Left vs Right vs Liberalism: Do the Old Labels Still Apply?

[CliffFletcher]

Not long ago, it was the right who championed international trade deals and the left who called for protectionism. The opposite is true today.

Conservatives policed public speech and behaviour to enforce morality. Now anyone defying social norms is more likely to be denounced and shamed by the left.

The educated and affluent used to be reliably to the right politically, while the working class leaned left. Now the reverse is true.

The term 'liberal' has come to mean something very different than it did 30 years ago, when it meant protecting and fostering individual freedom of speech and behaviour.

It seems one of the reasons we're having such trouble communicating these days is that the old labels no longer mean what they used to, and we have no consensus over what we mean when we say left or right, liberal or conservative.

[GGG]

I think it's because the left / right divide as defined above is really only a post war phenomenon or maybe post Great Depression so while we have adopted these labels as absolute truths really they maybe have 50 years of usefulness.

The issue is that the basket of ideas that has been lumped into each side each have their own left right spectrum

On economics you have two basic issues

Protectionism be free-trade which I would argue that conservatism would support protectionism and liberalism free trade

Taxation / size of government conservatism supporting minimal and flat rate taxation and liberalism supporting progressive taxation and more social programs

Worker rights might be the third one

On Social Values I see 2 distinct categories

Authoritarianism vs what ever the opposite of it is. The need to be controlled vs the want to be free. Liberalism backing freedom and conservatism backing authoritarianism.

General social issues and equality rights with the liberals demanding that all are equal.

So the left over time has become more authoritarian moving to the right on that category while becoming more liberal on trade. The right has moved more toward protectionism but otherwise remains right. I think you see these as great shifts because the left side has moved off of what you see he fundamental tenant of liberalism being a lack of authoritarianism.

I think the more interesting thing that has occurred is people are actively voting against their own self interest now more than ever.

[sworkhard]

Yes, I think the labels still apply; however, the diversity of thought with enough of a following to make noise seems to have increased, making the left, right, center, progressive, liberal, libertarian, and conservative a lot less useful when trying to group people together. With the exception of liberal, which has in some areas become a synonym for progressive, the terms still mean the same thing.

Unlike GGG, I think that Authoritarianism applies to more than social values. People that prefer things orderly and well structured tend to be more authoritarian than those that prefer flexibility and freedom, even if it's more chaotic. The most authoritarian people most of us know are the people that report every little parking violation, which is only tangentially related to social values.

There are lots of people speaking loudly from the edges of the political spectrum, drowning out the background hum of the majority of the people that are more centrist. We almost always hear the people that disagree with us over the people that more closely do, even if they are all speaking as loudly, as we tend to pay more attention to threats than those we agree with (even as we go to those we agree with to try 'debunk' the positions of those we disagree with). I suspect that the word conservative and liberal are still accurate descriptors for the majority of the people that accept the terms outside of these fringes.

Twitter has had a massively negative effect on political discourse. The type of harassment that results on the platform is a feature, not a bug.

Today, I think we are seeing a education gap in voting more than anything. However, I don't think it's actually the education level itself that's resulting in this gap. People who get a degree expose themselves to a diverse group of people with a huge number of different backgrounds; some of these people become our friends while most of the rest become familiar and non-threatening. In many ways universities and colleges do to racial and religious based groups what churches did to class based groups in the past by making it possible for people with very different backgrounds to have common experiences and recognize that there really isn't anything fundamentally different about those who believe or look different that the rest of us. Of course, those that don't go to college or university don't get this experience, which, combined with the great sort that has occurred in the last 20 years or so, results in a unwarranted fear of outsiders, which results in people voting against what seems from the outside to be their self interest.

[GirlySports]

I believe the right still protects free trade. The argument that Trump makes is that free trade isn't really free or fair at the moment as other countries are duping the US into massive trade deficits each year. So now protectionism plays a part to try and offset that trade deficit.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...lance-of-trade




Can Trump successfully strike a free trade/fair trade balance? He withdrew from TPP because it favors Asia too much. Now it's up to Japan to save the deal.

Trump will argue that The U.S. deficit with China has ballooned from $80 billion in 2000 to $350 billion in 2015. This is a total of $3.6 trillion in deficits with China. During this same period, the U.S. lost 5 million manufacturing jobs.

[Regorium]

There is nothing wrong with a trade deficit if you are producing immense amounts of wealth at home, which the US is.

You lose 5 million jobs in 15 years, but the other 300 million people have saved tens of thousands of dollars because of it (well, over 15 years, it'd be easily tens of thousands if not more).

[Bunk]

It seems the effects of globalism (both pure economic and cultural) are changing the dynamic on the "right" and "left". While the socially progressive left congregates in cities, they feel they are largely benefitting from globalism. While more socially conservative rural citizens are feeling like globalism is a net negative to them.

Politics are starting to reflect these perceptions. You can see how this polarization manifests itself geographically, quite easily in things like US elections, and Brexit. I also think of the political spectrum more as a circle now, with more extreme elements of the left and right converging and actually being quite close in viewpoint on things like trade.

[Ryan Coke]

Are we saying those anti globalization protests were full of conservatives?

I think this highlights how many people, including many on this board, try to view it as very black and white, either liberal or conservative, the reality is we are all somewhere on the spectrum.

The other key point is trying to remember that most people have good intentions for their point of view, but the debate is often in how to achieve those desired results. People who voted for the Alberta NDP were well intentioned, unfortunately in practical terms it will result in greater problems for most of our province in the long term.

Trump I put in a different category, as just unfit to lead regardless of political and ideological perspective.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

The issue is that the basket of ideas that has been lumped into each side each have their own left right spectrum

We're seeing a realignment of economically left/right and social left/right. Those on the social left have a cosmopolitan outlook and favour a border-less world with a free flow of people, ideas, and business. Those on the social right have become dismayed and fearful of the changes brought about by globalism, and want to retreat into the safety of the traditional nation-state.

You can see it most starkly with the UK and Brexit. Labour's young urbanites are all for more international connections and trade, while the working class who traditionally made up the bedrock of the party see nothing but their own ruin in open borders and trade. So the Labour party has ruptured, with the two groups so foreign to one another that it's unclear if the party will survive.

Originally Posted by GGG

On Social Values I see 2 distinct categories

Authoritarianism vs what ever the opposite of it is. The need to be controlled vs the want to be free. Liberalism backing freedom and conservatism backing authoritarianism.

I would say both left and right are authoritarian at heart. Ideologues always crave simple dogmas of right and wrong, and want to live in a world that conforms to those dogmas. Liberalism is centrist, and addresses itself with how to foster a society where people who disagree with each other over important issues can live together, and the liberty of individuals is not subordinated to the will of the majority.

Originally Posted by GGG

General social issues and equality rights with the liberals demanding that all are equal.

So the left over time has become more authoritarian moving to the right on that category while becoming more liberal on trade. The right has moved more toward protectionism but otherwise remains right. I think you see these as great shifts because the left side has moved off of what you see he fundamental tenant of liberalism being a lack of authoritarianism.

Equality of opportunity is a liberal ideal, but equality of outcome isn't - that's a leftist ideal. It can only be brought about by authoritarian means.

Over the last century we've seen this shift:

1) Conservatives grouped people into ethnic, gender, and religious identities, and attached a hierarchy of merit to those identities.

2) Conservatism was challenged and eventually toppled by liberalism, and the ideal that people should be treated as individuals, with their identities posing no barrier to whatever they want to achieve in their own life.

3) Liberalism is now being challenged by the left, who also group people into ethnic, gender, and religious identities, and present a hierarchy of moral authority to those identities - just inverted from the hierarchy of merit defended by conservatives.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

There are lots of people speaking loudly from the edges of the political spectrum, drowning out the background hum of the majority of the people that are more centrist.

Agreed. I think the single largest group in Western democracies is still centrist liberals. But it's the ideologues on both ends of the spectrum who dominate public discourse. And since we have trouble breaking free of binary thinking, people tend to side with whichever extreme is closest to them (or further from those they hate). So few people are fighting for moderation and genuine liberal values. Which is a problem.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Today, I think we are seeing a education gap in voting more than anything. However, I don't think it's actually the education level itself that's resulting in this gap. People who get a degree expose themselves to a diverse group of people with a huge number of different backgrounds; some of these people become our friends while most of the rest become familiar and non-threatening.

Being open to new experiences is a liberal value. However, there is actually less diversity of ideas on university campuses today than there was 30 or 40 years ago, with more than 90 per cent of professors in the humanities and social sciences today identifying with the progressive left. When it comes to free speech and pluralism of ideas, university campuses today are among the most authoritarian and conformist institutions in society.

[PepsiFree]

The history of humanity should teach us that any labels that have anything to do with society or personal ideals need to be consistently adaptable.

So to the question: do the old labels still apply?
The answer is yes, but.

The but, is that if you think they don't it is your responsibility to update your definition. Why people are surprised that the ideas of a constantly evolving race (with numerous different evolving societies that grow more and more intertwined as time goes on) change, is bizarre to me.

Ideas are no less prone to evolution than humans themselves. Moreso, in fact.

[Cappy]

I think the vast majority of Canadians/Americans, western democrats espouse the views of small "L" liberalism, regardless of whether they vote left or right.

As liberal democracies, the political parties all run along the same line of the spectrum, with small variances in order to appear different. The spectrum is largely between classical liberalism and social liberalism.

Each party/supporter has an idea of freedom, they just have different means to get there.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I think the vast majority of Canadians/Americans, western democrats espouse the views of small "L" liberalism, regardless of whether they vote left or right.

As liberal democracies, the political parties all run along the same line of the spectrum, with small variances in order to appear different. The spectrum is largely between classical liberalism and social liberalism.

Each party/supporter has an idea of freedom, they just have different means to get there.

I believe this to be the case in Canada as core issues like healthcare, multiculturalism, abortion are set. What do we argue mostly over? Taxes?

The variances are much bigger in the States which has us now in this dangerous period.

[AltaGuy]

I think of it as everyone has a political "basket". In that basket, they've picked up a bunch of political opinions:

Gus is a low tax, free trade, enviromentalist. Those are the things he has in his basket.

Sarah is a anti-vaxxer, progressive taxation, pro pipeline, drill for oil everywhere, pro free trader.

Some of your political views will be core and some peripheral. Individuals will tend to associate themselves with parties and groups that share the core basket ingredients, if not the peripherals. (Especially not in the States where there are just two parties.)

Abortion rights are a good example here: most people have the issue as a "core" belief, making it less likely that one would label themselves the same way as someone holding the opposite viewpoint. Not everyone has abortion as "core" however: some people don't care that much or put a heavy emphasis on the issue. These people can fit under an umbrella such as a party or group containing both pro-life and pro-choicers.

The spectrum breaks down because a basket can contain all sorts of ideas from all over the traditional spectrum. A guy like Trump sells a basket very different from a traditional republican or right winger.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I think of it as everyone has a political "basket". In that basket, they've picked up a bunch of political opinions:

Gus is a low tax, free trade, enviromentalist. Those are the things he has in his basket.

Sarah is a anti-vaxxer, progressive taxation, pro pipeline, drill for oil everywhere, pro free trader.

Some of your political views will be core and some peripheral. Individuals will tend to associate themselves with parties and groups that share the core basket ingredients, if not the peripherals. (Especially not in the States where there are just two parties.)

Abortion rights are a good example here: most people have the issue as a "core" belief, making it less likely that one would label themselves the same way as someone holding the opposite viewpoint. Not everyone has abortion as "core" however: some people don't care that much or put a heavy emphasis on the issue. These people can fit under an umbrella such as a party or group containing both pro-life and pro-choicers.

The spectrum breaks down because a basket can contain all sorts of ideas from all over the traditional spectrum. A guy like Trump sells a basket very different from a traditional republican or right winger.

Agreed.

The "left-right" and descriptions still apply, but they are not the only labels that qualify someone's political opinions and perspectives. Many people get too wound up in left vs. right that they forget that there is a massive grey area int he middle affected by other things.

I don't think it would surprise too many people here that I am mostly a liberal when talking about social government policy, even if personally, I am more conservative. Take the abortion issue. I am pro-choice, although personally I would try to talk anyone close to me out of having one because on my own personal level, I feel they are usually the wrong choice. Or like legalizing drugs... I feel most drugs should be legal, but that doesn't mean I don't have a more conservative view on using drugs personally.

Or immigration... I am 100% for letting in most refugees who are running for their lives, but that doesn't mean that I agree with liberal immigration policies for those that aren't in dire need.

The trouble I guess is that the social and economic aspects of my internal liberal/conservative struggle do not always reconcile with each other. I guess the point is that most people are probably too complicated to simply categorize into a 2-dimensional spectrum.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The trouble I guess is that the social and economic aspects of my internal liberal/conservative struggle do not always reconcile with each other. I guess the point is that most people are probably too complicated to simply categorize into a 2-dimensional spectrum.

You will get in that pigeon hole, and you will like it, dammit!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I think of it as everyone has a political "basket". In that basket, they've picked up a bunch of political opinions:

Gus is a low tax, free trade, enviromentalist. Those are the things he has in his basket.

Sarah is a anti-vaxxer, progressive taxation, pro pipeline, drill for oil everywhere, pro free trader.

This is probably the best possible way to approach political belief - individual ideas have merits and drawbacks that can be debated, and most of them are totally distinct from each other. Your position on tax policy should not be in any way predictive of your position on gun control or abortion.

There are two problems, though. First, these labels are shorthands. Talking about Sarah's beliefs, you can break them down like that. Trying to deal with a country of 30 million (or 300 million), in the context of politics, these approximate groupings of people into ideological baskets of ideas is the only manageable way to approach a campaign. Then those baskets become entrenched. That's bad, but how we get there is totally understandable.

Second -and this isn't really a problem, per se, at least not for me - your paradigm basically smuggles in liberalism in its purest form. If we're going to debate, individually, the merits of particular policy positions held by people (like anti-vaccination or abortion or free trade), that inevitably carries along with it the notion of an open and competitive marketplace thought, in which those individual ideas are tested by discussion and survive or fail. Probably why I'm such a fan of it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Conservatives policed public speech and behaviour to enforce morality. Now anyone defying social norms is more likely to be denounced and shamed by the left.

Nah, the right is still just as active in that business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.c60fabc531cd

But conservatives have their own, nationalist version of PC, their own set of rules regulating speech, behavior and acceptable opinions. I call it “patriotic correctness.” It’s a full-throated, un-nuanced, uncompromising defense of American nationalism, history and cherry-picked ideals. Central to its thesis is the belief that nothing in America can’t be fixed by more patriotism enforced by public shaming, boycotts and policies to cut out foreign and non-American influences.

Insufficient displays of patriotism among the patriotically correct can result in exclusion from public life and ruined careers. It also restricts honest criticism of failed public policies, diverting blame for things like the war in Iraq to those Americans who didn’t support the war effort enough.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nah, the right is still just as active in that business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.c60fabc531cd

Absolutely. Which I think is why CliffFletcher's thinking about the political spectrum being like a circle, or the fact that the Horseshoe Theory is a thing in politics makes sense.

The far left and far right both try to shut down any discussion, they're actually eerily similar in a lot of ways.

When Trump struck the TPP down, Bernie Sanders was one of the first to congratulate him. It's just so weird.

[Azure]

Money in politics has skewed everything.

Most people probably lean the same way, with a small amount of crazies on both sides.

[Lanny_McDonald]

It has boiled down to the corporatists versus everyone else. That is the new dichotomy.