Far left - US/UK definition

By left, you seem to mean socialists and Marxists. To me that is so afr left as to be barely worth creditable mention. There is a counterpart on the right, also barely meriting mention. That is why i defined left and right according to every day policies of everyday parties. According to that the Guardian is, definitely, a leftist paper, even though it may offer some columns from a conservative perspective.The Guardian, as far as i know, never supports the Conservative Party in an election. I believe - but stand to be corrected - that it largely opposed Thatcher's conservative revolution.

Our system is beginning to fail. It has become a big, big election issue, and governments will begin to fall if remedies are not soon forthcoming. Our supremem court issued a very contentious judgement last month, saying that because government has failed to ensure quick access to treatment, people's lives are at risk. And thus it resolved that private health insurance, as opposed to strictly oublic health insurance, is legal. That means any private company has provide insurance and hire doctors and private hospitals to compete against teh public system. In this country, that is radical.

quote:

---

he is.

---

Actually, he's very much like the Republicans of yesteryear, very much like Nixon and Goldwater.Remember when both of them were considered "right wingers"?Now they would have to be Democrats because both of them would be considered far too "liberal" to be a Republican.It's just that your perception of what is "left" or "right" has shifted so very far to the right that you don't consider people like Frist to be on the fringe, which he is.You just don't realize that what you consider "left wing" was actually "moderate Republican" just a few decades ago.

quote:

---

But, he is also more centrist than his party these days, which is why he had to drag it more to the middle to be elected.

---

I think that Reagan and Bush Sr. completely tanking the economy had more to do with why Clinton got elected.

Do you think that OSHA and the National Park System and the EPA are agencies supported by the left or the right?

Absolutely. I enevr said otherwise. I merely pionted out that there are strong legal arguments on both side of the issue, independent of the fact that a divided court opted for one side, as it had to. But because there are strong arguments on either side, it may well happen that the decision will be overturned, likely on the basis that states' rights were abridged. Some states will always allow abortion, so it is here to stay as a legal procedure. I reticently agree that that is as it must be, providing there are limitiations, such as first trimester.

quote:

---

CNN is, beyond doubt, a left of centre news organization

---

Ah, but I do doubt it, that's your problem.You will have to show me why you believe that to be the case.

quote:

---

And it is losing market share to Fox, whixch is right of centre, and closer to the American middle.

---

The reason CNN is losing market share to Fox is because it has decided to move more to the right to be more like Fox.

Seems definitions are a little thin on the ground. I would say that the BBC is left on the basis of 'equality', 'social justice', 'democracy', 'gender equality', 'civil rights', 'governmental and social concern for the poor', and 'tolerance'. There is probably good reason for this - their public is left of centre. It's a little more involved than that of course, but the point is we see articles written about the above issues a lot because that is what we, as a country, are interested in. Does this feed back on itself? I'm sure it does, partially.The people of Britain don't generally cheer when a big business buys another big business, forcing 100 smaller business to sell up, making the uber business even bigger. These things are reported, however the fears of the nation and the workers are often addressed, how will this affect the consumer, how will it impact on the competition, 'Outsourced to India' will be discussed. These things are reported because these are the things we want to know. Evidence that BBC is left wingI wouldn't go so far as 'very' left wing. And I fail to see how reporting on left of centre topics in a mostly central manner is a massive problem. This seems to be fairly balanced. As is this Notice things such as "Israel is 'hampering' the vote", is followed directly afterwards with "But the Israelis say they have eased the curbs, and that a number of temporary roadblocks have been removed."Is this far left bias? Surely if it was really Biased, it would have omitted what the Israeli's had done.Re: Jenin BBC reports on Amnesty International's reaction (left) Arab press Centre (shows both sides, Arab and Israelli) Palestinian's report Left Military expert objects Centre/right (Says that a military expert reckons military experts should be involved in Jenin report since civil servants aren't able...however he does say that war crimes took place)And finally...abortionThis message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 25-July-2005 04:19 PM

If there is no real means of assessing right vs left, then this thread is pointless. But there is. And that is why people vote left ro right. It is why some papers editorialize left and others right. What i see here is an unwillingness of most posters to actually define or describe the distinction.Moreover, there is nothing scaremongering in teh slightest in my comments on the left favouring more taxation (especially of the rich) in an effort for government to spread money around for the purpose of equality, or in teh different perspective on the Israeli-pAlestinian situation. What i have described is fact. Those are vital distinctions between left and right, both of which have great implications with respect to other matters. To describe such as generalization and scare-mongering is to define the left right divide as non existent.

Ha, I wonder if there is ever going to be a SCOTUS decision against the government of the US for providing NO healthcare, quick or otherwise, to milions and millions of it's citizens?I've occasionally had no health insurance at all, (because it was a matter of being able to eat and pay my rent or paying for health insurance) and was very lucky that I didn't get sick or injured during that time.I personally know several people who owe tens of thousands of dollars in hospital costs because they didn't have insurance.I'd rather have your system than ours any day.

quote:

---

The problem is that not one of the apparent leftists on this thread has yet even TRIED to define criteria for their subjective views or anybody else's....

---

Hello, Faith.Actually, at the very beginning of this thread, I offered to do just that very thing. You said that you weren't up to it.This thread is getting close to closing time. If you wish, when this thread is finally closed I will be willing to start a new thread clearly spelling out my view on what is meant by "left" and what is meant by "right", and you may respond by criticizing my definitions and providing your own. We can see how the conversation goes from there.However, that's only if you are really interested in pursuing a conversation on this. Otherwise, I have no wish to start a thread that will just end up like this one and its predecessor.

Please explain to me why it is so hard for people to grasp the concept of spelling out what makes a particular idea leftist or rightist or something else? Why is nobody even acting like they understand the task?For instance, there you are now, going on about how there are liberal views and leftist views in the Guardian, and speculating that I might disagree with your criteria WITHOUT FOR HALF A SECOND TRYING TO SPELL OUT WHAT YOUR CRITERIA ARE, WHAT MAKES AN IDEA LIBERAL OR LEFTIST IN YOUR OPINION so possibly we COULD FIND OUT whether I disagree with your assessment of the Guardian or not.The topic started with Canadian Steve's calling the Guardian leftist and bobbins nearly blowing a gasket objecting to that assessment. I don't read the Guardian so I'd really like to see those who do explain how they arrive at their assessment of it and from there anything else. The opening post reads to me like a nice opportunity to spell out the different criteria, but it turns out it is apparently beyond impossible to ask this of people.Maybe this is a clue in the UK at least: If people call views centrist merely because they are not overtly Marxist or socialist, all that does is obscure the questions and miss the whole point. MOST US Democrats aren't overtly Marxist or socialist by a long shot and yet their views are decidedly leftist from my point of view, and it would seem to me this thread would be an opportunity to spell out what makes them so -- or not so according to some other standard if there are others. Perhaps really the same ideas I'd call leftist here I'd call leftist in the Guardian too. Perhaps you'd call them liberal or something else -- why? Simply because they aren't overtly Marxist or socialist, or do you have some other criteria? Yes, the NYT has a reputation for being quite leftist among conservatives here, but since I don't read that either, I don't know whether it has to do with the way they present a news story or with the views expressed by their commentators.Yes, Grauniad obviously went over my head. It seemed merely whimsical.

US papers are similar to UK papers. But, almost invariably, editors intentionally or unwittingly reveal their bais in the way news is presented, what is front page, the headlines chosen, the photos published, and so on. We have three major newspaper chains in Canada and one independent paper that has the largest single market circulation. On any major story, I can reliably predict the headlines and front page look of each - and so can anyone else who follows papers closely.

I should add, though, that despite that i can predict the respective papers headlines and front page, three would meet your definition of respectable, supposedly objective papers, akin to the Guardian or other british equivalents.

Sure, fine. At least it sounds like it has some prospects for being an organized discussion. It's not what this thread is about as I udnerstood it, however, and I said I'm not the one to do the spelling out here as although I certainly have opinions I'm not nearly up on the political scene as others here are, and certainly as Canadian Steve is. But whatever. Start a new thread when the time comes. If you can stay focused I certainly can, but who knows about everybody else.

I won't argue the POTM nomination, but I don't think Mick is accurate about US newspapers because I think they have a similar range of styles to UK newspapers. The best example I can think of is from the 1970's when New York was facing bankruptcy and sought a federal bailout. The Daily News, somewhat of a tabloid, ran the headline, "Ford to NY: Go to hell!" The New York Times, on the other hand, ran a "just the facts" headline that was much less memorable, and hence I don't remember it. Perusing a list of NYT headlines from the period, it might have been, "Ford says state must act first".Most major cities in the US have quality non-tabloid newspapers. The New York Times, Boston Globe and LA Times come to mind. And most cities also have tabloid newspapers, though with our puritanical streak I doubt many run the daily nude pics that some British tabloids have.--Percy