Right vs. Left

I, being a completely rational and highly educated person, am neither "left" nor "right" but "correct" in my perception and in my (highly educated) opinions. Why GW doesn't have me on speed-dial is still a mystery

Isn't that the way we would all like to characterize ourselves?

Depends on the issue. I'm an independant.

Honestly, I think there are plenty of folks who deserve to be classified as Leftists in the world. Some of them post here regularly. They may be consistent on a few issues, but for the most part they pick and choose and end up with positions that defy logic.

It is a difficult project to "define" conservativism or liberalism. There are just too many positions. For instance "Log Cabin Republicans" are a homosexual organization. Yet they are in the same "right wing" label as Rex Reed and his "moral majority."

In a recent discussion someone defined neo-conservatives as that movement which postulates a kind of objective set of innate values we ought to use as our measure. A kind of 21st century version of "natural law." The only problem is that this then would include folks like Noam Chomsky who I doubt most neo-conservatives see themselves in agreement with.

One could go on, but in my mind the positions are just too broad to be helpful.

I started a thread once a while back putting forth my theory that the differences between "liberal" and "conservative" are not the problem that leads to flame ways, but rather how one side makes assumptions about the way the other side thinks or argues and then operates on that mistaken assumption.
then, the other side spends as much or more time debunking the misconception and less time actually putting forth their actual views. Then the arguments get about redefining the misconception....it becomes rather circular at that point and counterproductive.

Though this can happen from either direction, a more recent example would be someone claiming that all liberals who were against the decision to invade iraq could not be supportive of the troops. The thread then got bogged down in rebutting and redefining that one misconception...mainly an assumption about how the other side is motivated or thinks.
The indelibility of these misconceptions, even in the face of repeated rebuttal and correction is the basis of what seems like 90% of the friction between right and left.

If each side would just say their piece, read the other side with adequate comprehension, we might actually be having discussions instead of flamewars.

but I dream.

So your definition of "Left" is "positions that defy logic".

Way to show your non-partisanship

I think "right" and "left" are only marginally useful when they are confined to comparisons such as "I am to the Left of finboy, ideologically".

The mistake is to assume that by stating the above, that it constitutes a meaningful measurement of my ideology--i.e. that you would know how I'd vote on any given issue. There is a universe of thought that could probably be described as "to the Left of finboy", just as there is to his "right".

It's still only marginally useful even in that narrow usage, IMO.

It's unrealistic to imply that by calling anyone "Lefty" or "Righty" or even by some Party designation that it accurately describes how they will come down on any particular issue. Most people are infinitely more complex than that. And some people even change their minds over time.

I have no respect for people who's politics are dicatated by Party, Color, Flag, Creed, Whatever. What I am and how I'll vote is decided by each and every issue on a case by case basis.

I am right and I am right.

I don't think there are (many true) centrists. There may be Independents, but I generally believe there are mostly liberal and mostly conservative people out there. And I think that more liberals claim to be "center" than conservatives, who will proudly say they are, indeed, conservative. Seems liberals don't like to "call a spade a spade.'

The definitions listed are as I see them (note, this is my opinion, but viewed as fact, personally).

From my view, liberal tendencies include but are not limited to: wanting more free stuff from the government, minimizing personal freedom, fixation on "helping" those of a race other than white, the systematic removal of religion (except Islam) in American culture, emphasis on sexuality in the public arena, adherence to an "I'm a victim" mentality, and belief in globalism at the cost of US sovereignty. Overall, liberalism employs an irrational thought process that leads to illogical conclusions, but appeals to the emotion. And of course, big taxes, more beaurocracies and a dislike of firm disciplinary action should be thrown in for good measure.

Alternatively, conservatives tend to believe in less government intrusion except for issues of national security, an emphasis on bearing arms, adherence to the idea that abuse of the freedoms one enjoys will reap serious consequences and not petty fines or weak sentences, emphasis on traditional values (founded in Jedeo-Christian theology) but to the non-religious based on common sense(tm), belief in a mentality that emphasizes personal responsibility, upholds national sovereignty over the utopian ideal of globalism, and insists on the use of logic that tries to cut through the smokescreen of emotion. And of course I'll add lower taxes, smaller government, and support for the use of capital punishment.

This is just the off-the-top-of-my-head stuff.

Granted, there is a spectrum, but I believe most (nearly all) when asked, will fall on one side or another most of the time.

I enjoy level-headed debate. I believe most (all?) disagreements can be broken down to a fundamental disagreement upon which the foundation of of the argument of both sides rests. THAT is what I strive to find. Most of the time, though, it isn't ever found. And unfortunately, most of the time, screaming and name-calling is the order. (I'm guilty too!) When that happens, one is nearly guaranteed not to sway the other's position...which I would assume is the point of all these debates. Otherwise, why have them?

Of course, a little friendly ribbing is alright.

The problem is that most Americans are libertarians: socially liberal and economically conservative. Presidential candidates, save Clinton, tend to reach out to populists: socially conservative and economically liberal, since these people are more likely to (swing) vote.

Even after defining people in one of many ways, you still aren't finished. Most Americans may be libertarians, but they certainly aren't libertarian enough to vote for Libertarian candidates. Some government regulation is a good thing.

Defining people politically isn't as easy as the talk show hosts claim it is.

Hence, they are WRONG?
Jeez, fin. I go from thinking of you as a right guy (no pun intended) to an absolute fruitcake with his boat SO heeled to starboard that your sail is dipping.

Really, man. One thing I have noticed about hard to righters is that, more oft than not, they look DOWN on those with whom they disagree. They deride and scorn them. They feel they have no need to listen to anyone on the other side of the spectrum because, let's face it, they're wrong and their opinion is not worthy of respect.

Yeah, today I am making the gross generalization. In my experience, it is true. I have noticed it since I have become politically and socially aware.

JeeZUS, Fin. They're LIBERALS. Not child molesters.
For ****'s sake. GET OFF IT, already. You're beginning to look like a wack job. I mean, go back through your posts of the last 10 days or so. Count how many of them DON'T include some liberal deriding. I'll wager the ratio of bash to not is pretty friggin slanted.

Here's an inconsistency for you: affirmative action. Lefties live ONE WAY and act another. They're in favor (it's in the platform) of affirmative action. But if you look at their personal behavior, they don't actually GO TO surgeons who were admitted and graduated med school due to the benefit of affirmative action. Same with attorneys -- when making the choice PERSONALLY, people choose the best they can afford. If affirmative action was such a desireable and important social agenda item, I think we'd see people follow through with their lives and the lives of their loved ones. They don't. They don't send their children to inner city schools, although they're constantly advocating the needs of the school systems and simultaneously praising the wonderful job (of brainwashing) that the schools are doing.

Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em in the voting booth.

You also find that folks on the Left are a lot less tolerant of people with "traditional" and/or religion-based values. We see it constantly here in the forum. They're quick to label someone who doesn't agree with them, although they pride themselves on their "inclusiveness." The Michael Savage controversy is a good example of this, as is what radical Leftists did to Dr. Laura a few years ago.

I find too that the Left seems to make a political issue out of everything. The war, for instance. The American Left has siezed the war as a great way to undermine this country. If it goes well, we're Imperialists. If it goes poorly, we're just bad warmongers, a paper tiger. People who demonstrate in favor of removing Saddam and protecting the US are labeled "pro-war" and called, openly, warmongers; people who don't want to see unborn children killed are labelled "anti-abortion." Anti-war types bill themselves as "peace activists" as though that statement had any meaning.

Further, the Left has a need for the peepul to be suffering. Without America going down the tubes, they don't have a message. They can't rush in and "save us from ourselves" unless there are all kinds of problems. That's why Democrats are constantly talking down the economy, especially prior to elections. Anyone who's taken a basic econ course should be able to figure out how damaging THAT type of stuff can be to an economy. They also seem to use the related tactic of dividing their constituency (and America) into little tiny ethnic groups and/or groups of victims of "The Man," whoever that is. Without Lefties, the little man can't rise up, can't provide for himself, can't achieve the 'merican dream. Class warfare (Buchanan's Culture War) is a strong tool of the American Left. Combine that with a captive media, and you've got a powerful tool for washing of the brains.

Again, scares the hell out of me every day. If I didn't have such faith in the goodhearted nature of the average American, I'd be really shaking in my boots!

I'm hoping your ridiculous post was simply an exercise in "friendly ribbing". Otherwise your simplistic fixation on gross stereotypes would probably frighten me.

Perhaps it would be helpful for people to at least recognize what the term "liberal" refers to. Ideologically it traces back to the Enlightment. It's most forceful advocates successfully initiated the Revolutions in France and the American Colonies.

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most staggeringly "Liberal" political documents in history. If it had to be boiled down to one nugget, it would be the radical endorsement of Liberty as the greatest human value. That's where the name "liberal" comes from.

Now it can be hotly debated which modern political movements can trace their lineage to Classical Liberalism or which parties are more fundamentally committed to those ideals (and in this case I reject the notion that it's one or the other as they all seem to cater to Liberty or Tyranny whenever it suits them), but at least get the record straight for what it means before we go on inventing farcial stereotypes.

If you can't even recognize the ridiculous stereotypes in this post then you're beyond hope and beyond being a suitable partner in democracy.

I used to respect you for at least being reasoned and thoughtful in your posts, but I'm not sure that's true any more.

I honestly fear that lots of people in this country are as blindly loyal to Partisan Puppetmasters as you seem to be.

As I said, it's my ridiculous opinion.



In the debate over the word "liberal" and "conservative" I don't know that anything 'back in the day' can be applied here. I was simply noting what I saw nowadays in the people who are referred to as "liberal" and "conservative."

I know, man. The reason that I harp on it so much is to try to end up with some balance, and to err on the side of "look, an elephant" rather than casual banter. That's all. I try to take the extreme to make sure I cover the bases.

I know that the MacNN folks aren't the ones to worry about -- it's the Carville's and Begala's we've got to watch. They'll have us into another "it's the economy, stupid" before we know it.

It's the puppetmasters of the Left that I worry about, and those stereotypes are appropriate for some of the leaders of American Democrats. Not the ordinary folks, of course. But the people that are driving the agenda, to obtain power, really do scare the cr*p out of me. Especially when I hear it night after night on the network news, spin spin spin. And when I see it in the newspapers.

Actually, I don't see much of the so-called Right side of things. But I manage to filter the truth out of the spin once in a while.

WRONG, my friend, you'd better keep a good eye on ME.

See, Fin, I never know where to take you. Now you're in the right guy category again. At least you keep me on my toes. Just so's you know, and I feel the need to say this of late, I never really feel any true rancor towards you. Iritation, yeah, but never animosity. I can repsect your views.
I just appreciate it when I can get the same favor (although, if you read carefully, you'll see I don't REALLY come out and say so much of what my views actually are in this forum any more- I allude, I suggest, I bring out the countermeasures and ask questions, but never really let my true opinion out. I find I learn more that way).

Me, it's extremes I don't like. I wholeheartedly believe the best for the country lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, I seldom see that balance. I don't think I am ever likely to (although, of course, in the LONG run it tends to balance- it is the sharp turns and shocks which make me queasy).

Yes, I know that you and theolein and thunderous could give Mr. Carville a run for his money. You subversive!

Pssst! he smells funny, too!

Well, I didn't mean to say that only a broad historical context is valid for understanding the different. I'm just saying that every single political movement in American is pretty much from a "Liberal" background so we should take those labels with a grain of salt.

I also think there is a tendency to confuse how the terms are used. They often are used to refer to people's moral or ethical positions--i.e. being an advocate of gay marriage is often called "liberal" and opposing them often called "conservative". But people divided on that kinf of social/personal issue might be in complete agreement about budget priorities or military spending.

In the social/moral sense, "liberal" is often meant to denote a position of that challenges "old fashioned" or "traditional" notions. I don't think that has much in common with what could be called "liberal" in the political spectrum.

I think this is where the idea of "liberal media" comes from. Because the media is often controversial in it's portrayal of unconventional lifestyles and issues surrounding them, it's confused in being supportive of a political agenda that is also called "liberal".

It's your selective dismissal of the very real Puppetmasters on the Right that makes you much less credible to many people here, finboy.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are Puppetmasters on the Left. Of course there are. They serve Parties, not people. But to deny that the Right has it's fair share is nothing short of naivete. Either that or you're on the front lines of the manipulation.

Which is it? Hopeful naif or calculated operative?

That's a good observation. And I think most of us are more confortable with somewhere in the middle. And we end up being consistent in our everyday lives -- we don't care about race, we don't care about radical environmentalism, we don't care about the abortion issue, etc. And that's best.

The one thing that I hate most of all is spin, so if I've been rancorous of late it's somewhat because of the bait threads that certain folks have been posting. I think they've mostly cooled it now, which is good, but for a while there all we got to read about was how sh*tty the US was and how great everywhere else was, etc. Sorry, but I don't need to hear that: first, it ain't true, and second, I just don't need to hear it.

Neither. I just don't think the Right can get away with as much, nor are they as devisive, nor are they as prevalent. I detest spin as spin, no matter who is doing it. Again, if someone on the Right spins it, there are dozens of detractors immediately, some conservatives included.

When Carville spouts his drivel, nobody slaps him down. If Robert Byrd or Teddy K. were Republicans, they'd have been run out of town years ago for the cr*p they've shovelled at the commonfolk.

So I guess I'm saying that the standards are different at the leadership level. Mainly because the mainstream media establishment is controlled by Leftists. (Not ordinary, everyday liberals, but spinmeisters).

But Strom Thurman and Jesse Helms didn't have political agendas that took priority, hmm?

Well, I don't share your fears about who runs the Media. I mean, do you really think AOL/TW has a radical Left-wing agenda?? or GE's NBC channels?

Regardless, I think the perception that Manipulation on the Left gets more of a pass is simply a testament to how diverse and disunited the Left in America has always been. Even if we only consider the Democratic party, it's still far more splintered and factionalized than the Republican party (if they stand for the Right). Particularly in recent years. The GOP's phenomenal success since 2000 is clearly a result of their unity and they've rigorously quieted their internal dissent to achieve that.

Perhaps the last thing you should wish for is an organized Left that smacks down Radicals and pulls the factions together under a unified banner. You should be giddy over status quo that allows such Talking Heads to go uncensured

Okay. Let me post a follow up question, then.

Where would y'all place me?

Principally, my beliefs run as follows: Every human being (and animal, I guess) has the right to freedom and liberty, american or otherwise, and this should be the fundamental motivation of all policy. Notice that freedom is a lack of exploitation by others (either individuals, governments, corporations, etc.).

hee hee like a badge of pride.

I'd say that makes you a normal, 21st Century westerner

That is basically the ideological heritage of of the French and American revolutions.

Well, not on a simple right/left axis, that's for sure, since some of your ideas are in conflict. One might start with "libertarian," but then again, the State is often the best guarantor of liberties (yes, Finboy, the State serves at the pleasure of the people, and liberty lies in the hearts of men and women and not in an enormous warehouse run by the GAO) -- and, as we know, hard-core libertarians are allergic to more government than absolutely necessary.

"Freedom as a lack of exploitation" is also a tricky construct. A long-standing belief of mine is that you cannot adequately define a belief based on what it isn't, rather, you've got to commit and tell me what it is. Sure we want freedom from exploitation, who doesn't, but saying such doesn't much explore a) what freedom is, at base, and b) what exploitation is.

These are loaded terms, as loaded as the now dulled-down and crude monikers "liberal" and "conservative." To get in deeper one would have to be very specific in one's terminology.

To think that people can be pigeonholed into nice, neat little categories of "left" and "right" is indeed quite silly. People are generally more complex than that. Certainly, there are many who tend to espouse a certain set of views that can be classified as "liberal" or "conservative" ... but even that can only go so far. The whole "liberal vs. conservative", "left vs. right" thing assumes that everyone can be defined politically based upon such a spectrum. Of course, such an assumption is ridiculous and falls apart quite easily once you move beyond sound bites and pre-packaged ideology.

For instance .... how would one categorize the political philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? Some would say he was a "liberal". Many conservatives today "claim" to embrace his "judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin" message now that he's dead .... but called him a "communist" and everything else but a child of God when he was alive. Did they have a legitimate "change of heart" ... or is this newfound embrace of Dr. King just "spin"? Or does "spin" only come from the Left?

An even better example! How would one categorize the political philosophy of Malcolm X? Here was a man who was as anti-welfare, pick yourself up by your bootstraps, pro-marriage, pro-gun, etc. as anybody ... but somehow I don't think you'd see him hanging out with at a function with Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh if he were alive today. In fact, the "conservatives" of his day hated him even more than they hated Dr. King .... even though he agreed with a large portion of their positions.

My point in all this is only to say that reducing people's thinking on various issues to a simplistic "left" or "right" label quite easily becomes problematic. Eventually, it tends to bog down into childish "is not", "is to", "is not", "is to" arguments ... instead of intelligent debate.

Just my 2 cents ...

OAW