The Right's Contradiction

Post Reply New Topic

I'm referring to political parties in the US. It appears the mantra of the right is "don't tread on me"; in essence less government interference in your daily life. Yet the right wants to gain power and pass draconian laws such as abortion which applies to everyone. Religious freedom dictates you are free to believe anything you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's views. It appears that the right wants to tread on everyone else's rights who don't agree with them. I find this very contradictory.

The mantra "Don't Tread On Me While I Am Treading On You" seems more accurate.

Oooh, fun game, let’s keep it going!

Here’s another one:

The party of law & order.. except when laws apply to them and their leadership, then they want to attack judges/DA’s and defund the DOJ/FBI.

I’m sure I could keep going with more examples but I figured I’d leave the game open for someone else to play next.

_________________
No for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.

Wild guess, but I think the right see one function of a "small" government as being weaponised to protect laws they want to keep and laws they want passed.

Well the right consider abortion to be killing someone,so the government would need the power to stop it. As even some libertarians will be calling the police if their life is threatened.

I'm not especially pro or against abortion but that's what they believe.

I'll use an example that's front and center in the media right now: Advancing the rights of trans women in women's sports.
By advancing the rights of trans women (born biologically male and therefore genetically superior in strength) they have effectively dashed every hope of fair competition among the women who compete with what they were born with. The biological female may as well just concede defeat. So, the left doesn't overtly declare that women have no place in sports, they will just make it unfair by making them compete against men.
On every side, in every party, there is active removal of rights. Be it the laws of nature, or the laws of man.
Neither has any claim to superior moral position.

I've been hearing a bit about right wing politics and fear, recently.

There seems to be a negative bias in the thinking of right-wing or conservative leaning people - a sensitivity and reaction to perceived threat, real and imagined.

This article links to some studies on this: Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes

This isn't purely psychological, its been shown that the fear centre of the brain, the amygdala, is physically larger in people with strong right-wing views.

There was a study, which I can't find now helpfully, where people with liberal, progressive views were exposed repeatedly to scenarios which made them fearful. They were then asked to come up with policies that might address these scenarios and they increasingly came up with more authoritarian ideas the more fearful they became.

This article talks about a study that was able to show the reverse - when conservatives were asked to imagine themselves as having a superpower - i.e. for them to be invulnerable to threat - they came up with policies that were closer to progressive thinking. Reducing the fear allowed them to be more generous and empathetic in their thinking.

I'm no psychologist, or expert, so take above with however much salt you want. But if there's something in it, I wonder how much easier that makes right wing people to exploit for political gain? Fear is a big driver for behaviour and grifters and conmen exploit fear all the time.

Don't tread on me? No, more like don't resist my treading.

Thanks for your responses people. I could care less what your personal views on abortion are but I am all about personal freedom. I don't have the audacity to think I know how someone else should live their life. I can tell you how I should live MY life but not yours. As I would tell my conservative friend - " that protusion on your face that is called a nose; that is where your business ends"

^ and the dollar that you spend on those rights should be your own, not mine. That's where this s**t tends to get dicey. See, everyone wants rights out the wazoo, but they want someone else to fund them. And THAT is why you get so many NOSES in the mix. I believe that if you are an adult, you should be able to access whatever you choose, if you can pay for it. If you can't pay for it, at least take some responsibility for falling within the legal limits. Like, know the date of your LMP, duh. Then you'll have no problem getting your abortion.

But, like I said in another thread, this era is marked by an absolute refusal to assume responsibility for anything. They want to refuse to use protection, get knocked up, not have the sense to know they are knocked up, regain consciousness (I guess?) when they are like 24 weeks, pull the kid apart limb from limb, and have someone else fund it.

Oooh, here’s another good one: they claim to be about personal and fiscal responsibility, but in reality they’re about corporate welfare and running up massive spending deficits that democrats have to pay for once they retake the White House.

_________________
No for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.

The problem comes when people try to mix politics and religion (of any type, even certain secular goals can become the equivalent of a religion). It is the religious aspect that determines how people view what is right and what is wrong, and freedom has always been constrained by the rule that there is no freedom to commit a broadly acknowledged evil. One of the many reasons why the USA founders were adamant about the separation of church and state, a concept that is very much in danger right now. We have a large segment of the population that feels threatened by the values being advanced by secular society and who have allowed themselves to become convinced those values represent an evil that most be stopped, no matter the cost.

Persephone29, I take a small issue or two with your transgender athletics example. It is my understanding that most of the natural advantages and disadvantages from the birth chromosomes are removed by the hormonal and chemical changes induced in the transition process. Even if they weren't, the percentage of athletes that wish to compete as transgender and having enough talent to win as such is so tiny that it doesn't have any real statistical relevance. Is this rarity worth all the discussion and conflict? Balancing the rights and risks on both sides can be difficult, but the most libertarian vision would be to simply let competition organizers decide, which is basically how I believe it was done before conservatives decided to force the issue as part of their culture wars. The laws being made are to prohibit event organizers from choosing to allow a trans female from competing as female, never the other way around. The most fair answer is going to vary depending on the people and the facts, and thus is most likely to be achieved by citizens on the ground without government interference. No choice will ever be perfect; human nature is what it is; but at least participants could then pick and choose events based on their personal needs.

The New Right's new Standard: