Is There A Right Side In Politics?

[Revoltingest]

*libertarian
Not "Libertarian".
Capital L indicates the official American Libertarian Party. Lowercase l indicates philosophical libertarians, as in me, as an anarchist.

I meant exactly what I posted.

 

[Stevicus]

The right party is the party that has the best interests of the people at heart and supports that which is good.

 

[Quintessence]

Nope.

There is only that which is. Anything beyond that is a subjective value judgement projected onto reality by the beholder, demanding that things "should" be some particular way instead of simply being what they are.

That said, I'm not going to vote for the political party that has demonstrated itself to be opposed to basically everything I am and value, seeing as how I'm not presently suicidal and wanting to die.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are always right and wrong ideas (not sides) to support with one's vote, but discerning which idea is right and which idea is wrong requires a clear and agreed upon moral standard against which to measure the ideas. A significant contributor (perhaps the greatest contributor?) to political discord and decay is the absence of that clear and agreed upon moral standard; so people vote "sides" instead.

Then you will never get rid of political discord, because humans will never agree on a "moral standard." Personal, cultural and religious biases will always compete with one another over what that means. Religions that rely on millenMia-old texts, written without the benefit of any scientific or other modern knowledge at all, will always been at odds with viewpoints informed by such knowledge.

I'll give you a perfect example right here: House Speaker in the US Mike Johnson, who has said:

“Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone,” he wrote. “Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.”​

Think about that -- this is a man who has an education, is a lawyer, has access to the professionals in such matters (the American Psychological Association, for example), and all the expertise that has show that homosexuality is not a choice. But that's not what his Bible says, so Johnson pooh-poohs all science knowledge and simply asserts the lie that homosexuality is a choice. "Go pick up a Bible," he said.

These aren’t merely Johnson’s views — they are his life’s work. He worked for multiple far-right legal advocacy groups, including Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the most anti-LGBTQ legal groups in the country. Johnson’s made a career of targeting a small, vulnerable minority in his country for ridicule and exclusion.

 

[Viker]

Arm eight cats with knives, throw them all in a bag. That's the gist of politics. There's probably at least one correct side in it somewhere.

My new political party will be named Eight Armed Cats. I like.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Before I can talk about right and wrong, imo, we have to talk about shared goals. I'm not into virtue ethics, so the positive behavior from politicians I want to reinforce needs to be consequence based. The more defined the better, because 'create a healthy society' is way too vague to formulate actionable plans.

There are lots of people, from all over the compass, who have goals I don't share so we aren't going to agree on the goods and bads.

There are lines where goals are so far misaligned that I won't associate with those people, though.

 

[ChristineM]

Left is the right side.
Right is the wrong side.
...
Ducks

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Heyo]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

Yes, but there are (at least) two caveats. 1. It depends on what you call "good", i.e. individual morality. 2. When you agree on the morals, you still have to pick the right way to do things. And if you did, you'll only know after the fact.
So, step one is the easy one to decide. Vote for those who share your morals. The other is all about trust and prior performance. Chances are you'll pick the wrong one and there will be someone who tells you "told you so".

 

[Tamino]

I have a double approach to voting.

On the one hand, I vote for the party I most agree with, hoping that they will change things in a way that I consider better than before.
On the other hand, I am a member of that party, I even get to vote for myself sometimes or for candidates I know in person. So I don't just have to trust that this party will act in a way I support: I can actively influence the party platform and decisions.

I like democracy. It's a ****ty form of government, but better than all the other things we've tried.

But is it right? - well no, it's a left-wing party. And there is very little black and white in this world.

 

[crossfire]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

Political policies aside:

Right side = thoughtful respectful independent thinker
Wrong side = hateful groupthink propagandist

 

[Stevicus]

I have a double approach to voting.

On the one hand, I vote for the party I most agree with, hoping that they will change things in a way that I consider better than before.
On the other hand, I am a member of that party, I even get to vote for myself sometimes or for candidates I know in person. So I don't just have to trust that this party will act in a way I support: I can actively influence the party platform and decisions.

I like democracy. It's a ****ty form of government, but better than all the other things we've tried.

But is it right? - well no, it's a left-wing party. And there is very little black and white in this world.

I think democracy is preferred because it provides more checks and balances on political power and seen as a way of reducing abuses of power. Our current system under a Constitution which enumerates individual rights is at least, on paper, a way of providing barriers to mob rule or any kind of quick, impulsive, or whimsical decisions.

On the other hand, if there's a crisis and things need to get done quickly, we may not have time to sit around and discuss things in a committee. That's where the frustration and anger against democracy comes from.

It's interesting to note that the various forms of government we can choose from all originated in much earlier times, when communications and transportation technologies were quite primitive. In early America, election day was a big deal, since it took families as long as a day to get from their farms to the county seat to vote. Many functions and methods of democracy (or other forms of government) are in place because of such barriers and delays in transportation, communication, and the flow of information from "the people" to their government.

As a result, we have a representative democracy where the government acts in the interests of the people, without having any real direct communication with them. In a democratic society, every voter/citizen is a decision maker, and as such, they need clear, concise communication and reliable information to be able to make sensible decisions.

That seems to be the big problem these days: Communication and information. We hear so much about fake news, social media troll farms, disinformation campaigns, propaganda, etc. Yet it's a free and open marketplace of ideas, where there are countless venues and forums available for people to freely post their thoughts and ideas. The technology we have today should be able to better facilitate communication and the free flow of information - and yet, it seems so cacophonous, disrupted, and chaotic.

Another drawback of democracy is that it's also dependent upon the quality and the intelligence level of the electorate, so if there's more people voting who have limited knowledge, limited intelligence, and/or questionable morality, then the government they elect will reflect those qualities.

Then there's the problem of unelected bureaucrats who linger too long and gain power to the point where they can become untouchable, even to the elected politicians. This is how they got stuck with J. Edgar Hoover as the FBI Director for life. If a bureaucracy is allowed to become corrupted, entrenched, unaccountable, and smug - then that can be the bane of any democratic system.

 

[Balthazzar]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

Yes ... both are right and both are wrong, depending on who you are.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

That all depends upon who you ask.

 

[LadyJane]

Political shifts determined by the circumstances of time and place make it less about right and wrong and more about creating a diplomatic consensus. When that becomes untenable democracies fail and autocracies capitalize on the vulnerability.

Here in Canada there is a weariness from having the same person in power for so long and some people want change for the sake of change. Hopefully that isn’t overshadowed by the drawbacks of selecting just any new candidate before knowing exactly what they bring to the table. Especially if that candidate is a watered down populist.

There are positives and negatives to almost anything. Religion is taking too many liberties which is costing too many liberties in American society. The Speaker of the House is a deeply disturbed individual. With the vacuous glazed over look of someone who thinks they have all the answers. No one has the monopoly on great ideas.

Sustaining the ability to compromise seems to be the only way of propelling forward. You can’t please everybody all the time.

 

[Soandso]

Meh, depends. How right or wrong our choices could be would be more right or wrong were we able to have more political parties to choose from here in the US. What we are stuck with instead is the choice of picking the lesser of two evils; at least, as far as federal elections go

As for local politics, people tend to be more like minded where I'm at and it's not too uncommon for folks to vote for candidates that don't normally align with the party they tend to vote for simply because the candidate stands on their own merits. That's kind of a nice feeling

 

[Unfettered]

Then you will never get rid of political discord, because humans will never agree on a "moral standard."

Humans do agree on moral standards across ideological boundaries. There would be no societies at all if this weren't the case. A society's demise comes when it starts subdividing or abusing the agreed-upon standard, creating favored and disfavored factions.

I'll give you a perfect example right here: House Speaker in the US Mike Johnson, who has said:

“Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone,” he wrote. “Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.”​

Think about that -- this is a man who has an education, is a lawyer, has access to the professionals in such matters (the American Psychological Association, for example), and all the expertise that has show that homosexuality is not a choice. But that's not what his Bible says, so Johnson pooh-poohs all science knowledge and simply asserts the lie that homosexuality is a choice. "Go pick up a Bible," he said.

These aren’t merely Johnson’s views — they are his life’s work. He worked for multiple far-right legal advocacy groups, including Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the most anti-LGBTQ legal groups in the country. Johnson’s made a career of targeting a small, vulnerable minority in his country for ridicule and exclusion.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or genetic or some combination or something else entirely—persons may freely disagree on the question and yet the agreed-upon moral standards of a society remain un-fractured. To the point, then, what specific abuses of the US moral standard (as defined in the US Code) has Mr. Johnson advocated, endorsed or brought about, as pertaining to homosexuals?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Humans do agree on moral standards across ideological boundaries. There would be no societies at all if this weren't the case. A society's demise comes when it starts subdividing or abusing the agreed-upon standard, creating favored and disfavored factions.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or genetic or some combination or something else entirely—persons may freely disagree on the question and yet the agreed-upon moral standards of a society remain un-fractured. To the point, then, what specific abuses of the US moral standard (as defined in the US Code) has Mr. Johnson advocated, endorsed or brought about, as pertaining to homosexuals?

That is nonsense! The "agreed-upon moral standards" in the United States -- at the moment -- are that LGBTQ people are allowed to be who they are, to live where they choose, to work where they choose, and to marry partners of the same sex, if they choose. And that they are members of society with all the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities as any other member.

And yet, across the United States (forget Johnson for now, he's just one person, although a powerful one), there are more than 510 legislatives initiatives underways in every state in the Union, targeting the rights of LGBTQ people. SCOTUS itself signalled that it might reconsider many of the rights currently enjoyed. In 2023 alone, 75 anti-LGBTQ bills became law, while the rest are still ongoing.

So your statement that standards "remain un-fractured" is absolutely untrue.

As to Mike Johnson, you can discover for yourself by simply googling "mike johnson on lgbtq."

 

[PureX]

At the moment, In the U.S., most politicians are just feeding at the public money trough, and are only concerned that they can continue feeding at that trough for as long as possible. They get paid a good salary to do mostly nothing, and they get paid a lot more from their rich sponsors to rig the system so they can feed at the trough, too. Even foreign nations are doing it at this point.

But ideally the purpose of government is to help it's society identify it's needs and it's goals, and then draft policies and implement appropriate methods of achieving those needs and goals. This usually involves the art of compromise, and of equanimity. So the ideal political party would be the party that exhibits those traits.

Sadly, in the U.S., the people have lost all hope in or respect for the art of compromise and equanimity, so they're looking for a strong man to force everyone else to do what they think needs to be done. But there is no consensus about what needs to be done. And "strong men" never care about anyone else's needs, anyway. So all these disgruntled citizens are just aiding the rise of a fascist nightmare.

 

[Unfettered]

The "agreed-upon moral standards" in the United States -- at the moment -- are that LGBTQ people are allowed to be who they are, to live where they choose, to work where they choose, and to marry partners of the same sex, if they choose. And that they are members of society with all the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities as any other member.

That is not correct. This is the the relevant agreed-upon moral standard: "…all men are created equal... [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [among which] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Found in the US Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/frontmatter/organiclaws/independence&edition=prelim

The US moral standard does not single out heterosexuals or homosexuals or metrosexuals or whateversexuals as inherently having certain rights; the standard is that all human beings inherently have certain rights. That is the standard, and making a point of that is hugely consequential, as we'll see...

And yet, across the United States (forget Johnson for now, he's just one person, although a powerful one), there are more than 510 legislatives initiatives underways in every state in the Union, targeting the rights of LGBTQ people.

Appealing to the standard cited above from the US code, which certain, inherent, unalienable rights are being targeted in the 510 legislative initiatives to which you allude?

So your statement that standards "remain un-fractured" is absolutely untrue.

As yet, you have not shown the fracturing of the standard in the law. Don't get me wrong; it may be fractured; but you have not shown it to be. You have shared only your summary of a person's viewpoint and alluded to proposed legislation that purports to constitute a potential fracturing of the standard. I'll stand by.