The policies they support, the way of their behavior, the function of their political philosophy is all different. This is a new era of something so detached from its definition that it should be considered and renamed a different thing.
The policies they support, the way of their behavior, the function of their political philosophy is all different. This is a new era of something so detached from its definition that it should be considered and renamed a different thing.
FDR is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a US President in the early 20th century.
CATO is an organization that pushes for small-government, market-oriented policy. They’d be, economically, on the right side of the US political spectrum, whereas typically, an American using the term “liberal” would be talking about a social liberal, somone who would be, economically, on the left side of the US political spectrum, would favor a larger government.
EDIT: Also, to add to the fun, the US uses “political colors” that are something like the opposite of what is the common convention in Europe.
In the US, historically, there was no association between color and political position. However, in the, I believe 2000 election, a convention became adopted, started off some arbitrary choice by a TV station, where the Democrats (the more-left of the Big Two parties) were the “blue” party, and the Republicans (the more-right of the Big Two Parties) were the “red” party.
However, in Europe, the convention is for blue to be associated with center-right parties, and red to be associated with left parties.
EDIT2: Yes, 2000 election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
You’ll tend to notice that in recent years, Democratic presididential candidates will wear a blue tie, Republicans red. Might also be true below that level; I haven’t looked. And, of course, Trump’s MAGA hat branding is red.