POLL: Left vs. Right Politically

Remove all ads!

@ Chandos

Not at all as I'm Pro-Choice

 

To make a gross generality, I tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters. Perhaps someday I'll take the time to determine if there's an overriding philosophy to my approach and, if so, what it is. I suspect I'm just a tangled mass of contradictions.

 

Hehe Rallymamma, I think everyone want to be left on social matters and rights on fiscal matters. It generally do not go well together though. I know I would love to have well funded schools, free and good healthcare and daycare for the kids. All that without paying a large amount in tax would be swell. I really do not think even the most rabid rightwinger really wants to dismantle the schoolsystem and make healthcare into something for the select few, it is just that he likes paying taxes even less.

Something I have been thinking on and that I think could be useful in keeping the distinctions in this thread are the different axis on the political spectra. First we have the economical where the left is socialism and the right is liberalism. So the democratic party is slightly closer to socialism and further from liberalism than the republican party even if they are both quite a far way into the liberal side.
Then we have the value scale ie. views on freedom, abortion, gay rights, religion you name it anything dealing with incorpearal values. There the left side of the scale is the liberal side and the right side is the conservative scale.

I mostly typed this as the term liberal is atleast for me quite confusing, for when it comes to matters economical and fiscal liberal stands for small government with low taxes where the citizens are expected to take care of themselves while on the value scale so does liberal mean more or less everything goes.

To clarify my own standing point so would I say that I am in the middle of the left half of the scale on the economical scale believing that the government should supply its citizens with adequate healthcare and education amongst other things. On the value scale I am far left as I really do not think that anything that doesnt really affect me is any of my business and that even if there are choices I dont know if I would make I think that they should be legal options for those that need them and that no one should point fingers believing they hold the moral highground.

[ September 08, 2003, 14:57: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

I go according the issue there are issues that the right wing deals better there are issues the left wing deals better but both of them have flaws and that is why i do not go by the book

 

Both sides use a “divide and conquer” strategy. It is an “us against them” effect which causes many who feel frustrated to find someone to blame. The right tends to blame everything on the government and unions. This applies even now, even though they are running things! And of course the reason Johnny can’t read or write is the fault of the teacher’s union, even though teachers are underpaid, often work under poor conditions and get little help from some parents.

The left likes to divide between the have and don’t have; and this is mostly along race and gender lines. Stats prove that there is some truth in this contention. But in fairness (and I am trying to be fair) this is often an overworked contention to keep minorities loyal to the Cause.

Joacqin – Yes, there are those on the right who believe that if you cannot afford to pay your way then you are not entitled to healthcare. I talk to them everyday. But what if you have a heart attack and the hospital makes you a bill for $40,000.00? That’s not an exaggerated price tag. Some categories of healthcare are only for those who have really good insurance or are elite. But I guess that rant falls under a “divide and conquer” strategy. But I support universal healthcare. Even now, large corporations are beginning to feel the pinch and are describing the situation as a “healthcare crisis.”

Great Snook – I was pro-choice for many years. Then we had our first baby. The first time I held her, it changed everything for me. That may be an emotional response, and not logical or a not even a rhetorically perfect response. But so what? It works for me.

[ September 08, 2003, 22:04: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The problem is, that left-right is an insufficient guide. It stems from the first convent after the revolution.

On the right: All the kings men (god made you serfs and us lords, basta).

On the left: The revolutionaries (liberty, equality, brotherhood).

So, ideally, one may consider that the "right" does not exist anymore and the only thing that's left is the "left".

So the question left-or-right is futile. It would be much more accurate to ask, are you a hill-sitter, from Gironde, a leaf or one of the St. Jacobs ?

 

I'm quite comfortable right where I am - in the middle. Neither side really has its sh*t together.

 

Yago - As I stated in an earlier post: I'm not sure if a liberal from an earlier century would recognize me as a "liberal." But IMO, government can be a force for much needed change and reform for a great many social and political ills and inequalities. Some would rely on the "free market," whatever that is (good luck).

As with many other things, definitions can change over time. Nevertheless, I can appreciate your historical perspective on the terms. But before anyone can have a reasonable argument, a definition of terms must be agreed on.

DR - Don't cop out on us. But, since you mention you are in the middle, where does that leave one on the issues? Everyone MUST be labeled!

[ September 09, 2003, 01:51: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Chandos..."the Labeler"

It varies from issue to issue. Scale of 1 to 5, 1 being "Left," and 5 being "right."

Gun Control: 1. No matter what Chuck Heston says, you don't need a machine gun. I promise.
Abortion: 2. Pro Choice, but only to a degree. Abortion does not mean contraception or a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Capital Punishment: 5. Don't do the crime if you can't to the time.
Drug Laws: 1. The DEA is fighting a losing battle that no one will ever win.
Iraq: 1. There aren't words for how badly the Bush administration has handled this, and if there are words they've already been spoken a thousand times over already here in the Alley.

Just off the top of my head...I may post more later.

 

Chandos, in our statescraft-lessons, we had all our parties traced back to the 18th century. They developed and changed, but that change can be traced back and followed. The point is, as coming from a country which has a multi-party system and not only a two-party system, those diffrences on the issues are embodied in different parties. There is not only one left and one right party. There are many parties, reflecting different world-views.

He, he, and change of the content under a political label and in relation to the thread about muslim-religion. Coming from the country where the protestant-dark-ages lasted the longest and which is usally used as example, that muslims and christian traditions aren't so far from eachother, I say everyone who thinks that women are equal to men, can walk-around bare-headed and have the right to vote and own, is a friggin' communist and atheist. But don't worry, we have in the meantime overtaken most countries in these issues. I guess only the scandinavians are in front of us.

Edit. Makes me think about moving to Sicilia.

[ September 08, 2003, 23:27: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

OK, I don't wish to turn the topic into an abortion debate, but one thing must be said:

Pro-life and pro-choice are only media names. Pro-choice is, in fact, a quasi-neutral denominator that in reality has a positive conotation (in this particular case). You could also call many anti-abortionists pro-choice since they defend the right to choose. Of the foetus, not of the mother. The mother might have chosen not to have sexual intercourse in the first place or used means of contraception (for non-religious anti-abortionists). The conflict revolves around one question: whose right is more important. So, even though leftists are typically in favour of abortion, this is not a left-right issue.

 

As Carla Howell so eloquently put it, "The political spectrum is shifting from liberal vs. conservative to Big Government vs. small government. We have Big Government Republican politicians and Big Government Democrat politicians. They both support Big Government programs, high taxes, and more and more intrusions into our business and personal lives. Their argument is over who can run Big Government better."

I see both the left and the right as a danger to freedom. PJ O'Rourke defined my political philosophy, Libertarianism, so well in his Liberty Manifesto. To update my favorite line, we have no "vision thing," as the current president would say, or, as the ex-president would say, we have no Hillary.

"You know. if government were a product, selling it would be illegal. Government is a health hazard. Governments have killed many more people than cigarettes or unbuckled seat belts ever have. Government contains impure ingredients-as anybody who's looked at Congress can tell you. On the basis of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promises. I think we can say government practices deceptive advertising. And the merest glance at the federal budget is enough to convict the government of perjury, extortion, and fraud. There, ladies and gentlemen, you have the Cato Institute's program in a nutshell: government should be against the law. Term limits aren't enough. We need jail. "

 

Chevalier, your argumentation on the names of the camps in the abortion issue goes both way. Pro-life has an alot nicer ring to it than anti-abortion. Both sides want to be "pro" as it is much nicer sounding than "anti".

 

I almost voted for Carla in the last election. Every "test" I take points me to the libertarian party. I just wish they could be taken seriously. I worry that my vote would be thrown away like all those Ross Perot votes (stolen from the republicans) in Clinton's eight years and the Ralph Nader votes (stolen from the democrats) for the current administration.

 

I just can't keep my mouth shut.

From one false dilemma to the next false dilemma.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_falsedilemma.htm

But actually Carla is in one point right. The Republicans (and the democrats) are at least two different parties. They so many inner-contradictions, because both have to appeal to so different views. The same is for Tories/Labour, CDU/SPD. At least there should be 4 parties. Everywhere.

[ September 09, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Is there a jail big enough that can hold all the crooked corporate fat cats (including Enron, Tyco, MCI Worldcom, Aol-Time-Warner, etc, insider traders, Wall Street crooks AND their crooked politicians that they support through large donations? IF government were run like big business it WOULD be a crime with no "limits."

 

Y'know, there's one more artificial dichotomy that we've touched on, and that's the individual-institution divide. Some would say that society is purely the sum of its human parts - everything is based on the individual. Others claim that institutions - family, state, church, corporation, union, football team - have a higher meaning and purpose that transcends the individual humans involved.

A simple example: marriage. The individual perspective is that married lovers are qualitatively indistinguishable from two unmarried lovers. The marriage contract is pragmatically useful since it sustains commitment, but theoretically two highly committed unmarried lovers are equivalent to highly committed married lovers - and, more practically, two unmarried lovers who adore each other are better off than two married people who have lost the flame. What matters are the people, not the marriage.
The institutional perspective, by contrast, claims that marriage has substance independent of the ones married. A man and woman who marry gain something qualitatively different that two unmarried lovers can't achieve, no matter how much "in love" they are. It's the marriage that's important, and the people involved are tapping into something greater than themselves.
(Incidentally, this is one reason why some rightists think homosexual marriage is no big deal - just individuals, who cares? - while other rightists bemoan it as society's death knell.)

Per our topic, this has played out in the right-left dichotomy, too. Anarchists and Marxists, committed leftists both, attacked each other mercilessly in the 19th century. Whether by right or historical accident, Marxism and socialism won the day, but we shouldn't forget that the left has its own virulent anti-government strain.
Rightism has been traditionally institutionalist, but libertarianism is a rightist-individualist strand. For whatever historical reasons, American rightism has been much more individualist than the rest of the world. Rightist-institutionalists assume that government does have proper functions that are best achieved by the state, not by individuals. Rightist-individualists think that government is just a bunch of individuals with guns, and that the solution is not to reform the state but to strangle it. Those few things that the state gets to do - minimal security, limited infrastructure, etc. - are pragmatic decisions and maybe, if become civilized enough, someday we'll have privatized security and roads, and the state will whither away.
Or was that Marx's line?

 

This issue has for me, at least i think, a two level response. One the field of real life and what is really working , and one of what would work IF.. humans were like something else than this.
Left as an political system in theory as Marx dreamed of, IMHO, emulates debugs if you prefer the democracy in a greater mass of people a larger territory to control.
But in democracy, as it existed in ancient Greece, the one vote counted where now does not .
And on the other hand right is practically the political direction of mostly everyone who rules on this planet. Nothing more to add here other than always it were the men first and then the system that provided inspired leaderships.
Both tried, both failed i think we really need to take a step forward somehow in this problem

 

I guess I'm somewhere between moderate and far right. I don't like high taxes. Sure, high taxes help pay for stuff like charity aswell as free healthcare. I don't support that, if I need to see a doctor I'd rather pay myself that have the state do it for me. - What about expensive surgery and stuff? Insurance.

I don't want to pay for others, I want to pay for myself, as well as pay for the organisation that upholds the law. I'm willing to pay tax to support the police, the government, and all that, but I'd like to pay as much as possible myself. I consider it MY right to choose how to invest MY money. Call me a greedy capitalst, I don't care, I'm sick and tired of seing my money spent on things that I don't consider nescesary in society. In Sweden we have the problem of having lots of people who refuse to work, and they get money from the state. I don't see why I should pay for their food or their home, if they willingly refuse to work and can't pay themselves that's their problem. I have no problem with helping support education or millitary though.

I'm not rich, and I do not understand how anyone can possibly consider lefty politics to be something good. I dread the day the local lefty part wins an election. Here we sometimes have to pay up to 50% in income taxes, is that fair? People are refusing to work because they don't earn money doing so, and yet the lefty party wants higher taxes. I've learned that left-winged partys don't really care about the people, they just want power.

^^All of the above is just my personal opinion and if anyone takes offense you missunderstood something

 

Mithrantir has a good point. The left gets into its most trouble (with rightists) when it tries to shape what people ARE - like the "new Soviet man". The right gets into its trouble (with leftists) when it blocks what people DO - legislating morality and all that. It's tough to reprogram imperfect men to fit your perfect programme.

But I can't resist a swipe at ancient Athens. Don't forget that its "democracy" applied to less than five percent of the populace. Women couldn't vote, slaves couldn't vote, blue-collar workers couldn't vote, merchants couldn't vote, etc. Ancient Athens was as "democratic" as the modern Catholic Church: the mass of Catholics don't pick their leaders, but the College of Cardinals votes democratically within itself. In terms of percentages, even apartheid South Africa was more democratic than Athens. So yeah, maybe in ancient Athens one vote counted - but good luck getting into the small clique that owned the vote.

I also can't resist a quick plug for Marx's lovely leftist-institutionalist vision. Yes, it led to the death of 120 million people (carefully documented, not an exaggeration), but it was such a beautiful theory! All its theoretical aspects blended together in a secular symphony that has not been equalled since. May its like never be seen again.