Easier to be left than right......

Published on June 2, 2004 By KarmaGirl In Politics

I am sure that many will disagree, but it appears to me that it is an easier stance to be on the political left than on the right. It seems like you hear more people on the left calling people on the right "fascist" and other terms, or tend to think that the right is stifling the "free speech" of the left. People also equate the liberal left as the "humanitarians" of the world, while the right is only out to protect themselves. Draginol has pointed out the many things that Republicans have done for Americans. I wish I could remember the whole list, and I hope that he will enlighten me again so that I don't forget anything. I also notice that a lot of lefts point out what political stance another person has, but not many rights do. Maybe rights are just more open minded than lefts?

But, I'll just leave this disorganized rambling with a definition from www.wordiq.com (I don't know why I find it amusing, but I do.....It may have to do with a line a read on JU where somebody said that they remember when "Liberalism" was called "Socialism") :

Encyclopedia

Definition: Left-wing politics

In politics, left-wing, political left, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the United States sense of the word), or with opposition to right-wing politics.

The terminology of Left-Right politics was originally based on the seating-arrangement of parliamentary partisans, during the French Revolution. The more ardent proponents of radical revolutionary measures (including democracy and republicanism, but often including also governmental terror) were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. As this original reference became obsolete, the meaning of the terms has changed as appropriate to the spectrum of ideas and stances being compared.

The term is also often used to characterize the politics of the Soviet Union and other one-party communist states, although many (perhaps most) on the political left (even including some who call themselves Marxist) would not consider their own politics to have anything significant in common with those of these states. Similarly, most anarchists consider themselves part of the political left, but many others on the left would reject that connection.

Comments (Page 1)

messybuu

on Jun 02, 2004

I think these days, it's easier to be leftist, or a humanitarian, because let's face it, these people can only benefit from such behavior. Hell, although I really like the kind of system we have now, I can't help but fantasize about the joys of socialism and not having to work!

shadesofgrey

on Jun 02, 2004

I think that depending on what "side" you are on, you notice the "other" doing questionable things. For example, you lean more to the right than I do and you notice:

I also notice that a lot of lefts point out what political stance another person has

Where as, from my perspective, there's been a number of times on JU, in particular, that I've avoided commenting because some one has already made some disparaging remark about all the "lefty kooks." While I have never considered myself left, in the political threads here, that is what I've been labelled, repeatedly. I prefer to consider myself a moderate or centrist (however, I think Draginol once pointed out that everyone likes to consider themselves "mainstream.").

mikimouse

on Jun 02, 2004

It's time for people to understand that there is no difference between the 2 factions when it comes to actions performed while in power. The poor stay poor and the rich get richer. Both sides raise taxes consistently, both sides have initiated and conducted questionable wars. Both sides mudsling and accuse the other of doing what they do themselves. It's all a grand illusion designed to make people think they have a choice. Election promises.....whatever. Piecrust promise. Easily made and easily broken. Thanks Mary.

messybuu

on Jun 02, 2004

I always hear that, and there is truth to it, especially when you consider that the two main political parties are the most moderate of all political parties, and I think that's why we vote for them... We don't want to rock the boat too much. Better for slow change than swift change that'll throw many people overboard.

6969jimbo6969

on Jun 02, 2004

The reason it's 'easier' being SOCIALLY PROGRESSIVE---which many folks, wittingly or unwittingly, label "leftist," a trite non-sequitur, easy to dismiss and demonize---is that the VAST majority of humanity are DESPERATE for social progress. Hence, unless they're very confused or stupid or misled, they see socially progressive thinking as better. It's 'easier', therefore, because social democrats are inherently more in allignment with more of our 'cousins' than conservatives, reactionaries, imperialists, or any of the other political stripes who hitch their stars to reactionary, conservative, imperialistic sorts of parties or movements.

In no way is this phenomena personal, except in the way that people always get gruff and personal, just like chimps fighting over bananas and 'hot' babes. God knows, the reactionary, conservative, imperialistic sorts might all be right-thinking angels, and the vast majority of humanity might be fools of one coloration or other. But I'm with Churchill. "Democracy is a bad form of government. But all the others are so much worse." Keep us posted.

Draginol

on Jun 02, 2004

It's easier to be liberal than conservative because liberals tend to go with their feelings whereas conservatives are forced to deal with the consequences.

It's easy to take the position of wanting to have a "living wage". Aren't those people nice? Not like those greedy conservatives who oppose it. And isn't it compassionate to want to provide free health coverage to everyone? Not like those heartless conservatives who oppose it. And isn't it noble to be against all war and be pacifistic? What kind of evil bastards wants war?

But here's another interesting thing I've seen over the years:

Conservatives tend to have the hard power. Bastards like me have the power to shut down our opposition but are opposed by soft power. Liberals, by contrast, tend to believe that certain thoughts or beliefs are incorrect and will shower those they disagree with with accusations of bigotry, racism, fascism, etc. to drown out their opponents or shame them into silence.

For example, it's perfectly acceptable for a bunch of left-wingers to name call and humiliate those who disagree with them with the obvious intent of shaming them into silence. But if I zap someone's posting priviledges for personally abusing someone else, these same people start shrieking censorship even though that is, as a practical matter, what liberals do all the time by making certain subjects out of bounds.

messybuu

on Jun 02, 2004

How do these socially progressive types spread social progress to our cousins, and when you think about it, how isn't imperialism socially progressive? I mean, when you look at American imperialism and the "invasion of Iraq", we're trying to improve that place. Therefore, Bush is indeed socially progressive while those condemning the act aren't!

shadesofgrey

on Jun 02, 2004

It appears that you are equating Conservative with wealthy and Liberal with poor. There are quite a few wealthy liberals out there who have just as much "power" as you do. George Soros and Peter Lewis are leftist billionaires. In fact, Soros established a sort of "Billionaires against Bush" campaign.

I am hazarding the guess that you are talking about the extreme left. Not all on the left believe in the power of name calling. More over, there are plenty on the right that have no problem with mudslinging. This type of personality is not based on political preferences, at least not from where I'm standing.

Madine

on Jun 02, 2004

Actually, I'm not so sure that it's easier to be on the left.

How many elected officials are proud to call themselves liberal? It seems to me that that label is being shunned, and liberals are either masking themselves as "moderates" or establishing new terms like "progressive".

Liberals have been forced to try to advance their agenda via litigation because they dont' have enough support to do it legislatively. What would be an example of a major liberal policy initiative within the last 10 years in the U.S. which included passing laws?

Draginol

on Jun 02, 2004

Shades - no I wasn't equating conservative with wealthy or liberal with poor. If I was, then I would have said "Conservatives tend to be wealthy and liberals poor".

Business leaders tend to be conservative. The journalists tend to be liberal while the CEOs of the media companies tend to be conservative. Hard power, soft power.

Saint Ying

on Jun 03, 2004

That's why we call it 'neoconservatism' and not just conservatives. Neocons are Trotskyites incarnate. Many of them were once conservative democrats or socially moderate pro-Israel hardliners. They generally do not care about such things as the budget deficit or the voices of the Christian right. However, in the wake of 9/11 they have joined into nifty conservative trifecta with big energy, finance, and defense and the Christian right, which has found theological common ground with Bush's middle east policy. Link-- Bush seems impressively suited to ballance the interests of all three. He's just dumb enough to believe what the neocons tell him and 'pass it on' to the American public, he has a wonderful relationship with big business and the causes of deregulation, and of course the Christian right considers him one of their own.

I'm not going to dispute the fact that Bush considers himself some breed of progressive. The question is, has he 'progressed' the country in the right direction?

messybuu

on Jun 03, 2004

True, but that could be said of all progressives, which means that Bush and his opponents have much more in common than they thought.

kingbee

on Jun 03, 2004

first of all, its interesting the original post only cited the definition of left-wing politics rather than liberal politics (although ill concede the title is 'left vs right', still the spark for this post was an observationt that "Liberalism" was called "Socialism) that liberal=socialism remark is only true in the united states if you are referring to extremists like robert welch and the once famous 'little old ladies in tennis shoes from orange county, california.' no responsible person referred to john f kennedy, robert kennedy, lyndon b johnson, adlai stevenson, hubert humphrey as socialists.

being a conservative in the late 1950s-early 1960s was in many respects like being a cubs fan. conservatives (this is even more true for those who identified themselves as right-wingers) were outnumbered by at least 2 to 1 within the republican party. moderate republicans (who would now be derided by members of their party as liberals) easily controlled the party platform much to the chagrin of the goldwater faction of the party. conservative republicans were seen by the party and the public as being--at best--extremists who harked back to the mccarthy/china lobby era and/or members of groups like the john birch society. in 1964, goldwater conservatives pulled off an impressive--and unexpected--coup by carrying the nomination. the whole point of the most famous line of goldwater's acceptance speech--extremism in pursuit of liberty is no vice--was to put a better spin on the most problematic aspect of his campaign; it was an unqualified failure in that regard and goldwater was trounced by johnson.

goldwater may have lost the battle but the war wasnt nearly over. following that election, conservatives regrouped and began a very successful effort to portray themselves the victims of a huge liberal media effort to crush them. their success led to a triumph of image over substance that corresponded with the ascent of the 'new conservatives' and culminated in the nomination of ronald reagan (who had gone from public spokesman for general electric--and headliner of the ultranationalist tentmeeting circuit as well as host of dozens of films about the huac hearings, herbert philbrick memoirs, etc--to governor of california). nixon played a substantial part in the progression by reinventing himself as the voice of reason (and using his new status to enlarge the party by pandering to racists, the mobbed-up teamsters and construction unions, etc ). it was nixon's association with the yaf that provided him with footsoldiers in return for acceptance and a voice in the party organization. under the patronage of both nixon and reagan, yaf inspired and manned the struggle to remake the conservative image and amplify its voice.

that coalition is largely responsible for reshaping the american conservative movement into what it is today. and what it is today is a far cry from what conservative used to be as i pointed out in response to the liberal=socialist remark as it was originally posted.

its difficult to be liberal in 2004 because that well has been so successfully poisoned. its far more difficult to be a true conservative though because the very people who should be the beacons of conservatism are much more interested in winning at any cost. its easiest to be neo-conservative--a category that includes many of those here who refer to themselves as conservatives while also enthusiastically and unquestioningly supporting an administration that has shown itself to be consistent only in its disregard for traditional conservative principles as well as any sort of philosophic and political consistency

Saint Ying

on Jun 03, 2004

It's easier to be liberal than conservative because liberals tend to go with their feelings whereas conservatives are forced to deal with the consequences.

Brad, that's complete ignorance, and you know it. Actually you don't know it, which is mindboggling. One wonders whether you have actually met and gotten to know many real liberals, or whether you are just responding bitterly to some supressed compassionate voice in your head that you find unreasonable. Whatever the case, in everything you say you sound as if you've latched on to some spineless, feminine (and lower class) charicature that you won't let go of. Of course many conservatives, you being the prime example, think in terms of charicatures, myths, and big, vague generalizations that have little to do with reality, much less the actual positions of the two political parties. Still many more have an emotional and spiritual affinity with the republican party. They vote republican because it feels right. When they see Bush landing on the aircraft carrier in a fighter plane, flags raised and blowing in the wind, addressing the nation to announce the fall of the Ba'thist regime, they are swept away by a feeling of pride and rightness. And its true, there are liberals who are spinelessly compassionate, who vote with their hearts and not their heads. For those, we say 'their hearts are in the right place'. Yet the liberal ideology, in its purest political form, is strongly rational: Just look at our forefathers, the classical liberals and the British socialists, both of whom succeeded not because they offered the most impassioned and compassionate ideas, but because they were so sensible and rational. The two, emotional and rational thought, are obviously not mutually exclusive. I can say 10 + 10 is 20 because it makes me happy that way, and it's still not wrong. Likewise, I can say energy corporations need to be more tightly regulated, and it's not because I have some irrational fear of energy corporations, it's because I have very honest and concrete evidence that energy deregulation is a bad idea for consumers. Firmly convinced in this, I can then spin this information emotionally: "Enron and Reliant are Satan and his bitch, Draginol is their love child, and all republicans are selfless and incompassionate." But the bottom line is I can always come home to present my reasons, and my reasons are always more convincing and less dogmatic than yours.

Yeah, and it's just as easy to take the position of "loving America". How noble. Not like those spineless appeasers who hate America. And we believe in "freedom", unlike those socialists who want to take it away. And we love Jesus and hate fags (ie. disagree with the homosexual lifestyle), because the bible tells us so. Gee, we sure put alot of thought into that one.

I take it this is a personal reference to me. Bravo, it's another spectacular and wise insight from Draginol, the moderate moderator... But it's not because we are pro-censorship, it's because we are the intellectually dominant voice on this message board, and when you have as strong an assortment of voices as we do, you get to set some of the boundaries. Go to www.chronwatch.com and try to get a liberal word on their message boards. Try to say something rational and thoughtful about the war on terrorism. There's a fellow named 'caridoc' there who slays liberals by trashing them personally. The conservative posters support him, even though if he was a liberal he'd have long been banned from their site. Together, they define the taboo subjects. If you want to cite an article from the Guardian or Village Voice, they blow you off as a quack. If I were to give my argument against the war in Iraq, I sympathize with the terrorists. (Gee, sounds kind of like you, Brad. Are you sure that it's just us who tries to sway the discourse... Perhaps its just that on this forum, we succeed and the conservatives fail. But try ChronWatch or Rush and Michael Savage's shows, or watch Fox News and tell me there isn't emotionally manipulated censorship of opinions.)

BTW, I've accused you of racism once, in response to stupid comic that seemed to lump different Muslim groups together. I now realize that it wasn't racial insensitivity, it was simply intellectual insensitivity to the fact that we can't be viewing all our enemies as part of one team... So I rescind that comment. But I've never called anyone here a fascist (although I have used the term in other ways with logical justification), and I've never called anyone a biggot either. Nor do I see those terms used anywhere as nearly as I see 'he hates America'. The difference must be that we are strong enough to resist your attempts at intellectual censorship, and you are not. So quit whining if you feel like we have too much 'soft power' (and how exactly are we supposed to get 'hard power' anyway? Can I announce my candidacy for site owner?), and lead your conservative followers in defining the taboos. I guarantee you'll fall on your face and whine about how abusive and censorial we are. Then you can suck my cock..

Saint Ying

on Jun 03, 2004

Well said Kingbee. The difference between the pre-Goldwater conservatives and the Bush conservatives is like the difference between Lenin and Stalin. The former created the revolution, the later 'branded' the revolution. Not that the pre-Goldwater conservatives were anywhere near as extreme as Lenin, or that Stalin was anywhere near as extreme as Bush.

But lets not get too down on Barry Goldwater. He wasn't all bad, and I quote:

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!