Go ahead then.
I try to figure out from context which meanings the person who used that term is going for. Too often in American political discourse left wing and liberal are simply synonyms for Democrat and right wing and conservative are simply synonyms for Republican. Reality is not usually so binary. To truly understand where someone is coming from when they use one of those terms takes context for me.
From the second link:
Liberals are against individual liberty with regards to gun rights and the choice not to have insurance coverage if one so chooses. The campaign against hate speech is a movement of the left, which doesn’t square with an individual’s right to freedom of expression.
Also from the second link:
Many of the economic arguments of the left speak of greedy capitalists and robber barons. Hence, the idea of selfishness isn’t the sole domain of the right.
So I directed you to articles which answer your question, but you didn’t bother reading them, assuming they were inconsistent with “the facts on the ground.” :rolleyes:
If you do trouble yourself, please do point out the inconsistencies, if it’s not too hard. I see you’ve taken a stab, but I’d ask you to look deeper. Answering two of your specific comments:
[ul][li]For many “freedom” encompasses the freedom to walk around without worry someone will draw a gun on us. Swedes are proud to have the “freedom” to collect firewood anywhere. They won’t try that in gun-happy America. Or, as another example, the freedom to discriminate robbed blacks of the freedom to use public restaurants and toilets. More simply: Please focus on underlying feelings, not buzzwords like “freedom.”[/li][li]It is simplistic to associate freedom of speech with hate speech. Most people have an emotional connection to “rights” like free speech. To assume most people will parse “free speech” as a lawyer might and thus condone hatred or racism is counterfactual.[/ul][/li]But yes, if for you a “free” society is an armed society, and racist or hate speech is integral to freedom of speech then, yes, I see why you get confused.
(I deliberately refrained from excerpting or summarizing those articles, hoping a more objective observer would.)
I pointed some out in post 23, mainly to further conversation. But my point was made. I’ve tried since the first post to keep this from devolving into bickering. There’s the Pit for that, plus a ton of other threads besides. Hell, much of the internet is devoted to people arguing with people with different political views. This thread can’t be an exception?
So, as I asked earlier, regardless of the origin of the differences, and regardless of what Salon columnists think of the right wing worldview, what do YOU think of when you hear the terms? I’m curious to know, provided we can discuss the matter charitably.
I think “people sure don’t have any sense of perspective.”
we don’t have a “left wing” of any note in this country.
What would a left wing party look like in the US?
Firstly for reasons that have been pointed out to you repeatedly you cannot on this topic throw language around loosely or assume any given term is unambiguous.
Philosophical liberalism is a concept with an academic definition which bears somewhere between little and no resemblance to the term as used colloquially. Your comments at #23 are a symptom of this. Neither you nor the article you quote are wrong as such it’s just that you aren’t talking about the same thing.
I get a feeling you are spoiling for a fight. It’s like you desperately want someone to start firmly asserting what left or right wing people believe so you can point out why they are wrong. But the the reality is that the plurality of views is such that you’d probably both be correct in a way.
Unless I’m specifically asking people what they think a term means
They are the same thing, or at least, they should be. Maybe they’re not, hence the discussion.
But I’ve gone out of my way to avoid a fight. I only pointed out the article after I was asked to do so. The whole point of the thread is to get a feel of the associations people make with the terms.
Those on the Left would like the Govt. to help poor people.
Those on the Right would like the Govt. to help rich people.
It is not quite that polarized, but not far from it, either.
I think it’s pretty clear cut at this point:
Right/Conservative/Republican:
Pro guns
Pro God
Pro business
Anti welfare
Anti abortion
Anti specific minority rights
Anti regulation
People who lean right tend to be white. They hail from suburban or rural towns. They tend to gravitate to industries like finance or business in general (i.e. Wall Street).
Left/Liberal/Democrat:
Pro gun control
Pro government safety nets
Pro choice
Pro environment
Pro progressive rights legislation
Pro regulation to limit corporate power
Tend to be more diverse in ethnicity, style and culture. More urban. Tend to gravitate towards “green” industries or tech (i.e. Silicon Valley).
For me, it’s easier to define the left than the right.
The left:
Pro-choice
Pro-contraception
Pro-minority rights
Pro-voting rights
Favor strong societal safety net
Concerned about abusive police force
Tolerant of minority religions
Favor regulation of business
Pro-gun control
The right comes in three varieties- the corporate right, the social issues right, and the defense right. They have an uneasy alliance and will each pay lip service to the other.
Corporate right:
Anti-regulations of any sort
Anti-tax
Anti-union
Anti-minimum wage
Social issues right:
Anti-abortion
Anti-gun control
Disrespectful of minority religions, particularly Islam
Anti-immigrant
Favor death penalty
Think police are never wrong
Defense right:
Favor gunboat diplomacy
Think Israel can do no wrong
Pro-torture
Think 9/11 justifies any and all excesses by military
Pro-defense spending
To some extent, the typical right winger typifies one of the above, many fit into two of the categories and a few fit all three.
When I hear those terms, it implies an idea or some ideas that head into one or another ideological direction, but a direction that leads eventually to an extreme.
I let the context of what is stated and described determine how far from center that idea being described is as well as from what point on that line the speaker is standing.
I reserve the right to use past personal experiences and strong personal conviction to determine what, for me, is “center”.
I would say that the common theme is that conservatives are pro-status quo. They believe in the idealized Middle-American lifestyle of a suburban house, marriage, car, barbeque, sports and God. They believe that these things are achievable (not to mention desirable) through hard work. They support the police, military, government and other institutions such as they defend these ideals.
While not always specifically “racist”, conservatives tend to view minorities and other cultures as “other people” or “outsiders”. Perhaps “xenophobic” is a better term. That is to say, they can be tolerant of those other races or cultures, so long as they adapt the ideals and traits conservatives value.
This innate desire to adhere to the status quo goes a long way in explaining why conservatives become extremely (almost bizarrely) defensive or hostile at any criticism.
But they’re perfectly fine at changing the status quo if it’s to their advantage. There are people drawing Social Security now who weren’t even alive when it came to be, so SS is the status quo, yet some conservatives want to gut it. Ditto for Medicare. The Voting Rights Act has been the status quo for 50 years, note how conservatives rejoice at the Supreme Court taking a swipe at it. Voter ID is hardly the status quo in most places, but that doesn’t stop right wingers to use it to stop “others” from voting.
Left wing: socially liberal, fiscally liberal (not in the “classic” sense, but the modern colloquial sense of a more regulated economy with higher social spending)
Right wing: socially conservative, fiscally conservative (what used to be classic economic liberalism: free markets and all that.)
Libertarian: socially liberal, fiscally conseravtive
Pretty much that for me.
Me: Socially conservative, fiscally liberal.
It’s so lonely…
LOL. I meant the status quo from 1950.
Did you mean 1590?
It does seem to come down to the basic goal of the right is to cut taxes and frustrate any attempt to regulate business, regardless of the impact on workers, the environment, or–ironically–even the economy.
Despite lip service to “personal responsibility,” the right doesn’t really want corporations to be prevented from damaging people or things, or being asked to pay for the damage they do.