Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Not really.
You can't on one hand suggest that "left wing" has a fluid definition and on the other try to define "left wing" in its most original form possible (which also happens to be incorrect).
Left wing, originally, was against the monarchy, religion, and an economic system purposefully designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer (sound familiar?). They were for democracy and secularisation. Suggesting that left wing is actually just against any institution at all isn't based on any historical fact or observable truth.
Though evolved, "left wing" still holds many of the same motives it always did. And certainly, by today's definition, someone who is against big business/the church and for worker's rights and human rights would be considered "left wing," regardless of whatever definition you're using (though I would recommend using today's definition today).
|
If you wanted to try to break it down, really the left is progressive and the right is conservative.
A left outlook isn't simply to oppose institutions, it is to progress them. Like you said, it was a push from the status quo (monarchy) towards something more inclusive (democracy). The right is more "don't rock the boat" or "if it ain't broke don't fix it". And even there I think "Progressive" vs "Conservative" is more apt today than Left v Right.
And we see that in modern politics, particularly on the right hand of the spectrum and why I see less and less conservatism from conservative parties. Locke has said many times Fiscal Conservatism is dead, because most conservatism is dead.
A conservative isn't against "big government", they are against "wasteful government". They aren't about giving tax breaks, they are about ensuring the tax rates can match the services required for the people to maintain their status quo. Mulroney is the one who brought in the GST in order to ensure there was enough money to maintain services. He would also prudently cut where available, but it was never the clear cutting we saw in the 90s from Chretien or Klein.
It is the rise of Neoliberalism, not only as economic policy, but as public policy overall that has lead to the rise of current right wing thinking. It wasn't classic conservatives that were dumping all of the Crown Corporations for a quick buck, they would be protecting our institutions from change. It was the new right wing reformers who were looking to break the current system, not conserve it.
The left's progress also is for more individual freedoms and rights. Sure, we need to protect society, which is why the left is stronger on gun control and against that freedom, but when it comes to practicing religion, customs, going against the norms of society, the left embraces individual freedom. Look at all fights for equity and you see the left trying to progress society through changes to those institutions. We fight for union rights, because unions protect workers from exploitation. Unions are a progress from the total control business had in the 19th century.
To swing this back to the Christofascists - what they are doing is "right wing" but I wouldn't call it conservative. They are looking to break current societal norms, not for progress and individual rights and freedoms, but in order to establish an archaic system that focuses on living strictly to a novel a couple thousand years old. They are outside of the Liberal/Conservative Left/Right paradigm and are part of this change that occurred in the 80s in the states and the 90s in Canada. It is not conservative and not progressive, it is regressive and a party wanting to bring back "the good ole days" where women had no rights and stayed in the kitchen baking pies. TBA and the TeaParty are no different.
If I was a conservative I would be very worried that their type of ideology has found a home in my party and are pushing policies that are not conservative at all, they are self serving in a way that will be a detriment to most of society.