The only real argument here seems to be whether his beliefs were "right-wing" or "left-wing".I put little stock in self-analysis without reasoning.
It seems clear enough that you're willing to accept his statements at face value when they agree with your perceived political perspective.
Again, the quibbling here seems to be about labels, whether "right-wing" or "left-wing" is to blame.We know his beliefs (or at least what he says those beliefs are). Independent analysis shows those beliefs to be largely right-wing (at least with regards to the racial theories that prompted his attack).
Even disregarding the shooter's own self-characterization as "left-wing", we all know that political stances are far more nuanced that either the "right" or "left" which is far too commonly used on this forum. To facilitate discussion of the matter, I introduced the political compass earlier which conveniently showcased both the differences and similarities among a number of varied political perspectives.
Except that it was not provided without evidence - a devout communist just a few years earlier, for instance. I can easily believe you have doubts about his "moderating" his extreme political stance by moving to national socialism though ... but a look at the political compass provided earlier shows that the two stances are not really so far apart as you imagine.His own analysis of them as "left-wing" is given without any supporting evidence and is therefore meaningless.
Curiously, it seems worth mentioning that the shooter apparently earlier had been under federal investigation for planning a shooting at his own high school.
Apparently, he was determined to shoot people and, unfortunately, the FBI couldn't figure out a pattern to his logic or motivations. He had an end in mind though, to shoot people, and may have just latched on to a convenient justification.
LOL, it seems you understand why some Republican politicians are held in such low regard by their own constituencies.If I say that I support a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, trans rights, a strong social safety net, relaxed immigration restrictions, and strong international trade relationships, but that I identify as "right-wing", you'd probably doubt the "right-wing" bit, no?
A point of agreement to be sure ... but do feel free to argue otherwise.In a political rather than economic sense, which is a pretty important distinction. There's a significant difference between "Lets collectively work together and share resources." and "Let's collectively work together for the good of the Party." Collectivism and "common good" can be used to promote anything, and are not inherently "left" or "right" philosophies.
Our disagreements about the size of government may be the most consequential matter involving politics in the grand scheme of things.There's certainly a lot of talk about minimizing government, but in practice, policies pushed by the political right over the last few decades have required Big Government. At best, they shift governmental control from the federal system to the states, but that doesn't decrease the size of the government - it just moves it around. It can also result in an overall larger government due to the redundancies between 50 separate state systems and a need to coordinate between them.
Regardless, the point is that neither side in US politics wants an authoritarian regime or total anarchy. Our disagreements about the size of the government are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
Upvote
0