Left vs. Right in 2 sentences
By Thoreau
While I often suggest that there isn’t enough difference between the parties on policy, there is clearly a difference between the movements. And this sums it up nicely:
When conservatives argue, they say, “my position is the really conservative one.” When liberals argue, they often still say, “my position isn’t too liberal, don’t worry.”
I think this explains why it is that although both sides have their kooks, one side calls its kooks “the Real Americans” and the other side mostly sneers at its kooks. Why this continues to be so continues to perplex me, but there it is.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 12, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
You’re missing the fundamental asymmetry: when so thoroughly out of power as the Reds are right now, the teams can let their kooks rage. Teabaggers, birthers, truthers, whatever.
In power, they can’t. Hence why folks like Glenn Greenwald are inconvenient to team Blue, and why the teabaggers will get sharply reined in once the Reds have the presidency again.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 12, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
Yes, they will be reined in, but they will still be called “Real Americans” or whatever in speeches. And out of power Blues will still go around explaining that they aren’t like those hippies, just as in power blues sneer at hippies.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 12, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
Until and unless teabaggers make the mistake of openly criticizing Reds in office while the team’s in power, Thoreau.
There’s something to “Reds like calling themselves conservatives and Blues are nervous about calling themselves liberals”, but it doesn’t mean very much in the end.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 12, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
I go back to the McCain campaign, when the loonies yelling “terrorist” and sending birfer emails were clearly harming the Republicans brand, and the party and campaign never said a thing.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 12, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
McCain, as an individual, admonished people for it at times. He didn’t devote the bulk of his attention to it, but well, one can rationalize that as resulting from the fact that the bulk of his attention was on campaigning.
The campaign as an institution, though, seemed to do even less than McCain as an individual. Whether we blame him or the people around him depends on the extent to which he could/did run the show. And I don’t know the answer to that.
Comment by Eric Martin —
July 12, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
Did he “admonish” or merely state that the allegations weren’t true?
I seem to remember the latter once or twice, but never the former.
Comment by drkrick —
July 12, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
Where do I find the party that says “my position is the correct one, let me prove why”?
Comment by chamblee54 —
July 12, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
There is the story of the man drowning fifty yards offshore. One team throws twenty five yards of rope, and says that the swim to the rope will do you good. The other side throws one hundred yards of rope, but leaves the shore without tying the rope to anything.
Comment by dhex —
July 12, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
and then there’s the guy with the rifle yelling “swim faster, motherfucker!”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 12, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
McCain did call out the crazies a little, but he was out there by himself when he did it. It would have been very easy for him to pivot off them in a Sistah Souljah moment, but there was never anything remotely close to that from the campaign.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 12, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
You need to throw that guy your rope!
Need to? What am I, your slave?
Comment by Leonard —
July 12, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
The left is the party of equality. They organize spontaneously around any manifestation of hierarchical order in human affairs: find a hierarchy, and there will be some leftists against it, who wish to destroy it, reform it, or regulate it. (Even the hierarchy of state superior to citizens has its detractors.)
Of course, many hierarchical human relationships are more popular than others. Not every leftish wishes to abolish the nuclear family. So some leftists must be marginalized, if the left is to have any hope of appealing to the middle. This is why, for example, John Edwards fired Amanda Marcotte. But still, there are famously no enemies on the left. Nobody is so far out that you must absolutely and permanently disassociate yourself from them and their ideas.
Thus, the fractiousness in the left is completely a matter of practical politics. People can honestly disagree about how much change the American people are ready for at any given time.
By contrast, the respectable right has its own spontaneous organizational method: find whatever the left is pushing, and oppose them. This is “conservativism” in a nutshell. Note, though, the distinction: the two organizational principles are not opposites. Being extreme left places you in opposition to all sorts of popular things: the family, private property, indeed the state itself. That is, you are not just extreme but radical. By contrast, being extremely conservative just means you oppose all change. This is not radical.
There is also the unrespectable right, aka reactionaries. They advocate creating new order; new hierarchies. In this they are the true opposite of the left. But there are almost no policies like this with any popular support whatever. Even the attitudes underlying reaction are suspect, and must be disowned. Recall the recent controversy over Rand Paul’s failure to adequately support the civil rights revolution.
Pingback by Pretty Much « Faux Populi —
July 13, 2010 @ 1:04 am
[...] via Left vs. Right in 2 sentences § Unqualified Offerings. [...]
Comment by CharleyCarp —
July 13, 2010 @ 4:11 am
Not every leftish wishes to abolish the nuclear family.
Use of “not every” to mean “fewer than one hundredth of one percent” isn’t usually considered, you know, honest.
Comment by ajay —
July 13, 2010 @ 5:37 am
although both sides have their kooks, one side calls its kooks “the Real Americans” and the other side mostly sneers at its kooks.
This may reflect the entirely human and understandable sentiment that you can sneer at the people with untidy hair and funny smelling plants, but you should suck up to the people with guns.
Comment by Willy —
July 13, 2010 @ 6:21 am
Being extreme left places you in opposition to all sorts of popular things: the family, private property, indeed the state itself.
Careful with that brush, you’re getting tar all over everything!
Comment by fish —
July 13, 2010 @ 8:41 am
Protecting the status quo has strong financial incentives. Media owners share those strong financial incentives. Given that, how would you expect the two sides to be covered?
Comment by hjh —
July 13, 2010 @ 10:08 am
@Leonard – The religious right are reactionaries, but I disagree that all their positions lack wide appeal. Offhand I think that their agenda is more cohesive than the left’s, but that’s not saying much.
Do hard economic times favor the right or left?
Comment by Leonard —
July 13, 2010 @ 10:59 am
Charley, the rhetorical device there is called “understatement”. It is a form of humor. It does rely on the audience being informed about the matter in question. I think most people who might read this blog know that very few wish to abolish the family.
Willy, a broad brush is useful for painting very large surfaces, as is the case here. If you’re not satisfied that there are those who wish to abolish the family, private property, or the state, or that these people are the left, then I invite you google, and judge for yourself:
“abolish the family”
“abolish private property”
“abolish the state”
hjh: I think the religious right is conservative far more than it is reactionary. Which positions of the religious right do you think are both reactionary and appealing?
Historically, hard times favor the left. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” But they only increase support for the economic program of the left. I think most leftward social progress happens in good times.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 13, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Leonard,
Are you actually claiming that those 99% of the left who don’t want to “abolish the nuclear family” are merely “a matter of practical politics?”
That Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, and I really want to abolish the nuclear family, but avoid making trouble purely for reasons of practical politics?
Because that’s just nuts.
Comment by doubled —
July 13, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Just what about the tea-partiers needs to be reined in? The harrasment of voters at polling stations a la Black Panthers in PA? The smashing of private property a la the anarchists at G20? The stoning of adulterers a la Islamists?
What have they done that NEEDS to be reined in , other than they have a different view on the proper functions of government than you, and used their right to assembly (with a lack of violence at any of the gatherings other than Gladney getting beaten by a uniomn thug) to make such views known. What can one possibly have against that?
Oh , that’s right , to be a tea-partier is by definition, to be a kook.
Comment by fyodor —
July 13, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
Men should be the sole breadwinners and decision makers of the family?
Off the top of my head….
@doubled – You seem to be appropriating the concept of “needs to be reigned in” to argue against something that was never said on this thread, as no one here suggested that teapartiers presented a violent threat, only that they presented an embarrassment to the Republican establishment.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 13, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
Well, the GOP will want them reined in because it’s inconvenient to have people protesting against Big Government when you’re in charge of it.
And I think they’re kooks because I simply do not trust an allegedly small-government movement that conveniently sprung up AFTER the Bush administration. Leaving aside my views on war and civil liberties, the wars were expensive, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit was expensive. However, there were no tea parties until Obama came along.
Comment by fyodor —
July 13, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Re-reading my last post, I should make clear that I don’t think the view that men should be the sole breadwinners and decision makers of the family is appealing to the majority of Americans, but then, if that’s what you (Leonard) meant, then “reactionary and appealing” would likely be oxymoronic, making your question rather moot, so I was giving “appealing” a much lower bar.
Comment by b-psycho —
July 13, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
New Rule: Invoking Saul Alinsky in reference to run-of-the-mill Democrats = automatic loss of argument.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 13, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
I have a thought: perhaps nominating Senate candidates on the grounds that they are less radical than the New Black Panther Party, the G20 protesters, or the Pakistani Taliban isn’t a winning political strategy.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 13, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Also, the court found that there was no evidence anyone harassed anyone at that polling place in Philly. Not a single voter or would-be voter reported any such harassment.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 13, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
Or who, you know, don’t like Obama continuing so many of GWB’s policies that Team Blue loudly complained about before they got the presidency.
The kookdom line is pretty much being drawn at “left of center and not in love with the current president”, which is why I find harping on Blues distancing themselves from “kooks” just not that impressive.
Comment by weaver —
July 13, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
Dear Americans,
Please stop referring to the Democratic Party and liberals as “the Left”.
Yours affectionately,
The Rest of the World.
Comment by drkrick —
July 14, 2010 @ 7:48 am
Nobody drop a match, please. There are so many straw men in this thread it will go up like a bonfire.
I think the kookdom line is actually drawn a little further over than that – probably around where the supposed lefties are teaming up with Grover Nordquist in order to promote more leftist outcomes.
Comment by dhex —
July 14, 2010 @ 8:23 am
And I think they’re kooks because I simply do not trust an allegedly small-government movement that conveniently sprung up AFTER the Bush administration.
well, there are credibility gaps and credibility canyons. or chasms if you will.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 14, 2010 @ 8:31 am
What weaver said.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 14, 2010 @ 10:58 am
I’m just happy to see Leonard back here as a commenter. Welcome back!
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 14, 2010 @ 11:22 am
Rest of the World: register to vote in our elections, and we’ll try to care what you think of our political labels.
Comment by ? —
July 14, 2010 @ 11:45 am
Question for you: what program was the progenitor of the Tea Parties, and which President started it?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 14, 2010 @ 11:46 am
Perhaps y’all should hash that all out – whether Team Blue is left of center, and whether the critics being marginalized are such (and if not, why they’re being marginalized).
From this vantage, this sort of thing is like hearing Costa Ricans declare that they aren’t actually in the Northern hemisphere (in between intimations that the inhabitants of Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, etc. all actually live within the confines of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station).
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 14, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
Some people claim it was TARP, which GWB signed into law on Oct 3, 2008.
The first Tea Party mail-in protest only organized a few days prior to Obama’s inauguration, which was Jan 20, 2009. Glenn Beck, Dave Ramsey, et al, only started pushing the “tea party” gimmick in the weeks following.
Considering the months-long wait until after the election, and the real mass, public outcry when Congress was actually voting on TARP, someone who isn’t married to Team Red will have trouble believing that these people first organized to complain about one action of a president who was no longer in office.
Comment by ? —
July 14, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
What was the ratio of phone calls and letters in response to TARP?
What was the original proposed size of ARRA?
Is it remotely possible that the outrage over the first program snowballed into protests over the second program, which crossed electoral cycles?
Nah —- they must be transparent, partisan hacks.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 14, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
That some people didn’t really follow the news before late 2008, then suddenly realized in 2009 that government was, like, big, and that it spent too much and on bad things?
I guess! That brings possible explanations up to two: partisanship and gob-smacking idiocy.
On the plus side, they’re not mutually exclusive.
Comment by dhex —
July 14, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
On the plus side, they’re not mutually exclusive.
perhaps there’s the whole “well, at least he’s *our* asshole” thing? which is lame as shit, but on the plus side there’s not a whole lot of puppet processionals clogging nyc these days either.
Comment by weaver —
July 14, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
Rest of the World: register to vote in our elections, and we’ll try to care what you think of our political labels.
Oh, you have a party called “the Left”. That’s interesting.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 15, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
The Rest of the World thinks “political label” equates to “political party name”?
…No, can’t claim that’s interesting, but good to know, I guess.
Comment by ? —
July 15, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
You may not remember, but government spending was not exactly at the top of everybody’s list when Iraq was going on. So, yeah, inattentiveness until TARP about government spending? Sure — and that may be called “stupid”, but when the choice is between stupidity and malevolence…
Comment by Thoreau —
July 15, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
We remember it quite well. We just interpret it differently than you do. Apparently, military spending isn’t counted as government spending by these people.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 15, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
You may not remember, ?, but American history did not start in 2003. (Also, that Iraq thing is still “going on”, just so you know.)
Why choose?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 15, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Dear Rest of the World:
It’s a truck. It’s an elevator. It’s called soccer.
And the Democrats are a party of the left.
Yuh-huh. Eleven carrier battle groups, that’s why.
P.S. – you need to make our chairs bigger.
love,
joe
Comment by joe from Lowell —
July 15, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Uh, yeah, those people at the Dick Armey astroturf rallies were really, really opposed to the Iraq War. I wonder what they did with all of their puppets? And minorities? And young people?
Comment by weaver —
July 15, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
It’s a truck. It’s an elevator. It’s called soccer.
And the Democrats are a party of the left.
“And when we play Canada at baseball, it’s a World Series.”
The Rest of the World thinks “political label” equates to “political party name”
Eric thinks voting rights determine accurate use of the English language? Eric thinks America’s pathetically denuded two-party system covers the whole of the political spectrum?
Y’know the penny ante insularity on display here* would almost be entertaining if the confusion in mainstream American discourse about political terms – the product not of a bona fide difference in American dialect but of major party newspeak and decades of McCarthyist hectoring – wasn’t precisely relevant to Thoreau’s post. When the liberal “side” distances itself from its “kooks” it’s nearly always a case of moderate (OK, extreme) right-wingers distancing themselves from actual leftists, something which is not remotely surprising. What’s surprising is the widespread acceptance of the con that everyone to the left of John McCain should be voting Democrat, which in the case of half the political spectrum would involve voting for a party whose policies and political philosophy are opposed to one’s own. Even American liberals often object to the grift, and they’re not even leftists.
“Hey, pal, that’s the way we talk” is not a valid rejoinder to someone pointing out that the American political spectrum – as it is defined in, and only in, mainstream American political and media commentary – represents an Overton window narrower than a bee’s dick and so far to the right it’s sunning itself in Bermuda.
* I.e. from Eric, who isn’t joking.
Comment by dhex —
July 15, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
oh boo fucking hoo, try being a minarchical barzunian aesthete.
more to the point, much like how everyone is a statist piglicker, it’s probably easier to see the entire universe as right wing when you’re standing on the other side of the galaxy.
just sayin’.
Comment by weaver —
July 15, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
Now, is that authentic frontier gibberish, or just the more general kind?
This isn’t about parallax error, it’s about a longstanding snowjob where an extreme-to-insane rightwing political party claims itself as representing those on the broad rightwing and a moderate-to-extreme rightwing political party claims itself as representing everyone else, while, in general, political discussion is framed to exclude all other possible positions. (Well, and it’s about the delusions of moderate righties who style themselves leftist for whatever bizarre reasons of their own, most probably part of some tribalist distaste for seeing themselves on the same side of the spectrum as their partisan opponents.) There is an entitlement to attack obfuscatory language use wherever it occurs, particularly when it has a practical impact.
I mean, I’m sad you Barzunites aren’t getting a place at the grown-ups’ table and all, but we’re talking about the exclusion of a significantly larger section of the spectrum, and the population represented by it, than some obscure libertarian sect here. (No offense, I’m sure y’all have really interesting and useful ideas.) A slab of political philosophies that continues significantly to the right of yours truly, while still deserving the title “left-wing”, just so we’re clear.
So there’s that, and the fact the terminology is simply wrong. I mean the discussion above fairly clearly demonstrates that the liberal-left synonym does nothing but create confusion, so why not dump it in the interests of clarity? Just sayin’.
Comment by Kolohe —
July 15, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
weaver, you’re still living in the same Earth where a not-USA legislative body just voted (with a solitary dissenting vote) to ban women from wearing an article of clothing, right? Not some parallel Earth? Just checkin’.
Comment by Kolohe —
July 15, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
(please ignore the fact that the English language press nearly always conflates the burqua with the nijab – and the abaya and the hijab)
Comment by weaver —
July 15, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
I believe not-USA is indeed the technical term for France.
Not sure what your point is unless you’re trying to make mine. That France’s socialists went along with the ban merely demonstrates that the left/right divide has fuck-all to do with the culture wars.
Comment by weaver —
July 15, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
…unless you’re saying that France’s party political system actually consists of two (or more) right-wing parties some of which pretend to be left, just like in the US. Again, the refutation would be… what?
Think the blog’s moved on, tho’. Might do the same.
Comment by dhex —
July 16, 2010 @ 7:52 am
suggestion: perhaps this broad american left you speak of isn’t as broad as you seem to think it is.
Comment by GinSlinger —
July 16, 2010 @ 8:47 am
Something I’ve learned from weaver: Qualitative assessments must be devoid of context. Good to know!
Next he’ll inform us that The Communist Party in former Soviet “republics” is actually right-wing (they are called “conservatives” after all) and are virtually identical to, I don’t know, the Anti-Corn League.
Comment by dhex —
July 16, 2010 @ 9:53 am
well, taking this same template but in reverse, do paleos or traditionalists or other marginalized “true” right wing groups argue the same about the republicans? (i’m fairly sure the paleos do, having not much of a home there)
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 16, 2010 @ 11:45 am
No. Can The Rest of The World indicate where I said either?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 16, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
(Does the rest of the world think Costa Rica covers the entire northern hemisphere?
)
Weaver’s apparently scarpered, but hey:
The left-right “divide” has fuck-all to do with quite a bit.
That people outside the US consider anyone to the “right” of Ralph Nader to be dang near a fascist (to mildly exaggerate) really doesn’t matter in US discussions of US politics. There’s nothing insular about it, any more than it would be insular if Europeans really didn’t care about some American Blue whining about references to free market ideas as “neo-liberalism”.
I know I referenced hemispheres and the equator the other day, but the cold truth is that the left/right division isn’t even as meaningful as that imaginary line. They’re vague ideological directions, and the “division” between them lies directly on the local mainstream, whatever it is.
There’s nothing remotely more objective about the conception of the spectrum of left and right in France than there is in the US. It makes no more sense to discuss French politics in terms of the US view of left and right than it does to discuss US politics in terms of the French view – either is a remarkably blinkered view.
Comment by weaver —
July 16, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
You illiterati seem hung up on the “rest of the world” thang, but this isn’t about natural American dialect as any American socialist will cheerfully explain. You also seem to think that the meanings of political terms shift on the basis of opinion polls – this possibly explains why a sizeable number of Americans think Obama is a socialist. Is this a helpful description? Does it give you any insight into his policies? Clearly not, and neither does decoupling the descriptions left and right from the more specific terms, and imagining that the centre of the spectrum lies between your two largest political groupings regardless of how far to the right or left those groupings sit, which position is determined by the extent to which their political philosophies and policies are sensibly described by the more specific terms.
some American Blue whining about references to free market ideas as “neo-liberalism”
Thanks for making my point – just because some GOPer thinks “liberalism”=”socialism”, and therefore “neoliberalism” does too, doesn’t make it so. Leftism describes a range of political philosophies from social democracy through socialism to left anarchism. Liberalism describes another viewpoint. The confusion starts when you begin calling liberals “left”.
All the arguments about straw men and “no true Scotsman” in the thread above should be a clue – treating liberalism and leftism as synonyms clouds meaning and confuses discussion. Which is, of course, precisely the intention and precisely why the peculiar American usage is standard in mainstream American commentary.
Comment by weaver —
July 16, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Oh, and bear in mind a lot of this has to do with the fetishisation of the centre as the position of sensible “moderation”. If the centre isn’t really the centre that grift ceases to work.
Comment by weaver —
July 17, 2010 @ 12:20 am
Suggestions for further time-wasting:
- referencing the meaningless progressive / conservative heuristic
- a discussion of the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly circa 1789