Jump to content

How politics has become skewed beyond meaning


Recommended Posts

Whenever someone uses the term "left" or "right", what do they really imagine these positions to encompass?

 

To highlight the inadequacy of the left-right mode of thinking (or lack thereof) in any serious political debate, you only have to look at the potential ideological viewpoints one could lean both towards or away from that would defy any notion of a single, linear spectrum.

 

You could be (to a greater or lesser degree)...

 

Economically liberal and socially authoritarian

 

Economically collectivist and socially liberal

 

Economically and socially liberal

 

Economically collectivist and socially authoritarian

 

Technically, Hitler cannot be considered right wing because he opposed economic liberalism.

 

The BNP technically aren't as right wing as the Tory party, or even New Labour, because many of their policies involve far more government intervention in the economy.

 

But there is more to consider. Someone may be economically liberal, but not subscribe to the current definition of how a liberalised economy would operate. For example, libertarian or "anarcho" capitalists may oppose the current order because it involves bailouts, subsidies and protectionist measures from the state. Therefore, even if we establish that someone is economically right wing, it doesn't tell us in which market system they envision the "perfect liberty" being attained.

 

In a nutshell, to call someone "right wing" or "left wing" is pretty meaningless, unless you also state to what attribute you ascribe their "leftness" or "rightness".

 

More info here http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about balanced in the centre?
Doesn't exist/is a total fiction.

 

Everyone has at least one polarising issue, which would take them away from that (utopian) position. In those famous old words: "you can't please everybody all the time". After that, it's a question of how many issues, and how polarising.

 

Hi epiphany, not seen you around these parts in a while :wave:

 

EDIT - IMHO, the issue you raise in the OP is, or results in, or manifests itself as, what I sometimes call "policy-by-headline": little in the way of aims, convictions and principles, just going with the public opinion/flavour of the month/flow to stay on top. Of course, that becomes quickly afflicted by short-termism to such an extent, that you necessarily end up with little in the way of progress/direction. Just going round in ever narrower circles, ever more immobilised by the growing body of liabilities of things said, promised and done or not done over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't exist/is a total fiction.

 

Everyone has at least one polarising issue, which would take them away from that (utopian) position. In those famous old words: "you can't please everybody all the time". After that, it's a question of how many issues, and how polarising.

 

Hi epiphany, not seen you around these parts in a while :wave:

 

Oh yeah, didn't Freud do a list of traits which were graded between frustrated and satisfied, but surely there has to be a middle ground statistically speaking, maybe coffee an an biscuits may be him, might also be why he's generally quite late... less to get wrong though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.