- 24 Jun 2012 04:20
#13991700
So, I'm moving to what I suppose could be an interesting place politically, but vaguely considered Right Wing/Conservative. I'm going to type this up to help others understand where I'm coming from, and also heavily to help me clarify exactly where the fuck I'm coming from. I'm going to start with theory behind Left/Right Politics, policies behind Left/Right Politics, theories behind Liberal/Conservative Politics, and policies behind Liberal/Conservative Politics. To that end, Wikipedia seems to be as terrible of a place as any other to define the theories and policies of Left/Right and Liberal/Conservative.
Left/Right Theory
In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.
In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist have been defined as acceptance or support of social hierarchy. Inequality is viewed by the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises through traditional social differences or from competition in market economies.
I would say there can be loosely four ways (in the West) for there be some form of hierarchy: Skills, Genetics, Money, and Race/Sex/Etc. The first two I see as legitimate, the second two I see as illegitimate. Skills, as in a hard work ethic, and also advanced understanding of relevant material (math to an economist) is something that you learned: you physically went out and got it, somehow. Maybe you earned your work ethic from your parents, who made you do chores every day, or maybe from a Big Brother (the program that is), or the military, or a teacher, or whatever. One way or another, it is something you earned. The Second is genetics. A natural aptitude for math is something you and your parents have zero control over (yet, I don't want to think about gene therapy on that level yet, leave me alone). However, silver in the mine is wasted. Your natural aptitude for something means dog shit if you don't go out and pursue it, making it heavily also an issue of Skills, which is why I consider it legitimate.
Money I don't like because it is not something you earned, and is something in someone's control (that is, your parents can give you a big wad of cash and make it easier for you to go to college). Let me explain it to you this way: Imagine that I am split into two of me, Wolfman1 and Wolfman2. Everything up until this point is the same. Wolfman1 continues to pay for school with his own money, and Wolfman2 is adopted by someone who has the money to send him to school. So, I have to work (or sell plasma, or whatever) to pay for school, removing time spent studying or getting extra knowledge (reading books, volunteering, etc). With the extra funding, Wolfman2 could probably also get into a better undergrad program. So, identical start, and we'd end up with a very different ending based on access to money. This, I would say is illegitimate. The final is race. Look, I know that HHBH and Rei (atleast) are reading this, but I don't give two shits about your race theory. Simple fact is, we wouldn't have blood plasma without a highly educated black dude. Oh, and bullet proof-vests were made by a woman.
So, in short, there are some legitimate, and some illegitimate sources of hierarchy. I am fine with the legitimate sources, and wished we made them more significant, the illegitimate sources I wished we would do away with. In my support of hierarchy, I would say I'm theoretically a moderate right winger.
Left/Right Policies
OK, we all know this. Left, social programs and regulations; Right, military and generally less regulation. I think our social programs are kind of going nuts right now. Nets, Aekos and others can probably clarify/correct this, but it seems like our current unemployment problem is Frictional, meaning there is a mish-mash of skills and experience of the unemployed, with the needs of the employers. Extending unemployment benefits will not help this. What will help this is funding for reeducation programs. Locally, there is a high demand for welders, but none of the unemployed are welders. An alternative/supplement to unemployment benefits is to offer training as welders. Holy shit, we're solving the problem! And generally speaking, I'm not sure how much I support unemployment insurance past about 8 months. Similarly, I'm unsure about welfare. I'd like some kind of "you cannot be on more then this many months in your life" kind of thing, with exceptions for both of those for the physically/mentally handicapped.
And yes, I do like the military. I'd like it if we moved to having a lower number on Active Duty and a higher number on Reserve Duty, with the same total numbers. So, instead of 1 million Active, 1 million Reserve, maybe 250K Active, 1.75 million Reserve. We would still have troops for minor conflicts and to start a major offensive conflict or hold off an invasion while Reserve units are Activated.
However, I don't think that Left/Right is an appropriate division when examining policy. The above simplification of Left/Right policies into social vs. military spending I think is incorrect because it leaves out infrastructure. I've previously been hawkish about the need for infrastructure development, and guess what, I'm about to be again. Our national infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be replaced. We have large unemployment. One can be used to fix the other. So, rebuilding/building our infrastructure can accomplish Leftist goals. And since the military often needs that same infrastructure to get around (moving troops/gear from coast to coast for exercises, etc), it would also benefit the military. Holy tits, I'm making everyone happy. I don't know if you would consider that Syncretic, or something else, but my major spending policy would be on infrastructure developments, and on Left/Right I could be considered probably Right Wing by my desire to withdraw/limit our social programs.
Additionally, from the article on Centre-Left:
...supports moderate measures to reduce the gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours, laws to ensure workers' right to organize. The centre-left, unlike the far-left, typically claims that equality of outcome is not possible, but that equal opportunity improves social equality in society
And the article on Centre-Right:
The centre-right also referred to as the moderate right, describes adherence to views whose views leaning to the right but close to the centre on the left-right political spectrum. The centre-right involves the acceptance of a degree of hierarchy in society. The centre right claims that inferior quality behaviour, such as laziness and decadence, will lead people to inferior situations in comparison to others. The contemporary centre right, unlike the far-right, usually claims that this is not innate and that people can end their behavioural inferiority through changing their habits and choices of behaviour.
I love em both.
Liberalism/Conservatism in Theory
Both can be divided loosely into Social and Cultural Liberalism/Conservatism. In defining Social Conservativism, wikipedia writes (numbering my own):
... [A] number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for puritanical morality and traditional family values, often based on a specific understanding of Abrahamist values, and opposition to sexual permissiveness(1).
As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia(2), embryonic stem cell research(3), and abortion(4); oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;(5) support abstinence-only education(6), gun ownership(7) and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage(8); support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs(9); oppose prostitution(10), gay adoption(11), premarital sex(12), and non-marital sex(13); and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency(14). Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools(15), but this is not necesarily integral to a socially conservative stance.
Social Liberalism can thus be defined as the opposite of these.
The following, I agree with: 7, 9, 10
The following, I disagree with: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
4: I'd like to emphasize ways to prevent the need for abortion in the first place, and allow for non-government funded abortion
5. I don't know, or care to think about it.
So, Socially Liberal, with some Conservative Elements.
Cultural Conservatism is defined as:
[T]he preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries. Other variants of cultural conservatism are concerned with culture attached to a given language such as Arabic.
Aside from my previously stated support for Gay Rights and indifference to religion broadly, and opposition to religion in government, I am supportive of Cultural Conservatism.
I guess that would make me somewhat of a Liberal Conservative.
I have more (much more) I want to write, but I need sleep soon. I'll probably get more of this done on Monday. If there is anything in particular the like three people reading this want me to go over, say so and I'll do that as soon as I get around to it.
Left/Right Theory
In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.
In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist have been defined as acceptance or support of social hierarchy. Inequality is viewed by the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises through traditional social differences or from competition in market economies.
I would say there can be loosely four ways (in the West) for there be some form of hierarchy: Skills, Genetics, Money, and Race/Sex/Etc. The first two I see as legitimate, the second two I see as illegitimate. Skills, as in a hard work ethic, and also advanced understanding of relevant material (math to an economist) is something that you learned: you physically went out and got it, somehow. Maybe you earned your work ethic from your parents, who made you do chores every day, or maybe from a Big Brother (the program that is), or the military, or a teacher, or whatever. One way or another, it is something you earned. The Second is genetics. A natural aptitude for math is something you and your parents have zero control over (yet, I don't want to think about gene therapy on that level yet, leave me alone). However, silver in the mine is wasted. Your natural aptitude for something means dog shit if you don't go out and pursue it, making it heavily also an issue of Skills, which is why I consider it legitimate.
Money I don't like because it is not something you earned, and is something in someone's control (that is, your parents can give you a big wad of cash and make it easier for you to go to college). Let me explain it to you this way: Imagine that I am split into two of me, Wolfman1 and Wolfman2. Everything up until this point is the same. Wolfman1 continues to pay for school with his own money, and Wolfman2 is adopted by someone who has the money to send him to school. So, I have to work (or sell plasma, or whatever) to pay for school, removing time spent studying or getting extra knowledge (reading books, volunteering, etc). With the extra funding, Wolfman2 could probably also get into a better undergrad program. So, identical start, and we'd end up with a very different ending based on access to money. This, I would say is illegitimate. The final is race. Look, I know that HHBH and Rei (atleast) are reading this, but I don't give two shits about your race theory. Simple fact is, we wouldn't have blood plasma without a highly educated black dude. Oh, and bullet proof-vests were made by a woman.
So, in short, there are some legitimate, and some illegitimate sources of hierarchy. I am fine with the legitimate sources, and wished we made them more significant, the illegitimate sources I wished we would do away with. In my support of hierarchy, I would say I'm theoretically a moderate right winger.
Left/Right Policies
OK, we all know this. Left, social programs and regulations; Right, military and generally less regulation. I think our social programs are kind of going nuts right now. Nets, Aekos and others can probably clarify/correct this, but it seems like our current unemployment problem is Frictional, meaning there is a mish-mash of skills and experience of the unemployed, with the needs of the employers. Extending unemployment benefits will not help this. What will help this is funding for reeducation programs. Locally, there is a high demand for welders, but none of the unemployed are welders. An alternative/supplement to unemployment benefits is to offer training as welders. Holy shit, we're solving the problem! And generally speaking, I'm not sure how much I support unemployment insurance past about 8 months. Similarly, I'm unsure about welfare. I'd like some kind of "you cannot be on more then this many months in your life" kind of thing, with exceptions for both of those for the physically/mentally handicapped.
And yes, I do like the military. I'd like it if we moved to having a lower number on Active Duty and a higher number on Reserve Duty, with the same total numbers. So, instead of 1 million Active, 1 million Reserve, maybe 250K Active, 1.75 million Reserve. We would still have troops for minor conflicts and to start a major offensive conflict or hold off an invasion while Reserve units are Activated.
However, I don't think that Left/Right is an appropriate division when examining policy. The above simplification of Left/Right policies into social vs. military spending I think is incorrect because it leaves out infrastructure. I've previously been hawkish about the need for infrastructure development, and guess what, I'm about to be again. Our national infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be replaced. We have large unemployment. One can be used to fix the other. So, rebuilding/building our infrastructure can accomplish Leftist goals. And since the military often needs that same infrastructure to get around (moving troops/gear from coast to coast for exercises, etc), it would also benefit the military. Holy tits, I'm making everyone happy. I don't know if you would consider that Syncretic, or something else, but my major spending policy would be on infrastructure developments, and on Left/Right I could be considered probably Right Wing by my desire to withdraw/limit our social programs.
Additionally, from the article on Centre-Left:
...supports moderate measures to reduce the gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours, laws to ensure workers' right to organize. The centre-left, unlike the far-left, typically claims that equality of outcome is not possible, but that equal opportunity improves social equality in society
And the article on Centre-Right:
The centre-right also referred to as the moderate right, describes adherence to views whose views leaning to the right but close to the centre on the left-right political spectrum. The centre-right involves the acceptance of a degree of hierarchy in society. The centre right claims that inferior quality behaviour, such as laziness and decadence, will lead people to inferior situations in comparison to others. The contemporary centre right, unlike the far-right, usually claims that this is not innate and that people can end their behavioural inferiority through changing their habits and choices of behaviour.
I love em both.
Liberalism/Conservatism in Theory
Both can be divided loosely into Social and Cultural Liberalism/Conservatism. In defining Social Conservativism, wikipedia writes (numbering my own):
... [A] number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for puritanical morality and traditional family values, often based on a specific understanding of Abrahamist values, and opposition to sexual permissiveness(1).
As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia(2), embryonic stem cell research(3), and abortion(4); oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;(5) support abstinence-only education(6), gun ownership(7) and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage(8); support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs(9); oppose prostitution(10), gay adoption(11), premarital sex(12), and non-marital sex(13); and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency(14). Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools(15), but this is not necesarily integral to a socially conservative stance.
Social Liberalism can thus be defined as the opposite of these.
The following, I agree with: 7, 9, 10
The following, I disagree with: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
4: I'd like to emphasize ways to prevent the need for abortion in the first place, and allow for non-government funded abortion
5. I don't know, or care to think about it.
So, Socially Liberal, with some Conservative Elements.
Cultural Conservatism is defined as:
[T]he preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries. Other variants of cultural conservatism are concerned with culture attached to a given language such as Arabic.
Aside from my previously stated support for Gay Rights and indifference to religion broadly, and opposition to religion in government, I am supportive of Cultural Conservatism.
I guess that would make me somewhat of a Liberal Conservative.
I have more (much more) I want to write, but I need sleep soon. I'll probably get more of this done on Monday. If there is anything in particular the like three people reading this want me to go over, say so and I'll do that as soon as I get around to it.