Thursday, April 30, 2015

Brief Note: Left and Right

Michael L.


More and more people tell me that I am "right-wing."

I am supposed to believe that this is a bad thing, something that intelligent and civilized people avoid.

"Right-winger" is basically an epithet.

I have noticed over the years - how could I not? - that merely criticizing the Left gets one docketed as a member of the Right.

Other people, more rational in my view, complain that the entire Left - Right way of viewing politics is both crude and counterproductive.  I sympathize.  The problem is linguistic and conceptual.  How does one discuss politics without reference to political standings upon a continuum?

The model within which people discuss politics is essentially a flat line.  It is crude.  It is this:

line

You are either on one side of this line or the other and, among many politically inclined people, just where you stand on that line tells us all that we need to know about your quality as a human being.

Of course, another more sophisticated way of looking at politics is not with a one-dimensional line, but with a two-dimensional grid.

political compass
Many of you are aware that politically inclined bloggers and activists sometimes go to this political compass test in order to figure out just where they stand on the political grid between the poles of Left versus Right and Authoritarian versus Libertarian.

I just took the test for the third time in almost ten years and yet I still end up hanging out with Gandhi.  I know that it is hard to fathom, but there it is.  Of course, I would only put so much credence into this test.  Nonetheless, if you are honest in your answers, it should probably give a broad general idea of where you stand politically according to the Left - Right / Authoritarian - Libertarian measure... which I think is as good a measure as any.

The thing of it is, though, and that which tends to irk me, is that when people call me "right-wing" it is usually not to actually criticize my views, but to marginalize them.

When I criticize the Left it is not to marginalize the Left, because I come out of the Left.

When I criticize the Left, including the Jewish Left, it is because I have honest criticisms.

The Jewish Left, as a whole, has failed to honestly grapple with the question of political Islam.

The Jewish Left, as a whole, often whips up hatred toward their fellow Jews who live in Judea and Samaria, i.e., the so-called settlers.

The Jewish Left is generally weak and, therefore, tends to mainly play defense.

The Jewish Left often buys into the "moral equivalency canard."

The Jewish Left buries Jewish history.

And so forth.

These criticisms are criticisms, and as such, they may be fair or not.  They may be true or not.  They may be worthwhile or not.  But these are among the criticisms that I have tended to develop over the years.

They are honest criticisms.  The links above go to pieces that I have written in the past concerning such issues.  Those pieces are not, and were not meant to be, full-blown academic analyses, obviously.  They are merely pointers, one might say.  Or even musings, but I believe that they are honest and worthwhile of consideration.

However, when I get lambasted as a "right-winger" it is rarely to actually criticize my views.

When I get called a "right-winger" it is because the caller wants the reader to dismiss my views.

It is not criticism.

It is defamation meant to marginalize.

43 comments:

  1. I also want this understood that it is not a criticism of Pitt.

    Pitt is a friend to this site and his criticisms are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I second that. One thing I have always liked about this blog is the commonality of pro-Israel sentiment AND the bi-partisan atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I scored a -9.0/-4.1 on that test

    I do whole-heartedly agree with you on some things:

    The Jewish Left, as a whole, has failed to honestly grapple with the question of political Islam.

    The Jewish Left, as a whole, often whips up hatred toward their fellow Jews who live in Judea and Samaria, i.e., the so-called settlers.

    The Jewish Left is generally weak and, therefore, tends to mainly play defense.

    The Jewish Left often buys into the "moral equivalency canard."

    The Jewish Left buries Jewish history.

    The problem is that to escape the trappings that the Jewish left has fallen into, one can NOT abdicate our responsibility to those less fortunate as we are commanded.

    By this I mean, situations that have caused the riots in Baltimore.

    There is a huge difference between that and trying to make peace with ESTABLISHED ENEMIES of Israel (i.e. "palestinians", Iran,etc.)

    I would just caution when you run from the honest failures of the Jewish left, that you don't run into and embrace the hard right wing! (And when disgusted by how the left sells out the Jewish people, it can sometimes seem very appealing to embrace that hard right)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Jewish Left versus the hard right wing. Is there anything on the right that isn't "hard" to a progressive? Are progressives "hard" as well?

      Delete
    2. Yes, there is a very wide middle ground.

      Delete
    3. Where does the "hard" part of the left and right start?

      Are progressives "hard" left?

      Delete
    4. I would just caution when you run from the honest failures of the Jewish left, that you don't run into and embrace the hard right wing!

      To expound upon this...

      When I was posting here about my disgust with Obama on his foreign policy, someone made a comment about embracing the right.

      I told them that I just found Obama and certain parts of the left as slimy as I do the right.

      According to dogma, a true hard core leftist would be 100% in favor of Obama due to his historic election victories.

      I, however, will insult Obama for his dealings with Israel. I will insult him for giving the Wall Street crowd a get-out-of-jail-free-card for their involvement in crashing the economy. Heck, they should have been brought up on charges of TREASON!

      I will give Obama credit and give him praise for his stance in making the LGBT community more equal under the law (work is still needed). I will give him credit for trying to fix the health care issues in America (yes, he didn't go far enough). I will give Obama credit for getting Osama Bin Laden.

      So, there is a huge middle ground whereby you can find fault with the left without embracing Michael Savage (a total worthless sellout), Hannity, and the entire Faux News crowd!

      Delete
    5. "The Jewish Left versus the hard right wing. Is there anything on the right that isn't "hard" to a progressive? Are progressives "hard" as well?"

      I love that!

      Delete
  4. Economic Left/Right: 2.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

    ReplyDelete
  5. A left that doesn't criticize itself honestly does not deserve to exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I criticize the left plenty - LOL

      Delete
    2. Criticizing also means to question whether or not the information on which perceptions are based is accurate.

      Delete
    3. I question things all the time.
      I generally distrust authority! :-)
      As such I always question things.

      Delete
    4. A left that doesn't criticize itself honestly is a dishonest left. There is a wealth of dishonesty on the left and a lot of denial.

      Delete
  6. Mike,
    You just had to put that darned scale up there. Now, I'm craving a Top Dog with mustard and kraut.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, I understand Authoritarian vs. Libertarian dimension (totalitarian state vs. individual liberty). What does the other (Right vs. Left) measure?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an excellent question, Jacob.

      My guess is economics.

      Delete
    2. Mike,

      On the test, you come out pretty much where the UK Green party are.

      As did I.

      Eek!

      Have you checked them out?

      Delete
    3. k, I was a Green party member at the end of the 90s... briefly.

      As for UK Greens, I am guessing that they are not huge fans of Jewish democracy.

      Delete
    4. That would be putting it mildly.
      They manage to outdo the Labour party.
      Which is saying something.

      They're very into boycotting etc. Very.

      They're venomously anti-Israel. And, I would say, there's ample evidence that they are anti-Semitic. Much like their Australian counterparts.

      ( And, there was David Icke...)

      Delete
    5. Which once again goes to show that anti-Semitism is beyond left vs. right.

      I notice the big 3, Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem are all firmly authoritarian right.

      Delete
    6. Jeff,

      The Labour party would be very upset to hear that they're considered to be on "the right". They tend to believe that they are very much "on the left".
      The Guardian has "come out" for Labour in today's edition. People who read the Guardian always think they are on the left. And very progressive. That's why they vote Labour. Or Green. ( Some of them vote Lib Dem - after the Coalition, that is less likely.)

      The progressive- left parties in the UK have become more and more authoritarian. They are constantly calling for things to be banned and criminalized. Freedom of speech, is out of fashion.
      Frighteningly.

      Delete
    7. Isn't Progressive someone who believes that society is perfectible, knows exactly how to perfect it, and believes in using coercive power of the state to achieve said perfection? They'd have to be authoritarian by definition.

      Delete
    8. Jacob,

      I'm sure Mike will weigh in on that with proper definitions. Far better than I could.

      But I think you have a very good point.

      Delete
    9. I'm a big fan of CIFWatch (now UKMediaWatch).
      "The Labour party would be very upset to hear that they're considered to be on "the right"."
      k, If Labour takes a look at the results at the test site they are going to getting very upset then. I think it would be fun to send a copy Shameless Milne.

      Delete
    10. Jacob and K, sorry about the lateness of the response.

      At the end of the 19th century in the US there was a political movement called "progressivism" and, yes, it certainly believed in progress. Progressivism was the child of abolitionism and the father of the New Deal. The term came into more popular use in recent times after the Reagan Revolution succesfully demonized "liberals" who then often came to refer to themselves as "progressive." It was the resurrecting of a term that never really went away to begin with.

      I know that sometimes it confuses non-Americans who wonder, within the American context, the distinctions between liberal, progressive, and Left.

      Political scienists differ, but generally speaking for most American political types the three words are more or less synonymous.

      The connotation of "progressive" is to the left of "liberal" but both are left leaning.

      Delete
  8. I like to take this every few years. I'm a little to the left of Gandhi. Just a little, though. ;)

    -7.25, -3.18

    ReplyDelete
  9. -4.38, -1.49

    But I really question the questions. I could have gone other ways on several for various reasons. Here's one that bothered the shit out of me: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Should I go by what they think it means, or what I know it means? Maybe it doesn't matter because I do believe in vengeance ( I'm just not good at taking it).

    I looked at the results at the UK elections for 2015, which was truly an eye opener. Most of it was either authoritarian left or right. There was nothing, nada, nichts, on the libertarian right. I find that astounding, and to tell the truth, a bit unsettling.

    Ghana, it is reported, thought the Jews should commit mass suicide, Jay. ;-0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he did think that, I would surely be inclined to disagree. To put it kindly. Heh.

      Delete
    2. Interesting to note that I've still never known anybody who scored on the positive side for the second number.

      Delete
    3. I was shocked about the Gandhi thing too. Should we tell Ben Kingsley? :-)

      Delete
    4. SIR Ben Kingsley. He's known to alternately ignore and browbeat peasants who don't use the full moniker

      Delete
  10. Hey look at this. -

    University of Sydney staff argued that supporters of the Islamic State be given a platform to “express” antisemitism, News.com.au reported on Friday.

    “I would say yes, we should ‘allow’ [individuals] to express their anti-Semitism — within bounds, of course,” wrote Philosophy Department lecturer Yarran Dylan Khang Hominh in an email chain among arts staff discussing freedom of speech.
    http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/05/01/university-of-sydney-staff-thinks-antisemitism-has-a-place-on-campus/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to say "Yuck." but that does not quite get to it.

      "Blchchch" is closer.

      Or, really, maybe we need to go with Bill the Cat's eloquence and simply say, "Yachpthththt!"

      Delete
    2. Anti-Semitism within bounds? What? No head chopping?

      Delete
  11. Ed Miliband channeling Moses.

    The next British Prime Minister:

    https//mobile.twitter.com/lucymanning/status/594783770491883521/photo/1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jeff,
      Sorry about link!

      If you google, telegraph.co.uk
      ( The Daily Telegraph)
      and look for Miliband manifesto monument story, you'll find pictures and story.
      It's been all over the UK twitter sphere etc. Lots of jokes!
      Hope that works.

      Delete
    2. It's in the Guardian and the Independent, too.

      Delete
  12. If Miliband is elected the Jews may as well pack up and leave Britain like it's the year 1290

    ReplyDelete