Yeah, I have a couple friends like that. I remember that quadrant being labeled as “populist” back in my poly sci days at university in the 90s, but that’s not what I know or think of as “populism,” so I don’t know what term would accurately describe it, other than just saying you’re generally conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues.
Similarities between left and right:
[ul]
[li]Both sides are anti-freedom. American politics being what they are,each side denies this.[/li][li]Both are authoritarian. Neither side has any qualms about using the powers of the state to make you live as they see fit.[/li][li]Both favor the group over the individual.[/li][/ul]
The difference resides in which freedoms they wish to curtail, which authority they subscribe to and which group they want singled out for special treatment.
One problem is that the definitions change when we arrive near the radical extremes. For most useful purposes, I think “left” and “right” should be explored in the broad middle ground – where most of us actually live.
Under some definitions, Communism is “left” and Nazism is “right” but there are mighty, mighty few Communists and Nazis here on the SDMB (dei gratia) yet quite a good number of leftists and rightists.
[quote=“Waymore, post:42, topic:709016”]
Similarities between left and right:
[li]Both sides are anti-freedom. American politics being what they are,each side denies this.[/li][/quote]
Depends on what you mean by “freedom.” Yes, both sides favor laws against murder, rape, and theft. Your freedom to commit these acts is not respected by either the right of the left.
[quote]
[li]Both are authoritarian. Neither side has any qualms about using the powers of the state to make you live as they see fit.[/li][/quote]
Yes: both sides prefer the use of law, backed up by force, to prevent (or punish) murder, rape, and theft. Neither side favors anarchy.
[quote]
[li]Both favor the group over the individual.[/li][/quote]
Nope. Neither side does. The problem is that both sides favor the use of government to regulate human affairs, and governments largely work by addressing group issues.
In the realm of ideology, you’re absolutely wrong on this one. The left favors the right of the individual woman to have an abortion. The right favors the right of an individual to own a gun. Both favor the right of individuals to speak their mind and worship pretty much any way they wish.
Your first two notes refer to anyone living in a civilized society, and your third point is just plain dead wrong.
Yes.
When I think “right wing” I think of conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and hate, bigotry, prejudice, extremism, and repression.
When I think “left wing” I think of extremist communism, socialism, and fascism, mostly in Europe or Central or South America.
The US doesn’t have a Left Wing that I can tell; the extreme stuff is all basically right wing. The term is used for liberals, democrats and progressives, but doesn’t really make sense to me.
The meaning of freedom is pretty straightforward once you free your mind of cant. Of course, that is easier said than done.
Think of it as a Hobbesian thought experiment. In a state of nature, you’re free to commit murder. The government denies people that freedom. I agree with the government doing that.
Both left and right would deny other freedoms, and without anything approaching the clarity of the abolition of the freedom to murder.
Politicians will twist the meaning of freedom because they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Hence, groups over individuals. Seems like you’re conceding my point.
American politics is very much identity politics. If you know a persons race, age, religious views and socioeconomic status, you can predict their voting pattern with great accuracy.
The right will appeal to evangelicals, small business owners, rural populations, gun owners, etc., etc. The left will appeal to single women, the poor, minorities, etc., etc.
It’s a patter routinely repeated in American politics.
What about rape? What about robbery? What about minor assault? What about shoplifting? Stop me on this sliding scale and tell me when I’m lacking “clarity” and starting to “twist”.
I’ve also seen the Nazis classified as a phenomenon of the right, but it doesn’t fit economically in my view. They were socialists after all.
Honest? Morons. If you are dependably one side or the other on everything you must have stopped thinking and are just basically following the “party line”. Or in other words a brainless idiot.
In a state of nature, a baker would have the freedom not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if he chose not to. The government in some instances have denied people this freedom. Some would argue it’s a justifiable reduction of freedom, others wouldn’t. I can respect that.
But, if somebody were to start to invent concepts like “the freedom not to be discriminated against” it’s twisting. You’re advocating the reduction of somebody’s freedom, but don’t want to come out and say so.
The right in the past has argued that sodomy should be criminalized. Sodomy is a freedom one would have in the state of nature. Again, some would argue it’s a justifiable reduction of freedom, others wouldn’t. I can respect that.
But, if somebody were to start to invent concepts like “freedom to enforce community standards”, that would be twisting. You’re advocating the reduction of somebody’s freedom, but don’t want to come out and say so.
Your “state of nature” shtick is a crock. It’s just some bullshit you made up as an “idealised” point of reference that is just exactly what you want it to be.
We are now in a state of nature and always have been. The state of nature includes trees, rocks and other homo sapiens who will sanction us under certain circumstances. This is as true concerning whether Og the gay caveman’s family will hit you with a stick for refusing to share meat with Og as it is as to whether Og’s family will cave your head in with a rock for killing Og.
Alright, you think it’s a crock. But Thomas Hobbes didn’t, and his thought is the cornerstone of a lot of subsequent political philosophy and social science. I can understand that you dislike it, but to dismiss it out of hand seems a bit much to me.
Many great philosophers had some great insights but also said dumbass things. I don’t know from Hobbes but I understand in addition to various of his ideas that I agree with, he was also in favour of absolute monarchy. I doubt you would agree with that. Ergo, he was entirely capable of being misguided. In the end, reasoning either stands on its own or it doesn’t which is why arguments from authority (which is what your last post was) carry no weight.
You don’t offer any reasoned rebuttal of my post.
No, you said I made up the state of nature argument. I didn’t. I’m not appealing to authority, just citing my source.
My rebuttal to your previous post was perfectly reasonable. I gave a coherent philosophical framework to consider what is and isn’t freedom, one that has been used extensively for centuries and is the underpinning of a lot of liberal democracy.
You disagree? That’s fine. To act like I’m not making reasoned response is disingenuous and uncharitable.
Expand it a bit and you have a better definition, I think.
Right Wing: Believes most wealth and power has been acquired through personal virtue - eg hard work and self-discipline (current era) or inherent superiority and “good breeding” (previous eras) - therefore tends to favour those with wealth and power
Left Wing: Believes wealth and power is primarily acquired through blind luck or shady dealings - therefore tends to favour those without wealth and power.
Those are extreme positions of course - most people would have a combination of the two views, but then, most people are not purely right wing or purely left wing.
The other metric that I think explains a good deal of the right/left dichotomy is attitudes towards the status quo.
Extreme Right (Reactionary): Wishes to roll back social change to the status quo of a previous era.
Moderate Right (Conservative): Wishes to keep the current status quo
Moderate Left (Progressive): Wishes to make changes to the status quo in pursuit of specific goals
Extreme Left (Radical): Hates status quo and wishes to destroy it - has no idea what to replace it with.
You missed the point of what I said. Governments address groups over individuals, but the two basic ideologies of “left” and “right” do not.
True. So what? This is part of how the terms are defined, which answers your own question in the OP.
Er, no. They had the word “socialist” in their name, but they most certainly did not nationalize the major industries nor abolish private landlords.
Firstly you misunderstand or perhaps I was unclear: I’m not suggesting that you made up the *argument * involving utilisation of the “state of nature” concept. I’m suggesting that the “state of nature” concept itself - as used in that argument - is an artificial construct that can be whatever the person relying upon it as an authoritative reference point wants it to be.
Furthermore, while I don’t know much about Hobbes, are you actually using the concept as he did anyway? I thought his “state of nature” was basically anarchy, and that he was an advocate of the necessity for government to impose laws to avoid a state of nature. If this is correct, then he was certainly not using a “state of nature” as an appropriate benchmark from which to measure when laws became an imposition on freedom, which is what you suggested above.
I couldn’t really give a rats about what has been believed extensively for centuries. That criteria qualifies any amount of nonsense.
Unless you can provide some sort of coherent rebuttal of what I said at #51 better than “but its the way its always been done” then the fact remains that your “state of nature” gambit is unconvincing as a basis for making qualitative classifications of laws in the way you seek to do.
I see your distinction. Very keen.
So, the left and the right seek power by addressing groups, not individuals.
My question in the OP is addressed to each person individually, so the answers are individualized. I’m not asking what left and right are, I’m asking people what they associate with the terms.
No, but they were deeply involved with planning the economy. I concede, maybe not a textbook case of socialism, but neither is it laissez faire capitalism.