who are the leftist ?

Well; in political terms (I think) "leftist" simply means those whose views fall more to the left than right. Meaning left represent a more liberal political view and right represents a more conservative view. In today's political environment; despite most people coming around to "leftist" views; the term is almost a dirty word to call someone.

Most leftist oppose hawkish approaches to foreign affairs and lean towards a government which favors workers rather than corporations (the trickle down theory in other words). They favor stricter environmental laws over corporations who oppose strict enviornmental laws. Most leftist oppose strict immigration laws. They have a more tolerant view than conservatives towards morality issues in politics and things like that.

Of course that is just my definition of "leftist" since I am a leftist but a conservative would probably have a different definition.

you mentioned many places the word "strict" .

does it mean other parties are not that much strict than leftist

However, things are not that much clear .

what i understand from your speech is, leftist favors strict laws ...any laws ......but you know this is still not clear as strict could mean many thing in many context.

could anybody show me some difference what a leftist would look for and what a non leftist would look for ?

probably, examples would be the best way to describe and understand this old concept

These terms are not that easy to pin down-- except in specific contexts.

First in Europe the term "leftist" has a very different meaning then it does in the United States. There are very few "leftists" in the United States who would be considered leftists in Europe.

Second, the breakdown between "left" and "right" on specific issues often doesn't make sense (and these examples are from the US perspective).

A "pro-life" position when it comes to capital punishment and war is often considered a "leftist' position. But a "pro-life" position for abortion is not.

Government intervention when it comes to social services (welfare) and civil rights is a "leftist" position, but when it comes to wiretapping it is not.

Third, most people don't fit directly into narrow categories. The term 'leftist" is often used as an insult so that you don't need to think about a position that may disagree with your own.

From Ambrose Bierce's Devils Dictionary..

In the practice of



Bierce defined




ap

still this is beyond my reach

is there no examples ?

ok ,let me ask in other words

If i want to become a leftist what properties i must have ?what should be my behavior ? what i ought to do and what i not ought to do ?

To become a leftish in america you must wear Converse shoes

and a Stetson hat;
that's all there is to it.

In the United States there are two dominant political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Of course there are other political parties, but none of them have the backing and strength to seriously challenge either of the two major parties. Neither Party has iron-clad discipline over its Congressional representatives, and even less discipline over the voters who are registered as Party members. In this country each person is expected to make their own judgments on major issues, and weigh those judgments against their Party's platform/leadership before taking a public stand.

Most Americans aren't very politically motivated. Our Constitution limits the reach of the Federal Government, and preserves much to the People at local and State government levels. Americans tend to be concerned with pocket book issues. That is, the costs and the risks associated with living and competing in our society. They are more focused on local and personal issues and interests where theirpolitical party's positions have little apparent relevance. However, when it comes to electing State Governors and representatives to the Federal Government, both Parties are extremely active in campaigning for candidates of their own Party. Both Parties are our to convince the average voter to cast in their lot with the Party and its candidates.

Since both Parties depend upon the basically unaligned voters, both Parties are dissuaded from becoming too radical in pursuit of their political philosophy. Both Parties have very radical members who tend to be more politically active than the rank and file. The more radical the Party members the less they like compromise, or departure from their political philosophy ideals.

The Republican Party, the GOP (Grand Old Party), tends to be conservative and traditional regarding public policies. They tend to be favor a strong central government, but a Federal Government that intrudes as little as possible into the lives of American Citizens. Republicans have long subscribed to the notion of "Peace through Strength", and make Military/National Security preparedness a primary function of the Federal Government. To Republicans, traditional American values are very important and public policies that are perceived to undermine those values are resisted. Republicans tend to be suspicious of radical change, especially if it is rapid. Republicans believe strongly in personal initiative and competitiveness of Capitalism, and oppose Governmental "redistribution of Wealth". To have a strong central Federal Government, and for that government to operate effectively, taxation is required. Republicans, in accordance with American traditional values, oppose huge Government spending that imposes entitlements and a National Debt that it will take generations to pay for. On the other hand, Republicans tend to be practical and understand that using military force on the Nation's behalf is costly, but necessary. Republicans vary from very moderate to a Radical Right whose political philosophy is repugnant to most American voters.

The Democratic Party tips the balance between the rights of government and the rights of individuals in favor of individuals. Democrats generally favor individual rights, and oppose the reach of the central Federal Government. Over the years, especially since the 1930's the Democratic Party has evolved to the position that the Federal Government can and should legislate socially "uplifting" laws and policies. Democrats today tend to favor Big Government so long as that government is supporting and/or expanding socially responsible programs. Democrats tend to oppose almost any use of the U.S. military as a "senseless waste" of the Public Treasury. Democrats tend to support direct election of representatives, and to insist that their representatives be very responsive to public sentiment. The Democratic Party has moved over the last 75 years toward a more socialized American society. That has resulted in vast expansion of the Federal Bureaucracy and the National Debt to pay for popular entitlement programs. Democrats tend to find their strength in their ability to appeal to a wide range of socially conscious special interests, i.e. minorities, women, homosexuals, labor unions, and the very poor. Their support of entitlement programs has great appeal for Middle America, that is often struggling with economic issues and anxious over their personal future in a competitive society. The extreme radical wing of the Democratic Party tends to be Marxist, Socialist, Anarchist. Those folks tend to demand rather radical changes in the U.S. Constitution and the way the U.S. Government works.

The Republican Party is often referred to here as the Right, and the Democratic Party is the Left. Neither are uniform throughout, most of those registered with each Party are very moderate in their political views. The middle tends to favor change that improves their quality of life, but reject any major changes in how the Government operates. The middle hates paying taxes, whether the excuse is National Security, or whether their taxes will pay for expanded health care. Most of the middle don't want the government fiddling around in their personal lives any more than necessary, but are willing to give up some portion of their personal liberty for a carrot they perceive as personally beneficial.

I hope that helps answer your question. If you need clarification, just ask.

This is the most ridiculous comment I have read today...

The Republican party favors:

1) Government intrusion on non-violent casual use of drugs by adults.
2) Government intrusion on woman's health service.
3) Government ability to wiretap American's phones.
4) Government intrusion on sexual practices between consenting adults.
5) Government intrusion what you can read and watch.

Republicans want government to intrude on nearly every aspect of life.

all your leftist are belong to us...

ebrown says above:

"The Republican party favors:

1) Government intrusion on non-violent casual use of drugs by adults.
2) Government intrusion on woman's health service.
3) Government ability to wiretap American's phones.
4) Government intrusion on sexual practices between consenting adults.
5) Government intrusion what you can read and watch.

Republicans want government to intrude on nearly every aspect of life."

This was apparently in response to my:

"The Republican Party, the GOP (Grand Old Party), tends to be conservative and traditional regarding public policies. They tend to be favor a strong central government, but a Federal Government that intrudes as little as possible into the lives of American Citizens. Republicans have long subscribed to the notion of "Peace through Strength", and make Military/National Security preparedness a primary function of the Federal Government. To Republicans, traditional American values are very important and public policies that are perceived to undermine those values are resisted. Republicans tend to be suspicious of radical change, especially if it is rapid. Republicans believe strongly in personal initiative and competitiveness of Capitalism, and oppose Governmental "redistribution of Wealth". To have a strong central Federal Government, and for that government to operate effectively, taxation is required. Republicans, in accordance with American traditional values, oppose huge Government spending that imposes entitlements and a National Debt that it will take generations to pay for. On the other hand, Republicans tend to be practical and understand that using military force on the Nation's behalf is costly, but necessary. Republicans vary from very moderate to a Radical Right whose political philosophy is repugnant to most American voters. "

Lets review the two sets of comments:

"The Republican Party favors Government intrusion on non-violent casual use of drugs by adults and sexual practices between consenting adults."

What I said was, "To Republicans, traditional American values are very important and public policies that are perceived to undermine those values are resisted." Actually, both Parties have supported stringent laws against drug possession and use, though Republicans in general are probably are more against any enlargement of the drug culture than Democrats. So far as I know, no one of either Party has suggested passage of stringent Federal laws against homosexuality. As a general rule many Republicans feel that increasingly permissive attitudes about homosexuality erode traditional family values. So how does the Republican Party "favor government intrusion into these two areas of special interest to some Democrats?

"The Republican Party favors Government intrusion on woman's health service."

If ebrown is talking about abortion, then the Republican concern over erosion over family values may be what is meant. Personally, as a conservative Republican, I don't believe that the abortion question should even be considered at the National and Federal levels. This is one of those areas where the States are more competent to set policy than the central government in Washington. Perhaps, ebrown is talking about the Republican resistance to the idea of further socializing medicine. Universal Health Care is a beguiling notion that touches on many Americans, including my wife and myself. Strict adherence to the political philosophy fundamental to the Republican Party would be to oppose virtually all Federal efforts to provide Universal Health Care to everyone. That's not practical, and to insist upon such idealogical purity would cost the Party votes, big time. Does the Republican Party resist the movement towards socialism, certainly we do.

"The Republican Party favors Government to wiretap American's phones."

Both Parties favor the government's LEGAL right to wiretap, and other wise monitor private communications. What constitutes a legal tap and one that isn't, is a matter of disagreement. Wire tap and surveillance laws were enacted during a time when almost all long distance communications were over a dedicated wire, or inside an envelope. In the early days, many Americans still relied on a party line and operator assistance to complete telephone calls. The Federal laws enacted in those times were responsive to those circumstances. Federal agencies quite early in the 20th century were collecting intelligence data by reading every transatlantic telegraph cable sent or received. There were no warrants, only secrecy that gave the U.S. a window into other peoples secrets. During WWII Intelligence operations expanded, both abroad and domestically... and those "illegal" intrusions into private communications were both necessary and vital to national security. In todays world, communications aren't so simple and straight forward as they once were, but the vital need to monitor private communications is if anything even more important. The threat to the United States these days is more diffuse, and small secret cells of Radicals devoted to terrorism can exist almost anywhere. These small groups alone are dangerous, but if foreign leadership using modern communications can coordinate and direct those small cells, great and grave damage can occur. Under the old rules, a Judge had to issue a warrant for each specific telephone to be monitored. Getting those warrants was sometimes difficult. Today, anyone can pick up a prepaid cell phone use it once and throw it away. Under the old rules , that would prohibit the Intelligence services from ever effectively monitoring a suspected terrorist. We may have very good reason to suspect that "A", an American citizen, has close ties to a terrorist organization and that "A" is in communication with them, but so long as the old rules apply "A" can't be "legally" monitored. So, new interpretations of what exactly the intent and meaning of the laws are have been made and followed in the belief that the surveillance is legal.

"The Republican Party favors Government intrusion into what you can read and watch."

That's a new one. The last I knew, no one in either Party has ever suggested that the government control what is printed, presented as entertainment, or reported on any of the media. There is less censorship in the United States today than there was right up to the end of 1945. No one has, to my knowledge, been jailed for reading or writing or speaking on any political or social topic during the past 60 years. Perhaps ebrown is complaining that agents of the Federal government can review the habits of terrorist suspects. Would anyone in their right mind argue that the government shouldn't be able to discover whether a terrorist suspect has been studying up on the manufacture of explosive devices? These are exceptional times, and exceptional measures are justified to protect the country from its sworn enemies. Republicans in general may agree to the current necessity, but I doubt that any believe that these measures should be permanent and exercised against individuals not implicated in illegal activities. Indeed, many Republicans, including myself, aren't entirely comfortable with the intrusions made necessary by current circumstance.