What is it that ideas and people are 'left' or 'right' of?

[there4eyeM]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

For the U.S.....the Right, believes in the Constitution of the UNited States, with it's limits on the power of the federal government.....the Left, believes that the Constitution is a block on the accumulation of power in the hands of the federal government.

Interesting, but it doesn't identify where or what the center is to which the two sides are juxtaposed.

 

[danielpalos]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

For the U.S.....the Right, believes in the Constitution of the UNited States, with it's limits on the power of the federal government.....the Left, believes that the Constitution is a block on the accumulation of power in the hands of the federal government.

Interesting, but it doesn't identify where or what the center is to which the two sides are juxtaposed.

The left understands the words written upon our Constitution and supreme law of the land.

the right wing has a right wing doctrine that limits their understanding.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is there some reference more general, less relative to only the U.S.?

 

[danielpalos]

Is there some reference more general, less relative to only the U.S.?

maybe we need some anecdote to work with.

This is what we are supposed to be doing: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

it influences the paradigm and the concepts, the words used by our Founding Fathers used to express their "commandments" regarding our form of social-ism and Government.

We have our Standing Orders, in writing.

 

[Correll]

how about a republic ?

Would you say that 'democracy' is to the 'left' of 'republican' (honest question, no subterfuge)?

Left and right are meaningless terms.

We are a republic not a democracy

In a democracy the minority is subject to the whims of the majority.

The terms left and right have had meaning since the late 18th century.

Our republican form of government is considered democratic even though it is not a direct democracy. Democracy simply means rule by the people. Whether that is undertaken by representation or directly does not alter the premise that the people have a say in their governance.

I would say that direct democracy is to the left of republicanism.

Would you also say that such a form of government is oppressive to the minority?

It's better than having a minority oppress the majority.

THose are not the only two options of course.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some seem to place the founding U.S. documents at the center, if we understand this correctly. They appear to place the 'left' in a kind of opposition to these docs. Who and what is an example of being to the 'right'?

 

[danielpalos]

Some seem to place the founding U.S. documents at the center, if we understand this correctly. They appear to place the 'left' in a kind of opposition to these docs. Who and what is an example of being to the 'right'?

This is what we are supposed to be doing: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

what opposition are you referring to from the left?

 

[there4eyeM]

Some seem to place the founding U.S. documents at the center, if we understand this correctly. They appear to place the 'left' in a kind of opposition to these docs. Who and what is an example of being to the 'right'?

This is what we are supposed to be doing: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

what opposition are you referring to from the left?

The "they" referred to those who appear to place the documents at the center and their opinion of 'left', not anything I've said or believe. Certainly, major aspects of those documents and the words that construct them can be seen in various ways. Even more so can the original intentions of long dead "founders". There is no reasonable way to claim a monopoly on understanding. So, if two sides are merely arguing over these same, 'central' documents, they are not 'left' and 'right' of one another. For one side to claim the other is 'right' or 'left' simply due to seeing things differently, it changes how we have to interpret those terms.

 

[danielpalos]

Some seem to place the founding U.S. documents at the center, if we understand this correctly. They appear to place the 'left' in a kind of opposition to these docs. Who and what is an example of being to the 'right'?

This is what we are supposed to be doing: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

what opposition are you referring to from the left?

The "they" referred to those who appear to place the documents at the center and their opinion of 'left', not anything I've said or believe. Certainly, major aspects of those documents and the words that construct them can be seen in various ways. Even more so can the original intentions of long dead "founders". There is no reasonable way to claim a monopoly on understanding. So, if two sides are merely arguing over these same, 'central' documents, they are not 'left' and 'right' of one another. For one side to claim the other is 'right' or 'left' simply due to seeing things differently, it changes how we have to interpret those terms.

the left is trying to uphold the values.

the right merely tries to make the rich richer, at every capital opportunity.

 

[Tehon]

Some seem to place the founding U.S. documents at the center, if we understand this correctly. They appear to place the 'left' in a kind of opposition to these docs. Who and what is an example of being to the 'right'?

Yes, just like the right supported the monarchy. The right believes the Constitution places limits on the government's ability to adapt to social evolutionary needs through social welfare standards and market interference. The left believes there are no such limitations and that the Constitution authorizes the government to create and maintain a general welfare standard.

 

[there4eyeM]

Promoting the general welfare would require a standard.
Still, both sides support the center, the Constitution. The difference is interpretation. The problem is partly that, as I've seen, some people are immediately upset by the very use of the term 'interpretation' when associated with the Constitution.
Could we say that the 'right' is really the center and that the 'left' wants to liberalize Constitutional authority/central power? 'Right' supports central power and 'left' supports eccentric power?

 

[Freiheit]

well there's plenty of way to look at political stripe>

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism is definately not rightist (conservative) it is the epitome of a command economy, socialist/communist. You failed to show Classic Liberalism on your figure which is right of conservatism. The whole is figure nothing more than propaganda.

 

[danielpalos]

Promoting the general welfare would require a standard.
Still, both sides support the center, the Constitution. The difference is interpretation. The problem is partly that, as I've seen, some people are immediately upset by the very use of the term 'interpretation' when associated with the Constitution.
Could we say that the 'right' is really the center and that the 'left' wants to liberalize Constitutional authority/central power? 'Right' supports central power and 'left' supports eccentric power?

there is no power to provide for the common offense or general warfare, right wingers; there is a general welfare clause.

 

[Tehon]

Promoting the general welfare would require a standard.
Still, both sides support the center, the Constitution. The difference is interpretation. The problem is partly that, as I've seen, some people are immediately upset by the very use of the term 'interpretation' when associated with the Constitution.
Could we say that the 'right' is really the center and that the 'left' wants to liberalize Constitutional authority/central power? 'Right' supports central power and 'left' supports eccentric power?

The Constitution is no more the center than was the monarchy. They are the authority.
Social evolution is the center.
The left seeks it by challenging the authority.
The right suppresses it by appealing to the authority.

 

[Tehon]

well there's plenty of way to look at political stripe>

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism is definately not rightist (conservative) it is the epitome of a command economy, socialist/communist. You failed to show Classic Liberalism on your figure which is right of conservatism. The whole is figure nothing more than propaganda.

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

 

[Freiheit]

well there's plenty of way to look at political stripe>

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism is definately not rightist (conservative) it is the epitome of a command economy, socialist/communist. You failed to show Classic Liberalism on your figure which is right of conservatism. The whole is figure nothing more than propaganda.

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

Credible source please. The National Socialists were avowed socialists and ran Germany as a Command Economy. I get that those who are advocates of socialism don't like to be put in the same vein as the National Socialist German Workers Party but you have to take socialism warts and all.

 

[Freiheit]

Promoting the general welfare would require a standard.
Still, both sides support the center, the Constitution. The difference is interpretation. The problem is partly that, as I've seen, some people are immediately upset by the very use of the term 'interpretation' when associated with the Constitution.
Could we say that the 'right' is really the center and that the 'left' wants to liberalize Constitutional authority/central power? 'Right' supports central power and 'left' supports eccentric power?

The Constitution is no more the center than was the monarchy. They are the authority.
Social evolution is the center.
The left seeks it by challenging the authority.
The right suppresses it by appealing to the authority.

Classic Liberalism is far right by current left right definition and it actively limits authority.

 

[sparky]

Promoting the general welfare would require a standard.
Still, both sides support the center, the Constitution. The difference is interpretation.

Welfare for who might be a study.....

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Plenty more where that came from

The Constitution is no more the center than was the monarchy. They are the authority.
Social evolution is the center.

Interesting concept.

One could view the SCOTUS as have a lot of 'evolution' fall into their laps

~S~

 

[Tehon]

well there's plenty of way to look at political stripe>

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism is definately not rightist (conservative) it is the epitome of a command economy, socialist/communist. You failed to show Classic Liberalism on your figure which is right of conservatism. The whole is figure nothing more than propaganda.

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

Credible source please. The National Socialists were avowed socialists and ran Germany as a Command Economy. I get that those who are advocates of socialism don't like to be put in the same vein as the National Socialist German Workers Party but you have to take socialism warts and all.

I am a Marxist. There is no commonality between what I believe and what the Nazi's espoused.

 

[Tehon]

Promoting the general welfare would require a standard.
Still, both sides support the center, the Constitution. The difference is interpretation.

Welfare for who might be a study.....

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Plenty more where that came from

The Constitution is no more the center than was the monarchy. They are the authority.
Social evolution is the center.

Interesting concept.

One could view the SCOTUS as have a lot of 'evolution' fall into their laps

~S~

It puts the madness of the Kavanaugh confirmation process into perspective.