Political morality and the Left/Right Divide

[Argus]

I see your point. But at the same time, it was the Liberal and NDP parties, and not the public at large, that wanted to bring in these high numbers of refugees.

Yes, but the liberal media were very much on board taking in as many as possible.

Liberals can often be naive and unrealistic do-gooders and conservatives can often be ignorant jerks, that's the way it seems to work with those ideologies.

No, that's the narrative. It's only half right. Liberals can and often are naive do-gooders, but the portrayal of Conservatives as hard-hearted jerks is one made by the liberal media. Harper was clearly emotional in his speech about the dead boy, but he wasn't going to let that dictate policy. That's the difference between the right and the left. The right doesn't let emotions dictate policy. The Left is all about emotions and feelings.

[Big Guy]

Yes, we know. Just about every day you climb up on your pedestal, adjust your halo, and then make the same pompous speech about how wonderful you are compared to everyone who disagrees with you.

Good. At least you are prepared finally to admit that those who detest bigotry, racism and xenophobia are worthy of a "halo" - and you know what that implies about those with your views.

I prefer soap boxes over pedestals. You do understand that a pedestal is "a position in which someone is greatly or uncritically admired". I would be embarrassed by those kind of accolades but if you insist ...

[Argus]

Good. At least you are prepared finally to admit that those who detest bigotry, racism and xenophobia are worthy of a "halo" - and you know what that implies about those with your views.

Well, given the behaviour down through the years of those who assume the mantle of righteousness in order to cast aspersions on others, I would suggest that anyone such a person denounces is likely a far better person than the self-righteous accuser.

[Moonlight Graham]

No, that's the narrative. It's only half right. Liberals can and often are naive do-gooders, but the portrayal of Conservatives as hard-hearted jerks is one made by the liberal media.

No that's my own personal observation. And I didn't say Conservatives, i said conservatives.

video

[eyeball]

And I didn't say Conservatives, i said conservatives.

It's a wonder the former don't reassess their fixation on being associated with the latter. It's only hurting them.

[ReeferMadness]

It's a wonder the former don't reassess their fixation on being associated with the latter. It's only hurting them.

I would have said that in reverse.

[eyeball]

I would have said that in reverse.

In either case politicizing conservatism to the point it has been has hung a serious millstone around our necks.

[ReeferMadness]

In either case politicizing conservatism to the point it has been has hung a serious millstone around our necks.

Conservatism and liberalism have had so many different meanings over the decades that they've largely become brand names. You can stuff whatever set of policies you want into them and people will forget (or just be completely unaware of) what they used to mean.

[eyeball]

Conservatism and liberalism have had so many different meanings over the decades that they've largely become brand names. You can stuff whatever set of policies you want into them and people will forget (or just be completely unaware of) what they used to mean.

That's why I stick to the original meanings of the terms left and right wing. They've always been very to the point.

[cybercoma]

What is it that right wingers always say? Oh right. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin.

[dialamah]

That's why I stick to the original meanings of the terms left and right wing. They've always been very to the point.

So hey, I'm willing to be educated. How would you define the original meanings of left and right wing? I am honestly curious, because for most of my life I could be described as apolitical, so am kind of a neophyte here. Thanks in advance.

[Big Guy]

So hey, I'm willing to be educated. How would you define the original meanings of left and right wing? I am honestly curious, because for most of my life I could be described as apolitical, so am kind of a neophyte here. Thanks in advance.

A simplistic but basic comparison of views can be found at:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=explanation+of+left+and+right+wing+images&espv=2&biw=1112&bih=785&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipiNze9-PKAhWMOT4KHQayBrgQsAQIGg&dpr=1.1#imgrc=QSCmbaLvyYKNIM%3A

There are deviations from this depending on the attitude of the definer.

[dialamah]

Saw that before, and really liked it so thanks for the reminder. @Eyeball, is Big Guy's link one you would essentially agree with or would you define the original definitions of left/right differently?

[eyeball]

So hey, I'm willing to be educated. How would you define the original meanings of left and right wing? I am honestly curious, because for most of my life I could be described as apolitical, so am kind of a neophyte here. Thanks in advance.

The meaning given the terms in post revolutionary France.

[eyeball]

Saw that before, and really liked it so thanks for the reminder. @Eyeball, is Big Guy's link one you would essentially agree with or would you define the original definitions of left/right differently?

No, I think BG's link is a bunch of hooey.

The right-wing is simply the establishment of interests in a society that aligns the most with the authority of the state/government. The establishment of union bosses and generals in most communist dictatorships is really no different than the establishment of industrialists and generals that line up with the government in most capitalist democracies. All orbit each other generally to the exclusion of anyone who isn't in power or the establishment.

Normally conservatism a healthy expression of caution that society does well by but conservatism somewhere along the way morphed into a politicized force that acts on our governance like steroids does on an individual. I think the natural affinity conservatism has for authority is based on its most fundamental motivator, fear.

Edited February 7, 2016 by eyeball

[dialamah]

No, I think BG's link is a bunch of hooey.

The right-wing is simply the establishment of interests in a society that aligns the most with the authority of the state/government. The establishment of union bosses and generals in most communist dictatorships is really no different than the establishment of industrialists and generals that line up with the government in most capitalist democracies. All orbit each other generally to the exclusion of anyone who isn't in power or the establishment.

Normally conservatism a healthy expression of caution that society does well by but conservatism somewhere along the way morphed into a politicized force that acts on our governance like steroids does on an individual. I think the natural affinity conservatism has for authority is based on its most fundamental motivator, fear.

Thanks. From your first paragraph, it would seem to me that most societies would naturally develop toward conservatism, since even the smallest group of humans looks for 'leadership', and people try to align themselves with the perceived leader.

I think the natural affinity conservatism has for authority is based on its most fundamental motivator, fear.

Fear is the sense I get from some of the more enthusiastic modern conservatives. Perhaps, far back in history it was the 'outliers', those not aligned with the authority/leader who led us outside our safe caves to explore the wider world. Safety and status-quo vs. exploration and change. Both are needed, no doubt, and I suspect that at any given time the conservative element is going to hold sway within a group. Still, there must be a portion of any group who essentially fall into a 'middle' between left/right, who might generally side with 'safety/status-quo', but also able to see a benefit from time to time of taking risk. Else we'd still be in caves and cooking over fires.

[Big Guy]

I submit that all societies are supported by groups which have very different visions of the world and what a proper society looks like.

In order to refer to the policies of the different groups, we have to place them somewhere on a sliding scale so that they can be identified for discussion. It is difficult because there is no "good" or "bad" but there is a difference on certain issues. That difference is why we try to agree to a label that describes the views in order to discuss them.

It is generally accepted that big government is on the left and small government on the right. A social order like communism is on the left and capitalism on the right.

You have to be careful when you discuss differing views using these labels. They are meant only for clarity of discussion, both participants would have to agree to those definitions and not assign negative or positive qualities.

Tall is very different from short and neither is better or worse than the other.

[Moonlight Graham]

It is generally accepted that big government is on the left and small government on the right. A social order like communism is on the left and capitalism on the right.

That's not necessarily true, such as in US and Canada. In those 2 countries both left and right parties want big government, they just disgagree and what areas to spend the money. Left want more social services to help the impoverished and ensure more equality of basic needs, and things to help the environment. Rightwing (except libertarians) want larger military spending, police, and intelligence services.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think the biggest moral difference between left and right is that the the right is more concerned with self-reliance. They value achievement, strength, success, and hard work. They believe that if you work hard you can achieve success and that you deserve the spoils of your labour and intelligence. Success and wealth is to be admired. The left is more concerned and compassionate with the marginalized people in society, they believe in helping the downtrodden, equality between race/gender etc. They think that not helping the unfortunate and taking advantage of the less powerful through success and wealth is evil.

Essentially, he right admires success and strength, while the left often sees these same people, the powerful, as the object of their own oppression or the oppression of the others. The right says "be strong", while the left says "the strong oppress us".

[eyeball]

Thanks. From your first paragraph, it would seem to me that most societies would naturally develop toward conservatism,

Just before the revolutions that follow.

Fear is the sense I get from some of the more enthusiastic modern conservatives. Perhaps, far back in history it was the 'outliers', those not aligned with the authority/leader who led us outside our safe caves to explore the wider world. Safety and status-quo vs. exploration and change. Both are needed, no doubt, and I suspect that at any given time the conservative element is going to hold sway within a group. Still, there must be a portion of any group who essentially fall into a 'middle' between left/right, who might generally side with 'safety/status-quo', but also able to see a benefit from time to time of taking risk. Else we'd still be in caves and cooking over fires.

There's no doubt in my mind it was the lefties who led humanity down from the trees, probably to get away from the screeching and crap raining down from up on high.

I want a rocket ship...so I can get as far away as a I can.

[Hal 9000]

Thanks. From your first paragraph, it would seem to me that most societies would naturally develop toward conservatism, since even the smallest group of humans looks for 'leadership', and people try to align themselves with the perceived leader.

Fear is the sense I get from some of the more enthusiastic modern conservatives. Perhaps, far back in history it was the 'outliers', those not aligned with the authority/leader who led us outside our safe caves to explore the wider world. Safety and status-quo vs. exploration and change. Both are needed, no doubt, and I suspect that at any given time the conservative element is going to hold sway within a group. Still, there must be a portion of any group who essentially fall into a 'middle' between left/right, who might generally side with 'safety/status-quo', but also able to see a benefit from time to time of taking risk. Else we'd still be in caves and cooking over fires.

Fear! Lets not pretend that fear isn't used by the left. The "Stop Harper" campaign was rooted in fear, The campaigns to discredit Trump is all fear based - Trump is a recruiter for ISIL, Terrorists hate us because of Bush...fear driven. Climate change is fear driven, Bill c-51opponents use fear, saying Harper and his stormtroopers will bang down your door, The conservatives will take away your medical, "you need the protection of the government"...all fear driven by the left, and all crap.

The root of what makes us lean a particular way can be found in how we define "freedom". Does freedom mean "freedom to live safe and without pain or consequence" or does it mean "freedom to succeed or fail on our own terms"? This of course is a spectrum and most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

[dialamah]

The root of what makes us lean a particular way can be found in how we define "freedom". Does freedom mean "freedom to live safe and without pain or consequence" or does it mean "freedom to succeed or fail on our own terms"? This of course is a spectrum and most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Your first paragraph was irrelevant as to how I'm using these terms, the one I've quoted is closer, but still confuses current politics with what might be human political organization in its smplest sense. It makes sense to me that a group of say 50 people, faced with surviving against nature with little more than their wits would be more likely to follow a more conservative leader. One who did not take chances, who stuck with the tried and true, and who even expected everyone to pull the their weight, although that expectation might be tempered with what the person is able to do, rather than what others are able to do. It would be the 'pogressive' person who would take risks and explore different ways of doing things, possibly with little support from his social group, at least till his efforts bore fruit.

But I'm just engaging in some kind of play here, I could be way outmin left field.

[eyeball]

Fear! Lets not pretend that fear isn't used by the left. The "Stop Harper" campaign was rooted in fear,

No that was clearly rooted in disgust.

[Hal 9000]

Your first paragraph was irrelevant as to how I'm using these terms, the one I've quoted is closer, but still confuses current politics with what might be human political organization in its smplest sense. It makes sense to me that a group of say 50 people, faced with surviving against nature with little more than their wits would be more likely to follow a more conservative leader. One who did not take chances, who stuck with the tried and true, and who even expected everyone to pull the their weight, although that expectation might be tempered with what the person is able to do, rather than what others are able to do. It would be the 'pogressive' person who would take risks and explore different ways of doing things, possibly with little support from his social group, at least till his efforts bore fruit.

But I'm just engaging in some kind of play here, I could be way outmin left field.

Link

This is another template. I definitely fall into what this chart shows as libertarian, however on ththe MLW site to suggest anything even remotely right or against the left gets you pushed to the right....far right.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Hal 9000

[On Guard for Thee]

The campaigns to discredit Trump is all fear based -

No, also based on disgust. The rest of the paragraph could as easily be picked apart but won't bother .