The Essence of Leftist and Rightist Ideologies

[zerubabel]

Essence literally to be, is the one element about some thing that if it were changed the thing would cease to exist. For example enlightenment ideals such as Laissez-faire economics were the position of the Left against the Right’s defense of monarchy. Those positions have inverted and now the Left are the statists against the Right’s defense of individual liberties. While these political positions have changed, the Left and Right have never lost continuity.

Ideology as I use it here, is a sort of axiomatic premise held with conviction that may even seem to be innate to the holder. It is an overarching view (the root of idea is to see) of the world through which all other ideas and events are filtered, colored or judged. It is the greater ideology through which lesser ideologies are subjective. There is the idea that is influenced, there is the idea that influences. This relationship can occur at many levels. To find it’s essence we seek to find that highest level of idea which no other idea influences … or a first principle. The true essence will be able to explain this ideological hierarchy, not only of current political positions, but also the evolution of these ideologies’ expression through history. Here are the essences:

***The Right seeks principled means. The Left seeks perfect ends. ***

Examples:

The Rightist first principle can express itself in the chivalric code (family, nationalism) or in adherence to religious principles (regardless of whether man created God, or God created man, God embodies our highest principles), or most recently in the principles of individual liberty.

The Leftist first principle has expressed itself first in the enlightenment, then romanticism (the reaction against the enlightenment’s child - industrialization), then anarchism - communism - socialism - all different paths to utopia, and all using principles only as ad hoc means to an end. Bentham’s utilitarianism is the clearest statement of this ends orientation.

.

 

[dmar198]

Essence literally to be, is the one element about some thing that if it were changed the thing would cease to exist. For example enlightenment ideals such as Laissez-faire economics were the position of the Left against the Right’s defense of monarchy. Those positions have inverted and now the Left are the statists against the Right’s defense of individual liberties. While these political positions have changed, the Left and Right have never lost continuity.

Ideology as I use it here, is a sort of axiomatic premise held with conviction that may even seem to be innate to the holder. It is an overarching view (the root of idea is to see) of the world through which all other ideas and events are filtered, colored or judged. It is the greater ideology through which lesser ideologies are subjective. There is the idea that is influenced, there is the idea that influences. This relationship can occur at many levels. To find it’s essence we seek to find that highest level of idea which no other idea influences … or a first principle. The true essence will be able to explain this ideological hierarchy, not only of current political positions, but also the evolution of these ideologies’ expression through history. Here are the essences:

***The Right seeks principled means. The Left seeks perfect ends. ***

Examples:

The Rightist first principle can express itself in the chivalric code (family, nationalism) or in adherence to religious principles (regardless of whether man created God, or God created man, God embodies our highest principles), or most recently in the principles of individual liberty.

The Leftist first principle has expressed itself first in the enlightenment, then romanticism (the reaction against the enlightenment’s child - industrialization), then anarchism - communism - socialism - all different paths to utopia, and all using principles only as ad hoc means to an end. Bentham’s utilitarianism is the clearest statement of this ends orientation.

.

Google defines conservative as “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.” To me, that seems like a decent enough definition. They define liberal as “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” I am less satisfied by that definition, because I think you could be open to new behavior or opinions without being willing to discard traditional values. But I do think Google’s definition is more intuitive than yours.

 

[zerubabel]

Google defines conservative as “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.” To me, that seems like a decent enough definition. They define liberal as “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.” I am less satisfied by that definition, because I think you could be open to new behavior or opinions without being willing to discard traditional values. But I do think Google’s definition is more intuitive than yours.

You’re right that it is not intuitive. If we were in 18th century England what would have been intuitive would have been that the Right were defenders of monarchy and it’s extensive network of oath-based lordships, while the Left were ideologues full of enlightenment ideals of universal suffrage and laissez-faire economics. The system of peasant’s common lands was at that time millennium-old. It had no foundation in the law or any royal decrees. It’s only justification was tradition. One would expect that the Right, if they were defenders of tradition, would have been opposed to the enclosure movements. But they were not. The Crown supported the Lords’ actions (all part of oaths-of-fealty) and the Right, the Tories, defended the Crown. The Right’s highest principle at that time was the chivalric code of fealty to God, and by extension, by the divine right of kings, to King and Country.

It is no hyperbole to say that the by far greatest, most acute and rapid change in man’s physical existence has been the industrial and technological revolution. If the Right were essentially defenders of tradition and resistant to change then surely they would be the constant droning voice to say “Let’s take this slowly. Let’s be sure of what we are doing before we rush into anything rash.” But they are not. Technological change is embodied in, or symbolized by, corporations and it is the Right which is the supporter of corporations while the Left has antipathy towards corporations. The voice opposed to technological change comes from the Left, e.g. environmentalism (defense of the traditional {natural} environment). The resistance to industrial change began with the Romantics and Rousseau’s noble savage and remains an underlying theme in Leftist rhetoric - that modern Western culture, that is to say advanced technological culture, is tinged with evil.

.

 

[dmar198]

You’re right that it is not intuitive. If we were in 18th century England what would have been intuitive would have been that the Right were defenders of monarchy and it’s extensive network of oath-based lordships, while the Left were ideologues full of enlightenment ideals of universal suffrage and laissez-faire economics. The system of peasant’s common lands was at that time millennium-old. It had no foundation in the law or any royal decrees. It’s only justification was tradition. One would expect that the Right, if they were defenders of tradition, would have been opposed to the enclosure movements. But they were not. The Crown supported the Lords’ actions (all part of oaths-of-fealty) and the Right, the Tories, defended the Crown. The Right’s highest principle at that time was the chivalric code of fealty to God, and by extension, by the divine right of kings, to King and Country.

It is no hyperbole to say that the by far greatest, most acute and rapid change in man’s physical existence has been the industrial and technological revolution. If the Right were essentially defenders of tradition and resistant to change then surely they would be the constant droning voice to say “Let’s take this slowly. Let’s be sure of what we are doing before we rush into anything rash.” But they are not. Technological change is embodied in, or symbolized by, corporations and it is the Right which is the supporter of corporations while the Left has antipathy towards corporations. The voice opposed to technological change comes from the Left, e.g. environmentalism (defense of the traditional {natural} environment). The resistance to industrial change began with the Romantics and Rousseau’s noble savage and remains an underlying theme in Leftist rhetoric - that modern Western culture, that is to say advanced technological culture, is tinged with evil.

.

I was about to compare your statements with a distributist worldview, give some examples, and ask you whether you thought they fit in with the left or the right. But then I saw your religion tag, which apparently says you are already a distributist. Lucky me, 'cuz now I don’t have to persuade you to adopt distibutism )) but I’d still like to know if you think distributists belong on the left or the right.

 

[zerubabel]

“(Do) distributists belong on the left or the right (?)”

Surely such a question requires a definition of “left” and “right.” If you maintain that Right = tradition and Left = change then your answer should be: Distributism was once the traditional way of life, and therefore rightist. Yet for over one or two saeculum our culture has been radically based in individualistic wage slavery to centralized business and government. Distributism would be a radical change to the standing order we all know and therefore would be Leftist in nature. The answer to this question, with the above definitions, hinges on whether one one considers 150 - 200 years to be a sufficient age to qualify as a “tradition.” Imprecision in. Imprecision out.

Using my definitions as the premise doesn’t make the question simple but does make the answers precise. The seemingly knee-jerk critique against distributism is that it is nothing more than a call for redistribution of wealth which would ultimately require a strong centralized government to impose and therefore rely on a centrally-controlled economy. The whole idea becomes a bizarre scheme towards an imagined utopia, and therefore Leftist.

If I rely on Chesterton to be the spokesman for distributism, he is a passionate preacher of principle. That is why he is so quotable. Aphorisms are simple and elegant packaging of principles.* “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.* (…) the world did not tire of the church’s ideal, but of its reality.” Chesterton, in the great Christian tradition, encourages us to live our lives according to principle and makes no guarantee of outcome. In fact it is a firm foundation that utopia/heaven only exists on the other-side. The idea of Heaven on Earth is leftist.

So Chesterton is Rightist, and yet … always a yet: there was one time that the English government was buying out Irish land from English landlords and redistributing it back to the Irish peasantry. Chesterton gave his approbation to this as a way to achieving more perfect ends. In that moment Chesterton lost his focus on principled means and sought perfect ends. In that moment he was Leftist. And in like manner there are many modern distributists who are also Leftist at heart.

BTW if one wants the principle of distributism simply and elegantly packaged, here it is: and notice that there is no mention of how it would all turn out.

“When it is really thought hateful to take Naboth’s vineyard, as it is to take Uriah’s wife, there is little difficulty in finding a local prophet to pronounce the judgment of the Lord. In an atmosphere of capitalism the man who lays field to field is flattered; but in an atmosphere of property he is promptly jeered at or possibly stoned.”

.

 

[dmar198]

Just recently, as in, this month of January, I finished reading Chesterton’s Outline of Sanity and What’s Wrong with the World, which are where I think you got your quotations. Great books! I also read Belloc’s “The Servile State,” which offered some practical proposals for implementing distributism in Section 7:

[1.] “If I desire to substitute a [large] number of small owners for a few large ones in some particular enterprise, how shall I set to work?”

[2.] “I might boldly confiscate [the large property] and redistribute [it among many].” But this would involve “enormous and innumerable separate acts of injustice.” Plus, “[this] would so disturb the whole network of economic relations as to bring ruin at once to the whole body politic.”

[3.] “I [could] proceed more slowly and more rationally and [direct] the economic life of society so that small property shall gradually be built up within it.”

[4.] For example, “* benefit small savings at the expense of large.”

[5.] I could encourage people “[to] build up small property through thrift.”

[6.] “Or, let the policy be pursued of [taxing] undertakings with few owners…and of subsidising with the produce small holders in proportion to the smallness of their holding.”

Hilaire gives a few other general suggestions in that section of his book. But it should be pointed out that #2 above explicitly rejects the Communist model where the government confiscates large property and redistributes it.

In a seventh quote that I’ve reproduced below, Hilaire considers whether it would be slightly better if the government bought out large properties and then redistributed them, because at least no one’s property would be stolen in such a scenario. But he identifies that idea as having numerous problems. I think an obvious one is this: a government couldn’t buy large properties and give them away for very long before running out of money. Plus, that would still make the government a distributor of property, and Hilaire seems to think that is dangerous.

I think suggestions 3-5 make more sense. #5 seems to be a project of education. If you educate people toward building up their own property through thrift, the hope would be that people would eventually transition from thinking of themselves as dependent on large companies for their livelihood. Gradually, with a project of education about the benefits of small ownership, including in business, the norm might change to where people generally make their livings off of their own property rather than off of someone else’s.

I also think there’s something to #6, except I don’t like the government subsidizing things. Instead, perhaps the government could make the taxes on small owners and cooperatives lower than the taxes on large corporations. Then, people would be more likely to start up their own companies or work together with their community to start a cooperative.

I think cooperatives are better than corporations because they are more accountable to the community than a corporation is, and because the workers in a cooperative often collect the profits from their collective labor, rather than letting it go to a corporate office and trickle up into large bonuses and down to anonymous stockholders. But people need education to run a cooperative. Hilaire points out what would happen if you suddenly turned every corporation into a cooperative:

[7.] “* the works of one of our great Trusts, purchase it with public money, [and] bestow, even as a gift, the shares thereof to its workmen.” “[But] can I count upon any tradition of property in their midst which will prevent their squandering the new wealth? Can I discover any relics of the co-operative instinct among such men?” “[T]he strongest force against the distribution of ownership in a society already permeated with Capitalist modes of thought is still the moral one: Will men want to own?”

I also think a major difficulty with starting cooperatives is that your average worker doesn’t know how to run a company. For a business to work, you need leadership, and so the cooperative needs to vote together to create a board of directors and an executive. But once the executive starts getting bonuses and larger paychecks than the rest of the workers, you’re back to a corporate model. If you rotate the executive through the ranks of the workers, though, you could avoid turning him into a corporate-style CEO, but that would seem to eliminate the possibility of ensuring that a specialist holds the executive position.

This is why education is so important: if people are taught the benefits of small property ownership, of working for yourself, and of how to run a cooperative, and if there is more support for cooperatives and small businesses than for large corporations, I think gradually society will shift away from a model where most people work for large corporations (Hilaire’s understanding of capitalism) to a model where most people work for themselves and in cooperatives. And that’s the main difference between distributism and capitalism.

---

I copy-pasted the above (and slightly modified it) from a recent dialog I had with another poster. I wonder what your take is?**

 

[zerubabel]

I wonder what your take is?

I am a man of the Right. If you understand what I mean by that then you already know my take. Our higher principles should guide our lives - first and foremost we should consult our moral compass, our Judeo-Christian moral compass if you like. If there is a difference in belief about what that moral compass should be, or a difference in the hierarchy of principle - which principle is the greater and which is the lesser - then that question becomes the highest political issue facing our society - not how best to implement distributism.

For the distributist who approaches corporations, banks and other big businesses this is the highest guiding principle I suggest: Personal Property - uncompromising adherence to the principle of personal property.

When the corporation’s CEO announces profits, they declare the existence of excess liquid assets owned by the owners of the corporation and by right should immediately be dispersed to their rightful owners - the stock holder. Failure to do so is theft.

When capital is loaned there is a usury due to the owner of the capital. It is the bank’s depositors who are the owners of the capital and are owed the usury. The banker who lends other people’s money and then keeps the usury for himself is a thief.

If you are asking about tax incentives then that obviously would help certain people at the expense of other people. That the people who would be hurt are the rich is no justification at all. The widely accepted idea of a “sin tax” should also carry no weight with the Rightist. High taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are considered disincentives for the good of the person being taxed. That is a nice image but no such benevolent facades can change the fact that the sin tax robs from the sinner to give to the saint. When it comes to taxes we should all be robbed equally, sinner or saint. Anything less amounts to nothing more than an Islamic dhimitude tax.

… image of lady justice

 

[openmind77]

I am a man of the Right. If you understand what I mean by that then you already know my take. Our higher principles should guide our lives - first and foremost we should consult our moral compass, our Judeo-Christian moral compass if you like. I…

Are you saying you are a rightist and a distributist? I really doubt if there is a single conservative in the US who wants to distribute anything! Also are you saying a moral compass is exclusive a rightist quality?

 

[zerubabel]

Are you saying you are a rightist and a distributist? I really doubt if there is a single conservative in the US who wants to distribute anything! Also are you saying a moral compass is exclusive a rightist quality?

A moral compass is not a “quality.” It is an abstract construct, it is a thing. One can relate to this thing with approbation or with renunciation. When confronted with a life problem one can consult the compass or ignore it. Yet it still exists regardless of one’s ideological make-up.

“Distribustism” is really an unfortunate name. Yet I really don’t think you have thought about these ideas thoroughly. Distribution is the very soul of consumerism, yet it is unilateral, i.e. from producer to consumer. What person, left or right, doesn’t want gas distributed to them via their local gas station? Distributism (the political ideal of Chesterton/Belloc) seeks multilateral over unilateral.

I’m going to start a new thread on distributism because this one has lost the focus on the op (as well as not many people being interested in it).

.

 

[zerubabel]

Affirmative Action is a clear display of the two essences laid out in the OP, and also of their shortcomings. It is an impactful example because it transpired in such a brief moment in time. In the early civil rights movement the Left advocated a true color-blindness of the law. MLK and JFK both clearly enunciated this principle. MLK’s famous Dream speech advocates that his daughters be judged by the “content of their character” not by “the color of their skin.” Meanwhile the Right was floundering in defense of the wrong, the lesser principle of States Rights. The Civil rights era was a great epiphany for the Right in that they came to understand that blind justice is one of the most important principles of government. And although the image of the blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice has been a part of the West’s Judeo-Christian morality (“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour“ Lev 19:15) and Constitutional principles, it had been routinely violated from the very beginning. The Civil Rights era was unique also because for a brief moment both the Left and Right found themselves seeking the same goal. I say brief for because no sooner did we have a consensus on the principle of color-blindness of the law as the highest principle AND as the way to a just society, then the Left perceived it as insufficient to achieve their utopian ideal of absolute equality. For this they deemed it necessary to violate the very principle in which they so recently feigned approbation, to judge NOT on the content of one’s character but on the color of one’s skin. The political issue continues with the Left advocating unprincipled legislation in search of an egalitarian utopia, while the Right defends the color-blindness principle they now firmly embrace, thanks in no small part to the Left.

The most visceral example is abortion. The Left has a litany of reasons why abortion gives us a better society: It reduces population; welfare; allows women to plan their career and families; avoids the poverty and pathos of unwanted children; provides a safety net for recreational sex; some even advocate a reduction in crime that unwanted children are projected to commit (a sort of preemptive capital punishment). In the end the society in which “every child is a wanted child” is far superior. The Right on the other hand, have no utilitarian reasons. Not one! They can offer only the utmost highest principle of the sanctity of life. Overpopulation, ghettos, welfare, the pathos of poor fatherless families are all problems, yes, but no problem outweighs the Right’s principle of the sanctity of life. Fiat justitia ruat caelum “Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.”

These are the two clearest examples of the essences as laid out in the OP. The other contemporary issues can also be explained in like manner. Many of the explanations hinge on the chivalric code that underpinned much of Western culture. The Right’s nationalism/patriotism, militarization and family values principles relate to the Knight championing his Lord and his Lady.

.

 

[openmind77]

A moral compass is not a “quality.” It is an abstract construct, it is a thing. One can relate to this thing with approbation or with renunciation. When confronted with a life problem one can consult the compass or ignore it. Yet it still exists regardless of one’s ideological make-up.

“Distribustism” is really an unfortunate name. Yet I really don’t think you have thought about these ideas thoroughly. Distribution is the very soul of consumerism, yet it is unilateral, i.e. from producer to consumer. What person, left or right, doesn’t want gas distributed to them via their local gas station? Distributism (the political ideal of Chesterton/Belloc) seeks multilateral over unilateral.

I’m going to start a new thread on distributism because this one has lost the focus on the op (as well as not many people being interested in it).

.

Yes, you had better explain what kind of religion distributism is! But again, are you saying that leftists don’t care about this thing or construct called moral compass?

 

[openmind77]

Affirmative Action is a clear display of the two essences laid out in the OP, and also of their shortcomings. It is an impactful example because it transpired in such a brief moment in time. In the early civil rights movement the Left advocated a true color-blindness of the law. MLK and JFK both clearly enunciated this principle. MLK’s famous Dream speech advocates that his daughters be judged by the “content of their character” not by “the color of their skin.” Meanwhile the Right was floundering in defense of the wrong, the lesser principle of States Rights. The Civil rights era was a great epiphany for the Right in that they came to understand that blind justice is one of the most important principles of government. And although the image of the blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice has been a part of the West’s Judeo-Christian morality (“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour“ Lev 19:15) and Constitutional principles, it had been routinely violated from the very beginning. The Civil Rights era was unique also because for a brief moment both the Left and Right found themselves seeking the same goal. I say brief for because no sooner did we have a consensus on the principle of color-blindness of the law as the highest principle AND as the way to a just society, then the Left perceived it as insufficient to achieve their utopian ideal of absolute equality. For this they deemed it necessary to violate the very principle in which they so recently feigned approbation, to judge NOT on the content of one’s character but on the color of one’s skin. The political issue continues with the Left advocating unprincipled legislation in search of an egalitarian utopia, while the Right defends the color-blindness principle they now firmly embrace, thanks in no small part to the Left.

The most visceral example is abortion. The Left has a litany of reasons why abortion gives us a better society: It reduces population; welfare; allows women to plan their career and families; avoids the poverty and pathos of unwanted children; provides a safety net for recreational sex; some even advocate a reduction in crime that unwanted children are projected to commit (a sort of preemptive capital punishment). In the end the society in which “every child is a wanted child” is far superior. The Right on the other hand, have no utilitarian reasons. Not one! They can offer only the utmost highest principle of the sanctity of life. Overpopulation, ghettos, welfare, the pathos of poor fatherless families are all problems, yes, but no problem outweighs the Right’s principle of the sanctity of life. Fiat justitia ruat caelum “Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.”

These are the two clearest examples of the essences as laid out in the OP. The other contemporary issues can also be explained in like manner. Many of the explanations hinge on the chivalric code that underpinned much of Western culture. The Right’s nationalism/patriotism, militarization and family values principles relate to the Knight championing his Lord and his Lady.

.

You left out the main reason why the Left supports the right to choose - the right of a woman to control her own body. Was it because this main, central reason is not ‘leftist’ enough for you?

 

[Latias]

Well, I suppose we could judge college applicants not by the color of their skin, but by the blind metrics of SAT/ACT scores (not that is necessarily bad or said in a sarcastic tone)

I really do not think the Right opposes affirmation action from out of any principle of equality, but simply because it is more difficult for the Right to sympathize to disenfranchised groups and to genuinely assist them. And please do not tell me that their economic doctrine will empower them to rise out of their adversity. I suppose most advocates of affirmation action do not care about the psychometric aspects of the college admission tests such as their validity (which I must say, from what I read, predict academic performance quite well) but from more sentimental reasons and to preserve the image that American society is a just meritocracy. (I ironically agree with that it is very meritocratic, even to the detriment of many rightists as this undermines the rightist thesis that societal institutions have been compromised due to a lack of adherence to meritocratic principles. But this raises the question of how American society is meritocratic.)

Moreover, I do not see how “sanctity of life” is necessarily a conservative position. Let’s keep in mind that conservative evangelical opposition to abortion arose during the Nixon administration. Furthermore, there are people who associate with the right, particularly on economic issues, who support abortion, not because of some libertarian position about the right to choose, but that it preferentially terminates the life of problematic children who will be a burden to the productive taxpayers.

As for myself regarding abortion, I use to adamantly support it because I did not see any ethical utility in preserving the life of an individual who would likely live a life of suffering and privation. In addition, I saw abortion as a means for the right to canalize the fervor of those who have an inclination for “righteousness” into a rather insignificant cause that would not affect condition of individuals who can suffer rather into a cause that would yield tangible benefits. I associated the pro-life movement with a bigoted, irrational zeal that was often ingenious to brutal social, political, and economic realities or indifferent to them.

Now, one can ask how I have incorporated a general pro-life stance (and “pro-life” here is separated from the general political movement itself which I did not lose my disdain for). During my conversion, I met a bipolar young woman whose piety and sincerity inspired me and who told me that she was almost aborted because her parents experienced some difficulties (and she was adopted and raised as a Catholic). I even pondered the possibility of myself being abortion before, and I was rather indifferent to it. If I was aborted, I would not have any experiences, especially negative one experiences where I would suffer, nor did I thought my life had any significance. However, when I saw her, to prospect of aborting her became rather abhorrent to me, since I saw her as a servant of God and one of His creations whom He loves. I did not submit myself to any moral authority or concept of a “culture of life” in order to appreciate this; that insight was divine perniciousness not something that was informed by my prior ideological principles. Still, I think one could only adopt a philosophically pro-life position only with appreciation that all human beings are created for God’s glory, which undermines any attempt for a pro-life apologist for advocating a secular argument.

Still, I realize that I could never associate myself with pro-life evangelism due to fundamental differences in my attitudes and values.

Well, if you want a quick answer to the “essence of right and left”, here’s something:

The colors are not personality traits, but rather personal attitudes and values.

Right:

White (social order, hierarchy, has a sense of righteousness, conformity – this does not necessarily mean good or benevolence)

Black (rational self-interest, concern for others that is limited to those close to you or allies that share a common interest with you, avarice for the ends of acquiring economic and political power, not necessarily for consumption — not necessarily evil)

Left:

(“Red - MTG Wiki”) (hedonism, impulsiveness, passion, freedom from constraints and rules)

(“Blue - MTG Wiki”) (a desire for knowledge, a focus on the theoretical and abstract as opposed more immediate, interpersonal realities, intellectual deliberation of policy)

Green (preserving the order of nature and the environment, peaceful coexistence with others)

---

One reason why I posted that is to show how someone like myself (more aligned to Blue and Red) could be pro-life in a philosophical, not political manner. I am pro-life not because I accepted some righteous vision of a “culture of life” or submitted out of obedience to the Church’s teachings, but rather because of a palpable, personal epiphany I received from the Spirit when I contemplated the potential fate of my sister in Christ. I could see how it affected me and a person whom I loved and befriended. I believed it is only through divine inspiration, not philosophical arguments one can become “pro-life”. Such a position came about only because of my sincere feelings for her and my spiritual perception of her. What I wanted to convey is that this position is quintessentially (a rather apt word in this context) Red and had almost no elements of White.

 

[zerubabel]

… it is more difficult for the Right to sympathize to disenfranchised groups and to genuinely assist them…terminates the life of problematic children who will be a burden to the productive taxpayers. … I did not see any ethical utility in preserving the life of an individual who would likely live a life of suffering and privation. … rather into a cause that would yield tangible benefits. … brutal social, political, and economic realities or indifferent to them. … the general political movement itself which I did not lose my disdain for…

Latias, your’s is an interesting case. That you have so passionately self-proclaimed a disdain for the Right it is a good test of my essences.

Principled Means:
<> Color blindness of the Law you reject because it *will not rise the disenfranchised groups out of their adversity. *
<> Sanctity of life you reject(ed) because It offers no “ethical utility in preserving the life of an individual.”

Perfect Ends:
<> You want to lift disenfranchised groups.
<> You believe that the Right’s zeal should be directed not at individual lives but in solving “brutal social, political, and economic realities.”
<> You question(ed) the value of any individual who “would likely live a life of suffering and privation.”

You fully fit the essences I laid out. You are fully Left-leaning of mind in all that you opine. Even a spiritual epiphany can’t get you to embrace the most prime principle of the equal value of every person … to not make value judgments on the individuals whether they may likely live a good life or a life of suffering, or that they may be part of a disenfranchised group or a privileged one … the principle is not to guarantee an equal economic reality to all, or to even pretend that everybody is equal in any real sense, we are not. The principle demands full equality ONLY in the eye’s of God. Full equality even of the sinner as well as the saint. If one translates this principle to a secular person then it is embodied in the blindness (color, gender, class, nationality) of the Law.

“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great” Deuteronomy 1:17

“Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.” Deuteronomy 16:18,19

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour“ Lev 19:15
.

 

[SonOfSeraphMary]

My opinion:

Moral issues:

Abortion: Right is winner
Homosexual Marriage: Right is winner
Selective Religious Expression: Right is winner (like those satanic displays in public…)
Modesty, Piety, and Humility: Right is winner
Contraception: Catholics are winners

Social Issues:

Education System: Left is winner
Jail System: Left is winner
Gun Control: Left is winner

 

[Latias]

I suppose most advocates of affirmation action do not care about the psychometric aspects of the college admission tests such as their validity (which I must say, from what I read, predict academic performance quite well) but from more sentimental reasons and to preserve the image that American society is a just meritocracy.

I meant to say “opponent’s” not advocates. By changing that word, I intended to express that the opposing affirmative action can be a legitimate position when college admissions tests are a good indicator of future performance and that those with poor scores are likely to be poor students.

I did express any position for affirmative action; I just expressed by belief that many right-wing people oppose it for ignoble reasons. But I do acknowledge it is an ad hominem, but your thread is concerned with essences of political ideologies not actual arguments.

Latias, your’s is an interesting case. That you have so passionately self-proclaimed a disdain for the Right it is a good test of my essences.
…
You fully fit the essences I laid out. You are fully Left-leaning of mind in all that you opine. Even a spiritual epiphany can’t get you to embrace the most prime principle of the equal value of every person … to not make value judgments on the individuals whether they may likely live a good life or a life of suffering, or that they may be part of a disenfranchised group or a privileged one … the principle is not to guarantee an equal economic reality to all, or to even pretend that everybody is equal in any real sense, we are not. The principle demands full equality ONLY in the eye’s of God. Full equality even of the sinner as well as the saint. If one translates this principle to a secular person then it is embodied in the blindness (color, gender, class, nationality) of the Law.

.

I think you misunderstood what I said: I did appreciate that spiritual epiphany and I accept that all life was valued. I am, for the most part, apolitical, and do not engross myself in domestic political issues. I didn’t vote in 2012. Does being pro-life or a Catholic mean I am morally obligated to support modern conservatism or that I should vote for conservative parties because they oppose abortion?

As for myself regarding abortion, I use to adamantly support it because I did not see any ethical utility in preserving the life of an individual who would likely live a life of suffering and privation. In addition, I saw abortion as a means for the right to canalize the fervor of those who have an inclination for “righteousness” into a rather insignificant cause that would not affect condition of individuals who can suffer rather into a cause that would yield tangible benefits. I associated the pro-life movement with a bigoted, irrational zeal that was often ingenious to brutal social, political, and economic realities or indifferent to them.

Most of my sentences are written in the preterite tense. Please note that I did say: “I used to support abortion”! As a Catholic, I have to reject the underlying nihilism in my previous position, which I thought I did convey by using the preterite.

What I wanted to express is how I could be pro-life without significantly accepting any of White (or conservative values). I thought it would help the pro-life cause to actually detach it from White values, which some people find distasteful, and providing an account that is more congruous with Red (again “Red” does not mean “left-wing”). Certainly, God does transcend conservative values.

I conveyed some distaste for the right, but even my own post did not emphasize an explicit identification with a particular political ideology, but more with the MTG colors of Blue and Red. Red is almost the antithesis of White’s values. I thought the MTG colors would be a useful means of identifying particular attitudes and values that could be fit in with modern political ideologies.

From the aforementioned links.

In White, Red sees a color that has ultimately lost sight of the individual in the quest for a perfect and lawful society. In Red’s eyes, even if a White government would result in a completely safe populace, it comes at the loss of civil liberties and individual voices; in short, a White society is nothing short of fascism to Red, and is completely reprehensible. The main conflict between Red and White is Chaos versus Law. Red feels that chaos can be put to good use, and that an anarchic society would ultimately end up with enough individual freedoms to embrace life to the fullest, as opposed to a sterile, law-centric, and dictatorial White society.

In White, Blue sees a color of fatal rigidity. White is far too stringent on its policy of right and wrong. Blue doesn’t see anything wrong with its deceptions in principle. And some things just have to be done for research. White wants for uniformity so much, it will persecute ideas simply for being unpopular. That kind of rigidity is discomforting for Blue - innovator and philosopher. When White finds something it doesn’t want in its world, it, and the society under it, will turn full force against the likes of Blue.

 

[openmind77]

*… Here are the essences:

***The Right seeks principled means. The Left seeks perfect ends. ****

…

.

Actually I don’t agree with these ‘essences’ at all. Jesus describes the difference between right and left much better in Matthew 25 31-46. He differentiated them on the basis of their attitude to the ‘least of these’. Consider this:

For those who are sick - left wants to provide healthcare/medicaid. Right wants to provide nothing
Those who are hungry -left wants to provide more foodstamps/welfare. Right wants to cut food stamps/welfare
Those who are in prison - left wants to reduce them, Right wants to keep them there
Those who are strangers/foreigners - left wants to help them, Right wants to deport them

It is obvious to me that Jesus clearly foresaw the left/right divide.

 

[Latias]

I must apologize for my defensive tone in last post.

Even a spiritual epiphany can’t get you to embrace the most prime principle of the equal value of every person … to not make value judgments on the individuals whether they may likely live a good life or a life of suffering, or that they may be part of a disenfranchised group or a privileged one … the principle is not to guarantee an equal economic reality to all, or to even pretend that everybody is equal in any real sense, we are not. The principle demands full equality ONLY in the eye’s of God. Full equality even of the sinner as well as the saint. If one translates this principle to a secular person then it is embodied in the blindness (color, gender, class, nationality) of the Law.

I will say that such a principle of equity is completely useless if it does not translate into beneficial personal conduct or policies that ameliorate human suffering. Instead, such “equality” seems to be rather indifferent to one’s material circumstances and does not foster sympathy and natural benevolence.

 

[zerubabel]

My opinion:

Moral issues:

Abortion: Right is winner
Homosexual Marriage: Right is winner
Selective Religious Expression: Right is winner (like those satanic displays in public…)
Modesty, Piety, and Humility: Right is winner
Contraception: Catholics are winners

Social Issues:

Education System: Left is winner
Jail System: Left is winner
Gun Control: Left is winner

Thank you SOSM for these sincere, ingenuous and objective judgments. You have created two categories of nearly exclusive predominance by either Left or Right. I suggest that the category of “moral issues” equates to principles which guide the action of individuals, (including individuals acting in concert). “Social issues,” as your wording suggests, relates to institutions and the structure of society … i.e. those things which must be correct in order for utopia to exist.

I suggest that the distinction between these two categories, and any possible consensus between the two camps, eventually distills down to two questions:

<> If (the vast majority of) individuals led their lives according to proper principles would that society naturally become Utopian?

<> If a Utopian society existed would individuals naturally lead principled lives?

.

 

[zerubabel]

I must apologize for my defensive tone in last post.

I will say that such a principle of equity is completely useless if it does not translate into beneficial personal conduct or policies that ameliorate human suffering. Instead, such “equality” seems to be rather indifferent to one’s material circumstances and does not foster sympathy and natural benevolence.

No need to apologize. I may have misunderstood your writing or mischaracterized your position, but I did stick to my best exegetical interpretation of the text of your post. Unlike Derrida who says the author dies and the text takes on it’s own life subject to both eisegetic as well as exegetic interpretations - I invite misunderstandings as an invitation to clarification. Which you have done here.

In this post you express Bentham’s utilitarianism - In all things seek the greatest happiness (least suffering) of the greatest number. What good is some damn archaic abstract principle if it doesn’t end in some material, tangible or quantifiable good. This firmly underpins you as Left-leaning (seeking perfect ends) in your world view.

The Left: If some should die so that most should live better, then so be it.

The Right: If following a principle does not end in a perfect world, then so be it.

The Left and Right look at each other’s so-be-it with horror while tacitly accepting their own so-be-it.

.