This is not a bad summary of left versus right

[Craig234]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

 

[Emily L]

Craig, it seems to me both sides tend to exploit the weak.

They will parade the weak in front of the cameras during the campaign. but when they get elected they'll do next to nothing to help them. Then, in the next campaign, they'll do the same thing.

At least, it seems that way to me.

 

[ataraxia]

Craig, it seems to me both sides tend to exploit the weak.

They will parade the weak in front of the cameras during the campaign. but when they get elected they'll do next to nothing to help them. Then, in the next campaign, they'll do the same thing.

At least, it seems that way to me.

Nah- from civil rights and Medicare to the ACA, the Dems have done some good.

What has the GOP done other than cut taxes to the rich and make it harder to vote for poor and elderly?

 

[Mithrae]

Far as I can tell the most consistent distinguishing feature is the left-wing tendency towards egalitarianism versus the right-wing tendency against it (or towards hierarchies), from the origins of the term in the parliament under French monarchy with the left opposing and right supporting the monarchy, down to modern communism/anarchism/socialism (left) and fascism/nationalism/capitalism (right). By implication a more 'definitive' description of the left would be that there should be no stark strong/weak dichotomy, that it's important to restrain the rich and powerful as well as to prop up the poor and marginalized. Not least the idea of 'the strong,' if allowed to be strong, acting in anything other than their own interests is a bit of a utopian pipe dream and always has been from the "white man's burden" down to FDR's "four policemen" notion which morphed into the permanent UNSC members. Extreme left-wing views of absolute equality are almost as problematic as extreme right-wing views of course.

Sadly it seems there is a lot more room for far-right views in many countries (especially America) these days than there is for moderate-left views like an eight-figure hard cap on total wealth, or even centrist views like a modest wealth tax or a return to Eisenhower-era top marginal rates.

 

[Emily L]

Nah- from civil rights and Medicare to the ACA, the Dems have done some good.

What has the GOP done other than cut taxes to the rich and make it harder to vote for poor and elderly?

Yes, Ataraxia, I do believe the Democrats have done more to help the weak than the Republicans.

I wish the Republicans would get away from this "tough love" strategy, where they (sincerely) feel that they are helping the weak by doing nothing and thereby forcing them to try harder.

But the problem with "tough love" is that, when you put it next to the "I don't give a rat's rear-end" attitude, they look the same.

 

[lurchadams]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

Absolutely correct. Being a Republican today is all about punching down.

 

[lurchadams]

Craig, it seems to me both sides tend to exploit the weak.

They will parade the weak in front of the cameras during the campaign. but when they get elected they'll do next to nothing to help them. Then, in the next campaign, they'll do the same thing.

At least, it seems that way to me.

There is one party trying to take rights away from people, including voting and personal female health. The Republicans.

There is only one party downplaying the 1/6 insurrection and trying to deflect to BLM, when confronted - The Republicans.

There is one party trying to keep our roads and bridges dangerous - The Republican's - But if we have to fight a 20 year war? Just tell the Republican's how much money is needed. But helping our fellow Americans? No way! Can't afford it!

There is one party fighting for your right to vote and take care of yourself. The Democrats.

These are facts.

 

[lurchadams]

Far as I can tell the most consistent distinguishing feature is the left-wing tendency towards egalitarianism versus the right-wing tendency against it (or towards hierarchies), from the origins of the term in the parliament under French monarchy with the left opposing and right supporting the monarchy, down to modern communism/anarchism/socialism (left) and fascism/nationalism/capitalism (right). By implication a more 'definitive' description of the left would be that there should be no stark strong/weak dichotomy, that it's important to restrain the rich and powerful as well as to prop up the poor and marginalized. Not least the idea of 'the strong,' if allowed to be strong, acting in anything other than their own interests is a bit of a utopian pipe dream and always has been from the "white man's burden" down to FDR's "four policemen" notion which morphed into the permanent UNSC members. Extreme left-wing views of absolute equality are almost as problematic as extreme right-wing views of course.

Sadly it seems there is a lot more room for far-right views in many countries (especially America) these days than there is for moderate-left views like an eight-figure hard cap on total wealth, or even centrist views like a modest wealth tax or a return to Eisenhower-era top marginal rates.

The right-wing problem is happening world-wide. It's not ESPECIALLY America. They're about to elect a racist right-wing nut to replace Macron in France. I guess you don't keep up with world events. Either that, or you just like bashing America.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Yes, Ataraxia, I do believe the Democrats have done more to help the weak than the Republicans.

I wish the Republicans would get away from this "tough love" strategy, where they (sincerely) feel that they are helping the weak by doing nothing and thereby forcing them to try harder.

But the problem with "tough love" is that, when you put it next to the "I don't give a rat's rear-end" attitude, they look the same.

For Republicans, they are the same. There is nothing "sincere" about their "tough love".

 

[Integrityrespec]

Nah- from civil rights and Medicare to the ACA, the Dems have done some good.

What has the GOP done other than cut taxes to the rich and make it harder to vote for poor and elderly?

For one there was a bigger support among the GOP for civil rights than among democrats.

 

[Schism]

This thread is part of the reason why: Biden approval rating dips to lowest point in latest CBS News poll

You people are chasing voters away from your party and you don't even know it.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

This thread is part of the reason why: Biden approval rating dips to lowest point in latest CBS News poll

You people are chasing voters away from your party and you don't even know it.

Well, millions of idiot Republicans believe Trump won the 2020 election.

Nobody's perfect.

 

[Mithrae]

The right-wing problem is happening world-wide. It's not ESPECIALLY America. They're about to elect a racist right-wing nut to replace Macron in France. I guess you don't keep up with world events. Either that, or you just like bashing America.

How does France compare to America in terms of public healthcare, minimum wages, GINI coefficient and so on? Presumably America is not the most right-leaning country in the world, but in terms of Western countries it's always been so proud of being the 'leader'... and true to form, as you've hinted, many other countries are following suit and beginning to catch up. My father recently commented that Scott Morrison is the worst PM Australia's ever had; I never would have dreamed he'd rank anyone worse than John Howard There's Boris Johnson in the UK of course, but with an obvious and notable exception of their House of Lords, in most regards even Britain has tended to be less right-wing than the USA in the past half century or so and especially as a member of the EU. These three anglophone countries, led by America, were the main ones who in 2001 and especially 2003 decided that even the wildly undemocratic/authoritarian United Nations system of international order was not good enough for them and opted for a might-makes-right world order instead, with the responsible governments re-elected in all three countries; you don't get much more right-wing than that without crossing over into open totalitarianism... which of course America has seemed frighteningly close to doing lately.

 

[Emily L]

There is one party trying to take rights away from people, including voting and personal female health. The Republicans.

There is only one party downplaying the 1/6 insurrection and trying to deflect to BLM, when confronted - The Republicans.

There is one party trying to keep our roads and bridges dangerous - The Republican's - But if we have to fight a 20 year war? Just tell the Republican's how much money is needed. But helping our fellow Americans? No way! Can't afford it!

There is one party fighting for your right to vote and take care of yourself. The Democrats.

These are facts.

Lurch, those things you are citing are part of the reason I eventually left the GOP. I'm still a "traditional" conservative, but that's because I believe a true conservative would never be in favor of some of the things the current GOP is now pushing for.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, it seems to me both sides tend to exploit the weak.

They will parade the weak in front of the cameras during the campaign. but when they get elected they'll do next to nothing to help them. Then, in the next campaign, they'll do the same thing.

At least, it seems that way to me.

We're watching two different countries. Would you mind showing me a few videos of Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehoiuse, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Elizabeth Warren parading the weak and then doing nothing to help them that you have seen?

 

[Fishking]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

*Me reading the title* OK...time to go click on whatever bullshit this is an read w/e dumbass article that was linked and destroy it.

*click*

Me - Nope...this OP was waaaaaay more lazy than that. This dude wrote 14 words, with only 8 unique words and expected praise for his genius or something? Wow!

Anyways...to the subject...the right protects the weak as well, but I'd say are much more principled about it. They staff a significant portion of the non-profits out there and volunteer their own time. They are disproportionately police officers, military, fire fighters, and other jobs where they put themselves in harms way to help others. And they do all this for everyone.

The left protects the weak as well, but only so long as they agree with their ideology. If they believe something different, ya'll find pleasure in their suffering.

 

[Craig234]

I wish the Republicans would get away from this "tough love" strategy, where they (sincerely) feel that they are helping the weak by doing nothing and thereby forcing them to try harder.

There is *zero* "sincerely" by the Republican politicians doing that; and only the sincerity of fools among Republican voters who do. IMO you really don't understand the Republican Party to understand it is NOTHING but a plutocracy machine.

But the problem with "tough love" is that, when you put it next to the "I don't give a rat's rear-end" attitude, they look the same.

Because it is a pretense used by corrupt officials who don't give a rat's read-end. Among many pretenses. There's the 'give all the money to the rich and you'll get more' claim, aka trickle-down. The 'touch love' it's better for them claim. The 'the alternative is communism that makes everyone poor claim' No shortage of pretenses for plutocracy. It all comes down to one thing: give us all the money.

 

[Emily L]

We're watching two different countries. Would you mind showing me a few videos of Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehoiuse, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Elizabeth Warren parading the weak and then doing nothing to help them that you have seen?

By "parading," I meant talking about the weak, the poor, the homeless. Yet, when the next election rolls around, they are still talking about the poor, who seem to be in the same situation they were before.

To be fair, though, the problems are not easily fixed. And, of course, doing what little they can to help is better than nothing.

 

[Craig234]

By "parading," I meant talking about the weak, the poor, the homeless. Yet, when the next election rolls around, they are still talking about the poor, who seem to be in the same situation they were before.

To be fair, though, the problems are not easily fixed. And, of course, doing what little they can to help is better than nothing.

Well, it sounds like you are accusing them of being phonies, claiming to want to help but not wanting to help, when in fact they are fighting hard to try, and sometimes they can but often don't have the votes.

So, why are you accusing them of being phonies, when they're not, blaming them for not solving poverty when they don't have the votes to? They need more people to recognize who is trying to help and elect more people like them, not to wrongly attack them because more aren't elected. Is there any evidence to support your accusations any of those people are being phonoes?

 

[Mustachio]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

I may not be doing a particularly good job at this but I like to paraphrase Al Franken who I think was paraphrasing Paul wellstone: liberals genuinely believe that the government can help people and conservatives genuinely believe that the government does more harm than good when it gets involved.

Things have taken a fast, strong turn so partisan platforms don’t reflect this but I hope we get back to that fundamental and legitimate difference of opinion.

 

[Nickyjo]

For one there was a bigger support among the GOP for civil rights than among democrats.

True, but both parties had left-right splits within them. Post-civil rights era, white democrats switched to voting for, then becoming republicans as LBJ predicted. The Democrats have moved in the direction of democratic socialists in Europe, and republicans have done their best to trim
New Deal and Great Society programs, or offering free-market versions of them they suggest will accomplish the same things. Thus, the ACA had some conservative philosophical roots. It was opposed by the GOP cause Obama did it, but that aside, it represents their approach to public policy.

 

[Craig234]

I may not be doing a particularly good job at this but I like to paraphrase Al Franken who I think was paraphrasing Paul wellstone: liberals genuinely believe that the government can help people and conservatives genuinely believe that the government does more harm than good when it gets involved.

That masks the real issue. The fundamental issue for society is freedom for the many versus plutocracy/authoritarianism. Democracy offers power to the people, letting them pick a government that serves them; an 'elite' class who want great power and wealth are at war with democracy; and this claim that 'government does more harm than good' is promoted by them disingenuously to get people to agree to give up power.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

It's actually really bad.

It's more like:

Left: The weak should stay weak, and vote for me because I will force the strong to give them free shit.

Right: The weak should stop being weak, and then they won't need anyone to give them free shit.

 

[Cardinal]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

That summary is too easy to both-sides. I can refine it to make it impervious to both-sidsing:

Left: Strengthen democracy and protect access to voting.

Right: America is not a democracy, and we should restrict access to voting.

Now, this necessarily results in craig234’s summary, but you have to start at the beginning to make it work.

 

[cpwill]

Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

No, that's projection. You are ascribing the antithesis of your motives to people who oppose your means.

This is similar:

Left: Strengthen democracy and protect access to voting.

Right: America is not a democracy, and we should restrict access to voting.

Full disclosure: I, personally, do advocate for restricting voting to citizens who are of age and who can pass the citizenship exam, however, I am pretty much a minority of one on that issue. Voter suppression is about as common and as much a "problem" as voter fraud. It's just that each has proven such an excellent fundraising/get out the vote tool, that their respective sides can't put them down.