Left, Right and Center

I was talking about political philosophy not just viable political parties. In fact I would think narrowly focused far-left and far-right political parties would not have very large followings in this country.

OTOH under Smedley's formulation you would presumably have to classify all the candidates in the recent Democratic Mayoral Primary in NYC along a far-left to far-right scale . That is because Republican Party in NYC does not have "a material share of the electorate, as well as political leaders with influence and viable chances to win elections". 

So who of those 13 was "far right"?

I am sure there are constituencies in this country in which the Democratic Party gas no "material share of the electorate".  So let us say there were five candidates in the Republican Primary, all of whom expressed admiration for the former President, Could one of them be labelled "left"?

I just watched the Mort Sahl video. His explanation is as good as any even if his references are dated.

(And very politically incorrect).

nohero said:

 Or neither.

Truer words were never written.

drummerboy said:

The decline of NYC? What decline?

 anyone who has not become aware of the rise in crime in Manhattan— not diamond heists, but the nagging, scary, random acts of violence in the streets against people, young, old, and  and of every race — hasn’t been paying attention. 

Someone corrected me recently when I wrote about the weekend violence in Chicago. The numbers were not quite as bad as I stated — horrific , but not as bad. At this time, there are reports of 9 killed and 39 people shot in the Windy City.

mtierney said: 

anyone who has not become aware of the rise in crime in Manhattan— not diamond heists, but the nagging, scary, random acts of violence in the streets against people, young, old, and  and of every race — hasn’t been paying attention. 

mtierney said:

Why would I want to frighten “old white people”?

ml1 said:

 that second cartoon is astoundingly racist. 

 And the defensive, knee-jerk reaction to label everything as “racist” is dumb. NYC is probably the most diverse city in the world. People of all nationalities, cultures, languages,   and races makeup this multi-lingual, cosmopolitan city. 

So, the Board of Elections set-up a confusing, first-time, method of picking a mayoral candidate. And, in the end, it was an elections official who messed up the count! 

I think it is a racist tactic to characterize every thing that happens as “racist” — to silence political discourse.

mtierney said:

 And the defensive, knee-jerk reaction to label everything as “racist” is dumb. NYC is probably the most diverse city in the world. People of all nationalities, cultures, languages,   and races makeup this multi-lingual, cosmopolitan city. 

So, the Board of Elections set-up a confusing, first-time, method of picking a mayoral candidate. And, in the end, it was an elections official who messed up the count! 

I think it is a racist tactic to characterize every thing that happens as “racist” — to silence political discourse.

A perfect example of how they have convinced themselves that they are not racist at all. They are blind to what stares them in the face.

mtierney said:

I think it is a racist tactic to characterize every thing that happens as “racist” — to silence political discourse.

 this, of course, makes no sense.

I congratulated my Army son today, who got out of the military a couple of years ago, that while he was in the Army, that China or Russia did not attack NJ.    Good job..well done.  

I am not sure if this is left or right...but happy July 4th.   Let's keep working for a more just nation for all.  

DaveSchmidt said:

Not for the purpose the survey or labels that I’m suggesting, which is basically a tool for self-awareness. “I may be pretty far left of these fellow Americans I’m trying to reach” strikes me as a potentially more useful and productive internal acknowledgment than “I’m rowing in the mainstream, or close to it, so if we disagree, these folks had better not let our paddles hit them on their backsides.”

 Would someone seeking self-awareness use terms like "far left" and "far right" though? I'll note that the survey Smedly cited does not. Nor does Pew.

I'd argue that such choosing such language is a political argument, not a neutral attempt at describing the political environment. To label someone as "far" is label them as "out of the mainstream" as you say -- it's an attempt to undermine and delegitimize them. Hence Republicans labeling even thoroughly centrist Democrats as "far left", for instance, or intramurally, the sniping between the centrist and progressive wings of the Democratic party following the unexpectedly narrow majority won in the 2020 House races. I'll even admit that's partly my aim in labeling someone like mtierny "far right" -- I think her acceptance of mob violence in pursuit of overturning elections should be seen as extreme, regardless of how many Americans share her views (disturbingly many). My choice of language there is an argument, not a neutral observation.

Now, if someone is taking a more poli-sci approach to this, as StanV looks to be in his OP, they may be interested in the DW-Nominate methodology. It can be useful to helping identify ideological clustering. Fivethirtyeight references it a lot -- eg in these articles. One theme that comes out reading those articles, though, is how this ideological mapping isn't doing so well mapping to the actual shape of our politics lately -- the most recent article in that search, How Trump Has Redefined Conservatism, notes:

First, in looking just at our 2021 survey data, a politician’s support for Trump has come to define who party activists think of as conservative. Romney, Toomey and Sasse were all rated as fairly liberal Republicans despite their conservative voting records in Congress, according to DW-Nominate, which quantifies the ideology of every member of Congress based on roll call votes cast in a legislative session. Staunchly pro-Trump politicians (or Trump-adjacent politicians), like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, Sens. Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Lindsey Graham, and Trump were all clustered together on the more conservative end of the spectrum, even though there is quite a bit of difference, ideologically speaking, between these men.

PVW said:

Would someone seeking self-awareness use terms like "far left" and "far right" though?

If I were seeking to persuade others, it might behoove me to be aware of how they perceived me, polling or no polling. So I’d be very open to regarding myself in whatever terms they chose to use. (Both “far left” and “far right” appear to be popular choices these days.) I can only imagine how hard it would be to disarm them if I wasn’t cognizant of all their weapons.

The remainder of what you’re arguing is beside that point, or so it seems to me. However mundane or narrow my point is, it still “seems like a possible end,” as I put it, for “considering classifications,” as Smedley put it.

In other words, if anyone were really trying to persuade Smedley, “I don’t accept your terms” would be a self-defeating start. So it’s a good thing none of us are trying to be persuasive.

DaveSchmidt said:

In other words, if anyone were really trying to persuade Smedley, “I don’t accept your terms” would be a self-defeating start. So it’s a good thing none of us are trying to be persuasive.

Ha, that's true. Well I left that thread at least for a bit, and nothing in that whole back and forth really made me regret deciding to just be an observer. Though I suppose talking about a thread in another thread and pretending it's all sotto voce is kind of cheating.

So I guess I'll just say that, though I don't believe anyone's ever called me "far-left" here, they're welcome to but I'd hope they could follow that up with something more specific, as being called that would tell me they disagreed with something I said but not why, or even necessarily what they particularly objected to.

mtierney said:

 And the defensive, knee-jerk reaction to label everything as “racist” is dumb. NYC is probably the most diverse city in the world. People of all nationalities, cultures, languages,   and races makeup this multi-lingual, cosmopolitan city. 

So, the Board of Elections set-up a confusing, first-time, method of picking a mayoral candidate. And, in the end, it was an elections official who messed up the count! 

I think it is a racist tactic to characterize every thing that happens as “racist” — to silence political discourse.

 I'm not defensive. Why would I be? It's you who posted a racist cartoon. 

Maybe you didn't get it. But the cartoonist is explicitly saying that "minority" voters can't understand a ranked-choice ballot. That's pretty darn racist. 

PVW said:

Ha, that's true. Well I left that thread at least for a bit, and nothing in that whole back and forth really made me regret deciding to just be an observer. Though I suppose talking about a thread in another thread and pretending it's all sotto voce is kind of cheating.

So I guess I'll just say that, though I don't believe anyone's ever called me "far-left" here, they're welcome to but I'd hope they could follow that up with something more specific, as being called that would tell me they disagreed with something I said but not why, or even necessarily what they particularly objected to.

 my reaction isn't defensiveness. It's just that it's really narrow-minded to label an upper middle class suburban group as "far left."

It's only something that would be said by a person who thinks the entire spectrum of social and political thought in this country is represented by the public statements of the members of the U.S. Senate. 

mtierney said:

ml1 said:

 that second cartoon is astoundingly racist. 

 And the defensive, knee-jerk reaction to label everything as “racist” is dumb. NYC is probably the most diverse city in the world. People of all nationalities, cultures, languages,   and races makeup this multi-lingual, cosmopolitan city. 

So, the Board of Elections set-up a confusing, first-time, method of picking a mayoral candidate. And, in the end, it was an elections official who messed up the count! 

I think it is a racist tactic to characterize every thing that happens as “racist” — to silence political discourse.

 Are you fundamentally stupid or just grossly mis/disinformed?   Ranked Choice voting was adopted by the votes in NYC a couple of years ago.   And, yes, a mistake was made.  The Board's Executive Director has been out for months with stage 4 cancer, another member of the (4 member) executive staff retired in May, the head of IT and general counsel retired in the past six months or so.  

As for racist, if you actually could comprehend the cartoon, you'd have known it were racist.  Furthermore, I'm sure that you happily accept your (socialist) Medicare and Social Security benefits.  Lastly, if you were actually the slightest bit informed on voter ID laws/rules/implementation, you'd know that the regimes established limit the types of IDs that are valid for voting and then, in the name of fiscal conservatism, the government reduces the number of locations where such IDs can be obtained and, shockingly, the locations chosen to be closed correlate very strongly to areas where people of color and Democrats reside.  Sure, it could be a coincidence.

.

.

Steve,

Your post is excellent but a Congressman once told a friend of mine who was lobbying; " I never want my prejudices to be disturbed by the facts". That applies to many people. 

PVW said:

PVW said:

Now, if someone is taking a more poli-sci approach to this, as StanV looks to be in his OP, they may be interested in the DW-Nominate methodology. It can be useful to helping identify ideological clustering. Fivethirtyeight references it a lot -- eg in these articles. One theme that comes out reading those articles, though, is how this ideological mapping isn't doing so well mapping to the actual shape of our politics lately -- the most recent article in that search, How Trump Has Redefined Conservatism, notes:

First, in looking just at our 2021 survey data, a politician’s support for Trump has come to define who party activists think of as conservative. Romney, Toomey and Sasse were all rated as fairly liberal Republicans despite their conservative voting records in Congress, according to DW-Nominate, which quantifies the ideology of every member of Congress based on roll call votes cast in a legislative session. Staunchly pro-Trump politicians (or Trump-adjacent politicians), like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, Sens. Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Lindsey Graham, and Trump were all clustered together on the more conservative end of the spectrum, even though there is quite a bit of difference, ideologically speaking, between these men.

 Trump has not re-defined conservatism. He has just taken elements of what some self-professed conservatives defined as conservative and elevated those elements to a dominant place.

All the segregationist politicians of the 40s and 50s called themselves "conservatives". They adopted the States Rights position of conservatism for the purpose of perpetuating Jim Crow. George Wallace called himself a "conservative". The TV racist character Archie Bunker called himself a "conservative". An elderly acquaintance once told me "My son is far more conservative than I am. He hates Black people".

And calling Toomey and Sasse "fairly liberal" is an absurd use of the term. Neither has ever supported anything vaguely liberal.

So Tom Cotton is " on the conservative side of the spectrum and Pat Toomey is "fairly liberal."

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/C001095-tom-cotton/compare-votes/T000461-patrick-j-toomey/115

or

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/C001098-ted-cruz/compare-votes/S001197-ben-sasse/115

Another comparison:

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/M001183-joe-manchin-iii/compare-votes/S000033-bernard-sanders/115

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/M001183-joe-manchin-iii/compare-votes/S001197-ben-sasse/115

And these two actually agree 20% of the time.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/C001098-ted-cruz/115

Note: Those links take you to comparisons for the 115th (2017-18) Congress. Comparisons for the current 117th Congress are available in the dropdown menu above each bar. Sanders-Manchin, for example, goes from 54% agree to 86% agree. 

I think it would be helpful for me at least if we had general categories to see where we fell on the scale of center to left, far left or just far out.

I'm only further out than almost anyone on animal rights, but can be such a pragmatist that I can be moved to center left on most issues just to get something accomplished.

So I'm hoping someone good with charts and graphs, (thinking Ross Perot here)  can give us some general questions to check off and then place us in a category.

I used to like calling myself center left to appear reasonable. Those who knew me well tended to roll their eyes.

Morganna said:

I think it would be helpful for me at least if we had general categories to see where we fell on the scale of center to left, far left or just far out.

I'm only further out than almost anyone on animal rights, but can be such a pragmatist that I can be moved to center left on most issues just to get something accomplished.

Part of the problem with creating a single label, such as 'far-left' or 'progressive' is that there is not one-dimensional agreement across all issues. The Progressive Labor Party, while being far-left on labor issues and anti-racism was not queer-friendly. Pro-choice advocates had a kerfuffle due to different views on Israel/anti-Semitism. And so on. 

The labels of 'progressive' and 'far-left' may not be very helpful as one's location along the spectrum are likely issue-specific, and maybe even scenario-specific. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Note: Those links take you to comparisons for the 115th (2017-18) Congress. Comparisons for the current 117th Congress are available in the dropdown menu above each bar. Sanders-Manchin, for example, goes from 54% agree to 86% agree. 

 Thanks

sprout said:

Part of the problem with creating a single label, such as 'far-left' or 'progressive' is that there is not one-dimensional agreement across all issues. The Progressive Labor Party, while being far-left on labor issues and anti-racism was not queer-friendly. Pro-choice advocates had a kerfuffle due to different views on Israel/anti-Semitism. And so on. 

The labels of 'progressive' and 'far-left' may not be very helpful as one's location along the spectrum are likely issue-specific, and maybe even scenario-specific. 

 I guess the discussion arises from Republicans calling anything Democrats propose "far left" or socialist. I think the discussion in that other thread began when someone said that most people on MOL are "far-left".

sprout said:

Morganna said:

I think it would be helpful for me at least if we had general categories to see where we fell on the scale of center to left, far left or just far out.

I'm only further out than almost anyone on animal rights, but can be such a pragmatist that I can be moved to center left on most issues just to get something accomplished.

Part of the problem with creating a single label, such as 'far-left' or 'progressive' is that there is not one-dimensional agreement across all issues. The Progressive Labor Party, while being far-left on labor issues and anti-racism was not queer-friendly. Pro-choice advocates had a kerfuffle due to different views on Israel/anti-Semitism. And so on. 

The labels of 'progressive' and 'far-left' may not be very helpful as one's location along the spectrum are likely issue-specific, and maybe even scenario-specific. 

 the label "far left" is generally used by people trying to marginalize the issues that progressives support.  But the fact is, many of the economic proposals put forth by Sanders or AOC are very popular across the board.  Frank Luntz was the genius of testing language to determine how to make terrible stuff sound appealing, and really great stuff sound terrible.  So it's that kind of approach that leads to labeling a $15 minimum wage, federally provided single payer health insurance, or UBI as "far left."  It's a strategy to scare people into thinking reasonable policies to help regular working folks are weird and alien.

and in the end, a lot of people aren't voting on issues anyway.  They are voting their white grievance.

I went back and checked comparisons for the current Congress after DaveSchmidt corrected me.

The only difference between "fairly liberal" Ben Sasse and "Conservative" Tom Cotton was about impeaching Trump.

  https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/C001095-tom-cotton/compare-votes/S001197-ben-sasse/117

That is a weird definition of "Liberal"

And the previous year Sasse was perhaps more conservative than Cotton.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/C001095-tom-cotton/compare-votes/S001197-ben-sasse/116

STANV said:

sprout said:

Part of the problem with creating a single label, such as 'far-left' or 'progressive' is that there is not one-dimensional agreement across all issues. The Progressive Labor Party, while being far-left on labor issues and anti-racism was not queer-friendly. Pro-choice advocates had a kerfuffle due to different views on Israel/anti-Semitism. And so on. 

The labels of 'progressive' and 'far-left' may not be very helpful as one's location along the spectrum are likely issue-specific, and maybe even scenario-specific. 

 I guess the discussion arises from Republicans calling anything Democrats propose "far left" or socialist. I think the discussion in that other thread began when someone said that most people on MOL are "far-left".

 I think the consensus on MOL since the departures of nan and Paul Surovell would be that db and I are consistently the furthest to "the left." And to anyone who knows me IRL, the notion that I'm "far left" would be cause for great mirth and laughter.