What do "left" and "right" mean to you?

[Recursion]

I read a piece by Noah Millman in the American Conservative a while ago that kind of summed up how I use the terms:

I do not believe there is a conservative party in America. There is, rather, a right-wing and a left-wing party, in each case relatively speaking. The Republican Party is relatively right-wing and the Democratic Party is relatively left-wing.

I’m using my own idiosyncratic definition of “right” and “left” here, but it’s an idiosyncrasy I’m increasingly fond of. The distinction between “right” and “left” in my view has to do with the relationship to “winners” and “losers” in society. The right is more interested in rewarding winners. The left is more interested in helping out losers.

I should be clear that “winners” and “losers” are not moral terms. If the game is rigged, then both “winners” and “losers” can be undeserving. You can make a moral case for helping “losers” on precisely the grounds that the game is rigged against them, and they deserve better than they are getting. But you can also make a case for helping “losers” entirely on the grounds of need, or on the grounds that inequality as such retards social progress, without regard to desert. Similarly, you can make a moral case for increasing the reward to “winners” on the grounds that the game is not rigged, and they deserve everything they’ve earned. But you can also make a case entirely on the grounds of dynamism, that rewarding “winners” is how you get a more successful society in aggregate, regardless of desert.

But the party of the right is going to be more concerned with the interests of groups that are winning (or have won in the past), whether fairly or unfairly, and the party of the left is more concerned with the interests of groups that are losing (or have not won in the past), again whether fairly or unfairly. That’s a political definition that, in my view, works pretty well over long stretches of time and through various permutations of “winners” and “losers.”

I think this is a good point, and is a separate question from whether one is progressive or conservative.

One can be a right-wing progressive (Herbert Hoover comes to mind): that would be belief that government should align itself with society's winners, and the temperament that big sweeping changes are more effective than adapting existing institutions. One can be a left-wing conservative (dare I say it, Barack Obama comes to mind): that would be the belief that government should align itself with society's losers, but that gradual change and adapting of existing institutions is the best course of action.

Anyways, I just think of this every time I see the libertarian-focused "Political Compass" brought out as inevitably seems to happen every so often: there are a lot of ways to divide the political spectrum into different axes.

EDIT: also, can anybody confirm that I'm correct that the actual origin of the terms is where the various estates sat in Louis XVI's court?

[LeftofObama]

1. I'm pretty much of a mind that (to put it simply)

Right wing = authoritarian (I know what's best for you and the rest of society)

Left wing = liberal (Live and let live as long as you're not hurting anyone else and mind your own business)

[Recursion]

4. So what about leftist authoritarianism, or rightist libertarianism?

Those both exist.

[RainDog]

2. The origin of the term "left" is the French Revolution

when the estates general met after Louis was unable to get the aristocracy to pony up some taxes to pay for funding wars by proxy against the British (aka The American Revolution), those who wanted to create a republic sat on the left side in the building. That was 1789.

those who supported the monarchy sat on the right.

Reward the winners is a bullshit statement when the playing field is not level and laws are created to continue to favor those who, by accident of birth, can game the system (as in George W., C student, legacy student because of his family connections, gets bailed out after fucking up his business Bush.)

This is what makes me want to slap conservatives into next week - they pretend they're winners and the reality is that they're just gaming the system. Like criminals. Cheaters. Spoiled brats.

That's how I would describe conservatives.

They're also backward thinking, prejudiced because they're afraid of change, and, generally, unable to appreciate creativity because the only way they measure the world is in terms of how much money they have in comparison to someone else.

[Recursion]

3. Right, we both are on the left so we think "reward the winners" is a bullshit sentiment

He points out there's practical and moral arguments on both the right and the left:

Left moral: the game is rigged
Left practical: rigged or not, inequality is damaging
Right moral: the game is not rigged
Right practical: rigged or not, the rising tide lifts all boats

But anyways. Do you use the terms "right" and "left" still? What do you mean by them? Do you use them interchangeably with "liberal" and "conservative"? Does "progressive" fit in there anywhere?

[RainDog]

6. He may point out a pov, but that pov is not supported by data

This, again, is an example of the bullshit that provides conservatives with rationale for mean spiritedness.

It's not enough to say... well, this other person says. What does the data say?

The data says that trickle down means pissing on the poor, not a rising tide.

The data says that nations with greater economic equality, achieved through taxation, because that's how it happens, every time, anyway - those nations have stronger democracies.

Those nations have greater upward mobility than the U.S.

Those nations have healthier populations.

Those nations have happier populations.

So, it's really not enough to say... this person frames it this way. Because that person is full of shit and reality does not support what that person wants to believe.

I'm so sick of people pretending there is anything worthwhile in a conservative economic argument - their ideology is like creationism at this point when the data indicate they're wrong.

Yes, I use left and right. Rightwing, more often. The left, to me, is someone who supports social democracy. That's the meaning of the left in other western democracies as well.

The right is someone who is conservative and supports the divine right of capital, rather than democracy. Capital is the current "monarchy."

Progressive, to me, indicates the early 20th c. in strictest terms, but recently it seems to be a way to indicate someone who is farther to the left than a liberal.

Liberals, traditionally, in Anglo govt. since the Victorian era in England, indicated free market industrialists.

But terms are used loosely and, more often than not, for the purpose of political propaganda.

I don't really care what label someone gives him or herself. What positions do they take? That's how to determine how they fit within the political universe.

[Recursion]

10. Well, Millman isn't particularly interested in left or right as he calls them out here

He's someone who dislikes rapid systemic changes. Also a very interesting thinker.

[RainDog]

12. not really

I don't think he's much of a thinker at all.

He is using typical rhetorical tactics to justify his asshole positions.

Nothing interesting about it unless you are willing to buy into his bullshit.

...which the data doesn't support.

Someone is not an interesting thinker if reality has no bearing on his or her positions relative to economic arguments.

[Recursion]

15. Which of his economic positions are you thinking of?

He's a theater critic.

[RainDog]

18. Winners and losers

He also makes this statement:

Signing up as the intellectual handmaid of a particular set of interests may feel like it is essential work to ensuring the triumph of truth and right (which are implicitly identified with one particular set of interests), but this is mostly an illusion, and an even less-plausible illusion than that of Napoleon, convinced that he is shaping history through the application of his genius through the instrument of his will.

Can you explain to me how he comes to the conclusion that Napoleon operated under a delusion when, under Napoleon's reign, the entire continent of Europe was changed in ways that are still in practice today?

I mean, I read that and thought... this person is an idiot if he doesn't recognize what Napoleon did that was, yes, revolutionary, even when he made himself emperor.

The metric system. Universal education. Opposition to slavery. Establishing republics in every nation in western Europe that, within another century, were the models for every single monarchy that was on its way to failure after Napoleon's model.

Meritocracy rather than aristocracy.

Secular government.

So, honestly, what does this person mean by the statement I noted here? He wants to pretend that Napoleon was not one of the most important figures in European history whose reforms, often forced, changed the face of Europe more than anyone until the rise of fascism - which, btw, was a reaction to the continuation of the French Revolution that had spread to Russia by the time of their revolution?

This is what I mean by not being much of a thinker at all. What's the context - maybe it's in his previous posts, but this one seems so full of shit, it doesn't seem worth it to bother to read him unless it's to point and laugh at such a dumbass.

[Recursion]

19. He's talking about the character in "War & Peace"

This is part of a series of essays on Tolstoy and modern politics (the title helps to remind you of that).

The whole book is a critique of the "great man" theory of history.

What about "winners" and "losers" seems wrong to you?

[RainDog]

22. Women, apparently, are losers according to this metric

The reality is that women have and are traditionally tasked with raising children and, traditionally, sacrifice their own economic security for the well being of their children.

That's the traditional role and it's one that is still reinforced in society. Women who take time out of their careers to raise children are punished for this.

People who make sacrifices for their families are losers, according to this asshole.

But, if he's also a sexist, he doesn't recognize this reality.

If he's a fan of Tolstoy, it's pretty astonishing that he fails to recognize the importance of Jesus' moral teachings, esp. "blessed are the..." everyone he would call losers.

He measures everything in terms of financial wealth, at least in this piece.

Well, tell that to African-Americans who have contributed untold riches to this society via their creative responses to the assholes this writer calls "the winners."

Who was a winner? Pat Boone or John Coltrane?

This is what makes his definitions so insipid and so obviously a hand job to selfish assholes to massage their egos and justify their selfishness - the opposite of Tolstoy's vision.

[Recursion]

26. Yes, that would be exactly his argument

Women have historically been "losers" in society and continue to today, so the left aligns with women's issues and the right aligns against them. Or do you think women haven't lost out in most of our economic and political history?

[RainDog]

29. Victims are not losers

They are abused by systemic or individual actions.

I suppose people with disabilities are losers too? Really?

What do you find valuable in his framing? What value is there in assigning the "eugenics" inspired descriptions of people in society?

Social Darwinism was a perversion of scientific Darwinism. He seems to engage in the same old bullshit in his thinking.

[Recursion]

38. Call it "victims" and "predators" then if you prefer

You don't think the left sides with one and the right with the other?

[RainDog]

50. the left sides with the general welfare

the greatest good for the greatest number of people and for the health of the system under which economic policy operates.

But, yes, those who attempt to harm the general welfare for their own selfish ends are predators.

In human societies, the traditional response to such people has been expulsion from the community. In every society in early human history, a person with this creep's mindset would've been chucked out to die of exposure for his attempts to harm the community by placing himself outside of its well being.

His actions are not just predatory, they are perverse. Social darwinism is a perverse view of humankind and historically inaccurate, in terms of our basic modes of survival for tens of thousands of years.

[Jasana]

62. I'm a disabled female...

not a loser x 2 or a "victim." I much prefer the way you think and the terms you use Raindog.

[RainDog]

65. Our neolithic ancestors were more advanced than rightwingers

In that they valued people even if they were disabled or were not able to care for themselves or contribute, economically, and the community attended to their well being.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/neolithic-people-took-care-of-their-disabled/story-e6frg8y6-1226540703318

The remains of the young man, known as Burial 9, suggest he died paralysed from the waist down with a congenital disease known as Klippel-Feil syndrome.

He had little, if any, use of his arms and could not have fed himself or kept himself clean -- and lived with this condition, with help, for about 10 years.

(The male was about 25 years old at death and showed no evidence he had been mistreated or abandoned.)

Ms Tilley told The New York Times this week that previous archeological finds where there was evidence of care included at least one Neanderthal, Shanidar 1, from a site in Iraq, dating to 45,000 years ago, who died around age 50 with one arm amputated, loss of vision in one eye and other injuries.

Another was Windover boy, from about 7500 years ago, found in Florida, who lived to around the age of 15 with the spinal malformation spina bifida.

I like your view, Jasana. We have value as members of our community, no matter what our economic measure may be.

[RainDog]

27. Napoleon, in War and Peace, is Napoleon the historical figure

imagined by Tolstoy as a human, not icon.

that doesn't diminish what Napoleon accomplished in creating the conditions that moved western Europe to the overthrow of every monarchy by the end of the 19th c.

[RainDog]

33. If Napoleon had conquered Russia

Russia may not have ever had the convulsive history that occurred with the Bolsheviks. Napoleon could have instituted reforms that helped to change Russian society in spite of the aristocracy and monarchy there.

If Napoleon had conquered Russia, Stalin may have never existed, and all the murders under his regime might not have happened.

Tolstoy wasn't a fortune teller. He was writing with a particular cultural prejudice, just as everyone else does. Russia took pride in defeating Napoleon, but I have to wonder if their "win" was not a greater loss to their entire society, compared to what happened afterward.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. The bulk of his career has been on the Street as a trader in derivites. He cashed out 3 years ago

to 'write' for Conservative publications.. He was a trader for 16 years, 'writer' for 3 mostly at American Conservative. He has not been a critic for any other publication, AC values his point of view, actual theatrical publications of record do not use his crap.
Do you know him?

[Bluenorthwest]

25. He's an incrementalist, his interest in in the status quo which serves him, his 'thinking' is faith

style blather free of facts. All of those things plus the very use of the terms 'losers' and 'winners' is not only conservative to the bone, it is also insipid and childish thinking.

[nil desperandum]

34. This is correct

At no time has the US been a stronger nation than when the gap between the upper and middle class is the smallest. As we use trickle down and the gap between the upper economic classes and middle/lower economic classes widen we resemble a 3rd world nation more than a 1st world super power. It's not a good move for anyone in the country.

Right wingers always like to talk about business models for running government, but they never like my answer. In any business I've ever been involved with there's a simple formula, if you are capitalizing the business at 80% you get 80% of the return, but you also are responsible for 80% of investing in that business to see the returns.

There is no equality, and can never be any equality, when those who own 90% of the wealth are not responsible for 90% of the burden. That doesn't require a think tank, or a collection of economics degrees to understand. I've no quarrel with Bill Gates acquiring 40 billion dollars through some sharp business maneuvers, but I expect Bill to pony up the appropriate investment (taxes) back into the nation based on that acquisition of wealth.

Of course I also expect our government to understand that taxing the rich alone will not create a stable economic environment. A continuously rising national deficit for 40 years becomes problematic when the percentage of debt to income is also continuously increasing and when servicing that debt requires an ever larger slice of income.

[RainDog]

36. Deficits were created by cutting taxes on the wealthy

Bush Jr. was the only president who was so reality-impaired he attempted to wage two wars without funding them via tax increases.

Instead, he decreased taxes on the wealthy.

More and more, I have come to believe that the right, or conservatives, or the unpatriotic, whatever you want to call them, are so blinded by greed they don't care if they destroy this nation.

And they'll blame anyone other than those who are to blame - and that's the politicians and plutocrats who fail to operate within the boundaries of reality because their greed allows them to believe the most egregious lies if they think they'll make a buck.

It's like a form of mental illness, at this point.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

47. Actually, it was not the Estates General

In the Estates General, the representatives sat by estate: The First Estate (the clergy) in front, the Second Estate (the nobles) in the middle, the Third Estate (the commoners) in the rear. It was the National Assembly, which succeeded the Estates General, meeting in a semi-circular room, which established the left-right political thing.

[RainDog]

51. thanks for the correction

it's been a while since I read this history.

[cali]

5. I call bullshit on that article.

The first sentence is utter nonsense. The current repub party is far right on virtually every issue. The current dem party is largely moderate.

Of great concern to me is that both parties are influenced/controlled by corporate interests- though to a greater degree within the repub party.

[Recursion]

8. It's not an article, it's a review of Tolstoy

And an attempt to translate 18th- and 19th-century political terms to today.

[RainDog]

11. the author says it's his own definition

that he, apparently, pulled out of his conservative ass to rationalize policies that undermine democracy.

as the data indicates.

[Recursion]

20. So if you don't like the "winners/losers" dichotomy, what do you like?

If that's not a good definition of "right" and "left" for you, what is?

[RainDog]

23. immature vs. mature

at least according to his view of the world.

He's really, really vapid.

I don't understand why you see any value in what he has written.

What do you think he has written here that has value?

[Recursion]

28. I don't see how "winners" vs. "losers" is different from "1%" vs. "99%"

Can you help me there?

[RainDog]

31. 99% is Democracy. 1% is oligarchy

Those numbers indicate whose interests are attended to and whose are ignored. In a democracy, the 1% does not have the power it does today.

So, again, what do you find valuable in his writing?

You really buy into "winners and losers" as a paradigm? Do you realize how small minded this framing is?

[Recursion]

39. I think we're on the side of the downtrodden. The "losers"

I think that's a valuable way of looking at things: what makes the left the left is that we side with people who've gotten the short end of the deal.

[RainDog]

45. No. I'm on the side of justice, humanity and the general welfare

Those things that are the foundational aspirations of the founding of this nation.

The entire reason for democracy is to "promote the general welfare."

That's not about losers.

That's about citizens, rather than economic units.

I find it sad - so constricted, really, that you find value in viewing someone without the same economic status as someone else as a loser.

The entire history of art, in every medium, is full of "losers" according to this metric. Who has had a greater impact on this world - some asshole derivatives trader or Rosa Parks? Was Rosa Parks a loser? If you buy into this guy's pov, yes, Rosa was a loser. This is bullshit.

If the "great man" theory of history doesn't matter - why does he reiterate it with winners and losers?

How sloppy does someone's thought have to be not to recognize he is merely restating a Victorian social darwinian view of the world and pretending it's something different?

[deutsey]

58. +1

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

49. If you were to look at it in European political terms

The Republicans are well to the right, and the Democrats are center-right to center-left. Obama is center-right. (Anyone who claims that Obama is a socialist is either wholly ignorant of socialism or else is lying.)

[RainDog]

53. exactly n/t

[LuvNewcastle]

7. To me, being liberal is mostly about treating people equally.

We want people to have equal justice and an equal shot at making a life. We want society's marginalized groups to be treated in an equal way to the majority. Some people might gain more money and possessions than others, but there is a basic belief that each person's life is as valuable as the next person. Liberalism has a sort of spirituality inherent with it, and is very much like humanism.

[Skidmore]

9. Personally, I think political labels are claptrap.

Intended to divide people into tribes to amass power. In reality, there are issues and facts behind issues and that people cull from the facts what they will. The opinions a person forms derives from how narrowly or broadly they are able to incorporate facts and opinions of others into their analysis.

[burnodo]

13. yeah but that's false

the Democratic party is in no way relatively left-wing. The Greens would be considered "relatively left-wing"

[Recursion]

14. But we're pretty clearly left "relative to" the Republicans

Particularly by Millman's sense of "left" and "right".

But, OK: what do you mean by "left" and "right"?

[Quantess]

16. Does Noah Williams write for pay, or is this amateur time?

I hope it's a letter to the editor. "The American Conservative" are suckers if they paid for this writing talent.

[Recursion]

17. Did you read the whole piece? It's an interesting take on Tolstoy

I like his writing.

[Quantess]

24. No, I didn't.

Too bad the author didn't have the sense to put his ego in check and tone down his own banal opinions, and focus on interpreting Tolstoy.

I'm just saying that any halfway decent college student with an interest in politics could have written the part that you posted in the OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. The author is a lifelong Wall Street trader who cashed out in 2010 to 'write' for American

Conservative. Our dear OP is affecting the notion that 'theater critic' is a full disclosure on this guy, who has not built a career as such and is not published as a critic by any other publications. Certainly no arts publications.

[RainDog]

37. The guy is pretty stupid, if you ask me. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

42. I think you nailed it well with 'vapid'. I'd also add self serving to his own status and story.

nt

[Quantess]

44. Aha, so he got his job through connections. Or nepotism.

So that's how someone gets paid for writing banalities.

[RainDog]

46. he's providing a hand job for narcissists n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Note the similarities to Charlie 'I'm Winning' Sheen, unearned gigs, nepotism and cash...

nt

[loyalsister]

21. In the most literal sense

it refers to the seating arrangement in the House (at least in MO). The Democrats on the left side, republicans on the right.
I'm not sure if that is the origin, but it's a definitive.

[groovedaddy]

30. "Not all conservatives are stupid people, but stupid people are

almost always conservative." "You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people, some of the time..." It is the voting block that keeps the right wing "in play" in politics, protecting the privileges of the ruling oligarchy (as established in the French Revolution version of right and left wing). It is done by fostering a simplistic philosophy that those devoid of critical thinking skills can readily agree with. Traditionally, the left wing is the organized (to some degree) response to the ruling power structure in an attempt to better their circumstances, including having a say in how things are run.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Charlie Sheen and other spoiled brats have previously claimed that money = winning = everything.

Look it up. This is very Charlie Sheen. 'I'm winning'!

[Recursion]

41. Very good example

of how "winners" and "losers" isn't a moral judgement.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Can you explain what you think that means?

Did I claim it was a moral judgement? No, I am clearly saying the author of this piece speaks like a self indulgent spoiled brat. Self serving and shallow, not moral or immoral, just amoral empty space. As the Sex Pistols said 'pretty vacant'.

[RainDog]

54. so, you're basically buying in to this frame?

the social darwinian frame?

really?

there's nothing "left" about that pov.

"winners" and "losers" is most definitely a moral judgement in terms of the weight of meaning assigned to those terms.

what's different about this compared to Romney and Ryan's framing of makers and takers?

[Recursion]

57. What on earth are you talking about?

What "social darwinian frame"?

I believe the best way to define "left" and "right" is that the left sides with people who are not powerful and the right sides with people who are. Losers and winners.

[RainDog]

61. I think your pov is determined by rightwing ideology

you sound like an Ayn Rand acolyte, whether you realize it or not, to reduce people to economic units and assign a value-laden term to those economic levels of accumulation.

you don't seem to understand much about rhetoric or the value of words as symbols through their association with other attributes assigned to them in other contexts.

I would not want you to frame any debate because you seem to be tone deaf to the way your choice of labels undermines the entire concept of democracy, even, by reducing people to middle-school sounding labels of winner or loser.

I note this is a social darwinian frame because, in the gilded age, the wealthy used this idea that they were the "winners" in society (made possible by their abuse of other people within a rigged economic system) as a way to justify their circumstances and dismiss others'. They "deserved" their privilege because they were superior simply because they had economic advantage, according to their beliefs, and could thus label themselves as winners who, as this author goes on to say, should be rewarded because they have defined themselves as the winners, according to current rightwing frames.

According to your framing, as you note above, 99% of the population are losers - including you. But that 99%, itself, is simply another frame. The breakdown could be made in other percentages, but the reality remains that you are deciding to accept the idea that those who have had exceptional privilege are winners, simply by the accident of their birth, for the most part. They did nothing exceptional, in most cases, to deserve the label of winner.

This is what I take exception to.

Winner/loser is middle school rhetoric.

When someone games a system to allow them to win, they're cheats, not winners. Someone who has a much more interesting view of the current American system is Marjorie Kelly, who wrote "The Divine Right of Capital." She deconstructs the fake winner and loser paradigm you embrace.

It's also inaccurate to claim that the left only cares about the downtrodden. The left cares about a society that offers more opportunity for all, no matter his or her accident of birth, with access to those basics of life that are considered human rights by other western democracies - such as access to health care, basic economic security, access to education, a seat at the table of democracy because of someone's birth right, as a citizen of this nation, in a representative democracy.

So, basically, I am saying you sound like a rightwinger by reducing the complex nature of humans to economic haves and have nots - to a dichotomy of this or that, when reality is much different than this frame. There are haves, have some, had but now don't, have nots... where, along this continuum, do you situate someone as a winner or loser?

You have stated you accept this guy's framing of reality vis a vis the use of these terms. To accept such framing means you should recognize how much you buy into rightwing views of reality.

...which is interesting, to me, because it demonstrates one of the basic concepts of the function of ideology - which is the inability to rise above a frame set within a society - which, in this case, is post-Reagan political framing.

Your acceptance of this demarcation of political sides indicates your thinking is deformed by the rightwing ideology you have stewed in since birth simply by the accident of your birth after decades of rightwing power grabs.

It's difficult to rise above such societal... brainwashing, but not impossible.

But you should recognize that your thinking is distorted by rightwing ideology if you reduce citizens of this nation to the concept of economic winner or loser.

[Recursion]

63. Jesus Christ *of course* we're losing

Do you not understand how rigged the game is from an economic standpoint?

But you should recognize that your thinking is distorted by rightwing ideology if you reduce citizens of this nation to the concept of economic winner or loser.

Guess what: there's nothing the 1% want more than for you to say "but there's a lot more to my life than the economic opportunities I'm being robbed of".

[RainDog]

64. you don't understand what I have said, apparently

because, yes, I talked about how the game is rigged - and noted that this simple fact negates the validity of the term "winner" for someone with economic advantage.

guess what? there's nothing the 1% want more than for you to equate the left with losers. this is a sure way to drive insecure males to embrace their winning status by aligning with those who don't, in fact, share much of anything with those same males. this was, in fact, Reagan's propaganda pitch, and why so many white males voted for him.

I am saying that, rhetorically, your frame is negative if you want to drive progress toward greater economic equality through those things, as noted above, that create this equality - which is through taxation of wealth (which, btw, Reagan did, but didn't admit - Reagan raised taxes - something that current rightwingers conveniently forget.)

but, guess what? there is more to life than money or how much of it you accumulate.

that's a reality that is addressed with the concept of economic human rights and justice and the social safety net.

you don't seem to be able to frame a coherent argument to support your preference for terms that frame economic circumstances in terms of playground machismo. instead, you ignore what I have said and pick a sentence out of context to claim something that doesn't exist within my argument here.

[LeftishBrit]

52. As I posted a few years ago, my basic distinction is:

'People can be left in one area and right in another. But I would say that the fundamental differences between left and right are that the right favour a 'might is right' position, enhancing the position of the 'strong' even if this means further disadvantaging the 'weak', while the left favour protecting and helping the 'weak' even if this limits the potentialities for advancement by the already 'strong'. 'Strong' most often means basically 'rich', but may also mean 'physically strong'; 'member of a majority group'; 'well-connected'; or, when applied to international relations, 'possessing military might'. The more libertarian right simply allows the strong to advance by trampling on the weak, without interference. The more authoritarian right attempts to force conformity to the rules of a majority or well-connected group: e.g. that all must follow the social mores of a dominant religious group.'

The 'strong vs weak' definition is somewhat similar to 'winners vs losers' except that to my ears at least, the latter does imply some degree of judgement, or at least the implication that they were competing in the same game. Many people in a 'weaker' position are not so much 'losers' as excluded from the game in the first place!

I would agree that 'conservativism' and 'radicalism' in the literal sense of 'seeking or not seeking radical change' can occur on the left or the right. Thus, Thatcher and Reagan sought and produced radical change in a right-wing direction, whereas in my opinion most American Democrats, and most British Labour Party leaders (though not all Labour politicians) tend to be suspicious of too much change. As a sweeping generalization, I would say that British people in general are more left-wing, but also more suspicious of change, than Americans.

However, I would use 'radical' rather than 'progressive' for the right-wing change-lover, as to me 'progressive' implies movement in a forward rather than backward direction.

Incidentally, I would regard Hoover as a conservative right-winger rather than a radical right-winger. He stuck rigidly to the status quo, and could not or would not adapt to or deal with the changing circumstances caused by the depression. By contrast, Reagan sought actively to change the status quo in a right-wing direction.

[MineralMan]

55. Port and Starboard.

If I'm in a boat.



Always wear your PFD!

[bemildred]

56. Contrived political cant.

The founders didn't think much of parties. They were right.

[KG]

59. I orbit Salon.com in a black helicopter.

[RainDog]

66. I missed the fight on this, apparently

what is the context of this remark? I ask cause I've seen it more than once.

t/y for clueing me in...

[markiv]

60. fake labels to enable a 2 fake party stranglehold nt