The difference between the left and the right

[Darth Wong]

I heard an interesting comment on the radio today:

"The Left wants government to do things for people, while the Right wants government to do things to people."

What do you think? I thought it was kind of funny; concise and yet arguably accurate in many respects. When you look at social programs, the death penalty, militarism, etc., the left/right breakdown seems to actually support that one-liner.

[Frank Hipper]

I've heard that before somewhere.

[Seggybop]

I've always thought that the left is sympathetic, interested in helping everyone out, while the right is stingy and selfish saying that whatever you do is your own problem and if something bad happens, sucks for you.

[The Cleric]

I've always thought that the left is sympathetic, interested in helping everyone out, while the right is stingy and selfish saying that whatever you do is your own problem and if something bad happens, sucks for you.

[Darth Wong]

I've heard that before somewhere.

You mean the radio guy copied someone else's line? Damn plagiarist!

But seriously, I find it interesting when people who support military interventionism and the death penalty rant that the opposition's position is "paternalistic government". I would submit that both sides want paternalistic government; they just differ on what kind of father they want. The left wants a kindly old man who will take care of the children, while the right wants a powerful authoritarian figure who will beat the kids if they get out of line and kick the neighbour's ass if he looks at him funny.

[Glocksman]

I've always thought that the left is sympathetic, interested in helping everyone out, while the right is stingy and selfish saying that whatever you do is your own problem and if something bad happens, sucks for you.

Go lurk in the DU forums and you'll find there's plenty of selfish assholes on the left as well.

I could say that the left is more interested in 'helping' you whether you want their 'help' or not and the right is about personal responsibility and individual rights.

Of course both statements are vastly oversimplistic and not wholly true of either side.

[SirNitram]

I've always thought that the left is sympathetic, interested in helping everyone out, while the right is stingy and selfish saying that whatever you do is your own problem and if something bad happens, sucks for you.

That's pretty much what the quote goes for, with the added stereotypes of the Right being out to get your money and freedoms, and the Left not thinking people can handle themselves.

[Seggybop]

that's so informative >_>

the left is known for creating programs to help the disadvantaged and improve society in general.
the right is known for emphasizing personal responsibility, leaving people to their own devices.

You think that's inaccurate?

[SPOOFE]

It's hard to judge, but I know one thing: Any blurb that seeks to sum up the entire body of politics in a single sentence is probably missing a lot of nuances.

Traditionally, the Republicans were in favor of small government in general and an even smaller Federal government in particular, preferring to leave that power to the States. The Democrats, of course, sought to have more power conferred to the Feds.

After the Great Depression, it became installed in the national lexicon that the Federal government is supposed to regulate the country, and both parties started on the path of using the office of the Presidency to shape the country as they see fit. Back then, of course, it was still the Democrats holding onto the South (and racism), while Republicans were the city-dwellers that championed minority rights.

During the '50s, religion got a stranglehold on the Republican party that has never let go, unfortunately. This caused a reversal of roles, and now all the Neo-Cons want is to go back to the middle of the last century when everyone went to church on Sunday and the negro knew his place. This was also about when the South flipped from Demo to Repub (similar shift in city dwellings).

Nowadays, there's a reason that Libertarians are often described as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"... they're essentially the early-century Republicans with modern-day Democrat social ideals thrown in.

As for the quote, it's very simplified. Many left-wing programs are criticized as being far too expensive... this was what killed off Hillary Clinton's health care idea back in the early '90s. Obviously, the Democrats believe that raising taxes will solve this problem, and they're probably right... but then you typically get Republican opposition for it costing too much.

Then you get a hypocritical tendency of the religious Right to want to control how people behave socially. No buttsex, no gays, no science in schools, Keep God in the Classroom, etc. etc. The fact that these programs would usually cost very little money (as opposed to a grand social program like Health Care) is what allows them to convince themselves that they're not "intruding" in people's lives. It's a strange justification.

What it comes down it is what you believe will be beneficial and what won't. Many Democrats believe that gun control is unarguably a good thing (though I've been seeing that diminish in the past few years), which may have an immediate impact on, say, accidental deaths, but in the long-term may help to contribute towards rising crime.

So that's what it comes down to, I guess... social issues vs. fiscal issues, and scale. Most Republicans would accept a "bad thing" in the near-term if they felt it meant a "good thing" in the long term, for instance.

Yes, I am aware that many Democrat programs have a long-term scale, too. And yes, I'm aware that Bush's spending has been high. I said that the waters are muddy, didn't I?

[Darth Wong]

It's hard to judge, but I know one thing: Any blurb that seeks to sum up the entire body of politics in a single sentence is probably missing a lot of nuances.

Of course. It's still a funny line though, and more accurate than most of the more polemic lines you'll hear about the difference between the left and right.

[Stormbringer]

I've always thought that the left is sympathetic, interested in helping everyone out, while the right is stingy and selfish saying that whatever you do is your own problem and if something bad happens, sucks for you.

that's so informative >_>

the left is known for creating programs to help the disadvantaged and improve society in general.
the right is known for emphasizing personal responsibility, leaving people to their own devices.

You think that's inaccurate?

I won't speak for Stormtroop but yes, your first statement is more than a little innaccurate. Now your latter one is a bit more fair but it's of course lacking a lot of the nuance that color both side's politics.

* * *

Of course trying to reduce the complexities of two political parties down to moron-sized bites inevitably leads to innaccuracy. As this thread has shown, as often as not deliberate. Rather than presenting an accurate picture it's just a matter of slanting it how you want it.

[UCBooties]

Sorry Spoofe, I've got to nitpick on your history lesson. The southern partisan realignment did not begin until after the civil rights movement, and from the late sixties to mid seventies GOP gains in the south were strictly in presidential races. Realignment in the south followed a trickledown effect, with Democrats maintianing strong holds on Congressional delegations into the late eighties. The strong final push towards GOP conservatism is what allowed Newt and co. to finaly take the majority in the house in the '94 congressional ellections. Ok, I'm done now.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Hm. I'd say, "The Left wants government to help people do things, the Right wants government to let people do things themselves."

[Darth Wong]

Hm. I'd say, "The Left wants government to help people do things, the Right wants government to let people do things themselves."

That would hardly explain militarism, harsh justice, and the death penalty. I don't know why people keep saying that the right is basically libertarian; they are not. They're big-government people, they just think the government should prioritize differently. I suppose you could argue that the Republican party is totally non-representative of the right, but then how would we know how many of these "libertarians who only vote Republican because they have no real libertarian choice" people exist?

[Pablo Sanchez]

That would hardly explain militarism, harsh justice, and the death penalty. I don't know why people keep saying that the right is basically libertarian; they are not. They're big-government people, they just think the government should prioritize differently. I suppose you could argue that the Republican party is totally non-representative of the right,

My position, actually. The current Republican party is gripped by some sort of strange reactionary movement whose provenance I can't begin to guess at. There are actually elements of Fascism in their approach and policies, though calling them Fascists would be going much too far.

but then how would we know how many of these "libertarians who only vote Republican because they have no real libertarian choice" people exist?

No idea. I think, eventually, there's either going to be a desertion of moderates from the GOP or the party will move back towards the center. But not for years, I don't think.

[Dalton]

This reminds me of something I heard George Carlin say on Keith Olbermann's show...

CARLIN: Well, I would put it this way. Generally speaking on politics, I fall to the left side of the center line, because I believe a little bit more in helping people than in enhancing property. I think the right wing historically is property-oriented and the left wing is more human- and people-oriented.

[Coyote]

The Left has a number of good ideas that I think allow people the freedom that the Right claims to stand for but fails to deliver. The Left has been far more active in promoting equal rights and making racism unfashionable, as well as sexism.

But it seems to me that in its place they tend to emphasize classism instead, pitting people aganst one another based on socioeconomic principles rather than gender or color.

The Left is also against the mixing of government and religion, an idea long overdue, whereas the Right-- or in this case, modern Republicans-- seem to want to impose a more faith-based system of government. This I find as disturbing as the Far Left's desire for Socialism.

I like the idea of general health care for all citizens. Note that I said "general" health care and "citizens". I feel that the Left is too free with doling out benefits to illegal immigrants. I have nothing against making the immigrants legal citizens, but handing out no-questions-asked benefits to them is a severe drain on taxpayers.

I do feel that the Left is too soft on crime while being too hard on law-abiding gun owners. I say that the Left "expects the best things from the worst people, and the worst things from the best people."

But the Left is also wary of overseas military adventurism, which is good and healthy even though as we see today causes discord. The questions they raise are good ones. But they are protectionist and favorable of tariffs and trade barriers, which I think are bad.

The Right would let business and markets run everything, which would lead us right back to the days when a company could work you 16 hours for $5.00 a day and you had no recourse to complain. The Left believes that the government has a role to play as a regulator of business, one that I heartily agree with.

I'd like to mix parts of both and discard the shit parts, but it just isn't happening as both parties reach for their "base", which is usually the most radical elements on either side... sigh.

[Coyote]

One other thing... these days a lot of vocal Left wing pundits seem to have a smarmy, self-righteous arrogance, accompanied with a very condescending atitude, that acts as an incredibly repelling barrier to more people like myself joining them...

If they treated those who disagree with them in a respectable fashion, instead of acting like they are unfortunate, duped morons, then their stock would go up considerably.

[Edi]

<snip> This I find as disturbing as the Far Left's desire for Socialism.

It's a serious exaggeration that the Left as a whole is desiring socialism in America. It's not. They have some elements of the typical European Social Democratic platforms, but that's as far as it goes from what I've seen. You've got another order of magnitude of leftward shift before you're at the socialism stage.

I like the idea of general health care for all citizens. Note that I said "general" health care and "citizens". I feel that the Left is too free with doling out benefits to illegal immigrants. I have nothing against making the immigrants legal citizens, but handing out no-questions-asked benefits to them is a severe drain on taxpayers.

No argument from here that this is a bad thing, but it depends a bit on the circumstances as well. No denying that in some places this is partly due to the Left pandering to ethnic citizen voting blocks with the same background as the illegals, but I don't know how widespread the problem is.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

The Left does not "desire socialism"; it desires a more socialistic policy on the spectrum. One should not couch one's viewpoints in the language of black/white fallacy peddlers.

Anyway, there is no politically powerful Left in America. The Democrats are centrists; a fact which the Republicans cunningly took advantage of in the last election to portray them as "flip-floppers" for failing to take a side (while simultaneously trying to paint them as consistently voting hard-left; I'll never know how they got away with that particular glaring contradiction).

[Coyote]

Well, bear in mind I said "the far Left" would want Socialism, not the Left in general. These are the opposite numbers of the Far Right, who openly espouse setting up an "America based on Christian principles", ie, a Theocracy...

[Stormbringer]

Anyway, there is no politically powerful Left in America. The Democrats are centrists;

By international standards, a standard more or less irrelevant to internal American politics.

a fact which the Republicans cunningly took advantage of in the last election to portray them as "flip-floppers" for failing to take a side (while simultaneously trying to paint them as consistently voting hard-left; I'll never know how they got away with that particular glaring contradiction).

It worked because Kerry simply refused to commit on any number of issues. They attacked his record on leadership with the flip flopper. And to be fair that one was justified.

And they attacked his idealogy with he "far left" bit. Again, not with out a fair amount of credibility. He is a Kennedy Democrat and they are further to the left of the Democratic Party.

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, there is no politically powerful Left in America. The Democrats are centrists;

By international standards, a standard more or less irrelevant to internal American politics.

No, they're centrists even by domestic standards. Gay-marriage proponents are not exactly invisible, but the Democrats won't adopt their position. Socialized health-care proponents are not exactly invisible, but the Democrats won't adopt their position either. Opposition to the war was heated and very public, yet the Democrats refused to adopt that position either; a mistake which cost them in the election.

It worked because Kerry simply refused to commit on any number of issues. They attacked his record on leadership with the flip flopper. And to be fair that one was justified.

And they attacked his idealogy with he "far left" bit. Again, not with out a fair amount of credibility. He is a Kennedy Democrat and they are further to the left of the Democratic Party.

You seriously see no contradiction at all between "his voting record shows that he's a flip-flopper" and "his voting record is consistently the most liberal in the Senate"?

[Patrick Degan]

And they attacked his idealogy with he "far left" bit. Again, not with out a fair amount of credibility. He is a Kennedy Democrat and they are further to the left of the Democratic Party.

And the Greens are further left than the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party. To say that Kerry was a far-left candidate even on the American political spectrum is absurd.

[Stormbringer]

No, they're centrists even by domestic standards. Gay-marriage proponents are not exactly invisible, but the Democrats won't adopt their position. Socialized health-care proponents are not exactly invisible, but the Democrats won't adopt their position either. Opposition to the war was heated and very public, yet the Democrats refused to adopt that position either; a mistake which cost them in the election.

That's largely because the Democrats have been drifting and haven't taken a position on much of anything, let alone new still controversial issues. On more established, well argued issues the Democrats are definitely the Left of American politics. The Democrats are mostly just too timid to adopt a position on those issues. For the last four years they've been defined mostly by half-hearted opposition to the Republicans before they get bent over and assraped.

You seriously see no contradiction at all between "his voting record shows that he's a flip-flopper" and "his voting record is consistently the most liberal in the Senate"?

I think the whole thing was a bit schizo, yes. But the fact is they attacked him on two largely seperate areas with it: his voting record and his leadership/promises record.