for the state, sometimes the Left wins.

--PhlIp

A general political alignment, originally driven by the desire for economic equity, now focussed on the control of a population's thought processes, and inspired by a belief in moral superiority. Contrast, RightWing

I'd be interested to know why this definition thinks that the left wing is 'focussed on the control of a population's thought processes, and inspired by a belief in moral superiority.' -- Anon

What is the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties? ("little" and "none" are both acceptable answers.)

To European standards, both would probably qualify as right-wing parties. (Democrats moderately right-wing, Republicans extremely so.) However, I did some economics courses, and there the professor showed us some data that made clear that during Democratic governments in the USA, unemployment went down at the cost of more inflation, while during Republican governments, inflation was controlled at the cost of more unemployment. This seems to suggest that there is indeed a very real economic difference in both parties, and that Americans' choice at the ballot box makes a real difference, perhaps even more than they realize.

--StephanHouben

How does this explain the "double-whammy and the MiseryIndex of the Carter years. Moreover, do the figures take into account any kind of lag, given that a police enacted this year probably won't have any effect until next year...

[The content below was removed, possibly inadvertently. Restored Mar 16 2000]

Seems to me that the folks at the extreme ends claim moral superiority and work hardest to control the rest of us and especially each other. It would probably be best to let those on the left characterize their own beliefs while letting those on the right speak only for themselves.

the professor showed us some data that made clear that during Democratic governments in the USA

It's been so long since our government was one way or the other. Could you clarify if he meant legislative or executive?

--Thanks --JohnRepici

executive (i.e. Republican or Democratic president). I will see if I can find this data somewhere, and even include a reference (Wow!). -- StephanHouben

I've read (I think this was in Krugman's Peddling Prosperity, ISBN 0393312925 ) that this inflation-unemployment tradeoff was true from, er, around 1945 to 1975; I'd be very interested in knowing if if held during other time periods as well. The "Phillips curve" of an inflation/unemployment trade-off is standard fare in economics classes, but much harder to see in real economic statistics[1]. --SethGordon

OK, I found the reference. It was actually in my textbook: N. Gregory Mankiw, "Macroeconomics", second edition, ISBN 0-87901-722-8 , chapter 12, p. 330-331. Described is the period from 1948 up to and including the Bush administration. It gives the real GDP growth during the 4 years of each presidential term, and the averages per party. Those are (in percents of the real GDP):

                 1st          2nd           3th             4th
 Democrats       3.3          6.1           4.8             3.4
 Republicans     3.0          0.0           2.7             3.8

Especially in the 2nd and 3th year, Republican administrations display a consistently lower real growth. In fact, of the 7 years in the period with a decline in real GDP, 6 were either the 2nd or 3th year of a Republican administration. (The 7th was during the 4th year of Carter). For the last administration mentioned (Bush), we have:

                 2.5          0.8          -1.2             2.1

This seems to suggest that the pattern, at that time, still held. The large economical growth during the Clinton administration means that the pattern probably still holds today. It is claimed, without further data, that monetary policy is less inflatory during Republican administrations, and that this explains the lower growth during Republican administrations.

-- StephanHouben

Stephan,

There seem to be two things that go against popular belief here. First, that republicans are the party of prosperity. More importantly, there is a strong "stated" reasoning that the choice of president has very little effect on the ecconomy ("the legislative branch has control over the purse strings, yada-yada-yada").

Very interesting data.

    -JohnRepici

CategoryOffTopic