I’ve always heard that Democrats in America would be considered a “right leaning” party in Europe, however I’ve wondered about someone who considers themselves progressive, where they would line up on the spectrum in Europe.
For example I want:
- Universal Healthcare
- UBI
- Taxation of the rich
- Marriage and general equality for LGBTQ+ persons
- Better public transport and corresponding social services for all people
Is there something I’m missing in my views, or is that generally what left leaning progressives are looking for in Europe?
From what I understand the Democratic Party in the United States is a wide tent that includes people who consider themselves to be democratic socialists all the way to middle of the road, don’t rock the boat kind of folks. While the former might feel at home in a European social democratic party or perhaps even a socialist party, the latter would likely find more common ground among the liberal (in the economic meaning of that term) or conservative/christian democratic parties.
The main difference I feel is that most European countries have representative democracies with proportional representation in their parliament. This usually avoids the lost vote effect if you vote for smaller parties. Therefore, what are usually the wings of larger parties in the United States, would be separate parties altogether in most European countries.
Having said that the core of the Democratic Party and the majority of people in power and office from that party over the last decade or two have been centrists at heart. Even when given the opportunity they didn’t introduce any true universal healthcare. They didn’t address the fact that the minimum wage doesn’t reflect the rising costs most people face. They didn’t address the rapidly growing inequality. They didn’t move the needle on any public transport infrastructure projects. They successfully kept the country running and the economy growing while not seriously changing anything about the underlying structure of the nation. This is evidence enough for me to assert that the Democratic Party would probably be somewhere around Merkel’s CDU, Rutte’s VVD or perhaps Macron’s party (whatever name it’s currently going by) in terms of ideology.
Your analysis completely ignores the impact of the US Senate’s wonky “cloture” rule, which is a compromise from the prior practice of the US Senate filibuster.
As depicted in way too many movies, the filibuster let any single senator (or small team or senators) essentially veto any piece of legislation by putting the whole thing to a halt. The modern rule instead (in essence) requires any act.of Congress to clear a 60% vote threshold in the Senate.
There hasn’t been a time in my entire life when the modern democratic party held the presidency, a majority in the house, and 3/5ths of the Senate. (Clinton had a party with segregation-era racists still in power; Obama had “blue dogs” who were nearly Republican, and Biden had a coal baron and a green party scam artist in the Senate )
I didn’t believe that specific rule to be relevant to the argument. The Democratic Party includes a wide range of opinions that, in most European countries, would be represented by several different parties. While there are some fringes on the right (Clinton’s racists for example) and some fringes on the left (some Democrats even refer to themselves as democratic socialists despite being closer to social democrats in my opinion). The mainstream that has dominated all three presidencies you mentioned would likely find themselves among small c conservative or (economically) liberal parties in most European political systems that I know.
Political parties are creations of the electoral and governmental systems in the nations they exist in
“Most European nations” is an imprecise way of saying “dominant parlimentary unicameral legislatures”. To use the UK as an example, all sovereign power is asserted by the lower democratically elected chamber of parliment. Neither the house of lords nor the king counter the assembled majority of parliment,.who from its own members appoint those who direct the government day to day. While there is a sub-national distinction, these are essentially creations of parliment and have no inherent power on their own.
Since the only thing that matters in national UK politics is parliament, all of the political energy is focused there.
In the United States this is not at all the case… national power is split as I described before, and a similar pattern repeats at the state level with distinct difectly-elected legislators and executives. The national government was historically a creation of the states, and each state has substantial ability to act in defiance of congress’s preferences.
Since there are so many different things that matter, the value of a third or fourth party is dramatically reduced. When minor parties start to win elections on their own, the major parties either adapt or die quickly. (I have remarked elsewhere that in American politics “there is no prize for second place”, and a worthwhile collolary here would be “and there are so many games to play.”)
You are technically correct in that if God came down and reworked all of the USA into distinct european-style nations with separate languages we would likely have similar party arrangements, with both the Democrats and the Republicans splitting into multiple parties. But if God also remade Europe into a single USA-style mega-nation made up of states with similar governments who shared a single first-language, European parties would likely congeal until there are only two.
As a practical matter, of course, neither is not a useful observations. And simplified observations of the differences between “Europe” and the USA like “the USA is far to the right of Europe” were part of what led the UK to devolve into a place where you can be threatened to silence for accurately describing a rich transphobe.