Do the Left and Right share any common values?

[bluefig]

Everyone discusses all the differences between the Left and the Right, and even what those terms mean. But, when it comes to basic values in life, what, if any, values do both the Left and the Right share? Feel free do define or redefine Left and Right as you see fit. I would like to know what terms you all use for the political spectrum but please try to address common values if possible.

 

[myp]

I don't really like the terms "left" and "right" to begin with, but in general I think most of the population shares a lot of common values including the love of country, freedom, their children, the future, and life.

 

[bluefig]

I don't really like the terms "left" and "right" to begin with, ...

How to you describe the politcal spectrum?

I've commonly seen:

Republican ----->Democrat
Conservative ----->Liberal
Right ------>Left

Do you use any of those or some other method to define the array of political thought?

 

[myp]

How to you describe the politcal spectrum?

I've commonly seen:

Republican ----->Democrat
Conservative ----->Liberal
Right ------>Left

Do you use any of those or some other method to define the array of political thought?

I prefer not to stereotype or make it black and white if I don't have to. It is the issues that ultimately matter after all, not the affiliations. The problem with left, right, conservative, liberal, etc. is everyone defines them differently. But that is getting off topic.

 

[bluefig]

No, it's not off topic, I started the thread to get opinion on that issue, too. I'm not really talking about affiliations, but values and ways of defining political thought so that it is understandable. If the target is always moving, and nothing is defined, then there can be no understanding among men.

The values you list are too broad to have meaning: freedom for instance. Freedom means different things to everyone along the political spectrum, right? I'm trying to focus in on common values not things that mean different things to everyone.

"Children" is good. Yes, I agree we all love our children no matter what our political beliefs.

 

[myp]

If the target is always moving, and nothing is defined, then there can be no understanding among men.

Sure, but sometimes you can't adequately define something in one word- i.e. conservative or liberal.

The values you list are too broad to have meaning: freedom for instance. Freedom means different things to everyone along the political spectrum, right? I'm trying to focus in on common values not things that mean different things to everyone.

There is a level of freedom that everyone agrees on. There is your common ground for freedom.

 

[bluefig]

Sure, but sometimes you can't adequately define something in one word- i.e. conservative or liberal.


There is a level of freedom that everyone agrees on. There is your common ground for freedom.

Okay, so you like conservative or liberal. I have problem with that one because it does not take into consideration the people who are conservative in some ways and liberal in others, like myself.

Well when you talk of levels of freedom, I don't quite get that. It would be better to discuss freedom in terms of freedom to do what... or be what? See, it's not clear. What do you mean?

 

[clax]

Okay, so you like conservative or liberal. I have problem with that one because it does not take into consideration the people who are conservative in some ways and liberal in others, like myself.

Well when you talk of levels of freedom, I don't quite get that. It would be better to discuss freedom in terms of freedom to do what... or be what? See, it's not clear. What do you mean?

I am generally socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. These words have an open meaning. But it describes my position. As for the political structure, I don't consider democrats liberal, with an exception of fiscally. Social liberty is liberalism to me. Meaning laws that restrict liberty are not liberal. Liberation is the root word in liberal. I tend to be liberal socially, let gay people marry, legalize marijuana, don't make needless taxes, allow me to choose what I easy drink and smoke. Don't tell me what I must and cannot own. never ever infringe on rights. Once we have them they should never go away. Laws should be in place to promote rights, not restrict them.

This is my definition of liberal as fat as the wing business that is division of people based on political ideology. I find political ideology is inconvenient and serves no purpose but to decide people, so I don't have one.

democrat and Republican represent two vastly similar political parties, both of which seem bent on squelching liberty at one end and promoting it on the other only to serve partisan goals. So they are meaningless terms to me

 

[bluefig]

I am generally socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. These words have an open meaning. But it describes my position. As for the political structure, I don't consider democrats liberal, with an exception of fiscally. Social liberty is liberalism to me. Meaning laws that restrict liberty are not liberal. Liberation is the root word in liberal. I tend to be liberal socially, let gay people marry, legalize marijuana, don't make needless taxes, allow me to choose what I easy drink and smoke. Don't tell me what I must and cannot own. never ever infringe on rights. Once we have them they should never go away. Laws should be in place to promote rights, not restrict them.

This is my definition of liberal as fat as the wing business that is division of people based on political ideology. I find political ideology is inconvenient and serves no purpose but to decide people, so I don't have one.

democrat and Republican represent two vastly similar political parties, both of which seem bent on squelching liberty at one end and promoting it on the other only to serve partisan goals. So they are meaningless terms to me

Clax, we are in general agreement as to the definition of the term liberal. However, I am not so much for social liberty (not even sure what that means) but instead am a proponent of individual liberty: individualism as opposed to collectivism.

Not to be rude, but I think all people do have an ideology even if it is unnamed or a mixture or cocktail of beliefs from the many ways of thinking about the world.

I also agree with your point that the two dominant parties are similar in their actions. Example: Both parties promote a large and ever-growing central government. But, I think the motivation of the Democrats and Republicans differs greatly.

Identifying where one stands, and where others stand is essential in life, in my opinion. Thank your for sharing your thoughts.

 

[clax]

Clax, we are in general agreement as to the definition of the term liberal. However, I am not so much for social liberty (not even sure what that means) but instead am a proponent of individual liberty: individualism as opposed to collectivism.

Not to be rude, but I think all people do have an ideology even if it is unnamed or a mixture or cocktail of beliefs from the many ways of thinking about the world.

I also agree with your point that the two dominant parties are similar in their actions. Example: Both parties promote a large and ever-growing central government. But, I think the motivation of the Democrats and Republicans differs greatly.

Identifying where one stands, and where others stand is essential in life, in my opinion. Thank your for sharing your thoughts.

I say social because political Jargan calls it social policy. But individual freedoms are my goal.

I agree we all have an ideology, mine comes mostly from trial and error, but experience, and the wisdom of those wiser than I. And also self evident concepts. But politics don't really come into it, who I view as a better leader us effected by my ideology.

I also agree that the motivation of the political parties do indeed differ, but if the result is the same,

 

[myp]

Okay, so you like conservative or liberal. I have problem with that one because it does not take into consideration the people who are conservative in some ways and liberal in others, like myself.

I said I don't like them because you can't adequately define all policy positions into those that one word...

Well when you talk of levels of freedom, I don't quite get that. It would be better to discuss freedom in terms of freedom to do what... or be what? See, it's not clear. What do you mean?

I mean in general, what one perceives as freedom. I think you are nitpicking here- you can do that with a lot of the other responses too like country (what "specifics" of the country do you love), etc.

 

[RoccoR]

bluefig, et al,

Yes, they are labels.

Everyone discusses all the differences between the Left and the Right, and even what those terms mean. But, when it comes to basic values in life, what, if any, values do both the Left and the Right share? Feel free do define or redefine Left and Right as you see fit. I would like to know what terms you all use for the political spectrum but please try to address common values if possible.

(COMMENT)

Politically, each side is in it for the power and influence, and not for the benefit for the Middle Class. Like soldiers, they use very similar strategies, for opposite purposes.

This is one of my more favorite outlines.

Remember that a Politician, either side, is a Politician. They are, by nature, criminals of the public good. They use a system, like fraudulent financial marketeers (alla Gordon Gekko) to further their own career and profit.

I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops.

I think it says it all. But no one should be proud to call themselves a politician. The are scavengers on the tax dollar. The lowest form of life.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[bluefig]

bluefig, et al,

Politically, each side is in it for the power and influence, and not for the benefit for the Middle Class. Like soldiers, they use very similar strategies, for opposite purposes.

Remember that a Politician, either side, is a Politician. They are, by nature, criminals of the public good. They use a system, like fraudulent financial marketeers (alla Gordon Gekko) to further their own career and profit.


I think it says it all. But no one should be proud to call themselves a politician. The are scavengers on the tax dollar. The lowest form of life.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR, Those graphics are fascinating, I will look them over in depth when I have more time, thank you very much. The bottom one is food for thought.

While I agree that the present governmental environment is corrupt, I think there is hope for change. I think the current system is an appalling mix of crony-capitalism and socialistic favoritism that can turn even the most well-meaning of politicians into a monster. The need for good leadership has never been higher.

As to the Middle Class: Do you think the focus of government should be to benefit the Middle Class?

In general, I do think the profit motive is a good thing that rewards merit more than it breeds greed, so we have a disagreement, if I take your meaning right.

Politicians in the end, are reflections of the people they represent and it is my prediction that we will not see improvement in the quality of our politicians until we see better thinking in the culture. How to achieve that is the worrisome part for me. If the people could realize, in a concrete way, that every dollar spent by government is a dollar removed from the hands of productive people, who create real things that add value to our life, I would be very happy. But, most do not see the loss of productive capital that could be used to make life better for everyone, just to build a government structure that is wasteful and corrupt.

I have to go for now, it's Christmas Eve! I am not a Christian but am also not immune from the joys of the season!

All Best to You,
bluefig

 

[bluefig]

Sure, but sometimes you can't adequately define something in one word- i.e. conservative or liberal.

Oh, I see, sorry I misunderstood you.

So, you never use such terms in your thinking or language, I suppose. How do you determine what others believe? If they use those terms to describe themselves, how do you know what their meaning is? It doesn't seem possible in action, to me. But, I guess that by not attaching labels then you can never be defined or define others in any way, leaving a great deal of doubt in play.

No offense meant here but it sounds like a blurry and haphazard way to communicate with others, but if it works for you then I will question you no further and take this into consideration when we encounter each other here on the forum. Myp: person who does not label themselves nor others and could be anywhere along the political spectrum at any time. Got it. Clear as mud. :unsure:

 

[myp]

I do use the terms sometimes, but I try to limit my use of them. When others use them, I take it with a grain of salt. I don't like to assume what they believe in until they actually tell me. When it comes to actual discussion of the issues, what they believe in becomes clear and at that point I don't need the liberal-conservative label anyway.

I would rather not know, than falsely assume something.

You think my way is haphazard? Mine is conducive to the truth. Stereotyping does a lot of bad in this world and often creates a lot of unneeded commotion in politics as it becomes a fight between conservatives and liberals like it is a boxing match or something instead of a focus on the issues. And most ironic is some of the liberals and conservatives will share viewpoints and some liberals and liberals will disagree (as will some conservatives and conservatives).

 

[bluefig]

This is an issue and that is why I am focusing on it. If words and ideas have no meaning then we are truly lost.

I think good definitions are extremely important in making complex ideas more understandable. The desire not to define things leads to confusion. I have found in general that those who withhold definition and judgement are the ones who create "unneeded commotion" where as those who are interested in clear meanings are the peacemakers. That's been my experience.

Well, you did identify "love of their children" as a common value, so thank you for that. You say liberals and conservatives share some viewpoints but so far we have found two: love of their children and political corruption. In any case, I am hoping there are some other shared values that come to light. Real concrete ones, not vague, moving targets or undefined blurriness. So, far it's not looking like there are very many common values and that is sad.

 

[myp]

You understand that definitions are arguable right? Definitions evolve, change, are interpreted, die, and are born.

I never said I don't want to define things, but merely that in this case everyone disagrees on the definitions so much that the use of the words is fruitless because everyone associates very different definitions with them.

Edit: Read this post for an example: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=32794&postcount=17

 

[bluefig]

No, I don't think definitions are arguable. Oh, yes, people can argue about them, but words like fascism, democracy, republic, etc. they all have real meanings. If as you say, the use of words is fruitless then we would never try to communicate or join fine forums such as this one. Words are powerful tools and evasion of their meaning is not helpful but is a tactic to make everything seem subjective when in fact it isn't. Purely academic debate with no care for reality is fruitless. Maybe that is your meaning.

I will read the thread you posted when I have more time, thanks for the link.

 

[myp]

No, I don't think definitions are arguable.

What do you think etymology, semantics, and even parts of linguistics and theoretical lexicography are about? Language evolves. It is why we don't speak in the same English Shakespeare did. Words have various meanings in different contexts and from different viewpoints. Synonyms for one.

 

[bluefig]

Not much. I am interested in communicating with everyday people about the real things that happen in life and politics, not those who like to make things as complex as possible. Like academics who deliberately try to obscure reality. You know, the "nothing can ever be known" crowd, they are very boring to me and evasive in an annoying way. They don't interest me in the least. I grew up around those types and I generally don't interact with them much. I respect and like those who are searching for clarity in life, not endless and useless complexity. I understand their motives so I actually think they are a bane to society. They should stay hold up in their study halls and leave the world alone instead of convincing people that words have no meaning or worse, ideas have no meaning. In general, I think such people are a threat to the survival of humanity. I like simple, focused people who know what they mean and mean what they say. The more specific a person is, the more I like them. There are a lot of gray areas in life, but people who try to make all knowledge subjective are some of the most dangerous people on the planet, imo.