Difference between left and right?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, usually I avoid the PPR forums like the plague, but I figure since the people here are constantly in some kind of flame war - err, debate - about politics, it makes sense to consult the experts.

So. My question is, what is the difference between the terms left-wing and right-wing when applied to politics, specifically American politics?

If I knew who could be considered "left" or "right" (Democrats <-> Republicans? Conservatives <-> Liberals? Capitalists <-> Socialists?) it would help me get a grasp on this bipartisan BS that I keep hearing in the media.

And please, I don't wanna hear whether one is better than the other, I just want to know what the hell they are and what the difference is between the two.

In the British Parliament, I believe subject to correction, the leftists sat on the left. The rightists on the right.

Thanks to the communists adopting the color, leftists used to be labelled red. [see all kinds of psychological associations with the red portion of the visible spectyrum]. Now in this country the journalists in their wisdom have assigned red to the rightists, making them out to be the dangerous hotheads. The rightists have mostly accepted this because our masters in the media can do no wrong except when we think they disagree with us - whoever "we" may be at the time.

There is a lot of mythology put out by both rightists and leftists as to what they are about. Apparently the rightists [or the leftists] want us to be free and happy living a good and virtuous life for which we thank the government, while the leftists [or the rightists] want oppression in place of liberty and aim to destroy this once proud and free nation.

In both groups there are sensible honest people devoted to doing what is right. But since they are political denominations, both groups are full of politicians. And we know what that means.

The primary real difference, not counting colors and vocabulary, seems at present un the US to be: at this time the leftists have attracted more of the cool with it wanna be on the right side people, and more of the we are smart enough to tell you what to do and you will honor us and give us privileges academics, and more of the all the news we choose to publish media. As a consequence they are just a TAD more uniformitarian than the rightists.

When the elephants fight, the grass is trampled. Watch your toes.

MasterPedant could give you a more informed and less pessimistic analysis from the left. Inuyasha could probably say something less Eeyore on the right.

But - fact - whoever wins, the publicity hounds and uniformitarian intelligentsia and the sorry sir, but you don't exist, I cannot find a file on you bureaucrats will run things and Green Monkey most Wrong Plandeteers.

Traditionalists versus Progressives. Same story since the dawn of time.

OK, I will only address the American context, since globally it is somewhat different.

First, I will describe left- and right-wing beliefs on economics:
Generally speaking, the left-wing tends to believe that society at large (through the institution of government) has an obligation to help people who are worse off, to promote greater equality, etc. Hence, American liberals are supportive of social programs such as Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and programs that are seen as providing a level playing field (eg greater funding for education, with focus on improving educational systems in low-income areas), in addition to promoting policies that are seen as benefitting the working class, such as pro-union stances and support for a steeply progressive tax system (that is, taxing the rich more heavily than the middle class, and taxing the poor very little if at all). Liberals also tend to assume situational explanations for certain outcomes, eg this person has failed to be successful in finding a rewarding career because she did not have access to a quality education, and thus steps must be taken to ensure greater equality of opportunity, and to find ways to assist the poor. On economic issues, an extreme liberal has a lot in common with a social democrat, and a very far fringe liberal has some stances in common with some wings of socialism.

In contrast, the right-wing takes a somewhat more individualistic stance on many issues: people succeed or fail based on intrinsic qualities of the individual. Thus a criminal is simply a bad person, someone who can't find work is a bum, etc. There is an ideal of self-reliance, epitomized in the small businessman who builds up a successful enterprise from scratch. As a result, the right-wing is much less likely to support the social safety net, thus backing cuts to Medicare and Social Security. They would often regard unions as an impediment to a free labor market where everyone can work based on their own merits. They would oppose a progressive tax system on the basis that the wealthy deserve all the money they earn, and would decry it as immoral or even class warfare to "take from the rich to give to the poor." On economic issues, extreme conservatives have a lot in common with libertarians, and a very far fringe conservative has some stances in common with some wings of anarcho-capitalism.

Now, to social issues (and there are multiple camps on both sides here, but I am speaking in broad terms):
Liberals, as I mentioned above, tend to assume situational influences predominate. Thus they will favor reforms to the justice system that emphasize rehabilitation, rather than punishment or deterrence. This gets them labelled as "soft on crime." They generally uphold secular values, and oppose the injection of religious ideas into the political sphere. They promote "diversity" as being important, and downplay the importance of tradition. They may tend to be suspicious of government and jealously protect their 1st Amendment rights, especially an implied right to privacy (eg, liberals were very upset to learn that the PATRIOT Act would allow government to access records of what they borrowed from the library). They generally oppose government surveillance. Left-wing social stances are less moralistic and more permissive, often based on some notion of compassion; thus liberals empathize with women experiencing unwanted pregnancies and support legal abortion. They also support gay marriage (since religious tradition is often not seen as relevant in determining public policy) and sometimes support a more permissive drug policy, especially in regards to marijuana. Liberals can often be characterized as civil libertarians on social issues.

Conservatives, once again, believe that intrinsic influences predominate in an individual's life, so criminal activity is not a sign of flaws in society, but flaws in a person who should be brought to justice. They believe in the justice system acting as a deterrent, bringing justice in the form of vengeance (eg a rapist deserves to suffer) and removing threats from society. This is why conservatives are more likely than liberals to favor capital punishment and long prison terms. Conservatives emphasize the importance of tradition, especially religious tradition, and the uniqueness of American culture. They tend to be more nationalistic than liberals, and will support a greater amount of religious involvement in politics, eg 10 Commandments on public buildings, prayer in schools, etc. They tend to take a more moralistic view, opposing gay marriage because it goes against tradition and many religious interpretations. They also will oppose abortion, believing that women need to be responsible for not getting pregnant if they don't want children (again, intrinsic rather than situational explanations). They see maintaining public order and social cohesion as legitimate roles of government, which reinforces the "tough on crime" standpoint and also provides an explanation for opposing gay marriage, upholding "traditional" values, and supporting the war on drugs.

Now, on foreign policy:
Conservatives favor a more interventionist role in foreign affairs, where US military involvement is a legitimate means to promote our interests abroad (the Bush Doctrine states that we may make pre-emptive strikes against states perceived as hostile). Conservatives also believe in "peace through strength" and support maintaining or even increasing military spending. Liberals, in contrast, usually oppose military action (some are even pacifists) and often distrust the "military-industrial complex." They will usually support diplomacy, even with hostile states, whereas conservatives believe we should "never negotiate with terrorists" (meaning no talks with anti-American heads of state such as Chavez). Seeing less need for a military, liberals thus believe it would be a good idea to decrease our military budget in favor of funding their social priorities, such as entitlement programs and education.


Generally speaking (there are many important exceptions, and this is specifically in an American context) Democrats are left-wing, Republicans are right-wing, Conservative means right-wing and liberal means left-wing. In the US, everyone even close to the mainstream of either side is a capitalist. Socialism is an ideology of the very far fringe left.


Hope I was helpful.

The whole left-right terminology is just a result of the seating arrangement of the French parliament at the time of the Revolution. Both sides tend to let the loudest voices be their general voice so the end result is polarization and name calling with pundits being cited by both sides for their opinions on various issues. So if I'm going to be really, really general, it comes down to a bunch of White Trash Redneck Conservatives vs Hippy Douchebag Granola Liberals, at least, if you listened to both sides' partisans

Milovan Djilas und so weiter.

Quis custodiet? When the "progressives" are solidly in power and comfortably running things, after the first generation who are the traditionalists?

French? I likely sit corrected. Anybody up on seating in Parliament in, let us say. Elizabeth's time?

For the contemporary United States, the breakdown goes something like this:

Left | Right
Liberal | Conservative
Democratic | Republican
Progressive | Traditionalist
Labor | Management
Working class | Upper class
Urban | Rural
Secular | Religious
Intellectual, cosmopolitan | Middle America
Government | Business/corporations
State-run social welfare | Private charity and churches
Cooperation | Competition
Abstract, artistic, or philosophical | Concrete, serious, formal, "down to earth"
A regulated market | A "free" market
Skepticism of authority and convention | Deference/obedience to authority figures, institutions, and conventions
Minority rights, identity politics | Resistance to societal change and equal rights
Feminist | Traditional gender roles
LGBT rights | Hostility to gay rights and sexual freedom
Diplomatic, pacific | Bellicose, warlike
Youthful | Elderly
Empathetic | Stern, vengeful

The Left and the Right both draw a diverse range of people and opinions, but in the large, we can see alliances of constituencies and interests that form what are generally known as the Left and the Right. Moreover, various personality traits are more likely to be more pronounced in liberals than in conservatives and vice versa, so we have demographics (region, gender, class, age, etc.) as well as the individual's personality influencing their political views. For example, liberals tend to rate more highly on openness to experience, which measures openness to new ideas, ways of doing things, art, feelings, etc. Conservatives tend to rate more highly on conscientiousness, which measures things like a sense of duty, order, and persistence.

Ok, thank you Orwell and NeantHuman for that explanation. I think that really made sense to me. I kind of understood the connection between left=liberal and right=conservative, but that really put it in a way I could understand better.

Given what I've learned, I'd say I lean toward the left. Not extremely left, there are some right-wing opinions mentioned that I agree with, but definately left.

One of my friends is really into politics, to the point where he tries to classify everyone he meets into a political party. He told me that I was a "Conservative Democrat", which based on this means I'm slightly to the right of the mainstream left... which makes sense with the above.

Stereotype much?



The above works so far, but that is where it begins to break down.



The left actually works with Unions like SEIU, and they also have friends in some levels of management too.



False, despite the stereotype Republicans/Conservatives actually do represent the middle class and some members of the Upper Class. The Democrat/Left-far left base is Hollywood elitists, Labor Union leaders, trial lawyers, and welfare recipients.



This fits.



You contradicted yourself, how can Conservatives be upper income when they represent Middle America. I would also argue that the left likes to think of themselves as intellectual, but are in reality just plain full of themselves.



For the left it would be Government and trial lawyers, for Conservatives it would be the individual not Business/corporations. Conservatism focuses on individuals being able to make their own decisions.



I would throw in on the left ACORN.



Liberals do not general promote cooperation, they are generally their way or the highway. They also promote a culture of victimhood. Conservatives do promote competition, but conservatives also promote cooperation.



Liberals push for people to conform with leftist ideology, they do not promote free-thinking.



Liberals want Government to pick winners and losers, while Conservatives think that is tyranny.



Wrong, liberals are only skeptical of authority when they are not the ones in charge, and when in charge they demonize anyone that disagrees with them.



The rest here is complete and total bull.

What it really is:
Minorities and favored constitutients get special rights | No special treatment based on race/ethnicity/gender
Pro-abortion | Pro-life
my way or the highway | rational though can sometimes be my way or the highway
friendly to enemies treats fellow citizens like enemy | can disagree without hating each other

intolerant | tolerant

NPR's treatment of Juan Williams is a good example of how the left can behave like a bunch of bigots.

I will point out there are two kinds of liberals out there, and I'm referring to the ones that run the DNC and I would say they would be the Michael Moore/Howard Dean/Obama/Bill Ayers Liberal. The more rational liberal would be the Bill Cosby Liberal in which Juan Williams is an example.

Inuyasha, I was going to critique a couple of the boilerplate stereotypes in that list - especially "Skeptical of authority" !

But your list is much more thorough that I could / would have made it.

By the bye - the most "Abstract, artistic, or philosophical" people I know are NOT with today's leftists; some very "Concrete, serious, formal, "down to earth" types are. Frankly, the division is more THINK [more right than left] versus Groupthink [more left than right]

Neanthumain's list is a very good rendition of conventional wisdom, reflecting mythmaking from the 30s to 60s that was not REALLY accurate then. The people doubting everybody over 30 in the 60s are well beyond that now [I should know, right?] and however Progressive do not really want to progress past the Freedom riding and Hell no we won't go glory days of song and legend.

Well... yes. When making a broad generalization about such massive political groups, you end up relying on stereotypes to some extent. As long as we all recognize that these are broad statements with obvious exceptions, I don't see the problem.


But in general, the left is seen as pro-Union, and the right is seen as pro-Business, so this stereotype is reasonable.


This really goes with the Labor | Management divide, and the perception that democrats are more in favor of policies at least intended to help the poor- eg social programs, progressive income tax to shift the burden upwards, etc.


You just forfeited the right to criticize NeantHumain for "stereoytpes."


It's a different stereotype. The "upper income" referred to as Conservatives are stereotypically wealthy businessmen. As far as "intellectuals," that is likely referring to university professors and similar types.


Lawyers tend to be among the most conservative people in the educated class, so your stereotype is wrong.


I think here you are inappropriately conflating conservatism with libertarianism. There is some overlap on specific issues, but it is not entirely honest to take braoder libertarian rhetoric and claim it to be a guiding principle for conservatism.


Factually incorrect.


I somewhat addressed that in my post when I said liberals are more likely to assume that situational factors predominate in leading to a given result, while conservatives are more likely to assume that intrinsic factors predominate. This is much more honest and more neutral than saying that "liberals promote a culture of victimhood" or "conservatives are overly prone to the fundamental attribution error and have a pattern of victim-blaming." The OP didn't ask for polemics.


And now you get to parroting meaningless slogans.


No one is "pro-abortion." The term is "pro-choice."


False.


Load of crap.

To answer the title, well, one sags a little lower than the other. I suppose that's the difference between the two, at least for me anyway. It might be more symmetrical for others though.

---
In the USA, politics is sometimes generalized into three groups: the extremist conservative right, the centrists (middle / center), and the extremist liberal right. The USA Supreme Court of nine judges is often looked at in a similar way. Since the time of Ronald Reagan (and friend, the Rev. Jerry Falwell) in politics, there has been a trend along the lines of Republicans being viewed as somewhat traditional Christians vs Democrats as being viewed as untraditional, godless lukewarm Christians (simplified/oversimplified). The whole arena was 100% messed up by extremist Texas Republican, George Bush, Jr. who officially made religions political in the USA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hous ... rtnerships - President Obama has reformed the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - so it is not quite as extremist and pro-Texas Methodism as it was under the Bush, Jr. White House regime. A number of social commentators have said that presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama tend to talk left but actually tend to vote centrist, even slightly right (aka say one thing and do another - a trend which has been going on in politics since the beginning of time). Today - 2011 - the USA is very different than when it was founded in 1776 and no longer meets the idea of being a Christian nation (based on Judeo-Christian ideas). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore - George Bush, Jr. also made a big mistake by mixing religions with White House politics (my view) by saying things like his hero is Jesus Christ (yet George Bush, Jr. believes in torture - waterboarding in Iraq and Afghanistan) as well as closing down the White House to go to the child crime/child abuse hiding funeral of the criminal Pope of Europe - implying that child crimes are ok for the Republican Texas Methodist Christian White House. The whole area of religions and the White House is very confusing - year 2011 - due in large part to what several USA presidents have said about religions in the USA. Often commentators will try to look at the USA Supreme Court of nine judges and try to imply it contains 4 extremist right votes, 1 neutral vote, and 4 extremist left votes - an attempt to create an idea of balance of some sort - but it is all commentary and an attempt to stereotype/propose a general kind of rough, imperfect model for possible understanding (simplified/oversimplified).

There you go again. Being logical and reasonable.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 07 Feb 2011, 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

And then you go on to list a bunch of BS stereotypes.



How about you actually researching who the democratic base are rather than relying on what right-wing talking heads tell you. You tool.



You contradicted yourself, how can Conservatives be upper income when they represent Middle America. I would also argue that the left likes to think of themselves as intellectual, but are in reality just plain full of themselves.[/quote]
And people like you are just plain full of BS and hot air.


Actually the left support the individual more than the right. For instance, most on the left think it is barbaric that individuals in the US can face bankruptcy due to outragious medical expenses. As if being sick isn't already stressfull enough. The right don't care about the individual. They care about rigidly adhering to an ideology of social darwinism.


I don't give two s**ts about ACORN. Stop regurgitating what the right-wing media tells you.


Nope. Liberals promote more compassion. Hard-right conservatives think campassion is for sissies, thus the culture of "just-world-hypothesis"-mongering and victim blaming.


Because having compassion is too "conformist" for conservatives.


Not even close.


Pot calling kettle?


Stop projecting. Everyone can see that if you ever gained power you'd be the first to forceably purge everyone who disagrees with you. After all, you follow that rabid irrational conspiratorial nonsense spewed by Glenn Beck that demonizes everyone who has a different political opinion.