Does Anybody on the Right Try to Understand the Left?

[iluvatar5150]

As I mentioned in another thread, I’m a big fan of the Know Your Enemy podcast, which is a long-running deep dive in the history of the intellectual wing of the Right, particularly in the US post WW1. Through them I’ve become aware of another podcast, In Bed with the Right, which covers similar ground but with an academically-minded focus on issues related to gender and sex. Others focus on legal theory and the supreme court.

Numerous columnists and writers have published pieces, especially in the wake of the 2016 election, from the Left pondering what the Left doesn’t understand about the Right. These writers aren’t merely dismissive of the Right; many (and most of the ones I find interesting) take the Right seriously even though the authors may not agree with them.

This material is common enough that I don’t even have to try to find new stuff; it just falls into my lap now. But I can’t think of a single counterpart on the Right who tries to understand the Left in the same way, and I’m wondering why that is. Do they not exist? Do they exist and I’m just not familiar with them? If they do exist, can anybody give me any recommendations?

 

[Yttrium]

Donald Trump has made conspiracy theories much more popular. Demonizing and building straw men are the rage of the day. Hopefully it's just a temporary fad.

 

[Landon Caeli]

As I mentioned in another thread, I’m a big fan of the Know Your Enemy podcast, which is a long-running deep dive in the history of the intellectual wing of the Right, particularly in the US post WW1. Through them I’ve become aware of another podcast, In Bed with the Right, which covers similar ground but with an academically-minded focus on issues related to gender and sex. Others focus on legal theory and the supreme court.

Numerous columnists and writers have published pieces, especially in the wake of the 2016 election, from the Left pondering what the Left doesn’t understand about the Right. These writers aren’t merely dismissive of the Right; many (and most of the ones I find interesting) take the Right seriously even though the authors may not agree with them.

This material is common enough that I don’t even have to try to find new stuff; it just falls into my lap now. But I can’t think of a single counterpart on the Right who tries to understand the Left in the same way, and I’m wondering why that is. Do they now exist? Do they exist and I’m just not familiar with them? If they do exist, can anybody give me any recommendations?

I don't know of any professional, or published works by the right, describing the left, but to come up with my own, I would argue that the following two tendencies are the main description of how the American Left operates:

1. Matching policy initiatives of the UK
2. Being reactive to current trends in the 'here and now', as opposed to working toward long-term goals.

Pretty much every policy that the American left is working toward has either already been implemented in the UK, or is being worked towards, is one indication that the Democrats are simply copying... Everything from the desire to limit speech, to criticizing "white nationalists", to gun laws, and everything in between. In fact, I can't think of a single thing that is unique to the American left.

As for long-term goals for the future, I see none, especially economically.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't know of any professional, or published works by the right, describing the left, but to come up with my own, I would argue that the following two tendencies are the main description of how the American Left operates:

1. Matching policy initiatives of the UK
2. Being reactive to current trends in the 'here and now', as opposed to working toward long-term goals.

I didn't really want to get into this here, since it's not what I was asking about, but I can't help myself...

Before I blindly launch into a rebuttal of #2, could you explain why you think that?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I didn't really want to get into this here, since it's not what I was asking about, but I can't help myself...

Before I blindly launch into a rebuttal of #2, could you explain why you think that?

Sorry, I edited in the reasons.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Donald Trump has made conspiracy theories much more popular. Demonizing and building straw men are the rage of the day. Hopefully it's just a temporary fad.

This is another thing the left would concern themselves with... Social construction.

Like with limiting speech, and public school teachers teaching children morals instead of allowing parents to do it, the left would likewise try more social construction tactics around the topic of people being "conspiracy theorists".

...So this leads me to a potential #3 in understanding the left: The desire to create social guidance initiatives (which also seems to be popular in the UK). This is in opposition to just letting people be people, naturally and freely.

 

[sandman]

Honestly, I think the principles of “know your enemy” is promoting the premises of hate, division and opposition… resulting in conflict. Just the word enemy elicits the mindset of dislike, displeasure, and non-association.

I do have an enemy …satan…. and my battles are spiritual ….not physical, but this government in association with media strives to promote division at every turn. They used to mouth words of unity but it was just a neck blowing bubbles …. they don’t even try to hide it anymore.

It used to be that the right and left could disagree and get along …..that is very rare to see anymore.

My friends on the left are my friends. We may disagree and even argue at times, but we are friends, opinions and ideologies are secondary to that …. and I would lay down my life for any one of them.



Jas 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Honestly, I think the principles of “know your enemy” is promoting the premises of hate, division and opposition… resulting in conflict. Just the word enemy elicits the mindset of dislike, displeasure, and non-association.

The title is very clearly and explicitly used in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. One of the hosts grew up in a very conservative family and went through grad school in the conservative academic pipeline. They've had several conservative guests, all of whom have understood the intended meaning.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Honestly, I think the principles of “know your enemy” is promoting the premises of hate, division and opposition… resulting in conflict. Just the word enemy elicits the mindset of dislike, displeasure, and non-association.

I do have an enemy …satan…. and my battles are spiritual ….not physical, but this government in association with media strives to promote division at every turn. They used to mouth words of unity but it was just a neck blowing bubbles …. they don’t even try to hide it anymore.

It used to be that the right and left could disagree and get along …..that is very rare to see anymore.

My friends on the left are my friends. We may disagree and even argue at times, but we are friends, opinions and ideologies are secondary to that …. and I would lay down my life for any one of them.



Jas 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

The fact that "unity" has been abandoned, is another indication that the left operates within the realm of "current trends", and does not operate with the long-term in mind.

...In my opinion only.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

IMO to the left - the ends justify the means ... this has pushed them to the violent extremes.

@iluvatar5150 are you ANTIFA?

 

[iluvatar5150]

IMO to the left - the ends justify the means ... this has pushed them to the violent extremes.

@iluvatar5150 are you ANTIFA?

This is not remotely on topic.

 

[Fantine]

The most capitalistic among them don't understand concepts like justice, fairness, altruism.

Those are for "suckers."

No. They are part of being fully human.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As I mentioned in another thread, I’m a big fan of the Know Your Enemy podcast, which is a long-running deep dive in the history of the intellectual wing of the Right, particularly in the US post WW1. Through them I’ve become aware of another podcast, In Bed with the Right, which covers similar ground but with an academically-minded focus on issues related to gender and sex. Others focus on legal theory and the supreme court.

Numerous columnists and writers have published pieces, especially in the wake of the 2016 election, from the Left pondering what the Left doesn’t understand about the Right. These writers aren’t merely dismissive of the Right; many (and most of the ones I find interesting) take the Right seriously even though the authors may not agree with them.

This material is common enough that I don’t even have to try to find new stuff; it just falls into my lap now. But I can’t think of a single counterpart on the Right who tries to understand the Left in the same way, and I’m wondering why that is. Do they now exist? Do they exist and I’m just not familiar with them? If they do exist, can anybody give me any recommendations?

Interesting to me the terminology used by the left. They pretend to "try to undersand" the right —but to what end? The right understand the left well enough, and the left understand the right enough. But the left redirects terminology: "Condescend to re-define and disparage" now is called "try to understand".

This whole conversation so far has been as though from an elevated, detached —even unbiased— aspect, as though pretending to care is better than trying to convert an opposition to one's own point of view.

It is a rare day that the left is able to understand the right. It is the difference between wishthink and reality. "Symbolism over substance." WHY, then, should the right be required to match the left in any public aspect? Once again, we see the left pretending the right isn't doing something they should be doing, just because the left is doing it and doesn't see the right doing it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Interesting to me the terminology used by the left. They pretend to "try to undersand" the right

While there may be a fair amount of scorn on the left, I don’t detect much insincerity when folks ask these questions.

but to what end?

Lots of reasons:
Genuine curiosity,
A constant fear that we’re wrong (a phrase I heard somewhere recently),
Politicking

If nothing else, it’s pragmatic for participants in a democracy to seek to understand the people with whom they are not already aligned. The same is true for producers and marketers in a capitalist system: you may not ultimately care about other people, but if you want them to buy what you’re selling, you would do well to learn about them so you can speak to the things they care about.

The right understand the left well enough,

Do they? Because having been on both sides, that doesn’t strike me as true and I don’t see much effort on the right to understand the left, which is why I asked the questions in my OP.

This whole conversation so far has been as though from an elevated, detached —even unbiased— aspect, as though pretending to care is better than trying to convert an opposition to one's own point of view.

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m fine with suggestions for material/authors whose only goal is converting people on the left.

While I may ultimately have a higher opinion of folks who seek knowledge for the sake of seeking knowledgeable, I won’t impose that standard here.

It is a rare day that the left is able to understand the right.

You’re certainly free to think that, but IME, that isn’t really true.

It is the difference between wishthink and reality. "Symbolism over substance." WHY, then, should the right be required to match the left in any public aspect?

I think there are a lot of positive qualities to curiosity, and in the process of asking questions and seeking answers, whatever the subject. And I see a lot of curiosity on the left that I don’t see on the right. What I’m asking in my OP is where I should go looking for this curiosity on the right, assuming it exists.

 

[Landon Caeli]

There are many good people on the left...It's important to distinguish the people from the body of the party.

If we disassociate ourselves from "party", at least for a moment, we could begin to have common dialogue. As people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As I mentioned in another thread, I’m a big fan of the Know Your Enemy podcast, which is a long-running deep dive in the history of the intellectual wing of the Right, particularly in the US post WW1. Through them I’ve become aware of another podcast, In Bed with the Right, which covers similar ground but with an academically-minded focus on issues related to gender and sex. Others focus on legal theory and the supreme court.

Numerous columnists and writers have published pieces, especially in the wake of the 2016 election, from the Left pondering what the Left doesn’t understand about the Right. These writers aren’t merely dismissive of the Right; many (and most of the ones I find interesting) take the Right seriously even though the authors may not agree with them.

This material is common enough that I don’t even have to try to find new stuff; it just falls into my lap now. But I can’t think of a single counterpart on the Right who tries to understand the Left in the same way, and I’m wondering why that is. Do they not exist? Do they exist and I’m just not familiar with them? If they do exist, can anybody give me any recommendations?

Research has shown the right knows the left better than the left knows the right.

The politics of the left are ubiquitous, they are 75-80% of mainstream news outlets. They are repetitive to the point of being a self parody (does your podcast ever explain the term NPC in relation to the left?) and it's easy to know what the left will say before they say it.

Odd as it sounds, I think the right knows the left better than the left knows itself. Many on the left believe their party stands for a cleaner environment...it doesn't.

Also, "know your enemy" is gross name for a podcast. These people are your neighbors, not your enemies. I can almost imagine the Rage Against the Machine song playing as the intro. Fun fact, it wasn't until Rage got big and toured abroad extensively that Zach De La Rocha realized how out of touch his politics were. He started a side project called "One Day As A Lion" after Rage broke up...apparently unaware of where that particular quote came from (Mussolini).

The left has two distinct flavors that come in a variety of possible degrees in between. There's the establishment left...the old liberals typically of the over 50 crowd that are unaware that the Democratic Party no longer represents them. They are pro-workers, primarily concerned with the environment, the wage gap, Healthcare, and education. They are unaware that their party no longer cares about these things....and only pays them lip service. Then there's the extreme left...they tend to be young, woke, and unaware of how politics works at all. They might call themselves socialist or communist...but don't understand what these words mean. They tie their morals to their politics....imagining themselves champions of the "marginalized" which refers to whatever group gains them the most political power. Once in power, they agree on nothing, a result of identity politics. They unite over hatred of particularly...straight white Christian men...whom they blame for everything. They hate capitalism though they indulge in it endlessly, and they hate democracy and hope for a day when no opposition to their authority exists. They are racist, sexist, and intellectual snobs...without the necessary intellect. They avoid debate like the plague, and rely upon cheap slogans for propaganda, indoctrination, and corporate sponsorship. They are reactionary...united by hate....and burning out. They are angry children trying to destroy democracy and have no real policy ideas beyond indoctrination, racial discrimination, and stamping on civil rights. They seem to be dying out.

Like I said, those are the two extremes. The left has real problems they don't really understand or have solutions for....so they eat themselves. The fact that Vivek Ramaswamy...a libertarian...can go around as a political novice and embarass basically everyone who speaks to him (there's no intellectuals on the left) should be a clear sign of the problems within the left.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Research has shown the right knows the left better than the left knows the right.

Has it?

Also, "know your enemy" is gross name for a podcast. These people are your neighbors, not your enemies.

For all of your proclamations about the right understanding the left, you seem to have failed pretty hard on this point, even after I explained that the title is a joke and that their conservative guests are in on the joke.

The left has two distinct flavors that come in a variety of possible degrees in between. There's the establishment left...the old liberals typically of the over 50 crowd that are unaware that the Democratic Party no longer represents them. They are pro-workers, primarily concerned with the environment, the wage gap, Healthcare, and education. They are unaware that their party no longer cares about these things....and only pays them lip service. Then there's the extreme left...they tend to be young, woke, and unaware of how politics works at all. They might call themselves socialist or communist...but don't understand what these words mean. They tie their morals to their politics....imagining themselves champions of the "marginalized" which refers to whatever group gains them the most political power. Once in power, they agree on nothing, a result of identity politics. They unite over hatred of particularly...straight white Christian men...whom they blame for everything. They hate capitalism though they indulge in it endlessly, and they hate democracy and hope for a day when no opposition to their authority exists. They are racist, sexist, and intellectual snobs...without the necessary intellect. They avoid debate like the plague, and rely upon cheap slogans for propaganda, indoctrination, and corporate sponsorship. They are reactionary...united by hate....and burning out. They are angry children trying to destroy democracy and have no real policy ideas beyond indoctrination, racial discrimination, and stamping on civil rights. They seem to be dying out.

Like I said, those are the two extremes. The left has real problems they don't really understand or have solutions for....so they eat themselves. The fact that Vivek Ramaswamy...a libertarian...can go around as a political novice and embarass basically everyone who speaks to him (there's no intellectuals on the left) should be a clear sign of the problems within the left.

Okay. Does anybody on the right write about this or talk about it in an intelligent and sincere way and in a media format I can easily consume? If so, who?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

There are many good people on the left...It's important to distinguish the people from the body of the party.

If we disassociate ourselves from "party", at least for a moment, we could begin to have common dialogue. As people.

Agreed. One other thing that I might note is how personal experience affects a person's perception on given problems . Back in the late 1980s, I was extremely right wing as in Pat Buchanan was not extreme enough for me. However, life experiences drew me back to a moderate position. In 2006 I sold my home and moved my family to Boston to pursue a seminary degree. Unfortunately, we had a lot of family issues and I was told to leave. I was under employed and on welfare from 2007 to 2010. While I deeply appreciated the welfare system, I also realized that the structure of welfare makes it VERY difficult to climb out of. The biggest problem is that you lose benefits faster than standard 3-5% raises will cover. So for example, I once received a raise of $500 per month. However, I would lose $750 per month in benefits. I sat down and realized that for a family of 5, the worst spot to be was making $38K to $50K per year. Welfare benefits cut out in this range but you weren't making enough to replace those benefits. So to get off of welfare you have to make a $10-15K leap, which is not a easy thing to do.

So from my personal experience, when conservatives complain about the multi-generational welfare recipients, I get it. However, until we, as people, take a deeper look into systemic issues, we have a tendency to jump to, "they're lazy" or some other "it's THEIR problem". I would also say that the left does the same thing to conservative issues.

 

[Pommer]

Lefty principles fall into the “it could be better if we….”
Righty principles fall into the “it’s fine now, and it’d be even better if we go back to the way we did things in ye olden times”

Both are necessary as the left POV tends to become unwieldy and authoritarian and the right tends to ossify a nation while swinging to its own version of authoritarianism.

 

[Pommer]

I don't know of any professional, or published works by the right, describing the left, but to come up with my own, I would argue that the following two tendencies are the main description of how the American Left operates:

1. Matching policy initiatives of the UK
2. Being reactive to current trends in the 'here and now', as opposed to working toward long-term goals.

Pretty much every policy that the American left is working toward has either already been implemented in the UK, or is being worked towards, is one indication that the Democrats are simply copying... Everything from the desire to limit speech, to criticizing "white nationalists", to gun laws, and everything in between. In fact, I can't think of a single thing that is unique to the American left.

As for long-term goals for the future, I see none, especially economically.

Taking a step further back we can see that the left focuses on the “collective-good” and the right on “individual-good” (that will in turn take care of the collective good).