The hard and fast definitions of right and left are hard to apply in the US, mostly since these definitions were set over 200 years ago when a lot of current issues weren't on the table, and because the US two-party system practically forces both the Democrats and Repubics to accept their own internal contradictions which come with the territory when you're a mass party.
Over the course of time, these contradictions have mangled the definitions of left and right into whatever it is the Democrats respectively the Republicans happen to be doing at present.
You're friend who was arguing that Bush is not right-wing is not uttering total nonsense. If he had argued that Bush is not conservative, his argument would have been much better, though.
Noam Chomsky was talking about it in one of his books: if you look at early definitions of conservatism, it's laissez faire economics and small government, only creating further legislation when absolutely necessary, etc. Needless to say, this doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the way our current conservative leaders are running the country (although they may evoke these values in their rhetoric).
Also, the views on what "right" and "left", "conservative" and "liberal" really denote vary considerably from country to country.
In Germany, for example, "liberal" implies nearly "libertarian", with all of the questionable connotations that go along with it. Only really far-out parties describe themselves as being "liberal". "Social-Democratic" is more or less the equivalent of a regular Dem over there.
"Right wing" in German terms is much simpler than the US definition - it generally denotes nationalistic, radical right, kick-out-the-foreigners groups, most of which are illegal, but one of which (the NPD) has somehow managed to become a regular, recongnized political party.
However, "Right wing" in Germany does not have the "government wheelin' and dealin' with the biggest corporations" connotation which it does in the US - this would just be "conservatism" in Germany.
Define Left Wing and Right Wing
12To me, the concept of left wing and right wing comes across as nothing more than a devisive propaganda tool to stop people actually understanding the issues in hand.
If there's to be any labeling at all, I prefer the idea of making a split between economic and social policy:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Rightly or wrongly, I believe in strong controls on big business and increased freedom for the individual (along with provision of social services to improve health, education, etc...), because if big business is unchecked then it ends up restricting personal freedom *instead* of government. In the UK and US for example, the number of working hours in a given week has significantly increased over the last twenty years, where as more progressive governments have maximum limits on working hours to keep big business in check.
Based on this, I used to describe myself as libertarian, but in recent years definitions seem to have changed. Libertarianism now seems to mean anarchy or no government at all and my political beliefs have been dubbed by the masses as liberal. However, I was always under the impression that liberal had something to do with free markets and stuff like that (ie, not what I believe in), but no, now I find it means anything those in power disagree with and instead it gets used as a crummy hate word.
Regardless of whether any of you agree with my politics, the point I'm trying to make is that these words are not very stable and mean totally different things to different people. As a result, they are completely useless in communicating political thought. Tags like libertarian, liberal, republican, democrat, tory, labour are bad enough but to reduce the complexity of every political decision down to left and right, as if there are only ever two answers to any given problem, is plain silly.
If there's to be any labeling at all, I prefer the idea of making a split between economic and social policy:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Rightly or wrongly, I believe in strong controls on big business and increased freedom for the individual (along with provision of social services to improve health, education, etc...), because if big business is unchecked then it ends up restricting personal freedom *instead* of government. In the UK and US for example, the number of working hours in a given week has significantly increased over the last twenty years, where as more progressive governments have maximum limits on working hours to keep big business in check.
Based on this, I used to describe myself as libertarian, but in recent years definitions seem to have changed. Libertarianism now seems to mean anarchy or no government at all and my political beliefs have been dubbed by the masses as liberal. However, I was always under the impression that liberal had something to do with free markets and stuff like that (ie, not what I believe in), but no, now I find it means anything those in power disagree with and instead it gets used as a crummy hate word.
Regardless of whether any of you agree with my politics, the point I'm trying to make is that these words are not very stable and mean totally different things to different people. As a result, they are completely useless in communicating political thought. Tags like libertarian, liberal, republican, democrat, tory, labour are bad enough but to reduce the complexity of every political decision down to left and right, as if there are only ever two answers to any given problem, is plain silly.
Why defend cunts?
Define Left Wing and Right Wing
15Socially, people on the left generally favor laxer restrictions on the range of peoples' choices regarding their personal lives. They are in favor of less stringent mechanisms for the punishment of socially unacceptable behavior. They tend to base their arguments on rational observations rather than on received wisdom or religious dogma.
Economically and in terms of foreign relations, they prefer to regulate some of the more important decisions made by the business world, whether this be accounting practices, environmental standards, or tax breaks. They tend to support programs that serve as a safety net should Americans fall down on their luck. They favor peaceful negotiations with foreign nations rather than blustering bravado, and they support the rule of law when it comes to dangerous issues such as war powers and torture, for example.
Right wingers, on the other hand, have much a much different perspective both socially and economically.
Socially, they favor traditional gender and parental roles, sexual abstinence, taboos on drugs, and cracking down on protesters or troublemakers. They prefer peace and order rather than vociferous questioning of the status quo. They tend to be devoutly religious and patriotic. They favor harsh punishments for criminals. They immediately distrust art that doesn't satisfy their craving for moralistic cant or cheap sentiment, or that goes in radical new directions. They appeal to what the "average Joe" wants and they chortle at intellectuals, whom they chide as elitist.
Economically and in terms of foreign relations, they are in favor of cutting down on government regulation of business and cutting taxes, particularly taxes on the wealthiest segment of society, as they think that this will lead to spurred economic growth. They favor a stagnant minimum wage and they are nearly uniformly against union organizing. They adopt a militaristic defensiveness when it comes to bargaining with foreign nations, and they are almost always against what they feel is a swarm of illegal immigration. This latter is a thinly veiled appeal to sometimes hidden racist tendencies in their constituency.
So while the Bush administration is not economically conservative in their relentless spending and their irresponsible approach to the budget, they are still "right wing" when it comes to social policies, foreign relations, immigration, and a raft of other issues. To deny that they are "right wingers" based upon an overly intensive focusing upon one factor in the mix would seem to be a meaningless procedure.
My definitions of right and left are not put forward in order to insinuate, however, that most American politicians from the two major parties always or even usually subscribe to the tenets I've outlined. I intended to give what I felt was a sufficiently broad view of my conceptions that takes into account the thrust of history, especially American history. Almost any generalization will have a number of exceptions, of course, but I think it's meaningful to take a snapshot of where we stand.
Economically and in terms of foreign relations, they prefer to regulate some of the more important decisions made by the business world, whether this be accounting practices, environmental standards, or tax breaks. They tend to support programs that serve as a safety net should Americans fall down on their luck. They favor peaceful negotiations with foreign nations rather than blustering bravado, and they support the rule of law when it comes to dangerous issues such as war powers and torture, for example.
Right wingers, on the other hand, have much a much different perspective both socially and economically.
Socially, they favor traditional gender and parental roles, sexual abstinence, taboos on drugs, and cracking down on protesters or troublemakers. They prefer peace and order rather than vociferous questioning of the status quo. They tend to be devoutly religious and patriotic. They favor harsh punishments for criminals. They immediately distrust art that doesn't satisfy their craving for moralistic cant or cheap sentiment, or that goes in radical new directions. They appeal to what the "average Joe" wants and they chortle at intellectuals, whom they chide as elitist.
Economically and in terms of foreign relations, they are in favor of cutting down on government regulation of business and cutting taxes, particularly taxes on the wealthiest segment of society, as they think that this will lead to spurred economic growth. They favor a stagnant minimum wage and they are nearly uniformly against union organizing. They adopt a militaristic defensiveness when it comes to bargaining with foreign nations, and they are almost always against what they feel is a swarm of illegal immigration. This latter is a thinly veiled appeal to sometimes hidden racist tendencies in their constituency.
So while the Bush administration is not economically conservative in their relentless spending and their irresponsible approach to the budget, they are still "right wing" when it comes to social policies, foreign relations, immigration, and a raft of other issues. To deny that they are "right wingers" based upon an overly intensive focusing upon one factor in the mix would seem to be a meaningless procedure.
My definitions of right and left are not put forward in order to insinuate, however, that most American politicians from the two major parties always or even usually subscribe to the tenets I've outlined. I intended to give what I felt was a sufficiently broad view of my conceptions that takes into account the thrust of history, especially American history. Almost any generalization will have a number of exceptions, of course, but I think it's meaningful to take a snapshot of where we stand.
Gay People Rock
Define Left Wing and Right Wing
16happyandbored wrote:However, I was always under the impression that liberal had something to do with free markets and stuff like that (ie, not what I believe in), but no, now I find it means anything those in power disagree with and instead it gets used as a crummy hate word.
The term "neo-liberal" has little if anything to do with a political "liberal". Neo-liberalism, favored by people like Thomas Friedmann, is an economic worldview that favors the global spread of corporate power and infringements on other countries' governmental regulations of business practices. It is of a much more recent genesis. The term "liberal" goes back for hundreds of years and, properly understood, it carries with it a host of connotations specific to itself.
Regardless of whether any of you agree with my politics, the point I'm trying to make is that these words are not very stable and mean totally different things to different people. As a result, they are completely useless in communicating political thought. Tags like libertarian, liberal, republican, democrat, tory, labour are bad enough but to reduce the complexity of every political decision down to left and right, as if there are only ever two answers to any given problem, is plain silly.
While I agree to a certain extent that maintaining false dichotomies is damaging to our political discourse, I do think that this particular dichotomy--left and right--is not illusory. Furthermore, it can only serve to gloss over the meaningful specificities of political decision-making if we get too used to using the terms as catch-all mantras, each one with an unbending and rigid set of indispensable tenets. I don't think that this is the case, though. Many on both the right and the left will have views that we would consider aberrations, and the framework is so broad that it allows for much variation.
Last edited by NerblyBear_Archive on Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gay People Rock
Define Left Wing and Right Wing
1717 post until someone actually looked it up?
In 1789, the French National Assembly was created as a parliamentary body to move control of issues, such as taxation, from the king to the citizenry.
Inside the chamber where the National Assembly met, members of the Third Estate sat on the left side and members of the First Estate sat on the right. The Third Estate consisted of revolutionaries, while the First Estate were nobles. Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative
In 1789, the French National Assembly was created as a parliamentary body to move control of issues, such as taxation, from the king to the citizenry.
Inside the chamber where the National Assembly met, members of the Third Estate sat on the left side and members of the First Estate sat on the right. The Third Estate consisted of revolutionaries, while the First Estate were nobles. Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative
Define Left Wing and Right Wing
18Rick Reuben wrote:There is a third wave movement in American politics now, but the best name I can come up with for it is the pro-sovereignty/anti-globalism movement.
I can think of a better name for it.
Gay People Rock
Define Left Wing and Right Wing
19this is pretty good. I had a conversation with someone recently and we basically drew the conclusions that this site draws.
here's mine.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.03
apparently, I'm like the Dali Llama and Nelson Mandela.
Define Left Wing and Right Wing
20Taking just the historical basis for the terms, leftwing is anything progressive and non-ideological and rightwing is a political group that gains most of its identity from opposing the left. In reality there is no right wing, just an opposition to the left.