Yes, I know that the political systems in the US and Sweden (as representative of the Nordic countries) are different. That is part of my thesis. The US system for the last 200 years discourages multiple concerted voices at the national level. The Swedish system does not guarantee diversity - the Social Democrats held majority power in Sweden for a long time - but your statement is that the US has more diverse politics than Sweden, and I want you to justify your statement.

You pointed out, correctly, that there are internal politics as well. How often do you hear from members who self-identify as members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Can you name two other caucuses, off the top of your head? Unless you are a politics wonk, I doubt that you'll be able to do so.

There's one self-described socialist in national politics. Where are the others? Where are the leftists on the American stage? Why aren't anti-war vegans like Dennis Kucinich in more of the news shows?

In any case, there are internal politics in the Swedish parties too, so I don't know what your point is supposed to show.

You say that Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton, Zell Miller, Eleanor Smeal, and Ben Nelson are examples of diversity. Neither Sharpton nor Smeal are politicians and Smeal has never run for public office, so you've opened up the field to include a very broad range of politics. Sweden of course also has a broad range of politics, once you get to individual people. There are omnivores and vegans, trans-sexuals and cis-sexuals, believers in 0, 1, or multiple gods, pro-kronor and pro-euro, and every category you mentioned.

At some point the US wins just because it has more people, so is your measure of diversity roughly the same as saying that there are more people in the US? I thought you were making something more substantial observation.

As for Gus Hall's parents, I again ask how you are sure about what you know. I found no mention that opposition to their political beliefs was a factor. I couldn't even find out when they moved to the US. My strong suspicion is that they, like other Finns during the Great Migration, did so for economic and ethnic reasons. This was the period of Russification, when the Russian government was forcing its language and customs on the Finnish people.

This includes the February Manifesto of 1899, which declared that Russian is the official language of administration, only Russian currency was allowed, the Orthodox Russian Church is the church of state, and the Finnish army is conscripted into the Russian imperial army.

It's easier for me to assume that his parents, like many others at the time, did so because of improved economic conditions and reduced social oppression in the US, and not specifically because of their political beliefs - beliefs which were also held by many Finns who remained in Finland - were under specific persecution. Can you point me to any evidence that the main reason they left Finland was because their ideas were "too politically diverse" for the country?

And it's all very odd, because you're using Russian imperialism and oppression from 100 years ago to color your views on Nordic politics now. How does that logic work?

I can't help but think that any logic you can come up with would apply even more to the US. The suppression of Communism in the US was done by its own government, at all levels of government, and 50 years more recent than Hall's parents.