The real differences between 'left,' 'right,' and 'center'

[starroute]

I was thinking about some of last night's threads, and it struck me that political definitions in this country come down to one very simple distinction:

- Leftists believe that the primary duty of government is to help the least among us -- to empower the poor, give voice to the disenfranchised, and work to enforce social justice. They believe that if these things are accomplished, society as a whole will prosper and will work more fairly and effectively for all its members.

- Rightists believe that the primary duty of government is to preserve and increase the wealth and power of those who are already wealthy and powerful -- to be strong on police power at home and military intervention abroad (to promote business interests) and weak when it comes to regulation and taxation.

- Centrists believe that the primary duty of government is to look after the middle class, on the grounds that this serves the majority of the population. Some are true middle class populists, but many have an upward bias -- they believe that it is important to support businesses which provide middle class jobs but that the poor can best be handled by encouraging them to rise to the middle class if they are capable and otherwise largely ignoring them.

The refusal of Americans in general to admit that we have a deeply entrenched class system means this simple distinction is rarely acknowledged. Instead, the media tend to label people as liberals, conservatives, and moderates -- as though it was a matter of personal temperament which could be measured in terms of such qualities as fiscal prudence or cultural attitudes.

But in fact, it's all about class -- and especially once you strip away distractions like abortion and gay marriage, it becomes starkly clear that the real issues we're arguing about in this country today all have to do with the single question of whose interests society should put first.

[Cleita]

1. I think we really need a multiple party system from the extreme left to

the extreme right. In order to form a majority on each issue and each candidate, parties have to form coalitions. I think then you do find the true center in this way, not the artificial center, which is actually way to the right, that is being touted today.

[enlightenment]

3. Multi-party, parliamentary system.

I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) we are the only representative democracy that doesn't use the system.

Political ideology is a spectrum; people rarely fit neatly into any definition. I don't think there is a true center, really - it shifts, depending on circumstance and the subject.




edited to add the object to my sentence *doh*

[Cleita]

5. I think New Zealand doesn't either but they got around it with run off voting. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Take a look at e.g. Israel or parts of Europe.

What you're proposing tends to cause all sorts of other problems, and often results in governments being either more extreme or less accountable.

[Cleita]

9. I used to be against it because of the gridlock it can cause, but now

I'm in favor of it but not going as far as instituting a parliament. I'd keep Congress as it is, but I would like to see run off voting. That way people could vote their heart but still not lose their vote because they can make second and third choices which will be counted if their favorite candidate doesn't get enough votes.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. I'm with you! (See post #11) Heck, if you want gridlock just look up

Obstructionist Republicans. x(

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. So take what works and leave the rest. Multiple parties to choose from and

some sort of ranked or approval voting and proportional representation, along with open debates and publicly funded elections could go a long way to making US gov't more representative of the people. Which was kind of the point, once upon a time. :)

[Cleita]

15. You got it. All of the above and we might survive as the greatest country

in the world.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I'm not convinced.

It's very hard to come up with a system which neither rewards small parties (placing disproportionate power in the hands of groups like Shas and Yisrael Beneitu) nor rewards large parties (at which point parties probably coalesce back into two coalitions, and you're back where you started).

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Check into proportional representation, since with the right formula it's the best shot we have.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Hannibal could have made good use of dehydrated elephants if the rehydration problem had been solved

Similarly, finding the right formula is the hard part of the problem.

Also, I'm not convinced that "proportional" is desirable. I think that converting pluralities into majorities is probably a desirable property of an electoral system.

[drmeow]

2. I'm not sure if the non-wealthy

rightists really believe that the primary duty of government is as you stated. I think it is more that they view the primary RIGHT of people to amass as much wealth as possible and the duty of government not to interfere with that. Both the right and the center tend to have bought into the myth that anyone in American can become rich and powerful on their own merits. Hence only people have to ability to increase and maintain wealth and power, not government.

The faction of the right you are talking about are the already wealthy who got there by stealing and conning and see government and "the people" as just another mark.

[dysfunctional press]

4. "Leftists believe that the primary duty of government is to help the least among us..."

i disagree with that perception.

the left just wants fairness, and a government that represents ALL of the people equally.

[Cleita]

6. Actually, democracy is for the people by the people and that ideal is to the left.

Right now we have for the corporations by the corporations. The people can compete in the social darwinist ideal of laissez faire-yland corporate rule. If they can't, screw them.

[anonymous171]

25. No. That's what good government advocates want.

People on the right can, hypothetically, believe in fair government.

[dysfunctional press]

31. well- it's closer to reality than the definitions given by the op.

nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. It would make the moral issue simpler if that bore any resemblance to the truth.

But of course it doesn't.

Most - the overwhelming, near-universal majority of - right-wingers are *not* cardboard cut-out villains who believe that exploiting the poor for the benefit of the rich. They genuinely believe that tax cuts are the best way to make the poor better off.

Deliberately misrepresenting your opponent can be an excellent way to win a debate, but it's a poor way to conduct a discussion.

[Generator]

16. Of course they don't believe in or acknowledge that

anything they do is part of exploiting the poor. They primarily believe it is the poor persons fault entirely for being poor. They were born that way-it's their fault of course. They believe they have no responsibility in helping them. Not "their" tax dollars. Ever watch some right wing T.V.-that would be FOX news-after Katrina for instance? Basically that kind of thing would never happen to them. Of course not-because they can't even imagining being that poor-to not have enough money to leave. To not have a car. To have to wait for payday or stay and take your chances.

They lack empathy I primarily believe out of fear and denial like all humans-"THAT could never happen to ME-because I am not like them. I am better." That is a survival denial tactic.

They may really believe that tax cuts help-but for how long do they continue to believe that in the face of it not working? IT hasn't worked for 30 years! How much longer do we reward their being wrong?

If we have the great depression part 2-how much empathy do you see from the right wing? They call employment benefits, medicaid, health care PORK. That was what was in the stimulus they reject. Money for schools. They are not villains but somehow they don't want to be part of a whole society. They will pay for their kids schools they are better than me-because they can pay for it-screw the rest of the kids. I don't see how you defend them as models of humanity.

[hfojvt]

23. most of the rightwing are center-right on economics

they are far right on social issues. They are fed a lot of propaganda from the rich-right which seems to me as described. The center-right is often just as selfish. They will vote for a $2,000 tax cut for themselves and don't really care if it comes with a $10,000,000 tax cut for a Wal-mart heir. They see the world in two choices - Bush tax cuts or Gore welfare spending. There are some, maybe, who buy the "theory" that this will grow the economy and benefit everyone, but that's more like what Galbraith said - finding a justification for the selfishness that's already there.

[bain_sidhe]

10. I disagree with your definition of "centrist"

I consider myself a centrist because I believe government's function is to maintain the balance between the rights and responsibilities of the powerless and the rights and responsibilities of the powerful. To use my favorite analogy, imagine a room full of midgets and a few giants. The giants should not be allowed to rampage through the room, trampling on and knocking over the midgets. OTOH, the midgets should not be allowed to tie up the giants so tightly that they can't move at all. All of them should have rights. All of them should have responsibilities. It's the government's job to ensure that each group's rights are respected, and each group's responsibilities are enforced.

Balance.

[Cleita]

13. Balance is fine as long as they don't lie, cheat or steal. When they cross the

line into criminal behavior, and the Republicans in charge for the last eight years and even before that have clearly done so, then it's not a balance anymore. It's really a matter of apprehending the criminals and putting them on trial. We basically have had a wholesale theft of our economy because of them, not to mention the agony and deaths of unnecessary wars fought for profit. The big mistake PM Neville Chamberlain of England made with Nazi Germany was to try to compromise with a criminal cabal who had usurped the Wiemar Republic of Germany. He gave them the right to invade Austria and Czechoslovakia hoping that would make Hitler happy and contain him. It was a compromise, something a centrist would do except that he expected them to be honorable and play by the rules. They did not and history has told the rest of the story. Our Republicans are cut from the same cloth. Obama and his administration better come to a realization here that they are not dealing with ideological differences but basic criminality no different from the Mafia.

[seabeyond]

14. nope. center. i dont want left passing laws protecting me from self, i dont want right passing law

telling me to do their religion. i want to pay my taxes, have regulations in place and controls, i want those that break law to go to jail especially white collar and govt, i want constitution upheld and i want a net for those that need it. i want america to be strong. we are our weakest.

[rrneck]

17. The terms

"left (liberal)" and "right (conservative)" refer to rates of cultural change.

If you have a secure financial future for yourself and your progeny, United States Senators return your calls, and you have significant capital assets to protect, you don't want anybody messing with the deal you've got. You want to slow cultural change.

If there is an airport or landfill in your neighborhood, your schools are underfunded due to low property values, you have no health care or job stability, you want to see some change. The worse off you are, the faster you want those changes to occur. That makes you a liberal.

Advocates for both sides are considered members of those groups.

Here is a very interesting website on the subject. It adds another aspect to the "left/right axis" that is very compelling. And you can play with it. :)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

On edit - I just took the test again and it still puts me around Gandhi politically.

[Berry Cool]

19. The way I see it, what the left wants is for everyone to have equality of OPPORTUNITY

and a level playing field. They're not saying everyone should have the same amount or type of toys (that's the pure ideal of communism) or has to die with the exact same amount of toys at the end--but that everyone should have just as good a chance of getting toys through their lifetimes (however you want to broadly define "toys") as everyone else from the very beginning, onward. Even if it means the government making that happen. And that the rest should be up to the individual.

Why is anything so bad about that? When you think about it, it's like the game Monopoly. In Monopoly, there's always a winner--whoever played best with the resources he or she was originally given--and those who do not win or who end the game with less. But EVERYONE STARTS OUT THE SAME. They get the same amount from the bank, and statistically the same odds of landing on a good or bad space for them through a throw of the dice or picking up a good or bad card. Given that equality of opportunity, some may have better luck than others, but ultimately the winner is determined by who plays their opportunities the most wisely. The winner at the end with all the best properties and the hotels and the most money didn't get that way by starting out with more while the others began with less.

Imagine a game of Monopoly in which one of the players started out from the beginning with, say, four times the play money of the others. I think I can predict for you right off the top who the most likely winner will be. The one with four times the money can afford to have more bad luck and even to make more dumb decisions than the players with less. Bad rolls of the dice and bad decision making will make them lose far more and create much more of a "snowball" effect. For the player with four times the money of the others, a bad stint can be absorbed and moved on from with greater ease. And that makes all the difference.

Yet Republicans and conservatives of all stripes insist that the only fair way to do things is to allow the "haves" to start out with more in life and the "have-nots" to somehow muddle by on their own and work hard to get what the "haves" have--and to believe that if they don't get what the "haves" have, they've got no one but themselves to blame. What never seems to occur to them is that if you have less to start with, any setback along the way--whether or not it's your own fault--is all the more devastating.

They also believe they shouldn't be obligated in any way to help the "have nots" unless they CHOOSE to. That way, from their lofty perches they can decide who really "deserves" their help and gets it, and who doesn't and won't get it.

And that's America for you.

[hfojvt]

27. that sounds kinda center-left to me

Equality of opportunity seems to miss a big picture. Here's the analogy I would make. In our society 10% of our citizens get thrown out. They don't get jobs, certainly not good jobs, or benefits, and thus cannot afford decent food, housing cars, or other amenities. 80% in the middle are on a sliding scale, some are doing fairly well, and others are close to the edge. The edge people could lose their decent jobs and find themselves thrown out too. There's another 20-30% probably fairly close to the edge. They are generally worked like dogs and treated like toilet paper (something disposable that wipes up the crap). Then there's 10% at the top, or close to the top.

I, myself, do not care if the race is unfair. I want to abolish the race itself. Let's not throw anybody out. Equality of opportunity doesn't seem to care if people get thrown out, they just want to make the race fair. After a fair race, then, it is fair to discard the losers.

However, in some ways, it is unfair to make the race fair. I had an advantage, for example, because of my parents. But my father worked, and sacrificed, to give me those advantages. Are you gonna take away what he worked for just so I don't start out with more in life?

My bottom line is, though, let's not discard anybody whether for fair reasons or unfair ones.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil;

in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

Any government, of any kind, that came to power by whatever means, can be benevolent or tyrannical. They are obligated by events to sacrifice, willingly or unwillingly, some members of society to keep the government going.

The best that can be said about governments is that some are not as bad as others.

"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow." H.L. Mencken

"Freedom is the right to one's dignity as a man." - Unknown

"I know of but one freedom and that is the freedom of the mind." Antoine de Sainte Exupery

"Freedom cannot be granted. It must be taken." Max Sterner

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it." Mikhail Bakunin

[hfojvt]

28. in the eyes of the anarchists

"Government and cooperation are in all things and eternally the Laws of Life. Anarchy and copetition eternally and in all things the Laws of Death." John Ruskin

Bakunin does not seem to care for society.
"the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission only from their own conscience and reason ..."

What happens then when these free men and women cross paths? And what happens with the large group of people who either have no consience or are unreasonable and unreasoning?

"I had no idea whether a permit was required for what I was about, though I strongly suspected this. Time means a lot to me, paperwork wastes it, and I have always been a firm believer in my right to do anything I cannot be stopped from doing, which sometimes entails not getting caught at it. This is not quite so bad as it sounds, as I am a decent, civilized, likeable guy So shading my eyes against the blue and fiery afternoon, I began searching for ways to convince the authorities of this. Lying, I decided, was probably best." Roger Zelazny Doorways in the Sand

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Anarchism does not equal anarchy.

As to crossing paths, Gandhi (an Anarchist) had a solution to that that he used against the most powerful empire in the world.

"In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place." Gandhi

[omega minimo]

21. The People ARE the government. US the land of opportunity for all. Together we stand divided we fall

where people are capable of being enlightened enough to not "strip away distractions like abortion" and equal rights to make a point

[anonymous171]

24. Leftists believe that Government should help the people.

The Rightists think that the government should only do what people cannot do for themselves (military protection, police protection, enforcing laws, etc.) Centrists believe whatever gets them votes.

[MasonJar]

26. The British Parliment/Prime Minister government seems to work better, especially

when a doofus like Bush is the so-called Head of State. He could be voted out early.

[quaker bill]

32. There are no convenient dividing lines.

I tend to be a liberal on a great many issues. For instance, I would be happy to see the defense budget cut, and cut massively. I would like to see our military reduced to the point where no President would be tempted to use it without substantial allied support from a large number of other countries. No more solo wars of choice, thanks.


On economics however, I tend to ride the Keynesian line, a belief in timely and potent government intervention when called for, and otherwise a robust (but well regulated anti-trustwise) system of free enterprise. I find there to be a difference between being an advocate for free enterprise and being an advocate for corporatism. The end or diminishment of corporatism could be the only means to truly reinvigorate free enterprise that works on a human scale within a community.

While I think government should assist people,(and should do much more than it currently does) but, it cannot and should not attempt to do everything. An economy that serves a population of 300 million people is by necessity too large and complex to be operated by central planning. When well regulated (tax wise) and policed (arrest Madoff and other such folks), a market economy is an autonomous and efficient means of supply management and distribution that can never be rivaled by any other means of active management.

In short, I do not believe that the State is the solution to all our problems, the private sector has a positive role to play, but also that government needs to do a better and more fully funded job of the tasks we have assigned to it.