The Essence of Leftist and Rightist Ideologies

[zerubabel]

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.

Openmind let me suggest that when we find ourselves creating a dichotomy of human beings that amount to nothing more than a categorization of good and evil - well then we should open our mind a little further and seek to empathize with the evil (obviously we all associate ourselves with the good and so need not empathize with them).

Empathize = to place oneself into the other’s position, to see through their eyes, to walk in their shoes.

 

[openmind77]

Openmind let me suggest that when we find ourselves creating a dichotomy of human beings that amount to nothing more than a categorization of good and evil - well then we should open our mind a little further and seek to empathize with the evil (obviously we all associate ourselves with the good and so need not empathize with them).

Empathize = to place oneself into the other’s position, to see through their eyes, to walk in their shoes.

I personally don’t think either side is purely evil or good.

However it is actually easy from Jesus’s criteria to determine who is on the left and who is on the right, just on the basis of their attitude to the ‘least’, the 'poorest and the disenfranchised segment of the population. No other criterion is needed (like their stand on abortion, sex etc).

 

[openmind77]

…
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.

.

I am afraid these two ridiculous statements need further discussions. Which fantasy world are you living in that says that the Left believes some should die so others may live better? The Left is against the death penalty for Pete’s sake!

Are you thinking about people like Stalin or Mao - they were communists. If you want to include them in the left/right discussion then we should include Hitler on the right. So lets just forget these monsters and stick to people in the US.

Why not compare two well known ex-Presidents in the US, one on the left and one on the right?

Take President Carter, a man on the Left - a more moral, principled, ethical man you will not find on the left or the right. When any other President would have bombed Iran out of existence, he was worried about loss of life (on ***both ***sides) . He is pro-choice but if he were born as a woman and had an unwanted pregnancy, he would never dream of having an abortion - you could not force him to do it at gunpoint (he does not believe in guns either).

On the other hand take George Bush, a man on the Right. A man of questionable ethics (Mr WeDontTorture). He is pro-life (responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq alone!). If he were born as a woman and had an unwanted pregnancy, what do you think he would do? Have you read about his youthful escapades?

I am not saying all leftists are good or that all rightists are evil. But this Left/Right generalization of yours does not work at all.

The only criteria that does work is the criteria that Jesus specified: You can tell who is a Leftist and who is a Rightist simply on the basis of their attitude to the poor and to foreigners.

 

[zerubabel]

I am afraid these two ridiculous statements need further discussions. Which fantasy world are you living in that says that the Left believes some should die so others may live better? The Left is against the death penalty for Pete’s sake!

Are you thinking about people like Stalin or Mao - they were communists. If you want to include them in the left/right discussion then we should include Hitler on the right. So lets just forget these monsters and stick to people in the US.

Why not compare two well known ex-Presidents in the US, one on the left and one on the right?

Take President Carter, a man on the Left - a more moral, principled, ethical man you will not find on the left or the right. When any other President would have bombed Iran out of existence, he was worried about loss of life (on ***both ***sides) . He is pro-choice but if he were born as a woman and had an unwanted pregnancy, he would never dream of having an abortion - you could not force him to do it at gunpoint (he does not believe in guns either).

On the other hand take George Bush, a man on the Right. A man of questionable ethics (Mr WeDontTorture). He is pro-life (responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq alone!). If he were born as a woman and had an unwanted pregnancy, what do you think he would do? Have you read about his youthful escapades?

I am not saying all leftists are good or that all rightists are evil. But this Left/Right generalization of yours does not work at all.

The only criteria that does work is the criteria that Jesus specified: You can tell who is a Leftist and who is a Rightist simply on the basis of their attitude to the poor and to foreigners.

The so-be-it statements (3, not 2) are couched in a dialog centered on abortion. You even unwittingly support these statements as you have Jimmy Carter declare at gunpoint the unprincipledness of abortion yet still supports it as the law of the land … so be it!

Minimally, unavoidably, undeniably and inevitably the decision to abort relies on a value judgment that the life of the mother and her family (present and future) would be worse if the fetus were allowed to continue living - that life would be better if the fetus were not allowed to continue living. In all this value judgment the fetus has no say - because the fetus is the least of the least, the most helpless, the most unseen and unheard and the most innocent - that, I suppose you would say, is why the Right is so indifferent to the fetus’ plight.

.

 

[openmind77]

The so-be-it statements (3, not 2) are couched in a dialog centered on abortion. You even unwittingly support these statements as you have Jimmy Carter declare at gunpoint the unprincipledness of abortion yet still supports it as the law of the land … so be it!

Minimally, unavoidably, undeniably and inevitably the decision to abort relies on a value judgment that the life of the mother and her family (present and future) would be worse if the fetus were allowed to continue living - that life would be better if the fetus were not allowed to continue living. In all this value judgment the fetus has no say - because the fetus is the least of the least, the most helpless, the most unseen and unheard and the most innocent - that, I suppose you would say, is why the Right is so indifferent to the fetus’ plight.

.

I don’t really want to get into an argument on abortion,

I just wanted to point out that to say that the Left does not care that some people (living people) die is ridiculous.

Neither did I say that the Right is indifferent to the plight of the poor. Just that it is easy to be ‘pro-life’ (while supporting gun rights and wars) when the person with the unwanted baby is not yourself.

However it is quite easy to find out who is on the right or left by asking them about what we should do for the poor or illegal immigrants.And Jesus has a clear prescription of what we should do and the result if we don’t.

We can both (left and right) easily agree that the poorest and illegal immigrants are the least among the people living in the country.

As for whether fetuses are ‘the least of the least’ according what Jesus says in Matthew 25 - I don’t think there is anyway we can resolve this.

We should just wait for the Christ himself to explain to us when he returns - I expect that to happen in a couple of years. I expect that he will agree with both of us that abortion is not a good thing, but he may just ask you to mind your own business and not try to control other women’s bodies or interfere with their autonomy over their own bodies (nothing so-be-it about it, it means if you cannot help, just keep quiet and mind your own business. Helping does not include yelling at them or accusing them)

 

[zerubabel]

I don’t really want to get into an argument on abortion,

I just wanted to point out that to say that the Left does not care that some people (living people) die is ridiculous.

Before introducing the example I did say that abortion was the most visceral. Not arguing about it is probably best. But understand that what I wrote was not my argument against so-called pro-choice, but a response to this:

I am afraid these two ridiculous statements need further discussions. Which fantasy world are you living in that says that the Left believes some should die so others may live better?

I failed to get you to empathize with the rightist argument - or to even question why Jimmy Carter was against abortion if not the wrongful taking of life (yet still supports it, so-be-it) but I did succeed in getting you to drop the pejorative “fantasy world.”

Neither did I say that the Right is indifferent to the plight of the poor.

You really should re-read your posts.

 

[zerubabel]

The only criteria that does work is the criteria that Jesus specified:

This got me thinking: So kind of like WWJD, we debate what political position would Jesus take on modern issues. OK._

As a student of Jesus’s teachings I will show you the principle that underpins the Right’s view: Yes Jesus (and the OT prophets) overwhelmingly preached giving alms, yet when he was doing so he was always speaking to the individual. In fact Jesus never addressed issues of government or social structure (like those OT quotes I gave). Jesus especially spoke a message of personal salvation and personal redemption. Jesus always speaks to our heart - not to a collective consciousness. And this collective consciousness is exactly the Right’s view of the Left. The Left are statist and never far from falling into communism (in the view of the Right).

The principles that guide the Right in this case are: The personal-ness of giving. When the gift comes from no other influence other than one’s own spirit, it is true giving, it is love. Otherwise it is merely done out of social obligation. Additionally Christianity is the greatest of all religions because it restores our fellow man. More than material needs a man has spiritual needs, self-respect, honor etc. When one helps another to redeem them self it is very gratifying indeed.

The other principle is that of the self-respect and honor born of self-sufficiency. Give a man a fish and you feed his body. Teach a man to fish and you not only feed his body for life, you also feed his soul. Redeem the man, don’t merely feed him.

“The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic; an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,–in the name of a concern for “human beings”–regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.”

Barry Goldwater from: The Conservative Conscience.

 

[yppop]

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.

Jesus surely foresaw the left/right divide as you point out, but you got it backwards, which, I suppose, is entirely forgivable for a Hindu. This post has centered on an argument concerning government’s role in the left/right divide. However, since you brought Jesus into the argument, let me give you what I believe is the Christian position. Will Durant, the great historian, said it best; quote:

“He (Christ) resembled Caesar only in taking his stand with the lower class, and in the quality of mercy; otherwise what a world of outlook, character, and interests separated them! Caesar hoped to reform men by changing institutions and laws; Christ wished to remake institutions and laws by changing men." Vol III Caesar and Christ, pg 562

This quote is alluding to Caesar’s desire to increase his popularity by giving the proletariat a dole, namely their “bread and circuses”. Durant’ s perceptive quote gets to the heart of Christ’s command that each individual is responsible for the “least of their brethren”.

As we well know, direct individual help is impractical in any community organized at a level greater than a village, unless the individual voluntarily supports (financially and/or as a volunteer) any organization dedicated to the Christian ideal such as the Catholic Church that actively supports schools, hospitals, and many other charitable activities.

I believe that is one way to fulfill what Jesus’ advocated as each person’s responsibility and not the Caesar “governmental” approach that is so fraught with problems that I couldn’t begin to list them all.
Yppop

 

[openmind77]

Jesus surely foresaw the left/right divide as you point out, but you got it backwards, which, I suppose, is entirely forgivable for a Hindu. This post has centered on an argument concerning government’s role in the left/right divide. However, since you brought Jesus into the argument, let me give you what I believe is the Christian position. Will Durant, the great historian, said it best; quote:

“He (Christ) resembled Caesar only in taking his stand with the lower class, and in the quality of mercy; otherwise what a world of outlook, character, and interests separated them! Caesar hoped to reform men by changing institutions and laws; Christ wished to remake institutions and laws by changing men." Vol III Caesar and Christ, pg 562

This quote is alluding to Caesar’s desire to increase his popularity by giving the proletariat a dole, namely their “bread and circuses”. Durant’ s perceptive quote gets to the heart of Christ’s command that each individual is responsible for the “least of their brethren”.

As we well know, direct individual help is impractical in any community organized at a level greater than a village, unless the individual voluntarily supports (financially and/or as a volunteer) any organization dedicated to the Christian ideal such as the Catholic Church that actively supports schools, hospitals, and many other charitable activities.

I believe that is one way to fulfill what Jesus’ advocated as each person’s responsibility and not the Caesar “governmental” approach that is so fraught with problems that I couldn’t begin to list them all.
Yppop

I don’t think Jesus is very concerned how the food or healthcare is delivered to the hungry and needy (neither are the poor and nor am I), notwithstanding what Durrant or anyone else says (even less what Barry Goldwater says).

If the Right can provide food and healthcare to ALL who need it by just using private institutions then that would be great. The Left has absolutely no objections to doing it this way (there are many individuals on the Left who are active in ‘personal giving’).

It is not like the Left prefers government intervention, but it should be obvious to anyone by now that many people are still hungry and still without healthcare where there is no government action.

But the attitude to strangers/immigrants is like a litmus test - the Right just wants to evict them while the Left wants to accommodate them.

I think we just need to wait for the Christ to Return to explain to you who gets the Left/Right divide correct. You don’t have very long to wait - maybe a couple of years.

 

[Latias]

The other principle is that of the self-respect and honor born of self-sufficiency. Give a man a fish and you feed his body. Teach a man to fish and you not only feed his body for life, you also feed his soul. Redeem the man, don’t merely feed him.

“The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic; an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,–in the name of a concern for “human beings”–regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.”

Barry Goldwater from: The Conservative Conscience.

So tell in me in what tangible ways this apparently magnanimous principles are embodied in modern conservatism other than vociferous opposition to government programs and legality of abortion. Is there really anything constructive from conservatism?

I would also say that “self-sufficiency” is just another way to address the free rider problem of people consuming public resources. It is nothing magnanimous or transcendent, but rather reflects the limited resources of government.

 

[zerubabel]

So tell in me in what tangible ways this apparently magnanimous principles (self-sufficiency) are embodied in modern conservatism

It seems obvious to me. Take for example the folk saying “pull yourselves up by your boot straps” Does that connote a leftist or rightist mindset?

There was a destitute man on the street and a Conservative approached him and said: “This man needs help. He should pull himself up by his bootstraps the same way that I did.” Then a Liberal came by and said: “This man needs help. You should help him.”

Is there really anything constructive from conservatism?

This is a judgment hidden behind interrogative speech - or at best it is seeking to make a judgement sans analysis.

I suggest the better way is to first make an analysis (i.e. understanding the essences) and then make a judgment. If one first makes the judgment, then any subsequent analysis will be hopelessly subjective to his bias.

.