Left vs. right

[SingingAnalyst]

The terms left and right originated around the time of the French Revolution: in the ancien regime, the aristocrats sat on the right; the commoners on the left.

Do these terms still make sense in the America and Europe of 2017?

Does "right" simply mean accepting the authority of the Church, the military, and moneyed interests? That is how the 1906 Dreyfus affair in France was framed, at least when I read about it in The People's Almanac. If so, then how does this distinction apply (or does it?) in places like China and Japan, where the Church has never had a foothold?

Does "left" or "liberal" still mean favoring freedom of speech? How about the right to bear arms? How come those who identify (and are identified by others) as "liberals" are much more likely to favor restrictions on firearms than "conservatives", while the reverse is true of abortion?

Do "liberals" believe human nature is essentially good, while "conservatives" believe it is evil? Most would say Hobbes was conservative; was Locke liberal? Would Locke be considered liberal today?

How come Norman Rockwell is not celebrated by today's left (at least not to any extent I can see?) He was considered a "liberal" in his time.

Does "liberal" mean supporting the rights of minorities? Does "conservative" mean "majoritarian"? If a clear majority favors raising the minimum wage, does that make it a conservative position? As Ayn Rand pointed out, the smallest minority on earth is the individual.

Can one be a left-wing conservative or a right-wing liberal?

Is opposition to trade agreements (NAFTA, TPP) a "conservative" or a "liberal" position?

What if large numbers of people objected to the labels others tried to impose on them?

[kyc0705]

"Left and right" has always been a reductive way to look at politics, but it's even more reductive now.

[Person Man]

When I think Right Wing, I think of private individuals assuming state power or at least power over its agenda. i.e. the state being property. When I think left-wing, I think of the state assumimg power or ownership over the property of individuals, property being transferred from being personally owned to owned by the state.

When I think of conservative, I think of a society being more organized around class and race where the originators of those systems having the power to enforce them. When I think of liberal, I think of society being organized in a civic way, where the constituents organize society as the needs of society develop over time. Basically the difference between an ethnic nationhood and a civic nationhood.

[RINO Tom]

Obviously, terms change with time.  I think the general goals of "the right" (not to be confused with the people who yell RINO the loudest or are the most fond of the term "conservative" and define it however they wish) and "the left" (not to be confused with whoever can be the most offended by un-PC things or those who best pass some *socially liberal* litmus test on hot-button issues) have remained somewhat constant.  

The American "right" has historically favored rewarding success, promoting a society that allows individual talent and luck to allow someone to become a success even at the expense of others and definitely also favored a more structured, puritan society.  Of course, that's a huge generalization, but I think the GOP would still be closer to those three things than the Democrats; they still largely represent "the right."  

The American "left" has historically favored egalitarianism above all else, fighting the established "power structure" (at least on economics) and fostering a society that helps the least fortunate and most disadvantaged among us (this gets very confusing as we see the humanity of Black Americans particularly change drastically in the public eye throughout our history, but I think the left largely followed the trend and went from being "the party of ALL White men" to "the party of ALL people" as society made that journey, too); I think the Democratic Party would still be closer to those three things than the Republicans; they still largely represent "the left."

The terms liberal or conservative are a lot more useless, IMO.  Calling an old school Southern Democrat a conservative back in the day almost exclusively referred to that politician's cultural conservatism and usually spoke nothing as to where he or she would fall on a more traditional "Hamiltonian right" vs. "Jeffersonian left" scale that historians have used ... in fact, most Southern Democrats would have fallen on the left of such a scale, but that did not stop them from being classified as conservatives.  Additionally, many "liberals" in Europe are quite similar to more libertarian-ish "conservatives" in America, no?  Those terms change their meanings so often that I think it's more useful to look at the motives rather than the methods or specific policy positions of parties, movements and politicians.

As for things like trade, one can certainly support or oppose a position and end up agreeing with the political opposition for opposite reasons.  A liberal can oppose free trade on economic egalitarian grounds, arguing that it's hurting lower-wage workers all just to help these multinational corporations ... that argument would fit in perfectly with the liberal tradition here in the US, at least.  However, someone can oppose free trade on nationalistic grounds, which has almost always been tied to conservatism.  A key point in that debate was when the American business community stopped seeing protectionism as an asset to them and started to think free trade would help the American economy more, which really muddied the waters in both parties.  After all, early Democrats accused a high tarrif of being more or less "corporate welfare" and argued it actually hurt low-wage Americans ... today many of them pretty much argue the opposite, because we live in a very different world.

I don't think there is a good catch-all definition, though, making most of what I wrote pointless.  LOL.

[Mr. Reactionary]

"Left and right" has always been a reductive way to look at politics, but it's even more reductive now.

Very much this. The media basically pushes that the definition of conservative is whatever republicans want and the definition of liberal is whatever democrats want.

[SingingAnalyst]

Obviously, terms change with time.  I think the general goals of "the right" (not to be confused with the people who yell RINO the loudest or are the most fond of the term "conservative" and define it however they wish) and "the left" (not to be confused with whoever can be the most offended by un-PC things or those who best pass some *socially liberal* litmus test on hot-button issues) have remained somewhat constant.  

The American "right" has historically favored rewarding success, promoting a society that allows individual talent and luck to allow someone to become a success even at the expense of others and definitely also favored a more structured, puritan society.  Of course, that's a huge generalization, but I think the GOP would still be closer to those three things than the Democrats; they still largely represent "the right."  

The American "left" has historically favored egalitarianism above all else, fighting the established "power structure" (at least on economics) and fostering a society that helps the least fortunate and most disadvantaged among us (this gets very confusing as we see the humanity of Black Americans particularly change drastically in the public eye throughout our history, but I think the left largely followed the trend and went from being "the party of ALL White men" to "the party of ALL people" as society made that journey, too); I think the Democratic Party would still be closer to those three things than the Republicans; they still largely represent "the left."

The terms liberal or conservative are a lot more useless, IMO.  Calling an old school Southern Democrat a conservative back in the day almost exclusively referred to that politician's cultural conservatism and usually spoke nothing as to where he or she would fall on a more traditional "Hamiltonian right" vs. "Jeffersonian left" scale that historians have used ... in fact, most Southern Democrats would have fallen on the left of such a scale, but that did not stop them from being classified as conservatives.  Additionally, many "liberals" in Europe are quite similar to more libertarian-ish "conservatives" in America, no?  Those terms change their meanings so often that I think it's more useful to look at the motives rather than the methods or specific policy positions of parties, movements and politicians.

As for things like trade, one can certainly support or oppose a position and end up agreeing with the political opposition for opposite reasons.  A liberal can oppose free trade on economic egalitarian grounds, arguing that it's hurting lower-wage workers all just to help these multinational corporations ... that argument would fit in perfectly with the liberal tradition here in the US, at least.  However, someone can oppose free trade on nationalistic grounds, which has almost always been tied to conservatism.  A key point in that debate was when the American business community stopped seeing protectionism as an asset to them and started to think free trade would help the American economy more, which really muddied the waters in both parties.  After all, early Democrats accused a high tarrif of being more or less "corporate welfare" and argued it actually hurt low-wage Americans ... today many of them pretty much argue the opposite, because we live in a very different world.

I don't think there is a good catch-all definition, though, making most of what I wrote pointless.  LOL.

Not pointless at all. Your insight makes a lot of sense in showing how the political spectrum has changed over time, at least in terms of the issues some combination of "the people" and "the powers that be" find important at a particular time.

Besides trade, other issues do not fit neatly into a left-right continuum. Anti-vaxxers, anti-flouridation activists, 9/11 "truthers": are they left or right? What about people who vandalize pro-life crisis pregnancy centers? Most people would identify them as "left" (if criminal) and I suspect most such vandals would identify themselves as "left" (just as most abortion clinic vandals identify as "right"), but the people hurt most by such vandalism are young, often minority women facing problem pregnancies. If a white racist were to have vandalized a Black Panther-sponsored crisis pregnancy center back in the late 1960s (and I have little doubt that such vandalism happened), would it have been considered an act of the Left or of the Right? Would it be any different from such acts of vandalism that occur from time to time today (as in Eugene, OR; Bronx, NYC; and St. Paul, MN)?

What about anti-GMO activism? If VT passes a GMO labeling law, is such activism now "liberal"? If Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson defend GMOs, is anti-GMO activism now suddenly "right-wing"?

What if a woman refused a head covering, in uncomfortably hot weather for instance? (Recall how heavily dressed women tennis players were in the US in the 1880s). Would her action be considered liberal or conservative? Suppose only "right-wing" media reported approvingly  on her refusal. It would certainly affect how we see her act, but would it change the nature of the act?

[vanguard96]

The terms left and right originated around the time of the French Revolution: in the ancien regime, the aristocrats sat on the right; the commoners on the left.

Do these terms still make sense in the America and Europe of 2017?

Does "right" simply mean accepting the authority of the Church, the military, and moneyed interests? That is how the 1906 Dreyfus affair in France was framed, at least when I read about it in The People's Almanac. If so, then how does this distinction apply (or does it?) in places like China and Japan, where the Church has never had a foothold?

Does "left" or "liberal" still mean favoring freedom of speech? How about the right to bear arms? How come those who identify (and are identified by others) as "liberals" are much more likely to favor restrictions on firearms than "conservatives", while the reverse is true of abortion?

Do "liberals" believe human nature is essentially good, while "conservatives" believe it is evil? Most would say Hobbes was conservative; was Locke liberal? Would Locke be considered liberal today?

How come Norman Rockwell is not celebrated by today's left (at least not to any extent I can see?) He was considered a "liberal" in his time.

Does "liberal" mean supporting the rights of minorities? Does "conservative" mean "majoritarian"? If a clear majority favors raising the minimum wage, does that make it a conservative position? As Ayn Rand pointed out, the smallest minority on earth is the individual.

Can one be a left-wing conservative or a right-wing liberal?

Is opposition to trade agreements (NAFTA, TPP) a "conservative" or a "liberal" position?

What if large numbers of people objected to the labels others tried to impose on them?

Great question.

Liberal, libertarian, conservative, neoliberal, neoconservative and other labels have all taken a lot of different connotations through the years and across the political spectrum. They are sort of guideposts only.  Some labels people embrace and others people are tabbed with and reject.

Mises specifically used the word liberal in the 18th and 19th century sense even though in the 20th century the word had started to take on another meaning. His book Liberalism was the prescription to the issues he wrote about in his previous book Socialism.

For instance at what point is a Patriotic, Catholic, pro-life, pro-police, pro-military, social conservative who supports unions, universal healthcare, and income redistribution a left winger or a right winger?