Please define Left/Right. Thanx.

I tried thinking for myself, but it made my brain hurt . . . i've gone back to a strict regime of media pundits, and i'm much happier for it . . .

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Scrat, nothing personal, but your definition also fails.

Under your explaination Conservatives are pro-choice, since the individual should be free from "exterior control[/b]" and the liberals wanting unborn children to be "free from adversity" must be pro-life.

Conservatives, under your definition, would also want to legalize drugs.

And Conservatives would not support an educational system based on testing -- i.e. No child left behind. This is a clear example of "measuring outcomes".

Please someone! Why can't you all drop these silly lables and just think for yourselves!?!?

Actually, I guess you're right in part... What I've defined above isn't exactly what sets conservatives apart from liberals, but what sets me apart from liberals. As I wrote, I realize that many conservatives do want government to control others, so perhaps what I defined is more the difference between a libertarian and a liberal; only nobody in these discussions calls me a libertarian. I am always labelled a conservative, so I tend to wear that label out of convenience.

But I don't think your examples fly. My definitions were not meant to be exhaustive, and one issue that also separates conservatives and liberals is that conservatives tend to be strict constitutional constructionists. I am one, and as such believe Roe V. Wade was a bad decision and judicial activism of the worst kind. That does NOT mean I think the federal government should ban abortion; on the contrary. It means that I think abortion is an issue for the states and the people to decide. To me, being a conservative doesn't mean I must be pro-choice, it means that I don't think the federal government should be involved in the abortion debate.

Further, liberals tend to favor unfettered access to abortion because they perceive an unwanted pregnancy as a source of adversity to the mother, and frankly seem to have no concern whatsoever as pertains the status of the child; abortion is a means to rescuing the mother from the adversity of the unwanted pregnancy; my definition works just fine here too.

As to the "No Child Left Behind" legislation in specific and the federal education bureaucracy in general, I agree with you that supporting these is not in keeping with conservative principles. You have simply pointed out a situation where political conservatives have abandoned their principles in the interests of expediency (read: electability). Bush was not courting the right with NCLB, he was attempting to court the left. (Of course, he failed to win anyone on the left, and actually pissed off a lot of people like me in the process.)

0 Replies

Scrat, my point is that any definition of liberal and conservative is nothing more than a ridculous collection of unrelated stances. There is no relation between so-called "conservative" or "liberal" positions.

Take for example the Catholic churches position on capital punishment and abortion. There stances (life is precious) seems to be one of the most logically consistent.

But are they liberal or conservative?

0 Replies

scrat said:

Quote:

Further, liberals tend to favor unfettered access to abortion because they perceive an unwanted pregnancy as a source of adversity to the mother

and I would contend that liberals, in the same mode of reasoning as the NRA fear restrictions start small and increase with creep to eliminate totally. Just as the NRA fears small restrictions (gun control) lead to greater restrictions, the liberals fear the same creep re abortion. I own guns and I support choice.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Scrat, my point is that any definition of liberal and conservative is nothing more than a ridculous collection of unrelated stances. There is no relation between so-called "conservative" or "liberal" positions.

Take for example the Catholic churches position on capital punishment and abortion. There stances (life is precious) seems to be one of the most logically consistent.

But are they liberal or conservative?

First, you seem to be wrong on the Catholic Church's position on capital punishment.

Quote:

II. CHRISTIAN VALUES IN THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

We maintain that abolition of the death penalty would promote values that are important to us as citizens and as Christians. ...
U.S. Catholic Bishops' Statement on Capital Punishment

And here's a site with links for more reading on the subject: Capital Punishment and the catholic Church

But let's discuss instead those conservatives who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion... It seems to me that you have stated a point of view these people don't share, and then complain to me that they don't share it. I think it is safe to write that most--if not all--of the people who are pro-death penalty and anti-abortion make a profound distinction between the forfeiture by a convicted criminal or his or her life for crimes committed against others and the killing of an innocent child. Do you see the difference? These are simply not the same thing. YOU assert that these people are moved by a belief that life is precious, when all that can be reasonably inferred from their positions on these two issues is that they believe that innocent life is precious.

Which reminds me of another thing I've noticed about liberals: liberals seem to like to make comparisons which are devoid of context. Killing a convicted murderer and killing an innocent unborn baby are only the same thing if you refuse to consider the context of the deaths. (I am against the death penalty, just for the record.)

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

scrat said:

Quote:
Further, liberals tend to favor unfettered access to abortion because they perceive an unwanted pregnancy as a source of adversity to the mother

and I would contend that liberals, in the same mode of reasoning as the NRA fear restrictions start small and increase with creep to eliminate totally. Just as the NRA fears small restrictions (gun control) lead to greater restrictions, the liberals fear the same creep re abortion. I own guns and I support choice.

I agree that these two groups share similar stated fears about the actions and intentions of the federal government. The difference to me is that the Constitution tells us explicitly that the federal government should not infringe the right to keep and bear arms, but makes not such statement about abortion.

Again, I don't argue that this means the federal government can do what it wishes with regard to abortion, but rather I argue that it means the federal government should do nothing with regard to abortion.

0 Replies

I wasn't tryng to argue the issue. I was just pointing out that with these two issues there are four possibilities (assuming there isn't any middle ground):

1) A person is pro-life and pro capital punishment.
2) A person is pro-choice and pro capital punishment.
3) A person is pro-life and anti capital punishment.
4) A person is pro-choice and anti-capital punishment.

My belief was that #1 is the traditional "conservative" position and that #4 is the traditional "liberal" position.

But what about the people who fall into category #2 or #3. #2 is what I believe is the official position of the Catholic chuch. It is certainly the position of several Catholics I know.

A reasonable intelligent person could hold any one of these four positions. Are people who fall into #2 or #3 liberals or conservatives?

This is just an example. Let's add gun control. Now there are 8 possibilities.

There is no reason a person could not be pro-choice, anti capital punishment and anti gun-control. There is no contradiction between these stances (except as defined by the political parties). How would you categorize this person?

Trying to group people into two groups on a wide range of unrelated issues is fruitless. People should think for themselves.

0 Replies

ebrown - First, I seem to have read your statement regarding the position of the Catholic Church wrongly. (sorry about that.) Second, I agree wholeheartedly that these labels are less and less valuable the more you look at actual people. Most people here call me a right-winger (or worse :wink: ), but never modify that label in the slightest when they learn that I am against the death penalty, favor decriminalization of drugs and am against government prohibiting same-gender civil unions. These are certainly not traditionally conservative positions, yet people who know I hold them label me a conservative. Why? Because my position on the matters that matter the most to these individuals is a position they identify as being conservative.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Good McGentrix, now you have labled me.

But what good does that do you? Does it tell you anything about what I believe or how I live my life.

Does it tell you where I stand on any given issue?

I am not offended. I am just pointing out that your label is meaningless. You would probably guess wrong about my opinions on many things.

But what the label allows *you* to do is close your mind. If you consider yourself a "conservative" you don't need to think for yourself anymore. You can sit in your "conservative" tent and rest assured that other conservatives have already made up you mind for you. (Rest assured, there are people who do the same in the "liberal" tent).

If that's where you want to be, than OK.

Many of us have open minds. I, and many others, believe strongly in some "conservative" causes as well as "liberal" ones. I am willing to listen to both sides and decide on my own on an issue by issue basis.

I don't think you mean to say that open minded is synonimous with liberal.

My thoughts exactly!

0 Replies

While you may not label yourself, and you may not like the fact that others label you, but that just the way it is. Face it, you either agree with more of the liberal ideas, or you agree with more of the conservative ideas. No one is a complete liberal, nor a complete conservative.

You want to be an individual, but there are thousands just like you, hard to be an individual in a crowd.

0 Replies

What the heck! 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

What the heck! 10,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

Just curious, but would you guess that every member of NOW shares the exact same opinion on every women's issue? The reason I ask is because I suspect that most of them would call themselves feminists, but that it can likely be shown that many feminists differ on some feminist issues. See where I'm going with this? Sometimes these labels are useful to identify people as sharing some points of view.

But my example considers what some people choose to call themselves, as opposed to how we label others. Maybe that's the difference?

0 Replies

Er, seems to me this can only be a useful model (right v. left) on an issue to issue basis, where one represents complete governmental control and one represents a complete lack of regulation, and a continuum of positions exists between the two. Naturally, people fall all over the place on all sorts of issues. Each issue has its own bell curve. We could call the maximum point of that bell curve (where most people's beliefs fall) the center.

Takink all issues together (as though they were finite and distinct, which they probably aren't), we could each figure out where we fall on them, compile some sort of mean value as pertains to the curves, and call ourselves "right" or "left" and it might (maybe, anyhow) indicate something.

In the meantime, it's either a handy tag to indicate from which of the two concentrations of political power in the United States a public figure solicits support or a source of epithets for each of those camps to lob at the other. In other words, the words don't mean anything, but we all know what they mean.

Trying to lump issues like abortion and gun control (as though either of these were more important than economic policy and international relations) is absurd, but it's generally necessary to do so right now because of where the money and the power lie.

(Facing north and using the cardinal directions is only useful if you know where north is. Surely we had right and left before north, south, east, and west.)

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Er, seems to me this can only be a useful model (right v. left) on an issue to issue basis, where one represents complete governmental control and one represents a complete lack of regulation, and a continuum of positions exists between the two. Naturally, people fall all over the place on all sorts of issues. Each issue has its own bell curve. We could call the maximum point of that bell curve (where most people's beliefs fall) the center.

Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree with you there. If 70% of the people in this country supported a ban on firearms, does that make it a centrist position? Most people in this country favor capital punishment. Is that the centrist position on that issue? If so, what are the two poles of the scale? (Maybe banning the death penalty on the left side of the curve and random televised executions on the right side of the curve?) Cool

I guess to me it makes more sense to have the center of your bell curve represent the most moderate position on an issue, rather than the position held by the most people. (Though perhaps that makes it something other than a bell curve.) Charting issues only makes sense to me if you have one end of it as the "for" end and the other as the "against" end, with other points along the line representing less absolute positions.

Hmmmm...

0 Replies

scrat said:

Quote:

I guess to me it makes more sense to have the center of your bell curve represent the most moderate position on an issue

Every person offering a postion is going to regard their position as the most moderate position. So with infinite wisdom how do you offer to chart "the most moderate posItion?"

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

scrat said:

Quote:
I guess to me it makes more sense to have the center of your bell curve represent the most moderate position on an issue

Every person offering a position is going to regard their position as the most moderate position. So with infinite wisdom how do you offer to chart "the most moderate posItion?"

That's a silly statement. I think what I mean is evident in my examples. Take the death penalty, for instance. The polar positions might be to (L) favor a federal ban and (R) mandate a federal death penalty statute for all states. The moderate position might be that each state ought to decide for itself.

0 Replies

Of course I posited an absurd scheme, but suggest to me a better one. Just trying to illustrate that the words are just handy tags we use to pigeonhole people and positions, which is sometimes useful and sometimes not. Any attempt at precise definition falls apart because their meaning is wholly contextual -- like the physical "right" and "left," for that matter.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Of course I posited an absurd scheme, but suggest to me a better one.

I thought I did.

Don't get me wrong... I wasn't trying to write that your way of looking at this is wrong, just that it didn't work for me. I may be the one who's out to lunch here! Cool

0 Replies

Please define Left/Right. Thanx.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know