Right and Left Someone please explain

[McBell]

I am all the time hearing in the media Right this and Left that and extreme right and extreme left like everyone knows what is being referred to.

Whenever I flat out ask, all I get is useless rants and a list of names of those who are one one side or the other.

Is it even possible to meaningfully explain them?

 

[David1967]

I don't think so. What is considered far left or right is dependent on the perspective of the one using such terms.

 

[bobhikes]

I am all the time hearing in the media Right this and Left that and extreme right and extreme left like everyone knows what is being referred to.

Whenever I flat out ask, all I get is useless rants and a list of names of those who are one one side or the other.

Is it even possible to meaningfully explain them?

My take is extreme right or left is when someone takes the left or right beliefs in to the phsyical world, like beating people, killing people, show of force marching, destroying property. If they don't go that far they are not extreme. Like a lot of your talk show host's they are really not extreme. The talk show hosts claim to be to make money but you will find far few of them marching on wall street or congress.

 

[Quintessence]

It's them versus us! And well... we know them because it's those people over there, and we're over here.

Silliness aside, superficial media coverage doesn't help. If we spent more time talking about actual policies and positions rather than what political category it happens to fall under, we'd probably have more productive conversations. And maybe transcend this silly two-party system of false binaries. Perhaps the current scene will catalyze that further.

 

[metis]

The question begs "right" or "left" as compared to what? Using such terms is really only good for comparison purposes, and even then it can be fraught with other pitfalls, such as which category for comparison's sake is being dealt with?

 

[McBell]

It's them versus us! And well... we know them because it's those people over there, and we're over here.

Based on the "explanations" I have gotten over the years, this seems to be the most accurate.

Sad that it was in jest

 

[LuisDantas]

The usefulness of the terms is now very questionable, but it is generally true that Left-wing positions are associated with a sense of duty of the community and government towards specific individuals, while Right-wing emphasizes the need for hard work of the individual and of greater affluence and means as a deserved reward for that work.

Or, at least, those are the supposed ideal, starting positions. A complication is that even right there, starting with just such a simple distinction there is a need for arbitrary referential to decide what should be considered "center" and "extreme". That can lead to very passionate discussions. There are those who think it is "too socialistic" to have public health or any sort of wealth redistribution, for instance.

At its core, that is a dispute between the perception that the society should care for its members and the perception that people should learn to stand on their own feet. Compassion vs self-reliance. Common welfare vs just reward for those who take risks and work hard.

Still, it very quickly acquires considerably more complex characteristics. Somehow "left" is expected to associate with gun control and LGBT, and "right" with racism, nepotism and militarism. There are often reasons for that, although it is not always clear how accidental and how reversible those associations might be.

And of course, it is entirely possible to have affinity for some left-wing positions and some right-wing ones, although that seems to have become increasingly difficult, mostly because the right (and IMO nearly entirely it) has become so drammatically extreme and uncompromising.

Myself, I think the right wing has become largely a caricature of itself, barely capable of even attempting to present itself as worth of any respect or consideration. The only typical right-wing stance that I have some sympathy towards is the worry with birth rates.

 

[Laika]

I am all the time hearing in the media Right this and Left that and extreme right and extreme left like everyone knows what is being referred to.

Whenever I flat out ask, all I get is useless rants and a list of names of those who are one one side or the other.

Is it even possible to meaningfully explain them?

The political spectrum generally use two (competing) understandings of right and left;

In Europe the definition of right and left goes back to the French Revolution. The National Assembly had the Republicans and Radicals on the Left, and the Monarchists and Conservatives on the Right. From this came the rough definition is that the left were egalitarians whereas the right supported inequality and hierarchical systems of government. As time has gone on, the conflict between republicans and monarchists has been superceded by various ideologies, including the conflict between Socialism (ussually on the left) and Capitalism (ussually on the right).

If your an american however, its different as right and left refer to the individual freedom versus the state equation. The right is associated with more individual freedom, both in economics and in society, favouring a small state or even no state at all with anarcho-capitalists. the left however are associated with more government power, more intervention, public ownership, regulation and centralised planning in the economy and "totalitarian" levels of government control in society.

The easy way to tell which one a person is using depends on how they define Nazism and Fascism. In the European version, Nazism is a far-right ideology because it favours extreme level of inequality based on views of biological and innate differences between races and individuals. In the American model however, it is treated as being on the left because it favour extreme levels of government intervention in the economy and society. So you'll get people saying "socialism is in the name so Nazism is clearly left-wing".

It can make political conversations rather difficult because they will also use radically different definitions based on philosophical assumptions. e.g. the European spectrum means that "democratic socialism" is actually possible, whereas the American version would say it is an illusion as you cannot sustain having freedom and powerful governments as conflicting objectives. (Some would also go as far as to say that anarchism and communism are mutually contradictory and exclusive as well). the European definition of capitalism will include the state as part of the system because individual rights and private property are assumed to require the use of force and law, whereas the American one will treat capitalism as if it can exist without state intervention of any kind as individual rights are "natural" and so do not require force to protect property rights.

Note: The political compass uses the American version (which is why Nazism is treated on the "left" of the economic scale) because it is much easier to measure degree of state control than equality vs. inequality.

Given RF has members using both definitions of the political spectrum and there is no agreed definitions of political terms such as capitalism, socialism, etc- its gets pretty confusing.

 

[Nakosis]

I am all the time hearing in the media Right this and Left that and extreme right and extreme left like everyone knows what is being referred to.

Whenever I flat out ask, all I get is useless rants and a list of names of those who are one one side or the other.

Is it even possible to meaningfully explain them?

In a nutshell, the right wants self-responsibility and the left wants governmental responsibility.

That's the way I see it. If I have issues/problems it's my responsibility to deal with it. If you have issues/problems it's your responsibility to deal with it. If we have an issue between us it's best that we work it out without government intervention.

I'd rather trust you and me to work it out to a equitable compromise.

The left would rather have the government mandate what the government sees as an equitable compromise.

The left has more trust in government, the right less. I suppose that's why Christians usually end up on the right because they put their trust in their religious beliefs more than, in the case of the US, a secular government.

 

[Sanzbir]

I am all the time hearing in the media Right this and Left that and extreme right and extreme left like everyone knows what is being referred to.

Whenever I flat out ask, all I get is useless rants and a list of names of those who are one one side or the other.

That's pretty much all it is at this point in time. Congratulations, you've found the problem in current politics!! It's now more about tribal group identity than it is about policy!!

 

[idav]

I am all the time hearing in the media Right this and Left that and extreme right and extreme left like everyone knows what is being referred to.

Whenever I flat out ask, all I get is useless rants and a list of names of those who are one one side or the other.

Is it even possible to meaningfully explain them?

It stems from derogatory terms coming from religious folks who choose a wholesome right hand path, left being something of the debil and what not. Personally when I was a conservative Christian and thought everyone goes to hell I was republican, and as I in and out forums more and became less strict I found myself leaning more and more democrat as time went on. Probably a clear sign that my heathonism was setting in, i will go ahead and blame the buddhists and taoists. That's how I see left and right in politics, as a metaphor stemming from religion.

 

[sun rise]

The political spectrum generally use two (competing) understandings of right and left;

In Europe the definition of right and left goes back to the French Revolution. The National Assembly had the Republicans and Radicals on the Left, and the Monarchists and Conservatives on the Right. From this came the rough definition is that the left were egalitarians whereas the right supported inequality and hierarchical systems of government. As time has gone on, the conflict between republicans and monarchists has been superceded by various ideologies, including the conflict between Socialism (ussually on the left) and Capitalism (ussually on the right).

If your an american however, its different as right and left refer to the individual freedom versus the state equation. The right is associated with more individual freedom, both in economics and in society, favouring a small state or even no state at all with anarcho-capitalists. the left however are associated with more government power, more intervention, public ownership, regulation and centralised planning in the economy and "totalitarian" levels of government control in society.

The easy way to tell which one a person is using depends on how they define Nazism and Fascism. In the European version, Nazism is a far-right ideology because it favours extreme level of inequality based on views of biological and innate differences between races and individuals. In the American model however, it is treated as being on the left because it favour extreme levels of government intervention in the economy and society. So you'll get people saying "socialism is in the name so Nazism is clearly left-wing".

It can make political conversations rather difficult because they will also use radically different definitions based on philosophical assumptions. e.g. the European spectrum means that "democratic socialism" is actually possible, whereas the American version would say it is an illusion as you cannot sustain having freedom and powerful governments as conflicting objectives. (Some would also go as far as to say that anarchism and communism are mutually contradictory and exclusive as well). the European definition of capitalism will include the state as part of the system because individual rights and private property are assumed to require the use of force and law, whereas the American one will treat capitalism as if it can exist without state intervention of any kind as individual rights are "natural" and so do not require force to protect property rights.

Note: The political compass uses the American version (which is why Nazism is treated on the "left" of the economic scale) because it is much easier to measure degree of state control than equality vs. inequality.

Given RF has members using both definitions of the political spectrum and there is no agreed definitions of political terms such as capitalism, socialism, etc- its gets pretty confusing.

There is no one on the left who will define Nazism as being on the left - only the right does that including conflating the meaning of the word 'socialism' which does not mean government intervention.

A two dimensional view is better but still full of issues.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A more consistent term is 'Progressive' which I think refers to the slow progress towards equality and ending poverty. There are various approaches to being progressive. You can think you are progressive and actually not be, but the term is still the same thing. Its also an auto insurance company name.

 

[Laika]

There is no one on the left who will define Nazism as being on the left - only the right does that including conflating the meaning of the word 'socialism' which does not mean government intervention.

I think your right about that as It does seem to be a peculiarly libertarian idea. You do get Conservative or "right-wing" Socialism as a form of anti-capitalism conservative that sees free markets as disruptive. There are also a handful of "left-wing" fascist and nazi ideologies such as Strasserism and National Bolshevism but they haven't ever really become mainstream or popular. National Bolshevism is mainly a Russian thing but was popular in Germany in the 1920's and is the closest you can get to Nazi-Communists as their flag illustrates.

 

[jonathan180iq]

As credible discourse continues to erode, labels fill the space where cohesive arguments should be...

The "Left vs. Right" nonsense is just a manifestation of that. When people have to blame something else, you know you've reached the end of their credibility.

 

[shmogie]

The usefulness of the terms is now very questionable, but it is generally true that Left-wing positions are associated with a sense of duty of the community and government towards specific individuals, while Right-wing emphasizes the need for hard work of the individual and of greater affluence and means as a deserved reward for that work.

Or, at least, those are the supposed ideal, starting positions. A complication is that even right there, starting with just such a simple distinction there is a need for arbitrary referential to decide what should be considered "center" and "extreme". That can lead to very passionate discussions. There are those who think it is "too socialistic" to have public health or any sort of wealth redistribution, for instance.

At its core, that is a dispute between the perception that the society should care for its members and the perception that people should learn to stand on their own feet. Compassion vs self-reliance. Common welfare vs just reward for those who take risks and work hard.

Still, it very quickly acquires considerably more complex characteristics. Somehow "left" is expected to associate with gun control and LGBT, and "right" with racism, nepotism and militarism. There are often reasons for that, although it is not always clear how accidental and how reversible those associations might be.

And of course, it is entirely possible to have affinity for some left-wing positions and some right-wing ones, although that seems to have become increasingly difficult, mostly because the right (and IMO nearly entirely it) has become so drammatically extreme and uncompromising.

Myself, I think the right wing has become largely a caricature of itself, barely capable of even attempting to present itself as worth of any respect or consideration. The only typical right-wing stance that I have some sympathy towards is the worry with birth rates.

Another crock response. The left champions society as a whole over individual rights, which the right champions. if the determination is made that an individual right is ḧarmful"to the people in general, it goes by the wayside, i.e. the second amendment. The right believes strongly in individual rights. The right to live for every human, as opposed to the right of abortion if a baby might be inconvenient. Financially, the left believes that society as a whole owes people health care, cell phones, food stamps, a plethora of things that are paid for by the productive members of society in the form of taxes. What you have, should be mine, because I dont have it. We aren speaking of a safety net for the sickest and poorest, we are speaking of 50% of the population being supported by a greater or lesser extent by the other 50%. Further, it is considered insulting for the less than working full time to have to work for any of their government payments. The right celebrates hard work as the ONLY way to be really successful. The left in the last eight years has run up a trillion dollar debt, more than the four previous administrations combined. Interest on this debt is two billion dollars every day, year end year out. Left wingism at itś finest. Do we have a vastly improved military ? nope. Do we have lower taxes ? Nope. Do we have a totally revamped infrastructure ? Nope, we dont have them because these things aren;t important to left wingers. We do have work aged people who don work with cell phones given to them by the government, we do have the highest corporate taxes in the world, which is a drop in the bucket re the debt liberals have run up. We do have a social security fund that workers paid in to for their retirements, which has been robbed numerous times by the government to pay for something else for somebody else. Look around, and try and figure out why and where the massive debt the liberals ran up actually went for. Consider that they have probably left younger generations without social security, which they paid for. Think of the millstone around the necks of your children and grandchildren this liberal debt will be when finally it is called in. THANK YOU, the American liberal movement

 

[Mister Silver]

One major difference between these labels I will address.

Left: Me, someone who despises the way the right is harming this country. I am a humanitarian, first and foremost.

Right: Trump, one who cares more about how much him and his posse make in relation to monetary gain than anything humanitarian.

Alt Left: One who uses extreme violence to oppose the alt right. I, as a left, do not agree with how the alt left handles things.

Alt Right: One who uses extreme violence to put action toward a hateful ideology; i.e., "blacks are inferior". I cannot support the alt right in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am all the time hearing in the media Right this and Left that and extreme right and extreme left like everyone knows what is being referred to.

Whenever I flat out ask, all I get is useless rants and a list of names of those who are one one side or the other.

Is it even possible to meaningfully explain them?

I can't define it with any precision.
This is why I prefer terms which convey ambiguity, eg, "leftish".

 

[crossfire]

There is no one on the left who will define Nazism as being on the left - only the right does that including conflating the meaning of the word 'socialism' which does not mean government intervention.

A two dimensional view is better but still full of issues.

I would dispute the right side being about individuals rather than collectives. I see corporatism and crony capitalism as very much collectivist, that will mow down individuals without much thought.

 

[sun rise]

I would dispute the right side being about individuals rather than collectives. I see corporatism and crony capitalism as very much collectivist, that will mow down individuals without much thought.

The image is more about theory than practice. Libertarianism - The World's Smallest Political Quiz > Home has a quiz which maps what you believe into a different grid.

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.