I can't tell my left from right

[Koumei]

No, insofar as my left and right hand and all that, I'm just fine. I have not yet made the "No, your other left!" mistake. Even during a brief stint in the army cadets I had no difficulty with the "You will turn to the left/right" as opposed to "your left/right", even when the Sergeant tried to trick us, to see who was paying attention.

I'm referring to Left and Right Wing. It's possible that those terms just aren't really used over here in Australia, but I also haven't really paid that much attention to it - it's not that long ago that I started paying any attention to news and politics.

It's easy enough to tell the difference between Liberal and Conservative (even if, in Australia, Labour is the liberal party and Liberal is the conservative party, if more liberal than the nutjob parties), but I'm not sure I'll ever remember which wing is which.

Anyone have an easy way to actually remember this?

[Cielingcat]

This is your left, that's your left,
This is your left, that's your left!
This is your right, that's your right,
This is your right, you're gonna die!

[Crissa]

Right wing and left wing is alot easier than conservative/liberal.

Right wing is Authoritarian, Individualist, Religion, Nationalism, Corporate. Fascists, Taliban, Republicans, Catholic mainstream, mainstream protestant.

Left with is Ivory Tower, Collective, Universalism, Socialism. Communists, Black Panthers, Democrats, American Catholic, atheism.

There's a bit of crossover - you can make National Socialism (Nazi) or appeals to Authoritarianism (Soviets) that take from each pile, but it'll mostly fall in line with one or the other.

Classic conservatism is what the word means: To take a cautious, unchanging approach, where Liberal means to take an open, large-steps approach.

In the US there used to be Liberal Republicans - about a hundred years ago - they started losing to the more conservative, monied sorts. When the 30s came with the crash, the majority of Democrats embraced Liberalism and Progressivism, which came to a head in the 60s when the class southern Democrats - who had existed primarily because Lincoln was a Republican - broke apart, the majority of which switched parties to Republican. There hasn't been a time in the US when the parties were more polar than now.

-Crissa

[Koumei]

I always considered "liberal" and "conservative" easy enough to remember simply by dint of what their names are. But left and right are just two directions, and two relative directions at that (if I turn left, I am not facing left, I am facing foreward, and turning right would put me back where I started as opposed to the same as if I'd turned right to begin with).

So while that's useful, I'll still need to reference this thread every time someone brings it up.

Unless I just remember it as "Right is the hand you punch people with, right wing are more likely to go around punching people to get their way." Or perhaps "Left is right and Right is wrong!"

[Maj]

Left and Liberal both start with L?

[JonSetanta]

I was about to write "But Catholic candidates never get the Conservative vote!" and then I saw that Crissa had divided 'mainstream' from 'American', which is true. There is a big difference.
And oddly, more Protestants I know here venerate (or cocksuck, I don't know any more) the Pope, or at least they did like the previous Pope.

Obvious case-in-point for Catholic Liberal: John F. D. R. Kennedy.
It was pretty much a no-brainer for Liberals at the time (before my time, though), wherein if one was Liberal and/or Catholic you would vote Kennedy. This kind of cliqueish swaying power terrified the opposition to the point where they investigated him on his supposed loyalty to the Pope. ha. haha.
Dumbasses.... It's all ancient history to me. Can't help but chuckle just thinking about it. Like reading about a Roman Senate or something equally stodgy.
But not much has changed since then.

Well, damned glad we at least don't have that kind of one-sided option today.

No.... this is an issue of First Black President of the US or First Woman President of the US, of which either way I genuinely don't fucking CARE as long as they bring this country out of the sinkhole it's lied and borrowed its lazy ass into.

[Username17]

I always considered "liberal" and "conservative" easy enough to remember simply by dint of what their names are.

Really? Because Liberal just means that you want people to be allowed to do more. You can want people to be allowed to vote and speak their mind (American Liberals), or you can want monied people to be allowed to hire people for less than the minimum wage (Australian Liberals). Liberalism is an ideology hat can be applied to so many different things that it isn't even the opposite of Conservatism.

Left Wing and Right Wing refers to the places that the people in the French National Assembly sat. The First Estate (the Nobility) sat on the Right, and the Third Estate (the Commoners) sat on the Left. So any time you are advocating a position which favors the powerful, promotes archaic values, disenfranchises the common man (or woman), or moves wealth to those who already have it, you are advocating a Right Wing position. Any time you are promoting revolutionary values, progressivism, wealth distribution, social programs, or the rights of the common man (or woman), you are advocating a Left Wing position.

The thing that is weird here is that history has pretty much accepted the original Right Wingers as the villains and the losers in that story. And yet, people continue to label themselves as Right Wing the world over with pride.

And yes, none of us actually live in pre-revolutionary France. So the Left/Right labels don't match up perfectly. Many times modern political debate breaks down with more than one side, with one or more major position not matching up cleanly with the Nobles or the Revolutionaries.

-Username17

[SunTzuWarmaster]

People label themselves Right Wing because that is the party with the Wealth and Power, while the Left Wing typically relies on it's Numbers... and... um... Emotional Appeals?

[Cynic]

1204375091[/unixtime]]People label themselves Right Wing because that is the party with the Wealth and Power, while the Left Wing typically relies on it's Numbers... and... um... Emotional Appeals?

Where the fvck did you get that idea?

In america, the left is often defined as being monied and the right often has the lower-class vote.

it did at least for the last eight years.

But then, that in itself gives away how this is a bad way to define either side.

it has fluctuated quite frequently.

Bill Clinton appealed to the masses and got their vote.

Reagan did the same.

It all depends on the times.

[Crissa]

1204421501[/unixtime]]Where the fvck did you get that idea?

In america, the left is often defined as being monied and the right often has the lower-class vote.

That's odd. There don't seem to be any studies which support this position.

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Actually, in the U.S., conservatives managed to redefine the whole elites vs. commoners dynamic. They made it about culture more than money and economic interest. That's how W. manages to come off as folksy even though he graduated from Andover prep school, Yale University, and Harvard Business School as the son of a millionaire congressman, government bureaucrat, and diplomat.

[Cynic]

1204429579[/unixtime]]

1204421501[/unixtime]]Where the fvck did you get that idea?

In america, the left is often defined as being monied and the right often has the lower-class vote.

That's odd. There don't seem to be any studies which support this position.

-Crissa

I suppose defined was a bad term to use. The perception that I have always gotten was as I said.

I've heard it mentioned in a couple poli-sci courses and such. But, you are right. I don't have any studies to back this up.

THere might or might not have been some. I don't know of any and I"m not going to go look for them. I expressed an opinion that I had been led to believe was correct. If it is, then I"m awesome. If not, then I guess I"m wrong.

[Username17]

It's PR more than anything. The American Right learned that it had to market itself to the every-man and claim to be folksy. But the people at the top actually making decisions are still multinational billionaires, and the choices they make disenfranchise ordinary people.

They just sell it with jargon of archaic values that make it more palatable to the ordinary person.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Sorry, Cynic - it's a Republican lie that they've been marketing for the last forty years. And still, at no point in the last fifty years (prolly longer) have Republicans gotten more support from low-income folks than Democrats.

Weird, huh?

Now, Republicans do slightly better with people of less education than Democrats, but this doesn't balance out the earnings disparity of supporters.

Wikipedia

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1204429579[/unixtime]]

1204421501[/unixtime]]Where the fvck did you get that idea?

In america, the left is often defined as being monied and the right often has the lower-class vote.

That's odd. There don't seem to be any studies which support this position.

-Crissa

Studies, now that I can't produce.

I can say that the poor hicks in the area where I live are right-winged motherfuckers. My theory is that ignorant hicks tend to be highly religious, and the republicna party appeals to that.

It seems foolish to me to support a party that doesn't actually support you just because of religion, but I don't know everything. Yet.

[Crissa]

I won't argue with you on that point.

There was this comment made by a Republican once, something about if I said they were voting against their interest, I was calling them an idiot, and so therefore they wouldn't support my candidate/platform.

No, it didn't make sense to me, either. But just because they're loud, doesn't mean they're the majority.

-Crissa

[SunTzuWarmaster]

The terms that get thrown around here are:

Right-wing conservatives
Left-wing liberals

I associate Right-wingers with large corporations, high pollution, lower taxes, and a post office run by government contractors instead of civil servants.

I associate Left-wingers with small businesses, environmental politics, high taxes, and a socialized government.


Frank is quite correct, unfortunately. Bush plays up the part of being an old boy from Texas, but he is highly upper class (owns a ranch, several houses, graduated from Yale, etc.).

[Koumei]

I assume "graduated from Yale" is a result of money and his dad's influence, right? It would sadden me to think he actually did that on his own, because it would lead to two conclusions:

1. Yale has low standards
2. He's actually quite smart, and has been screwing up so much just for his own amusement.

[Crissa]

Bush had a low C average, low test scores, was admitted because they always admit children of alums, paid out of pocket (presumably dad's money.)

He grew up in the northeast, and moved to Texas to make money. His mother is from Texas, and his father's connections presumably got him in the State National Guard there. He had two unsuccessful companies (as in, they were liquidated after never making a profit, assets purchased by friends of his father) both located in Texas. The biggest of his ventures was managing the Texas Rangers, during which his influences allowed them to seize land and create a new stadium, after which most of the land seized was sold at a profit, unused for the stadium.

He's been arrested for driving under the influence.

His National Guard records are incomplete: While he was released from his duty, there is no record of him serving his last two years. There is evidence (he worked on a senate campaign at the time) that he was in a different state, doing work for his father's friends. There is evidence he failed a flight physical, and evidence he did not retake it before this absence. False documents were found that attested to this, as well as real documents which hinted to it. His records of pay and taxes are missing, specifically. What records we do have say that he barely passed his flight exams... A score high enough to fly, but below the one required for the position he was given.

Lastly, when selling off holdings of his failing companies, he failed to file appropriate documents and therefore was investigated for insider trading. His excuse that he forgot was apparently accepted, as he was not fined for the incident.

Anyhow, all of that can be looked up as public record. The man has no real positive qualifications aside from being a puppet for corporate and foreign friends of his family.

-Crissa

PS: Oh, I forgot to add: He doesn't attend any church, and is a health nut since fighting off drug and alcohol abuse.

[Neeek]

1204504417[/unixtime]]I assume "graduated from Yale" is a result of money and his dad's influence, right? It would sadden me to think he actually did that on his own, because it would lead to two conclusions:

1. Yale has low standards
2. He's actually quite smart, and has been screwing up so much just for his own amusement.

I think it's #3:

He's got a degenerative mental illness that is affecting his vocabulary.

Seriously, look at some of his public speeches from the early 90s. He doesn't sound nearly as dumb.

Also, he got into and passed Yale because his dad bought his way through the school. I had much better numbers going into college than Bush did, and while I thought about applying to Yale, I didn't have a serious chance to get in.

Also, Harvard Law School rejected him outright, which is why he doesn't have a JD.

[JonSetanta]

1204516039[/unixtime]]
He's got a degenerative mental illness that is affecting his vocabulary.

Inbreeding.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

So... I would put him firmly in the upper class with no real connection to the common man...

Also, holy crap!

[PhoneLobster]

Actually Bush's background is actually even worse than Crissa's summary.

For instance the national guard service was in order to cravenly avoid the draft.

The failed and dodged physicals seem to match up with some hints that he may have been involved in community service and possible some time in rehab around the same time. Basically he may either have got kicked out because he was on hard drugs or he left to avoid the physical revealing he was on hard drugs.

He had his drivers license and record specially renewed and expunged of all history, an unprecedented and presumably questionably legal measure for... unknown... reasons.

And as for the whole "former" drunk thing... Well, there was (during the presidency) the incident where he nearly "choked to death on a pretzel" and all the bruises and scrapes supposedly from falling off his bicycle (more than once) riding on muddy tracks out at the ranch after the rain... when there was actually no rain for months... Well. Anyway. That and his slurred mumblings getting worse lead many to suggest his little accidents are less falls off bicycles and couches and more falls off the wagon.

And yeah, there is more. This guy is like the ultimate paragon of every imaginable horror story of especially foul nepotism.

I mean it could come out tomorrow that his driving record was expunged because he got high on crack and ran over an orphanage and he missed his army physical recovering from the injuries and detoxing in hospital while his dad covered it up... And his biographers would simply say "Oh, well, that explains a lot really..."

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Plus, according to Vincente Fox, former president of Mexico, this down-home Texas rancher and modern-day cowboy is afraid of horses.

Now, I don't think a fear of horses makes you a bad president(He's got alot of other stuff that does that for him), but I find that particularly amusing.

-Des

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I don't like horses either. They're large, unpredictable animals and they have big teeth despite being an herbivore.

(I've had several people describe them as big, stupid dogs before. That doesn't make me feel any better, I was mauled by a big stupid dog when I was 8.)