'Right wing' shight shwing
The so-called 'right' and 'left' 'wings' of politics have always been a conceptual mishmash, but never more so than in today's centre-ground-only Britain. "I believe in the freedom to take drugs, I'm left wing!" "I believe in the freedom to shoot guns, I'm right wing!" "I think you shouldn't be allowed to smoke near me, I'm left wing." "I think you shouldn't be allowed to have abortions, I'm right wing." "I think your corporate activities should be curbed to prevent unfairness, I'm left wing." "I believe your social activities should be curbed to prevent social degradation, I'm right wing." "I believe everyone should have a similar standard of living, I'm left wing." "I believe everyone should have similar values, I'm right wing."
People have tried to recharacterise political 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' by dividing it into two, social liberalism/conservatism and fiscal liberalism/conservatism; it turns out the majority of people who call themselves right wing are socially conservative and fiscally liberal; while the opposite is true of those who call themselves left wing (perhaps in the old sense).
But this is all bollocks, let's face it. Right wing and left wing don't have anything to do with your carefully considered opinion on what is best for you or for society, they are just the outward manifestations of the antiprocess that is every adult's eternal burden - the unconscious filtering of information and selective application of reasoning to ensure that prior prejudice is never contradicted.
In this case, the real distinction between the typical 'right' and the typical 'left' is first and foremost whether you are reactionary or progressive, that is, whether you always think everything would be better if it stayed the same or went back the way it was before. And secondly it's about whether you have more to give than to receive. Selfishness is a given, poor people can sound charitable and still be selfish more easily than the rich, that's all.
Of course, this sounds dreadfully bigoted, and it's also unfair on all the genuinely charitable, empathetic liberals, like me :o) But let's not mince our words: left and right wing are hopeless as labels unless you recognise where people are really coming from: 1) their old-fashioned mindset, 2) their wallets.
One thing, however, is for sure. If you want to be not only seen as unselfish but actually be unselfish, you have to be left wing. The idea that low taxes, small government, low regulation and 'family' values are what is best for the majority is quite simply false, and has been proven false by European countries that have successfully implemented compromise socialist societies that are prosperous and fair. I'm thinking, as always, Sweden. Amazingly successful as the US is as a nation, it is not fair to the average citizen. It's all very well to talk about opportunity when you're part of that small percentage of people with the opportunity to talk at all.
The fact is, everyone admits that some 'nanny' statism is necessary (whether it's for stopping corporate exploitation, or smoking, or bad parenting, or homosexual marriage), while as much freedom as possible is generally a good thing (whether it's for taking drugs, or swearing, or tearing foxes to shreds, or working employees as hard as you want). What people disagree on is where the control and freedom should be balanced.
My principle is that the answer isn't easy; where possible, the most benefit or the least harm to the most people should prevail, but it has to be examined case by case, there's no blanket Commandment or backward uneditable constitutional clause that covers everything. People will always disagree about what constitutes harm (is a smoker harmed by being prevented from smoking in a pub?), and by what constitutes freedom, and freedoms will almost always clash. Let's forget the idea of absolutes. Life is just too bloody complicated for that.
People have tried to recharacterise political 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' by dividing it into two, social liberalism/conservatism and fiscal liberalism/conservatism; it turns out the majority of people who call themselves right wing are socially conservative and fiscally liberal; while the opposite is true of those who call themselves left wing (perhaps in the old sense).
But this is all bollocks, let's face it. Right wing and left wing don't have anything to do with your carefully considered opinion on what is best for you or for society, they are just the outward manifestations of the antiprocess that is every adult's eternal burden - the unconscious filtering of information and selective application of reasoning to ensure that prior prejudice is never contradicted.
In this case, the real distinction between the typical 'right' and the typical 'left' is first and foremost whether you are reactionary or progressive, that is, whether you always think everything would be better if it stayed the same or went back the way it was before. And secondly it's about whether you have more to give than to receive. Selfishness is a given, poor people can sound charitable and still be selfish more easily than the rich, that's all.
Of course, this sounds dreadfully bigoted, and it's also unfair on all the genuinely charitable, empathetic liberals, like me :o) But let's not mince our words: left and right wing are hopeless as labels unless you recognise where people are really coming from: 1) their old-fashioned mindset, 2) their wallets.
One thing, however, is for sure. If you want to be not only seen as unselfish but actually be unselfish, you have to be left wing. The idea that low taxes, small government, low regulation and 'family' values are what is best for the majority is quite simply false, and has been proven false by European countries that have successfully implemented compromise socialist societies that are prosperous and fair. I'm thinking, as always, Sweden. Amazingly successful as the US is as a nation, it is not fair to the average citizen. It's all very well to talk about opportunity when you're part of that small percentage of people with the opportunity to talk at all.
The fact is, everyone admits that some 'nanny' statism is necessary (whether it's for stopping corporate exploitation, or smoking, or bad parenting, or homosexual marriage), while as much freedom as possible is generally a good thing (whether it's for taking drugs, or swearing, or tearing foxes to shreds, or working employees as hard as you want). What people disagree on is where the control and freedom should be balanced.
My principle is that the answer isn't easy; where possible, the most benefit or the least harm to the most people should prevail, but it has to be examined case by case, there's no blanket Commandment or backward uneditable constitutional clause that covers everything. People will always disagree about what constitutes harm (is a smoker harmed by being prevented from smoking in a pub?), and by what constitutes freedom, and freedoms will almost always clash. Let's forget the idea of absolutes. Life is just too bloody complicated for that.
posted by extabgrad at 2:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home