Kerry was so generically bland they struggled to find something to slam him with; indecision was the best they could come up with. I don't remember Clinton, Gore, or Obama being portrayed in that fashion. I would argue the stereotype of liberals as being elitist and looking down from on high at conservatives is *more commonly held* on the right than the indecisive one, especially these days. No one accuses Obama's administration of not knowing what it wants - they accuse it of wanting something very impractical/harmful and of being overly dismissive of critics. (See Press Secretary Gibbs and how he portrayed the grassroots protests against health care as "astroturfing" when it's nothing of the sort.)
"Certainty" as it relates to quick action is a buzz word for Neocons, less so for other Conservatives. "Certainty" mainly relates to how Conservatives (are supposed to) have a firm grounding in the principles of expanding individual liberty. The left is portrayed as less certain in contrast because it appears they lack a grand unifying theory of their own (not saying there isn't one, just that Liberals aren't very good at publicizing it).
The idea that either side is more "unified" or "certain" than the other is a false image, of course: Conservatives are supposed to be united behind the liberty ideal, but Neocons and Social Conservatives have advocated restrictions for the sake of "national security" and "public decency." The right isn't solidly together - it's just better at looking like it. The 2008 election primaries demonstrated how many different factions there are in the GOP and how they don't always get along. One of the main observations about McCain was his high level of uncertainty in his policy proposals (mainly because he was a Liberal mouthing faux-Conservative words fed to him by strategists).
The key point I'm trying to illustrate with my approach to AU!Stephen and r!Stephen isn't how to caricature the left and right in the US, but the process in which they create their satirical characters. I'm commenting on the way real people tend to poke fun at their own ideology and opposing ideologies through the use of contrasting the two "real world" Stephens. It's satire of satirists.
Socialist and fascist governments are both authoritarian regimes. Socialism, like Fascism, believes individual liberty can be readily discarded for the sake of the greater good and that order must be maintained through central planning with the government and/or corporatism. Contrast this with Liberalism, which holds that a country needs big government to defend individual liberty from external oppressors; and Conservatism, which says individual liberty is best maintained with a small government and free market. Socialists and Fascists occupy the same relative position on the political map relative to the US left and right. That's why I lump them together.
no subject
"Certainty" as it relates to quick action is a buzz word for Neocons, less so for other Conservatives. "Certainty" mainly relates to how Conservatives (are supposed to) have a firm grounding in the principles of expanding individual liberty. The left is portrayed as less certain in contrast because it appears they lack a grand unifying theory of their own (not saying there isn't one, just that Liberals aren't very good at publicizing it).
The idea that either side is more "unified" or "certain" than the other is a false image, of course: Conservatives are supposed to be united behind the liberty ideal, but Neocons and Social Conservatives have advocated restrictions for the sake of "national security" and "public decency." The right isn't solidly together - it's just better at looking like it. The 2008 election primaries demonstrated how many different factions there are in the GOP and how they don't always get along. One of the main observations about McCain was his high level of uncertainty in his policy proposals (mainly because he was a Liberal mouthing faux-Conservative words fed to him by strategists).
The key point I'm trying to illustrate with my approach to AU!Stephen and r!Stephen isn't how to caricature the left and right in the US, but the process in which they create their satirical characters. I'm commenting on the way real people tend to poke fun at their own ideology and opposing ideologies through the use of contrasting the two "real world" Stephens. It's satire of satirists.
Socialist and fascist governments are both authoritarian regimes. Socialism, like Fascism, believes individual liberty can be readily discarded for the sake of the greater good and that order must be maintained through central planning with the government and/or corporatism. Contrast this with Liberalism, which holds that a country needs big government to defend individual liberty from external oppressors; and Conservatism, which says individual liberty is best maintained with a small government and free market. Socialists and Fascists occupy the same relative position on the political map relative to the US left and right. That's why I lump them together.