question for left-wingers and socialists.

even though the bi-partisan paradigm of bickering is pretty moronic, i was wondering what exactly you all think is wrong with the way right-wingers think?

right-wingers are more aggressive in deconstructing everyone elses views, while left wingers mostly support ideas in general. at least from what comes in and out of my ear. so democrats, its your turn.

in a small paragraph, explain to a right-winger the grand scheme of whats wrong with the way they think.

 

democracy is not a conservative concern

 

Neither Right wing nor Left Wing thinking is "normal" or correct. Each is a political philosophy and both may be somewhat valid views with general flaws in execution. Extreme governments of both the Right and the Left are abusive as a rule.
The extreme Right wing is authoritarian and overbearing, leaving people burdened with laws that suppress all but the elite.

The extreme Left wing demands political orthodoxy to liberal precepts, tends to be Utopian but have proven themselves impractical in their implementation -- why would I continue to work extremely hard if the Government takes almost all of what I have worked hard to earn and give it to someone else?


Anarchy does not work either because then life devolves into survival of the most ruthless.(lots of us thought this might be the way to go- back in the day- No real plan- got sqaushed)

Unfortunately with large populations, only democratic constitutional republics are at all reasonably fair, but those too are flaws. They just are less flawed than other forms. I am not familiar with a benign monarchy , but monarchies are only benign so long as the good leader maintains power. But mostly that whole deal is about titles and figureheads * *

As for why I think the left is a better choice, it's because most of the values we hold dear involve letting people have choices. Those choices need not be so hard to make unless you have an opposition of wealthy, bigoted, bible-thumping, over-schooled but uneducated morons who are afraid they will not be "special" if everyone has the same opportunities.

The only way the word "normal" can be applied to people is as a range of body temperature. There is no normal concerning thinking, politics, religion or government. If the question were "which one is better?" then I would opt for the left.- -Just my opinions* *

good karma to all
jjack

 

But which wing is proponent for travel; which is proponent for more and more people staying at home for the values of the personal life style?:mickey:

 

right wingers don't want to listen. They know they're right and that's why you only want a small paragraph

 

One could argue the same of left wingers. It would probably be as inaccurate of an over generalization.

 

Economically:

The governments job is to protect the people.

While that doesn't mean to babying them, social reforms for the elderly, disabled, enfeebled, or misguided looking for work are ultimately create a positive and reinforcing network of community.

Socially:

The world is changing, and though you may not approve of other peoples choices, you have to respect them. It's not the governments right to intervene.

Domestically:

A pattern of fear of immigration has stumped our country since 1996. Instead of encouraging well educated engineers and scientists towards easy immigration, we've been actively dissuading them.

Foreign Policy:

Military intervention is no longer a productive enterprise for the US. We have no rivals and invading Iraq was a very costly mistake. We need to refocus on rebuilding our domestic resources while selling off all our non strategic foreign resources.

It's actually a longer list. My main complaint with the conservatives is they live within the confines of an idealized nuclear family that never actually existed.

The world changes and we need to change with it. It's no longer the 1947, and now we'll lose if we don't adapt.

 

Right: People are inherently bad.
Left: People are inherently good.

 

Because you did not define what you mean by "right-winger" and "left-winger" I will define how I distinguish between right and left. I am aware that my definition will not be agreed upon by everyone, and invite others to give their definitions.

I would say that the right is committed to the ideal of inequality. The left is committed to the ideal of equality. The varieties of right wing thought differ as to the kind of inequality they are committed to. It may be inequality based on birth, income, intellect, race, nation, religion, or another factor. Whatever it is, those on the right wish to increase the benefits going to their favored group; the left wishes to equalize benefits, at least somewhat.

Now someone on the left may be a hypocrite. For example, Kim Jong-il, the dictator of North Korea, gives lip service to the egalitarian values of socialism while living like a multi millionaire. Nevertheless, he does give lip service to those values. He does not argue that Communist Party members deserve better than non Communist Party members, or that Koreans deserve better than non Koreans.

Adolf Hitler did argue that Germans deserve better than non Germans, and that Nazi Party members were a superior kind of German. That is why I would place Kim on the left, and Hitler on the right.

I consider myself to be moderately on the left, because I see little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income. Although I believe that some inequality is necessary to inspire economic growth and technical innovation, I believe that too much inequality is harmful to those goals. It must be possible for a talented person to develop his or her talents. That will not be possible if the talented person's family lives at a subsistence level, and the talented person lacks access to public school education.

 

walsh: you're being sarcastic, I believe. But back to my original question; we are not at a priori ethics.

The choice (as the right want for us) would have to be made to travel less. The 'Tea Party' may be a great incentive concept. We'll all start off by Tea Parties all across the Nation.

 

Why does everyone and everything have to have a label ? Left / right , dem/ rep

Most Americans fall somewhere in the middle . However have no "real" viable party to represent their interests , because the mass media controls politics .

Our problems aren't political , no matter which side or party we align and identify with . Or problems are moral problems, rather lack of them and greed .

We must dump both these parties if we EVER want REAL change . And questioning what's wrong with the way the other thinks , only causes further divide . Everyone has a right and views things differently , so how could anyone say it's wrong ? It's like a rhetorical question . The problem is we have let bi partisan politics run a muck along our party lines and we have lost our common sense .

 

I think both sides have some issues with reality and really looking closely at what they believe and want as individuals as opposed to what their party or group is pushing as an issue at the current moment. I think because they listen to the hatred and politics too much.

I find it funny that people on the right think the poor are stealing all their money and taking advantage of everyone. While the left often thinks it the rich and powerful who are stealing money and taking advantage of everyone. I guess the answer is in who has the money and power...

I think the conservative side likes the way things are setup because it rewards certain things. For instance people who are good at business and getting away without paying taxes are rewarded with healthcare and better homes. People who are teachers, garbage collectors, etc. are not rewarded. You can't tell me a CEO works harder than someone who is collecting garbage all day, and then working a night job, etc. etc. But they are definitely rewarded more.

I don't believe it's because they have more inherent worth that makes people who are in power and have more money. I think it's because they make the rules. Meritocracy is bullshit, because it depends on what is considered merit. People in power want things to stay that way.

There are also obviously a lot of poorer people who are conservative, but that's mainly because they are tricked with talk of abortion, Christ, etc. which the conservatives in power really don't change, but use to keep themselves in power, keep the rich rich, and the poor poor. Or xenophobia is exploited by playing with race, or calling people "elitist," or urban, or latte drinkers. There are plenty of pretty tough liberals out there (just go to Pittsburgh), but they are played off as pansies to help win over people who respond to that type of thing. Or saying that the Gays will take over and ruin everything....or that if we give everyone the right to marry then people will be able to marry dogs.

The GM tax rebate is a perfect example of how the government helps the rich. Or the fact that we subsidize Oil Companies and big Agri-business. We hear about all the trouble it causes everyone that we might help a couple poor people get basic health care from the right....but we don't really hear from anyone about the help we give big businesses and rich people.

The conservatives do things like talk about voter fraud, which has been studied and proven to be very minimal. It looks good to some who are worried everyone is out to steal their money and votes, but it's really used to help make it harder for those who are poor to be less likely to vote. There have been cases where fliers are sent out in poor communities warning, "Make sure you pay your rent and bill before you vote, because they have that on record and will collect the money when you vote." I'm sure that was a fringe of the right wing, but it's just so disturbing that they would want to trick people into being afraid to vote.

The left wing that is currently in control really is very pro-business, pro-rich already. It's really much more central that most right wing think. The right wing just goes further. To call Obama very liberal is really a stretch.

 

Yaah, Obama failed as a liberal; mostly it is the social ethics issue over morals and values that the left failed to hold onto from ex-governments.


But now liberals will learn from the people.

 

No, the left love the idea of being open minded so they will act like the are listening for hours before they call you an idiot

 

Just being existentialist. Maybe I should have kept it to 'Metaphysics and Mysticism'.:2thumbsup:

 

um im sorry? i didn't mean it like that, just thought it'd be a lil challenge. if it seemed like a biased question, sorry im misunderstood.
as many republicans would probably say democrats, green, and socialists are just "sheep in a herd" listening to only "stupid" things on the news and such.
i just posted this thread cuz my mom always listens to republican and libertarian talk shows and tv, and i've heard so much blabber about how democrats and green peeps are hallow in the head. just woulda liked to see what people would say.


and i'm very glad to see everyone's opinions here that reach much past the bipartisan thing.

 

to put it as simply as possible, though i am not an a liberal idealogue, the right wants less government. the problem that i have with that can be seen in the economic crash of 2008. deregulation of industry, banking, consumer products with the assumption that the "market will work itself out", or that "buyer beware" etc. is a flawed strategy and it has been seen time and time again throughout history.

also, the right wing is not progressing along with the social change that is taking place in society. the party continues to interfere in the private lives of american citizens.

it's almost a hypocritical strategy if you look at the first and second paragraph. less intervention in business affairs, and more intervention in private affairs.

 

I don't understand why regulation of markets is seen as 'more government'. Either the market is unregulated (it never has been in history) or is regulated. The government always decides how it is regulated, there is no less or more.

 

Right wingers are devolved monsters and they don't even know it. They have departed from what originally made them Republicans in more ways than one. . Democrats are just as bad.. I don't really take a side, I don't know what side to define myself with.

If republicans were in the slightest bit attractive, Bill O' Smiley is kind of a buzz killer.

 

"in a small paragraph, explain to a right-winger the grand scheme of whats wrong with the way they think. "

I have a problem with both when it appears they are merely toeing a party line. I really detest "group" mentality. I wish both sides would start talking about actual facts and effects not theoretical positions. I think if we all did more of that we'd find we share mutual experiences and could probably find some relatively reasonable solutions to our problems. Everything is a strategy to out manuever the other guy anymore. Not everything is a competition.