Entry 2320, on 2024-01-30 at 20:15:20 (Rating 3, Politics)
Is there a fundamental difference between people on the right and those on the left? Well, there can't be anything too deep and immutable because so many people change their attitude over time. For example, I used to be fairly extreme to the left, and now identify more with the moderate libertarian right, and that is a common story: people become more right wing as they get older.
Of course, there are numerous issues with this simplistic analysis. For a start, many on the right (me included) see some elements of left politics as quite reasonable and some elements of the right as being problematic. Also, a simple left/right split is misleading since there are at least two axes involved with political opinion, usually summarised as social and economic.
But despite these misgivings, I am still going to make some sweeping judgements on the subject so prepare yourself; just remember that I am very aware of the deficiencies in my own argument.
One element of the difference became apparent in a recent on-line discussion. It was about whether period products should be made available free to girls in schools and funded by the state (AKA the taxpayer, AKA you and me). A leftist would most likely say that is the correct course, without really thinking about the underlying philosophical issues too much; and a person on the right might say it is wrong, again with little consideration of the subtleties inherent in the question.
So who is right? Well, neither is, because it depends on your underlying philosophy of collectivism versus individualism. I'm sure my readers know by now that I am very much an individualist, but I don't think there is necessarily any objective truth in that view, it is just my preference.
So I would say that these subsidised products are nothing to do with me, and I don't know why I (as a taxpayer) should pay for them. But a case could be made to say that we are all humans and we should be helping each other, because that is how a successful culture works.
A common argument here is that females are disadvantaged because they face the extra cost of buying these products. But how about males? They tend to be bigger and more active, and need more food. Which is the bigger financial burden? Why help one and not the other? Well, we all know thew answer to that, don't we.
As always, the truth lies between the extremes, and purely collectivist cultures would be as bad, or worse, than purely individual ones, although neither of those pure forms can ever really exist. So the difference is just in the default view. I would say the starting point is individualism, but we should consider moving away from that view when it is appropriate, where more left oriented people might have the opposite view.
I think it is important for the each side to understand the other's perspective. I don't think most people on the left or the right are evil, they just have different ways to get to the same result: the best life for everyone. Those on the right genuinely believe that individual freedom and responsibility, with minimum government interference, is the best approach. People on the left think we all should be helping each other, often through government run programs.
Some people need help because they have got into a bad situation primarily through bad luck or other situations beyond their control. Others need help because they are lazy and entitled. Most government programs help the second group as much as the first, and people quite rightly get upset about it. But we should also get upset if the first group isn't helped.
It's complicated, isn't it? I think as long as we keep away from the extremes on either side, we aren't doing too badly. Until recently, many on the left tended to be too extreme (in my estimation) but the moderate left is OK, although I would still vote more in the direction of moderate libertarian myself. I could possibly force myself to vote Labour, but never the Green or Maori Party. Despite my message of understanding on this post, I really do see them as loony lefties!
Comment 1 by OJB on 2024-01-30 at 22:56:24:
On a related subject, I see the only person in the Green Party with any sort of handle on reality, James Shaw, has left politics. In an X (Twitter) thread on possible replacements, someone suggested a potato. I think I would prefer that to any of the extreme nutters currently in the party.
Comment 2 by Anonymous on 2024-01-31 at 10:23:53:
Totally disgusted with Sue Bardford's comments on James Shaw today. In her mind it would have been far better to have been more radical but not create any change than compromise to get movement towards the desired situation.
I once voted for the greens and don't regret it. Back then they were an environmental party (i.e. actually a Green Party). Then it was taken over by social justice warriors.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2024-01-31 at 11:53:45:
I wouldn't say I was disgusted, because that element of neo-Marxist or woke ideology has always been there, but has just become more prominent recently. I completely agree that they aren't a green party any more. Maybe they need a rebranding to the "Social Justice Party", or the "Socialist Party", or even the "Marxist Party". Whatever, they could tone down the extremist rhetoric a bit. The whole party is totally feral now that James Shaw has gone.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE