Left versus Right, the ageless universal debate

[AllHazzardi]

Liberal versus Conservative is an old debate indeed. The desire to adhere to existing principles(Conservatism) fighting against the desire to experiment with new ideas and concepts for the benefit of society(Liberalism). This tug-of-war of desire has existed long before the political systems and long before social systems. One might say it's quite natural.

It would seem this conflict of society and sanction were almost born into society by a previous carrier. It does seem to go a very far way down, too....

As we look at these conflicts, we may notice a certain pattern occurring in a properly functioning system. Conservatives make rules to attempt to greater control over society to keep it functioning in an orderly manner. These rules are written adjusted for legality. Liberals then re-examine these laws and make adjustments for society. This is correct operation because the representatives are functioning in accordance with the overall desire of their voting populace; Do you look to enforce the sameness, or do you seek to change and experiment.

But this battle ensues on a much deeper level. Individual cells and genetic codes are fighting the same battle, the decision to do the same thing, or the decision to do something different to attempt furthering itself. In the human body, these cells tend to adhere to the will of the brain, and you probably would too if you were continuously being shocked. And the rabbit hole goes deeper still.

On the elemental level, this decision to be the same or to change is even simpler, so simple, it's essentially a ball and socket system. Much like a multiple choice answer system where each individual type of person only ever answers one set of choices.

Deeper still, the flows of magnetism are even simpler, yes and no answers only, a binary system with only two modes, yes, and no. Attraction occurs when two opposing sides are facing each other, as these are essentially aligned flows of energy coming from the magnet.



So if you ever tire of the debate between left or right, good or bad, correct or incorrect, just keep in mind it's something we're pretty much born into.


I don't know about the rest of you, but I applaud debate which is civil. This constant fighting between left and right, when done properly in a non-competitive, logical manner, results in the greatest possible laws and regulation which effectively control problems without interfering with personal freedom. However, as we all know, a system off-balance can have unexpected results. These good and bad moments are what spice life and really end up making people proud of themselves and happy to be alive knowing they have overcome a bad moment or experienced a good moment. Each side in our system has been fighting to win, to be the better way, the dominant force, but in the end, it's this special interplay between them that occurs when in balance which makes the system work.


Just thought I'd lend a little of my perspective.

 

[Gnashin Teefe]

hahah - from the title i thought you were talking about which hand you use.

 

[houtx48]

i say use your left hand the right is so stuffy and will say you're going to hell for doing this.

 

[Zeuhl34]

i say use your left hand the right is so stuffy and will say you're going to hell for doing this.

Wow, somebody missed the point.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Nice post, AllHazzardi.
You did forget to point out that the people on the left have bigger dicks, but we'll forgive you. :biggrin:

OMG, if someone doesn't realize that last part was a joke I'm gonna go insane.

 

[798686]

lol - different people are always going to view it differently depending on their situation, upbringing and experiences they've had or whatever.

I tend to think centre right or left are both ok. Not really into swinging to extremes either way - as a middle line seems to work through most things.

 

[houtx48]

"Wow, somebody missed the point"..............yeah and it was not me, ah to be 19 and wake up to a whole new world every day.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

I agree, but I don't think it's a very old "problem". This is a paradigm that has been force fed to us (and I mean all citizens of developed nations) since WW2. The US election of 1932 saw the end of the "progressive" era of politics when one or two other parties might field a candidate. Ever since then it's been the domain of the red or blue team.

Either side of the debate has become so homogenised that the sides are somewhat blurred. And yet we continue to debate what has become a dubious distinction. Sounds more like divide and conquer to me.

I think the new debate is establishment vs libertarian (or something of that order).

Discuss.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

I agree, but I don't think it's a very old "problem". This is a paradigm that has been force fed to us (and I mean all citizens of developed nations) since WW2. The US election of 1932 saw the end of the "progressive" era of politics when one or two other parties might field a candidate. Ever since then it's been the domain of the red or blue team.

I would argue that the last election that fielded a legitimate third-party candidate was in 1912. And that was the unusual situation of an extremely popular ex-president versus an unpopular incumbent versus Woodrow Wilson (who won).

At least since the Civil War, it's almost always been a two-man race in the general election. It's a byproduct of two uniquely American structures: the electoral college and first-past-the-post voting systems.

The electoral college was created partially out of distrust of too much democracy, but also because the founders feared that a candidate might win the presidency by dominating the voting in only one region of the country, potentially creating incentives for some states to secede. By requiring candidates to attempt to gather electoral votes from many states, it had the effect of preventing regional candidates from winning and making it much harder for someone to win if the electoral votes were split up among three or more candidates.

The U.S. inherited a first-past-the-post voting system from the UK, requiring only a plurality of votes in legislative elections. This also makes it difficult to win a congressional election if the popular vote is split among many candidates and creates incentives for parties to widen their scope to include broader constituencies.

Once this two-party system became entrenched, it became especially difficult for third parties to compete. Personally, I'd prefer to ban all parties and force voters to know each individual candidate's views for each election. Anyone who votes for someone because he or she is in a particular party is a sheep and is just aiding this political cartel.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

I agree with AllHazzardi that the conflict between "liberal" or experimental and "conservative" or traditionalist impulses is probably inherent to most societies and even most individuals.

But in relation to the American political system, these terms are a charade. Almost every political leader in America is a liberal -- perfectly happy to let money run roughshod over every kind of tradition and established way of doing things.

The only "tradition" that many so-called conservatives want to uphold is hatred of queers. But even there they back down in the face of money. Have you seen any "conservative" Congressmen attack corporations for marketing efforts aimed at gays?

 

[AllHazzardi]

I agree with AllHazzardi that the conflict between "liberal" or experimental and "conservative" or traditionalist impulses is probably inherent to most societies and even most individuals.

But in relation to the American political system, these terms are a charade. Almost every political leader in America is a liberal -- perfectly happy to let money run roughshod over every kind of tradition and established way of doing things.

The only "tradition" that many so-called conservatives want to uphold is hatred of queers. But even there they back down in the face of money. Have you seen any "conservative" Congressmen attack corporations for marketing efforts aimed at gays?

Actually, in relation to the American political system, these terms are still applicable; though you are absolutely correct. That is to say, it depends where you define center. Every political leader in America IS a Liberal - Compared to the center point at the time of inception of America. That is to say, by comparison to the time when America split from England, Every American today is quite liberal.

However, the Liberal and Conservative assignments rely on a floating center, not a set one. Liberal, or left leaning, is the side which is trying to steer the center left, and Conservative, or right leaning, is the side which is trying to steer the center right. The combination of the actions of the two are what cause the steering to stay relatively balanced, so long as neither side gathers enough force to actually make progress towards its side.

Since the center is truly and honestly based on the average of the population, it floats around over time due to changes in opinion towards one way or the other as the population shifts about in ideals.



Personally, I think a perfect system really does exist. In fact, I believe the founding fathers intended their creation to move towards and eventually reach that state of perfection.

I liken a government system to a chart of priorities, essentially, each different government system representing a certain pattern or combination of focus points. These priorities are essentially split between national and social. National priorities include military, research, and federal regulatory agencies, while social priorities include housing, food, and health. There are many more things in each category, but those are notable ones.

Each different government system represents an order of priorities, essentially what the biggest effort is, and what each smaller effort past that is. The different types of government systems(monarchy, democracy, republic, fascist, communist, etc) have a different order and ratio of priority in their list. As each government experiments with each combination of ordering, when it's not quite right, some people get unhappy, leave, and make their own new pattern. Eventually, you evolve from tribal patriarchy all the way to the US constitution.

But the most effective combination is that of perfect balance; all efforts are equal under the eyes of progress, and the balance that exists between them impacts their effectiveness. This means putting equal funding into all aspects of government operation, the result is equal overall development without deficits in any particular area. However, in this system, funding to each individual group is much reduced. In the system set forth by the founding fathers, it is intended to emulate a perfectly balanced state by creating a balanced tug-of-war between the major perspectives within the country.

 

[sparky11point5]

AllH, I think you are right to say the center has shifted, yet if anything the founders were radicals. I see the founders as dissenters against a British political orthodoxy. Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others were inspired by some of the most liberal philosophers of the Enlightenment - Hume, Locke, and others. What is more radical than rejecting your King (assumed to be anointed by God) and creating the first democratic republic of the modern era?

Here is a partial list of some of their ideas that were extraordinarily liberal for the time:

-- Universal suffrage (although white male) and no property requirement
-- Separation of church and state and no established Church
-- Right to bear arms and not just the King's army
-- Habeus corpus and no extraordinary power of the King or Lords

Jefferson claimed many of these rights based on English Common Law, and we clearly owe a lot to this part of our heritage. However, all these rights were limited in important ways under the laws of that era. In many ways, the US was a generation to a century ahead of the UK and Western Europe in adopting these ideas. (Separation of church and state is still a work in progress, and I think in some ways the crux of the Western-Islamic world conflicts.)

I am pushing back on this point because many conservatives today try to invoke the founding fathers for current political objectives. (Think Glenn Beck dressed up as Thomas Paine.) And, I think this is just a false version of history.

Liberals seek change and Conservatives stand athwart history. What greater change has this country seen than it's founding? The conservatives of the day were the Tories. And, they had to move to Canada.

Thoughtful post, though.

Actually, in relation to the American political system, these terms are still applicable; though you are absolutely correct. That is to say, it depends where you define center. Every political leader in America IS a Liberal - Compared to the center point at the time of inception of America. That is to say, by comparison to the time when America split from England, Every American today is quite liberal.

 

[B_BigCockInTexas]

Libertarian here, Ron Paul 2012

 

[B_Nick8]

hahah - from the title i thought you were talking about which hand you use.

And I thought it was about which side you hang on. I guess I was right.

That said, although I hang right, I align center-left.

 

[AllHazzardi]

AllH, I think you are right to say the center has shifted, yet if anything the founders were radicals. I see the founders as dissenters against a British political orthodoxy. Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others were inspired by some of the most liberal philosophers of the Enlightenment - Hume, Locke, and others. What is more radical than rejecting your King (assumed to be anointed by God) and creating the first democratic republic of the modern era?

Here is a partial list of some of their ideas that were extraordinarily liberal for the time:

-- Universal suffrage (although white male) and no property requirement
-- Separation of church and state and no established Church
-- Right to bear arms and not just the King's army
-- Habeus corpus and no extraordinary power of the King or Lords

Jefferson claimed many of these rights based on English Common Law, and we clearly owe a lot to this part of our heritage. However, all these rights were limited in important ways under the laws of that era. In many ways, the US was a generation to a century ahead of the UK and Western Europe in adopting these ideas. (Separation of church and state is still a work in progress, and I think in some ways the crux of the Western-Islamic world conflicts.)

I am pushing back on this point because many conservatives today try to invoke the founding fathers for current political objectives. (Think Glenn Beck dressed up as Thomas Paine.) And, I think this is just a false version of history.

Liberals seek change and Conservatives stand athwart history. What greater change has this country seen than it's founding? The conservatives of the day were the Tories. And, they had to move to Canada.

Thoughtful post, though.

But always be mindful, though they were radical, they were wise enough to see the values in both sides to the argument. It is this same ability to see into both sides that likely won America the war in the first place. I don't believe anyone should invoke the founding fathers unless they are invoking them under their own methodologies and actions. Personally, I think we could use a good invoking, because we definitely need another dosage of their type of ideals and actions.

The problem with most of society today in the sense of the left/right argument that I can see is mostly imbalance. That is to say, instead of operating in mutually balanced operation, they swing wildly in power side to side. Switching back and forth, still maintaining enough balance to not fall over.... but barely. Each one propels the other. As liberals loosen the system and make it more amenable to society, there are those who do not like that and vote in conservatives, who tighten the system and make it more effective, and there are those who do not like that and vote in liberals.

This act of balancing can be very subtle(minor changes, eg, 50/50; 49/51; 50/50; 51/49) or it can be very dramatic (60/40; 70/30; 40/60; 30/70). The more dramatic the act of balancing, the more powerful the booms and busts, but the more unstable it becomes. So there is some value in the imbalance, but only in moderation. Too much and you get economic disaster, too little and you get social disaster.

When it comes down to it, I think the only thing we need to do is re-examine the available information and rewrite the existing laws into simpler, more condensed, and more specific forms. Outside of that, everything needs a simple attitude adjustment.

 

[Mensch1351]

My perspective??? Just remember -- it was the conservative traditionalists who nailed Christ to his cross!!! Think about it --- the South during the Civil War had BOTH tradition AND the Bible on their side!! Certainly didn't make their cause either "just" or "right"!!

And in my further humble opinion --- conservatives usually don't PROMOTE change -- they become passionate advocates after it's PROVEN the change works!!

 

[Penis Aficionado]

Libertarian here, Ron Paul 2012

Dude, if Ron Paul isn't smart enough to figure out what's going on here: YouTube - Ron Paul Bruno Borat Sacha Baron Cohen

he has no business being president.

 

[AllHazzardi]

Oh, and for those yet to make the connection, when I speak of left and right as conservative and liberal and that battle ensuing on almost every level, I mean that quite literally.

Left and Right assignments, that is the direction and handedness, is itself even down to this battle. The left side of the body is the side which is directly affected by slightly more energetic light. If you consider that every object is spinning on a fundamental level (even down to quarks), then we must consider an observer observing a single atom within an object. Being that this observer and the object are composed of fundamentally similar material(Matter and Matter, rather than Matter and Anti-matter), their spin is fundamentally in the same "direction". As the object spins, the energy it is reflecting is coming in from two sides, left and right. The light received coming from the two sides is either moving towards(left, faster pace due to side moving towards) or slower towards(right, slightly slower pace due to side moving away). This means that each image has a fundamentally different category, which is what the left and right associations of bilateral symmetry of the brain also represent, as do the left and right associations of the body. Even the relative blood flows follow these associations.

So when a lot of things come down to the line, left vs right is an important decision. So it's not funny we see it in politics; the back and forth is the point of the whole system, and after all, we created politics*.

*In currently known space

 

[submate]

AllHazzardi

Left and right in context of liberal/conservative are pretty unenlightening terms. They arose in the French Parliament whereby the King's supporters sat on the right and the "radicals' on the left of the chamber. In British style (UK, Australia) Parliaments the government sits on the right of the Speaker and the opposition on the left, Even though often the opposition may be more "conservative".

The US Congress does not seem to have a left and right side.

Left and right, in most (at least in the 19th/20th centuries) political system means generally the division between socialists and capitalist political parties. Both conservatives and liberals are "right" wing, surely.

Admittedly the democratic socialist parties in most western countries have abandoned socialism and, in the case of Australia's Labour Party, are just sort of technocrats/professional politicians.

my point is "left" and "right" are meaningless labels in western political discourse.

 

[AllHazzardi]

AllHazzardi

Left and right in context of liberal/conservative are pretty unenlightening terms. They arose in the French Parliament whereby the King's supporters sat on the right and the "radicals' on the left of the chamber. In British style (UK, Australia) Parliaments the government sits on the right of the Speaker and the opposition on the left, Even though often the opposition may be more "conservative".

The US Congress does not seem to have a left and right side.

Left and right, in most (at least in the 19th/20th centuries) political system means generally the division between socialists and capitalist political parties. Both conservatives and liberals are "right" wing, surely.

Admittedly the democratic socialist parties in most western countries have abandoned socialism and, in the case of Australia's Labour Party, are just sort of technocrats/professional politicians.

my point is "left" and "right" are meaningless labels in western political discourse.

Left and Right are labels based on history, that historical association was caused by whatever reasoning possessed them to decide which side of the argument sat on which side of the room. What I was pointing out was not the appropriateness of the specific term, but the unusual relation to more simple fundamental causes which carry the same general attitude; Do you change to adapt, or do you stay the same. Do you flow with the environment and fluidly adapt, or do you wait for it to return to a previous form which you are suited for?

Left and Right are also aptly relative and accurate terms when examining the spectrum of governmental systems with communism on the far left and fascism on the far right.

However, I do think they are appropriate because the idea of two opposing concepts which operate in fundamentally similar but mirrored ways is pretty much the whole basis of the concept of left and right.

And as far as US Congress goes, the US system operates left of center, but balances in such a way to prevent excessive sliding back and forth. But this is all down to how you define center. Center at the time of the birth of the US was the European empire, however, what the US system does is, when working properly it essentially updates the concept of center to fit the general definition according to the population. By causing these two sides to work against each other, a greater approximation of center is created over time. Additionally, as left and right pull against each other, eventually new parties fill in the center and are constructed of those who wished to be less extreme, or closer to the center, and thus will likely become a successful party, primarily formed of those not enamored by the current parties.


Whether you think it's inappropriate or not is entirely your choice, I just think that it's a little more appropriate than it seems on the outer levels.