Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Far left - US/UK definition
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 1 of 305 (224319)
07-17-2005 10:47 PM


On another thread http://EvC Forum: Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans -->EvC Forum: Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans
it is suggested that the Guardian and the BBC are (very) far left media outlets. Rather than me imploding with fury, I would like to ask the members here two questions. What is far left as defined in the US? And what sources/evidence do you have that the BBC and Guardian are far left?
Further question re the assertion that non-profit organisations are far more left than others, answers/explanations welcome.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 07-22-2005 3:24 PM bobbins has not replied
 Message 4 by Ooook!, posted 07-23-2005 5:08 AM bobbins has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 305 (225538)
07-22-2005 3:16 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 305 (225543)
07-22-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
07-17-2005 10:47 PM


As you can see in another thread, we Americans don't do political discussions very well. What passes for political discussion are phrases and words that are vague at best, or can take on a wide variety of meanings. Orwell invented the term duckspeak to describe this: the slogans are designed to sound good, and to be repeated with a minimul of thought.
There are people on the far left here in the U.S. -- and, hey, I'm one of them! -- but in general "far left" is a term that is usually used by the extreme right to label any opposing view.
As far as the BBC and The Guardian goes, as long as those two media outlets don't blindly accept the American right's agenda, they will be labeled as "far left".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 07-17-2005 10:47 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 12:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5814 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 4 of 305 (225627)
07-23-2005 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
07-17-2005 10:47 PM


it is suggested that the Guardian and the BBC are (very) far left media outlets.
LOL!
Yep that's right folks, the readers of The Grauniad are a bunch of Far Left subversives. Pretty soon the government of Great Britain will be overthrown and compulsory sandal wearing and Volvo driving will be enforced.
In an attempt to post something that could be construed as constructive:
What is far left as defined in the US?
On a simple level (the only level I work at ), I've always viewed the comparison of Left vs Right as how involved the government is allowed to get in people's lives. The 'Left' tend to view the loss of freedoms (and some of their hard earned cash) as not as important as the benefits to society as a whole, whereas those on the 'Right' wish to have more say as individuals.
It's a sliding scale, and it seems to me (as a Brit) that in the US, the slider for the general public is set more to the 'Right', whereas in Europe the bias in the other direction. This is why a newspaper that I would class as 'Slightly left of centre' can be seen as dangerously 'Leftist' (whatever the Hell that means). It rubs the other way of course: many in the UK view general politics in the States to be worryingly Right-wing.
Mind you, I can't quite see what's so left-wing about the Beeb!
My position:
People are Bastards. Give 'em more money and they'll spend it on a new car. Take it as tax and you can use it to build a National Health Service, provide decent international aid and provide a good quality, free education system for everyone.
Just my twopenneth
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 23-07-2005 10:18 AM
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 23-07-2005 10:19 AM

Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 07-17-2005 10:47 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 12:34 PM Ooook! has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 305 (225662)
07-23-2005 12:25 PM


How about getting serious & objective here?
This thread is going to be a bust as the other one pretty much was too if somebody doesn't take it in hand to spell out some objective criteria. Ridiculing others' criteria, about which you probably know zip anyway, isn't going to convey anything of importance or interest. At least to me.
I have the impression that the BBC is very left, according to some vague criteria I have in my head. I think that's about all anybody has for starters, just a bunch of vague impressions. It was Canadian Steve who prompted bobbins to open this topic, as he had identified the Guardian, about which I know next to nothing, and the BBC, as leftist, and bobbins was outraged.
Well, stop being outraged and see if some criteria can be spelled out for the purpose of, first, explaining why we have the impressions we have, and second, determining if it's possible to find a common vocabulary for discussing such things. That is, what exactly is it that the Guardian says that Steve considers to be far left, and what exactly is it about those attitudes that bobbins thinks are not all that left at all. This would take LISTING things the Guardian says for instance.
Anybody up for it? I'm not the one to do this, though I might take a stab at spelling out my own classification system at some point later on, but I'd be very interested in seeing it done by others, and if anybody's serious about the topic and not just here to ride his hobbyhorse, I'd think that would be the direction to take.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-23-2005 12:27 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mick, posted 07-23-2005 5:03 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 305 (225663)
07-23-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
07-22-2005 3:24 PM


There are people on the far left here in the U.S. -- and, hey, I'm one of them! -- but in general "far left" is a term that is usually used by the extreme right to label any opposing view.
As far as the BBC and The Guardian goes, as long as those two media outlets don't blindly accept the American right's agenda, they will be labeled as "far left".
Examples of subjective generalities and insinuations that cast no light on anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 07-22-2005 3:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2005 12:43 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 305 (225664)
07-23-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ooook!
07-23-2005 5:08 AM


On a simple level (the only level I work at ), I've always viewed the comparison of Left vs Right as how involved the government is allowed to get in people's lives. The 'Left' tend to view the loss of freedoms (and some of their hard earned cash) as not as important as the benefits to society as a whole, whereas those on the 'Right' wish to have more say as individuals.
Way too general to convey anything of value. Need terms defined and specific examples given.
It's a sliding scale, and it seems to me (as a Brit) that in the US, the slider for the general public is set more to the 'Right', whereas in Europe the bias in the other direction. This is why a newspaper that I would class as 'Slightly left of centre' can be seen as dangerously 'Leftist' (whatever the Hell that means). It rubs the other way of course: many in the UK view general politics in the States to be worryingly Right-wing.
These remarks convey absolutely nothing but your own subjective impression and what's needed is getting at the assumptions BENEATH your subjective impression. Exactly what sort of attitudes do particular papers express and why do you classify those attitudes as left or right or anything else? Specific statements please.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-23-2005 12:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ooook!, posted 07-23-2005 5:08 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Ooook!, posted 07-24-2005 6:35 PM Faith has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 305 (225668)
07-23-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
07-23-2005 12:31 PM


Hello, Faith.
I'm just calling it as I see it. I have never seen anyone on the right use words "liberal" or "left" in any understandable way, except as a label for opinions and positions they don't agree with.
Now, if you want to, you can try to tell us what you mean by "liberal" or "leftist". You can try to explain what you think the "leftist" ideology is, but so far everyone who has tried has only presented a crude caricature rather than a thoughtful description that is conducive to discussion.
Or, I suppose that you can try to define a "liberal" by presenting a list of positions and opinions that a "liberal" supposedly has. That seems to be the usual way people think about liberals and conservatives in this country. However, just presenting a list doesn't really shed any light on how a supposed liberal thinks, or why she holds the opinions that she does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 12:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 1:22 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 1:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 305 (225675)
07-23-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
07-23-2005 12:43 PM


I don't expect a list to be definitive, simply a way of making clear to people exactly what we are referring to when we call something right or leftist. What I think is NOT useful is broad definitions, such as "liberals care about people" and "conservatives are racists." Why individuals hold the views they do isn't of much interest to me either, at least in this context.
I'd just like to know what it is about the Guardian, for merely one instance, that leads C Steve to call it leftist and bobbins to say he's wrong. What categories do they have in their heads that lead them to these conclusions? I don't care how they ARRIVED at these categories, that's a matter of personal history, I'm just interested in seeing them clearly identified. The only way I can see to get at this is to point to specific examples of things the Guardian has put in print. Otherwise I'm going to get bored with generalizations that illuminate nothing.
One thing Canadian Steve said, maybe about the Guardian, or maybe as a generalization about leftist media, was that you can always tell their stance by the fact that they label conservatives and conservative opinions as such, as in "Conservative pundit so-and-so said today..." while they just about never label liberals and leftists. I've noticed this myself, but this is just an impression and it too would take some pinning down to specifics. Statistics are probably beyond us but at least examples may help.
A dominant stance critical of the war in Iraq is certainly one indicator of a liberal/leftist frame of reference from my point of view; likewise a dominant stance critical of Israel. Of course this is merely an impression. How am I going to establish how objective it is? One example isn't going to work, and an example or two in rebuttal isn't going to mean anything either. The San Francisco Chronicle is very very liberal/left but occasionally they print something that surprises me with its sympathy for views I hold.
Maybe we will have to be content with accumulating subjective impressions at first. Which is fine as long as it doesn't degenerate into the usual mudslinging approach to politics.
I have no problem at all characterizing the majority of posters at EvC as "leftists" but spelling this out would be quite an undertaking. It may be too much for any of us, but at least it would be nice to see some effort made in that direction without stopping at such undigested broad generalizations or everybody just regressing to type and blasting each other from our presuppositions.
Again I think others have probably thought about these things more than I have so I don't see myself as leading the way. Maybe C Steve could. Maybe bobbins could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2005 12:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2005 3:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 88 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 8:59 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 305 (225679)
07-23-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
07-23-2005 12:43 PM


I'm just calling it as I see it. I have never seen anyone on the right use words "liberal" or "left" in any understandable way, except as a label for opinions and positions they don't agree with.
This impression of yours is in fact exactly why it would be good to try to be more specific. As stated this is nothing but a smear. Not that you mean it that way, I'm sure you simply don't have a clue to the criteria employed by those on the right in making their judgments so they remain incomprehensible to you. Instead of giving in to the temptation to judge them as irrational and crazy, which is all you are doing, the helpful attitude would be to try to FIND OUT how the right uses such labels. Of course, if you are simply absolutely convinced that we're nothing but idiots, then no discussion is possible and you will continue subscribing to your subjective broad generalization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2005 12:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 9:02 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 305 (225680)
07-23-2005 1:56 PM


It's Simple
If you recognize that freedom means that some people are going to do things you don't agree with, you're a liberal.
If that drives you crazy, you're a conservative.

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 12 of 305 (225692)
07-23-2005 2:20 PM


Left & right
The left emphasizes the collective over the individual. In extreme form, Communism, as its name implies, is all about the collective.
Socialism, even democratic socialism, gives ownership of the economy to the collective through the government.
The left favours the concept of the United Nations not as an organzation to establish common interests and maintain diplomacy in favour of war, but as an organization of international rules, even governance.
The left is also seen as believing that the social world, and the behaviour of individuals within society, can be perfected through social engineering. Affirmative action programs and lots of government regulation are examples of this.
The left emphasizes sub-collectives as well, such as multi-culturalism, whereby the individual is encouraged to identify as much with her sub-group as an indivudal within the nation. Thus, the left considers it important that a Black American have a strong, as opposed to a somewhat, Black identity, that women attach to Feminism, that Hispanics send their children to public schools where they learn in Spanish.
The left believes the west discredited itself into the indefinite future through its colonial period,
The left believes in moral relativism, whereby no culture or faith is better any other. The left is inclined to take positions of moral equivalence.
The left is more likely to weigh more heavily on society's responsibility for criminal behaviour than the individual's.
Finally, the left considers war pretty much indefensible under almost all but the most extreme circumstances of defense against unadulterated aggression. It also tends to believe that if one is peaceful, then one is extremely unlikely to face an aggressor.
Left wing media supports many of the principles of leftist thinking, including leftist proscriptions for the economy and social engineering, multiculturalism, pacifism, multiculturalism, and in support for the United Nations - even when it betrays little loyalty to western liberal democatic principles. For example, in recent years such brutal dictatorships, as Syria's, have served on the Human Rights Commission. Or the oil for food scandal.
In contrast, the right believes more in the individual, that she must be as unfettered as possible in her pursuit of life's goals, and that interference in that leads to the infringement of rights and freedoms, and hinders the economic growth. Of course, the right accepts laws, but wants them kept to a minimum. The right sees the Unitded Nations as useful fro diplomacy and for shared interests, but also sees it as easily dangerous to freedoms when it becomes too strong, when it becomes a forum for world government.
The right doesn't believe people or society can be perfected. But it does believe that an emphasis on personal responsibility, and on morals and ethics, all backed up by good legal enforcement, produces the a society with a strong citizenship base.
The right might accept social engineering under extreme circumstances, such as temporary affirmative action immediately after the civil rights movement lifted legal dsicrimination against Blacks, but as a rule support the notion of: Equal opportunity, not equal results. even there it is understood that there will always be better and worse people, that some will not be fair to others. while that may be unfortunate, it is best left to moral suasion and a societal value of fairplay, rather than government regulation and quotas and other engineering strategies.
The right believes in the melting pot, where every individual's primary identity is as a citizen of a shared nation, not as as a sub-group within the nation. It believes, as a given, that the first obligation of an immigrant who chooses to immigrate, is to want to assimilate, especially for their children to grow up fully assimilated.
The right (in western democracies) knows the colonial period is a stain on its record. But it also knows that all nations and civilzations were colonlalists. It also knows that the west was the first civilization in to create full fledged liberal democracy and establish bills of rights. This thinking led the west to be the first civilzation to end slavery.
Western conservatives believe there are those who would destroy democracy, no matter how peaceful we are. Hitler and the Nazis, of course, are one example, so were teh Communists, and so are the Islamo-fascists.
The right sees that democracy is a superior form of governance, and sees democratic societies as superior to non democratic ones.
The extreme left and the extreme right are, in fact, one and the same: Authoritarian. Thus, they are not part of this conversation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2005 2:27 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 14 by jar, posted 07-23-2005 2:27 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 2:47 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 26 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 3:08 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 305 (225693)
07-23-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by CanadianSteve
07-23-2005 2:20 PM


Wrong Again
The left emphasizes the collective over the individual.
Er, no, it's quite the opposite. The left emphasizes the individual - individual achievement, expression, lifestyle, vocation, religion, etc. It's the right that emphasizes the submission of the individual to the collective - the woman to her family, the man to his company, the voter to their party, the family to the community, the community to its nation, etc.
Submission and collectivism is the domain of the right, not the left. It's ludicrous to suggest that the left, the eternal home of iconoclasts, individualists, and the avante guard focuses on the "collective." Collectivism is the balliwick of the arena of traditionalism, religionism, and nationalism - the right. Always has been, always will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 2:20 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 2:34 PM crashfrog has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 305 (225694)
07-23-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by CanadianSteve
07-23-2005 2:20 PM


Re: Left & right
In contrast, the right believes more in the individual, that she must be as unfettered as possible in her pursuit of life's goals, and that interference in that leads to the infringement of rights and freedoms,...
So fromthat I take it that it is the Left that is opposing Roe v Wade and Gay Rights?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 2:20 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 2:35 PM jar has replied
 Message 20 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 2:45 PM jar has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 15 of 305 (225700)
07-23-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
07-23-2005 2:27 PM


Re: Wrong Again
The left has many huge misperceptions about the right, and conflates the religious views of some evangelical conservatives (evangelicals have different views too from one another) with the overall conservative movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2005 2:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2005 2:41 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024