POLL: Left vs. Right Politically

Remove all ads!

Plain and simple. No debating which is right and which is wrong. Just where you tend to stand politically. True, we can all pretty much tell from the posts people make, so this is really were YOU consider youself to stand.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 49 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Left vs. Right Politically (49 votes.)

Where do you tend to stand on political issues? (Choose 1)
* Far left - 6% (3)
* Moderate left - 16% (8)
* Middle - 18% (9)
* Moderate right - 31% (15)
* Far right - 6% (3)
* It actually varies from issue to issue - 22% (11)

 

One thing I would like to add to this topic is the perception of left and right in other parts of the world. For instance I am pretty sure that Americans view the democratic party to be moderate left, while it in atleast most parts of Europe would be viewed as moderate right. I voted moderate left, by mine standards. By other standards my moderate left would probably be seen as far left.

Some clearance on what each choice means here and perhaps an example for each choice? In my mind far right would be the Republican party, moderate right would be the Democratic party, middle would be a Liberal european party, moderate left would be Socialdemocratic parties in Europe like the British Labour and far left would be the plentyful communist parties in Europe.

 

I voted a little too the right, that's also exactly what I voted for this year. But it also depends a lot on the issue at hand.

 

Far left. Without comments, as the topic says.

 

It totally depends on the issue.

 

Joacqin is pretty right, on a board which involves so many different countries with completely different political landscapes, some comments are necessary. At home, I'm a little bit left of the center. In other countries, that would be ultra-left-wing. I guess the ultra-right-wing party of my country would be in other countries a little bit right of the center.

 

I voted for moderate right as my political oppinions are quite close to those of the democrats in USA.

 

Moderate left, the good wealth of people is far more important than money. But too left is just communist and Liberty of expresion is a very important thing to have.

 

Depends on the issue. I have my own set of priorities, you know. I would say right in general, but in tests and other evaluation I come out quite left. I just don't believe in the sacred right of those who have much to have more no matter the rest who have little. I don't believe in that 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' either. In either case it's system that creates and moderates circumstances, so there's no absolute justice or right here. Right says: ownership, freedom. Left says: fair share, egality. Both are wrong if you ask me. A person's rights end where another person's rights begin. And there's a hierarchy of rights. Life is always more important than ownership, ownership is generally more important than widely understood liberty etc etc. So I just don't fit. I'm neither right nor left... and not centre.

Anyway, I vote right here since right is more likely to get my vote in real life. And there's no way I vote left in my country even if this means not voting at all (once did so).

 

True Neutral all the way. i have my own agenda and very rarely do i completly agree with either left or right wing factions.

 

@ Greenlion

Let me guess? You play a lot of druids.

 

Maybe we should clarify our definitions.

It's best to think of right-left distinctions in terms of their French origin, around the three (lower-case) republican virtues of liberty, equality, and fraternity - with a dash of Anglo-Saxon evil.

LIBERTY: Leftists think in terms of freedom to do what you want; rightists think in terms of freedom to be who you are.

EQUALITY: Leftists presume that individuals (and groups) are intrinsically equal; rightists presume that individuals (and groups) are intrinsically unequal, and that some people (and groups) are better than others.

FRATERNITY: Leftists conceive fraternity in terms of what you do: proletariat worker, capitalist exploiter, etc. Rightists conceive fraternity in terms of who you are: family, race, nation, etc.

EVIL: Leftists assume that people are inherently good, but society drives them to evil; rightists assume that people are inherently evil, and that society reflects this.

The tricky bit about American politics is that, unlike much of the world, so much of who you ARE is defined by what you DO. So, for example, you can find American leftists and rightists supporting immigration, but for different reasons. The leftist wants more immigrants because they add diversity - all groups are intrinsically equal, so Spanish-speaking Mexican immigrants are equal to English-speaking WASPy snobs. The rightist wants more immigrants because the American ideal is clearly superior and the more people that assimilate to that ideal, the better - for America, and for the new arrivals.

I don't think there's a single winning political party on the planet that doesn't borrow, openly or surreptitiously, from both camps.

 

In the spirit of fair-play I will now define the differences from another point of view.

Liberty: Leftists think that people should have the right to do whatever they want and the government should bail them out if they fail. Rightists believe people shoud have the freedom to do what they want, but they are ultimately responsible for their actions.

Equality: Leftists believe that all people are intrinsically equal with the following exceptions; sex, race, handicapped, and sexual orientation. This groups are entitled to advantages to make up for the deficiencies. Rightists believe that all people are equal, if they can prove that they are equal.

Fraternity: Leftists believe that the little guy is good and larger entities (corporations) are evil. Rightists believe that people should be left alone to make their own choices.

Evil: Leftists believe that rightists are evil. Rightists believe that leftists are evil

 

How could anyone resist a thread like this, so wide open? And everyone trying to float their own political ideology. It just gets the blood pumping. And causes one to want to go over the top.

Do you mean like in pro-choice? That would be the big NOT. Can't have people deciding on everything. Maybe conservatives mean that in most everything they are for people deciding for themselves.

Let's say, juries in a courtroom deciding how much a malpractice suit should be settled for. Oh, that would be the big NOT, again. Can't have people deciding about that either.

Let's see, surely we must be able to come up with something that conservatives would allow people to be pro choice about (pardon the expression). How about SUVs? No, Jesus would not buy one, so some on the right think that would be something we should not decide on either.

A little help from the right might be helpful here. How about guns? Big guns. Automatic guns. Now, there's something that everyone should be able to decide on. I mean, there is a life changing issue, or life ending, depending on where one is standing at the moment of "impact." That's a real burning issue for most of us. Certainly more important than the enviornment, healthcare, education, perscription drugs, old age and social security. I mean who needs a heart operation or medicine if one can own a big, automatic gun?

You don't need clean water to drink, clean air to breath, a nice blue sky to admire. I would never decide that those are things that I want in life. I mean what kind of quality of life is that? I might be preventing someone from doing something that he or she wants to do if I demanded a healthy life style or beauty in the world. Better to let large corporations decide on what kind of quality of life that the rest of us should have. That's real choice. Hell, that's progress.

I don't know what would be "liberal" in Europe. I would not know if Europe's schools are falling apart like ours, and that students there are having a hard time learning the most basic skills; or if their population is aging, like mine is in my country. I would not know if a liberal from the 17th century would recognize me as a liberal or not. I know the air I breath is the dirtist in the country and that my children have to breath it. I hope they don't get sick because I don't know if the insurance companies (which I pay every week) will help pay for the bills. I don't have a lobbyist in Washington DC to grease the politicians to "bail" me out if things get bad for my family and me.

I used to think that my vote counted, but now I know it doesn't. We had an "election" in 2000 that proved for the "majority" of us that votes just don't count anymore. Especially if your brother is govenor of a state where the votes need "counting." And who says the government can be a "force" for good and effective change? Or, is that farce? The real voices for change were never permitted to have a seat at the "debate."

I guess I'm on the left, whatever that really means. I don't really know if I'm a Marxist. Hell, I'm not really sure that Marx was right. There may not really be a class war at all. It may only be a war of ideas. But those on the left are supposed to be idealists. Well, how this: There is always hope that someday all human beings, no matter where they live or how they look, may mean more than politcal ideology or gold. How's that for naive? How about a little more humanity please, and a little less rhetoric. At least that would be a good start.

Great Snook - I wanted to add that most of this rant was not directed at you, although I used one of your quotes, but only at the futillity of the debate about which side is really right. I thought most of your reponses were very reasonable, but, of course, I did not agree with all of them.

[ September 07, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

People on the right in the sense that I am do not believe that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want -- society plays a large role in determining what is acceptable social behaviour. This is why I oppose abortion, homosexuality, and murder (yes, I know those 3 are odd choices, I'm making a point about how I see the world) as from the Conservative point of view all 3 of those are harmful to society.

That said, right wingers like myself believe that the government as an entity should provide certain services and stay out of other issues. IMHO, many of the times right wingers wade into such issues is that left wingers have messed things up and they are trying to correct the problem.

Of course, I am Canadian, so my right-ish policies would be sen by many Americans as more central or even slightly to the left (for instance, I believe the government should put a LOT more money into universal public education and health care) but you get my point.

Good topic, Elios!

 

@ Chandos

No problem. I hardly ever take anything personally

Now a few rebuttals.

1. Pro-Choice - Chandos skates down the right wing, winds up, he shoots, he scores! My only comment on this is that I'm not sure if we are confusing political beliefs with religious beliefs. Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the majority of the population is Roman Catholic (I am not). The Roman Catholic church is Pro-life, but at least here the majority of their worshippers are Pro-choice. Why that isn't the case in other parts of the country with other denominations I have never figured out.

2. Guns- While not a shooter I see no problem with people who legally want to use them. As long as they aren't shooting people I have never seen what the harm is. In a society as large as ours there will always be violent crackpots. If we had no guns, they would find something else to use.

3. Environment- see my previous post about fraternity. Can you honestly say that the environment declined during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush, then it improved during the 8 years of Clinton, and now is declining under Bush II? I do not believe that anyone is against the environment. I believe it is a case of anti-pollution technology not keeping up with the needs of society.

4. Schools- Here again I may be crazy. I think that a lot of people have been fooled by the teacher's unions into believing how bad the schools are. My son has just started 2nd grade after completing kindergarten and 1st grade. My wife and I have been amazingly impressed with the quality of his teachers and what he has been taught in three years. Both my wife and I are also still in the same town we grew up in and I can tell you they are learning a lot more and a lot earlier than we ever did. I remember playing with toys in first grade not homework. Now I will admit that we live in a suburb of Boston. I will agree that the quality of education in the major cities is probably not any where as good as it is here, but I'm not sure if you can only blame the school departments for that.

5. Votes- Why should your vote count any more than anyone elses? Here in Massachusetts I do not believe a republican has ever won the electoral votes. Doesn't that mean everyone here who voted for Bush had a vote that didn't count? Moaning about the "majority" of votes not winning is ridiculous. If you are old enough to vote you should understand how the electorial college works. To blame Jeb for his brother winning the election is also ridiculous. No court in either a Florida or Federal district has ever found Jeb (or anyone else) guilty of any wrongdoing. Heck, he has never even been charged with anything. With all the moaning of the Gore supporters, if something had not been done to the letter and intent of the law, without a doubt he would have at least been charged with something. Here is a great link to show how Gore actually almost stole the election by only focusing on 40% of the states. I make no claims as to the bias of this site, but to me they only seem to be listing statistics (not that they can't be biased also ).2000 election

 

Per abortion: rightists and leftists can be pro-choice or pro-life, and for philosophically consistent reasons.

RIGHTIST PRO-CHOICE: Individuals are inherently unequal, and the fetus is worth less than its mother. Yes, the fetus is a person, but its right to life is trumped by the mother's right to personal freedom, dignity, privacy, self-empowerment, etc. Or, alternately, a person only gradually gains the right to life, culminating in the final birthing process (or sometime in the toddler years, according to some analyses). Another possibility is that the fetus is a dependent, and there is no moral obligation to maintain an involuntary, particular relation of dependency (for welfare or abortion).

RIGHTIST PRO-LIFE: A fetus is a person; what the child IS trumps what the mother WANTS. Abortion is a denial of the fetus' freedom to BE, and a corrosive poison on society, which depends upon a growing population.

LEFTIST PRO-CHOICE: Either the fetus is not a person (scientifically untenable but philosophically convenient), in which case it is entirely expendable; or, the fetus is a person, but its personhood does not trump the mother's right to do what she wants. That is, what the child IS does not trump what the mother WANTS.

LEFTIST PRO-LIFE: The fetus and its mother are equally human and therefore of equal value. The right to life trumps the right to privacy, and because the mother is not superior to her child, the fetus should not be killed.

For contingent historical reasons, in America the left is mostly pro-choice and the right pro-life. But there are valid philosophical defenses for either position, from either political perspective - just as you can find arguments for and against slavery, prostitution, drugs, corruption, etc. from many sides.

 

@ Grey

Very well said

 

I have to agree. That was well stated, Grey. And I am leftist pro-life, which you described well. Most, automatically, believe that I am pro-choice because my other views. But I am utterly opposed to abortion on demand. Surprised, GS?

But my point still holds, IMO: differing sides pick and choose where they wish to impose the government's power into our lives. I don't think that either side promotes true self-determination. The left is just more honest about the government's involvment in issues. The right is still in denial.

Edit Note: Some interject the term "society" in place of government. Fine distinction.

[ September 08, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]