Leftwing vs. Rightwing

Dave_ON · November 26, 2009

I'm certain many of you are aware that the terms left and right are a throwback to the seating arrangements of the French legislative assembly around the time of the French Revolution. In a nutshell, the conservative aristocracy were on the right and the progressives "republicans" were on the left.

Clearly the terms have changed significantly today but in reading these boards we see the terms "leftist" "rightwing", "neo-con" and the like tossed about with reckless abandon almost as if it's entirely relative to one’s personal perspective. M.Dancer's signature has always stood out for me "right of some, left of others", and I think that's an excellent commentary on modern society. It seems all too often the line between the two is extremely obfuscated, and I'm not even certain we could ever really term a person to be left or right. I myself hold many views on a case by case basis that could be termed right leaning or left leaning, but I would never really ever term myself as either, or even centrist. I suppose the closest term I can come up with is pragmatist.

I suppose my question is what do these terms even mean in the modern context? How are we to gauge and address them? Is the scale personal, national or global? Where is the division? Is it socialism vs. capitalism? Liberalism vs. conservatism? I'm not certain it can even really be defined as there are so many caveats to modern society. I suppose it all comes down to your perspective on the role of government, as this will have a great deal of impact on your political views in general. I'd be interested to hear the views of others on these boards. Where would you place yourself on the scale and how is it you arrived at that assessment?

wyly · November 26, 2009

uber complex topic Dave...right or left... economics? societal progress/morality ? politics?...

Shady · November 26, 2009

I suppose my question is what do these terms even mean in the modern context? How are we to gauge and address them? Is the scale personal, national or global? Where is the division? Is it socialism vs. capitalism? Liberalism vs. conservatism?

In my opinion, in today's terms, it's more Libertarianism vs Statism. Or to break it down further, personal freedoms vs government management and control.

Michael Hardner · November 26, 2009

They roughly correspond to demographic groups, but really they mean nothing.

Gabriel · November 26, 2009

Like yourself, I reject these labels in reference to myself. I am far too complex and have differing opinions on various issues. My political, social, and economic leanings cannot be described by a subjective label such as 'left' or 'right'. Furthermore, I do not form my opinions and positions on issues based on how I think a subscriber of a particular ideology should. In other words, I don't view myself as a conservative when approaching an issue I am unfamiliar with, and then approach the issue in a way I think a conservative should in the interests of ideological consistency.

With respect to context, of course it depends on the discussion. If unclear, you can always ask for clarification from whoever it is you're speaking with. Sometimes terms such as 'left' and 'right' and 'liberal' and 'conservative' are domestic, sometimes international, and can often mean different things to different people. It should be noted that just because these terms can sometimes have high degrees of subjectivity attached to them, depending on who you're dealing with, DOESN'T mean that they aren't without their utility. Many things in life are subjective and context-based, politics and relatd fields aren't any different.

I do not hesitate to utilize these terms to describe others, however, because it is sometimes very clear that certain people CAN be reasonably boxed into a certain label. Take eyeball (a participant in these forums), for instance. Every single post of his fits the stereotype of a typical leftist (in an international AND domestic context) - one who romanticizes groups that he feels are oppressed, who demonizes the groups that he feels are the oppressors and privileged, and rejects the concepts of personal and group responsibility. I've not read one of his posts that run contrary to this unoriginal and amateur worldview. In his eyes, when some underprivileged or oppressed person or group does something wrong, it's always the fault of the elites. This is classical example of leftist extremism. It's almost comical.

I will also sometimes use terms such as this to describe lines of argumentation that fall under the realm of the absurd. So be careful not to confuse a label being attached to a position with a label being attached to an individual. Some people are easy to label, though.

Lastly, if you haven't already done so, it's fun to learn about the origins of various ideologies. Not so much in the pop-culture sense, but in the classical/academic sense. From a very broad level, what is conservatism? What is liberalism? What is nationalism, communism, socialism, feminism, etc? The academic understandings of these terms often greatly differ from their usage in mass media.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Gabriel

M.Dancer · November 26, 2009

M.Dancer's signature has always stood out for me "right of some, left of others", and I think that's an excellent commentary on modern society.

Well I don't know if it's a commentary on society but I think it describes me well. I am certainly Right on some issues and left on others. I am in support of our mission in Afghanistan but I opposed actions in Iraq...I am a supporter of strict gun laws and restrictions but I have lost my willingness to defend the long gun registry. I am for an open tolerant society that includes peoples from around the world but I do not support unfettered immigration that does not include a vision of what we want from new Canadians...

Etc etc etc...

wyly · November 26, 2009

Well I don't know if it's a commentary on society but I think it describes me well. I am certainly Right on some issues and left on others. I am in support of our mission in Afghanistan but I opposed actions in Iraq...I am a supporter of strict gun laws and restrictions but I have lost my willingness to defend the long gun registry. I am for an open tolerant society that includes peoples from around the world but I do not support unfettered immigration that does not include a vision of what we want from new Canadians...

Etc etc etc...

same here, I find myself opposed to many here on numerous topics but side with others who I consider extremists on other topics...describing my self left or right is rather impossible, it has to be broken down by issue...

Michael Hardner · November 26, 2009

Well I don't know if it's a commentary on society but I think it describes me well. I am certainly Right on some issues and left on others. I am in support of our mission in Afghanistan but I opposed actions in Iraq...I am a supporter of strict gun laws and restrictions but I have lost my willingness to defend the long gun registry. I am for an open tolerant society that includes peoples from around the world but I do not support unfettered immigration that does not include a vision of what we want from new Canadians...

Etc etc etc...

In other words, you're Canadian. I am likely close to you on this left-right continuum but I also support a drastic re-imagining of how Canada manages its services.

Dave_ON · November 26, 2009

Well I don't know if it's a commentary on society but I think it describes me well. I am certainly Right on some issues and left on others. I am in support of our mission in Afghanistan but I opposed actions in Iraq...I am a supporter of strict gun laws and restrictions but I have lost my willingness to defend the long gun registry. I am for an open tolerant society that includes peoples from around the world but I do not support unfettered immigration that does not include a vision of what we want from new Canadians...

Etc etc etc...

I realize it was a personal commentary but it made me realize that many Canadians can be described that way, myself included.

Wishywashy to some; pragmatic to others

eyeball · November 26, 2009

In other words, you're Canadian. I am likely close to you on this left-right continuum but I also support a drastic re-imagining of how Canada manages its services.

What he said, but I support a drastic re-imagining of how we govern ourselves and also why... I suspect a lot of posters on this forum including me talk right past each other and cock things up in the process.

Above all else though, I'm an Earthling because its simply the fact of the matter.

Michael Hardner · November 26, 2009

What he said, but I support a drastic re-imagining of how we govern ourselves and also why... I suspect a lot of posters on this forum including me talk right past each other and cock things up in the process.

Above all else though, I'm an Earthling because its simply the fact of the matter.

You're an earthling ?

Please provide a link, thanks.

Gabriel · November 26, 2009

I think many Canadians are left-left-left. Look at our political composition - we have a Conservative party that bails out failing industries (an emotional leftist move to buy votes), and the remainder of the parties (who hold about 65% of the voters' support, cumulatively) are even further left than that. We've got a socialist party masquerading as something else under the name NDP that seeks to nationalize everything and destroy our economy (with significant support!) We even have a party with strong representation on the national level that is sworn to the destruction of our federation - the Bloc Quebecois. Can you imagine a Texan-independence party? Only an emotional and non-pragmatic country would tolerate these types of things. I am very comfortable labelling Canada and Canadians, generally speaking, as emotional leftists. Only Canada, as advanced as we are, would tolerate such absurdities.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Gabriel

Michael Hardner · November 26, 2009

I think many Canadians are left-left-left. Look at our political composition - we have a Conservative party that bails out failing industries (an emotional leftist move to buy votes), and the remainder of the parties (who hold about 65% of the voters' support, cumulatively) are even further left than that. We've got a socialist party masquerading as something else under the name NDP that seeks to nationalize everything and destroy our economy (with significant support!) We even have a party with strong representation on the national level that is sworn to the destruction of our federation - the Bloc Quebecois. Can you imagine a Texan-independence party? Only an emotional and non-pragmatic country would tolerate these types of things. I am very comfortable labelling Canada and Canadians, generally speaking, as emotional leftists. Only Canada, as advanced as we are, would tolerate such absurdities.

Branding someone as an 'emotional leftist' is fine, as most will understand what you're after.

But as the OP indicates, right/left is an archaic term and really without meaning today.

How many ultra-leftists in 1960 supported same-sex marriage ? How many conservatives in 1950s America supported Eisenhower and his 90% income tax rates ?

eyeball · November 26, 2009

I think this leftwing vs. rightwing paradigm keeps us from realizing that society is rapidly polarizing along a government vs. governed fault line. The governed are clearing losing ground.

Gabriel · November 26, 2009

Branding someone as an 'emotional leftist' is fine, as most will understand what you're after.

But as the OP indicates, right/left is an archaic term and really without meaning today.

How many ultra-leftists in 1960 supported same-sex marriage ? How many conservatives in 1950s America supported Eisenhower and his 90% income tax rates ?

If you understood what type of people I'm describing when using the term 'emotional leftist', then how is it an archaic term? You understood what I was trying to convey, right?

I didn't interpret the OP as suggesting that the terms 'left' and 'right' are archaic, rather than they aren't without their weaknesses. With that I wholeheartedly agree. I disagree with your suggestion that the terms are archaic, however, as they have their place in certain discourse.

With respect to context, the terms evolve over time and in different cultures and societies. At a national level, a liberal in Canada is different than a liberal in the USA. Same goes for conservatism. I'll repeat what I said to the OP, in the situation where one might honestly be confused about what is being implied by the use of the term 'left' or 'right', just ask for clarification. I think more often than not, the idea intended by the speaker/writer is conveyed relatively well to the listener/reader.

Bottom line - the terms 'left' and 'right' aren't without their limitations, but they're not useless, either.

Michael Hardner · November 26, 2009

If you understood what type of people I'm describing when using the term 'emotional leftist', then how is it an archaic term? You understood what I was trying to convey, right?

Like I said:

Branding someone as an 'emotional leftist' is fine, as most will understand what you're after.

Dave_ON · November 26, 2009

I didn't interpret the OP as suggesting that the terms 'left' and 'right' are archaic, rather than they aren't without their weaknesses. With that I wholeheartedly agree. I disagree with your suggestion that the terms are archaic, however, as they have their place in certain discourse.

Largely my intent was to demonstrate how very different these terms are from their historical origin, and that by far and in large IMNHO, people have a tendancy to over use or misuse them given their historical context. Often it's a term used to describe left or right of me. They're not so much static points anymore, but relative to one's own placement on the spectrum.

For instance originally a right vs. left debate was mercantilism vs. laissez-faire. How many modern conservatives know what mercantilism is let alone supports it?

Such is the nature of words the connotation employed by the user isn't of necessity the same as the words actual denotation.

Gabriel · November 26, 2009

Largely my intent was to demonstrate how very different these terms are from their historical origin, and that by far and in large IMNHO, people have a tendancy to over use or misuse them given their historical context. Often it's a term used to describe left or right of me. They're not so much static points anymore, but relative to one's own placement on the spectrum.

For instance originally a right vs. left debate was mercantilism vs. laissez-faire. How many modern conservatives know what mercantilism is let alone supports it?

Such is the nature of words the connotation employed by the user isn't of necessity the same as the words actual denotation.

Language evolves over time. It's a safe bet to assume that in common discourse, like in an online political discussion forum, that these terms are being used in a contemporary context. Given the 'mercantilism vs. laissez-faire' debate (I'm unfamiliar with it, I would've thought those two terms were largely synonymous), if anything, one would preface such a discussion with something along the lines of, 'from a classical or academic understanding of left and right...'

In other words, I think it's safe bet to assume that the default intended meanings behind common use of the terms 'left' and 'right' are contemporary. Unless otherwise stated, academic and classical understandings of these terms don't really apply to common dialogue.

wulf42 · November 26, 2009

I have on occasion leaned a little to the right..........

Dave_ON · November 26, 2009

Language evolves over time. It's a safe bet to assume that in common discourse, like in an online political discussion forum, that these terms are being used in a contemporary context. Given the 'mercantilism vs. laissez-faire' debate (I'm unfamiliar with it, I would've thought those two terms were largely synonymous), if anything, one would preface such a discussion with something along the lines of, 'from a classical or academic understanding of left and right...'

Mercantilism was essentially heavy government regulations and interference in the economy to ensure a trade surplus, i.e. a great number of exports than imports. This was achieved via tariffs and trade embargos. Laissez-faire of course was the philosophy that government should interfere very little in trade and allow the market to be "free" to govern itself as it were.

In other words, I think it's safe bet to assume that the default intended meanings behind common use of the terms 'left' and 'right' are contemporary. Unless otherwise stated, academic and classical understandings of these terms don't really apply to common dialogue.

Agreed, but I think the modern context lacks substance and is relative to the user rather than a particular fixed point. We can't even really say our political parties are left or right, unless used in reference to one another.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Dave_ON

Gabriel · November 26, 2009

In reference to where they should be, our parties, and specifically our people, are LEFT LEFT LEFT. See above for examples of leftist lunacy in Canada.

Moonbox · November 26, 2009

Left or right is a relative term. That's the whole point. A lot of conservatives would call an LPC supporter a left winger, and a dipper would call him a right wing elitist. It really doesn't matter.

The terms of left/right are simple framing devices used in political discussion. They're meant to dumb down whatever issue is being discussed. Rather than arguing the pros/cons of the issue, people instead try to define the poster (much like in politics) and discredit him/her rather than her opinion. Of course this is not always the case, but generally speaking it probably is.

I'm guilty of this, you are all guilty of this, and it's simple human nature. Deep down, we are all here because we like to argue. Rhetoric is a natural part of that