I did not claim that every issue is a matter of left/right; only that many of them are.
example: an extreme left wing position on welfare/social spending is to support every single bill that expands social spending. An extreme right wing position is to oppose every such bill. A centrist position is to support some, and oppose others. The same goes for the other issues on the list.
Many issue advocacy groups actually rate congress people based on the percentage of times that they vote with a particlar set of issues. Frequently the media look to such ratings as a guide to where a particlar politician stands in terms of the liberal/conservative (or right/left) spectrum.
Really, I am surprised to be debating these matters, which are common knowledge to anyone who follows politics even slightly.
I appreciate your help with this. However, it just happens to be absolutely historically accurate.
Reread my explication of the issues. I sought to puncture the notion that most of them can fit easily into an ideological binary, and demonstrated that there’s no static “public opinion” which fits either liberal or conservative positions. Again, what did you find in that with which you disagreed. Life’s not black and white, my friend–hardly anyone holds “extreme left-wing” or “extreme right-wing” positions on things, and fewer still claim these positions from within the auspices of the major parties. There’s a difference–a major difference–between centrism and moderation…one which, apparently, you seem not to see. I understand that we’ve wandered far afield here, but it’s astonishing to me that you can view politics in as stark terms as you do, especially when the perception that the mainstream Democrats and Republicans embody, respectively, left- and right-wing politics is so clearly contradicted by the facts.
And this is just funny. Read my posts again–all of them–and then tell me with a straight face that I don’t follow politics.
No time to reply at length. I just want to clarify that I did not mean to imply that you did not follow politics. Clearly you do. Just that my position on the left/right spectrum in american politics is widespread common knowledge. It is therefore surprising to be debating it.
I recall hearing Susan Estrich, who was Dukakis’ campaign manager in '88, tell a story about being called to be part of a panel on some talking heads show where the topic of the day was Affirmative Action. The scheduler asked the key question, “Are you for it or against it?” to which Estrich replied by explaining what she felt were the problems with various iterations of AA, how well or how poorly they addressed problems of discrimination, and about additional issues that needed addressing. To which the producer replied, “So, are you for it or against it?” Often the media espouses neither liberal nor conservative ideals but pro-wrestling ideals.
Which direction the media leans depends entirely upon which direction the observer leans. To some, the general tilt seems to be to the right; clearly some in this thread feel it is to the left.
Party registration or opinion polls of journalists may show personal attitudes, but it does not demonstrate bias in reporting. Who the New York Times endorses for president may show the preferences of its editorial writers, but it does not show bias in reporting (editorials and opinions are, after all, labeled as such). Is the Times biased if it does not endorse Republicans half the time? No, unless it can be demonstrated that news articles in the Times are biased.
Besides, how many more people see John Stossel’s conservative drivel on 20/20 than read NYT editorials?
No offense taken, Izzy. I almost went all political on your ass, though. grin
jrepka, great post. I guess I’m trying to say what jrepka just said so succinctly, Izzy. That is, just because there seems to be a discrete left/right dichotomy in American politics doesn’t mean that there actually is a discrete left/right dichotomy in American politics. Things are more complicated than that–no thanks to the media, who, as jrepka pointed out, is given to egregious oversimplification.
The difference between the “left” and the “right” is which freedoms each group wants to take away from you.
Cynical? Who, me?
Yup. But that doesn’t mean it’t not true.
BTW, the misleading, misquoted, incomplete, and sometimes just plain wrong statistics on gun violence and crime often quoted by the general media has convinced me, personally, that a good deal of the media is to the “left”.
Well I like to put it this way. During the 1900’s there were quite a few revolutions in Europe. The peasants tended to swing their support in favor of either the Monarch or the Nobles. Neither of whom had the interests of the peasants at heart. Both despised them, and both wanted to exploit them. There was also the “liberal” option. That of big business and the bourgeosie. The peasants eventuall supported them, but not for a very long time. The peasants swung between two evils, all the while ignoring the good. Neither the nobility nor the monarch was progressive. Neither represented the peasents interests. Neither could be called liberal. Both were very conservative. It was just whomever could mouth the better platitudes. See? Make sense?
I once saw a good line from Charles Fort, the famous “crank” scientist of the early 20th century. He pointed out that there are certain microscopic life forms about which scientist are unable to decide with certainty as to whether they are to be classified as plant or animal life. That said, anyone who cannot distinguish between a hippopotomas and a violet is missing something somewhere.
There are many topics which, like politics, are not black and white. We frequently cannot draw a line and completely categorize things as being one way or another. But this does not mean that there are not some things which are obvious. And this does not mean that there are not some generalities which can be made, and be valid.
oldscratch,
I’m frankly not familiar with the historical facts that you describe. I don’t know what the issues were, or purported to be. But I think it’s safe to say that if the Democratic Party was closer, in aggregate, to what the people believed about the issues than the Republicans, they would have greater electoral success than the Republican by that margin. If, as you seem to be implying, the Democrats are to the right of the people and the Republicans even more so, it’s hard to imagine what might be motivating people to vote for for Republicans in numbers comparable to Democrats. Unless you can describe some process whereby the people maintain their positions on issues but mysteriously decide to vote for the party that is further removed from that position, I’m not sure what your point might be.
Sorry if it was a little confusing. That’s what I get for typing at work. Other stuff (work) keeps interupting my time here. Many of my responses become rushed.
Ok. Most people don’t vote for the republicans. Most people don’t vote for the democrats. They don’t vote because they don’t see any hope in the parties. Neither represents their interests. Of the minority of our population that does vote. The ones that can be convinced that somehow there is a difference between Dubya and AlGore. Well, they tend to vote for whicheve one makes them the least nauseus. Aside from a few rabid democrats and republicans. Most people are pretty apathetic. It’s not that the Democrats or Republicans are more left or right wing. They both represent the interests of the ruling class. At different times, one or the other becomes better at reaching out to the populist vote. Of making themselves seem that they are representing your interests. However neither party is. Some of them are idealistic and theink they are. Senator Feinstein from Wisconsin strikes me as one of those people. As does Republican Tom Campbell from California (although I admit I don’t know much about him).
But, it’s not a question of te Dems being right and the GOP being further right. It helps to look at them as two sides of the same coin.
Look at the Republicans in the 20’s. They were the “progressive” party.
That’s fine, Izzy, and anyone who can quote Charles Fort is okay in my book. But I would very much appreciate it if you could go through my examination of what you say are the polar issues between the parties. Most of those issues, in my opinion, can’t be cleft into a Republican/Democrat dichotomy. You’ve repeatedly said that the terms left-wing and right-wing, to you, are simply standard deviations from the center: but it doesn’t work like that. Public opinion is seldom static, and even more rarely situated between “right” and “left.” Our two-party system oversimplifies ideologies to an atrocious degree, and someone as smart as you shouldn’t be falling into that trap. So please, take the list of partisan issues that you drew up and tell me exactly where you think I’ve gone wrong in my analysis. You can’t just keep saying “It’s common knowledge,” and expect your argument to hold any rhetorical weight.
Ah helms. the man that included this quote in a campaign flyer. "“Your tax dollars are being used to pay for grade school classes that teach our children that CANNIBALISM, WIFE-SWAPPING, and the MURDER of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior.”
The man who started as pro-segregation. Who played off racial fears to get elected in 1990. Who sponsered the helms-burton act (also know as the Bacardi Rum act). Who engaged in outright fraud to try and win several elections. Who actively supported the South African apartheid government. And too much other crap to go into. A true paragon of virtue.
A left wing position is to support affirmative action. A right wing position is to oppose it. A middle of the road position is to support it in certain circumstances.
An extreme left wing position is to oppose every restriction on abortion and support government funding etc. An extreme right wing position is to oppose it in every case. A middle of the road position would be to support some restrictions.
Whatever the reasons, and whatever the specific issues are is irrelevent. The left wing position is to maximize the separation of church and state. The right wing position is to minimize it. There is middle ground here as well.
As I mentioned before, the Welfare Reform Act was a Republican legislation, part of the Contract With America. But in any event, I am not attempting to state that Clinton ,or any single Democrat or Republican holds of every position that is in keeping with the general categorization of right or left. The left wing position is to favor the expansion of welfare, the right wing position is to limit it.
Right wingers are generally less in favor of immigration than are left wingers.
Again the Balanced Budget (amendment) was a central part of the Contract With America. Democrats have resisted the balanced budget strenuously. It was accomplished through a Republican congress and a booming economy. Many people seem to give total credit and blame for all that comes out of Washington to the President. This is simplistic. So I guess the answer is that I am not kidding. Balancing the budget is a long time right wing issue.
Left winger tend to favor increased gay rights more than right wingers.
Disagree. A taxpayer is alot better off with the Republicans in power. Even as I write this, Al Gore is off somewhere droning on about the reckless tax scheme of the Republicans. Reducing taxes is a right wing issue.
Death penalty is a right wing issue. Clinton and Gore have some positions that are right wing.
It’s in quotes precisely because no one is trying to roll back civil rights. However, nowadays the term has lost it’s original meaning and has become a catchall phrase for any agenda being pushed by the NAACP and similar organizations. As you had demonstrated a tendency to get hung on the meaning of words like liberal, I put it in quotes.
To reiterate - on all these issues, and others (e.g. military spending and policy) there are positions which are identified as right wing positions or left wing positions. This does not imply that one must take a right wing position on every issue in order to be consistent, or a left wing one. It certainly does not imply that within every issue the only positions to take are those of the extreme right or left wing. But in general a politician whose positions tend to be to the right on most of these issues will be categorized as a right winger, and ditto for a left winger.
On most or all of these issues, the Republican Party is, in aggregate, to the right of the American people as a whole. The Democratic Party is to the left. Election results keep the parties from straying to far.
The media is, on most issues, biased in the direction of the Democrats.
Oldscratch,
I’m teasing you. In any event, he is a very sincere man.
But. Izzy here is where the problem comes in. Libertarians ar the extreme right wing. Mr.Z and Bill H are two of the more right wing people. They support open immigration, support extreme seperation of church and state, support no restrictions on abortion, on and on.
IzzyR:A taxpayer is alot better off with the Republicans in power.
A rich taxpayer, at least; and the richer they are the better off they’ll be, with Republican goals to cut estate and capital gains taxes. People in lower brackets benefit much less from Republican tax-cutting policies. This is probably why the survey we’ve been talking about found that when it came to the issue of taxing the wealthy, the journalists on average (with their higher personal incomes and their professional allegiance to institutions controlled by the wealthy) were actually to the right of citizens in general.
I think that the alien Kang, in his guise as Bob Dole, summed up this position best when he said:
“Abortions for all!”
(crowd boos)
“All right, no abortions for anyone!”
(crowd boos)
. . . “Abortions for some, tiny American flags for everyone else!”
(crowd cheers)
Izzy: And the point (I say for what seems like the umpteenth time) is that almost no one holds those extreme left-wing and right-wing positions on issues, and fewer still who have any power within the institutional party framework. It is therefore facile to say that the mainstream Democratic position is characteristic of the liberal ideology.
And this doesn’t even take into account the fact that most of the “extreme” positions you’ve cited are inutile abstractions–the overwhelming number of thoughtful progressives, as I’ve said, recognize that the affirmative action programs are imperfect and in need of review; it’s not a question of “Are you for it or against it?” Not in the real world.
I’ll reiterate my proposition that there is a distinct centrist ideology held by most New Democrats and many moderate Republicans that is neither liberal nor conservative. This ideology tends to be secular on social issues like abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Centrists lean in favor of some sort of affirmative action and social safety net (this is a characterization which applies to almost every member of both parties, by the way). On fiscal issues, centrists are solidly corporatist and establishmentarian–they favor free trade, rapid globalization, and varying measures of deregulation (remember Clinton’s Telecommunications Act). They’re lukewarm on the environment, and hawkish in foreign policy. They generally support sanctions overseas (Iraq, Cuba), as well as the use of force to accomplish policy goals. They’re also now apparently in favor of a revived Strategic Defense Initiative, and the concomitant pork barrel bloat.
That’s the way the media lean, my friend. It’s a wholly separate political class, and it’s relegated dissenting ideologies to the fringes of political awareness, in terms of both party leadership and news reporting.
Oh, speaking of the liberal media: we sure are hearing a lot about the protests at the Republican convention, huh? And the coverage on civil liberties abuses in Seattle, Washington, Detroit, Philadelpha, and Los Angeles has just been incessant…
Answer this. Do you think there is a single one of the issues that I outlined, that, if you were to take a survey of Republican voters and a parallel one of Democratic voters, would not produce markedly divergent results? Or a survey of elected officials?
I swear to God you don’t read a single thing I write.
Yes, there would probably be a general divergence among the voters. Different people believe different things, and these beliefs are coalesced, in our two-party system, into the umbrella categories of Democrat, Republican, and Fringe Lunatic. Given two categories, registered voters will choose one of the two…and of course registered Democrats will tend to be more liberal, and registered Republicans will tend to be more conservative, because you’re encompassing every individual belief system from the left and the right, respectively, whose proponent would like his or her voice heard through a legitimate institutional channel. The fact that there are general differences between registered voters in different parties in no way invalidates the assertion that mainstream Democratic politics is not characteristic of a liberal ideology.
Whether there would be a general divergence among politicians–it depends on which issues you’re talking about, the leanings of the individual politicians, and whether you’re seeking a left/right dichotomy on economic issues, social issues, religious issues, civil libertarian issues… I know that you think things like globalization or free trade are irrelevant to the determination of ideology, but you must still account for the significant divergence on these issues from within the parties, and the convergence on these issues in the positions of both parties’ leadership.
In other words, I’d appreciate it if you’d address my notion of a cross-partisan centrism to be found in most establishmentarian institutions, the media included. Thank you.
