What left wingers like about right wing ideologies

[stevil]

This thread is not for left wingers to attack right wing policies or idealogies. It is not for right wingers to post their ideas. This is for left wingers only to post and this is not specific to USA.

I've always considered myself to be centre right. Watching USA politics over the last 4 years, having various political debates on the internet and just life in general, I think has pushed me more towards the left. Certainly in the context of USA politics I would never support the Republican party, but I find the Democratic party to be reasonable. So I guess in terms of left vs right it is actually difficult for a person to know where the center is and then difficult for a moderate to know whether they are left or right of that center.

Anyway, here is my take (as a now self proclaimed center left person) as to what I like about right leaning ideology or policies. I'd be interested to see if other lefties also like some right leaning stuff.

I like:

• Supporting the success of businesses to create jobs and economic activity
• Government should be involved in helping an economy thrive and that might mean tax breaks or help for businesses/industries to be successful.
• Not allowing rules and regulations to get out of hand by creating too much expense or effort that kills business or industry
• Being wary on overpowerful unions, stifling businesses, creating extraordinarily unfair terms, stopwork action
• Being wary of creating long term dependency on handouts.
• Accountability on government spending
• Lower taxes and no death duties (inheritance tax)

Of course both left wingers and right wingers like the above. It would be a mis-characterisation to say that left wingers oppose the above. Its on a scale as everything has a cost. e.g. no unions might mean that the business owners have all the power and then are incredibly mean to their employees. Wanting to remove regulations might mean that businesses destroy forests and the habitat of endangered animals and pollute rivers and the air etc. So it depends on where people think the balance is for them and whether that means their balance is to the left or the right of what their society may consider the balance to be.

In terms of the social aspect, I am incredibly liberal. I believe in a diverse culture without discrimination. And this means that I believe in having a minimal government, whereby that government won't setup laws against gays, gay marriage, abortion, prostitution etc. If rightwing ideology is for minimal government, then I would have thought rightwing would be all for personal agency. So I'm not sure why these things are seen as left wing.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's hard for me to ascribe to conservatism what is better described as technocratic. There may have been a time when those two camps overlapped to a greater degree than they do now, but these days they're pretty distinct, both because conservatives have more farther right and because technocratic arguments can be made for and against a host of issues across the spectrum (e.g. for something like a green new deal; for universal health care; against rent control; for letting the free market make a bunch of decisions; against letting the free market make a bunch of other decisions; etc).

 

[Strathos]

I am totally on board with the goal of reducing (and hopefully even eliminating) abortions. However the way right-wingers in the US want to do it is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

 

[Speedwell]

Remarkable post. Congratulations.

In terms of the social aspect, I am incredibly liberal. I believe in a diverse culture without discrimination. And this means that I believe in having a minimal government, whereby that government won't setup laws against gays, gay marriage, abortion, prostitution etc. If rightwing ideology is for minimal government, then I would have thought rightwing would be all for personal agency. So I'm not sure why these things are seen as left wing.

That is why you cannot find a home in today's GOP, which has become dominated by the social conservatism of the Christian Right.

 

[Speedwell]

I am totally on board with the goal of reducing (and hopefully even eliminating) abortions. However the way right-wingers in the US want to do it is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

They don't want to eliminate it--they realize the impossibility of eliminating it entirely. What they want is to punish people for committing a sin.

 

[stevil]

I am totally on board with the goal of reducing (and hopefully even eliminating) abortions. However the way right-wingers in the US want to do it is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

Noone is for abortions. Noone is hoping to get pregnant in order to have an abortion.
So it could be a common goal across the political and religious spectrum.

Reduce abortions.

Could be achieved via:

• Sex education
• Availability of contraceptives
• Affordable quality education
• Family planning services
• Paths out of poverty

But then again the many religious folk are against some of these and many far right politicals are against them.

 

[stevil]

Remarkable post. Congratulations.

That is why you cannot find a home in today's GOP, which has become dominated by the social conservatism of the Christian Right.

Yeah, I'm not sure how well the USA two party system works.
For centre right people there is much to be put off by the USA rightwing party.

 

[Strathos]

Noone is for abortions. Noone is hoping to get pregnant in order to have an abortion.
So it could be a common goal across the political and religious spectrum.

Well I once made a thread asking that if an artificial womb was developed, if that could end the abortion issue, as any woman who no longer wanted to be pregnant could have her fetus transferred to this device until it was mature. Someone responded and said even if that were possible, women should still be allowed to abort anyway if they want to.

 

[stevil]

Well I once made a thread asking that if an artificial womb was developed, if that could end the abortion issue, as any woman who no longer wanted to be pregnant could have her fetus transferred to this device until it was mature. Someone responded and said even if that were possible, women should still be allowed to abort anyway if they want to.

My question to that would be, who has to pay for this artificial womb? and who then brings up the child? Who pays for the kid's upbringing?

 

[xser88]

Here in America, right wing and conservatism are pretty much the same thing. Conservatism has been on the wrong side of our moral history, slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, race mixing ect...
Conservatism is closely linked to racism in our country. Abortion is the thing we may agree on, but I'm not ready to create a Law were the government force all pregnancies to they're full nine months even in cases of rape, incest, mother life in danger or child born with extreme deformities.

Don't consider myself left or right, but find left wing policies closer to biblical principles than those on the right. Most right wing policies benefit corporations and the wealthy, tax dollars and deregulating to be a monopoly in a soft regulated capitalist system. Most policies on the left benefit the vast majority of citizens, healthcare, equal pay, housing, voting rights, feeding the hungry, helping the poor, equality. Socialism would be a more biblical form of governing than our system of capitalism. Right wing policies breed greed and power in capitalism.

Our Constitution and other laws were created to benefit rich white males, and for the most part they did. The government created laws favoring whites while discriminating against Natives, blacks and others. They enforced the laws by violence and white society acceptance. Government FHA, VA, G.I. Bill etc.. went exclusively to whites until the mid 60s when more left wing laws made things a little fairer.

Conservatives didn't like the federal government telling mostly whites to treat blacks fairly, they claim States rights to discriminate. One huge reason conservative whites were fine with government in the 50s and earlier, but the in the 60s and after, it's government is too big. It was ok for government to give handouts or no instrest loans to whites, but hated the federal government laws that required you treat black citizens equal. Conservatives policies want to kill union because union set the standard of decent and fair working conditions. Corporations, the main donors of Republicans or the right, hate unions and regulations. This is a big reason why companies manufactured outside the U.S. because they would be arrested for such horrible working conditions in America. Republican donors want union gone to lower working standards. The bible says more than once pay your taxes, help the poor, feed the hungry, don't show favoritism to the rich. But on the right you hear constant complaints about taxes, too much regulations and a dislike for high union standards. The right will celebrate when programs that help the needy are cut, like Food Stamps. The right seem to be always worried some poor person is taking advantage of the system, taking a little more of they're share, but rarely worried about the rich, who doesn't need it, getting more than they're share. When the bible says keep an eye on the rich, the will use laws against you.

So abortion, but do understand the right uses it as a political wedge issue. In the 60s it was segregation and race dating conservative Christians stood for, then they switch to abortion, Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell and the moral majority lead a lot of that. This same right support billions going to Israel each year, but the Israeli government funds and performs thousands of abortions yearly, so not really consistent with it. They say pro-life, but quick to war. So I guess abortion with an asterisk.

 

[Strathos]

My question to that would be, who has to pay for this artificial womb? and who then brings up the child? Who pays for the kid's upbringing?

Health insurance and adoptive parents.

 

[Lg2000]

I don't consider myself either but I love living in a democratic /left state and the things I like and believe in tend to be left overall .
S
Both have things I like and things that I don't .

I don't believe in trickle down economics.

I believe any full time job should have good pay and you should be able to support yourself on it. (Raising the minimum wage)

I believe health care should be a right . united states is like number one in health care spending but are 37th in health care ranking world wide. The way health care is implemented in this country is a joke.

I believe we need less military spending not more.

I oppose gay marriage and abortions but trying to shut down abortion isn't going to work. Girls are just going to back to the old days and look for different ways to abort

I don't support the death penalty . Being pro-life but supporting the death penalty makes no sense to me.

I don't believe in having open borders .

 

[stevil]

Health insurance and adoptive parents.

Health insurance premiums would go up. Personally I don't see the point in going to all that trouble to create a living unwanted baby from a fertilised egg or embryo that doesn't even know that it is alive. Are there enough adoptive parents? Are Christians going to step up to fill this need given it is them who are against discarding the egg/embrio/fetus? What about the fetus that was aborted due to medical issues e.g. spina bifida or downs? Will Christians seek to adopt those?

 

[Strathos]

Health insurance premiums would go up. Personally I don't see the point in going to all that trouble to create a living unwanted baby from a fertilised egg or embryo that doesn't even know that it is alive. Are there enough adoptive parents? Are Christians going to step up to fill this need given it is them who are against discarding the egg/embrio/fetus? What about the fetus that was aborted due to medical issues e.g. spina bifida or downs? Will Christians seek to adopt those?

Sure. Better than letting them die.

 

[perplexed]

The message that it is common for the government to spend a lot of money for a big fail burger is very important. At the end of the day I lean left because governments look after orphans and manage disasters but my heart is not in it because of the incompetence. I think big governments can be competent but the public has to be more critical and selective when they vote, the Chinese government is ruthless and competent, I don't think it is competent because it ruthless

 

[Zergling Rush]

I like:

• Supporting the success of businesses to create jobs and economic activity
• Government should be involved in helping an economy thrive and that might mean tax breaks or help for businesses/industries to be successful.
• Not allowing rules and regulations to get out of hand by creating too much expense or effort that kills business or industry
• Being wary on overpowerful unions, stifling businesses, creating extraordinarily unfair terms, stopwork action
• Being wary of creating long term dependency on handouts.
• Accountability on government spending
• Lower taxes and no death duties (inheritance tax)

Really good post. I'm sick of the "team red vs blue" politics stuff so it's good to see some thought put into ideas.

I'm with you on the above. For me, the government's job is to set up basic rules governing society and business, educate people on those rules, and then by and large let then get on with it, only stepping in to intervene when people transgress those same rules. That means no nanny-state coddling our every move, but no lawless libertarian utopia either.

I would add that I think the right has the correct idea on being tough on serious crime and repeat offenders too, but I don't agree with prisons being privately run. I also don't agree with the death penalty.

I also don't believe in open borders or having illegal immigrants live under some kind of quasi-legal status, as I think it leaves people ripe for exploitation and dilutes industrial laws such as minimum wage and working conditions that affect all workers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would consider myself "libertarian left"...so naturally, there's going to be certain economic aspects of conservatism that I'm on board with. When I refer to "conservatism", I'm referring to it in it's true sense, and not in way of conflating "conservatism" with "republicanism" (as I do feel they're different things, and in many ways republicans aren't conservative)

I'm socially liberal on the topics of LGBT issues, marijuana, abortion, climate change. And I do stray from the libertarian ranks on the topic of healthcare, as I see single-payer being superior to what we have now (produces better outcomes for a lower cost).

But as far where I agree with conservatism:

I see myself as being more aligned with conservatism on the topic of guns, and while I think it can be too lax in some ways on the conservative side, I still see value in allowing people (some of whom may be vulnerable) to access the tools for self defense.

I do favor a more limited state involvement in the economy, and feel that redistribution efforts run the risk of exacerbating the problems they're looking to solve in many cases, and definitely feel there's such a thing as too much regulation in some aspects...as well as being a strong proponent of the idea that the goal should be equality of opportunity, and not trying to achieve equality of outcome.

When it comes to big cultural shifts or massive institutional overhauls, I favor a marathon over a sprint, and think there's value in big changes being slow & steady as opposed to trying to make massive shifts overnight. While I'd like to have every initiative I was behind changed tomorrow, I'm pragmatic enough to understand that there's a backlash effect trying to make big changes that quickly, and it's simply unreasonable for me to expect that 120 million people (who may not be comfortable with something) will magically become receptive to something overnight.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would consider myself "libertarian left"...so naturally, there's going to be certain economic aspects of conservatism that I'm on board with. When I refer to "conservatism", I'm referring to it in it's true sense, and not in way of conflating "conservatism" with "republicanism" (as I do feel they're different things, and in many ways republicans aren't conservative)

I'm socially liberal on the topics of LGBT issues, marijuana, abortion, climate change. And I do stray from the libertarian ranks on the topic of healthcare, as I see single-payer being superior to what we have now (produces better outcomes for a lower cost).

But as far where I agree with conservatism:

I see myself as being more aligned with conservatism on the topic of guns, and while I think it can be too lax in some ways on the conservative side, I still see value in allowing people (some of whom may be vulnerable) to access the tools for self defense.

I do favor a more limited state involvement in the economy, and feel that redistribution efforts run the risk of exacerbating the problems they're looking to solve in many cases, and definitely feel there's such a thing as too much regulation in some aspects...as well as being a strong proponent of the idea that the goal should be equality of opportunity, and not trying to achieve equality of outcome.

When it comes to big cultural shifts or massive institutional overhauls, I favor a marathon over a sprint, and think there's value in big changes being slow & steady as opposed to trying to make massive shifts overnight. While I'd like to have every initiative I was behind changed tomorrow, I'm pragmatic enough to understand that there's a backlash effect trying to make big changes that quickly, and it's simply unreasonable for me to expect that 120 million people (who may not be comfortable with something) will magically become receptive to something overnight.

That's just classical liberalism, which is an ideology of the Right. You are not on the Left. Being pro-gay doesn't make you a leftist, necessarily.

Favoring gradual, organic social change also fits with the traditional of British conservativism. Being a conservative doesn't mean one is a reactionary, which is what alot of the modern American Republican party is about.

 

[Percivale]

In the US I'm left of center, in most of the EU I'd probably be closer to center right. It's getting harder to say what left and right or conservative and liberal are though. I like less regulation on things that don't harm the environment, favor very progressive but not extremely high taxes and a citizen's dividend, am libertarian on most social issues but that's not the same as being left on those issues, and I'm pro-life. I'm part of the American Solidarity party.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's just classical liberalism, which is an ideology of the Right. You are not on the Left. Being pro-gay doesn't make you a leftist, necessarily.

Favoring gradual, organic social change also fits with the traditional of British conservativism. Being a conservative doesn't mean one is a reactionary, which is what alot of the modern American Republican party is about.

I think there's a need for some consistency of terms.

Or perhaps you can clarify which "deal-breaker" issue stances would preclude someone from being considered "left-leaning"

With regards to contemporary usage of the terms "left" and "right" in the US. My being pro-choice, in favor of marijuana legalization, in favor of same-sex rights, and in favor of single-payer healthcare over what we have now would be considered "left" values.


Now, if you're referring to the over-arching definitions
Left-wing politics - Wikipedia

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

...then most people living the first world be hard-pressed to consider themselves on "the left" by those standards. Even the Scandinavian countries (whom many people falsely refer to as socialist when they're actually market economies with just a few expanded social safety nets) could theoretically be considered "moderate-right" by those standards, as while they enjoy many of those aspects of a slightly expanded welfare state, they're still in favor of market economies (as the Danish PM had to clarify for the kids at the Kennedy center a few years back)

And even among countries that many consider to be left leaning in contemporary discourse, they have established/official religions, which The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought (which is the basis for the over-arching definitions in modern political discourse) would describe as an attribute of "The Reactionary Right".


So perhaps you can provide clarification for where you "set the bar" for one to be considered left-leaning (which key issues are 'deal-breakers'?)