When I was a teenager, I read the first chapter of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" which convincingly showed the poor value of the left-right spectrum for describing the world. I immediately quit thinking in those terms. However, when I would give this idea to others, nobody was interested. The left-right spectrum, if introduced early enough, apparently is stuck in the brain forever. "The Myth of Left and Right" is only the second time I've seen somebody publish the very simple idea that left-right is a poor analysis tool, and is mainly for over-simplification and tribalism. Kudos to the authors.
Like you, I've been preaching this sermon for decades and getting few hearers. These two fellows, howevver, have done a fine job of boiling it down and supporting it. Share it. The video deserves it.
I think the real spectrum is between extremes and balance. You need balance in politics because most policies are bad for some people and good for others. So extremes in politics are bad and the goal should be to find a balance between the interests of various stakeholders.
Another reason the left/right spectrum is not very useful is that it doesn’t give weight to issues depending on how much importance any one individual gives each one. I find most people build their political philosophy around one issue they feel passionately about and just fill in the gaps on other positions based on whether the position they take on their issue of central importance is left or right wing.
It's now "up vs down" not "left vs right". I have found the labels of left & right to be mostly a type of marketing in recent years. A young person who doesn't pay much attention to the details, would probably pick up on the following branding... The labeling of something as "right wing" is often coded as "bad" - or uncaring, selfish, or even immoral. And "far right" is pretty much used as a smear. Conversely, "left wing" codes as good, empathetic, caring for others less fortunate etc. In reality (IMO, anyway), the establishment "elite" who have pushed this branding, are the "up", and pretty much everyone else (whether knowingly opposed or unwittingly fighting the establishment's battles for them) are the "down". In my lifetime, many core values of society have either switched favour, or are being directly attacked by those political "tribes" that had been their strongest proponents.
Ranked Choice Voting, is the key to bringing about a true multi-party political system where you need to form coalitions with other parties to get things done instead of everyone either being in your party or the dreaded, evil, other party. It is part of The American Anti-Corruption Act.
Shared. This needs to be seriously considered far and wide. I've known this for years, but these gentlemen have done ship's captain work of boiling it down and supporting it. OUTSTANDING.
This is an attitude that I live by, and I think the world would be a much better place if everyone adopted it: "If what you say is actually true, I would want to know it too. It's not that I have this bias from the onset and you'll never convince me and I'll never convince you, no that's wrong. You can convince me, and if it is true I want you to convince me ... and I will thank you for convincing me." Aron Ra
To Hyrum and Verlan Lewis: Looking at this mathematically, you're moving from a mono-dimensional space, to a multi-dimensional space to describe an individual/group politically. Welcome to linear algebra. Linear Algebra is being used by tools like ChatGPT to describe words by cutting them up into individual axes (e.g. Queen = leader, female, singular, kingdom,etc.). The results have been so successful, that ChatGPT can "read" about queens, and then "write" an essay comparing them to kings (leader, male, singular, kingdom,etc.) or presidents (leader, male/female, singular, republic,etc.). Powerful stuff. I think a logical next step of your work is to embrace linear algebra to make a muti-dimensional model of politics showing how political vectors can describe politics geographically, temporally, etc. much better. From there, you can create linear algebra matrices to do mathematical operations on the vectors. The operations may even be predictive. FYI: you can cram a multi-dimensional vector (e.g. all of my political views) down to any axis ( left-right, north-south, young -old, male-female) and this is called "projection". "Projection" is well known for its way of losing lots of data, but 1 in a 100 times might do something useful. I think you're saying the left-right projection is a very harmful projection of the political space. You might also be saying the left-right axes is just artificial nonsense. Very inspirational talk. Thank you.
I think this would work well if political thought were simply complicated, but I believe it is a complex system. Multivariate analysis will surely be an improvement, but how much of an improvement will be dictated by how near to chaos the complexity lies. The models we use for meteorology, for example, are only extremely accurate for brief periods, but are still decent at predicting what generally will happen over the course of a couple of weeks. Of course, models attempting to predict climate years and decades from now are completely useless like trying to predict the trajectories of water droplets as they pass over the falls at Niagara.
Correct, One Dimensional Left Right Political Narrative and East West Geopolitical Brainwash. Modern Physics has Posited Eleven Dimensions : x y z coordinates, Einstein Fourth Dimension Time. The Maths for the Next Seven Above My Pay Grade, but I call them "Seven Heavens". Occupant of Eleventh "I Am Whom I Am" - The Divine Essence of Being : Life, Logos and Love.
If you read their book, they show how the two tribes have consistently changed views following the two parties ever since the 1940s and 50s following their initial adoption during the 30s when the projection onto a single axis was in fact largely valid (in the 30s, left was pro expanding federal government regardless of how and right was against it and also viewed adherence to the constitution for the how part as important). But ever since around 1939 or 1940 when the invasion of Poland became WWII and when it really escalated after France fell, the projection onto a single dimension has been counterproductive because the main divide was no longer about one issue anymore. I have taken two linear algebra courses for the record, just so we are clear that I didn't try to reply without understanding your comment at all and it happened to be a coherent response by chance.
This topic feels a bit like splitting hairs. It's just plain easy to say I lean left or right. What's so unfortunate is that in recent times, we've brewed up this hostility toward one side or the other. It wasn't so long ago that President Reagan (R) and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil (D), engaged in some pretty hot debates with each other - then they'd go have dinner together. They liked and respected one another. They understood the need for checks and balances. They weren't threatened by an opposing viewpoint. In short - they were adults. What we have today in Congress are a lot of unruly children who all want their own way, and they throw tantrums if they can't get it. Politicians, such as they are by necessity - used to be more educated, open-minded, intellectual, and mindful of who they serve. They understood that compromise was a part of the deal; and they didn't fear having their agenda modified to fit the greater good. Yes, they fought for it, but when they had to give a little to get things done, they accepted it. Humility, character, and class are qualities we don't see much of anymore; not only in Congress, but in the electorate too. We're placing our own selfish desires far ahead of our practical sensibilities. Sounds like your typical teenager, right?
Very interesting as far as it goes, especially in highlighting the tribalism. However, what about the solutions to it? It totally ignores the issue of referenda/referendums, though these form a big part of American politics at sub-national level. Constitutional reform and amendment is also ignored. Let alone issues such as Monarch and Republic, Race, Gender, religion and other identifiers. As well as issues of funding. And largely ignores the issue of the media (a little bit on reporting). Nothing on the lobbies, either, and the resulting huge disconnect, discontent and low turn out in elections and even sometimes in referenda. If you want something to better reflect popular will, then you have to have a way of forcing out referenda built into the system, at all levels, including the Federal. This requires changing legislative procedure radically. And for referenda to be mandatory, both initial and confirming referendums. Somewhat like in Switzerland. However, all democracy is bottom up. That is why St. Basil the Great said that democracy is for pagans, monarchy is for Christians. What type of monarchy? Something in accordance with symphony of powers - between a True Orthodox Church, State, People and the Monarch themselves, with the ability to force the retirement and replacement of a monarch, under certain circumstances. Medieval Novgorod was one of the few places to have achieved this. However, it got swept away, effectively, by invasions from all directions. In 1613 something similar was achieved with the crowning of the first of the Romanovs and the oath of loyalty of a Truly Orthodox Christian people. This was overthrown (along with over 900 years of Orthodox rule in Russia) by the Judaeo-Masonic February 1917 Revolution and the Judao-Bolshevik October 1917 Revolution. With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and his succession by Tsar Michael II, consent was put firmly on the agenda. Tsar Michael II stated, after succeeding during the February 1917 Revolution, that it would be up to a universally elected, secret ballot Constituent Assembly to decide what form of Government it wanted, including whether it wanted to retain a constitutional monarchy (the 1906 Constitution as modified and amended up until that point, including the introduction of Universal Suffrage (confirmed by Tsar Michael´s own decree before handing over to a provisional Government). When elected the following year the Constituent Assembly was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, who had failed to win an overall majority on their own or in coalition, the following day. The left-right distinctions, originally based upon where the Ancien Regime Estates General sat in France, before and during the French Revolution, with the Clerics of the Romanist "Church" on the Right, next to the throne, and the Second Estate of the Nobility, further to the Right, and the Third Estate, of the rest of the population (which tended to be in favour of more radical reform, and ultimately, of Revolution, potentially), on the Left, were taken up during the Russian revolution in terms of how much people wanted things to change, and where to, on what you might well call a tribal basis. It is a fact that the Bolshevik leadership were overwhelmingly apostates from Babylonian Talmudic Judaism, whom the state had failed to keep confined to the Pale of Settlement, sufficiently, despite their evident hostility to its Orthodox Symphonic nature. Russian Orthodoxy was systematically imported into the American body politic by the Alaska purchase of 1867, with Church provisions being part of the conditions. Though there has been some conversion in America, it has failed to convert en masse, and thus will, unless this changes, have to endure the various Holy Prophecies about it, coming to collapse, complete ruin, being largely obliterated by a mega-eruption and earthquakes connected to the Yellowstone super-volcano (by far the biggest in the world), before the remnants are converted to True Orthodox Christianity along with nearly all the rest of the world (including all of the West, the Middle East (including Israel and its opponents), the Islamic World, India and China in the wake of the Third World War, under the spiritual leadership of a restored Romanov (Third) Rome. This will last for as long as there are people being born capable of being saved. The end of the world can be repeatedly postponed through repentance and it is worth noting that the Magna Paschalion (the time it takes for the solar calendar and the (True Orthodox Christian) Church calendar to come back into alignment, lasts roughly 55,000 years (there is currently a difference of 13 days in these calendars, which will rise to 14 days in the year 2100, if the earth continues to bear salvific fruit and has not ended by then). Time to take a much deeper dive, or get swept up by events (including the restoration of Constantinople to the Greeks (after roughly 580 years, in accordance with the prophecies written on a pillar in Constantinople, deciphered just before its fall on Tuesday 29th May 1453 to the Moslem Ottoman Turks (who continued to use the title of Caesar and Emperor of the Romans, and whose Empire was overthrown by the Turkish Republicans, who established their Republic of Turkey in 1924, amending the Constitution for it to become a secular Republic with (at least theoretically) freedom of Religion in 1928. Turkey changed its official name to Türkiye last year. This restoration, of Constantinople, will happen when the Feast of the Annunciation (starting on 25 March and, in a manner of speaking, running through to its apodosis (Leave taking (literally Giving Back) (26th March) in the (traditional Orthodox Christian) Church Calendar, and the Civil Calendar on Mount Athos, and 7 April in the Civil Calendar elsewhere) (8th April for the Apodosis) - overlaps the Feast of Holy Pascha (aka (traditional) Orthodox Easter (which can be said to start with Great Friday and Run through to its Leave-Taking on Bright Monday (which is welcomed in by the last Paschal Service attended by most of the faithful, the Agape Vespers). In 2034 Holy Pascha is on March 27/April 9th, and on the same date in 2045. The next exact incidents of this highly propitious concelebrations of these feasts (1991 having been the fall of the Soviet Union and 1821 the start of the successful rebellion against the Turks (proclaimed by the Metropolitan of Patras), occur in 2075 and 2086. All is, of course, dependent upon there still being the possibility of people being saved. Only God the Father knows the hour of the Second Coming when Christ´s reign will begin, ending the reign of the AntiChrist (after 3 1/2 years) and lasting 3 1/2 years before the Final Judgment.
The critique of the left/right spectrum is very good. I will share it with others. 18:00 As the most extreme "conservatives" and "liberals" are also the most authoritarian, The Political Compass adds an authoritarian/individualist spectrum. I'm curious as to why it was not mentioned. 26:00 We are not all rigid thinkers, tribal-partisan authoritarians. Some of us think that belonging-submitting to an ideology erodes our freedom and interferes with flexible and creative thinking. Unless it's needed for truly threatening situations, tribalism must be avoided. 36:00 I agree with the mind scientists and evolutionary psychologists that find tribalism a Neolithic psychopathology. If we are willing to replace a need for dogma (certainties) with a scientific humanism and an openness to work for better solutions, we may also expand our moral spheres to include the whole Earth. This will leave tribalism, its bigotries and horrors, behind us. - Ya'll might have talked about ranked-choice voting. It's been shown to reduce political polarization while providing more legitimacy.
Yeah, some really important points here, I think. Even if their account should be complemented with the work of people like Jonathan Haidt and George Lakoff. I mean, for instance, there are literally conservative dispositions and literally progressive dispositions out there and the clash between those dispositions is and always has been a big part of political life. Though a) the clash can be healthy or unhealthy, and b) what people of both dispositions actually want depends very much on what the status quo is - so, for example, people of a conservative disposition in the latters years of the Soviet Union wanted to preserve old school communist ways of doing things, and people of progressive dispositions wanted to welcome in market incentives and so on.
How do you define Liberal? I ask because the graph places Liberal between Radical and Moderate...When Classical Liberalism is defined as .Classical liberalism Political ideology Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Wikipedia.
Left and Right are just labels. Yes, the terms change over time. That indicates that these labels are not causing the polarization. They are only labels that communicate a polarization that is already happening. When our government begins pushing things on us that we do not want, or fail to do that which we think they ought to do, that is what creates the polarization. Labels are useful to communicate what a person considers to be a good or bad tribe. Today if a person is labeled left or liberal, it means they support DEI, universal voting, universal Healthcare, the homosexual and trans agenda, abortion, people being able to choose their gender, authoritarian government, more taxes, etc. In our current time, this pretty much is true. If a person is right or conservative, he takes the opposite perspective on these issues. Changing labels is not going to change the polarization because these issues are still being forced upon us by whoever is in power.
Labels are only useful if they reflect truth, left and right labels obfuscate truth. Extremist groups utilize this error endlessly. We think radical islamism is one group opposite of a Marxist group through our left right spectrum. But they've historically been together. Just one of thousands of ways our political spectrum confuses and misdirects us
@CraigTalbert There seems to be a strong correlation of certain ideas such that labels that group individual ideas are warranted. Those who fight to force all of society to accept the free practice of abortion also support forcing upon society hedonistic practices like homosexuality, homosexual marriage, gender choice, transsexual behavior, special preferences and privileges for hiring blacks, females, and transsexual people over whites, males, and heterosexual people. They also favor socialism and anti-capitalist policies. If the labels are not what is causing the polarization, then eliminating the labels does not help eliminate polarization. There is a root cause for all these progressive ideas being forced upon the rest of society, so grouping them with labels is helpful to show that connection.
But then you have 'the status quo' which is just right of center on this spectrum. Isn't the argument over a spectrum within a spectrum, as in maintaining the status quo? A moderate would look like an extremist to the status quo
For countries which do not even have a two-party system, a superimposition (or worse a mindless or even worse, a scheming import) of this (to use the word of Lewises) "myth" is, imo, at least one order higher absurdness because, unlike citizens of such countries, Americans have to--whether they like it or not--pick from only two choices.
This is a great talk and valuable information despite issues I might have with their ideas. "The Myth of Left and Right" seems to be a social or sociopolitical look at the political one-dimension of left v right, but is sorely lacking any material analysis. Here's what I mean- when they discuss where the false concept of "left v right" started, it seems almost a priori and emergent. This false dualism starts in the 20s, takes off in the 60s, and is normal discourse now, because humans are inherently tribal and inherently wanting of simple answers. That's the explanation they give. And it benefits the 2 political parties as they can just provide tribal rhetoric to agitate their political bases. Is there any discussion on the role of power and profit here? I can think of some movements that were outside of the mainstream D vs R, left v right political divide: the Black Panther movement, the anti-globalist movement of the 90s, the 99% movements after the 2008 crash, the current ongoing attempts to stop cop cities and defend the forests, anything Indigenous people try to do (yes they're still fighting for rights and freedoms in this day and age). Can you think of a trend with all these? They've been crushed, co-opted, and outright killed for their challenge to power. Also-reality check, universal voting power has only been granted to all U.S citizens with the passing of the civil rights act in the 60s... so less than 100 years. The U.S has been a settler colonial slave state for far longer than it has been a bastion of liberal democracy. When the enslaved Africans in Haiti won their liberation from the slavers, the leadership in the U.S had a heart attack. All this to say- the 100ish year discussion of left v right is certainly a red herring. I would also contend it's actively being used by the moneyed interests to keep their power entrenched- not some emergent phenomenon of human tribalism. When Reagan loosened regulations on newscasting and right wing think tanks pumped millions of $$ to make Fox news in the 80s-90s, was that just some symptom of peoples' needs for simple explanations? We know social media companies explicitly show enraging content to its users to drive higher engagement and this has been the case for at least 10 years... but we blame human tribalism and not the billions of dollars specifically generated from creating such divides as L v R? Is "tribalism" really something that we just naturally do, and have to "civilize" ourselves away from? Or are there interests in power whose existence specifically relies on us being as diverted, scattered, and chaotic as possible? Do you think big oil would have a chance if the average person could actually foment political change?
Yes the economic handlers effect politicians more than politics effect the handlers. It should be the other way around. So leaving that out of the discussion is a misrepresentation of reality without a doubt.
Why can’t both sides just get along guyss? There’s more to politics than just abortion rights, climate change, tax representation, and civil rights.. How naïve lmao, these issues are split almost exactly down the middle and our politicians, who are supposed to represent a multiplicity of views, vote accordingly. Less we mention that one party is trying to change the rules so that minority rule is easier and we stray further from actual representative democracy.
Hiram has 4 examples: 1) how watching Fox news forms your opinion (he mentions Fox in particular, not other outlet) 2) how knowing what Donald Trump thinks dictates how conservatives think, 3) How conservatives are “problematic” when they think in terms of left/right, and get letters from conservative organizations, and 4) again how watching Fox News prejudices your opinion. Seriously?? If Left/Right was brought in in the 1920s, it was by communists, as he says, and it was to divide us into groups. The issues themselves don’t matter-as he points out himself, they change drastically-just the division. That’s the real issue. -----I feel kind of stupid having accepted this dichotomy over the years too much, but Hiram is clearly still stuck thinking in these terms. Thinking of Fox news as the culprit shows tangibly that he has not come to understand that the machine is in charge, and he accepts Fox as the focus of his criticism rather than a useful vehicle for keeping people from understanding the machinery of propaganda that we have in this country.
The Communists were pro-civil rights AND pro-New Deal in the 20s/30s. They were outside the duopoly up until the eve of World War II. Unlike the Jim Crow fascists, they worked to unite the country across race and nationality.
With that said, I agree they have a liberal, anti-Trump bias in this presentation. BUT Fox News does deserve blame for pushing openly partisan news programming. In the 1980s, the news media was largely pro-Reagan, and William F. Buckley had a PBS show alongside liberal stuff.
@@garrettramirez428 The point is not the substance of what he said but that he purports to transcend left and right, yet all his examples are about the misdeeds of the right. This happens over and over with left-leaning people--they think that what they think is manifest and, quiet often, gnostic truth and simply cannot see it any other way. If they do choose to talk about a foible from their side, it is always very minor and forgivable, even cute, whereas anything they cite from the right is ill-intentioned and pernicious.
Divide & Conquer - Where have we heard that before? Why are we allowing this division in a country that is called the “UNITED” States of America. Who is causing the division and who is promoting it? Answer that and you’re taking the 1st step toward reuniting us all under 1 national identity regardless of political affiliation. You cannot push back if you do not know what or who to push against Dugh. If you cannot identify the cause, you cannot alter its effect. 10% think, 90% Follow.
19:05 - eh.. though not saying there aren’t such individuals, but every Conservative I’ve spoken with, listened to, or have interacted with often disagree with each other on specific topics, and have had areas they disagreed with Trump (personally, I was worried that he would be to isolationist, but knew Hillary would be far to aggressive and intrusive into foreign sovereign Govmts; Now, when it comes to the new Left, who began to rise in vocal prominence 2yrs or so after Obama was elected, increasing every year (though began incubating in elite college Universities in the 1970’s, and spreading out to nearly all Universities & spreading now into K-12); by the last 3yrs of Obama’s administration Political Correctness had nearly fully captured Corp Media & Hollywood, amplifying a Left/ Right paradigm, that heavily created a hateful caricature of Conservatives as being backwards/ Hillbillies/ zealots. These people are extremely difficult to have nuanced discussions; can not argue why they support/ believe what they do, but will 100% line up with the Political views that the Corporate & Political Elitist support. 24:05 - only reason why Conservatives have been associated with racism is because of Corp media & Hollywood, taken over by the ‘Progressive’/ Democrats; which they also pushed social welfare as helping black Americans (just as they pushed Eugenics of abortion & now Suicide by Doctor as being pro women & pro compassion).. Yet, Welfare was set up to destroy Black families and keep the poor dependent upon the State & packed in like sardines w/in Democrat controlled Cities. Read the DNC documents vs RNC as well as their actions. Democrats haven’t been for good Education/ School choice for all, but only for them (& this elitism shows constantly, in their disparaging comments of Republicans and even more blatant in reporting how Trump’s supporters are those uneducated blue collar workers)
Exactly, private snooty schools for well-heeled Dem politicians, ordinary folks locked out and pushed down the street to a “one-size-for-all” school. Dems are no longer the party of the middle and working classes, though they ❤️ to pose as such.
I disagree. “Left” vs “Right” is essentially Socialism vs Capitalism & the ideals that branch off from those two core philosophies. For example; “Left” Socialism branches off into Collectivism & Centralization. “Right” Capitalism branches off into Individualism & Decentralization. The “Left” is naturally more Authoritarian, the “Right” is naturally more Libertarian.
Ranked choice voting of some form might eliminate the pitfalls of a multi-party system and build coalition. If you need minimum 50%, you have to build consensus.
years ago you liked or disliked a policy and you liked or liked or disliked somone becouse they supported that policy you we start of hating the person and then hating the purely becouse there adocating them
Great talk, as said. But at the end, when they start talking about the differences between two-party systems and multi-party systems, they're clearly stepping out of their area of expertise and showing that typical American ignorance (even there in academia) of the world outside of the US. They mention the UK having a three-party system and coalition governments - that's happened once since WWII.
If you want a really informed comparison between two-party and multi-party systems, Arend Lijphart is probably the guy to go to, and I can specifically recommend his book Patterns of Democracy.
They missed the elephant in the room: Political psychology. Claiming, that any party can have any randomly selected policies in it's basket because it's supporters will be randomly allocated by socialization is manifestly wrong. There are wast amounts of information (proof), that human psychology is the most powerful determinant with socialization being only the second most significant factor in determining individuals political taste. For example, using neuroticism as a psychometric spectrum measuring tool we can mirror image a political spectrum of corrupt political establishment support vs. religious conservativism. Population statistics also has a brilliant proof, that correlates with this same spectrum showing high levels of neuroticism and low birth rates correlates support of corrupt political establishment support vs. lower neuroticism and higher birth rates of supporters of religious conservativism. Selfishness is apparently being weeded out of our gene-pool by natural selection.
I think the idea is that the left generally tracks the interests of labor and the right tracks the interests of capital. To go beyond left and right you'd have to understand that policies that are good for some are bad for others. For that reason extremes in politics are generally bad. The best approach would be to have a system that can find balance between the stakeholders.
This is assuming that labor vs capital is the only one vector that exists in politics. Though that could be the vector of central importance in a number of people’s politics it doesn’t have to be the only one.
@@januarysson5633 agree. Politics have many vectors. Other vectors include ideologies, religion, ethnic identities, professions. Each individual has multiple "identities" and "divided loyalties"(with an internal hierarchal order of importance). And there is the emotional/irrational in every individual's political inclination and behaviour. The latter is often dismissed in any "political theory".
Liberals and conservatives are both right of centre. What we’ve experienced over decades is the neo-neo debate. Neo-conservatism versus neo-liberalism. By contrast, the political left, at its core is concerned with anti-capitalism.
Wrong. The political “left”, per the origins of left/right orientations in the French Revolution are those who sit “to the left of the king”. They are characterized by a desire for revolution; an overturning of the established status quo (economic, social, political and even spiritual).
@@m0ckingB1rd42 That’s what I said. Although arguably the political orientations of the 17th-19th Centuries may not be as applicable in the 21st Century. For example Eco-Socialists and Eco-Fascists have shared opponents in Libertarians, Liberals, and Techno-Optimists. Yet Social Democrats, Bio-Conservatives and Greens have more in common with each other than with any of the others.
History & culture aside for a moment; On my side of the pond, a more current description could be ‘societal values’ vs ‘individuals’ values’. This bridges some of the typical “anger”, and none is “wrong” vs each other. In a ‘developed’ society (unless one posits there isn’t one…), both value sets coexist. This should not be a question of ‘state’ vs ‘individual’, as both far right and far left leaders have weaponised ‘the state’ against its citizens. State communism and corporate power fascism share more traits than what separates them - for ordinary people. The opposite would rather be _anarchy_ which also exists as an idea on both fringes. Socialism as an ideology (caveats for its practice) reveals its etymology, the word ‘social’. After all, we are “social creatures”? Ponder that as a value - before thinking politics…👍
Estos señores olvidan la faz agónica de la política, su lado de lucha y conflicto. El marxismo es izquierda, y condena como derecha todo lo que no sea marxismo. Esto sucede en Sudamérica porque la derecha tiene mala prensa. Además la extrema izquierda cuenta con la invaluable ayuda de la Iglesia Católica. La metáfora de la "medicina" que estos señores usan es totalmente equivocada.
I am what most people call a conservative, actually a classical liberal. I loath Donald Trump, and I would vote for any reasonable alternative. But there is no reasonable alternative that can win. Trump is no conservative. Voting for Trump is cutting my arm off, voting for Biden is cutting my head off. I will not vote anyway since in Illinois the fix is in.
ps. Ranked choice voting of some form might eliminate the pitfalls of a multi-party system and build coalition. If you need minimum 50%, you have to build consensus.
@@The430philosopher Because people are as easily stampeded as sheep? "...were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other law-giver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." Thomas Paine
@@paineite "Because people are as easily stampeded as sheep." Exactly why we should put as little power into collective hands as possible. People are still going to gather into factions, but without state power they can be balanced by other factions. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." People are fighting for control of the levers of power. Disperse the power.
One side buys national parks to save the environment and protect the indians, using tax dollars. The other side uses tax dollars to "protect national park infrastructure" while they both allow immigrant cheap labor. Now what do you think this was all really about? Figure it out.
Where does the constitution fit in here, ie freedom of speech?. Pro constitution, anti constitution…. But you certainly make a case for a third party and mor choice on the ballot.
@@AndyJarman we have in the US a single Business War Party with two factions which agree completely on corporate friendly, worker repressive neoclassical bourgeoisie economics and imperialist war policies through support of the military industrial congressional complex. Given that between 30% and 50% of the citizens have rejected the dystopian lie of choosing the lesser of two evils and is independent, the oligarchic electoral system requires far more reform than the public.
---------- How Dual Brain Psychology Affects Our Politics. . Most of us experience complete dominance, meaning that one hemisphere or the other completely dominates our brain’s contribution to consciousness. Complete dominance divides us into two distinct groups, creating the basis of polarization. . By comprehending the split-brain’s influence on our perspective and response we learn what is dividing us and with this are able to create a mental roadmap to end our divisions. Our tendency is to want to educate those on the other side of the argument, but in most cases, others feel the same way about us. . Thus, if you find yourself on one side or the other, know that you are part of the problem.
No one thinks left/right is about change. Being on the left has always been understood to mean favoring people who are perceived as disempowered, disadvantaged, or both; being somewhat to the right means being nominally neutral (which amounts to favoring the oppressor); and being definitely on the right means believing that order should actively be created or maintained. Insofar as people focus on existing hierarchies, being on the left correlates with favoring change. In the last few decades, though, past attempts to mitigate disadvantage have been eroding, so being on the left has meant trying to protect the surviving remnants of programs from the New Deal and Great Society eras. Socially, being on the left meant trying to uphold case law including Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas; as well as trying to uphold the very concept of rights as something that applies to everyone (including the disadvantaged), in contrast to privileges that come from rank, wealth, or conformity. In more optimistic times, fools imagined that the arc of history would bend toward justice. So it was assumed that favoring justice would usually mean speeding up change. But justice was always the core of the left/right concept, and change was only ever a correlate. Different people have different ideas about what advantages or disadvantages are most important. People supposedly acting in the name of the disadvantaged have often been self-serving. Different rationalizations for opposing justice have been prominent at different times. So there's some variation. But the core of the left/right distinction has always been some variant of justice versus some excuse for injustice. Meanwhile, no one has ever said that politics is only about left versus right. Sectional, religious, and ethnic concerns have always been present. Even different actual beliefs about what's efficient and effective have occasionally made it through the noise. But left/right has always been one thread in politics, and it has become more prominent since the interstate highway system diluted the effects of regionalism, and since the advent of mass communication (culminating in the era of three-network television) diluted some of the cultural distinctions.
The main driver of the political spectrum in the U.S. is emphasis on using the coercive vs. the redistributive powers of the state. That's why someone who wants to use the criminal justice system to reduce abortions is also more likely to favor tax cuts. That's why people are willing to overlook moral failings in their leaders but not in their opponents' leaders.
People should be hesitant in pushing for change. Rather than using bad to determine what needs changing we should use broken, dysfunctional, or obsolete Something you view as bad you should take a 2nd look at from the perspective of what about it works? How much worse off would we be if it didn't work at all. Who would be in pain if it stopped working? What would be the difference between what you would consider good vs it's current state. Who would be better off? Would anyone be worse off? Change will always cause some one pain To replace an old system with a new one. You're removing the organic that had gone through trial and error over time to becomei increasingly fit to all needs & maximally fine tuned
This is commercialized, “Both siding it” or “enlightened centrism.” additionally, nowhere are these historians contending with the veracity of these participants' claims or feelings based on an objective standard.
Unfortunately they are doubling down on this. It’s a sort of denial by radicals to assuage people who have to live with their agenda. It’s Kyrsten Sinema’s mother ship.
That human beings can hold multiple opposing views at the same time is well documented in psychology, and a blurring of issues defined as liberal or conservative crossing party lines is increasing with more and more politicians. The problem gentleman, is your important research and conclusions are out of date, if not oversimplified. One no longer has the same rights or privileges to engage in debate, or exchange ideas openly and freely. Institutions built over several decades, once trusted, no matter one's political or social views, have become polarized, i.e., financial, educational, governmental, etc. Keep giving your talks, that is good, really. But hopefully you will reevaluate . . . before you are cancelled.
It's wrong to assume that the validity of the spectrum depends on consistency in policy issues. Different circumstances cause people to take different positions. A Communist for example might want the U.S. to go to war to protect the Soviet Union in 1941, but oppose a U.S. war against the Communists in Vietnam in the 1960s. That doesn't mean that Communism is meaningless.
I've always thought the idea of liberalism being left wing is absurd. The Liberal party here in Australia is considered to be the party of private business (right), the Labour party is considered the party of the employee (left). To me the complexion of political views is a reflection of the degree to which the state interferes with people's private lives, including private business. Democratic Socialists would be far left, whereas Libertarian democrats would be far right.
In political terms 'liberal' has no useful meaning. Here in the UK, 19th-century Liberals were in favor of free trade and represented the emerging industrialists. (Conservatives at that time were land-owners who wanted controls on cheap imports of food and were losing power to the industrialists.) By the 1980s, however 9and to this day) Uk Liberals are sometimes even more left-wing than Labour. While in the USA 'Liberal' is on the left, in Australia and Japan they are nearer to the 19th century definition. The word is, therefore, largely useless in defining anything in politics. The only people who don't accept this are Liberals!
@@oakbellUK except that if you do not adhere to liberal principles you are not adhering to democracy. Without commitment to open debate and persuasion of public opinion you are dictatorial and authoritarian, not liberal. I understand that the Democratic party in the US and the Liberal party in the UK have abandoned their liberal principles and joined the ranks of the Socialists, but if we claim conservatism is not liberal, and is somehow a counter to liberalism we have lost the ability to talk about principles of political ideology. Left and right are terms which were designed to distinguish between degrees of radical reformation in revolutionary France, BUT, if we continue to maintain that right wing is merely the retention of aspects of feudalism we are sunk. That is a description of Toryism, not conservatism. Conservatism as "socialism with the brakes on" is not Toryism. A clearer idea of what the debate between right and left wing philosophies in liberal democracy is needed in order for the distinction to have any meaning. A good exploration of the development of a left right dialectic in history has been given by the TIK history channel in his video "Public Versus Private". Extreme left is maximum state intervention aimed at the protection of the weak, and less able. Extreme right is absolute minimum state intervention or Libertarianism. The political discourse MUST be protected. There MUST be - equal application of laws to ALL citizens. - guarantees of free speech, no censure, no curtailment of opinions - sovereignty of the individual. The Westminster parliament website currently proclaims parliament is sovereign. This is simply not true and is evidence of the government's tendancy to assume more and more control and authority over time. This is unlawful and illiberal and only possible because the "slang" meanings of words have been assumed to be correct. The legal system has identified the adoption of "slang" meanings is problematic. Consequently the legal system uses it's own dictionary - Blacks Dictionary. Unfortunately this protection of the language has led to peculiar arcane conversations and principles becoming the stock and trade of the lawyer and the loss of contact between the citizenry and their political discourse. TIK history You Tube channel is exquisitely well referenced and well informed and can be used to reset the conversation vis-à-vis the idea of a dichotomy of ideas with a single liberal system of government. www.commonlawconstitution.org/
Western society is a liberal society. There is a left and right wing of this society. The left by it's nature constantly pulls farther forward while the right acts as a brake of sort.
@@januarysson5633 The political parties have changed positions for sure, but left and right is always left and right. The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was a progressive leftist party. Left is progressive in our society regardless of the party that is left at the time. The “right” always acts as a slowdown mechanism.
This is really superficial. Being “left” or “right” fundamentally comes down to something far more evolutionary than just mere shifts in attitudes. The personality and moral psychology research is really clear about this: the left is more egalitarian and the right is more hierarchical. You can trace this cross-culturally. You don’t need the labels to empirically see this pattern. They’re also totally leaving out Ancient Greece and Rome, where you have the Democrats and Oligarchs in Greece and the Optimates and Populares in Rome.
I would like to hear an educated explanation of how one form of totalitarian socialism (Russian) came to be known as "left wing", whereas a modified version of the same totalitarian Socialism came to be known as "right" wing (German). They were both statist, anti liberal, and used the Marxist "oppressed- vs-oppressor" narrative to garner support from the majority group.
its a common misconception that the nazis were in any way socialist. they called themselves national socialist because they wanted the vote of the workers, but did not implement any real socialist policies ( nazis supported for privatisation of companies rather than collectivization ) and were incredibly anti-communist. some of their ideology was inspired by the american colonial project - what they called leibensraum. read about the transformation of marxism to leninism and leninsm to stalinism and you will realize that the "left wing" is really the side of self-critique and try to understand the way in which american politics has misconstrewed the term "liberalism" from its ideological roots by equating the republican party and democratic party to these sides
The term "socialism" was apparently applied by Lenin and his functionaries to his totalitarianism. The misapplication was then used by capitalists to misrepresent socialism. I found this enlightening: th-cam.com/video/jxhT9EVj9Kk/w-d-xo.html
That is a deep question. It's kind of to be expected, because Nazis lost the war, and western intellectuals and journalists (those who write history) all leaned left. However, the question becomes more complex once we dig into the details, because there are indeed good reasons to call them right-wing. Perhaps the most powerful of those reasons is that they defined themselves in opposition to Marxists, and they did differ from them in policy: they embraced top-down hierarchies, for example, and while Marxists did too in practice, they used the excuse that that was temporary, and that they really wanted a classless society. Marxists were hostile to businesses, and while Nazis did take control of industries, it wasn't any stated principle of their ideology to do so. Marxists were internationalists and Nazis were nationalists. Marxists clamored for democracy while destroying it, and Nazis demonized democracy but they did climb to power through elections and didn't want any kind of popular revolution. In the end, they were both totalitarian, but they were approaching that end state from different perspectives.
I don't know, man. Anti-abortion and tax cuts map pretty well onto basic rights and responsibilities of the individual. No doubt lots of people are in it because of Social factors, but acting like there's no philosophical basis for these ideas is pretty suspect.
If you’re saying that being anti-abortion automatically selects for a position in favor of tax cuts, I don’t agree. Someone could be anti-abortion but in favor of higher taxes because they would acknowledge the need for more social services in a population that was rising due to abortion not being available. It may not be the position most anti-abortion believers take but it is not logically inconsistent. It is actually consistent with Catholic social teaching. It is not logically necessary that someone being anti-abortion be pro-tax hikes if that is the opposite case. That is actually the paired position of most people on the left.
Absolute trash. Left is always towards equality, and right is always towards hierarchy. A person can be left on one issue and right on another. No problem. The bolshevics were towards equality (left), but using authoritarian means to get it (right). Lenin even talked shit about people he called "ultra-leftists," who thought they could achieve socialism without the authoritarian methods that he supported. This video would have made perfect sense if it was about democrats and republicans because those titles dont really mean anything. The democrat party is not a leftist party. My explanation of this is not controversial. It is the normal explanation in political science. The explanations they use in this video are strawmen. If you think you have an issue that de-bunks my simple explanation, let me know and ill explain.
Of course, there is truth within this approach, and I have a lot of sympathy for it, but its problem is the attempt to ahistorisize politics. Take an example given about the linking of anti-abortion and low taxes. Of course, it is correct that it is possible to find ppl who don't agree with one thing or the other, but will cast their vote for Republican party to codify one of those issues, but what they seem to leave out is how those issues ended up under the same political banner.
@@keto0303 The global left is very much defeated. It is therefore in the interest of the right to obscure the left-right split, so people don't choose between the left or the right but between the liberal right or the conservative right, the national right or the globalist right.
No! People in every group of your “sacred” spectrum deny and rebuke it, except the ideologically captured far left - which is both illiberal and anti-enlightenment. If you really think this spectrum holds up, or ever did, you may embody every trope of the far left Gnostic political religion. The Nazi’s for example were far left on almost every salient criterion, but once their wickedness was manifest, the far left had distinguish themselves from the evil, distinguish the communists in the Soviet Union (like pushing Potemkin villages and denying the holodomor in NYT and winning a Pulitzer for it - and they grifted on the war propaganda of only a few years earlier which modeled the war as liberal (Allie’s) v fascists (axis); Which is incoherent as the Soviets certainly weren’t liberal, imperial Japan certainly wasn’t fascist, and the National socialist German workers party also wasn’t actually fascist. They mocked the fascists in Italy and forced them to implement chauvinistic domestic policies to retain protection). This left/right spectrum is a creation for the subversive goals of radical leftists - divide and conquer, “otherize” and promote tribalism. Please consider thinking independently, with critical thought and standards of application and evaluation. And realize the news you likely watch isn’t informing you, but priming, propagandizing, deceiving, and programming you in the interests of their own avarice, cupidity and ideological goals. The actual paradigm is far more intelligible as establishment uniparty globalists V Americans seeking to restore/protect/fully realize our Constitutional values and principles. Simply, where do you stand on the iron law of oligarchy? Do you welcome it, or seek to stop through reform to better realize our rights, responsibilities, values and liberties.
@@exandil6029I understand what you are saying, but historically, this is what always happens - because the far left is exposed as corrupt, self-interested and power obsessed (they don’t love the poor they hate the rich, until they’re the richest & most powerful). But no doubt the far left holds the institutional power over the left/right paradigm. Their trick is to take radical far leftists who go too far and get exposed doing it, and rebrand them as far right. It’s so absurd, that often, far leftists suddenly become far-right the moment they become violent, imperial and/or chauvinistic (labeled as nationalism most often, or some “ist” or “phobe”). First instance, it’s almost unintelligible to classify the national socialist German workers party as far right. Hitler literally saw himself as instituting the actual intended version of totalizing socialism - which he saw as corrupted by Jews. He never saw himself as a fascist, and aside from war propaganda lumping him in that category, it was really a propaganda mission of far left socialists and communists on the west to place the Nazis on the far left, to protect their own ideology from the Nazi’s tarnish. Similarly, look at what’s happened to many of the most ardent hippies from the 60’s, they “sold out” and became the globalist managerial elite dedicated to centralized power and a neo-fascist structure which fully binds the public corporation with the public government. In essence, The end of the private. And if you study the neo-fascist globalists of today, they’re always working with the far left and progressive NGO’s, activists, non-profits. Clearly they’ve joined forces. DEI was but one collaboration. In essence there really isn’t any difference. Is the same tribal cult seemingly divided into managers/administrators, or the subversives who create chaos and power vacuums which the managers/administrators then fill. I’ll add that this trickery requires deceiving countless individuals at the bottom to perpetuate the false divide to enable the “divide and conquer” tactic.
16:18 Haha and then what you just just did was take a highly complex phenomena like Astrology and reduce it to one question: what is your Sun Sign? I'm sorry but there is A LIT more to Astrology than that...
The Left and Right labels can work alright if used in a grounded, historical and ontological sense but it becomes a problem when put into idealistic, abstract and teleological terms as is increasingly the case on both sides of the aisle.
This speaker is heavy on sophistry, misstating political science facts, and sounds like a religious creationist video. The straw-man framing & overall dishonesty is gross, such as In reality the Left direction indicates an increased preference for egalitarianism, while Right indicates preference for hierarchy.
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
Who came from Leo Gura ?
Yep
Same
Eh?
fuck yea
When I was a teenager, I read the first chapter of "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" which convincingly showed the poor value of the left-right spectrum for describing the world. I immediately quit thinking in those terms.
However, when I would give this idea to others, nobody was interested. The left-right spectrum, if introduced early enough, apparently is stuck in the brain forever.
"The Myth of Left and Right" is only the second time I've seen somebody publish the very simple idea that left-right is a poor analysis tool, and is mainly for over-simplification and tribalism.
Kudos to the authors.
Like you, I've been preaching this sermon for decades and getting few hearers. These two fellows, howevver, have done a fine job of boiling it down and supporting it. Share it. The video deserves it.
I think the real spectrum is between extremes and balance. You need balance in politics because most policies are bad for some people and good for others. So extremes in politics are bad and the goal should be to find a balance between the interests of various stakeholders.
Another reason the left/right spectrum is not very useful is that it doesn’t give weight to issues depending on how much importance any one individual gives each one. I find most people build their political philosophy around one issue they feel passionately about and just fill in the gaps on other positions based on whether the position they take on their issue of central importance is left or right wing.
Will have to read that.
It's now "up vs down" not "left vs right".
I have found the labels of left & right to be mostly a type of marketing in recent years. A young person who doesn't pay much attention to the details, would probably pick up on the following branding...
The labeling of something as "right wing" is often coded as "bad" - or uncaring, selfish, or even immoral. And "far right" is pretty much used as a smear.
Conversely, "left wing" codes as good, empathetic, caring for others less fortunate etc.
In reality (IMO, anyway), the establishment "elite" who have pushed this branding, are the "up", and pretty much everyone else (whether knowingly opposed or unwittingly fighting the establishment's battles for them) are the "down".
In my lifetime, many core values of society have either switched favour, or are being directly attacked by those political "tribes" that had been their strongest proponents.
Ranked Choice Voting, is the key to bringing about a true multi-party political system where you need to form coalitions with other parties to get things done instead of everyone either being in your party or the dreaded, evil, other party. It is part of The American Anti-Corruption Act.
Shared. This needs to be seriously considered far and wide. I've known this for years, but these gentlemen have done ship's captain work of boiling it down and supporting it. OUTSTANDING.
This is an attitude that I live by, and I think the world would be a much better place if everyone adopted it:
"If what you say is actually true, I would want to know it too. It's not that I have this bias from the onset and you'll never convince me and I'll never convince you, no that's wrong. You can convince me, and if it is true I want you to convince me ... and I will thank you for convincing me."
Aron Ra
Maybe we should have an up & down metaphor. Middle class interests vs élite
Or in vs out
To Hyrum and Verlan Lewis:
Looking at this mathematically, you're moving from a mono-dimensional space, to a multi-dimensional space to describe an individual/group politically. Welcome to linear algebra.
Linear Algebra is being used by tools like ChatGPT to describe words by cutting them up into individual axes (e.g. Queen = leader, female, singular, kingdom,etc.). The results have been so successful, that ChatGPT can "read" about queens, and then "write" an essay comparing them to kings (leader, male, singular, kingdom,etc.) or presidents (leader, male/female, singular, republic,etc.). Powerful stuff.
I think a logical next step of your work is to embrace linear algebra to make a muti-dimensional model of politics showing how political vectors can describe politics geographically, temporally, etc. much better. From there, you can create linear algebra matrices to do mathematical operations on the vectors. The operations may even be predictive.
FYI: you can cram a multi-dimensional vector (e.g. all of my political views) down to any axis ( left-right, north-south, young -old, male-female) and this is called "projection". "Projection" is well known for its way of losing lots of data, but 1 in a 100 times might do something useful. I think you're saying the left-right projection is a very harmful projection of the political space. You might also be saying the left-right axes is just artificial nonsense.
Very inspirational talk. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing thoughts🎉
I think this would work well if political thought were simply complicated, but I believe it is a complex system. Multivariate analysis will surely be an improvement, but how much of an improvement will be dictated by how near to chaos the complexity lies. The models we use for meteorology, for example, are only extremely accurate for brief periods, but are still decent at predicting what generally will happen over the course of a couple of weeks. Of course, models attempting to predict climate years and decades from now are completely useless like trying to predict the trajectories of water droplets as they pass over the falls at Niagara.
Correct, One Dimensional Left Right Political Narrative and East West Geopolitical Brainwash. Modern Physics has Posited Eleven Dimensions : x y z coordinates, Einstein Fourth Dimension Time. The Maths for the Next Seven Above My Pay Grade, but I call them "Seven Heavens". Occupant of Eleventh "I Am Whom I Am" - The Divine Essence of Being : Life, Logos and Love.
If you read their book, they show how the two tribes have consistently changed views following the two parties ever since the 1940s and 50s following their initial adoption during the 30s when the projection onto a single axis was in fact largely valid (in the 30s, left was pro expanding federal government regardless of how and right was against it and also viewed adherence to the constitution for the how part as important).
But ever since around 1939 or 1940 when the invasion of Poland became WWII and when it really escalated after France fell, the projection onto a single dimension has been counterproductive because the main divide was no longer about one issue anymore.
I have taken two linear algebra courses for the record, just so we are clear that I didn't try to reply without understanding your comment at all and it happened to be a coherent response by chance.
This topic feels a bit like splitting hairs. It's just plain easy to say I lean left or right.
What's so unfortunate is that in recent times, we've brewed up this hostility toward one side or the other. It wasn't so long ago that President Reagan (R) and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil (D), engaged in some pretty hot debates with each other - then they'd go have dinner together. They liked and respected one another. They understood the need for checks and balances. They weren't threatened by an opposing viewpoint. In short - they were adults.
What we have today in Congress are a lot of unruly children who all want their own way, and they throw tantrums if they can't get it.
Politicians, such as they are by necessity - used to be more educated, open-minded, intellectual, and mindful of who they serve. They understood that compromise was a part of the deal; and they didn't fear having their agenda modified to fit the greater good. Yes, they fought for it, but when they had to give a little to get things done, they accepted it.
Humility, character, and class are qualities we don't see much of anymore; not only in Congress, but in the electorate too. We're placing our own selfish desires far ahead of our practical sensibilities.
Sounds like your typical teenager, right?
There’s your DEI at work in the halls of Congress.
“There are no sides just manipulation” - Sun Tzu
“The Art Of War”
Thank you for confirming my bias, that the political compass is stupid
Very interesting as far as it goes, especially in highlighting the tribalism. However, what about the solutions to it?
It totally ignores the issue of referenda/referendums, though these form a big part of American politics at sub-national level. Constitutional reform and amendment is also ignored. Let alone issues such as Monarch and Republic, Race, Gender, religion and other identifiers. As well as issues of funding. And largely ignores the issue of the media (a little bit on reporting). Nothing on the lobbies, either, and the resulting huge disconnect, discontent and low turn out in elections and even sometimes in referenda.
If you want something to better reflect popular will, then you have to have a way of forcing out referenda built into the system, at all levels, including the Federal. This requires changing legislative procedure radically. And for referenda to be mandatory, both initial and confirming referendums. Somewhat like in Switzerland.
However, all democracy is bottom up. That is why St. Basil the Great said that democracy is for pagans, monarchy is for Christians. What type of monarchy? Something in accordance with symphony of powers - between a True Orthodox Church, State, People and the Monarch themselves, with the ability to force the retirement and replacement of a monarch, under certain circumstances. Medieval Novgorod was one of the few places to have achieved this. However, it got swept away, effectively, by invasions from all directions.
In 1613 something similar was achieved with the crowning of the first of the Romanovs and the oath of loyalty of a Truly Orthodox Christian people. This was overthrown (along with over 900 years of Orthodox rule in Russia) by the Judaeo-Masonic February 1917 Revolution and the Judao-Bolshevik October 1917 Revolution.
With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and his succession by Tsar Michael II, consent was put firmly on the agenda. Tsar Michael II stated, after succeeding during the February 1917 Revolution, that it would be up to a universally elected, secret ballot Constituent Assembly to decide what form of Government it wanted, including whether it wanted to retain a constitutional monarchy (the 1906 Constitution as modified and amended up until that point, including the introduction of Universal Suffrage (confirmed by Tsar Michael´s own decree before handing over to a provisional Government). When elected the following year the Constituent Assembly was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, who had failed to win an overall majority on their own or in coalition, the following day. The left-right distinctions, originally based upon where the Ancien Regime Estates General sat in France, before and during the French Revolution, with the Clerics of the Romanist "Church" on the Right, next to the throne, and the Second Estate of the Nobility, further to the Right, and the Third Estate, of the rest of the population (which tended to be in favour of more radical reform, and ultimately, of Revolution, potentially), on the Left, were taken up during the Russian revolution in terms of how much people wanted things to change, and where to, on what you might well call a tribal basis. It is a fact that the Bolshevik leadership were overwhelmingly apostates from Babylonian Talmudic Judaism, whom the state had failed to keep confined to the Pale of Settlement, sufficiently, despite their evident hostility to its Orthodox Symphonic nature.
Russian Orthodoxy was systematically imported into the American body politic by the Alaska purchase of 1867, with Church provisions being part of the conditions.
Though there has been some conversion in America, it has failed to convert en masse, and thus will, unless this changes, have to endure the various Holy Prophecies about it, coming to collapse, complete ruin, being largely obliterated by a mega-eruption and earthquakes connected to the Yellowstone super-volcano (by far the biggest in the world), before the remnants are converted to True Orthodox Christianity along with nearly all the rest of the world (including all of the West, the Middle East (including Israel and its opponents), the Islamic World, India and China in the wake of the Third World War, under the spiritual leadership of a restored Romanov (Third) Rome.
This will last for as long as there are people being born capable of being saved. The end of the world can be repeatedly postponed through repentance and it is worth noting that the Magna Paschalion (the time it takes for the solar calendar and the (True Orthodox Christian) Church calendar to come back into alignment, lasts roughly 55,000 years (there is currently a difference of 13 days in these calendars, which will rise to 14 days in the year 2100, if the earth continues to bear salvific fruit and has not ended by then).
Time to take a much deeper dive, or get swept up by events (including the restoration of Constantinople to the Greeks (after roughly 580 years, in accordance with the prophecies written on a pillar in Constantinople, deciphered just before its fall on Tuesday 29th May 1453 to the Moslem Ottoman Turks (who continued to use the title of Caesar and Emperor of the Romans, and whose Empire was overthrown by the Turkish Republicans, who established their Republic of Turkey in 1924, amending the Constitution for it to become a secular Republic with (at least theoretically) freedom of Religion in 1928. Turkey changed its official name to Türkiye last year. This restoration, of Constantinople, will happen when the Feast of the Annunciation (starting on 25 March and, in a manner of speaking, running through to its apodosis (Leave taking (literally Giving Back) (26th March) in the (traditional Orthodox Christian) Church Calendar, and the Civil Calendar on Mount Athos, and 7 April in the Civil Calendar elsewhere) (8th April for the Apodosis) - overlaps the Feast of Holy Pascha (aka (traditional) Orthodox Easter (which can be said to start with Great Friday and Run through to its Leave-Taking on Bright Monday (which is welcomed in by the last Paschal Service attended by most of the faithful, the Agape Vespers). In 2034 Holy Pascha is on March 27/April 9th, and on the same date in 2045.
The next exact incidents of this highly propitious concelebrations of these feasts (1991 having been the fall of the Soviet Union and 1821 the start of the successful rebellion against the Turks (proclaimed by the Metropolitan of Patras), occur in 2075 and 2086. All is, of course, dependent upon there still being the possibility of people being saved. Only God the Father knows the hour of the Second Coming when Christ´s reign will begin, ending the reign of the AntiChrist (after 3 1/2 years) and lasting 3 1/2 years before the Final Judgment.
I am a Democrat and a Republican And An Independent - I’m American. Unity or bust!
Someone should download and edit and remove the 60Hz hum. Somehow I missed it the first time.
being "far right" is not synonymous with being "reactionary"
The critique of the left/right spectrum is very good. I will share it with others.
18:00 As the most extreme "conservatives" and "liberals" are also the most authoritarian, The Political Compass adds an authoritarian/individualist spectrum. I'm curious as to why it was not mentioned.
26:00 We are not all rigid thinkers, tribal-partisan authoritarians. Some of us think that belonging-submitting to an ideology erodes our freedom and interferes with flexible and creative thinking. Unless it's needed for truly threatening situations, tribalism must be avoided.
36:00 I agree with the mind scientists and evolutionary psychologists that find tribalism a Neolithic psychopathology. If we are willing to replace a need for dogma (certainties) with a scientific humanism and an openness to work for better solutions, we may also expand our moral spheres to include the whole Earth. This will leave tribalism, its bigotries and horrors, behind us.
- Ya'll might have talked about ranked-choice voting. It's been shown to reduce political polarization while providing more legitimacy.
Yeah, some really important points here, I think. Even if their account should be complemented with the work of people like Jonathan Haidt and George Lakoff. I mean, for instance, there are literally conservative dispositions and literally progressive dispositions out there and the clash between those dispositions is and always has been a big part of political life. Though a) the clash can be healthy or unhealthy, and b) what people of both dispositions actually want depends very much on what the status quo is - so, for example, people of a conservative disposition in the latters years of the Soviet Union wanted to preserve old school communist ways of doing things, and people of progressive dispositions wanted to welcome in market incentives and so on.
How do you define Liberal? I ask because the graph places Liberal between Radical and Moderate...When Classical Liberalism is defined as .Classical liberalism
Political ideology
Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Wikipedia.
Left and Right are just labels. Yes, the terms change over time. That indicates that these labels are not causing the polarization. They are only labels that communicate a polarization that is already happening. When our government begins pushing things on us that we do not want, or fail to do that which we think they ought to do, that is what creates the polarization. Labels are useful to communicate what a person considers to be a good or bad tribe. Today if a person is labeled left or liberal, it means they support DEI, universal voting, universal Healthcare, the homosexual and trans agenda, abortion, people being able to choose their gender, authoritarian government, more taxes, etc. In our current time, this pretty much is true. If a person is right or conservative, he takes the opposite perspective on these issues. Changing labels is not going to change the polarization because these issues are still being forced upon us by whoever is in power.
Labels are only useful if they reflect truth, left and right labels obfuscate truth.
Extremist groups utilize this error endlessly. We think radical islamism is one group opposite of a Marxist group through our left right spectrum. But they've historically been together.
Just one of thousands of ways our political spectrum confuses and misdirects us
If you have a label for each individual thing you believe, rather than the tribe affiliate with, yes it will improve.
@CraigTalbert
There seems to be a strong correlation of certain ideas such that labels that group individual ideas are warranted. Those who fight to force all of society to accept the free practice of abortion also support forcing upon society hedonistic practices like homosexuality, homosexual marriage, gender choice, transsexual behavior, special preferences and privileges for hiring blacks, females, and transsexual people over whites, males, and heterosexual people. They also favor socialism and anti-capitalist policies. If the labels are not what is causing the polarization, then eliminating the labels does not help eliminate polarization. There is a root cause for all these progressive ideas being forced upon the rest of society, so grouping them with labels is helpful to show that connection.
@@TruthTalkDave okay, what’s the connection?
But then you have 'the status quo' which is just right of center on this spectrum. Isn't the argument over a spectrum within a spectrum, as in maintaining the status quo? A moderate would look like an extremist to the status quo
How to turn 200 words into 20,000.
For countries which do not even have a two-party system, a superimposition (or worse a mindless or even worse, a scheming import) of this (to use the word of Lewises) "myth" is, imo, at least one order higher absurdness because, unlike citizens of such countries, Americans have to--whether they like it or not--pick from only two choices.
This is a great talk and valuable information despite issues I might have with their ideas. "The Myth of Left and Right" seems to be a social or sociopolitical look at the political one-dimension of left v right, but is sorely lacking any material analysis. Here's what I mean- when they discuss where the false concept of "left v right" started, it seems almost a priori and emergent. This false dualism starts in the 20s, takes off in the 60s, and is normal discourse now, because humans are inherently tribal and inherently wanting of simple answers. That's the explanation they give. And it benefits the 2 political parties as they can just provide tribal rhetoric to agitate their political bases.
Is there any discussion on the role of power and profit here? I can think of some movements that were outside of the mainstream D vs R, left v right political divide: the Black Panther movement, the anti-globalist movement of the 90s, the 99% movements after the 2008 crash, the current ongoing attempts to stop cop cities and defend the forests, anything Indigenous people try to do (yes they're still fighting for rights and freedoms in this day and age). Can you think of a trend with all these? They've been crushed, co-opted, and outright killed for their challenge to power. Also-reality check, universal voting power has only been granted to all U.S citizens with the passing of the civil rights act in the 60s... so less than 100 years. The U.S has been a settler colonial slave state for far longer than it has been a bastion of liberal democracy. When the enslaved Africans in Haiti won their liberation from the slavers, the leadership in the U.S had a heart attack.
All this to say- the 100ish year discussion of left v right is certainly a red herring. I would also contend it's actively being used by the moneyed interests to keep their power entrenched- not some emergent phenomenon of human tribalism. When Reagan loosened regulations on newscasting and right wing think tanks pumped millions of $$ to make Fox news in the 80s-90s, was that just some symptom of peoples' needs for simple explanations? We know social media companies explicitly show enraging content to its users to drive higher engagement and this has been the case for at least 10 years... but we blame human tribalism and not the billions of dollars specifically generated from creating such divides as L v R?
Is "tribalism" really something that we just naturally do, and have to "civilize" ourselves away from? Or are there interests in power whose existence specifically relies on us being as diverted, scattered, and chaotic as possible? Do you think big oil would have a chance if the average person could actually foment political change?
Yes the economic handlers effect politicians more than politics effect the handlers. It should be the other way around. So leaving that out of the discussion is a misrepresentation of reality without a doubt.
Why can’t both sides just get along guyss? There’s more to politics than just abortion rights, climate change, tax representation, and civil rights..
How naïve lmao, these issues are split almost exactly down the middle and our politicians, who are supposed to represent a multiplicity of views, vote accordingly. Less we mention that one party is trying to change the rules so that minority rule is easier and we stray further from actual representative democracy.
Hiram has 4 examples:
1) how watching Fox news forms your opinion (he mentions Fox in particular, not other outlet)
2) how knowing what Donald Trump thinks dictates how conservatives think,
3) How conservatives are “problematic” when they think in terms of left/right, and get letters from conservative organizations, and
4) again how watching Fox News prejudices your opinion.
Seriously??
If Left/Right was brought in in the 1920s, it was by communists, as he says, and it was to divide us into groups. The issues themselves don’t matter-as he points out himself, they change drastically-just the division. That’s the real issue.
-----I feel kind of stupid having accepted this dichotomy over the years too much, but Hiram is clearly still stuck thinking in these terms. Thinking of Fox news as the culprit shows tangibly that he has not come to understand that the machine is in charge, and he accepts Fox as the focus of his criticism rather than a useful vehicle for keeping people from understanding the machinery of propaganda that we have in this country.
The Communists were pro-civil rights AND pro-New Deal in the 20s/30s. They were outside the duopoly up until the eve of World War II. Unlike the Jim Crow fascists, they worked to unite the country across race and nationality.
With that said, I agree they have a liberal, anti-Trump bias in this presentation. BUT Fox News does deserve blame for pushing openly partisan news programming. In the 1980s, the news media was largely pro-Reagan, and William F. Buckley had a PBS show alongside liberal stuff.
@@garrettramirez428 The point is not the substance of what he said but that he purports to transcend left and right, yet all his examples are about the misdeeds of the right. This happens over and over with left-leaning people--they think that what they think is manifest and, quiet often, gnostic truth and simply cannot see it any other way. If they do choose to talk about a foible from their side, it is always very minor and forgivable, even cute, whereas anything they cite from the right is ill-intentioned and pernicious.
Divide & Conquer - Where have we heard that before? Why are we allowing this division in a country that is called the “UNITED” States of America. Who is causing the division and who is promoting it? Answer that and you’re taking the 1st step toward reuniting us all under 1 national identity regardless of political affiliation. You cannot push back if you do not know what or who to push against Dugh. If you cannot identify the cause, you cannot alter its effect. 10% think, 90% Follow.
19:05 - eh.. though not saying there aren’t such individuals, but every Conservative I’ve spoken with, listened to, or have interacted with often disagree with each other on specific topics, and have had areas they disagreed with Trump (personally, I was worried that he would be to isolationist, but knew Hillary would be far to aggressive and intrusive into foreign sovereign Govmts; Now, when it comes to the new Left, who began to rise in vocal prominence 2yrs or so after Obama was elected, increasing every year (though began incubating in elite college Universities in the 1970’s, and spreading out to nearly all Universities & spreading now into K-12); by the last 3yrs of Obama’s administration Political Correctness had nearly fully captured Corp Media & Hollywood, amplifying a Left/ Right paradigm, that heavily created a hateful caricature of Conservatives as being backwards/ Hillbillies/ zealots. These people are extremely difficult to have nuanced discussions; can not argue why they support/ believe what they do, but will 100% line up with the Political views that the Corporate & Political Elitist support.
24:05 - only reason why Conservatives have been associated with racism is because of Corp media & Hollywood, taken over by the ‘Progressive’/ Democrats; which they also pushed social welfare as helping black Americans (just as they pushed Eugenics of abortion & now Suicide by Doctor as being pro women & pro compassion).. Yet, Welfare was set up to destroy Black families and keep the poor dependent upon the State & packed in like sardines w/in Democrat controlled Cities.
Read the DNC documents vs RNC as well as their actions. Democrats haven’t been for good Education/ School choice for all, but only for them (& this elitism shows constantly, in their disparaging comments of Republicans and even more blatant in reporting how Trump’s supporters are those uneducated blue collar workers)
Exactly, private snooty schools for well-heeled Dem politicians, ordinary folks locked out and pushed down the street to a “one-size-for-all” school. Dems are no longer the party of the middle and working classes, though they ❤️ to pose as such.
I disagree.
“Left” vs “Right” is essentially Socialism vs Capitalism & the ideals that branch off from those two core philosophies.
For example;
“Left” Socialism branches off into Collectivism & Centralization.
“Right” Capitalism branches off into Individualism & Decentralization.
The “Left” is naturally more Authoritarian, the “Right” is naturally more Libertarian.
Amazingly good talk.
Damn skippy
Woah comments vanishing.
Ranked choice voting of some form might eliminate the pitfalls of a multi-party system and build coalition. If you need minimum 50%, you have to build consensus.
years ago you liked or disliked a policy and you liked or liked or disliked somone becouse they supported that policy you we start of hating the person and then hating the purely becouse there adocating them
Otra cosa que estos señores ignoran es que la "relatividad" de los dos polos concierne a las posiciones moderadas, no a las extremas y violentas.
Great talk, as said. But at the end, when they start talking about the differences between two-party systems and multi-party systems, they're clearly stepping out of their area of expertise and showing that typical American ignorance (even there in academia) of the world outside of the US. They mention the UK having a three-party system and coalition governments - that's happened once since WWII.
And I think, when a world war has not been happening, three times in the country's entire history.
If you want a really informed comparison between two-party and multi-party systems, Arend Lijphart is probably the guy to go to, and I can specifically recommend his book Patterns of Democracy.
They missed the elephant in the room: Political psychology. Claiming, that any party can have any randomly selected policies in it's basket because it's supporters will be randomly allocated by socialization is manifestly wrong. There are wast amounts of information (proof), that human psychology is the most powerful determinant with socialization being only the second most significant factor in determining individuals political taste. For example, using neuroticism as a psychometric spectrum measuring tool we can mirror image a political spectrum of corrupt political establishment support vs. religious conservativism. Population statistics also has a brilliant proof, that correlates with this same spectrum showing high levels of neuroticism and low birth rates correlates support of corrupt political establishment support vs. lower neuroticism and higher birth rates of supporters of religious conservativism. Selfishness is apparently being weeded out of our gene-pool by natural selection.
I think the idea is that the left generally tracks the interests of labor and the right tracks the interests of capital. To go beyond left and right you'd have to understand that policies that are good for some are bad for others. For that reason extremes in politics are generally bad. The best approach would be to have a system that can find balance between the stakeholders.
This is assuming that labor vs capital is the only one vector that exists in politics. Though that could be the vector of central importance in a number of people’s politics it doesn’t have to be the only one.
@@januarysson5633 agree. Politics have many vectors. Other vectors include ideologies, religion, ethnic identities, professions. Each individual has multiple "identities" and "divided loyalties"(with an internal hierarchal order of importance). And there is the emotional/irrational in every individual's political inclination and behaviour. The latter is often dismissed in any "political theory".
It all started with the French
This guy should listen to Matt Christman sometime
Liberals and conservatives are both right of centre. What we’ve experienced over decades is the neo-neo debate. Neo-conservatism versus neo-liberalism. By contrast, the political left, at its core is concerned with anti-capitalism.
Wrong. The political “left”, per the origins of left/right orientations in the French Revolution are those who sit “to the left of the king”. They are characterized by a desire for revolution; an overturning of the established status quo (economic, social, political and even spiritual).
@@m0ckingB1rd42 That’s what I said. Although arguably the political orientations of the 17th-19th Centuries may not be as applicable in the 21st Century. For example Eco-Socialists and Eco-Fascists have shared opponents in Libertarians, Liberals, and Techno-Optimists. Yet Social Democrats, Bio-Conservatives and Greens have more in common with each other than with any of the others.
History & culture aside for a moment; On my side of the pond, a more current description could be ‘societal values’ vs ‘individuals’ values’. This bridges some of the typical “anger”, and none is “wrong” vs each other. In a ‘developed’ society (unless one posits there isn’t one…), both value sets coexist.
This should not be a question of ‘state’ vs ‘individual’, as both far right and far left leaders have weaponised ‘the state’ against its citizens. State communism and corporate power fascism share more traits than what separates them - for ordinary people. The opposite would rather be _anarchy_ which also exists as an idea on both fringes.
Socialism as an ideology (caveats for its practice) reveals its etymology, the word ‘social’. After all, we are “social creatures”? Ponder that as a value - before thinking politics…👍
Age old story. Divide and conquer.
Estos señores olvidan la faz agónica de la política, su lado de lucha y conflicto. El marxismo es izquierda, y condena como derecha todo lo que no sea marxismo. Esto sucede en Sudamérica porque la derecha tiene mala prensa. Además la extrema izquierda cuenta con la invaluable ayuda de la Iglesia Católica.
La metáfora de la "medicina" que estos señores usan es totalmente equivocada.
I am what most people call a conservative, actually a classical liberal. I loath Donald Trump, and I would vote for any reasonable alternative. But there is no reasonable alternative that can win. Trump is no conservative. Voting for Trump is cutting my arm off, voting for Biden is cutting my head off. I will not vote anyway since in Illinois the fix is in.
ps. Ranked choice voting of some form might eliminate the pitfalls of a multi-party system and build coalition. If you need minimum 50%, you have to build consensus.
Or, broaden the choices all the way by leaving decisions in the hands of the individuals. Why channel decision making into government hands at all?
@@The430philosopher Because people are as easily stampeded as sheep? "...were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other law-giver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." Thomas Paine
@@paineite "Because people are as easily stampeded as sheep."
Exactly why we should put as little power into collective hands as possible. People are still going to gather into factions, but without state power they can be balanced by other factions.
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
People are fighting for control of the levers of power. Disperse the power.
One side buys national parks to save the environment and protect the indians, using tax dollars. The other side uses tax dollars to "protect national park infrastructure" while they both allow immigrant cheap labor. Now what do you think this was all really about? Figure it out.
Where does the constitution fit in here, ie freedom of speech?. Pro constitution, anti constitution…. But you certainly make a case for a third party and mor choice on the ballot.
Neither left or right is basically right to paraphrase Marx.
in other words the superficial analysis appeals to right wingers probably.
We clearly need a proportional representation system with a dozen parties.
Like Italy eh? No we need a better educated and a better engage public.
@@AndyJarman we have in the US a single Business War Party with two factions which agree completely on corporate friendly, worker repressive neoclassical bourgeoisie economics and imperialist war policies through support of the military industrial congressional complex. Given that between 30% and 50% of the citizens have rejected the dystopian lie of choosing the lesser of two evils and is independent, the oligarchic electoral system requires far more reform than the public.
We need Ranked Choice Voting
---------- How Dual Brain Psychology Affects Our Politics.
.
Most of us experience complete dominance, meaning that one hemisphere or the other completely dominates our brain’s contribution to consciousness. Complete dominance divides us into two distinct groups, creating the basis of polarization.
.
By comprehending the split-brain’s influence on our perspective and response we learn what is dividing us and with this are able to create a mental roadmap to end our divisions. Our tendency is to want to educate those on the other side of the argument, but in most cases, others feel the same way about us.
.
Thus, if you find yourself on one side or the other, know that you are part of the problem.
NO! Science disproved the hippy-dippy star-child nonsense of "hemi-spherism" many decades ago!
No one thinks left/right is about change. Being on the left has always been understood to mean favoring people who are perceived as disempowered, disadvantaged, or both; being somewhat to the right means being nominally neutral (which amounts to favoring the oppressor); and being definitely on the right means believing that order should actively be created or maintained. Insofar as people focus on existing hierarchies, being on the left correlates with favoring change. In the last few decades, though, past attempts to mitigate disadvantage have been eroding, so being on the left has meant trying to protect the surviving remnants of programs from the New Deal and Great Society eras. Socially, being on the left meant trying to uphold case law including Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas; as well as trying to uphold the very concept of rights as something that applies to everyone (including the disadvantaged), in contrast to privileges that come from rank, wealth, or conformity.
In more optimistic times, fools imagined that the arc of history would bend toward justice. So it was assumed that favoring justice would usually mean speeding up change. But justice was always the core of the left/right concept, and change was only ever a correlate.
Different people have different ideas about what advantages or disadvantages are most important. People supposedly acting in the name of the disadvantaged have often been self-serving. Different rationalizations for opposing justice have been prominent at different times. So there's some variation. But the core of the left/right distinction has always been some variant of justice versus some excuse for injustice.
Meanwhile, no one has ever said that politics is only about left versus right. Sectional, religious, and ethnic concerns have always been present. Even different actual beliefs about what's efficient and effective have occasionally made it through the noise. But left/right has always been one thread in politics, and it has become more prominent since the interstate highway system diluted the effects of regionalism, and since the advent of mass communication (culminating in the era of three-network television) diluted some of the cultural distinctions.
The main driver of the political spectrum in the U.S. is emphasis on using the coercive vs. the redistributive powers of the state. That's why someone who wants to use the criminal justice system to reduce abortions is also more likely to favor tax cuts. That's why people are willing to overlook moral failings in their leaders but not in their opponents' leaders.
We need nothing short of a political reformation. 🤔
People should be hesitant in pushing for change. Rather than using bad to determine what needs changing we should use broken, dysfunctional, or obsolete
Something you view as bad you should take a 2nd look at from the perspective of what about it works? How much worse off would we be if it didn't work at all. Who would be in pain if it stopped working?
What would be the difference between what you would consider good vs it's current state. Who would be better off? Would anyone be worse off?
Change will always cause some one pain
To replace an old system with a new one. You're removing the organic that had gone through trial and error over time to becomei increasingly fit to all needs & maximally fine tuned
Propaganda dressed up as intellectualism 😂
This is commercialized, “Both siding it” or “enlightened centrism.” additionally, nowhere are these historians contending with the veracity of these participants' claims or feelings based on an objective standard.
Unfortunately they are doubling down on this. It’s a sort of denial by radicals to assuage people who have to live with their agenda. It’s Kyrsten Sinema’s mother ship.
That human beings can hold multiple opposing views at the same time is well documented in psychology, and a blurring of issues defined as liberal or conservative crossing party lines is increasing with more and more politicians. The problem gentleman, is your important research and conclusions are out of date, if not oversimplified. One no longer has the same rights or privileges to engage in debate, or exchange ideas openly and freely. Institutions built over several decades, once trusted, no matter one's political or social views, have become polarized, i.e., financial, educational, governmental, etc. Keep giving your talks, that is good, really. But hopefully you will reevaluate . . . before you are cancelled.
It's wrong to assume that the validity of the spectrum depends on consistency in policy issues. Different circumstances cause people to take different positions. A Communist for example might want the U.S. to go to war to protect the Soviet Union in 1941, but oppose a U.S. war against the Communists in Vietnam in the 1960s. That doesn't mean that Communism is meaningless.
I've always thought the idea of liberalism being left wing is absurd. The Liberal party here in Australia is considered to be the party of private business (right), the Labour party is considered the party of the employee (left).
To me the complexion of political views is a reflection of the degree to which the state interferes with people's private lives, including private business.
Democratic Socialists would be far left, whereas Libertarian democrats would be far right.
In political terms 'liberal' has no useful meaning.
Here in the UK, 19th-century Liberals were in favor of free trade and represented the emerging industrialists. (Conservatives at that time were land-owners who wanted controls on cheap imports of food and were losing power to the industrialists.) By the 1980s, however 9and to this day) Uk Liberals are sometimes even more left-wing than Labour.
While in the USA 'Liberal' is on the left, in Australia and Japan they are nearer to the 19th century definition.
The word is, therefore, largely useless in defining anything in politics.
The only people who don't accept this are Liberals!
@@oakbellUK except that if you do not adhere to liberal principles you are not adhering to democracy.
Without commitment to open debate and persuasion of public opinion you are dictatorial and authoritarian, not liberal.
I understand that the Democratic party in the US and the Liberal party in the UK have abandoned their liberal principles and joined the ranks of the Socialists, but if we claim conservatism is not liberal, and is somehow a counter to liberalism we have lost the ability to talk about principles of political ideology.
Left and right are terms which were designed to distinguish between degrees of radical reformation in revolutionary France, BUT, if we continue to maintain that right wing is merely the retention of aspects of feudalism we are sunk. That is a description of Toryism, not conservatism.
Conservatism as "socialism with the brakes on" is not Toryism.
A clearer idea of what the debate between right and left wing philosophies in liberal democracy is needed in order for the distinction to have any meaning.
A good exploration of the development of a left right dialectic in history has been given by the TIK history channel in his video "Public Versus Private".
Extreme left is maximum state intervention aimed at the protection of the weak, and less able.
Extreme right is absolute minimum state intervention or Libertarianism.
The political discourse MUST be protected.
There MUST be
- equal application of laws to ALL citizens.
- guarantees of free speech, no censure, no curtailment of opinions
- sovereignty of the individual.
The Westminster parliament website currently proclaims parliament is sovereign. This is simply not true and is evidence of the government's tendancy to assume more and more control and authority over time.
This is unlawful and illiberal and only possible because the "slang" meanings of words have been assumed to be correct.
The legal system has identified the adoption of "slang" meanings is problematic. Consequently the legal system uses it's own dictionary - Blacks Dictionary.
Unfortunately this protection of the language has led to peculiar arcane conversations and principles becoming the stock and trade of the lawyer and the loss of contact between the citizenry and their political discourse.
TIK history You Tube channel is exquisitely well referenced and well informed and can be used to reset the conversation vis-à-vis the idea of a dichotomy of ideas with a single liberal system of government.
www.commonlawconstitution.org/
Western society is a liberal society. There is a left and right wing of this society. The left by it's nature constantly pulls farther forward while the right acts as a brake of sort.
But if it’s true as the speakers said that left and right sometimes change positions then who’s the gas pedal and who’s the brake.
@@januarysson5633
The political parties have changed positions for sure, but left and right is always left and right. The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was a progressive leftist party. Left is progressive in our society regardless of the party that is left at the time. The “right” always acts as a slowdown mechanism.
My view, entirely. Not easily understood by most people who vote in America.
Omg FINALLY
Yo creo, por el contrario, que la negación de la diferencia de izquierda u derecha favorece mucho al marxismo, es decir, a la extrema izquierda.
De que manera?
We have left or right.
The rulers have
left and right.
Can't fight Mike Tyson
with one fist.
This is really superficial. Being “left” or “right” fundamentally comes down to something far more evolutionary than just mere shifts in attitudes. The personality and moral psychology research is really clear about this: the left is more egalitarian and the right is more hierarchical. You can trace this cross-culturally. You don’t need the labels to empirically see this pattern. They’re also totally leaving out Ancient Greece and Rome, where you have the Democrats and Oligarchs in Greece and the Optimates and Populares in Rome.
I would like to hear an educated explanation of how one form of totalitarian socialism (Russian) came to be known as "left wing", whereas a modified version of the same totalitarian Socialism came to be known as "right" wing (German).
They were both statist, anti liberal, and used the Marxist "oppressed- vs-oppressor" narrative to garner support from the majority group.
its a common misconception that the nazis were in any way socialist. they called themselves national socialist because they wanted the vote of the workers, but did not implement any real socialist policies ( nazis supported for privatisation of companies rather than collectivization ) and were incredibly anti-communist. some of their ideology was inspired by the american colonial project - what they called leibensraum. read about the transformation of marxism to leninism and leninsm to stalinism and you will realize that the "left wing" is really the side of self-critique and try to understand the way in which american politics has misconstrewed the term "liberalism" from its ideological roots by equating the republican party and democratic party to these sides
The term "socialism" was apparently applied by Lenin and his functionaries to his totalitarianism. The misapplication was then used by capitalists to misrepresent socialism. I found this enlightening: th-cam.com/video/jxhT9EVj9Kk/w-d-xo.html
That is a deep question. It's kind of to be expected, because Nazis lost the war, and western intellectuals and journalists (those who write history) all leaned left. However, the question becomes more complex once we dig into the details, because there are indeed good reasons to call them right-wing. Perhaps the most powerful of those reasons is that they defined themselves in opposition to Marxists, and they did differ from them in policy: they embraced top-down hierarchies, for example, and while Marxists did too in practice, they used the excuse that that was temporary, and that they really wanted a classless society. Marxists were hostile to businesses, and while Nazis did take control of industries, it wasn't any stated principle of their ideology to do so. Marxists were internationalists and Nazis were nationalists. Marxists clamored for democracy while destroying it, and Nazis demonized democracy but they did climb to power through elections and didn't want any kind of popular revolution. In the end, they were both totalitarian, but they were approaching that end state from different perspectives.
I don't know, man. Anti-abortion and tax cuts map pretty well onto basic rights and responsibilities of the individual.
No doubt lots of people are in it because of Social factors, but acting like there's no philosophical basis for these ideas is pretty suspect.
If you’re saying that being anti-abortion automatically selects for a position in favor of tax cuts, I don’t agree. Someone could be anti-abortion but in favor of higher taxes because they would acknowledge the need for more social services in a population that was rising due to abortion not being available. It may not be the position most anti-abortion believers take but it is not logically inconsistent. It is actually consistent with Catholic social teaching.
It is not logically necessary that someone being anti-abortion be pro-tax hikes if that is the opposite case. That is actually the paired position of most people on the left.
This a Kabbalah lecture ..?!
Absolute trash. Left is always towards equality, and right is always towards hierarchy.
A person can be left on one issue and right on another. No problem.
The bolshevics were towards equality (left), but using authoritarian means to get it (right). Lenin even talked shit about people he called "ultra-leftists," who thought they could achieve socialism without the authoritarian methods that he supported.
This video would have made perfect sense if it was about democrats and republicans because those titles dont really mean anything. The democrat party is not a leftist party.
My explanation of this is not controversial. It is the normal explanation in political science. The explanations they use in this video are strawmen.
If you think you have an issue that de-bunks my simple explanation, let me know and ill explain.
Of course, there is truth within this approach, and I have a lot of sympathy for it, but its problem is the attempt to ahistorisize politics.
Take an example given about the linking of anti-abortion and low taxes. Of course, it is correct that it is possible to find ppl who don't agree with one thing or the other, but will cast their vote for Republican party to codify one of those issues, but what they seem to leave out is how those issues ended up under the same political banner.
Denying the left-right split is such a right-wing thing to do. 😸
How so?
@@keto0303 The global left is very much defeated. It is therefore in the interest of the right to obscure the left-right split, so people don't choose between the left or the right but between the liberal right or the conservative right, the national right or the globalist right.
No! People in every group of your “sacred” spectrum deny and rebuke it, except the ideologically captured far left - which is both illiberal and anti-enlightenment. If you really think this spectrum holds up, or ever did, you may embody every trope of the far left Gnostic political religion. The Nazi’s for example were far left on almost every salient criterion, but once their wickedness was manifest, the far left had distinguish themselves from the evil, distinguish the communists in the Soviet Union (like pushing Potemkin villages and denying the holodomor in NYT and winning a Pulitzer for it - and they grifted on the war propaganda of only a few years earlier which modeled the war as liberal (Allie’s) v fascists (axis); Which is incoherent as the Soviets certainly weren’t liberal, imperial Japan certainly wasn’t fascist, and the National socialist German workers party also wasn’t actually fascist. They mocked the fascists in Italy and forced them to implement chauvinistic domestic policies to retain protection). This left/right spectrum is a creation for the subversive goals of radical leftists - divide and conquer, “otherize” and promote tribalism. Please consider thinking independently, with critical thought and standards of application and evaluation. And realize the news you likely watch isn’t informing you, but priming, propagandizing, deceiving, and programming you in the interests of their own avarice, cupidity and ideological goals. The actual paradigm is far more intelligible as establishment uniparty globalists V Americans seeking to restore/protect/fully realize our Constitutional values and principles. Simply, where do you stand on the iron law of oligarchy? Do you welcome it, or seek to stop through reform to better realize our rights, responsibilities, values and liberties.
@@exandil6029I understand what you are saying, but historically, this is what always happens - because the far left is exposed as corrupt, self-interested and power obsessed (they don’t love the poor they hate the rich, until they’re the richest & most powerful). But no doubt the far left holds the institutional power over the left/right paradigm. Their trick is to take radical far leftists who go too far and get exposed doing it, and rebrand them as far right. It’s so absurd, that often, far leftists suddenly become far-right the moment they become violent, imperial and/or chauvinistic (labeled as nationalism most often, or some “ist” or “phobe”). First instance, it’s almost unintelligible to classify the national socialist German workers party as far right. Hitler literally saw himself as instituting the actual intended version of totalizing socialism - which he saw as corrupted by Jews. He never saw himself as a fascist, and aside from war propaganda lumping him in that category, it was really a propaganda mission of far left socialists and communists on the west to place the Nazis on the far left, to protect their own ideology from the Nazi’s tarnish. Similarly, look at what’s happened to many of the most ardent hippies from the 60’s, they “sold out” and became the globalist managerial elite dedicated to centralized power and a neo-fascist structure which fully binds the public corporation with the public government. In essence, The end of the private. And if you study the neo-fascist globalists of today, they’re always working with the far left and progressive NGO’s, activists, non-profits. Clearly they’ve joined forces. DEI was but one collaboration. In essence there really isn’t any difference. Is the same tribal cult seemingly divided into managers/administrators, or the subversives who create chaos and power vacuums which the managers/administrators then fill. I’ll add that this trickery requires deceiving countless individuals at the bottom to perpetuate the false divide to enable the “divide and conquer” tactic.
Clearly, this person didn't actually listen and decide for him/her/it self. Choosing a basket illustrated.
16:18 Haha and then what you just just did was take a highly complex phenomena like Astrology and reduce it to one question: what is your Sun Sign? I'm sorry but there is A LIT more to Astrology than that...
Presenters boring, impressed w themselves and redundant.
title should read "Low T nerds explain politics"
The Left and Right labels can work alright if used in a grounded, historical and ontological sense but it becomes a problem when put into idealistic, abstract and teleological terms as is increasingly the case on both sides of the aisle.
This speaker is heavy on sophistry, misstating political science facts, and sounds like a religious creationist video.
The straw-man framing & overall dishonesty is gross, such as
In reality the Left direction indicates an increased preference for egalitarianism, while Right indicates preference for hierarchy.
This is some of the dumbest s*** I've ever heard