Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:The idea of "astrology" or other pseudosciences tend to be more of the pagan wannabe type, who tend to be more liberal.

Like these notorious hippies:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Here you go Biccat

Broad left-wing:
"We're all in this together."

Broad right-wing:
"F you I got mine."

Now, that is horribly generalized, because its hard to break down people into quick and easy sound-bytes. People sure try hard though.

I'm not sure how this distinguishes Obama as a "center/right" or "not leftist" president.

President Obama wrote:we’re in this thing together

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:The idea of "astrology" or other pseudosciences tend to be more of the pagan wannabe type, who tend to be more liberal.

Like these notorious hippies:

I'm not sure what clever point you think you're making. Did you notice that I said "X tend to be Y"? The existence of outliers doesn't disprove the statement.

Clever, but irrelevant.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

.

TBone the Terrible disputes that statement. In fact, weiner legions everywhere call such statements about the myth of color as heresy!

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure how this distinguishes Obama as a "center/right" or "not leftist" president.

President Obama wrote:we’re in this thing together

I guess I didn't realize you were asking specifically about Obama, I was just giving you general definitions I thought fit left and right wing mentality (most of the time).

Obama favors compromise and consensus, and seems like more of a pragmatist when it comes to trying to get things done to me. I wouldn't say he is terribly on one side or the other. They felt they had to save GM, so they did by propping it up, and they probably saved quite a few jobs in the process. They don't feel like they need to go after executives/arseholes at banks that precipitated the global crash, so they haven't (even though I wish they would).

Besides, why do you want to assign an easy one/two-word descriptor to our president? Wouldn't you rather him have more depth than that?

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:This is quite confusing.

The world is neither black and white nor is it shades of grey, it is in full color.

I wonder if you would call ANY government right wing these days, given your confusion over this issue.

I was simply asking for a definition of "left wing" that would clearly distinguish President Obama and the DNC as "right wing" as opposed to "left wing." Yours doesn't fit.

Manchu wrote:@c.a.f.: Yeah, but still -- what? I guess I am expressing deep incredulity at that statement.

OK, you're right, only crazy people can be right-wingers. You sir have bested me in interwebz debate. I doff my hat to you.

Evidently Melissia's definition is closer to communists as left wing with everyone else as right wing. Thats...interesting. Its also not particularly helpful for US politics as everything is a spectrum. For example, Franco would have considered Reagan and everyone else a Leninist hippy, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is a Leninist hippy. Every country has a spectrum.

biccat wrote:Clever, but irrelevant.

Not intended to be clever but I do think it's relevant. I don't find convincing your association of the New Age movement with liberal political views or your idea that faith healing is associated with conservative political views. I'm not sure that these observations are based in anything but anecdotes, the equivalent of which is pointing out that Nancy Reagan maintained a court astrologer.

The astrology question has come up in other threads about this particular questionnaire. I don't think it's been answered yet is all.

It'd have to be socialism or communism to be left-leaning to me, yes.

I don't associate "left wing" or "right wing" with anything social.

And in case you weren't paying attention when you were talking about your weiner dogs (not that anyone can blame you, they are after all weiner dogs), I said that it was a complex spectrum. "Left" to me implies a non-capitalist economic leaning, IE towards socialism or communism. Right-wing extremist, to me, implies a pure (or close to pure) capitalist leaning.

And most people in the US are right wing by this definition, with Democrats being closer to economic centrism while Republicans typically lean towards a further right wing economic theory. That social issues are often tied into the definition to make a two dimensional scale is exactly what I try to avoid with this definition.

Social progressivism is left-wing without being socialism or communism. I don't get your point, M.

Okay, with you edits I do get your point and agree with you.

Melissia wrote:It'd have to be socialism or communism to be left-leaning to me, yes.

I don't associate "left wing" or "right wing" with anything social.

Your view of socialism is limited, and further does not reflect the spectum of political views in the US. If the standpoint is "anyone who doesn't believe in full unfettered control of pproperty is a commie pinko," then your standard is not relevant. As a person discussing the world as a melange of color your view is remarkably monochrome.

Frazzled wrote:If the standpoint is "anyone who doesn't believe in full unfettered control of pproperty is a commie pinko," then your standard is not relevant.

This standard was paraded on many an anti-Obama picketing sign last year. In that sense, it is relevant.

Manchu wrote:Social progressivism is left-wing without being socialism or communism.

Not to me.

Social progressivism (as opposed to economic) has nothing to do with either left or right wing.

Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If the standpoint is "anyone who doesn't believe in full unfettered control of pproperty is a commie pinko," then your standard is not relevant.

This standard was paraded on many an anti-Obama picketing sign last year. In that sense, it is relevant.

And in a greater sense, its not.

Manchu wrote:Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

That's because most people want to oversimplify everything and put it on an inaccurate two-dimensional scale.

The two-dimensional "left-right" scale is a lie.

Frazzled wrote:And in a greater sense, its not.

Exactamundo!

Manchu wrote:The astrology question has come up in other threads about this particular questionnaire. I don't think it's been answered yet is all.

Changing from "Strongly disagree" on the astrology question to "strongly agree" moves 0.46 from "libertarian" to "authoritarian." Presumably if you disagree you're more likely to question authority. Not sure how that follows.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Okay, but you're not using a spectrum common to most people.

That's because most people want to oversimplify everything and put it on an inaccurate two-dimensional scale.

The two-dimensional "left-right" scale is a lie.

You're not getting it are you. Thats what you are being accused of.

biccat wrote:
It's confusing because:
1: Government takes over a company = socialism.

Got it, this is clearly understood. "Taking over" implies two elements: a) the government is using collective wealth to support the industry; and b) conditions on the industry are imposed by governmenet actors, not private ones.

2: Government props up a company and imposes demands on that company = not-socialism.

Not sure how this follows. By propping up a company, the government is using tax dollars (government money, collective wealth, what have you) to support the industry. By imposing demands on that company, conditions are imposed by government actors, not private ones.

3: Government buys part of a company, promises to sell back the company later = not-socialism.

Still using taxpayer dollars to support an industry. Still imposing demands, only instead of those demands being by force of law (see #2), they are based on ownership as a shareholder. This is much closer to example #1 than example

Ah, I see. You're reasoning from the broadest understanding of socialism, not the understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics.

Frazzled wrote:You're not getting it are you. Thats what you are being accused of.

So when I am specifically expressing that things are not as simple as people claim them to be, I'm trying to oversimplify things? When I say that economic beliefs are not tied to social beliefs, I'm oversimplifying things? So when I say that the world is full of a wide spectrum of differing beliefs which do not fit on the traditional two-dimensional scale used by pundits, I'm oversimplifying things?

*muttermuttermutter*

Have I woken up in bizarro world or something?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're not getting it are you. Thats what you are being accused of.

So when I am specifically expressing that things are not as simple as people claim them to be, I'm trying to oversimplify things? When I say that economic beliefs are not tied to social beliefs, I'm oversimplifying things? So when I say that the world is full of a wide spectrum of differing beliefs which do not fit on the traditional two-dimensional scale used by pundits, I'm oversimplifying things?

*muttermuttermutter*

Have I woken up in bizarro world or something?

Maybe you invented it. Your statements are meaningless when you then say that a leftwinger is only a person advocating government control of the means of production. IN the words fo the immortal bard: "sucker please."

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:The astrology question has come up in other threads about this particular questionnaire. I don't think it's been answered yet is all.

Changing from "Strongly disagree" on the astrology question to "strongly agree" moves 0.46 from "libertarian" to "authoritarian." Presumably if you disagree you're more likely to question authority. Not sure how that follows.

Exactly. I think this is a strange little example of bias here. Associating astrology in the contemporary sense with either of libertarian or authoritarian worldviews seems to come packaged with all sorts of weird assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@M: I would like to know how economic and social beliefs are not tied to one another . . .

dogma wrote:Ah, I see. You're reasoning from the broadest understanding of socialism, not the understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics.

There's a consistent "understanding of socialism that prevails in US politics"? If so, what is it, and how is it relevant to distinguish the American Left from the more generic "Left"?

So we're back to square one. Can anyone provide a definition of "left wing" that clearly distinguishes Democrats and President Obama? The assertion has been made a number of times that the "American Left" is really center/right, but no one really has offered a good definition that establishes that fact.

edit: Sorry Daedalus Templarius, I missed your post.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Besides, why do you want to assign an easy one/two-word descriptor to our president? Wouldn't you rather him have more depth than that?

I'm not trying to do so. It has been asserted that President Obama and the DNC are moderate/right. I'm simply asking for clarification as to what constitutes "left" so as to distinguish between a "generic leftist" and "American leftist". Melissia's definition wasn't bad, but it proves too much.

To snark, I'd love it if our President was deep, thoughtful, and capable of sophisticated political opinions. Unfortunately, you play the hand you're dealt.

Frazzled wrote:Maybe you invented it. Your statements are meaningless when you then say that a leftwinger is only a person advocating government control of the means of production. IN the words fo the immortal bard: "sucker please."

Meh. I'm not sure if this is worth the effort... so I'm going to pull from wikipedia instead:

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

This contrasts with....

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit

Left versus right, economically. No first world government adopts either to the extreme-- instead they take a more centrist stance, and more properly are said to lean from center towards one or the other (the US government typically leaning more right wing, while European governments have typically leaned more left-wing in comparison to eachother).

But then, the traditional definition of right-wing also incorporates conservative social views. And yet, you do not have to have conservative social views to be a free-market capitalist. nor do you have to be a free-market capitalist to believe in conservative social views (in fact, I've seen it argued that many communist states-- which exist on the extreme of left wing, complete public ownership of all property and wealth-- were extremely socially conservative).

Therefor it is illogical to tie the two together as most pundits do. Instead, I use the terms "socially conservative" or "socially liberal" in conjunction with "left wing economics" or "right wing economics". While this is still somewhat oversimplifying it, it's better than saying "right wing" and assuming everyone who is right wing is socially conservative, which is false (see Libertarians, who are socially liberal while being economically right wing).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@M: I would like to know how economic and social beliefs are not tied to one another . . .

I would like to know how they ARE.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:@M: I would like to know how economic and social beliefs are not tied to one another . . .

I would like to know how they ARE.

How people are taxed is as much of a social as it is an economic question. Laying aside the idea of funding government programs, let's just look at the deduction of charitable giving. This is an economic provision specifically design to effect a social end.

Manchu wrote:How people are taxed is as much of a social as it is an economic question.

Which is oversimplifying the right wing stance down to a single action.

But I present to you two hypothetical people (who aren't actually all that hypothetical, as I know people with these views):

Both people argue for smaller government, less taxes (especially for the rich, whom they view are overtaxed and instead want a flat tax), cutting government spending on social services, etc.

But one of them argues that abortion should be made illegal in all cases (even when it threatens the mother's life and health), that gay marriage should be outlawed (as permanently as it can be given our legal structure) through a constitutional amendment, that marijuana should remain banned and in fact penalties should be harsher for possession and use, and that all illegal immigrants need to be deported along with their families (including children who were born in the US, whom he believes don't deserve citizenship).

And the other person argues for the availability of the choice of abortion regardless of situation, doesn't believe the government has a right to regulate marriage between consenting adults (including polygamy for example), believes that marijuana should be legal for recreational and medicinal use and taxed just like cigarettes and alcohol are, and believes in trying to nationalize illegal immigrants and only deporting them after exhausting all efforts to convince them to nationalize.

Which one is right wing according to your viewpoint? Their economic views are the same. Their social views are dramatically different. According to my view, they're both right wing, but one of them is socially conservative while the other is socially liberal.

Not all positions are both economic and social. Why would they need to be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:How people are taxed is as much of a social as it is an economic question.

Which is oversimplifying the right wing stance down to a single action.

No, this is an ideologically neutral statement. It has nothing to do with either leftist or rightist perspectives.

Manchu wrote:Not all positions are both economic and social. Why would they need to be?

You're the one that's trying to combine the two by disagreeing with my separation of economic and social positions.

I am saying that there is no necessary disconnect between economic and social issues. I believe they are very often tied together, as in the charitable giving deduction example I provided to you.

Granted, there are certainly many people who believe the governments should deliver all sorts of programs or enforce all sorts of laws against all sorts of behaviors without ever giving any thought to how these sorts of things should be funded, but that's as may be.

The main point is that your separation of economic from social issues does not reflect the complexity you are trying to demonstrate. Rather, it is an oversimplification.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Not all positions are both economic and social. Why would they need to be?

You're the one that's trying to combine the two by disagreeing with my separation of economic and social positions.

Social programs cost money, "socialists" tend to like those. The money required for spending on such programs in many cases comes from taxes, which involves (at least tangentially) economics.

I hope I put enough qualifiers in there to appease the Pedantry Brigade.

Monster Rain, that's the sort of pedantry up with which I shall gladly put.