Defining left vs right

[Roman57]

The political spectrum has actually two parameters: one is top vs bottom and the other is left vs right. The top vs bottom is pretty straightforward: top is more covernment, bottom is less government. But left vs right is a lot more difficult to define. In issues such as taxes or gun control the left wants more government, yet in issues of homosexuality and abortion the right wants more government. So it is a bit weird that the two major parties (Republicans vs Democrates) are alligned across left vs right, while the top vs bottom is more of a third party issue (Libertarians is a third party thats a bottom). It would have been more logical if it was the other way around. The way it feels to me is that top vs bottom are the concepts that are easiest to define in a purely logical terms, while left vs right is the issue of herd mentality (there is no logical connection between gun control and homosexuality). So the fact that the major parties are alligned as left vs right tells me that the majority of people are following the herd rather than the logic.

However, I still want to find some logical way of left vs right. So what I been trying to think is trying to linguistically analyze the words that define them. Linguistics has no bias, so that would probably be the best way to get to the source. However, if I look at the word "liberal", I immediately see that it is misleading. Because, linguistically, it comes from the word "liberty". Yet "liberals" do not support the "liberty" of owning guns. On the other hand, if I look at the word "conservative", that is a lot more revealing. Conservatives want to "conserve" the way things "used to be". Since in the past people owned guns, a "conservative" position would be to own guns now. Since in the past homosexuality was outlawed, the "conservative" position would be to outlaw it now.

The other thing to look at is where does left vs right comes historically. It all started from one specific meeting where people at the right were in defense of a king and people at the left were in opposition to the king. Now, this again might be misleading. Because this might sound like the right wants more government while the left wants less, which isn't true. But a different way of looking at it would be that the right wants specific type of government: namely the government at that particular time in history that the king represented. And from this perspective, one can say "if the king back then wanted us to have certain freedoms, then supporting the king implies supporting those freedoms" which would in turn explain why there are some freedoms that liberals oppose while conservatives defend.

But then again, supporting that particular time in history is not the same as going back as far to the past as possible. But maybe conservatives don't want to go as far back to the past as possible: I don't think they really care about going back to 500 BC. So if I were to say that the goal of conservatives is to go back to the time period where the above meeting took place, then it would both explain why they would sit at the right (defend the king) and also why they would be called "conservative": they are trying to "conserve" something that is a century old rather than age old.

As far as liberals, like I said, analyzing the word liberty would be misleading. So the best way to make sense of them is to simply think of them as "anti-conservatives". And then the root of the word "conservative" (namely "conserve") would explain both "conservative" and "anti-conservative" position.

But then the problem with this would be third parties. Since third parties are in opposition to both Republicans and Democrats, would that mean that they are at the left, since they "oppose the king"? Well, I guess not, because they agree with "the king" on some issues and only oppose him in others. For example, liebrtarians "agree with the king" in gun rights yet they "oppose the king" in birth control. Thats why they are neither left nor right.

Anyway, those were my thoughts. But what do you think?

 

[zippy2006]

The other thing to look at is where does left vs right comes historically. It all started from one specific meeting where people at the right were in defense of a king and people at the left were in opposition to the king. Now, this again might be misleading. Because this might sound like the right wants more government while the left wants less, which isn't true. But a different way of looking at it would be that the right wants specific type of government: namely the government at that particular time in history that the king represented. And from this perspective, one can say "if the king back then wanted us to have certain freedoms, then supporting the king implies supporting those freedoms" which would in turn explain why there are some freedoms that liberals oppose while conservatives defend.

Some quick thoughts... In a robust international sense the 'right' is essentially concerned with conserving the status quo, and the 'left' is concerned with pushing the boundaries beyond the status quo or beyond what has been. Since the status quo is never absolute, the terms 'left' and 'right' never refer to absolute positions. If our history were opposite to the way it is, then Republicans would be considered the 'left' and Democrats would be considered the 'right', even while holding the exact same positions that they hold today.

When it comes to national or local politics, especially at a popular level, terms like 'left', 'right', 'liberal', etc., are just pointers to temporary partisan options, and this is especially true in the two-party system of the United States. For example, in the U.S. 'left' often means Democrat and 'right' often means Republican, and these two parties are loosely related to the robust sense of left/right while at the same time deviating in any number of curious ways.

 

[Kale100]

IMO it is borderline futile to try clearly defining left/right in the U.S. at least, because by and large, neither are coherent/consistent ideologies.
The best attempt at the exercise I can come up with is that it is a gray spectrum of the degree of subservience of individual interest to group interest (right being less, left being more)
Side-note: The function of government should be to align the two (individual and group interests) as best as possible, e.g., if it costs $10,000,000 to build a highway from point A to point B, it's in nobody's individual interest to make it happen as no one can reasonably get that much advantage from it, but if it saves everyone collectively say $20,000,000 in gas, it's in the group interest to make it happen. That's where government comes in to get the highway money in a 'fair' way, whatever that may be.

 

[Merrill]

I think the main problem with this right-left dichotomy is that is fails to capture the full range of political possibilities, and is misleading.

This is because we not only have right vs. left, or conservatism vs. liberalism, we also have the European & American "New Right" and "New Left" and those are very different. examples:

Standard left-wing liberalism in the US believes in:
A robust social safety net and extensive government programs (social security, medicare/medicaid, welfare, etc.)
Progressive taxation
Aggressive foreign policy (interventionism)
America as a "melting pot" where immigrants are welcome, and encouraged to join the dominant culture
Free-trade with some limitations

The American "New Left" believes in much of the above, but also:
The primacy of identity politics --policies are to be crafted on basis of sex, race, orientation, etc.
Rejection of the "melting pot" --the dominant culture is oppressive, and group ethnic norms should be sustained. No "integration"
Equity over equality of opportunity --a centralized planner will allocate goods and services to people based on their identity-group membership
Neo-Marxist irrationalism --science and philosophy are subordinated to ideology.
Protectionism

So a LBJ voting liberal from the 1960s bears no resemblance to a New-Left liberal of today.

--

Standard right-wing conservatism in the US general holds:
Limited government and social safety net
Low or flat taxation
Restrained foreign policy (but there is a lot of disagreement here)
America as "melting pot"
Free trade with few limitations

The American New-Right believes the following:
A reactionary embrace of identity politics that includes white Europeans, which is done out-of-necessity.
Rejection of the "melting pot" --the dominant culture should be maintained
Equality of opportunity, but a more expansive social safety net that adheres to cultural and social values (families, etc.)
Suspicion of democracy, as it is viewed as mob-rule
Protectionism

So a Reagan conservative is very different from a New-Right activist

 

[Sors]

So the first thing to do is to eliminate abortion from the equation (Because that is different) completely when defining right vs left. Kale100 said:

The best attempt at the exercise I can come up with is that it is a gray spectrum of the degree of subservience of individual interest to group interest (right being less, left being more)

I haven't been on a message board in years, so I am sure I butchered how quote Kale 100 (will figure it out)....but there is a lot of truth to this. Ultimately you are looking at a utilitarian vs individual rights perspective and I think this can be demonstrated easily. If we banned guns in this country would crime drop? I am talking total ban on guns. Full confiscation from every person. I would argue yes. Look at Australia. look at other countries. Total crime would drop. Now when I get attacked by someone who has an illegal gun, can I defend myself. No. These are two completely different moral frameworks...and to the best of my knowledge both are compatible with Christianity. I tend to be more of the individual rights guy...but I think this is the best way to frame left vs right. liberal vs conservative has little meaning in my opinion.

 

[Solum Aeternum]

The thing is in theory both sides CAN be right or can come up with a moral compromise. It just depends what is being pushed. Let me just give two scenarios and it's just examples so don't push back. If one side wants to hold on to hate hateful rhetoric and one race being superior to all, and the other side wants to change that, then the side pushing to change is in the right. if a side wants to change in order to advance efficient when it comes to technology and industrial growth, then there is a debate and conversation to be had. The problem now comes when people want to change the status quo of what one side always thought to be morally right and shift society in a 180. That is where the division and push back comes from.It feels however that the left are trying to change the status quo may not for the better of what the right things but seemingly shift the world in a positive direction.

There is a nuanced conversation because for many on the right it is now "lEFT BAD, RIGHT GOOD" and sometimes i can see it if the left are pushing lgbtq, trans, abortion ect... My feeling is that, change and progress can be good if something needs changing and progressing. if things don't need changing or trying to change what the bible teaches, that is where the push back comes. Sometimes I wish people can just work together instead of "YOU BAD, ME GOOD", both sides live by now. .

 

[iarwain]

But then the problem with this would be third parties. Since third parties are in opposition to both Republicans and Democrats, would that mean that they are at the left, since they "oppose the king"?

Interesting post, I'll just make a few comments. First off, when you "oppose the king" these days, you are basically opposing the ruling government, which mostly consists of the left. The left rules not only through government, but through their domination of the culture, in media, technology, education, Hollywood, entertainment, etc. But third parties are usually geared toward being dissatisfied with either party's presidential candidate, so it could be targeted toward either.

As for the right wanting more government regarding homosexuality and abortion, I would say that abortion is a poor example, since to most right wingers it is simply common sense that it is wrong to kill human life, and that is what is happening with abortion (at least that is certainly the pro-life position). That's like saying they want more government regarding murder (if you see it from their perspective).

Also, I don't think the right really wants homosexuality made unlawful. As they see it, the government is pushing the LGBTQ agenda into public schools, and that is what they mainly object to, pushing that agenda onto children. So from the right's perspective, they are really pushing against big government (which is leftist, and which supports the teacher's unions).

 

[FireDragon76]

Left vs. right is mostly meaningless in terms of US politics. "The left" represents only about 5 percent of the US population, at most, yet it's trotted out as a bogieman all the time by right wing pundits.

 

[AbbaLove]

The Left generally considers itself more progressive when it comes to re-interpreting the Constitution.

One distinguishing factor is: Pro-Life (Right) vs Pro-Choice (Left) ... e.g. Federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks.