Far left - US/UK definition

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

Examples of subjective generalities and insinuations that cast no light on anything.

Way too general to convey anything of value. Need terms defined and specific examples given. 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

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 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.

As I was afraid would happen, this is staying on the level of generalizations. Definitions are being challenged and that's a sign that greater specificity and examples are needed. I'd still like to see something like an issue of the Guardian, say, analyzed to show how it reveals a left or a right or a moderate view or whatever, according to different points of view.At least Canadian Steve offered a long list of criteria that can be discussed, but just objecting to this or that item isn't going to help unless terms are more clearly defined and specific examples given to illustrate a point.IMHO.

No problem with disagreement, but there ought to be some objective standards that can eventually be agreed on. Your agreeing with Steve's description of the left is a good start. That's a LOT of agreement considering how this topic has been going.There are rich people on the left and the right it seems to me. Ted Turner is outrageously rich and outrageously leftist for instance. I don't know anything about Conrad Black, not being a Canadian.

Your statement that the right just indiscriminately labels everything they disagree with as liberal or leftist didn't hold out much hope that you expect to find any coherent point of view in it. Heck, my ambitions for this topic don't rise anywhere near the level of seeking "a deeper understanding" - I'd be content if bobbins just knew what Steve meant by calling the Guardian leftist instead of getting outraged that he sees it that way, or Steve could see why bobbins doesn't. A modest objective and not too unrealistic I would think, except, well, look at how the thread is going. It's the usual wild collection of fragmented thoughts with some taking issue with this or that, with no organization and no sense of direction.Except that I still want a lot more specificity and examples, I think Canadian Steve's definitions are good, at least in the sense that they fit pretty well with my views, which is no doubt because he's also a conservative and we do share a coherent worldview, but his opponents are taking issue with various items in the usual argumentative way without bothering to try to understand what he means, even in order just to make their own view clearer, and this is where things start getting confused and I lose interest. I said "in this context," meaning it isn't what I thought this topic was about. It isn't going to be very illuminating to know WHY any given person is a liberal or conservative until we know what we mean by the terms in the first place. This thread wasn't about setting definitions in concrete, as I understood it, but about trying to reach some clarity about differences of viewpoint, particularly differences between US and UK notions of what "left" and "right" mean and specifically in relation to the Guardian and the BBC. So far nobody's addressed that. CS appears to be aiming to establish a broad definition, and that's fine since he's offering many criteria, but I'm not sure it's going to get at much about the original topic. Seems more likely to me that few of us are COMPLETELY leftist or rightist but have some views more typically shared by the opposite position. In other words the labels left and right belong to ideas, rather than people, although in casual conversation we label people with them. The trouble is that this thread is barreling right along and may in fact reach "witching hour" before bobbins even returns to note that it's taken off. I'm already discouraged with the apparent lack of interest of so many in clarifying anything.HOWEVER, if the thread is still here and you're still around I might be willing to take you up on the proposal later. It might in fact be illuminating, but I'm not up to it at the moment, having confined myself to trying to be a traffic cop here, yet finding myself roadkill in the intersection already.

I've been trying to stay out of the debate, Ringo, because I don't feel equipped for it, as I've said. I am hoping others with clearer views on the subject will sort out all the categories. I was simply adding my subjective two cents' worth into the stew.But here are some googled sources that show Turner's anti-Israel, anti-Christianity, anti-FoxNews, pro-UN positions:And by the way -- ALERT FOR BOBBINS -- The Guardian is identified as a leftist newspaper by Fox News. So here's a starting point for defining it as less than leftist from some other point of view. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-23-2005 05:10 PM

I've taken that test before, a couple years ago. The first time I came out in the Gandhi quadrant but very close to the center on both axes, within the first square to the left and three to the south as I recall. This time I came out in the Thatcher quadrant 2.63 right and 2.56 up. At least twenty questions on that test I could easily answer the opposite of what I did answer. Today I'm in a Thatchery mood I guess, but I could just as easily be in a Gandhi-ish mood or even over in the right libertarian quadrant.I suppose the items on that test could be used as a starting point for some criteria, although I think Canadian Steve is doing a better job of that kind of categorization.

The idea is to illuminate the criteria by which the positions are determined, not chortle smugly away at predictable viewpoints. What is it about the Guardian that Fox identifies as leftist? And why according to bobbins' point of view, or your own, is it not all that leftist and what might be an example of something farther left?

Obviously you and others here just don't care at all about determining the criteria for the positions on the right, you just want to ridicule them. That's the main problem with this thread. From your point of view the right has no basis for any of its judgments. End of subject.

You like the other liberal/lefties here just continue with the vague generalizations and ridicule instead of making any attempt to spell out the criteria for your views. So big deal you don't think Ted Turner is all that far left, the point is to try to say what makes the difference. I don't see any interest in objectivity from the leftists here.As for American parochiality I'm sure it's true, but if this site were based in Canada or the UK instead of the US I'm sure we'd be more conscious of the international context. There are an awful lot of Canadians and Brits on this site, almost more than Americans it seems at times.

Neither statement is enlightening. Turner is associated with certain ideas I consider leftist that were identified in my post, and probably many others that weren't identified. That's the beginning of an objective statement about what's left vs right. "Left of Faith" is meaningless since you haven't even tried to spell out an objective description of what you think "Faith" believes and if you did you might be wrong anyway. And what's the use of comparing anybody to "society as a whole" if we don't know how to define the ideas that "society as a whole" might happen to have, and how nutty is it to determine the meaning of anything by what's in fashion at the moment anyway? Your comments are simply meaningless. Or right, but a start has been made in various posts. But nobody seems to care really and I'm losing interest too.

The thread is about what the terms mean. If they are meaningless to you then it appears there's not much you can contribute to the topic.