I have used the term, “The Left” on my blog innumerable times to denote, as a whole, the post-colonial, anti-Western, pro-Islam column in the non-Muslim world. The term serves as a shorthand, but I am slightly uncomfortable with it. The division of politics into “Left” and “Right” is simplistic, not in that it does not reflect an existing polarity, but in that it gives the impression that there is only one polarity, and a mutually exclusive one at that.
The terms have been a catch-all for political opposites ever since it was coined after the seating of the opposing factions of the French Revolution. The polarities the terms denote are real; however, they are of more than one kind, and there is no preventing one person from being a right-winger in one area and a left-winger in another. This has some startling ramifications for the current global conflict. [...]
[...]
In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
6 comments:
I have said it a long time, ZionistYoungster: Before we get considerable portions of the Left on our side, we will not be able to answer the perpetual war from the Death Cult.
It is unreal to watch how many leftists, even "women's right fundamentalists", hold hands with their new, ultra-totalitarian "friends". Just because they hate capitalism so intensely, are they forever blinded? Why don't the leftists see that they will be treated JUST as all other infidels if the perverted, pedophile terror sect comes to power?
I would argue that the two most important things to understand about the left and the right are:
1. The ideas of right and left make sense as statistical concepts. It's statistically provable that voting in the United States has occurred in an abstract space of slightly more than one dimension--a major dimension of economic policy with the partial second dimension being race and agrarian concerns. The exception was the Congress in 1859 and 1860, when the spatial structure broke down. As that break down immediately preceded the Civil War, we may wish to be a little cautious in arguing that we should be so sophisticated as to be beyond a simple spatial structure.*
2. The bundle of ideas that are left and right are arbitrary and the ideas make far less sense together than the true believers on either side would have us believe.**
Admittedly, the second point may be self-interested on behalf as I'm pretty much in my own personal political space.
*references to obscure political science academic journal available if any really wants to read them; and i can't imagine why they would
**the historical record shows these changes. for instance, the Democratic Party struggled, argued, conspired, and manipulated for a 100 years for free trade and now opposes it. the creation of the US income tax was one outcome of this effort.
Excellent work. I have long believed that these categories were absurd as labels. People needed something, and stuck with this now outmoded categorization. I call it "Two Party Thinking", paraphrasing a line from the film "The Wrath of Khan", in whick Spock notes that Khan's course indicated lack of knowlege of piloting in space. Dimensions not realized by Khan in his inexperience. Of course, this ignores the fact that The Enterprise always seemed as if on a steady roadway, but you get the picture.
The blogs are starting to change this perception, I believe. Prior to the Great Blogging Era, any event that happened was immediately jumped on in the MSM and used as a divisive issue with elected officials jumping on board and Part talking points abounding, even when it made no sense. On the web, we have the ability to speak our minds, splinter off from the typical dogmatic partisan nonsense and actually let people read the opinions that come from the minds of people of varying opinion. And I love it. Here, we have a common interest, at IBA. Many of us, however, would probably disagree on other subjects. No one is just sticking to the talking points.
One modern theory popular amongst political sciences is that political positions are more like a circle, with the extremes of right and left being side by side. No theory is perfect, but I like this much better than the straight line simplistic mode of categorization. I've thought out my positions, and oddly I seem to come at the more "leftist" ones from different angles than most "leftists". It's why I still bash them, being angry with Saddam's hanging but caring nothing for the rights of women in Iran, as I've worked this whole week to promote. But these positions get one in trouble with some on the "right". It's ridiculous! For the record though, I really hope these "Pottery Barn Ruby Ridge" fundies at the end of my street will move.
Boy did I ramble on...sorry....it's a really good article, and got me thining, which means you did it right (no pun intended), ZY.
The labels merely serve denote, for the most part, people who think in one way or another.
But, you're right, they're very inaccurate.
I know a lot of people, and I'm one, who is "left" on social issues (in favour of gay marriage, drug decriminalization, key social welfare programs, pro-choice etc.) but who are right on foreign affairs and non-domestic situations.
I think this stems from enjoying our way of life and wanting to promote it to others in our society while at the same time protecting it from those would destroy it.
No political party seems to want to represent that view at this time. I don't know why but perhaps because they're so entrenched in their thinking that can't recognize their out of step with a lot of people, no matter what "wing" they subscribe to.
I'm glad it resonated.
People in the West rally under these banners, when in reality they're the wrong banners, and the banner they should be rallying under is that of liberal (again, in the original sense) values.
Admittedly, there's a point that mars my thesis somewhat: if pro-natalism (orientation toward large families) is right-wing, and Europe's hurtling toward its doom through opposition to that, then the Left/Right split does have at least one real-world implication in this conflict. Still, I suppose even someone who's convinced after reading Steyn's "America Alone" needn't necessarily do a wholesale shift from "Left" to "Right". And, as I said on the post, with myself as example, the two aren't mutually exclusive in one person.
Christopher Hitchens is a good example of a left-winger who doesn't let his views blind him to the reality of the threat. Unfortunately, he's in a minority.
You've hit on one of my favorite topics, what I refer to as the Right/ Left conflation into Gnostic left dhimmi fascism. In fact, I like this so much that I've written a 1,500 page manuscript on it that I'm not trying to edit to something managable. I'd better hurry or you'll scoop all my ideas.
Robespierre, as I'm so fond of noting, said, just before he tried to kill himself rather than get chopped by his old mates: "Extremes meet."
Post a Comment