This is a question which not rarely comes out here in EU. Theoretically, considering the international partners of the US Democratic Party, it should be Socialist, but I know that in America Socialism is not that welcomed. So, which is the % of Socialism in the Democratic Party?
They're centrists, but they have socialist elements. The only way to not have any socialist elements whatsoever is to support a 'pure' free market, with zero taxation, regulation or welfare. And to my knowledge there is no political party in any country that advocates this.
Considering the majority of democrats in the u.s. house are also members of the u.s. socialist party and many including president Obama also members of the communist party of american, I would say the answer is yes and nearly 100%. After Obama was elected in 2008 both of these organizations took down their member list as Obamas membership became a political issue. I don't know if ,but doubt Obama is still a member. It became too hot an issue.
Because we only have two real parties that can actually control the US, the Left's platform becomes hard Left, and the Right's platform becomes hard Right. So the Democratic Party has at least 50% socialistic elements in it.
This is an interesting answer from the perspective of political science. In Europe we tend to imagine that a two parties system moderate the extremists pushing the political competition towards the center. So you are sustaining something different ... the two parties system doesn't moderate the extremists ... on the contrary ... it offers political room to them. This is quite concerning.
That has generally been the rule. Because we only have two major political parties due to our first past the post system, our parties are really more like coalitions rather than political parties in the European sense. In Europe, you vote for your party and the parties put together a coalition after the election. In the US, you are voting for the coalition. As far as socialism goes, I put it at 25% because I figure that's about the percentage of people in the Democratic Party who either are socialists or think about it much, like the Bernie Sanders people. Otherwise, the people in the Democratic coalition just want more. More of whatever their constituency wants. That's why it's such a successful coalition. Your group wants X? OK, vote for the Democrats and we'll support X too. It's simple but effective. Meanwhile the Republicans are in a civil war because their factions want opposing things, not just simply more stuff. The Democrats did figure out how to keep segregationists and civil rights activists in the same party for decades. That's quite an achievement.
A remarkable achievement. Here that would be impossible. We are just observing the contrary: Italian Democratic Party risks to divide itself just because the more leftist streams in it don't like Renzi's moderate policies ...
It's really not that socialist, taking the "real" meaning of socialism as worker ownership of the means of production. There might be outliers and a few ideologues here and there, but the party core is chiefly concerned with the power of the party, and that power largely derives from their populist position. The Republicans are the same, but they try appealing to different demographics.
America is a Socialist/Capitalist hybrid. The take no prisoners, no-holds-barred, every man for himself, Capitalist approach doesn't work when it involves more than three people. The collective distribution of all wealth that is the Socialist model has proven itself a failure. America has balanced itself on a razor's edge between the two, and it's been a fantastic success for the most part. I don't fear the word "Socialism", and I don't deride "Capitalism". Combined, they have created this great nation.
The GOP should be rebranded as the Plutocratic People's Socialist Party. Nobody loves socialism and big government more than conservatives, as long as it benefits the rich. Most of the free stuff, hand-outs, and welfare in this country goes to the rich, not the poor.
Definitely agree, a mixed economy is the best option. As with all things, there must be balance. Yes the government should help its citizens financially or otherwise, but only when it is economically feasible, if not, they hurt future citizens in the long run even if they help a lot of people in the short term. Basic continuity principle: Take long term gains over short term losses. In other words, help when you can, and plan for the future so that it is possible to help more people at a future date.
The press is mostly liberal which skews the political parties left. Democrats are far left today, Republicans are center left today. For perspective, John Kennedy would be considered very conservative today.
As usual, the OP posts the query in the form of a leading question which shows his bias and predisposition to get a reply at his convenience. Since the 1930s the Democratic party has affirmed the Progressive ideology, one invented by Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans. Not socialism. Anyone who denies that is sorely lacking in knowledge of American history.
I look at the communist manifesto, and then look at the Democratic party platform, and there isn't really much difference is there?
In a political forum, political correctness and fair debate are an available possibility, but to make the discussion a bit spicy ... it keeps the forum alive ... Anyway, because of my correctness, I've listed a good number of possible answers, so ...
Now I'm curious ... [here there is the Democratic platform, 2012 release, https://www.democrats.org/party-platform]. There is something odd From this I would infer that the Democratic Party is going act "Top bottom". This reminds a planned Soviet economy. The moment when a government [or a party with government responsibility] says that a market shouldn't write its rule by itself ... simply that party is denying the principals of capitalism and this sounds a bit socialist. P.S. I'm temped to call Hillary Clinton ... Hillary Hillariovic Clintonova ...
