It's worth remembering that one advantage right-side politics have is that they are passionate for the status quo. Left-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement; it's much easier for lefties to disagree about what kind of change they want, than for righties to disagree about how they want things to stay the same...
This is an odd view. Right wing politics in the US claims to lean toward reducing/dismantling SS and the welfare state, radically changing immigration and education policy. (In reality they are prevented from doing this, of course.) In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.
In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.
That's not quite it. They're also perceived to be for the expansion of government, more spying, less local and state autonomy, fewer guns, more regulation of businesses, more taxes, more diversity, more equal redistribution of wealth, and less prosecution of criminals.
(Now, we'll ignore that on at least the last three points, that's patently false, because their supporters and backers have no interest in such things.)
The thing that is probably biggest difference, though, is the way the two sides' members treat each other. I'd say that the right-wing folks view the other side with fear, because they're worried that they'll ruin everything. Their talking heads tend to treat the left with outright hostility and use very nationalistic notes and basically try to show that while they are the enemy, they are a legitimate enemy.
The left seems to view the opposition as backwards and deserving of contempt, as a group of bumpkins and idiots and sometimes subhuman. Their talking heads tend to appeal to how smart the reader/viewer is for following the party line, and espouse philosophies that require a strict adherence to lest one be considered ignorant and hence non-left.
It's hard to side with the left, for me anyways, because they seem to encourage a sort of arbitrary and baseless smugness I've never seen in the right. And that's unfortunate, because change is needed and some of their positions are unquestionably correct.
> The left seems to view the opposition as backwards and deserving of contempt,
> as a group of bumpkins and idiots and sometimes subhuman.
This.
John Oliver, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert each have an amazing ability to use humor/satire as a way to make a point. But I can't hardly watch This Week Tonight without feeling like he's portraying "the other side" in exactly this light. And it's a gimmick. A cheap way to put your viewpoint on display without actually lending any credence to anything your opponent would say (would it be fair to call this tactic an Ad Hominem?).
The sad part is, I get the impression that the generation who are now in their 20's and 30's have grown up knowing only this kind of "political discourse". They don't recognize that by sheltering their ideas from opposition in this way their viewpoints remain intellectually weak and stunted.
"radically changing immigration and education policy." => "making it so that the current demographic makeup doesn't change that much". Right-wing reforms of this kind aren't about the legislative change, but about keeping society itself relatively unchanged. Rate of reform isn't calculated in number of laws passed, but in the societal effects of those laws.
When right wing types poison-pilled Bush's amnesty bill, they didn't try to protect the current democratic makeup. They merely tried to shift the balance of new immigrants to be more conservative (more educated, more Eastern Europe, less Mexico). And again, reducing dependency on the state and radically changing the education system is hardly a matter of preserving things the way they are.
Put it this way - given a choice, which would you prefer? Allow no new laws to be passed for 8 years, or give Republicans an 8 year supermajority and a mandate to make any changes they liked? If you are right that they merely want to keep things static, you should be indifferent.
> Right wing politics in the US claims to lean toward reducing/dismantling SS and the welfare state, radically changing immigration and education policy.
That's not generally true. Right wing politics usually claims its for the first two things, and one form of the last, but generally opposes substantial reforms of immigration policy in favor of more stringent enforcement of existing laws.
> In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.
Incorrect. "Liberal" politicians in the US favor substantial reforms to immigration policy, healthcare policy (though perhaps less so at the moment, given that they recently achieved a fairly major restructuring in that domain, though there are plenty that would drive further), and, in many cases, reforms to the structure of SS, welfare state systems, and taxation structure. In a very different direction than right-wing politicians seek to change them.
"My side favors [nuanced, detailed presentation of my faction's views], while the other side favors [simplistic nonsense presented as the other side's view]."
The only problem with this theory is that the right wing is not "my side". Browse my history - you'll see me favoring things like open borders while opposing nationalism and religion. Kind of the opposite of what I said right wing sorts favor. Similarly, I described Modi as favoring big change, but that doesn't mean I support Hindutva (I'm a non-Hindu foreigner, that would be pretty silly).
I'm a left winger who takes the stated basic principles of the old left (individual rights, equal treatment), and I eschew the cognitive dissonance necessary to support every left leaning special interest group. I.e., I'm a heretic, not an infidel.
I agree that it's incorrect to say that right wing politics are specifically about maintaining the status quo, but that does tend to be the effect of their policies, regardless of how much they change the law "lines of code" style, as pointed out by a sibling post.
But what right wing politics are about is maintaining the social order. Ensuring that wealth stays with the wealthy, power remains with the powerful, and making people content with both their own place in society and the places of others (particularly their 'betters'). Dismantling SS, keeping illegal immigrants illegal, cheap, and vulnerable as well as avoiding a flood of legal immigrants who will take 'native' jobs, and controlling education policy all achieve these goals. As does advocating for less progressive taxes to avoid distribution of wealth away from top earners.
Making right wing politics all about shrinking government is putting the cart before the horse. Shrinking government is not in itself a useful goal, it's the outcomes of that shrinkage, and what you shrink, that are the goal. Starving the beast is just how you get there.
On the contrary, right wing politics seem to be about replacing the current social order. Currently academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents. This is the status quo.
Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers, business leaders and those who embody traditional christian values. That's a real change in the status quo.
Your description of reality here is almost diametrically opposed to any reality I've ever experienced. The idea that elevating business leaders and people with christian values is something that alters the status quo, in particular, seems particularly absurd -- their influence on the social order is practically apex.
I'd also be really curious to hear why you think they're in support of 'workers', to which I assume you mean something different from a normal definition of 'working class'. I'm not really aware of any right wing political policy that works in their favour.
But all of that aside, you again conflate changing the status quo with changing the social order. Obviously the right wing seeks some kind of change in the status quo (else why organize at all), but that change is to reinforce the social order or establish one that is in line with their views. The fact that you're talking about elevating a particular class of people is in itself a right wing, social-order oriented, concept.
Left wing politics are generally about dismantling social order altogether -- not just the current one, but the very existence of one. You can easily argue about how successful they've been, especially in the more radical efforts, but that remains their pie-in-the-sky goal. You may also argue with the idea that such a thing is even possible. That is itself a right wing axiom.
> academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order
Those are some of the least paid and least powerful professions in society. Academics just have loud voices that no one listens to.
> Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers
That's why the right wing supports increasing the minimum wage, unions, and regulating industry exploitation of employees. /sarcasm. The left wing has pretty much been pro-workers since the left wing was invented in 1789 France.
"Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents." [Emphasis added]
Interesting --maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim. Can you clarify what you mean by "occupy a strong position in the social order", and outline your evidence for such a belief?
Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting.
On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out that about half the population is at least partly dependent on the government, or how right wing politicians are described as "attacking" teachers when they propose anything the educational establishment dislikes.
Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?
> Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are.
I've yet to see any policy sold under that banner that had any reason to believe it would achieve that end: all have either been proposals to increase the degree of arbitrary latitude granted elected politicians and appointed administrators and/or policies imposing measures as standards that have no demonstrated validity as measuring teacher performance as distinct from other factors that might affect the students in that teacher's classroom, including (particularly) the degree of administrative support for that teacher. Usually, most proposals have included both of those features.
I haven't opposed them because teachers oppose them -- though no doubt they do -- I oppose them because I am opposed to wasting public money on measures that have no rational expectation of success and I am opposed to decreasing accountability for school administrators.
> Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?
The latter with well-deserved derision from much of the public (and plenty of support from most of the right, probably), the former would depend on the specifics -- plenty of functions teachers have done have been partially replaced by machines over the years with broad support.
Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services.
I'm sure many people of a certain ideological stripe feel as though they're somehow self-reliant and do not rely on anything any level of government provides, but that does not mesh with reality.
As for shaming people on welfare, I'm again unsure which country you're describing. First, "welfare" (i.e. as a cash grant) hasn't existed in the U.S. in close to 20 years. Second, people who do receive some sort of subsidized food or housing are very nearly universally looked down upon. They're not held in any esteem whatsoever now. Do you think it would be reasonable, or make any kind of policy sense, to shame them further? If so, why?
Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services.
He means net payments to/from the government, not using the roads.
It is my understanding that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a cash benefit. Do you not consider TANF in the U.S. to be "welfare" in the form of a cash grant?
Ah ok, thank you. If I understood correctly, you take "occupy a strong position in the social order" to mean a group's strong enfranchisement and entrenchement, up to the point of closure within the political culture (in the Almond-Verba technical sense of the term).
My only quibble with treating "welfare recipients" as a group is it conflates two quite heterogeneous groups of people: seniors/retirees in one hand, and disabled people plus medicaid/food aid/SCHIP recipients on the other. The former do account for the majority of welfare spending and quite justifiably fit (my understanding of) your definition of "strong position in the social order" in the sense of strong enfranchisement; but the latter hardly do.
I am not sure which country you're describing. To say that "government dependents" "occupy a strong position in the social order" does not accurately describe the U.S. in any meaningful way.
There is a reason why I explicitly pointed out I was discussing the US. I'm pretty explicitly sticking to places I'm familiar with (USA, India).
But right wing types elsewhere in the world (e.g., Modi) are not exactly looking to preserve the status quo either. Hindutva (probably spelled wrong) is hardly about preserving the status quo, nor is economic liberalization, getting closer to the west or "toilets before temples".
"It's worth remembering that one disadvantage left-side politics have is that they are defending the status quo, and mounting such a defense is trench warfare, not a campaign that captures the hearts and minds of the next generation. By comparison, right-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement. But because the right is so far away from achieving its goals, the passions inside the movement aren't as heated. Also, the right tends to be suspicious of political correctness and ideological litmus tests."
I suspect if you hung around Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, etc. for a while, you'd find that they want to overturn the status quo on taxes (perhaps a flat tax), government spending (reduce significantly), third-tier government agencies not mentioned in the Constitution (abolish), abortion (overturn Roe v. Wade), obscenity and indecency (remember the horror called the Communications Decency Act?), religion (erode church/state barrier), United Nations (get U.S. out, or reduce dues), federal regulations (dramatically roll back), Obamacare (repeal), Second Amendment (enforce RTKBA post-Heller), voter ID, marriage, home schooling (defend), public schools (vouchers), and so on.
Look at the 1968 Democratic Party platform. It talked about Head Start, Upward Bound, more federal spending on education, Medicare expansion, creating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, more regulation of industry, increasing Social Security spending, etc. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29604]. It's been nearly half a century since then, and all those policies have been enshrined into law; the question today is not whether to eliminate them, but how much budgets will increase year-over-year.
Right-wing politics in the US say they want this, but actual right-wing behaviour has been to increase government spending significantly.
In any case, most of items in that paragraph are about rolling back progressive changes, rather than introducing new items. When I say 'status quo', I don't mean 'preserve a snapshot of modern society in January 2015', but returning society to an earlier version, and preventing social flux in order to keep it that way.
Each side has their own circular firing squad. Examples: Republicans sniping at each other and calling each other a RINO (Republican In Name Only), the Tea Party primarying mainstream politicians for not being conservative enough, etc.
I wonder if this is a reaction to Republican party politics of the last 20 years or so? They seem to speak with a single voice, even if that voice is usually saying stupid, hateful, regressive things. That they march in such lockstep is probably their greatest asset as a party, and I really don't know if it's something to be emulated or not (leaning toward 'not', though).
Conservatives, Republicans in particular, unlike the Left, when it comes time to vote, will put aside even major differences in order to crush what they consider to be the greater evil. After that, they get back to the usual internal skirmishes.
I would actually argue that the Left is far more ideologically consistent. The Right is badly split between the fiscal and the social conservatives; half of them couldn't care less about abortion and gay rights, and half of them couldn't care less about the economy. In contrast, while they disagree about how far left to go, the Left is mostly pretty consistent on the fundamentals of their platform.
I think that's more the fact that any leftists you can get to stay in a room together for five minutes without tearing each others throats out, will by necessity be ideologically consistent with each other.
I'm leftist, but I'm also pro-gun (how else to overthrow the ruling class, after all), and I think there are probably some innate gender differences in humans, much like there are in e.g. Sumatran orangutans. I wouldn't last two minutes in deBoer's class, and while I'm leftist, I could never be an ally of The Left.
