Left, Right and Center

This whole tedious discussion has made me think of Humpty Dumpty. 

"What does 'far left' mean?" 

"It means just what I choose it to mean."

Biden is classified as “radical left” in conservative circles. NAN would be rolling her eyes…

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

mtierney said:

No matter how you slice it,  middle class, liberal Democrats are scared to be put  under a far left umbrella. Why do you suppose that is? Class/or racial issues? Haves and Have-nots? Fear of weakening the party line? The mind boggles.

FYI…https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/06/new-york-ranked-choice-voting-498221

that's because lumping "middle class, liberal Democrats" as far left, is as stupid as lumping them as socialists, as is your wont.

and we just don't like stupid.

 You forget, in the alternate universe of Fox News, Joe Biden is "far left".

 not just on Fox News. 

Smedley said:

OK, then by your logic, SoMa isn't deep blue, despite the two towns voting 90% for Biden. They can only be considered blue. Deep blue is reserved for Tavistock, which voted 100% for Biden.

https://nj1015.com/how-your-town-voted-in-the-2020-presidential-election/

I think there’s a joke in there that Smedley’s trying to make about Tavistock. It went 100% for Biden but only 5 people voted - which is the entire population of Tavistock.

ridski said:

I think there’s a joke in there that Smedley’s trying to make about Tavistock. It went 100% for Biden but only 5 people voted - which is the entire population of Tavistock.

 When you're at the south pole, which way is east?

I hesitate to prolong this discussion, but the following is on-point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/opinion/trump-gop.html?referringSource=articleShare

“anti-establishment sentiments are an important ingredient of support for populist leaders, conspiratorial beliefs, and political violence. And, while we contend that this dimension is orthogonal to the left-right dimension of opinion along which partisan and ideological concerns are oriented, we also theorize that it can be activated by strategic partisan politicians. As such, phenomena which are oftentimes interpreted as expressions of “far-right” or “far-left” orientations may not be borne of left-right views at all, but rather of the assimilation of anti-establishment sentiments into mainstream politics by elites.”

Not just Trumpers, but Nan and Paul come to mind as well.

jimmurphy said:

I hesitate to prolong this discussion, but the following is on-point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/opinion/trump-gop.html?referringSource=articleShare

“anti-establishment sentiments are an important ingredient of support for populist leaders, conspiratorial beliefs, and political violence. And, while we contend that this dimension is orthogonal to the left-right dimension of opinion along which partisan and ideological concerns are oriented, we also theorize that it can be activated by strategic partisan politicians. As such, phenomena which are oftentimes interpreted as expressions of “far-right” or “far-left” orientations may not be borne of left-right views at all, but rather of the assimilation of anti-establishment sentiments into mainstream politics by elites.”

Not just Trumpers, but Nan and Paul come to mind as well.

 I think anti-establishment sentiments come from a loss of trust -- people with such sentiments feeling that the establishment is failing to deliver, or outright blocking something they believe they deserve.

I think its probably a mistake to try and adjudicate whether someone is factually not getting what they believe they are entitled to -- eg the old "people are voting against their interest" line. People do, in fact, vote against their interests, but people have many interests, some of which can be in conflict with each other, and so if we observe someone voting against, for instance, affordable health care, it probably doesn't get us to far to say "well they're clearly wrong about who represents their interests or don't understand the consequences of their actions." That might very well be true -- there's no shortage of misinformation and disinformation out there -- but to be taken in by misinformation one has to be open to it in the first place, so I think such scenarios are more examples of motivated reasoning -- eg regardless of whether someone opposes universal health care because they truly disagree with it or because of misinformation, the question is what's motivating their reasoning. And this I think comes back again to lack of trust, and back again to asking "what is it that this person feels they are entitled to that they are not getting". The answer is probably not "affordable health care."

 There's probably lots of answers, some quite individual, but for a large swath of the population I think the answer is an expectation of a certain place in the social order. If that's true, then simply promising material benefits, and even delivering on these promises, isn't necessarily enough.

How should our political leaders respond? One answer has clearly been Trumpism, of which I don't need to go into the huge problems with. The early 20th C answer on the left (FDR et al) tolerated at best, embraced at worst, a deeply unjust social order as the price of passing hugely beneficial material benefits to most (but pointedly not all).

Is there a way to address the deep feelings of alienation we see today that doesn't require validating a desire to strengthen unjust social orders? The feeling of being dislocated, alienated, and unsure of one's position is legitimate; the insistence that others must be put "in their place" to assuage such feelings is not. Is that a knot that can be cut?

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

mtierney said:

No matter how you slice it,  middle class, liberal Democrats are scared to be put  under a far left umbrella. Why do you suppose that is? Class/or racial issues? Haves and Have-nots? Fear of weakening the party line? The mind boggles.

FYI…https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/06/new-york-ranked-choice-voting-498221

that's because lumping "middle class, liberal Democrats" as far left, is as stupid as lumping them as socialists, as is your wont.

and we just don't like stupid.

 You forget, in the alternate universe of Fox News, Joe Biden is "far left".

 not just on Fox News. 

Smedley said:

OK, then by your logic, SoMa isn't deep blue, despite the two towns voting 90% for Biden. They can only be considered blue. Deep blue is reserved for Tavistock, which voted 100% for Biden.

https://nj1015.com/how-your-town-voted-in-the-2020-presidential-election/

 

 Except you conveniently fail to note that I made no connection that insinuated Biden, or Biden voters, are far left.  But why let the facts get in the way of making a zinger. 

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

mtierney said:

No matter how you slice it,  middle class, liberal Democrats are scared to be put  under a far left umbrella. Why do you suppose that is? Class/or racial issues? Haves and Have-nots? Fear of weakening the party line? The mind boggles.

FYI…https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/06/new-york-ranked-choice-voting-498221

that's because lumping "middle class, liberal Democrats" as far left, is as stupid as lumping them as socialists, as is your wont.

and we just don't like stupid.

 You forget, in the alternate universe of Fox News, Joe Biden is "far left".

 not just on Fox News. 

Smedley said:

OK, then by your logic, SoMa isn't deep blue, despite the two towns voting 90% for Biden. They can only be considered blue. Deep blue is reserved for Tavistock, which voted 100% for Biden.

https://nj1015.com/how-your-town-voted-in-the-2020-presidential-election/

 

 Except you conveniently fail to note that I made no connection that insinuated Biden, or Biden voters, are far left.  But why let the facts get in the way of making a zinger. 

 yes, I misunderstood.

It's actually a worse analogy than I thought.  Because cast votes are what they are -- an objective total for all to see.  Your redefining of a term is a totally different thing.

ETA: And voting is not an ideology.

Found this which I thought was interesting. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/

IMO, this board is on balance, 3 parts very progressive, 2 parts super progressive (which is referred to as "the most left wing" of the party. 

I think AOC and the squad are far left, and there seems to be plenty of support for those legislators and policies on MOL. Nothing wrong with that, just stating my observations. 

So if MOL isn't far left, it's pretty close. Again, IMO.  

I also found this on Wiki: "Far-left politics are politics further to the left of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political left....The definition of the far-left varies in the literature and there is not a general agreement on what it entails or consensus on the core characteristics that constitute the far-left, other than being to the left of "the left".

Add it all up and I stand by my opinion that MOL is far left or pretty close to it, notwithstanding the hellfire raining down. 

Fresh rounds of hellfire raining down in 3, 2, 1....

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

mtierney said:

No matter how you slice it,  middle class, liberal Democrats are scared to be put  under a far left umbrella. Why do you suppose that is? Class/or racial issues? Haves and Have-nots? Fear of weakening the party line? The mind boggles.

FYI…https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/06/new-york-ranked-choice-voting-498221

that's because lumping "middle class, liberal Democrats" as far left, is as stupid as lumping them as socialists, as is your wont.

and we just don't like stupid.

 You forget, in the alternate universe of Fox News, Joe Biden is "far left".

 not just on Fox News. 

Smedley said:

OK, then by your logic, SoMa isn't deep blue, despite the two towns voting 90% for Biden. They can only be considered blue. Deep blue is reserved for Tavistock, which voted 100% for Biden.

https://nj1015.com/how-your-town-voted-in-the-2020-presidential-election/

 

 Except you conveniently fail to note that I made no connection that insinuated Biden, or Biden voters, are far left.  But why let the facts get in the way of making a zinger. 

 yes, I misunderstood.

It's actually a worse analogy than I thought.  Because cast votes are what they are -- an objective total for all to see.  Your redefining of a term is a totally different thing.

 You're not making sense. 

Smedley said:

Found this which I thought was interesting. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/

IMO, this board is on balance, 3 parts very progressive, 2 parts super progressive (which is referred to as "the most left wing" of the party. 

I think AOC and the squad are far left, and there seems to be plenty of support for those legislators and policies on MOL. Nothing wrong with that, just stating my observations. 

So if MOL isn't far left, it's pretty close. Again, IMO.  

I also found this on Wiki: "Far-left politics are politics further to the left of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political left....The definition of the far-left varies in the literature and there is not a general agreement on what it entails or consensus on the core characteristics that constitute the far-left, other than being to the left of "the left".

Add it all up and I stand by my opinion that MOL is far left or pretty close to it, notwithstanding the hellfire raining down. 

Fresh rounds of hellfire raining down in 3, 2, 1....

it's not "hellfire" to point out you're using that term wrong.  Even your sources contradict you.  Fivethirtyeight calls its Super Progressive group "very liberal."  And your Wiki quote says "far left" is to farther to the left than the standard political left.  There isn't anyone posting here who isn't well within the range of the current Democratic Party.  There's nobody here to the left of AOC or Bernie Sanders.  

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

mtierney said:

No matter how you slice it,  middle class, liberal Democrats are scared to be put  under a far left umbrella. Why do you suppose that is? Class/or racial issues? Haves and Have-nots? Fear of weakening the party line? The mind boggles.

FYI…https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/06/new-york-ranked-choice-voting-498221

that's because lumping "middle class, liberal Democrats" as far left, is as stupid as lumping them as socialists, as is your wont.

and we just don't like stupid.

 You forget, in the alternate universe of Fox News, Joe Biden is "far left".

 not just on Fox News. 

Smedley said:

OK, then by your logic, SoMa isn't deep blue, despite the two towns voting 90% for Biden. They can only be considered blue. Deep blue is reserved for Tavistock, which voted 100% for Biden.

https://nj1015.com/how-your-town-voted-in-the-2020-presidential-election/

 

 Except you conveniently fail to note that I made no connection that insinuated Biden, or Biden voters, are far left.  But why let the facts get in the way of making a zinger. 

 yes, I misunderstood.

It's actually a worse analogy than I thought.  Because cast votes are what they are -- an objective total for all to see.  Your redefining of a term is a totally different thing.

 You're not making sense. 

you're right.  I should have ignored your analogy.

Smedley said:

Fresh rounds of hellfire raining down in 3, 2, 1....

 Well it seems pretty obvious that you have intention of actual discussion and are just trolling for hellfire. So... 

ridski said:

I think there’s a joke in there that Smedley’s trying to make about Tavistock. It went 100% for Biden but only 5 people voted - which is the entire population of Tavistock.

 It wasn't a joke. My point was that if you're going to call a <1% group like commies and whatnot the only "far left", then that same logic would extend to calling 5-voter Tavistock the only "deep blue". Right?  

I think the <1% group like commies and whatnot would be better considered far far left, or radical left, or fringe left. 

How my Tavistock analogy turned into me saying Biden voters are far left is beyond me.... 

ridski said:

Smedley said:

Fresh rounds of hellfire raining down in 3, 2, 1....

 Well it seems pretty obvious that you have intention of actual discussion and are just trolling for hellfire. So... 

On many occasions including that exact post you excerpt, I have offered substantial actual discussion. 

Smedley said:

ridski said:

I think there’s a joke in there that Smedley’s trying to make about Tavistock. It went 100% for Biden but only 5 people voted - which is the entire population of Tavistock.

It wasn't a joke. My point was that if you're going to call a <1% group like commies and whatnot the only "far left", then that same logic would extend to calling 5-voter Tavistock the only "deep blue". Right?

I think the <1% group like commies and whatnot would be better considered far far left, or radical left, or fringe left.

How my Tavistock analogy turned into me saying Biden voters are far left is beyond me....

ridski made the point way back at your first mention of "far left" that there's virtually no far left in the U.S. The CPUSA example is just to provide context for what far left thought really is. Nobody is arguing that the far left is a substantial presence in the U.S.

Wish I could remember if it was Nan, but someone once referred to many of us on MOL as liberal when it came to social issues but not necessarily on economic issues. 

As for a reference above to the Green Party, they actually come closer to most of my beliefs then the average Democrat but the pragmatist in me would not vote Green in a close election and that seems to be where all of our elections are. 

Smedley said: 

How my Tavistock analogy turned into me saying Biden voters are far left is beyond me.... 

Virtually everyone here was a Biden voter and you have called us all “far left” , “very progressive”, or “super progressive”.

How does your statement above make any sense at all?

I beg you to stop with this nonsense. 

jimmurphy said:

Smedley said: 

How my Tavistock analogy turned into me saying Biden voters are far left is beyond me.... 

Virtually everyone here was a Biden voter and you have called us all “far left” , “very progressive”, or “super progressive”.

How does your statement above make any sense at all?

I beg you to stop with this nonsense. 

 And presumably Smedley was, too, which makes him "far left," right?

Steve said:

 And presumably Smedley was, too, which makes him "far left," right?

 Exactly.

Morganna said:

Wish I could remember if it was Nan, but someone once referred to many of us on MOL as liberal when it came to social issues but not necessarily on economic issues. 

As for a reference above to the Green Party, they actually come closer to most of my beliefs then the average Democrat but the pragmatist in me would not vote Green in a close election and that seems to be where all of our elections are. 

 Maybe we'll get Ranked Choice Voting and then you can vote both Green and Blue.

STANV said:

There is a discussion on another thread about what constitutes the "far left" as distinguished from the "center left". 

IMHO there is a small far left fringe in the US represented by groups like the Progressive Labor Party and other minor political parties calling themselves "communist" or "socialist".

In most Western countries Senator Sanders of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez might be considered "left" but no one would call them "far left". Most members of the Democratic Party would be considered "center-left" and I would concur with that. I guess I would consider Democratic Sen. Manchin "centrist" and might put Republican Senator Susan Collins in that category. There may still be some "establishment" Republicans who are "center-right" , perhaps Mitt Romney, but most are just plain "Right". But there are a few who are "far-right". Remember those who proposed forming an "Anglo-Saxon" caucus.

Anyway this deserves its own discussion and I am interested in opinions other than my own. (Which distinguishes me from the originator of that other thread)

 StanV -- curious what kinds of questions these labels help you answer? Are you looking to place US politics in a broader context of peer countries? A US-specific context looking at what constitutes "left" and "right" over time? Self-reflection on where your own views, or maybe the views of posters here, lie relative to the overall US electorate?

jimmurphy said:

Smedley said: 

How my Tavistock analogy turned into me saying Biden voters are far left is beyond me.... 

Virtually everyone here was a Biden voter and you have called us all “far left” , “very progressive”, or “super progressive”.

How does your statement above make any sense at all?

I beg you to stop with this nonsense. 

 see, it's not just me saying this 

Sometimes it's just easier to agree. Maybe something like this:

OK, you are correct. We're all so far-left compared to your sole very centrist-left (or centrist-centrist?) position on this board. It seems we may not have much overlap on our positions on any issue at all. It must feel very lonely holding positions no one here agrees with.

sprout said:

Sometimes it's just easier to agree. Maybe something like this:

OK, you are correct. We're all so far-left compared to your sole very centrist-left (or centrist-centrist?) position on this board. It seems we may not have much overlap on our positions on any issue at all. It must feel very lonely holding positions no one here agrees with.

 But people usually judge other people and things by their own standards. They’re not here to seek enlightenment, they’re actually being judgmental. It’s like the right wing Christian folks who hate liberalism, when in essence liberalism is more in line with Christ’s teachings. And they are behaving just like the fascist Romans who crucified the man….

1/ is your Ranked Choice what we call Proportional voting?? I can’t see any practical differences, especially in the ballot counting

2/ do you reckon mtierney or Smedley would have heard of our DLP (Democratic Labour Party) a political splinter party off the Australian Labor Party that finished up being more Left than its parent (which is aligned with trade unions)? Well, that’s my memory anyway. The most fascinating feature of the DLP was its popularity with Catholics, given its spokesman was BA Santamaria

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia)

https://dlp.org.au/about/#1539380765644-7b491b85-6224

Both parties are further left than me on several issues. Doesn’t make me a right-winger, nor Conservative. 

joanne said:

1/ is your Ranked Choice what we call Proportional voting?? I can’t see any practical differences, especially in the ballot counting

Hi, joanne. Ranked choice voting is an option on everyone's ballot. In New York City, you could rank up to five candidates: Let's say Smith was my first choice, Jones my second, Morris my third, Jackson my fourth and Phillips my fifth. (I'm making the names up for this example.) If no candidate has a majority when every ballot's first choice is tallied, the last-place candidate is eliminated. Let's say that's Smith. Because Smith, my first choice, is now out of the race, my vote goes to my second choice, Jones, in Round 2. Likewise, all the other ballots that had Smith as No. 1 shift their votes to their No. 2 choice.

If, after all that shifting, Round 2 doesn't end up with a majority winner, either, the last-place finisher in that round is eliminated. Let's say that's Jones. (I just couldn't seem to pick a winner in this election.) Now my vote goes to Morris in Round 3, and all ballots that had Jones as their first choice shift their votes to their second choice. (Unless their second choice is the already eliminated Smith, in which case their votes go to their third choices.) This continues, round to round, until one candidate gets a majority.

It's a bit complicated to explain this way, but in practice it means that whenever my top remaining choice is eliminated, my next surviving choice is counted, until my choices run out or a winner is decided.

DaveSchmidt said:

joanne said:

1/ is your Ranked Choice what we call Proportional voting?? I can’t see any practical differences, especially in the ballot counting

Hi, joanne. Ranked choice voting is an option on everyone's ballot. In New York City, you could rank up to five candidates: Let's say Smith was my first choice, Jones my second, Morris my third, Jackson my fourth and Phillips my fifth. (I'm making the names up for this example.) If no candidate has a majority when every ballot's first choice is tallied, the last-place candidate is eliminated. Let's say that's Smith. Because Smith, my first choice, is now out of the race, my vote goes to my second choice, Jones, in Round 2. Likewise, all the other ballots that had Smith as No. 1 shift their votes to their No. 2 choice.

If, after all that shifting, Round 2 doesn't end up with a majority winner, either, the last-place finisher in that round is eliminated. Let's say that's Jones. (I just couldn't seem to pick a winner in this election.) Now my vote goes to Morris in Round 3, and all ballots that had Jones as their first choice shift their votes to their second choice. (Unless their second choice is the already eliminated Smith, in which case their votes go to their third choices.) This continues, round to round, until one candidate gets a majority.

It's a bit complicated to explain this way, but in practice it means that whenever my top remaining choice is eliminated, my next surviving choice is counted, until my choices run out or a winner is decided.

 I bet not one 1% of New York City voters understand how this works.

drummerboy said:

 I bet not one 1% of New York City voters understand how this works.

Sounds like a cartoon I recall.

Forget the nuts and bolts. The NYC ballot question that approved ranked-choice voting put it this way:

Give voters the choice of ranking up to five candidates in primary and special elections for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council beginning in January 2021. If voters still want to choose just one candidate, they can. A candidate who receives a majority of first-choice votes would win. If there is no majority winner, the last place candidate would be eliminated and any voter who had that candidate as their top choice would have their vote transferred to their next choice. This process would repeat until only two candidates remain, and the candidate with the most votes then would be the winner.