"Left" vs "Right": Getting to know one another better politically

[Gary Childress]

According to wiki:

In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."[1][2][3][4] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate.

. . . . .

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.

So the distinction of "left" vs "right" is a "slippery" one to begin with because we are referring to an arrangement of ideas in France in 1789.

Wiki gives us a bit of a contemporary view of what "left" and "right" mean:

There is general agreement that the Left includes: anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, autonomists, communists, democratic-socialists, feminists, greens, left-libertarians, progressives, secularists, socialists, social-democrats and social-liberals.[5][6][7]

There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, theocrats and traditionalists.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics

So this is my position largely, I believe in liberty, equality, prosperity, toleration... This is probably not an exhaustive list and probably not in any particular order other than what came to mind at this particular moment in time.

So I'm not sure if I'm a "leftist" or "rightist". I guess I have ideals which I believe in and I'm not quite sure what system of social organization best upholds those ideals or how those ideals are best played out. In a sense I don't want my ideals to interfere with the liberty of others to have other, different ideals but at the same time I have a hard time not arguing with others over ideals if I think they have ideals which are not good ones (I suppose arguing with others over ideals tests our own ideals to see if they are sound and good ones, therefore argument in and of itself is probably not all bad). For example a person who has an "ideal" that we should all write with our right hand seems like someone who I cannot agree with since I have grown up and developed writing with my left hand. At the same time I realize I should not impose my left handedness on others.

What are your ideals, and/or what do you think of the ideals I've listed above? Are they good ones? Not good ones? What are some others that you also believe in which I may have missed in my short and quick list?

Thanks for participating. I'm making this a RD thread.

 

[Tahuti]

I believe in achievement. Landing men on the moon and creating the finest works of art requires sacrifices. Ultimately, societies are to be judged by its highest specimens.

Guess that makes me a righty.

 

[Gary Childress]

I believe in achievement. Landing men on the moon and creating the finest works of art requires sacrifices. Ultimately, societies are to be judged by its highest specimens.

Guess that makes me a righty.

Do you mean to say that societies are to be judged by their highest "specimens" or by their highest "achievements"?

For example the Pyramids were build by thousands of workers and slaves who made enormous sacrifices. The Egyptian kings didn't make any sacrifices when they ordered the pyramids to be built, yet we don't even know the names of any of those workers. We know who Ramses, Tut and others were.

We know who Napoleon was but I doubt he made any "sacrifices" in making France a great military nation. Many individual soldiers who fought and died made the sacrifices. Mozart was a great composer but according to most accounts he didn't make any great "sacrifices" in order to create his art. Descartes didn't make any "sacrifices" in his achievement to change the course of philosophy.

Therefore I think what you meant to say is that societies are to be judged on their highest achievements, not on their highest "specimens". Is that correct? I mean I say things all the time and then look back and realize I said something incorrectly. So it's no big deal, just a small error maybe.

 

[Borachio]

I believe in One World, the free movement of peoples, and their inalienable right to the essentials of life, security and peace.

 

[BvBPL]

What a minute, Gary, I don't see anything in Tove's post that implies all sacrifices necessary for achievement require deep personal, as opposed to communal, sacrifices. Saying that it required sacrifices to put a man on the moon is different from saying Neil Armstrong sacrificed a lot to walk on the moon.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I believe in One World, the free movement of peoples, and their inalienable right to the essentials of life, security and peace.

Everyone believes in that inalienable right business Mr B, they just have different views on what is essential. The leftist thinks everyone should have food, the rightist believes everyone should have a job working for a rightist so they can buy food...from a rightist.

 

[Gary Childress]

What a minute, Gary, I don't see anything in Tove's post that implies all sacrifices necessary for achievement require deep personal, as opposed to communal, sacrifices. Saying that it required sacrifices to put a man on the moon is different from saying Neil Armstrong sacrificed a lot to walk on the moon.

My apologies if I misunderstood.

 

[BvBPL]

So this is my position largely, I believe in liberty, equality, prosperity, toleration... This is probably not an exhaustive list and probably not in any particular order other than what came to mind at this particular moment in time.
...
What are your ideals, and/or what do you think of the ideals I've listed above? Are they good ones? Not good ones? What are some others that you also believe in which I may have missed in my short and quick list?

Thanks for participating. I'm making this a RD thread.

Those are nice ideals, but they aren't distinguishable on a right to left scale. Every politically minded person in a democratic state is going to share those same values on both sides of the right / left divide. Simply talking about values, particular these very broad shared values, is insufficient to describe what makes the different politically ideologies, well, different.

Far better to look to how each side attempts to express those, and other, values.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I believe in localism, subsidarity, tradition, and a happy mean between liberty and virtue.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Wasn't there a "post your political compass" thread at some point?

 

[Ajidica]

As good a summation of my politics as any:

Link to video.

 

[warpus]

Here in Canada the liberal left is supposedly represented by the Liberals. The conservative centre/centre-right is represented by the Conservatives.

Both of these parties are corporate shills.. Not nearly to the extent that the Republicans and Democrats are in the U.S., but I don't really like being identified as a "liberal" for this reason. It has too many connotations. I prefer to tackle the issues as they come up, and to admit that I likely like somewhere on the left-hand side of the political spectrum, if such a thing exists. But to throw my hat into the ring of any political party? That's madness. Their views can't possibly match all of my views.. and like I said before, the "Liberals" are sort of shills. I don't feel like voting for them, except for when it makes sense to vote for them strategically in order to vote out the (much worse) Conservatives.

Anyway, I think it's unfortunate that political parties in many ways name themselves after their position on this political spectrum. The Liberals are selling out to corporate interests to some degree, so I don't want to be associated with them.. but then I also don't mind telling people that I am liberal with my views. I don't want people to assume right away that I'm a "Democrat" or a "Liberal". I'm just a guy, who usually tends to lean to the left, because the right doesn't make any sense to me. It's madness.

 

[Phrossack]

I've found that, for me, the only moral, intellectually honest position is to oppose almost every movement and ideology while largely keeping quiet about my own. Almost every ideology is fundamentally, irredeemably, fatally flawed.

 

[Tahuti]

I've found that, for me, the only moral, intellectually honest position is to oppose almost every movement and ideology while largely keeping quiet about my own. Almost every ideology is fundamentally, irredeemably, fatally flawed.

That's exactly why I refuse to use arguments to pick an ideology of choice. I simply pick the ideology that give me most opportunities to blow off steam.

 

[Borachio]

I've found that, for me, the only moral, intellectually honest position is to oppose almost every movement and ideology while largely keeping quiet about my own. Almost every ideology is fundamentally, irredeemably, fatally flawed.

OK. But then what's the ideology that isn't fundamentally, irredeemably, and fatally flawed?

There surely must be one (and you must know which it is), since otherwise you'd have omitted the "almost".

Moreover, what is "your" ideology?

And there's only two possibilities here: either you think it's also fatally flawed (in which case: why do you hold it?), or you think it isn't flawed (in which case: why don't you put it up for public examination?).

Or (belying my assertion of only two possibilities), of course, you might fondly think it isn't fatally flawed but don't dare risk exposing it to scrutiny in case it turns out to be fatally flawed after all (in which case: such much for moral and intellectual honesty?)

 

[Tahuti]

OK. But then what's the ideology that isn't fundamentally, irredeemably, and fatally flawed?

There surely must be one (and you must know which it is), since otherwise you'd have omitted the "almost".

That's different for everybody. Thing is, one is not convinced into an ideology by its proponents, but made into it by opponents.

 

[warpus]

I've found that, for me, the only moral, intellectually honest position is to oppose almost every movement and ideology while largely keeping quiet about my own. Almost every ideology is fundamentally, irredeemably, fatally flawed.

The problem with ideologies in my mind is not that they are inherently flawed, but rather that you often need to use varying aspects of varying ideologies to really solve problems.

Sticking to one ideology is thus stupid, so I refuse to do it. We need to look at problems on a case by case basis, not blind ourselves by sticking to one ideology only. We are blocking off potential answers to problems for no reason.

 

[plarq]

I think the hardest here is to find the "center", a.k.a. baseline, for judgement of left and right. We certainly cannot apply the original definition of left and right in French Revolution to our contemporary societies.

 

[Zkribbler]

I believe in achievement. Landing men on the moon and creating the finest works of art requires sacrifices. Ultimately, societies are to be judged by its highest specimens.

Guess that makes me a righty.

You sound more like a Kennedy. JFK sent us off towards the moon. First Lady Jackie gave a televised tour of the artwork in the White House.

 

[Angst]

American left and right are both corruptions of pro-corporate stances, just doing mock Keynes or Huntington. Your political options suck.

Denmark's left and right are both corruptions of the old anti- and pro-monarch parties. The party named Left is currently on the right and the party used to be named Right is currently the Conservatives party. As a rule, the right is more pro-monarchy tho, and is more authoritarian, while the left lean more towards libertarian social democrat to libertarian socialist paradise.