Investigation of the Political Landscape

[PatrickHenry]

What is left and right? I often wonder since these terms are thrown around so freely. Liberal and conservative? Other criteria for judging political positions... economics, civil rights, government duties and prerogatives, militarism, morality, secularism and many other items inform the positioning on the scales used to weigh an individual's philosophy.

Can we argue not the actual positions we hold, but the measurements and the scales we use to judge? Then objectively place our positions along the scales? I have located this resource: http://www.janda.org/ICPP/ICPP1980/Book/PA...on/Ch.06p53.htm
Personally, on this board, I have been lableld "far left" and also suspected of anti-Semitism(of the anti-Jewish variety). I am sure of my positions on the issues, but I wonder where my positions would lie on some objective scale...

An excerpt from the above source:

From a classical standpoint, civil liberties derive from individuals as ends in themselves rather than as instruments in the effectuation of greater, usually statist, ends. For our purposes, civil liberties may be defined as opportunities for expressing opinions, commonly in the form of governmental criticism, in an atmosphere free of political repression or illegitimate communal restraint. Reprisals against the purveyors of undesirable sentiments may issue both from political authorities and from powerful social institutions and organizations (viz., the church, the tribal hierarchy). In the latter instance, whether any instrumentalities of the state undertake to protect the unfettered expression of ideas assumes critical importance.

As a corollary: Does the volconvo community believe that an objective view of the spectrum is even possible, or scientifically unfeasible?

[Catch 22]

PH the left and right usage is not very effective at all however I would say that the political compass is pretty effective way to view politics. You can be right or left on economics and authoritarian or libertarian on civil rights. Also there is an Internet game called nationstates where you build your own nation and make policy decisions. On this game they use political rights, civil rights and economics to measure the stance of nations. It’s an interesting idea but it does have the possibility of much overlap.

[Compugasm]

PH, again i say the 17th ammendment is a good start in looking for why we have bad policies.

[Osborn F Enready]

How about all after and including the 16th be examined and reviewed, with exception to equality of human rights and civil liberties.

The Constituion is clearly about limiting government, and not about limiting the people, it needs to be reimplemented, or revoked. We cannot have the system we currently do, or anything like it under the constitution. The Fed either needs to attempt to revoke the Constitution to justify its actions, or it needs to repeal all unconstitutional laws, and reimplement it in full effect and meaning.

I vote for liberty, and the Constitution! If a law cannot be made an amendment, it needs to fall to state rights, which have been ignored and removed from the states by the current system of Federal Government. Amendment qualification is clearly written in the Original Document, and needs to be adhered to without modification, as do its entire contents.

[Nono]

Much as I hate to counter the Americano-centric trend in this thread, I'd like to return to the original question: "What is left and right?"

Though both terms get tossed around pretty mindlessly at times, it seems to me that the best lens to view them through is an economic one: What role does government play in the economy? To me, rightists believe in economic laissez-faire and leftists believe in government measures that have the effect of redistributing wealth within society.

Yet outside the realm of economics, right-wingers are usually associated with "law and order". Though to me this often means simply lots of cops to protect the swagger of the rich and prevent the lower orders from getting out of hand, it's nevertheless a striking fact -- in my experience at least -- that the same people who believe in their limitless right to enrich themselves at other's expense often have a pretty demanding code in terms of social convention.

Leftists don't (necessarily) conform to the flip side of this picture. Many are motivated by religious or other types of moral code. And for sheer autoritarianism you can hardly beat the large-scale collectivist experiments of the 20th century.

To get back to the US, what comes to mind when one says "right-winger" there is a strong believer in authoritarianism. Americans use the code words "conservative" and "liberal", but it isn't always clear just what "conservatives" are trying to conserve and what "liberals" would like to liberate. Certainly US "liberals" believe in some degree of wealth distribution bolstered by government action to protect civil liberties (the rights of citizens), i.e. X is a citizen and therefore has the same rights as citizen Y, regardless of personal income, ancestry, etc.

For my part I'm on the left since I think some sort of state action (democratically guided) is needed to override the law of the jungle, which otherwise prevails by default owing to human evolution (all those caves...).

That said, it's probably impossible to establish an objective scale. I think the term originated in the post-revolutionary parliament in France, where one faction sat on the right and the other on the left (who's point of view?).

[Compugasm]

From the wikipedia Liberal & Conservative

Typical conservative views:

* Personal responsibility.
* General opposition to "big government" policies or state economic interventionism.
* Anti-communism, including a belief that the former Soviet Union was an "evil empire".
* Support for Judeo-Christian religious and moral values.
* Support for strong law enforcement and strong penalties for crimes.
* Restraint in taxation and regulation of businesses.
* Support for a strong military, and well-defended protected borders with regulated immigration.
* Support for drug prohibition.
* Opposition to (support the lessening) many state-run social programs such as welfare and medical care.
* Opposition to policies such as affirmative action and multi-lingual education which can be perceived as un-patriotic or government favoritism of minority groups.


Typical liberal views:

* Support for government social programs such as welfare, medical care, unemployment benefits, and retirement programs.
* Support for trade unions and strong regulation of business.
* Support for the rights of women and minorities, particularly racial and religious minorities, the disabled, and homosexuals. Some further support such programs as affirmative action and multi-lingual education.
* Support for strong environmental regulations.
* Support for public transit.
* Support for government funding to alternative energy research.
* Opposition to the death penalty.
* Support for abortion rights.
* Support for animal rights.
* Support for gun control.

It's not this black and white of course. No conservative I know would say all public transportation is a waste of time. It just gets blurry on how much, what, when etc... of these programs we need. Because once you give power to the governement, they don't give it back.

[Kyran]

Pat, I've proposed a different way to measure the political spectrum a couple times before. Here's what I find to be easiest to use:

Capitalism vs. Socialism (Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality)
Personal Choice vs. Moral Law (Pers. Freedom vs. Pers. Morality)

Neutrality is a valid answer to either question. When you compare all the possible answers, you find 9 combinations (alignments). Neutrals can support both issues going in either direction on the Aspect axis.

Going into detail on stuff like "environmental regulations" and "gun control" is completely unnecessary when you understand how to weigh an issue's Aspects.

Abortion's economic aspect: as a business
Abortion's personal aspect: as a choice

Gun ownership's economic aspect: as a Property
Gun ownership's personal aspect: as a choice to defend oneself with

Moral Law is completely subjective to the culture of the nation, specifically the individuals & religion pushing it.

Personal Choice is completely subjective to the whims of the nation, specifically to the desires of the individuals pushing it.

This helps me tremendously to understand the belief systems others are using while I'm talking to them. For some odd reason religious beliefs of those in one bracket match up accordingly, from my experience that is. You won't ever hear a Conservative say Jesus taught Social Justice.

This is where the political science ends and the human science begins though. End of discussion.

[castille]

Typical conservative views:

* Anti-communism, including a belief that the former Soviet Union was an "evil empire".

But in the USSR or China, if you are conservative, you will usually be a hardline Communist.

* Support for Judeo-Christian religious and moral values.

Only in the US and Europe.

* Restraint in taxation and regulation of businesses.

Again, this depends. In China, conservatives call for more taxes on business, while liberals demand less taxes.

* Support for a strong military

Not if you're from New Zealand.

* Opposition to (support the lessening) many state-run social programs such as welfare and medical care.

Again, its not true for the majority of the world.

* Opposition to policies such as affirmative action and multi-lingual education which can be perceived as un-patriotic or government favoritism of minority groups.

Not even in America. Many conservative Westerners I know support race mixing and multi-lingual education. Its only the rednecks who are racist.


Typical liberal views:

* Support for trade unions and strong regulation of business.

Depends. In Russia, liberals want less regulation of businesses.

* Support for public transit. * Support for government funding to alternative energy research. * Opposition to the death penalty. * Support for abortion rights. * Support for animal rights. * Support for gun control.

Don't forget:
* Support for giving men the short end of the stick in divorce cases
* Support for breaking up families
* Support for sexual perversity (ie. NAMBLA is liberal)


Wikipedia seems to portray a North American standard. Looks like its time to change it....

[Compugasm]

Yeah, actually castile, I misunderstood the question and I don't think PH was looking for clarification on party issues. More like how to rationalize their thinking. That communism comment you mention is exactly what PH was pointing out. The terms Liberal and Conservative dont' make sense.

[Osborn F Enready]

Compugasm. I agree.

[PatrickHenry]

Did anyone check through my resource? This from there:

This basic scoring matrix was applied to thirteen issues selected for inclusion in our "issue orientation" cluster: 5.01 -- Government Ownership of Means of Production 5.02 -- Government Role in Economic Planning 5.03 -- Redistribution of Wealth 5.04 -- Social Welfare 5.05 -- Secularization of Society 5.06 -- Support of the Military 5.07 -- Alignment with East/West Blocs 5.08 -- Anticolonialism 5.09 -- Supranational Integration 5.10 -- National Integration 5.11 -- Electoral Participation 5.12 -- Protection of Civil Rights 5.13 -- Interference with Civil Liberties

This is a serious topic. Please help.

On ownership:

PRO-strong: +5 Strongly favors government ownership; advocates government ownership of all basic industries; advocates government ownership of means of production generally. PRO-moderate: +3 Favors government ownership; advocates government ownership of some basic industries but not all; advocates acquiring some industry not currently under government ownership. PRO-weak: +l Accepts some government ownership but mainly favors more government regulation; advocates active regulation of production and marketing activities of basic industries; advocates stronger regulation. NEUTRAL: 0 Includes ambiguous or contradictory positions CON-weak: -1 Accepts some government ownership; opposes ownership spreading to all basic industries; opposes government acquisition of a given industry not under government ownership; accepts current government regulations. CON-moderate: -3 Opposes government ownership; opposes ownership in principle for any basic industry; advocates returning a given government-owned industry to private ownership; advocates weaker regulations CON-strong: -5 Strongly opposes government ownership; opposes even government regulation of production and marketing activities of industries other than minimal requirements for health, safety, and honesty; urges repeal of current regulations.

Are these useful dimensions to the debate over terms?

[tusaki]

I dont think any person can ever reach consensus with another of what is exactly, "left" and "right". It is a gross oversimplification of complex attitudes to a multitude of areas. They are ambiguous words, thrown around like a curse.

How would you rate someone (imaginative) like this: Pro-dead penalty, Pro-abortion, Pro-environment, Anti-gun control, Pro-seperation church/state, Anti-nationalistic, Pro-family, Pro-social programs.?

You cannot capture the ideas, motivations and feelings of human beings in such simplistic terms.

PatrickHenry, your idea is interesting, but imagine this: "Hi, what is your political bearing?", "Mine is (-2,+1,-5,-3,+2,+4,-5,+1)". Although I have to say that it succeeds much better in captivating the true policital temperament.

[Compugasm]

Check through your resource? You'd have to narrow it down, it's longer than a Stephen King novel.

[PatrickHenry]

It has gotta beat labeling someone "lefty" because they don't agree with a Statist agenda like some of the GOP stalwarts here.

[bishop]

it would seem that the proper way to characterize these terms would be to use their original definition. but, to insist on that rigid definition ignores the fact that words change. once upon a time, gay meant happy, not homosexual.

also, these terms are abstract ideas... to make an analogy - can anyone define what god is?

in a country dominated by independents, it's hard to clearly define what these terms mean..
imo, political parties' policies embody the definition of right/left, conservative/liberal... and since our two-party system continuously reinvents itself (democrats were once pro-slave, republicans once favored limited government). this reinvention has seriously muddied the water.


i saw some speak about economics... everyone omitted one big type - mercantalism.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Compugasm, Check through your resource? You'd have to narrow it down, it's longer than a Stephen King novel.

OK. What about the thirteen "issues" in the beginning of that post? Are they key points for evaluating a political "spectrum?" Are there others which are as valid or even more important?

[sixmillman]

Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative Then there are those who need to be viewed “on another plane” Libertarians would shout loudly to anyone

Get those pointy-headed Washington bureaucrats off our backs and off our fronts too!
Guns for everybody who wants them; no guns for those who don't want them
Drugs for everybody who wants them; no drugs for those who don't want them
Freedom of choice, free love,free speech, free Internet and free beer
Move to New Hampshire
You worship George Bush I worship Jefferson If the constitution was in effect it wouldn't matter.
Lotsa wild parties every night by gun-toting dopers

"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named 'Bush', 'Dick', and 'Colon.'Need I say more?"

[bishop]

Guns for everybody who wants them; no guns for those who don't want them

would you want a mentally ill person with a repeat criminal record to have a gun?


to the topic, the left/right debate here is focused solely on america politics.. these terms have different meanings in different countries.

[sixmillman]

Ask PH he's the Libertarian

[Sonart]

Guns for everybody who wants them; no guns for those who don't want them

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris really wanted guns. Good idea.