Poll: Do you think the current left/right political system is outdated?

[Merkava120]

The left/right system originated in France in the late 1700's (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this), with commoners sitting to the left and nobility to the right.
Do you think this system is outdated?
Post your thoughts

By the way I'm thinking of writing a paper on this subject, so I'd like as many opinions from different sides as possible. Don't feel shy now

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think it's outdated, I think we're just more aware of it's limitations. It still describes how most party-political systems orientate themselves, we're just more aware that politics extends beyond party-politics.* Even in multi-party systems there is typically a major party "of the left" and a major party "of the right", and when this isn't the case we can usually observe a concious conflict between two competing parties. Minor and third parties usually orientate themselves to one of these parties, as a challenge or alternative, and if they successfully establish themselves on an independent basis, it's usually as a self-conciously "centrist" party, even if also espousing a regional or sectional program. There aren't many parties that have managed to establish themselves altogether outside of the framework of left/right, at least in the developed world.

(*Or, perhaps, we're no more aware than people in the past, but we've begun to invest so much more of ourselves into identifying as "left-wing" or "right-wing", that breaking away from these monolithic identities requires a deliberate effort?)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it was too simplistic to begin with, but has gotten no worse with age so 'outdated' doesn't really apply.

 

[Zack]

What is the alternative?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Yes, cause economical equality and equalization of sexual activities and perversions are not the same thing nor relative.

 

[KevinLancaster]

I think the political compass is a bit more accurate than the basic left/right spectrum, though I'm not sure if it can be as easily explained media-wise so the old system is still useful.

Question: Did the nobility sit on the right because of their "divine right"? IIRC right as in the direction is the same word in French as right in the ethical(?) sense just as it is in English. Also, does the meaning of right being correct have any connection with this? Did the nobility sit on the right because they felt they were "right" in their views?

 

[bhsup]

Only insofar as "the left" is an outdated concept.

 

[brennan]

It's not a 'system' it's a model/theory and an extremely oversimplified one. Peoples' political and economic views do not simplify to a single bipolar attribute.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Peoples' political and economic views do not simplify to a single bipolar attribute.

In most cases anyway. In some I'm not so sure.

 

[Tahuti]

Peoples' political and economic views do not simplify to a single bipolar attribute.

I generally place egalitarian and rationalist ideologies like Socialism, Libertarianism and Liberalism on the Left. The Right tends to emphasise social hierarchy and myths, this coming from a person who views himself as righty.

 

[Zack]

I generally place egalitarian and rationalist ideologies like Socialism, Libertarianism and Liberalism on the Left. The Right tends to emphasise social hierarchy and myths, this coming from a person who views himself as righty.

You put libertarians on the left? Because they start with the same letter?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You put libertarians on the left? Because they start with the same letter?

His 'right and left' are the bipolar elitism vs egalitarianism, not the same bipolar that most people use.

 

[Zack]

His 'right and left' are the bipolar elitism vs egalitarianism, not the same bipolar that most people use.

Isn't any grouping that places libertarianism next to socialism inherently flawed? They're complete opposites.

 

[Bootstoots]

You put libertarians on the left? Because they start with the same letter?

He could also have meant libertarian socialism (as opposed to state-directed socialism).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Isn't any grouping that places libertarianism next to socialism inherently flawed? They're complete opposites.

Well, neither of them involve the nobility paternalistically looking out for the 'lesser' folk, so they both fit over there somewhere in that regard. I didn't say it made sense, I'm just going with the reasoning presented.

 

[Ajidica]

Isn't any grouping that places libertarianism next to socialism inherently flawed? They're complete opposites.

Remember that Kaiserguard is a monarchist, and anything that isn't monarchism is by definition left wing.
Think in French Revolution terms here.

 

[Narz]

I'm shocked that I broke the tie between option 1 & 2, I would have guessed the intelligent crowd of CivFanatics would nearly unanimously vote for #1.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I voted #2 because it is a somewhat useful simplification. One should note that the average person in this world is not very smart and an overtly complicated model will only serve to confuse.

 

[Zkribbler]

Science-fiction writer Dr. Jerry Pournelle has postulated a matrix:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105658.0

His horizontal axis is "statism," i.e. government is the "ultimate evil" on the left; "state worship" is on the right.

His vertical axis he calls "rationalism:" "Reason enthroned" is on the top, i.e. humanity's problems are capable of being solved. "Irrationality" is on the bottom, i.e. humanities problems cannot be solved.

IMHO, the simple left-right designations are generally useful in most situations. Buy where precision and/or acute analysis is called for, then sometime like Pournelles Axes are needed.

 

[plarq]

Another political science 101 problem...

My first response is "no". The Right/Left divide is a self-propagating prophecy. By the pre-existence of left camp and right camp, new political ideology groups will seek their place in the pre-existing political camps, such that strengthen the current divide. In the 18th century, the Right would be Ancien Regime, nobility, conservative clergy, etc, and the Left would be liberals, abolitionists, radical bourgeois etc. The 19th century is about labor union on the left and capital runners on the right. First half of 20th century saw the rise of socialists, esp. Leninism on the left, fascism and Nazism on the right, latter half we see lots of new stuff in the camps. For the left we have hippies, druggies counter culturists plus lots of radical leftist movements, environmental Greens, LGBTs, feminist herstories, animal rightist and other loonies, on the right we have evangelicals, new form of libertarianism, Hayekism and other inconsistent combinations.

Long story short. Left and right camps are two revolving doors. It has short term consistency, but not long term, since the inside can be completely flushed out in a long term.