What is the difference between right wing and left wing politics?

Read this and look up his TED talk. His findings are all but universal.

Very, very little…when it comes down to it.

Right wing is republican, and Left wing is democrat.

Can you be more specific, like what does it actually mean? As in beliefs.

Absolutely nothing.

They are two sides of the same corrupt, self serving coin. We have been trained for generations to “pick a side”. Once we do this we are taught to hate and disagree with whatever the other “side” says no matter what it is.

While we’ve wasted lifetimes, arguing the inarguable, our original freedoms have been ever so slowly taken from us, bit by bit, with each “side” whispering in our ear that it’s the other “side’s” fault.

If we could all just swallow our egos and our need to be “right” for a minute and admit to ourselves that we’ve all been fooled maybe, just maybe, we can start figuring out how to take control back over our own destinies.

I would feel more comfortable with me in the driver’s seat than any brand of political label.

There are two aspects, economic and social.

On the economic end, those on the right tend to favor freedom of individuals to make money on their own without government assistance. They favor business over labor. Those on the left emphasize the responsibility for the group to help those who most need it and for everyone to contribute to the common good.

On the social end, those on the right tend to be more rigid in their religious and moral belief and in general are more resistant to change. They tend to see things in terms of black and white without shades of gray. Those on the left are “looser” in their morals, are more accepting of change and are more able to see shades of difference.

@LostInParadise While I largely agree with your answer, “looser in their morals” doesn’t ring true to me. I’m about as left as they come, and have a very serious moral compass.

Left wing means liberal. Some common beliefs are bigger government, gun control, pro-choice, civil rights (often via legislation, like affirmative action), separation of church and state, social security, tax hikes, welfare, public systems (firefighters, police, EMTs, libraries, roads, public schools), government regulation (FDA, USDA, building codes, water sanitation), government funded research and project (NASA, stem cell research), FEMA, etc. It’s big among women, the poor and middle class, and non-whites because it seeks to help them out and end discrimination. Left-wing often aims to fix the problems at home, instead of focusing on defense. Left wing is Democrats, their color is blue, and their mascot is the donkey.

Right wing is conservative. Some common beliefs are smaller government, pro-guns (anti-gun control), lower taxes, a lack of government regulation, a lack of government assistance or systems, “traditional family values” (anti-gay, anti-women, anti-black/Asian/skin pigment, pro-Christian, pro-church, anti-non-Christian), pro-life, privatizing research and programs like Social Security. Right-wing often aims to be strong on defense, instead of focusing on the problems at home. Right wing is Republicans, their color is red, and their mascot is the elephant.

Public means “funded by the government”. Private means “not funded by the government”, which often means funded by corporations.

It’s not that liberals are in favor of bigger government so much as it is that liberals believe the best way to solve problems fairly is through the government. Government’s job is to make sure everyone has opportunity and that everyone is protected from the worst fall-out from poverty—in particular, that the children not suffer.

Conservatives believe that the government will inevitably be very inefficient in solving problems. In fact, it’s a waste of money to have the government do just about anything, they think. They believe the private sector is most effective at solving problems.

Liberals want to protect people, and thus they create a lot of regulations designed to make sure business doesn’t rip us off, or foul our air, etc, as they do their work. Liberals create a “safety net” for the least among us.

Conservatives think the regulations are unnecessary and overly burdensome. Business can’t develop new products because the government shackles them. I’m not sure what they think about how to deal with the poor. I know they don’t like the idea of the safety net. They think it coddles people, and encourages them to stay within that net instead of taking a risk and making something of themselves. They believe that if you take the safety away, people will get off their duffs and start working. And for those who are truly needy, private philanthropy should do the job. They can point out that Conservatives give a lot more to charity than Liberals.

In large part, the difference between conservatives and liberals hinges on your view of human nature. Are we lazy and in need of a harsh kick in the butt, or are we all doing the best we can and some of us need a helping hand? Liberals are in favor of the helping hand. Conservatives prefer the kick in the pants.

I love the blatant bias in most of these responses regarding the meaning of “left” and “right”. (Except yours, @Blondesjon. That was a great answer.)

From @LostInParadise:
those on the right tend to favor freedom of individuals to make money on their own without government assistance Code for “prefer rich people over poor”, of course. And in case you doubted that, they favor business over labor. Naturally.
Those on the left emphasize the responsibility for the group to help those who most need it and for everyone to contribute to the common good.
So, again it’s “against labor” for the right, and “for the common good” on the left. No bias there.

those on the right tend to be more rigid… and in general are more resistant to change. They tend to see things in terms of black and white without shades of gray. Yep. Self-righteous moralizers, all of ‘em.

Those on the left are “looser” in their morals which I think is intended in a complimentary way, somehow, and are more accepting of change and are more able to see shades of difference. Yep… because they’re “way smarter”, of course.

Even you, @wundayatta, from whom I expect much better:
Your bias was a bit more subtle, but still… conservatives, since they favor smaller government, are obviously not in favor of everyone having opportunity or in protecting people from poverty, and by the way, screw the kids. Liberals want to protect people isn’t so subtle, when you compare it with the unstated opposite: “conservatives don’t give a damn about people”. More in that vein…

And your conclusion is shockingly bad: Conservatives apparently think that “we [are] lazy and in need of a harsh kick”, and liberals think that “we are all doing the best we can and some of us need a helping hand.” That’s execrable.

I am in no way a conservative, by the way. But I understand the position much better, or at least can state it more honestly. Your conclusion could equally well be written from another side as “Conservatives think that left to mind our own affairs, we can generally manage them ourselves better than bureaucrats can from afar, and we generally will tend to our own affairs. They believe in a ‘conservation’ of the US Constitution. And liberals tend to think that every organization driven by profit is inherently evil and against the interests of good people, and for that reason must be reined in by selfless bureaucrats who have our interests at heart, because people are generally weak, stupid sheep who need a strong, paternalistic government to take care of them, because they’re incapable of doing that for themselves.”

It could just as well be said that “Liberals are racist and sexist”, because they tend to think that non-white males, women of all races, and other members of ‘disadvantaged groups’ are inherently unable to compete on a level playing field, so need to have it tilted in their favor in order to compete ‘equally’. But I don’t say that.

@CyanoticWasp I would expect you to attack an argument by actually providing and alternative explanation, if not adding an explanation with supporting evidence. But all you did was to say my analysis was… well, it was far from complimentary.

Look, I tried. I’d like to see you do something other than call my argument names. I honestly see this philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives, and to the best of my understanding, that is what it is. I don’t understand what they think of the safety net, but it seems to me that they don’t approve of it. I thought I was being pretty generous in giving them the charity solution, even though I don’t know if that is what they really think.

I know they do care about people, but I don’t understand how they expect people to be cared for when they need it, other than through private philanthropy. If you have a more accurate description of the way they think and what they believe and what policies they endorse, then please, put it up here. Calling my description execrable simply doesn’t do the job. You must be really pissed off to act this way. It belies your normal courtesy and incisive analysis.

@wundayatta I was still polite, wasn’t I? All I said was that your argument was shit; I didn’t make any personal comments. We can still be friends. I suppose I could have done it ‘nicer’.

If you noted, I did state how conservatives could define themselves as the rock-solid and moral group, and save all of the pejoratives for the liberals. That was the counter to your statements about “what a great bunch of fellows liberals are, while conservatives are someone you can’t trust as far as you can throw”.

There is nothing wrong with liberals per se… or conservatives, either. Neither group particularly bothers me… until they start calling out the other side for “mean-spiritedness”, “bigotry”, “racism”, “intolerance”, “weak-mindedness”, “zealotry”, etc. Because all of those adjectives could apply to various members of either group from time to time. None of them applies in any very general way, yet each side applies those labels very generally .. ‘liberally’, if you will.

What I object to now and always is people attempting to use government as a hammer (or a lever) to achieve their own ends, whether it’s “protecting” people who don’t really need protecting or enforcing moral codes that some believe all should live by. I object to the growth of government that both liberals and nominal conservatives effect. And I object to the way both groups lie about each other and cherry-pick extreme and bad examples as representative of the entire group.

Reread @Blondesjon‘s post again. He said it very well.

One is batshit crazy while the other is completely fucking nuts!

Seriously though, with this question, you have to differentiate between what each claims to stand for and what they actually stand for, and also specify how far out on that wing you want to go since, on some issues, it’s not a linear thing; a Left-leaning Moderate may have more in common with a Far Right wingnut than a Right-leaning Moderate, and vice versa.

The Right generally stands for lower taxes and a lack of government intervention in business or state’s rights. The Right-leaners tend to be against government intervention in other things whereas the Far Right feels the government has not only the right, but the duty to legislate morality and sexuality, and otherwise interfere with the lives of normal people except for the rich, and the ultra-Conservative. The Right in general is a big proponent of Capitalism.

The Left generally stands for a level playing field, a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all Americans, Left-wing ideology has helped end slavery, allow women to vote, and otherwise ensured that rich, white, heterosexual Christians are not the sole power in our country. Some on the Left go so far as to want to abolish private ownership of anything while others want to effectively strip the government of any and all power/authority.

The Right is currently associated with the Republicans and the Left with Democrats, and the Left being in favor of the people while the Right puts the Republic first while caring less about the people who live in it. I am not sure of the cause and effect of that, but that is the way it is.

Most people with any intellectual depth, tend to veer to the left, they tend to understand the nature of sharing, tolerance, mutual respect and co-operation, both rationally and intuitively, after all that’s how most communities have survived the basic rigors and threats of life on earth. Most people on the right are pretty awful people really, dull, conservative, none too bright, sexually inhibited, bigotted, and believe the protestant work ethic like it really were a directive God, and anyone who doesn’t subscribe to it, is a savage or a layabout that needs to be enslaved to it for the greater glory of the Lord, but particularly for the self aggrandizement of the crafty Capitalist, further up the food chain. :)

One thing that must be pointed out that the concepts of left and right have a long historical heritage, dating back to the Greeks and Romans. Before then, there was no left wing. People clung to religious and monarchical traditions and governments felt little concern for the benefit of citizens.

@CyanoticWasp , You are right, I was biased in my descriptions. Let me rectify the situation.

Those on the right correctly perceive that this nation was perfect at the time of its founding. The amendment process to the Constitution was put in for emergency use only. The founding fathers intended for the country to be made up of white Christians like themselves. The U.S. is a Christian nation. Students should recite the Lord’s Prayer in school.

The Universe was perfect at the time it was created by God. Therefore there can be no evolution.

Rock and roll music and non-representational art are aberrations. They are clearly associated with drugs, teenage sex and homosexuality. The combination of these factors will bring this nation to ruin.

The only reason people are poor is because they refuse to work. Government assistance causes blacks, Latinos and other non-white Christian degenerates to suck off the money provided by good, hard working white Christians.

People should be eternally grateful to the corporations that hire them. Unions are disruptive and anti-American. The only reason people are fired is for slacking off.

Phonics is the only way to teach reading. All that is necessary is to memorize the sound made by individual letters and every combination of them. Teaching whole words is anti-American.

In math, it is the basics that are most important. Students must know their multiplication tables backwards and forwards. Teaching children to think for themselves is a big mistake. There are rules for solving all problems and these should be taught. Allowing children to reason for themselves just leads to sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Most of the answers here seem to be geared towards the right wing political system version
of left-right there is a broader section which covers political systems rather then parties.

From what I understand:

Left-Wing:
More like people helping people, like socialist and communist sort of situations
where everyone has an equal part to play and collective resources. This does not mean it allows people to live off others who work more. This system works as it allows everyone to tap in to everyone’s resources
meaning living standards should improve with less work. This system fails as it does not
cater for the humans need to lead the pack or be “better” the one another.

Right-Wing:
People working to support their own family or themselves. This is like capitalism.
This system works as it allows more freedom for people to do what they want in terms of economic gain meaning they can put in more work to get more money.
The downside being people are continually trying to make more money so the cost of
living is increased as does the separation between the rich and poor .

@LostInParadise I don’t particularly care that people are biased—in either direction. In this forum I take it as a given that most opinions are skewed (some more than others) to a liberal, statist point of view. And as I said, whether you believe it or not, I’m not in any way a “conservative”, though to play Devil’s Advocate in this place I sometimes speak up for them (when Nullo and others like him are busy, simply too smart to get involved, or absent for other reasons) so your silly satire is lost on me.

What irks me is that so many here seem to have drunk the Kool Aid, and just feed ignorance to each other as if it’s manna: So many of y’all simply fail to “understand” what conservatism is. And that’s painful. It’s always painful for me to watch stupidity manifested, agreed to and praised. It’s worse because I expect more intelligence in this particular forum, and it galls me to see the groupthink on this particular topic. That’s all.

If you don’t want to be a conservative, that’s fine. I don’t care. If you want to be stupid and pretend you “know” conservatism because you can make a snarkier comment about it than the snarky one that preceded yours—especially in a comment thread that’s supposed to be “serious and helpful”—and if the mods choose to recognize those comments as ‘helpful’ then it just exposes the ideology of the whole site, and its hypocrisy. As I read the comments above, it seems that about 90% of them could be modded as “unhelpful”. Of course they aren’t.

I say the same thing to rooms full of conservatives bashing liberals, by the way. Don’t feel singled out here. Plantation thinking along any party line is generally wrong. If I ever find a room full of Libertarians, I may have the same conversation with them some day. Let’s hope.

Ok, @CyanoticWasp, I think you have way overstated the case that my description was biased yes, we’re still friends. You were most grievously disturbed by my final summing up, which you described in this way: ”… your conclusion is shockingly bad: Conservatives apparently think that “we [are] lazy and in need of a harsh kick”, and liberals think that “we are all doing the best we can and some of us need a helping hand.” That’s execrable.”

Why is that execrable? How is that unfair? Is it the metaphor? Did you even try to understand the underlying principle?

I do not look down on the idea of a “kick in the butt.” I got a serious one when I was 22, and it worked. I wish it had happened some other way, because it left me with a lasting mistrust of my parents, but it did work.

I believe that conservatives think that the fear of being destitute is a powerful motivator. Similarly, they believe that the desire for a profit is a powerful motivator. I think they believe these are the best motivators.

I think you are reading more into my feelings about things than is actually there. I do happen to think a safety net is important, and Conservatives know which side their bread is buttered on, and generally don’t want to touch Medicare and Social Security. Those are programs the middle class loves. Medicaid and poverty programs they have less love for, particularly because they know a lot of people are angry about being forced to give their hard earned money to poor people who don’t work. Or to immigrants who aren’t even citizens.

Philosophically, I think that conservatives are not in favor of any large government program, especially those that redistribute money. They think this biases the market and leads to corruption and is unmanageable. We’d be much better off if the private sector, where competition is all over the place, would run these huge programs.

Now some accuse the conservatives as believing this just to line the pockets of the wealthy. They see the federal government handing out all kinds of plum, no-bid contracts to certain companies and wonder if the competition is fair.

Oh, I could go on and on, and yes, my explanation would be imbued with my true opinions about what is best for people in this country. I think I’ve earned the right to those opinions, and to characterizing opponents of my positions because I have done the research over a good portion of my career. I have publications concerning many different policy issues. Most of these publications were for clients, so there are only a couple in the public sphere.

I have worked on immigration issues, health policy issues, workplace labor-management cooperation issues, futurist issues, Middle East water issues. I have created a business plan for urban fish farms. Oh God, I don’t know what all else. I did a study about figuring out how to look at federal spending on a Congressional District level, so that we could compare spending to outcomes by Congress Critter. I’ve been exposed to shit all over the place.

As part of this, I have had to study the objections of the opposition. I have had to know them inside and out, because we have to counter them. They are, I would note, pretty much always the same objections, and far too often they are based on opinion rather than data. That’s another thing. Conservatives tend to be much more mistrustful of academia than Liberals are. Too many of them believe that all that they need to know can be found in the Bible.

So yeah. I think I know conservativism. I have had to. I think I am fair to them. I do listen to them and have had quite a few ideas changed because of some analyses and data they have shown me. But overall, I am as fair as I know how to be, and I have not been throwing any sucker punches here (although I wanted to).

So nyeh! ;-)

I do find your views interesting. I would call them a kind of “radical middle” point of view. Although I am sorry you find @Blondesjon‘s post to be reasonable. To me, it reeks of conspiracy theories, because it suggests we’ve been trained to think in some non-thinking kind of way by an unnamed party (using the passive voice). It is also very condescending because it suggests that people don’t think for themselves. I don’t happen to believe that people just take the pablum and swallow it without tasting it. I think they think for themselves, and make their decisions based on the knowledge they have. I believe that if they had more knowledge, they wouldn’t make the choices they do.

Left-wing people think free market societies are evil.

Right-wing people think organized solidarity in societies is evil.

Okay, @wundayatta, I see where you’re going. I guess what I objected to was your choice of wording after I had been prepped with the bias that @LostInParadise displayed. Your words: “harsh kick”, the assumption [that ‘they’ make] that “we’re all lazy”, vs. the liberals’ attitude that “we’re all doing the best we can” and some just need a “helping hand”.

It could be just as accurately stated, without the pejoratives applying to “conservatives” that “Conservatives believe that people can and will respond to incentives and will take care of themselves if allowed to” and that “Liberals believe that far too many of us are incompetent to take care of ourselves and need to government’s assistance for day-to-day existence”.

I’m not saying that that is an accurate description of liberal thinking, by the way, but shifting the bias to say what is essentially the same thing. I still don’t see a lot of evidence that people in this thread (or on this site generally) comprehend a conservative point of view. Conservatives as a rule don’t want to cheat people, to rob them, or to dominate them, but reading in this thread it’s hard for a nominally neutral person to believe that anyone else believes that. People even have the laughable opinion that G.W. Bush was conservative, for example! And he surely was not.

To the extent that conservatives mistrust many of those in academe (and government) as you say, I can assure you that in many cases it’s because those people are trying to bamboozle the “less educated” (though no less intelligent) with sophistry and convoluted “proofs” often based more on their own biases, faulty conclusions teased from insufficient data, and which often defy logic and other sets of facts. Many times to carve their way out of verbal thickets woven around them “simple” people fall back on a policy of “knowing what they know” and relying on that stable datum to orient the rest of the world to. Hence, a reliance on parts of the Bible. I can understand it, even if I don’t always agree with it.

If you can explain a thing in plain words and direct logic and demonstrate facts that the opponent can comprehend (and believe) while competently handling reasonable objections and counter-arguments, then proof is a pretty simple thing with any intelligent person. If you’ve made a conscious or unconscious decision beforehand that your audience is “too set in their ways” or “too backward” or “too reliant on the Bible”, then you’re never going to prove a thing—and you’ll reinforce your presumption of the other party’s ignorance, stubbornness and prejudice—as you demonstrate your own mastery of those obstacles to understanding.

That’s all. You want a beer now? I’ll have a gin-tonic.

The right generally believes that the prosperity of society should take precedence over the rights of the individual. The left generally believes that the rights of the individual should take precedence over the prosperity of society.

@CyanoticWasp Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya….

Well, I’m glad that’s a bit more clear now. I was struck most by your comments about keeping things simple. I don’t feel like I’m one of those academics who confuzzulates folks. After all, it is actually my job to clear things up for students, and faculty, for that matter. Also, having worked in the persuasive policy paper atmosphere, I’ve had to try to find simple, convincing ways of explaining complicated things.

I do that a lot here, too. I think I do a pretty decent job, but then, as you point out, I am mostly preaching to the choir here. Anyway, it’s a goal of mine. But it’s also a goal of mine to come up with fresh, non-cliched ways of describing or explaining things. And another goal is to be humorous, nicely with people who need nice, and with more snarkiness to those who can take it (and dish it back).

Having said that, I do believe it is time to repair to the pub where, if you’re have a G&T, I might as well continue my campaign to taste every margarita made by every bar I set foot in. I do hope it’s still warm, and the sailing has been brisk. It would be nice to win a race, as well. I might even have two margaritas at that. And a third if I don’t have to drive. You can see how I“m such a big drinker. I think the younguns are probably roaring with laughter about now. ;-)

Well right-wingers were supposed to be smaller government, less spending and more civil liberties but I can’t say I’ve seen that from most Republicans.