Left, Right, And Useless
Posted on 21 September 2008 by stageleft
The bunker has been saying for years that the political descriptors “left” and “right” are a pair of utterly useless terms, and it seems that Canadians are finally catching up.
Frank Graves, president of Ekos Research Associates, which does in-depth polling in Canada and the United States, said he does not find the same trends across the border as he does here.
“Americans are much more ideological than Canadians. They tenaciously hold on to their ideological orientations and they are much more conservative, much more moral, with more religiosity and so forth.”
In contrast, Canadian voters over the past quarter-century have indicated to academic investigators that most of them can’t define right or left or care about the distinction. They increasingly think of themselves as non-partisan and non-ideological. They have the weakest political-party affinity in the Western world.
(emphasis mine)
Something that, IMO, indicates that Canada is populated by more politically intelligent people than the rest of the western world.
Adolf Hitler and Stephen Harper are both politically right of centre, Stephane Dion and Joseph Stalin are both politically left of centre, and Pope Benedict XVI and George W. Bush are on opposite sides of the political fence - what sort of intelligent conclusion are you able to form from those bit’s of information?
(Note: If you are able to draw what you think is an intelligent conclusion stop reading now - the rest will probably just confuse you.)
I am non-partisan, my views on any given issue are my own and not coloured by party ideology or dogma. I am regularly accused by the self-professed right of being a barking moon bat leftie as a result of some of my political views, and of drinking too deeply of the Conservative kool-aid by the self-professed left for others - and as Graves research shows, those leveling the accusations share far more in common with their ideologically driven hyper-partisan brethren south of the border than they do with the mainstream Canadian views they all pretend to represent.
Popularity: 40% [?]
September 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
How do you figure Adolf Hitler was politically right-of-centre? Is it because Hitler was anti-Communist? Dig deeper, Stageleft!!
Were you aware that Hitler started his political career following Anton Drexler’s anti-Semitic, nationalist, anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist ideas, which favoured a strong active government, a “non-Jewish” version of socialism and mutual solidarity of all members of society. That doesn’t sound all that right-wing to me!
September 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Welcome to the site, Stageleft.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Mac:
Hitler was politically on the right and supported state fascism. Capitalism is a classical liberal construct and as such would have been decried by rightists at the time. Fascists also despise intellectuals and university professors, which I’m sure the readership would have no problem identifying with the “left”. The economic system did allow private property but only in the hands of those who were somehow tied to the state.
Stageleft:
Welcome.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Fascism doesn’t really mesh with my idea of conservatism either. You would think that the total control of authoritarianism would require big government, not small. Further, I do not believe that there are many of us on the right who would put up with a totalitarian government like that in China or Zimbabwe for very long. Isn’t that the very reason that Americans on the right will never give up their guns? It wasn’t called the National Socialist Party without reason, under Hitler the German economy, in fact every aspect of life, was pretty tightly controlled by big all encompassing government.
It seems to me that true fascism requires a mix and match of elements from both the extreme right and extreme left. From the right such elements as nationalism, and militarism, and from the left such elements as statism, populism, collectivism, and central economic planning. The far left liberals controlling our Human Rights Commissions have found common ground with the far right Muslim extremists they often champion, and that would seem to be the tools of fascism that they use against those that would oppose them. Therefore in my view, fascism is more like a non-partisan movement that made some bad choices about what to take from each side of the political spectrum.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Being a simple guy I’m not going to get into political persuasions and the “ins and outs” of “whatever” here. I’m much like Stageleft in my thinking but perhaps for different reasons.
Many who frequent this site would see me as hard right on many of the issues and that would be true (gun control as an example). On other issues I tend to veer a bit left as in supporting through taxpayer money women (or men) who have been left in a lurch without a decent job and who have children to raise. I don’t mind my taxes going to support them in their hour of need. On the other hand I veer hard right again when I see my money going to support third generation welfare recipients who haven’t worked a day in their life and live off the public dole.
We all know that’s going on.
I suppose that I am like most people in the way I think and I try to support those who will make my country a better place to live. I don’t support special interest groups who use the media to badger the government and I despise reporters and pundits who continually try to muddy the water as they support one party or another.
All I need on a personal level is to know who will do the best job for my country. That person (or party) will win my vote — especially if I come to the conclusion the group I choose will work to fix the mistakes of the past and move us all forward.
I don’t (and never have) voted for a particular MP because I “like” him or her…or a party that my mother and father voted for. Times change and I think about my children and grandchildren and their future because my vote is important in that respect.
Presently, I do not agree with Dion and his flaky green ideas for many reasons. I also do not support that pandering idiot Jack Layton. Their ideas are welcome in the debate I listen to as are Elizabeth May’s and Gilles Duceppe’s but in the end I always choose what is best for my country and throw my vote that way.
I support Harper at this time because he is the only man who appears to be making any sense at all. I’m not voting for him because I like him. I’m voting for him because it’s the right thing to do for my country and that is also why I support McCain in the US.
I don’t want to go back to the “good old days”.
I want to move forward into the future and I want to get it right.
Therefore the reason “Stageleft” is a welcome addition to this site as we all work to try to clear muddy water created by the MSM and people who think of party and personal interests before country.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I just caught this. I too say welcome to stageleft. We have certainly had our differences in the past so things should be interesting around here — not that they aren’t already!
September 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Why should it? Fascism deals not with left or right (there is a reason it’s called “the third way”), but levels of authoritarianism, something that I didn’t deal with in the post at all.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Your the one who put Hitler on the right with Harper, and Cynapse put the fascist label on the right, so don’t ask me where you lefties come up with this stuff.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Brian: Fascism has always been on the right. Only in the last 10 years have I heard any differently, approximately the same time the right decided to co-opt everything else that turned out to be good in the long run (free market, freedom of religion, civil rights, universal suffrage) while purging everything that turned out to be bad in the long run (class division, Eugenics, colonialism, slavery)
Also, you cheapen your reputation every time your throw the term “lefty” as a derogatory term toward anyone who challenges the validity of your constantly evolving definitions. Right-wingers need to stop passing themselves off as libertarians.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Authoritarianism - of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
—
The latter can refer to the left or the right but anyone with even a minor background in history knows that the characteristics outlined in Fascism have always been associated with right-wing governments. Obviously, so do the Europeans themselves, as the fascist parties are continually at WAR with the leftists, Communists and Marxists … just as they were in Germany during the 30’s.
This means that Hitler is on the right with Harper but he is at the extreme right and as a result would not like Harper’s laissez faire approach to government. In fact the two practically have nothing in common which brings us back to Stageleft’s original point about the futility of describing everything in left and right terms.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“Brian”…Stageleft is NOT a “lefty”. He simply has a different point of view than you do and we need to hear them all. In point of fact I don’t think he’s made up his mind about anyone at this time.
He’s “undecided” and sharing his worldview which may not be exactly what is expected here.
Think computers, programming and what the computer picks up. Every “computer” is different and what we want to do here is “network”.
So let’s go there and stop beating each other up.
“Country first.”
September 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I have no reputation to care about, and my definition of fascism remains unchanged. I disagree with your assertion that fascism has only been on the right, but that is probably because I don’t get my history from the CBC. To me fascists are political opportunists that can come from either the right or the left, as did Hitler, borrowing whatever they need to solidify their hold on power, so we will have to agree to disagree.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
You don’t need to get your history from CBC to know what a fascist is. You do need to be fairly dishonest to remove it from its right-wing roots simply because being a fascist is no longer fashionable.
We will agree to disagree, though I would like to know how you can explain the implication that present-day fascists like the Aryan Nations would be more at home marching with the unions and college hippies of the left than they would with the Evangelicals and nativists of the right. It boggles the mind, truthfully.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Bloody well said Jack, it’s just to bad more people could not see the sense in what you are saying.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Hitler gained power coming from the left wing NAZI (National Socialist German Workers’ Party).
September 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
No, Hitler CALLED his movement socialist while going to war with virtually all the actual socialists, Bolsheviks and Marxists in the region. it’s a well-known misnomer and chances are your history teacher told you exactly that. Hitler used racial supremacy as a base while targeting the very liberal (at the time) institution of capitalism, claiming it was a ploy invented by the Jews.
In the mean time, the Nazis used Nordic mythology and the Occult to declare themselves decedents of the ancient Aryan people, who posessed mystical powers etc etc etc. These are all earmarks of extreme right wing philosophy, as was Hitler’s actual governance.
Again, you are encouraged to demonstrate the leftist tendencies of Hitler’s ideological decedents. Even seen the Aryan Nations march alongside the hippies and communists? Which blogs stepped up to defend neo-nazi Marc Lemire - the left or right wing blogs? (before you try to weasel out of this, keep in mind that the left wing blogs have long been on the government’s case about muzzling their anti-war free speech)
September 21st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“Networking”…here we go.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
No the NAZI party preceded Hitler and was founded by Anton Drexler, who was both an anti-capitalist and an anti-Marxist type of socialist. Hitler was an opportunist who wanted to break the power of the Christian Church in Germany by replacing it with a mixture of Nordic mythology and the Occult.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I am an observer of politics. Interesting debate held here brought to mind Bob Rae. His record in politics covers all sides it seems and he certainly appears to crave power. When I watch his comfortable conversations with Craig Oliver and Mike Duffy I am afraid. I have never seen him challenged on his message and he seems very full of himself with lots of connections.I worry what a man like this would do to Canada if in power. He just seems too smooth!!!
September 21st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“He just seems too smooth!!!”
Indeed he is and we in Ontario know full well how that all worked out. The NDP takeover of the Liberal Party of Canada is just about complete.
One election to go.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:37 pm
You’re helping my argument out every time you sit down at the keyboard Brian.
Let me summarize:
* Brian self identifies as “politically right”
* Stephen Harper identifies as “politically right”
* Brian identifies Stephen Harper as being good.
* Hitler was a fascist.
* Hitler killed millions of people.
* Hitler was a bad man.
Therefore, regardless of historical facts, Hitler, and Fascism, and not, and never were, “politically right”, because politically right is “good”.
(Actually Cynapse, Hitler was more to the political centre than Stephen Harper is - but he was very authoritarian and that is a [very] important fundamental difference. We’ll also have to have a discussion one day about the role the Occult actually played in Hitlers life - have you read any of his essays or transcripts? Trust me, it wasn’t Oden he claimed to follow or whose bidding he claimed to be doing.)
See what I mean about the words “left” and “right” being functionally useless politically descriptive terms?
Now as it happens I am, generally, politically left (hence the blog name), which (oh the horror) puts me on the same side of the political fence with Robert Mugabe & Hugo Chavez, so it’s easy to demonize ‘ole stageleft, he’s a leftie, and there are some very bad lefties in the world who have done some very bad things — except, wait a minute, the Pope is also a leftie…. is the Pope bad? Misguided? An idiot? A barking moonbat?
See what I mean about the words “left” and “right” being functionally useless politically descriptive terms?
Canadians, if Graves is right, have already arrived at that conclusion - would that the blogosphere could do the same ‘eh?
PS: The difference between me and Mugabe and Chavez is that they’re very authoritarian lefties and I am a very non-authoritarian leftie, heck, the Pope is more authoritarian that I am - I self identify as an anarchist, but since that’s another woefully misunderstood and incorrectly used term we won’t go there…. at least not yet
PSS: It’s stageleft folks, all one word, no upper-case letters.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Just to put my two cents in, when I taught sociology, one of the most common diagrams in textbooks to help people visualize the two extremes — communism verus fascism — was a horseshoe with the two extremes at either end. The more extreme, the closer they got. Communism on the left and fascism on the right.
It may be simplistic but that, in my experience, is where the two are ultimately located on the left-right spectrum.
They are both police states and in the way they treat people. They both devalue the worth of the individual and exalt the state or collective.
Communism is an ideology that demands international revolution but fascism tends to be national in scope. For example, Hitler allied himself to Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain as well as to puppet governments in all the conquered parts of Europe.
International communism, until recently, took their orders from Moscow (e.g., Cuba).
As a church-going Christian, however, I take exception to Cynapse suggesting that all people who are religious are part of the far religious right and close to being fascists. That is just pure poppycock and prejudice!
September 21st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I actually agree with stageleft. These definitions are not useful. I was in private practice helping people with disabilities. I taught university. I am progressive in many many areas. Yet, as I said, I am also a practicing Christian. Yet, I have no problem with SSM. And, in my own life, I am prolife in that I have an adopted daughter. But, I don’t judge other women leaving that very personal decision to them.
Where the heck would I stand? In the middle? Sometimes on the left? Sometimes on the right? Yikes.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Stageleft, I believe that you have misunderstood me entirely, I just don’t believe that fascism can be found on a limited left right political spectrum, therefore to me, Hitler was neither right or left wing. In my view Hitler was an opportunist who came from the center left because it was expedient to do so at that time, and he, like many totalitarians, mixed and matched elements from various ideologies to suit his purpose. Further, those elements were all reflected in the German government of the day. For every trait that NAZI Germany displayed that you can identify as right wing, I believe I can find at least one that some would identify as left wing. Unlike Cynapse, I do have trouble linking religion, nationalism, militarism, and racism exclusively with the right because they can also exist to a huge degree in parts of the world that have little or no representation on the right, such as Africa, North Korea, China etc. Further, I have heard nothing here today that changes my mind about any of my views, so until we come up with something better, I will continue to use the left right spectrum despite its limitations, while doing my best to identify anomalies like fascism.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Taken to their extreme ends, aren’t Communism and Fascism exactly the same thing? A small group in government controlling the population who exist without even basic property rights?
Left versus right made sense when those “labels” meant something. Likewise, liberal versus conservative. The true divide is between authoritarian versus libertarian; what role do you see government playing in the lives of it’s citizens; servant or ruler?
I must admit I chuckled when I read Cynapse saying conservatives should stop pretending to be libertarians since, under the current “definitions”, the conservatives represent those who want smaller government which does not interfere in the daily lives of citizens… and liberals are the ones who changed the Constitution to remove property rights.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
stageleft:
We’ll also have to have a discussion one day about the role the Occult actually played in Hitlers life - have you read any of his essays or transcripts?
Hitler himself wasn’t particularly religious but the Nazi party as whole were deeply into the Occult.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Incidentally, saying Hitler is right-wing and drawing a comparison to Stephen Harper while decrying labels of right & left as being meaningless is a rather absurd exercise.
The current crop who call themselves the left want to divorce themselves from any association with the horrible aberration which was Hitler since they believe their form of socialism would never devolve. When they suppress individual rights, they do so with a clear conscience for the common good…
September 21st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Mac:
I must admit I chuckled when I read Cynapse saying conservatives should stop pretending to be libertarians since, under the current “definitions”, the conservatives represent those who want smaller government which does not interfere in the daily lives of citizens… and liberals are the ones who changed the Constitution to remove property rights.
Are you talking about the capital-letter parties or the actual philosophies? Your conservative friends to the south are being anything but small-government, which seemed to be ok as long as they blew up enough Arabs to soothe Americans’ inner warlord.
The only time conservatives become “small government” is when social transfers and legislation for minority rights come to the table. Billions of dollars on wars and faith-based initiatives seem a-ok. Small government? I think not.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Mac:
The current crop who call themselves the left want to divorce themselves from any association with the horrible aberration which was Hitler since they believe their form of socialism would never devolve. When they suppress individual rights, they do so with a clear conscience for the common good…
The left doesn’t need to divorce themselves because they were never tied to it. They have to answer for Stalin and Mao. Incidentally, I’ve never heard a leftist claim that either of those individuals were right-wingers, indicating at least some degree of honesty in dealing with their past. From the right, next we’ll hear how the KKK was actually left-wing.
Left is not a buzzword for “anything that is unfashionable”.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Sandy:
As a church-going Christian, however, I take exception to Cynapse suggesting that all people who are religious are part of the far religious right and close to being fascists. That is just pure poppycock and prejudice!
Where in the heck did I say that?
What I did say is that the right, and in particular the Christian right, are extremely dishonest when discussing their ideological past. It wasn’t socialists and lefties that supported Hitler stateside; it wasn’t socialists that propagated slavery and segregation. That was all right-wing activity with biblical justification. This hardly indicts all Christians but to see some front like no elements of Christianity were (or are) supportive of this activity is baffling.
We don’t support communism because it has a proven record of ruining economies. Most leftists acknowledge such and don’t want to go that far. What is so difficult with rightists doing the same thing without attempting to rewrite history?
September 21st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Cynapse — You said “Brian: Fascism has always been on the right. Only in the last 10 years have I heard any differently, approximately the same time the right decided to co-opt everything else that turned out to be good in the long run (free market, freedom of religion, civil rights, universal suffrage) while purging everything that turned out to be bad in the long run (class division, Eugenics, colonialism, slavery)”
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. You usually do tend to rant against religion so I missed the “turned out to be good in the long run” re “freedom of religion.”
But, I agree that there are good things on both sides of the spectrum and I have never liked the way people put “conservatives” on the right like some kind of fanatic. I am like lots of conservatives, all over the place.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Mac: saying Hitler is right-wing and drawing a comparison to Stephen Harper while decrying labels of right & left as being meaningless is a rather absurd exercise.
I have made no comparison between Hitler and Harper other than to state that they are both to the political right of centre, and asked the question as to whether or not there is any sort of intelligent conclusion that can be drawn from that bit of information.
The answer of course is that there is no more intelligent conclusion to be drawn from that than may be drawn from stating that the Pope and Chavez are both to the political left of centre.
– and if we can agree on that, do we disagree on Graves conclusion that the terms “politically right” and “politically left” are functionally useless as political descriptors in this Canadian day and age?
September 21st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Oh and by the way, we all have an “ideology.” It’s only when people try to stick us in some left-right spectrum that it becomes a problem.
And, it wasn’t just the “Biblical” folks who condoned slavery. Let’s not forget it was also about money — Arabs and Blacks colluded. Another than the various genocides since recorded human history, it was one of the worst things man has ever done to man — but unfortunately that type of inhumanity is still going on today (e.g., Rwanda).
Anyway, that is off topic, apart from the fact that such inhumanity happens as a result of power from both sides of the spectrum.
Over to you guys. I’m shutting down for the night.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Oh I just noticed that last comment.
stageleft — since when is the Pope left of centre? I would have said definitely right of centre. No women in the priesthood. Pro-life. No birth control. That sounds conservative to me.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Or, is that your point in this discussion. The terms left and right simply don’t make sense anymore, if they ever did?
September 21st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I was chuckling because the discussion was basically indicating the labels “left & right” had become meaningless, as have the names “liberal & conservative” but you’re still gamely trying to sell the concept that libertarianism is left or liberal movement.
You’re comparing apples and oranges, Cynapse. I was talking about Canadian politics but you’re reaching into American politics since, superficially, it supports your premise but only if one is ignorant of the nature of the American federal government.
While the executive branch has been dominated by the Republicans, (my conservative friends in your description although I don’t ever recall saying I had any such friends), their Senate, which is described as being the first amongst equals in the sharing of powers, has been dominated by Democrats. The Senate creates the bills; the President has only limited veto power over those bills. So who is really “growing” the government?
The reason the socialists don’t deny association with Stalin or Mao is because both of those dictators were Marxists and they’re so firmly tied to Marxism, they cannot possible hope to deny or untangle those connections… whereas Hitler’s dictatorship was anti-Marxist so they feel free to deny association.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Re: the pope …
That post is one of the early examples of defying the left and right spectrum.
The current pope does appear to be on the right for those reasons you mentioned. On the other hand, the last few popes have railed against runaway capitalism and materialism while encouraging wealthy governments to give more resources to its poor (as well as poor nations). That’s kind of left wing.
Popes in the past have been benefactors and warmongers simultaneously.
Also it’s relative - middle eastern converts to Christianity often do so because it is relatively liberal (ie to the “left”) of their Islamic background.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“Something that, IMO, indicates that Canada is populated by more politically intelligent people than the rest of the western world.”
stageleft:
An interesting post, but I’m not so sure that Canadians are really more politically intelligent. The fact that so many cannot define left and right on the political spectrum, or care about the difference, may actually be due to apathy and ignorance. Perhaps the reason that the terms left and right are of little use in our recent political history, is due to the the migration of the 2 main governing parties to a point where they are usually very close to the center……which is apparently where they need to be in order to obtain a majority.
However, it seems that too many of the people that are interested in politics are hyper-partisan, freely throwing around the extremist descriptors of Communist and Fascist in regards to their opponents and those they disagree with. This does nothing to further the cause of meaningful political discussion in our country, and also makes it nearly impossible to reach a compromise in a minority government situation.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mac:
Our conservatives are ideologically on par with US Democrats in most respects.
Quite a long time ago I wrote that the ideological differences between our Cons and Liberals aren’t fantastic, especially not on th world scale. They also steal each others’ ideas, as well as the ideas of fringe parties that are becoming popular (if not in a diluted form).
Thus if your scope is limited to Canadian parties, let’s wrap this up with “it really doesn’t matter - vote the party that looks like they’ve got their *$#$ together”. Right now, that’s the CPC and that’s why they stand to win a majority.
Cheers.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
stageleft, if you’re saying the labels “left” and “right” have become meaningless, why would you bother identifying Hitler and Harper as being “right of centre”? As for denying you were drawing a comparison, the word “disingenuous” comes to mind.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Sandy: Or, is that your point in this discussion. The terms left and right simply don’t make sense anymore, if they ever did?
Exactly, and the only people who seem to have missed that fact are the hyper-partisans in the blogosphere.
Mac: I was chuckling because the discussion was basically indicating the labels “left & right” had become meaningless, as have the names “liberal & conservative” but you’re still gamely trying to sell the concept that libertarianism is left or liberal movement.
Where did I say that “libertarianism is left or liberal movement”?
Mac:…. the President has only limited veto power over those bills. So who is really “growing” the government?
Unless there is a super majority in the US Senate willing to vote as a block the president has extensive veto power, something that has lead to the [so called] “Democrat dominated congress” finding itself in the impotent position that it has since gaining a simple majority.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Mac: To show how utterly meaningless the terms are - have you really failed to read the question associated with the statement?
September 21st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Mac:
Reality and the truth are a bit different. The truth is that statistically very few people belong squarely in either camp but that has nothing to do with how they see themselves. People on this site call themselves right-wingers, but most of you support at least one pet cause that requires government involvement in a left-ish manner - be it religious funding, prayer in schools, support for children with disabilities, etc.
Not all of you are strictly pro-life and those who are believe in it to different degrees. A lot of you say government should not be in the bedrooms of the nation, yet support the government getting in the way when two men happen to be in the bedroom.
The same dissection could be done with the left.
Self-identification primarily drives “left” and “right”. With that in mind, it can be said quite confidently that Stephen Harper and Adolph Hitler appealed to the “right” side of the spectrum while Josef Stalin and Fidel Castro appealed to the “left” side of the spectrum - regardless of what they actually did once in power.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
M it’s pretty much the same as using neo to make people think of nazis when somebody says neo-con.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
stageleft, it was Cynapse who was talking about libertarianism, not you. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Cynapse, your reality and your truth might vary from mine…
September 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Weighing in a little late on this one, but I think the terms that might describe right and left in this day and age would be
conservative and anti-conservative.
Whatever liberalism, which has traditionally been refered to as the left in my lifetime, once stood for, starting in the 1960’s it began to change into a movement that simply rejected any and all things it considered traditionally conservative.
As a result it has become a reactionary ideology that does not offer better solutions or policies, just ones that are opposite of conservatives.
That makes them dangerous in my mind because I believe the basis of conservatism to be common sense.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Mac, at no point did I say libertarianism was on the left. What I said is that right-wingers should stop pretending they’re libertarians when they are far from it - they just support spending oodles of money on war and Christian promotion instead of welfare and abstract art.
There is one truth and many realities. Obviously ours are different because we’ve seen different sides of this “right wing”. I can give you a recent history of Alberta and the Social Credit Party based on my family’s experience there and it would all be true … but I bet you wouldn’t accept it.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Whether I accept it or not is irrelevant but you might be surprised. I’ve dealt with the Vanderzalm version of Social Credit Party in BC… a venal lot, indeed…
September 21st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Unfamiliar with them. Plus in BC the parties seem to change directions - please describe the BC implementation.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 am
I do not care for labels. For years I was in the wilderness and did not get involved in politics. I have never waivered once since casting my vote in 2006 for the conservatives. We are better off than ever before. Rome was not built in a day and so here we are at the second phase of change for the better with a good leader. I will not look to the right and I will not look to the left but straight ahead to the place where I can place my tick or x. I am voting Conservative because it’s the best thing I can do for my country. Jack makes a lot of sense.
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
I think left/right wing can be defined by how comfortable you are with the State and how far you are willing to let its tentacles reach into our daily lives. The extreme left would be marxism, or highly centralized control over society and the extreme right are anarchists who want no government at all.
If you think of it this way, fascists are on the left. The only reason people think of fascists as right wing is because Stalin said they were right wing, which they were when compared to the communists, and lefty academics were happy to run with the idea that Stalin started.
I am libertarian, which would be classified as right wing, and I see nothing that would make me support fascist policies because the State would have too much control over my daily life. I also think Hitler is a bit of red-herring when it comes to fascism, he is an outlier but is treated as though he is typical fascist. If you want to see fascism, look to Spain/Italy/Yugoslavia in and around WW II.
It is hard to define left/right wing by the issues themselves because most of us want the same society, we just disagree on how to get there.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
You could think that way jwl, but it would be incorrect so what would be the point? You are discussing levels of authoritarianism, something which has absolutely nothing to do with either “politically left” or “politically right”.
Why muddy the water further?
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Since democracy could be considered the signature discussion of the 21st century, one avenue is always available. That being, peoples anywhere in any country have to simply start with the basic assumption — which is, “assume it indeed exists.” Because it does, written into myriad constitutions. All political persuasion adherents, assume your democratic rights exist and act on that basic premise.
In Canada with the HRCs, Canadians were left to flounder, run up unnecessary legal costs even, because they quite forgot their basic right, the right to freedom of thought, expression within the means of human decency.
This upcoming Canadian election means the people will assume the tax relief laid out in a few budgets will materialize. Inflation is likely to eat into it, but at least it’s been offered and PROMISED (written in stone hopefully) by a Canadian gov’t for the first time in half a century that I know about. Prior to that Canadians have been til now the highest taxed in the international community.
ASSUME YOUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS in all instances going forward. We trust a new gov’t. Next budget session will be the time to judge the new gov’t’s worthiness.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
“You could think that way jwl, but it would be incorrect so what would be the point?”
Why am I incorrect, Stageleft?
The reason why the line between left/right gets so blurred is because we focus on issues and not the role of the State.
I am for gay marriage because I don’t believe the State should have a say in who marries who. Libs and NDP also believe in gay marriage but for other reasons. Does this make us all the same ideologically? No it doesn’t.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 am
You would be incorrect jwl because, as has been said before, fascism deals primarily with levels of authoritarianism, although as has been pointed out previously, it embraces a number of elements that are right-wing.
You would also be incorrect about anarchism/libertarianism which also deal with levels of authoritarianism.