EDIT (17 FEB 2010): Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksq8GAVlB-A Then, for those who opt for the false "Liberty-Tyranny" definition of the "Right-Left" schematic, explain how the authoritarian nobles and clergy are "Right" and the democracy-minded commoners are "Left."
(Posted on Team Sarah.org at
http://www.teamsarah.org/profiles/blogs/how-conservatives-are-like-the)
Good. I've got some people's attention. Now, what do I mean my this comparison of conservatives to Ninevites. Well, here it is in
Jonah 4:11:
Shouldn't I feel sorry for this important city, Nineveh? It has more than 120,000 people in it as well as many animals. These people couldn't tell their right hand from their left.(God's Word Translation--emphasis added)
Now, some of you know that perhaps my biggest peeve with the conservative/Right--right after their general self-focus and refusal to sacrifice for the cause we share--is the widespread misunderstanding--and often, intentional misrepresentation--of the meaning behind the "Left-wing/Right-wing" political spectrum. Below is a reproduction of a blog post by yours truly way back on November 9, 2008 (
http://www.teamsarah.org/profiles/blogs/explaining-the-difference ). Yeah, I could have just posted the link, but I decided to put all the information right here, so no one gets lost clicking on the link. (Yes, I know. I'm a nice guy.)
This post explains how political science uses the terms, and how the schematic works. In that regard, it's not an opinion piece, with which people can say, "Well, I disagree with your interpretation." No, it's simply the case. Quibble with details if you wish, but the point is accurate, as can be proven by asking any political science professor of whatever political stripe.
Please, folks. Please read this and then research it. Those of you who have fallen for the false definition, please look into it from objective sources (no talk radio personalities allowed in this) before getting all knee-jerk about being lopped into the same end of the spectrum as Adolf Hitler. Please, just for this, set aside obsession with "individual liberty" being the be-all/end-all of political evaluations (in other words, don't play Glenn Beck here), and try to consider values beyond oneself as issues as well. This is, I believe, the biggest intellectual obstacle between "our side" and success. The false understanding blinds people to the real threat faced by America as we've known it. The true understanding will, I assure you, enlighten you to the reality of the political world around us.
Thank you.
Explaining the difference between "Right" and "Left"Posted November 9, 2008
A lot of people have the wrong idea what is meant by "Right" and "Left" in sociopolitical talk. Why is Hitler considered "Rightwing," instead of "Leftwing," over there with the other people we don't like? Below is a comment posted by a fellow on a blog back in March, who addresses this issue from a fundamentally wrong understanding. Following that is my reply to the person. Finally, there is a comparison of Right and Left I wrote in 2005. It is biased in making "Rightwing" sound good, but I believe there may be some value there.
Posted by Me at
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/07/friday-night-quiz-guess-which-collectivist-said-it/#comment-262807On March 7th, 2008 at 9:50 pm, JohnHolliday said:
The problem with liberals is that they think socialism is on the far left of the political spectrum and Nazism is on the far right, with democracy in the middle.
It's not what's left and right, it's zero government versus total government. Socialism, Nazism, Theocracies, Monarchies, and to a lesser extent, Democracies, are forms of total governmental control.
Liberals just don't understand. The collective good is enhanced when the individual is free and the economy is not managed. Everyone prospers.
Or, maybe they do know this and just want that iron-fisted governmental control. Hmmmm?=======================
MY REPLY:
Oh, it looks like I have to fight the same battle here I've had to fight elsewhere on the Internet.
The difference between "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" is not "zero government vs. total government", or "liberty vs. tyranny." It's about something alluded to in the terms, "conservative" and "liberal": What direction do we take? It's about "tradition vs. innovation," "nature vs. nurture", "creation vs. evolution," "realism vs. idealism."
The Left looks to make something of people and society they have never been and can never be. The Right looks to uphold what generally is or has been, and possibly make it what it used to be.The original "Right-Left" distinction, in the French Parliament, involved people who wanted little or no change in government (Right) vs. those who wanted major and quick change (Left). In that case,
it was the Right wanting to retain a powerful monarch (strong government) vs. the Left wanting a less-powerful, frankly freer government (weaker government).John Kennedy made the point that
often the extremes look more like each other than they do the center. This is very valid. There are liberal pro-lifers, who extend civil rights protections to "unborn-Americans", and conservative "anti-war" types who extend nationalism into non-interventionism/isolationism (Ron Paul).
Nazism is Rightwing because it focused on upholding traditional things--national greatness, racial concerns, the family, a certain deific religiosity, militarism, and such. It pictures a world with distinctions. Communism is Leftwing because it ideologically focuses on breaking down each of those. It looks to the "stateless utopia," a world without distinctions.Nazism is reactionary, in that the Nazis looked at the liberalization in the German Weimar Republic and the threat from Communism, and responded by going back hard the other way. In doing so, though, they took with them some of the techniques and appearances of the Left--a certain collectivism, a certain populist idealism (every German received a two-week paid vacation). But it applied these things with an ideological eye toward traditional things, like material gain and national greatness for the sake of national greatness. Mussolini started out as a Leftist Socialist, but made his move to the Right based on his nationalism triggering a "reaction" against the (Leftist) Socialists opposing Italian involvement in WW1. He even referred to members of his movement as "soldiers of the Right." People need to give up freedom not to to equalize all peoples, ways, etc., but rather to exalt their own people, way, etc.
Communism, on the other hand, will use nation-states and military establishments, as well as ideas of nationalism and racial concerns. But it is not for those matters' own sake, but rather with the eye toward their eventual abolition. They seek to nurture and evolve humanity toward a time when no government or religion will be necessary, when all will fall in line with a "stateless utopia". People need to give up freedom not to exalt their own people, way, etc., but rather to equalize all peoples, ways, etc.
Hitler and Tojo looked to empires of thousands of years. Communism looks to no empires at all.
Notice I said "Communism," not "Stalin" or "Mao". When examining the Right-Left distinction, it is important to remember that it is an issue of the
ideology's aims, not the aims of its professed adherents. That is a weakness of the Left (and liberalism). it professes a wonderful, selfless, no-distinction approach without personal gain, but the natural inclinations of humans get in the way. Stalin sought personal power and some ethnic agendas, and Ho Chi Minh actually had some nationalist desires, and to some degree tried to use Communism/Leftism to accomplish them. Nonetheless, the stated ideology was one which ultimately rejects such things. (This is, in fact, why Communism will never succeed: The human factor gets in the way.)
Think of the difference this way: It's the difference between National Socialism and International Socialism. Nationalism is simply the upholding of the traditional, natural (and some would say, divinely-intended) familial and cultural distinctions. "Internationalism" is simply, in its ideologically-stated conclusion, the breakdown of those very distinctions.Ask yourself: When does the Left focus on things like gender, race, religion, national status, etc.? It is ONLY when doing so will break down the "traditional" (at least, in their view, "traditional") order: Leadership by the male, White, Christian/Judeo-Christian, American/Western types. Please,
remember their phrase, "traditionally-oppressed peoples." Their aim is give those people special consideration to equalize their status vis a vis the (I guess you would call them) "traditionally oppressing people(s)." Instead of giving special advantages to the ones who allegedly have traditionally had them, they give special advantages to the ones who allegedly never had them. The aim is eliminate the distinctions by making them of no impact at any level. Today we call it, Affirmative Action.
Conservatism is actually rather moderate/centrist (though definitely with an eye to the Right) on the universal scale. It doesn't usually go extreme on matters, and really doesn't lend itself to much overt activism. It's hard to get excited about conserving the status quo. One can become defensive against moves to either direction, but it's difficult to "spread same-o same-o".
The Left/liberal press calls mainstream Conservatives, the "extreme Right." BThis is of course in part to brand them as extreme and in the same league with the Nazis in people's eyes. But there is one element of truth to their statement: It reflects how far to the Left America has slid. When Tammy Bruce can be an openly lesbian pro-choicer and yet be "Rightwing," things have definitely moved left from the 1950s. In this immediate, current context, the "center" is made up of McCain and Lieberman, and indeed, the "far Right" is the Malkins, Limbaughs, etc.
Of course, many here will argue with me. But be aware, it makes us on the Right look dumb to try to twist the definition used in political science in order to shove people you don't like into the other side. This is what definitions like the one from the comment I quoted do. They are contrived with a set end-result, and seek a construct by which all they perceive as good is on their end, and all they perceive as bad is on the other.
Both sides do it. Recently I had a young, fairly reasonable but politically still-learning liberal suggest Communism shouldn't be considered Leftwing, because both it and Nazism call for dictatorship. (And just for the record, that liberal is a soldier in the U.S. Army.) I explained to him just what I just explained to you.
...
======================
"Right" and "Left" have simply come to be terms of convention for the two basic directions of sociopolitical aims and desires. The Right represents standard and traditional values and order, while the Left represents ultimately an idealistic vision with values that deviate from the standard and traditional. In practice, the Right recognizes "human nature", but the Left does not. To borrow Bill O'Reilly's description of the Liberal/Conservative distinction, the Left has superior theory, but the Right is realistic. The Left has this great and impossible vision, while the Right sees that the ideal cannot be humanly achieved. Rightists often differ on how their values, including order, are best manifested, but their differences are simply different arrangements within the same traditional framework, the framework Leftism seeks to destroy.
In simple terms: The Right is a lot of country music; the Left is John Lennon's "Imagine."Five basic sociopolitical differences between Left and Right (listed in alphabetical order), with Right-biased commentary:
FAMILY/NATION/ETHNICITY, ETC.--Left: "Brotherhood of man" gone wild. Tries to destroy the concept of blood distinctions and traditional orders in human existence in favor of a universal collective filling such roles (e.g., "It takes a village..."), even as it uses such distinctions in disrupting society and order (e.g.,"playing the race card"). Blood lineage is not a factor in ideological position.
Right: "Focus on the family." Respects and maintains the institutions, both familial and racial, even while recognizing the value of the individual and acting at times when necessary to correct wrongs and promote harmony between and among the various families of humanity. Blood lineage is a factor in ideological position.
MILITARY INSTITUTIONALITY (NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH "MILITANCY")--Left: "Peace and love ("unless you're a Socialist guerrilla")." Ideologically holds "violence" to be wrong in its very concept, but uses violence and murder against free nations and parties even as its cohorts among the free peoples of the world demand unilateral disarmament and pacifism.
Right: "Peace through superior firepower." Recognizes the reality of the world we live in and hence respects the military institutution and the legitimacy of free and good people being prepared for and actually using force and violence for righteous ends. (Belief in a private right to keep and bear arms may accompany this.)
POLITIES/"THE STATE" (Arguably, the most distinctive issue)--Left: "Internationalism." Ultimately, the ideology calls for the abolition of all government and all political entities (per classical Communism), yet creates some of the most brutal and totalitarian states for the alleged purpose of preparing people and the world for their utopia.
Right: "Nationalism." Recognizes the value of political states and the fact that human nature and failings preclude the Leftist "stateless utopia" from ever being achieved by earthly means; believes in a certain intrinsic duty/debt of loyalty being owed to one's own polity.
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND PROPERTY--Left: "Collectivism." Tries to destroy these in favor of collective ownership and elimination of all wealth classes; everybody equally miserable.
Right: "Individual accomplishment." Respects and maintains the practice and right, even if at times recognizing a need for measured regulation; people free to succeed.
RELIGION--Left: "Opiate of the people." Atheist in its purest form; to the degree the far Left has "religion," it often (but not universally) tends more toward an ethereal "spirituality," viewing the Deity less as a thinking personal Being and more as a concept or karmic functioning, and thus seeks to tear down trust in a Supreme Being ("Providence") and fear of/respect for an eternal judgment.
Right: "God-given rights," "Providence," etc. Tends to be--in ideology, if not always in application or practice--more respectful of the Deity as real and personal, often holding (rightly or wrongly) more set dogmas and doctrines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is from the comments to that original blog post:
1. Comment by
Chris on November 9, 2008 at 11:05am
Comparing American Conservatives to French "Conservatives" is an insult and I don't appreciate it one bit.
In my opinion, you've confused yourself with far too much Poli-Sci and not nearly enough of the foundational beliefs of liberty and the rule of law in what has been learned since the dawn of man as no liberal sniveling that we hear now hasn't been heard before.
Think about it. And my reply:
Comment by Tommygun on November 9, 2008 at 11:57am
Thank you for proving my point (and you are welcome for approving your insulting comment). You have literally no understanding of the matter. You condemn me for using political science, when "Right-Left" is nothing but a convention in political science!
You are basing your definition on what you want the distinction to be. If you wish to set up a spectrum to describe your point, you are free to do so. But using Right-Left to do so only shows your ignorance.
"Left-Right" is not about "liberty-tyranny." Read literally any decent dictionary's definition of Right and Left in terms of politics:
From www.dictionary.com (used only because it is handy):
33. the Right, a. the complex of individuals or organized groups opposing change in a liberal direction and usually advocating maintenance of the established social, political, or economic order, sometimes by authoritarian means.b. the position held by these people: The Depression led to a movement away from the Right. Compare left 1 (defs. 6a, b).
c. right wing.
34. (usually initial capital letter) the part of a legislative assembly, esp. in continental Europe, that is situated on the right side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more conservative or reactionary views than the rest of the members.
35. the members of such an assembly who sit on the Right.
6. the Left, a. the complex of individuals or organized groups advocating liberal reform or revolutionary change in the social, political, or economic order.
b. the position held by these people. Compare right (def. 33a, b).
c. left wing.
7. (usually initial capital letter) Government. a. the part of a legislative assembly, esp. in continental Europe, that is situated on the left side of the presiding officer and that is customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold more radical and socialistic views than the rest of the members.
b. the members of such an assembly who sit on the left.2. From a now-deleted comment by the now-deleted member "Countryman": As I recall, he had posted a link to an online test people could take to determine where they fell on the political spectrum (according to whoever created the test). Here was my reply:
Comment by Tommygun on November 15, 2008 at 11:12pm
Countryman, I've seen that test before and find it flawed. It makes very much the same mistake I was addressing.
It is really just a flawed attempt to show where a person falls in present-day American politics as schematized by libertarians. Take the draft question: That issues universally speaking says nothing about Left vs. Right. Leftists in America opposed the draft in the 1960s, but most Communist countries have (had) a draft. Plus, Obama's people are talking about mandatory public service. On that test, supporting a draft will pulls someone to the Right.
Left vs. Right is not a matter of specific issues. It's a matter of overarching philosophy. If you like traditional measures of judgment and categorization and work for their institution, you are on the Right. The exact positions on issues can vary, based on the background of a given country and a person's priorities. But they all go to tradition. If you dislike such traditional measures and work for their deprecation or abolition, you are on the Left.
The issues aren't "issues" of and in themselves. At one time, it was people on the Right who wanted abortion, in order to control certain populations--i.e., based on and reinforcing a traditional categorization and structure. Today, it's liberals, in order to create "equality of outcome" between males and females--i.e., eliminating the natural difference between the genders in terms of the outcome of sex (that is, both can, uh, indulge without the "traditionally oppressed class" having a more severe consequence). And today, there are pro-abortion Rightists (controlling and making for an efficient societal institution) and pro-life liberals (protecting the rights of "unborn-Americans").
Issues can shift. Philosophy is what remains.