Political Labels

@EmperorNero,

Haven't gotten a chance to watch the video, but you are already starting off this thread with a political bias. The fact of the matter is that people who self-identify as "left" in the United States AGREE with what you disagree with here (left helps the poor, right empowers the rich), and DISAGREE with the "left means big government, right means limited government" categorization. By contrast people who self-identify as "right" would have the opposite perspective. It's a matter of bias against the other side and presentation of them as such.

This is the problem with words like "liberal", "conservative", "left", and "right". They can never be sufficiently divorced from their time, place, and context that you can really say what they mean in a more general political philosophy. People on the so-called left in America, who have a political continuity with social programs and civil rights, DO believe that they are helping the disadvantaged, and that freedoms in an unequal society require protection. People on the so-called right believe that freedoms in an unequal society require governmental constraint.

People who self-identify as "right" voted in 2000 and 2004 for a political party that expanded government spending and programs and increased the federal deficit. So did people who self-identified as "left", it just happened they voted for a different party with a different political agenda.

So I'd be careful with trying too hard to define the terms left, right, liberal, and conservative. Rather, let's see them as terms of self-identification and go beyond that to see what the philosophies are of the current self-identifiers.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Political labels are useful to writing propaganda, but just the opposite to carefully thinking about the subject. They are reductionist reifications and generally emotionally charged, the complete opposite of accurate descriptions of anything (Big business,pseudo-liberals, Neo-conservatives---the list goes on).

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

I find political parties to be nothing but a detriment to society.
People declare themselves one or the other and decide their opinions based on that, rather than actually thinking through each issue.
And then you've got the two main political parties constantly attacking one another rather than getting anything done.
It's ridiculous.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Like it or not, political parties are fair and protect our individual freedoms. One-party states are dictatorships, with a few exceptions. A democratic-republic (no reference to the political parties by those names) allows security and freedom to go mostly in hand. Other than that, people are happy when they live in a state of their own political party, and they can always move. Local government is good as well, because locals tend to have more agreement as to political views than those within their state, or within the country.

2 Replies

@Leonard,

Leonard;89467 wrote:

Like it or not, political parties are fair and protect our individual freedoms. One-party states are dictatorships, with a few exceptions. A democratic-republic (no reference to the political parties by those names) allows security and freedom to go mostly in hand. Other than that, people are happy when they live in a state of their own political party, and they can always move. Local government is good as well, because locals tend to have more agreement as to political views than those within their state, or within the country.

Political parties are fine, and yes, two are better than one. But you're missing the point that three are better than two, and so on.

0 Replies

@Leonard,

Leonard;89467 wrote:

Like it or not, political parties are fair and protect our individual freedoms. One-party states are dictatorships, with a few exceptions. A democratic-republic (no reference to the political parties by those names) allows security and freedom to go mostly in hand. Other than that, people are happy when they live in a state of their own political party, and they can always move. Local government is good as well, because locals tend to have more agreement as to political views than those within their state, or within the country.

I never said anything about one-party states.
I don't like political parties at all, whether it's two or more, or just one.
Though you may be right. Without political parties whoever happens to "rule" at the time could have an easier time becoming dictatorships.
Though as things are in the U.S it seems we're just governed by two parties rather than all of them.

1 Reply

@Belial phil,

Leonard;89467 wrote:

Like it or not, political parties are fair and protect our individual freedoms. One-party states are dictatorships, with a few exceptions. A democratic-republic (no reference to the political parties by those names) allows security and freedom to go mostly in hand. Other than that, people are happy when they live in a state of their own political party, and they can always move. Local government is good as well, because locals tend to have more agreement as to political views than those within their state, or within the country.

I would argue with you on the converse side of this debate. I say political parties are unfair and actually deter individual freedom. However I agree with you when you say that one party states are mostly dictatorial, and when you state that a democratic-republic allows security and freedom to coexist peacefully. But if your best defense of political parties is "people are happy when they live in a state of their own political party, and they can always move", then political parties should be given up instantly. I'm guessing the last bit of your statement regarding the citizen to move from his home was a jest, so I'll focus instead on when you say that people are happy when they live in a state of their own political party. This is of course assuming people are happy within a state of their own political party. Parties in America have lost favorability with the majority of Americans, going on a trend that isn't likely to stabilize soon.

Public's Ratings of Parties Low in Historical Perspective

Both Parties in Congress Near Record-Low Approval

While I am aware that your argument involves happiness regarding political parties in states, you cannot deny that Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of political parties on the national level. I'm not sure what the approval rating of political parties is regarding each state, but it should hopefully be higher overall, the American system of federalism revolves around this theory after all. But I'm sure that unhappiness with political parties on the federal level mirrors a more minuscule unhappiness on the state level. I'm merely saying that if the best argument in favor of continuing the political faction is because of happiness and likability, Americans should have done away with them in 2005.

TheSingingSword;89468 wrote:

Political parties are fine, and yes, two are better than one. But you're missing the point that three are better than two, and so on.

So would you say that thirty political parties are better than three? More is not always better, and out of those thirty political parties a dominant few will arise, circulating power amongst themselves and their allies. If the main reason for establishing a multi-party system is because of political diversity, then try establishing an ideal nonpartisan election the same way and measure the political diversity there. I imagine that if done correctly one would not only find diversity, but depth.

In a multi party system there is another choice in which the electorate must decide. The choice of whether or not to have a more dominant multi party system in which 3-4 parties typically vie for control of the electorate, or a more diverse system in which 30 political parties do. It is possible that one political party out of four can receive a plurality, but to settle for meager pluralities defeats the whole purpose of democracy. A system where 30 political parties vie for control would be glad 20% of the electorate voted for them. Coalitions and alliances between political parties must be formed to gain even pluralities, let alone majorities. Now this defeats the purpose of the multi party system

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;87968 wrote:

It's odd that while putting blame on or agreeing with political labels is so central to political discourse, it's not that sure what they even mean.
'Liberal' for example can refer to complete opposites.
I personally think the scale described in this video is very helpful to put away with some common misconceptions.
The American form of government. [VIDEO]
According to it, left refers to all forms of big government, while right means limited government and in the extreme anarchism.
This scale makes much more sense to me than the confusing "left is helping the poor and right means empowering rich people" scale.
According to which fascism, monarchy, communism and islamic theocracy are left-wing.

At one time, the political labels, "The Left" and, "The Right" were actually quite descriptive. In the 19th century, in the French Chamber of Deputies, deputies of a certain political tendency sat on one side of the chamber, the left side. Mostly they were anti-Monarchist, and opposed to the establishment in various degrees, and tended to vote as a bloc. And on the right side of the chamber sat the opposing monarchist, establishment group, and they too voted as a bloc. So it was natural to talk about "the Left" as more radical and anti-establishment than the right. Of course, after a time, those terms, "left" and "right" began to take on emotive connotations depending on whether you were in favor of radical politics or against it. Now, of course, those labels have lost much of there descriptive meaning, and are shot, through and through, with emotive meaning, reflective more of the attitudes of the speakers that the actual properties of those being spoken of. And that is always the way with political labels. They have mostly emotive meaning, and little descriptive meaning. Take the way the term, "fascist" is thrown around by the left. "Fascist" as used by the left has lost most of its descriptive connotation, and has become mostly a kind of swear word. So, for example, to call Bush a "fascist" was absurd. But that didn't stop people from calling him that. And now Obama is called a "communist" which is equally absurd, but no one is stopped by that fact either.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

The structure of the voting system is a very important determinant in deciding whether it is a two party system or not anyways Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, while the US has a winner take all district based system any third party is operating at a huge structural disadvantage, and if successful would most likely replace one of the existing parties.

Also as already pointed out, there obviously is no 'objective' meaning of political labels, instead they are a product of ongoing processes of definition and struggle.

1 Reply

@timunderwood9,

timunderwood9;95146 wrote:

The structure of the voting system is a very important determinant in deciding whether it is a two party system or not anyways Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, while the US has a winner take all district based system any third party is operating at a huge structural disadvantage, and if successful would most likely replace one of the existing parties.

Also as already pointed out, there obviously is no 'objective' meaning of political labels, instead they are a product of ongoing processes of definition and struggle.

Well, there is some objective meaning. Senator Richard Durbin is clearly on the left of the political spectrum, and John Boehner, House minority leader, is clearly on the right. Just because there are some (a lot) of people in the middle, and just because some people have mixed views, that does not man that the labels are useless. Have you any doubt where to put Rush Limbaugh, or Al Franken?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95148 wrote:

Have you any doubt where to put Rush Limbaugh, or Al Franken?

Prison and the Senate, respectively.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;87968 wrote:

It's odd that while putting blame on or agreeing with political labels is so central to political discourse, it's not that sure what they even mean.
'Liberal' for example can refer to complete opposites.
I personally think the scale described in this video is very helpful to put away with some common misconceptions.
The American form of government. [VIDEO]
According to it, left refers to all forms of big government, while right means limited government and in the extreme anarchism.
This scale makes much more sense to me than the confusing "left is helping the poor and right means empowering rich people" scale.
According to which fascism, monarchy, communism and islamic theocracy are left-wing.

Hello, EmperorNero

I, for one felt, the thread enlightening especially the closing part of the video, and that would truly offend those elite that might read it. I don't know. It is a possibility though for so many are truly tyrants in sheep's clothing, if you know what I mean.

You have a good thread here; let's hope it is not derailed as some will surely try to do as they think this country is just fine the way it is and prosper the most from it.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :a-ok:

William

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95148 wrote:

Well, there is some objective meaning. Senator Richard Durbin is clearly on the left of the political spectrum, and John Boehner, House minority leader, is clearly on the right. Just because there are some (a lot) of people in the middle, and just because some people have mixed views, that does not man that the labels are useless. Have you any doubt where to put Rush Limbaugh, or Al Franken?

That doesn't change the point that 'right' and 'left' as meaningful terms exist only in relation to their use by people in particular debates. Certainly Limbaugh and Franken belong to particular groups, and certainly in the American political debate the one group is labeled 'right' and the other 'left'. But the labels are only symbolic shorthand for the groups, and ideas associated with the groups. They are not the ideas or groups themselves.

And over time the referent of the label can change. Which is why it is meaningless to ask what being on the 'left' 'really' means. Of course we can come up with 'objective' answers to what being on the 'left' means in particular contexts.

1 Reply

@timunderwood9,

timunderwood9;95230 wrote:

That doesn't change the point that 'right' and 'left' as meaningful terms exist only in relation to their use by people in particular debates. Certainly Limbaugh and Franken belong to particular groups, and certainly in the American political debate the one group is labeled 'right' and the other 'left'. But the labels are only symbolic shorthand for the groups, and ideas associated with the groups. They are not the ideas or groups themselves.

And over time the referent of the label can change. Which is why it is meaningless to ask what being on the 'left' 'really' means. Of course we can come up with 'objective' answers to what being on the 'left' means in particular contexts.

But everyone would say that Franken is on the left, and Limbaugh on the right, relatively, of course, to the American political system, which would be the context of discussion. (Indeed, both Franken and Limbaugh would agree that the former was on the left, and the latter on the right). And, of course, words (I mean all words) just have the meanings they have because people use them the way they do. That's not peculiar to political terms. And, yes, words are not the things they symbolize. But who ever said they were?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

I agree with you of course. Possibly it would be useful to clear up what we mean by 'objective' I think my initial use of that term may have been poor. Razz

Anyways my objection is to the way that the initial post in the thread seemed to be arguing for a particular idea based definition of what the right and left mean. And in our political context there are multiple often contradictory definitions of this, and claiming a particular one is correct is a political statement trying to disguise itself as a definition.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Labelling someone this way is flawed, and different people use different ways to explain their views. The United Kingdom and the United States for example, have completely different ways of plotting someone on a political 'map'. Therefore, people who would be considered moderate or centrist in the United States would be conservatives elsewhere. By far, the easiest way I know of for mapping your political orientation is www.politicalcompass.org. Political terms are objective, but comparatively, people who take this test should have comparable differences.

0 Replies

@timunderwood9,

timunderwood9;95241 wrote:

I agree with you of course. Possibly it would be useful to clear up what we mean by 'objective' I think my initial use of that term may have been poor.

Anyways my objection is to the way that the initial post in the thread seemed to be arguing for a particular idea based definition of what the right and left mean. And in our political context there are multiple often contradictory definitions of this, and claiming a particular one is correct is a political statement trying to disguise itself as a definition.

Well, a particular use may be correct in that the word is used in that way. Of course, there may be several correct uses of the same word. And I agree that defining a term in a sense in which it is seldom or never used would be to, as you put it, to make a political statement disguised as a definition. In fact, that kind of thing is called a "persuasive definition". For example we might hear someone say that so-and-so is often called a "conservative", but he isn't a real conservative, because a real conservative would not only be against the public option in health care, a real conservative would want to get rid of medicare and medicaid, and would close all public hospitals. "That is what a real conservative would do". The term, "real" (or "true") is the tip-off that a persuasive definition is coming. The person is trying to redefine "conservative" to persuade people to use "conservative" in the extreme way he implicitly suggests, so as to persuade conservatives to become more extreme.

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 05:24 PM ----------

Leonard;95242 wrote:

Labelling someone this way is flawed, and different people use different ways to explain their views. The United Kingdom and the United States for example, have completely different ways of plotting someone on a political 'map'. Therefore, people who would be considered moderate or centrist in the United States would be conservatives elsewhere. By far, the easiest way I know of for mapping your political orientation is www.politicalcompass.org. Political terms are objective, but comparatively, people who take this test should have comparable differences.

Yes. The term has to be understood in context. People in Britain mean by "conservative" what Americans mean, only they have different criteria for being conservative. Just as if a say the something is a "good computer", and another thing is a "good mousetrap" I mean the same thing by the word "good" in both cases, but, of course, there are different criteria for being a good computer than for being a good mousetrap.

0 Replies

Political Labels

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know