NationStates Jolt Archive

This has bothered me for quite some time, and with the recent election and the growing division of the nation in wich I currently hang my hat, it has become appalling to me at just how many people cling to the delusion of the Right versus Left political scale.

In the short time I've been here, I'ave already seen many references to this one dimensional scale of politics. People label themselves and others as either liberals or conservatives, but those words have lost all real-world meaning. Those that label themselves tend to do so based on what candidate or political party they support, but when it comes to labelling others, the definition changes to whether or not the person being labled agrees with them on a given topic.

The lines are further blurred with the fact that not all candidates reflect the traditional values of the parties they represent. Look at the division in America's Republican party, between conservatives and the so-called neo-conservatives. These ideologies hang their hat under the same label, Republican, and yet espouse very different values.

The Right versus Left scale of politics assumes that there are only two sides to the coin, with maybe a couple third party 'moderates' that swing Right or Left, but are basically watered down versions of the two main sides. The scale itself invites the political division currrently aflicting the United States, and since it is hammered into every citizen from the moment they learn to speak this political fiction has become a twisted reality where it seems the majority of citizens do not question the assumed fact that there really are only 2 sides to the issues.

I don't like calling myself liberal for that very reason...I just say left, so that people have an inkling of where I may stand on certain issues. When I want to make my position clear, I do so, without relying on a party line or a particular ideology. My political beliefs have arisen out of much thought and debate, and I wouldn't give ownership of those beliefs over to any party or term:).

Yep, generalizations are silly. People do tend to fall into the categories as they are often defined, but there are many that don't fit as a "Conservative" or a "Liberal"... at least not in certain issues. Can't a "liberal" say, for example, that Iraq is a just war because it frees people to define their own nation (Liberates them... after all liberation is a root for Liberal)? And can't a "Conservative" say that it's a bad idea because it destabilizes the nation, and even the worst dictator is better than anarchy?

People have no problem confining themselves with labels just as long as they feel like, or it appears that, they belong to a group. Why do you think political parties are so popular, when there is really little difference between them.

While there may be very little difference between the two main American parties, there can be huge differences in their candidates for certain offices. Again I point to the wide divide between the so-called neo-conservatives and those we traditionally label as convervatives.

Yet those who lump themselves into the right/republican/conservative crowd will go right ahead and support a candidate that is nearly the exact opposite in ideology of almost every Republican candidate before him.

And how many so-called liberals really hold with the Democratic party?

What about third parties? Almost everyone I know who support the Libertarian party tends to be labled as Liberals, but doesn't the Libertarian party represent an extreme of traditionally right-wing ideologies?

Even economic plans tend to be labled as liberal or conservative. Isn't that counter productive? Shouldn't we be looking at what works, and what doesn't instead?

What I find interesting, after taking an American Govt Poli Sci class, is that there are two types of liberalism/conservatism- social and fiscal. In the US, according to the two-party system if you're socially liberal (for immigrant's rights, pro-choice, environmentalist, etc), if you vote for a major party which agrees with you on this, (Democrats), you'll be voting for fiscal liberalism as well- increased services for higher taxes. What about those of us who are socially liberal, fiscally conservative? Or vice versa, of course. According to the above-mentioned class, as people are more educated, this is the way they tend to lean, and vice versa. Seems to me the only way to solve this is to have some kind of multi-party system.

While there may be very little difference between the two main American parties, there can be huge differences in their candidates for certain offices. Again I point to the wide divide between the so-called neo-conservatives and those we traditionally label as convervatives.

Yet those who lump themselves into the right/republican/conservative crowd will go right ahead and support a candidate that is nearly the exact opposite in ideology of almost every Republican candidate before him.

And how many so-called liberals really hold with the Democratic party?

What about third parties? Almost everyone I know who support the Libertarian party tends to be labled as Liberals, but doesn't the Libertarian party represent an extreme of traditionally right-wing ideologies?

Even economic plans tend to be labled as liberal or conservative. Isn't that counter productive? Shouldn't we be looking at what works, and what doesn't instead?

Libertarianism (which I find a bit extreme, but which I think should be given a chance, if that's what the public wants) fits the fiscally conservative, socially liberal (in terms of constitutional rights) scenario I mentioned.

What I find interesting, after taking an American Govt Poli Sci class, is that there are two types of liberalism/conservatism- social and fiscal. In the US, according to the two-party system if you're socially liberal (for immigrant's rights, pro-choice, environmentalist, etc), if you vote for a major party which agrees with you on this, (Democrats), you'll be voting for fiscal liberalism as well- increased services for higher taxes. What about those of us who are socially liberal, fiscally conservative? Or vice versa, of course. According to the above-mentioned class, as people are more educated, this is the way they tend to lean, and vice versa. Seems to me the only way to solve this is to have some kind of multi-party system.


Socially liberal, fiscally conservative -> libertarian. And yes, a multiparty (where "multi" doesn't mean "two plus a bunch you never hear of plus Nader who runs on who knows what but it's probably ego") is needed.

What about those of us who are socially liberal, fiscally conservative?
Then you vote for Jesse Ventura. :D

Ventura 2008!

Those that label themselves tend to do so based on what candidate or political party they support, but when it comes to labelling others, the definition changes to whether or not the person being labled agrees with them on a given topic.
Damn straight. As a non-US voter it irritates the hell out of me.

Yet those who lump themselves into the right/republican/conservative crowd will go right ahead and support a candidate that is nearly the exact opposite in ideology of almost every Republican candidate before him.

And how many so-called liberals really hold with the Democratic party?

Yeah, I've noticed that nearly all US conservatives are very enthusiastic about the nearest Republican candidate.

American liberals, on the other hand, seem often to support Democrat candidates not because they're so enthusiastic about them but because they're not as bad as the Republicans.

Perhaps this is more justification to the idea that a Republic like the United States really does need a political process that encourages more than simply two parties to carry the nation.

That's not to say that such a change will completely do away with those who cast their vote for a candidate that does not at all represent their personal beliefs. We will always have those who cast their votes blindly, without actually acquainting themselves with the issues, or the stances the candidates take on them.

But also, simply changing the rhetoric away from this unrealistic 2 sided scale would probably help a lot. They say that a society's intelligence and way of thinking is limited by their language. If the language of politics espouses the right/left way of thinking then many will simply go right along with it. After all, there are no words to convey anything different.

So what kind of solution do you propose to this, if you don't even like third parties?

All generalizations are false . . . but uh . . . . eer . . . .

I'm a bit confused by your question, The Senates, who is it that does not like third parties?