Left vs Right

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Originally, as far as I know, "right" meant supporters of the established rulers, and "left" meant the opponents of the established rulers.

It does not mean that anymore....

Left/right, liberal/conservative… amorphous and slippery terms. The panoply of meaning is too broad, for us to aspire to any sort of accuracy with a quick, curt label. But this doesn’t render the discussion stupid or useless.

Broadly, the one side is tribal, the other is universalist. The one side believes that its history, traditions, culture and identity are not merely special, but deserve a particular veneration. The other side contends that most cultures differ only in minor details, that most people have comparable mores and aspirations, and that while it’s pleasant and fulfilling to celebrate one’s heritage, this can’t be done at the detriment of pan-human cohesion and interchange. Today, this latter view is often tarred with the label “globalist”.

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

This was especially confusing during the Trump election. Democrats had absolutely no idea that Trump's middle class supporters were angry about the same things that middle class Democrats were angry about.

Let me reverse the question. Take the kids who graduated with STEM degrees in the 1990s, landing plum jobs at Google or Microsoft; or the folks who stayed in the stock market throughout the 1970s, riding the bull-market of the 1980s and 1990s. They absolutely adore the post-war (that is, post-WW2) consensus, the European Union, modern markets, modern flow of capital and labor. They're angry with the people who are angry. Well, who are these folks now - are they Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative?

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

Nothing is as bad as murdering innocent people in order to protect oil interests. Nothing is as costly as our military industrial complex playing policeman all over the world.

The modern rubric of American military involvement worldwide was largely put in place under the moderate administrations of Truman and Eisenhower… one Democrat, one Republican. From our vantage point in 2017, the question becomes: “To what extent is America’s playing ‘world policeman’ (1) a righteous and selfless fighting for human freedom, (2) a cynical and dastardly power-grab, (3) just plain-Jane Realpolitik, (4) the logical outgrowth of mere self-defense, or (5) a muddled and rudderless random traipse"?

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

It's about being a republic not about mob rule.

But if we take the libertarian approach, of maximizing the space for individual action - is that in furtherance of the cause of being a Republic, or on the contrary, is that mob rule?

Originally Posted by T0103E

I don't think left vs. right ever mattered as much as control-oriented vs. freedom-oriented.

Not really. Conservatives are self-styled champions of the 2nd Amendment, but tend to prefer more restrictions on sexual behavior and consumption of chemicals. Liberals are the reverse. Libertarians would chime in, saying that they endorse both kinds of freedom, and in particular economic freedom. But their advocacy for a small-government leaves us without protection from the intrusion of corporate interests, or any other non-governmental assail against freedom.

Then there's the question of national defense. Who is it who advocates for a muscular American foreign policy, where American values are promulgated aggressively abroad, and in the case of opposition, American military force is used? Is this Left, or Right?

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Not really. Conservatives are self-styled champions of the 2nd Amendment, but tend to prefer more restrictions on sexual behavior and consumption of chemicals. Liberals are the reverse. Libertarians would chime in, saying that they endorse both kinds of freedom, and in particular economic freedom. But their advocacy for a small-government leaves us without protection from the intrusion of corporate interests, or any other non-governmental assail against freedom.

Then there's the question of national defense. Who is it who advocates for a muscular American foreign policy, where American values are promulgated aggressively abroad, and in the case of opposition, American military force is used? Is this Left, or Right?

Libertarianism is about respect for individual rights. The opposite is authoritarianism, which is some authority issuing commands that individuals must obey.

Both left and right can be (and are) authoritarian, just authoritarian in different ways. I don't think it matters so much whether the jackboot on your neck is on the left or right foot.

[Reno Dweller]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

I think the idea of "left" vs "right" in American politics has become meaningless and confusing.

Originally, as far as I know, "right" meant supporters of the established rulers, and "left" meant the opponents of the established rulers.

It does not mean that anymore.

Now we use "left" to refer to Democrats, liberals and socialists. And "right" refers to Republicans, libertarians, and social traditionalists.

All those things do NOT fit into the "left" and "right" boxes. How is a libertarian a supporter of the established rulers? How isWe've done a liberal Democrat an opponent of the established rulers?

Our political categories have evolved way beyond the left-right dichotomy. And they probably never fit even at the beginning.

The major division right now, as I see it, is the general public vs the globalist elite. By the old definition, that would make 99% of us "leftists."

This was especially confusing during the Trump election. Democrats had absolutely no idea that Trump's middle class supporters were angry about the same things that middle class Democrats were angry about.

Many voters chose Trump because he seemed to be an opponent of the globalist elite, the established rulers. In other words, by the old definition, Trump was seen as a leftist.

I think we need to stop naming things incorrectly, and was also should stop trying to squeeze all ideas into one of two parties.

Left, right, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, libertarian, or whatever, the way I see it we're all Americans and I wish we can all work together and focus on keeping America prosperous, strong, in the economy, all branches of the military, keep our borders and our nation secure, and protect our freedoms.

There are important things that we need to focus on instead of wasting time fighting over meaningless things. We were able to do this in the past without so much division and there's no reason we can't do it again.

[Good4Nothin]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Left/right, liberal/conservative… amorphous and slippery terms. The panoply of meaning is too broad, for us to aspire to any sort of accuracy with a quick, curt label. But this doesn’t render the discussion stupid or useless.

Broadly, the one side is tribal, the other is universalist. The one side believes that its history, traditions, culture and identity are not merely special, but deserve a particular veneration. The other side contends that most cultures differ only in minor details, that most people have comparable mores and aspirations, and that while it’s pleasant and fulfilling to celebrate one’s heritage, this can’t be done at the detriment of pan-human cohesion and interchange. Today, this latter view is often tarred with the label “globalist”.

I don't think you understand. You are looking at the "right" from the perception of a "leftist." I don't think you are seeing things objectively.

Tribalism in its extreme forms is outdated, partly because there are just too many of us. We can't have millions of little tribes all fighting each other. But moderate tribalism is natural and necessary. We can't all care about the whole world, that is impractical and impossible. What the "new nationalists" are saying, I think, is simply that you look after your own family, your own territory, before trying to look after others. Would you feed your neighbor's children if your own were starving?

Putting American first is just practical common sense. Universalism, globalism, are intellectual ideals that do not lead anywhere positive. The whole world cannot agree on everything. We do not want a world government that tries to please everyone and winds up only pleasing itself.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Reno Dweller

Left, right, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, libertarian, or whatever, the way I see it we're all Americans and I wish we can all work together and focus on keeping America prosperous, strong, in the economy, all branches of the military, keep our borders and our nation secure, and protect our freedoms.

There are important things that we need to focus on instead of wasting time fighting over meaningless things. We were able to do this in the past without so much division and there's no reason we can't do it again.

The above is certainly a reasonable point of departure, but any delving into specifics immediately runs into controversy. For example, what is the juxtaposition of keeping one nation prosperous, and prosperity and progress for the whole world? Does one nation have any particular responsibility to other nations, or only to itself? If only to itself, what prevents a narrowly tribal view, where anything outside of national borders is expendable and irrelevant? If not only to itself, then what sort of international responsibility is there, and what happens to this responsibility, if other nations aren't like-minded, but turn insular and parochial?

Then, regarding the military... do we take the military as a wholesome and worthwhile institution in its own right, as a good venue for maturing our young-people, for advancing technology and so forth? Or, do we view the military as merely a tool of national policy?

Freedoms... can we protect all freedoms simultaneously, or are some superior to others? What about security? How much freedom ought to be surrender for ensuring security - or is the very idea odious and cowardly? With govern stepping back, allowing individuals maximum freedom, what's the recourse if the strong oppress the weak? Is such a thing acceptable, given the alternative of an authoritarian-leaning government? Or not?

The reason for such plethora of division, is that society is getting ever more complicated. There's just so much more to think about, than there was 50 or 100 or in particular 240 years ago.

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

I don't think you understand. You are looking at the "right" from the perception of a "leftist." I don't think you are seeing things objectively.

Tribalism in its extreme forms is outdated, partly because there are just too many of us. We can't have millions of little tribes all fighting each other. But moderate tribalism is natural and necessary. We can't all care about the whole world, that is impractical and impossible. What the "new nationalists" are saying, I think, is simply that you look after your own family, your own territory, before trying to look after others. Would you feed your neighbor's children if your own were starving?

Putting American first is just practical common sense. Universalism, globalism, are intellectual ideals that do not lead anywhere positive. The whole world cannot agree on everything. We do not want a world government that tries to please everyone and winds up only pleasing itself.

Tribalism is any ethos with division into "us" and "them", the "us" being of particular primacy and goodness, and the "them" being suspect. A tribe can be millions strong, and indeed, 330 million strong. but are tribal ties a compelling and legitimate way of viewing the world? Therein lies the debate.

If the "new nationalists" strike you as being reasonable and practical, then you've already concluded the debate, from one particular viewpoint.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

The modern rubric of American military involvement worldwide was largely put in place under the moderate administrations of Truman and Eisenhower… one Democrat, one Republican. From our vantage point in 2017, the question becomes: “To what extent is America’s playing ‘world policeman’ (1) a righteous and selfless fighting for human freedom, (2) a cynical and dastardly power-grab, (3) just plain-Jane Realpolitik, (4) the logical outgrowth of mere self-defense, or (5) a muddled and rudderless random traipse"?

I went with #2. It's about control and power while they use #1 as the fake reason.

I just don't see how arming the 9/11 bombers country to the teeth in order to starve people in Yemen as being noble. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

But if we take the libertarian approach, of maximizing the space for individual action - is that in furtherance of the cause of being a Republic, or on the contrary, is that mob rule?

Laws that protect the rights of the individual. Fifty states with slightly differing governments. Has to be some place for everyone in there I'd think.

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Not really. Conservatives are self-styled champions of the 2nd Amendment, but tend to prefer more restrictions on sexual behavior and consumption of chemicals. Liberals are the reverse. Libertarians would chime in, saying that they endorse both kinds of freedom, and in particular economic freedom. But their advocacy for a small-government leaves us without protection from the intrusion of corporate interests, or any other non-governmental assail against freedom.

I go by conservative is less federal government vs progressive is more federal govenment. It is very confusing.

[Good4Nothin]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Tribalism is any ethos with division into "us" and "them", the "us" being of particular primacy and goodness, and the "them" being suspect. A tribe can be millions strong, and indeed, 330 million strong. but are tribal ties a compelling and legitimate way of viewing the world? Therein lies the debate.

If the "new nationalists" strike you as being reasonable and practical, then you've already concluded the debate, from one particular viewpoint.

The paradox is that by being against tribalism, you define yourself as a member of the anti-tribalist tribe. You see anyone who wants to put their own nation first as the enemy.

Anti-tribalists, globalists, intellectual elitists, are some of the most fiercely tribal people. They perceive everyone with opposing views as ignorant, stupid, and/or evil.