Do you lean right or left?

[Evangeline]

I made this thread on another board too - understand that that other board has a LOT of right wing extremists....but I have been thinking about this, in reaction to their posts and complete opposite ideals to mine. These are some of the things they've been posting, that I describe here, in the for and against list. Here's the thread (it applies there, more than here):

I wonder what the make up of this board is? I've noticed an extreme split in opinions about issues and I think I've a list of the right wing ideals and the left wing ideals. Which way do you lean?

Torture:
Right for, left against

The right seems to think torture works and keeps us safe, the left seems to think it doesn't work and actually enables the terrorists to recruit new soldiers who want to kill us for revenge.

Cheney
Right for, left against

The right seems to like this "work on the dark side" character. The left thinks he's an evil and greedy man who's filled his bank accounts with war profiteering.

Government
Left for, Right against

The left seems to believe that with the right leaders and politicians government can work well for the people. The right's motto is government does not work and they seem to elect people who believe this, and proceed to break the government, so it fails to protect (risky bank deals that wreck the economy) and serve (FEMA's Katrina failure for 5 days while people drowned) the tax paying public.

Department of Education
Left for, Right against

The left wants a good national public school system so we have an educated public because we know that a democracy cannot last without an educated public. The right (libertarians) want to remove the Department of Education. They want a small government. They think the states should handle education. This means rich states have educated people and poor states have ignorant masses who will turn to crime and welfare, and the rich states would have to support them. This is already happening, with the northeast subsidizing the south.

Regulation
Left for, Right against

The Republicans and Libertarians have been promoting deregulation for over 30 years. Republican politicians have written bills such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and stuck it into the appropriations bill signed by Clinton in 1999. This act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies. This led to our economic crisis of today. The left wants these regulations put back into place so we can avoid the boom and bust economy and go back to the steady economic growth that we had for 50 years after FDR.

There are many more differences. Please point them out for us in this thread, and vote in the poll so we can see the ideological make up of this board.

Left leaning
Liberals
Progressives
Democrats
Greens

Right leaning
Conservatives
Republicans
Libertarians

[Donkey]

Uh... well, I voted left... but I think that your distinctions are somewhat oversimplistic.

[partofme]

I'm not going to vote. People try to hard to pigeonhole themselves into a category or group. I look at every issue/situation on it's own rather than subscribing to ideology.

[Lance]

Leftwingers=godless immoralists.

[aaronssongs]

Leftwingers=godless immoralists.
******** What an outrageous mischaracterization!


Moderator's Note: Please do not engage in direct insults of another member.

[Evangeline]

Uh... well, I voted left... but I think that your distinctions are somewhat oversimplistic.

I'm a simple girl ;)

[Evangeline]

You're sick. What an outrageous mischaracterization!

Don't feed the troll. Maybe he'll go away.

[Evangeline]

I'm not going to vote. People try to hard to pigeonhole themselves into a category or group. I look at every issue/situation on it's own rather than subscribing to ideology.

Take my points then, and tell me where I'm wrong.

[Dominick]

Extreme left. The other left-voters reserve the right to distance themselves from me :D

[SMadsen]

Leaning left when I'm not center. However, as the majority here thinks in terms of American politics I'll refrain from elaborating on "center" :D

[dilettante]

I don't think I can vote in this one, since I move back and forth depending on the category (and I'm somewhat leery of your characterizations).

I think it's a little odd that you gave one man, Dick Cheney, his very own category on par with the mega-abstract issues like "Government" and "Regulation".

Anyway, I generally think of my self as being just right of center.

[Michael]

I voted "left" according to the definitions given in the OP - which as Donkey noted are a bit simplistic. ;)

I'm probably fairly moderate/centerist by both US and Canadian standards and moderately 'rightwing' by the European standard.

But by US partisan definitions, I'm probably a radical lefty. :lol:

[The Drunk Guy]

The topics given are topical. Left or right is part of an overall opinion of how government should work, not just how they should handle Torture and Dick Cheney (which should be one category).

To be honest, right and left aren't what they used to be. Nowadays, its just of choice of where I want the government's nonexistent money to go.

[partofme]

Take my points then, and tell me where I'm wrong.

Your just not telling the whole story. You picked issues that a great deal of people would probably consider themselves left on by modern American definitions but I could easily make another version that tilts people the other way.

[Americano]

I declined participation in the poll. I focus on specific, not general issues and my conclusions are all over the board without regard to political ideology.

[Evangeline]

Your just not telling the whole story. You picked issues that a great deal of people would probably consider themselves left on by modern American definitions but I could easily make another version that tilts people the other way.

OK show me your version.

I just wrote on topics I was thinking of off the top of my head. This is how it looks to me. The right is pro-torture, pro-cheney, pro-deregulations, etc.....of course there are many other issues, but I don't have all day to list them. ;)

[partofme]

OK show me your version.

I just wrote on topics I was thinking of off the top of my head. This is how it looks to me. The right is pro-torture, pro-cheney, pro-deregulations, etc.....of course there are many other issues, but I don't have all day to list them. ;)
I don't really have a interest in making a poll that tries to put people in black and white categories. Solutions to problems and positions on issues are more complicated than that.

[dilettante]

The right is pro-torture, pro-cheney, pro-deregulations, etc.....

But they aren't, at least not all of them, any more than "the left" is pro-socialism, pro-Nader, and pro-Union. And you can't put everyone who supports deregulation into the same box with everyone who supports torture without looking biased. If you wanted to get a real feel for the people here you might go for a poll that lets people self-identify and then explain what being "left" or "right" means to them.

[Evangeline]

But they aren't, at least not all of them, any more than "the left" is pro-socialism, pro-Nader, and pro-Union. And you can't put everyone who supports deregulation into the same box with everyone who supports torture without looking biased. If you wanted to get a real feel for the people here you might go for a poll that lets people self-identify and then explain what being "left" or "right" means to them.

Like I explained, this thread wasn't made for the people here. It's a thread about what I've seen on message boards, from the right and from the left, in this country. It seems like you guys don't really want to admit there are people out there who fit into the categories I posted. Well there are, don't take my word for it, go to some other boards and see for yourself. I've had long detailed discussions with people who think torture is awesome, Cheney is awesome, degregulation is great, etc.....

Anyway, no one here fits these descriptions, so some of you might take offense at being lumped in with these Limbaugh loving righties I'm referring to. So understand, that's not the intent of this thread. This is just my simple view and understanding of the right wingers I type to on message boards. This is what they believe in.

I'm sure some of you must have come across these people in your message board travels.

[Donkey]

The far left is also anti-government.

[partofme]

Like I explained, this thread wasn't made for the people here. It's a thread about what I've seen on message boards, from the right and from the left, in this country. It seems like you guys don't really want to admit there are people out there who fit into the categories I posted. Well there are, don't take my word for it, go to some other boards and see for yourself. I've had long detailed discussions with people who think torture is awesome, Cheney is awesome, degregulation is great, etc.....

Anyway, no one here fits these descriptions, so some of you might take offense at being lumped in with these Limbaugh loving righties I'm referring to. So understand, that's not the intent of this thread. This is just my simple view and understanding of the right wingers I type to on message boards. This is what they believe in.

I'm sure some of you must have come across these people in your message board travels.
So the poll is only for ideologues? Did you vote?

[Daktoria]

Department of Education
Left for, Right against

The left wants a good national public school system so we have an educated public because we know that a democracy cannot last without an educated public. The right (libertarians) want to remove the Department of Education. They want a small government. They think the states should handle education. This means rich states have educated people and poor states have ignorant masses who will turn to crime and welfare, and the rich states would have to support them. This is already happening, with the northeast subsidizing the south.


This really depends on whether you're conservative or libertarian; only need to remember that Bush Jr. implemented NCLB for the sake of bringing together compassionate conservatives with progressive liberals. A more balanced question would be, "Teacher Unions: left yes, right no."

The far left is also anti-government.

Anarchy ftw. :thumbsup:

[wphelan]

Department of Education
Left for, Right against

The left wants a good national public school system so we have an educated public because we know that a democracy cannot last without an educated public. The right (libertarians) want to remove the Department of Education. They want a small government. They think the states should handle education. This means rich states have educated people and poor states have ignorant masses who will turn to crime and welfare, and the rich states would have to support them. This is already happening, with the northeast subsidizing the south.

[

This is an assumption I hear all the time that kind of irks me. Is a centralized department of education the only way we can have an educated public? What does the US Department of Education do that is so crucial that anyone who favors its elimination is characterized as anti-education?

[Evangeline]

This is an assumption I hear all the time that kind of irks me. Is a centralized department of education the only way we can have an educated public? What does the US Department of Education do that is so crucial that anyone who favors its elimination is characterized as anti-education?

It makes sure that poor states have as good a system as rich states.

[dilettante]

Like I explained, this thread wasn't made for the people here. It's a thread about what I've seen on message boards, from the right and from the left, in this country. It seems like you guys don't really want to admit there are people out there who fit into the categories I posted. Well there are, don't take my word for it, go to some other boards and see for yourself. I've had long detailed discussions with people who think torture is awesome, Cheney is awesome, degregulation is great, etc.....

Anyway, no one here fits these descriptions, so some of you might take offense at being lumped in with these Limbaugh loving righties I'm referring to. So understand, that's not the intent of this thread. This is just my simple view and understanding of the right wingers I type to on message boards. This is what they believe in.

I'm sure some of you must have come across these people in your message board travels.

Ah, I misunderstood your intentions. My apologies.
I don't think anyone doubts that people with the views you describe exist. However, it appeared to me that you were setting up a dichotomy with no room for middle ground.

[andrewl]

I'm standing displaced from the spectrum altogether, leaning away from it.

Andrew

[Korimyr the Rat]

My lean really depends on who you ask.

Ask just about anyone to the left of Arlen Specter, and I'm a vicious reactionary thug who supports needless killing and opposes multiculturalism, minority rights, a living wage, endangered species, the environment, and the freedom of expression. I'm an evangelical moralist trying to shove my moral judgments down everyone elses' throats.

Ask anyone to the right of Colin Powell, and I'm a soulless babykilling monstrosity who wants to play Robin Hood with corporate executives, burn down Christian churches and take God out of the public sphere, raise everyone's taxes, and expand the government into a monolithic nightmare that peeks in peoples' windows and steals their bodily fluids. I'm a radical socialist trying to control what other people can do with their own money.

They're both right. *shrug*

[Evangeline]

Ah, I misunderstood your intentions. My apologies.
I don't think anyone doubts that people with the views you describe exist. However, it appeared to me that you were setting up a dichotomy with no room for middle ground.

I probably am. My friends tell me to get a grey area. Apparently I don't have one!

:lol::shrug:

[Multiplum]

I have no idea. Like many how pointed out, it depends on the context. The average self-proclaimed American conservative would call me a "leftist" without a doubt.

[Greendruid]

I voted that I lean left but I have several points on which I'd rather not government be involved at all - like the legal patenting of genes.

Then again, I have several gods so what does that make me?

[Michael]

My lean really depends on who you ask.

Ask just about anyone to the left of Arlen Specter, and I'm a vicious reactionary thug who supports needless killing and opposes multiculturalism, minority rights, a living wage, endangered species, the environment, and the freedom of expression. I'm an evangelical moralist trying to shove my moral judgments down everyone elses' throats.

Ask anyone to the right of Colin Powell, and I'm a soulless babykilling monstrosity who wants to play Robin Hood with corporate executives, burn down Christian churches and take God out of the public sphere, raise everyone's taxes, and expand the government into a monolithic nightmare that peeks in peoples' windows and steals their bodily fluids. I'm a radical socialist trying to control what other people can do with their own money.

They're both right. *shrug*
:rofl:

That's priceless and brilliantly funny Rat. Pity that it is so true. ;)

[Korimyr the Rat]

That's priceless and brilliantly funny Rat. Pity that it is so true. ;)

A pity that it's true they say that, or a pity that what they are saying is true? ;)

[Michael]

A pity that it's true they say that, or a pity that what they are saying is true? ;)
It is a pity that you agreed that "they're both right". :D

Bringing you around to a reasonable classically liberal position is of course my goal - I like a good challenge! :p

(Between you and Daktoria, I have my work cut out for me!!!)

[Korimyr the Rat]

What do you think is going to be the harder sell, convincing me that all people are created equal, or convincing me that even the barest majority of people are qualified to govern themselves in any meaningful fashion?

[Michael]

What do you think is going to be the harder sell, convincing me that all people are created equal, or convincing me that even the barest majority of people are qualified to govern themselves in any meaningful fashion?
Thanks for giving me your key points of objection. That saves a lot of trouble. :D

And I can assure you, I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you of those things. I'm more inclined to try to convince you to draw a different conclusion from the same data set. ;)

[Daktoria]

It is a pity that you agreed that "they're both right". :D

Bringing you around to a reasonable classically liberal position is of course my goal - I like a good challenge! :p

(Between you and Daktoria, I have my work cut out for me!!!)

Heh, I'm not too sure that's gunna happen cuz I don't feel you're a classical liberal yourself. Laissez-faire economics is a cornerstone of classical liberalism, something which isn't exactly on the plate you're offering.

Another problem ur gunna have is that I don't believe in natural rights. Like I've said before, justice is a subjective and normative value set that's subject to power distribution. Ergo, the only reason people should accept natural rights is because they would feel socially awkward otherwise, awkwardness which isn't exactly part of my personality (as if you haven't already noticed from how many bullets I'm willing to bite). :lol:

[Donkey]

Heh, I'm not too sure that's gunna happen cuz I don't feel you're a classical liberal yourself. Laissez-faire economics is a cornerstone of classical liberalism, something which isn't exactly on the plate you're offering.

Another problem ur gunna have is that I don't believe in natural rights. Like I've said before, justice is a subjective and normative value set that's subject to power distribution. Ergo, the only reason people should accept natural rights is because they would feel socially awkward otherwise, awkwardness which isn't exactly part of my personality (as if you haven't already noticed from how many bullets I'm willing to bite). :lol:
*shrug*

There are a lot of big men on the internet.

[Michael]

Heh, I'm not too sure that's gunna happen cuz I don't feel you're a classical liberal yourself. Laissez-faire economics is a cornerstone of classical liberalism, something which isn't exactly on the plate you're offering.

I strongly dispute that classical liberalism requires laissez-faire economics. That's an extremist position more akin to libertarianism.

Classical liberals merely favor the market, the principle of free trade and the principle of individual rights. Laissez-faire economics goes far beyond that.

Classical liberals are too aware of the inherent problem of the 'assymetry' of information for perfect laissez-faire economic theory to be fully functional.

In other words, capitalism is good only insofar as it contributes to general liberty and happiness. Unfettered liberty for capital is not a fundamental goal of classical liberalism and never has been.

Another problem ur gunna have is that I don't believe in natural rights. Like I've said before, justice is a subjective and normative value set that's subject to power distribution. Ergo, the only reason people should accept natural rights is because they would feel socially awkward otherwise, awkwardness which isn't exactly part of my personality (as if you haven't already noticed from how many bullets I'm willing to bite). :lol:
Huh? How can you be conservative and not believe in natural right? How can you make your argument about virtue without recourse to natural right? Natural right was the cornerstone of your vitue argument in the other thread.

[Daktoria]

I strongly dispute that classical liberalism requires laissez-faire economics. That's an extremist position more akin to libertarianism.

Classical liberals merely favor the market, the principle of free trade and the principle of individual rights. Laissez-faire economics goes far beyond that.

Classical liberals are too aware of the inherent problem of the 'assymetry' of information for perfect laissez-faire economic theory to be fully functional.

In other words, capitalism is good only insofar as it contributes to general liberty and happiness. Unfettered liberty for capital is not a fundamental goal of classical liberalism and never has been.


Huh? How can you be conservative and not believe in natural right? How can you make your argument about virtue without recourse to natural right? Natural right was the cornerstone of your vitue argument in the other thread.

I'm yet to see an account of classical liberalism which doesn't advocate for laissez-faire free markets for the sake of prioritizing negative liberty over positive liberty. Regardless, if it came down to it, I'd prefer laissez-faire free markets in the form of market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism than retain loyalties to classical liberalism as a whole. Such is because, for me, conservatism can only be experienced and enjoyed after libertarianism has already been experienced and enjoyed, not the other way around since tradition can never become an addiction if it's going to become a properly integral part of government.

Huh? How can you be conservative and not believe in natural right? How can you make your argument about virtue without recourse to natural right? Natural right was the cornerstone of your vitue argument in the other thread.If you want to equate Kant's formula of humanity, Nozick's entitlement theory, Rawls' original position and difference principle, and Gauthier's constrained maximization to natural rights, be my guest, but you'll remember how I've repeatedly noted that power distribution is the only reason "rights" are ever respected. People get along because we want to, not because nature bestows some predisposition which punishes the wicked and protects the weak. Such is the whole purpose why man rises up beyond the state of nature in the first place.

[Michael]

If you want to equate Kant's formula of humanity, Nozick's entitlement theory, Rawls' original position and difference principle, and Gauthier's constrained maximization to natural rights, be my guest, but you'll remember how I've repeatedly noted that power distribution is the only reason "rights" are ever respected. People get along because we want to, not because nature bestows some predisposition which punishes the wicked and protects the weak. Such is the whole purpose why man rises up beyond the state of nature in the first place.
Clearly there is some confusion on terms here with "natural rights" and "natural right".

I understand that you reject the first (as do I), but your virtue argument requires the second. That was my point.

[Daktoria]

Following are the only references I've made to the word, "virtue" in the torture thread:

Lastly, yes, I believe in optimally resolute morality (call it Kant's Kingdom of Ends if you want) although I wouldn't call it "virtue" per se. However, I also believe that conflict resolution should take place as efficiently as possible no matter how much violence such efficiency demands. I believe in this particularly so when such conflict involves moderate and hedonist appreciations of the soul, especially when MODERATE (NOT hedonist) appreciations are at hand. Such is because one, there is no better way to test and filter moderates for moral appreciation than to throw them into the gauntlet where they are forced to perform in order to survive, and two, hedonists are only morally worthwhile when they are involved in the one thing they do best - engaging in conflict.

Regarding citizen morale, you're absolutely right considering that citizens provide the logistical foundation for any war machine especially in liberal democracies engaging in offensive campaigns. However, this is a weakness of democracies which grant too many liberties to immature citizenry that demand explicit State provided proof for policy implementation. A responsible democracy would contain not only an abundance of independently provided information, but also high profile streamlined records of precedents which show how such information has been previously processed in order to minimize redundant moral experiences, profiles which do not get convoluted via information overload and political correctness. Unfortunately, liberal democracies cater to information overload when maximizing equal opportunities while simultaneously catering to political correctness when normalizing the citizenry under customs, virtues, values, memes, etc.

Basically, it's a trap that democracies can't escape since values need to be individually appreciated in order to be resolutely integrated throughout a culture. When normalization takes place via political means though, coercion is an intrinsic part of the process.

My goal in both references is to show the fault of virtue, so unless you're referring to a different thread, I don't believe I've defended a position based on virtue yet.

[Donkey]

*shrug*

There are a lot of big men on the internet.
I'd just like to clarify that I wasn't getting down on Daktoria. I was just making the observation that what you see isn't always, or even necessarily usually, what you get when it comes to internet personalities.

[Daktoria]

I'd just like to clarify that I wasn't getting down on Daktoria. I was just making the observation that what you see isn't always, or even necessarily usually, what you get when it comes to internet personalities.

Er, define, "big". :popcorn:

[Dominick]

Er, define, "big". :popcorn:
Je ne pourrais pas dire mais je pourrais bien vous expliquer ce que c'est, le surréalisme. :)

[Daktoria]

Merci... je crois. :)

I just learned that I'm 1/8th Scots-Quebecer so it seemed worthwhile to learn some French. Just please don't count on me to carry on a conversation! :eek:

[Donkey]

Je ne pourrais pas dire mais je pourrais bien vous expliquer ce que c'est, le surréalisme. :)
Yo no _____ decir mas que ____ usted explicar que es, el surrealismo?



Quoi?

[Dominick]

Ich kann das nicht sagen sondern Ich möchte gerne Die erklären was Surrealismus ist.

I hope Malvolio isn't around :rofl:

[Michael]

Please note that English is the language of discussion at this forum. Please do not post messages in languages other than English. If there is interest, we can establish a non-English language section.

[The Drunk Guy]

Please note that English is the language of discussion at this forum. Please do not post messages in languages other than English. If there is interest, we can establish a non-English language section.
:nazi:





:angel: