20 votes

Americans here: what is right wing, what is left wing?

Tags: usa, politics, ask

I know that I might be opening a can of worms, so please allow me to start my post with a request to not create deep comment chains with back-and-forth unproductive discussion. Let's do it scientific-ish, and share our answers as top-level comments that expose our perception, thoughs and answer. If you disagree an answer, post a toplevel comment that exposes your view, instead of direct refutals to individual comments. I believe that's a more productive approach.

The right-left distinction in US politics is quite different to what it is in other parts of the world. Your right wing politics supports free speech for example, which in most parts of the world is an oxymoron. Could you explain me which ideas and stances are classified as right wing and which left wing in the US politics? Please read the above request before responding, I really don't want to start a political flame war and would be sorry if this turned into such a thing and became a burden on the mod(s).

25 comments

  1. [2]
    BuckeyeSundae
    (edited )
    Link
    The fundamental differences, once we put aside issues of identity (which are fraught with tribalism), are all about value preferences. Left-wing value preferences (generally): Equality in fact is...
    • Exemplary

    The fundamental differences, once we put aside issues of identity (which are fraught with tribalism), are all about value preferences.

    Left-wing value preferences (generally):

    • Equality in fact is more important than equality in law, especially to address historic inequality in law.
    • Personal autonomy is more important than a lot of things, especially a sense of sanctity of human life, national identity, national autonomy, and personal safety.
    • Personal autonomy is less important than securing everyone's basic needs, issues of justice (defined using these other value preferences), and sustainability.
    • Positive freedom (the ability to do something) is more important than negative freedom (the freedom from some other thing) alone.
    • Looking for the best new way forward is more important than retaining what was best about the old way.
    • The public good is more important than private good, which leads to awkward feelings toward corporations.

    Right-wing value preferences (again, generally):

    • Equality is law is more important than equality in fact.
    • Negative freedom (the freedom from) is more important than positive freedom (the freedom to).
    • Retaining what was best about the old way is more important than insisting on changing to the best new way.
    • Personal autonomy is more important than a lot of things, especially guaranteeing everyone's basic needs (which seems to be in opposition to "personal responsibility" for many right-wing thinkers) and sustainability.
    • Personal autonomy is less important than the sanctity of human life, national/ethnic identity, national autonomy, issues of justice (defined differently from the left-wing sometimes), and personal safety.
    • Personal safety is especially important to the right-wing thinker, as is personal responsibility, faith, stability, and duty to one's people.
    • The private good is a public good, which leads to lots of awkward feelings about corporations and distrust of government intervention into them.

    There is a lot more overlap besides the points I've brought up that distinguish the left wing from the right wing. For instance, all left and right wing thinkers in the US are anti-monarchists. They all highly value individualism in the sense of personal agency. They all care deeply about helping the worst off, though they vary significantly in how important the problem is, who the most vulnerable are, and through what mechanism to help the most vulnerable. They are each wholly comfortable using government authority to act on the values that are most important to them, even when those values are in opposition to the other wing's values (sometimes, especially so). What I focused on in this answer was the areas where they value distinct things, not their shared traits.

    It's also important to note that these preferences aren't saying that left-wing or right-wing thinkers are against the things that they value less than others. Values, by their nature, are generally seen as good things by nearly everybody. The fight often boils down to what values are the most important, not whether a value is a good or bad thing.

    16 votes
    1. unknown user
      Link Parent
      Thanks a lot!

      Thanks a lot!

      2 votes
  2. [5]
    Lone
    Link
    I was fortunate enough to have an educator in college express some concepts to me about the conservative (the "right wing" party in the United States) part of the US that helped make sense to me...
    • Exemplary

    I was fortunate enough to have an educator in college express some concepts to me about the conservative (the "right wing" party in the United States) part of the US that helped make sense to me as someone who has far more liberal ("left wing") views. One of the keys to the expression that was presented to me, was that you can imagine the political spectrum as a circle, because as soon as you reach the extreme of either spectrum, you start see more similarities between them than you do differences. The content changes, but the approaches start to sound more and more similar. (And this is apparently being expressed as the horseshoe theory of political theory, which another poster correctly identified above!)

    It's far easier to define what a conservative is "against" as opposed to what they "for." It's important not to laugh at that concept, because conservative could be best described as resistance to change. The conservative wing is against the prospect of gay marriage because it's changing the common concept of marriage being between "one man and one woman." You can see a similar resistance to concepts like polygamy, polyamory, or any other non-tradition form of relationship. This isn't because conservatives hate gay people, or because you can't possibly love two people. This is rooted in the idea of "Why do you need to change this? Why aren't things acceptable as they are?" The maintenance of the current or long-standing norms, this is the core of the conservative politic viewpoint.

    However, in the US, we suffer the consequences of realistically only having two political parties, and a democracy effectively designed to only utilize two political parties. This has forced any non-Republican or non-Democrat party to either collapse into the party that most resembles their point of view, or to effectively be doomed to irrelevance in the political landscape. The Tea-Party phenomena of the early 2010's really exhibits this. They collapsed into the "far right" wing of the Republican party, even if their views are realistically more in line with a stereotypical Libertarian political view. This, as a result, hybridizes the Republican party, forming a sort of coalition, wherein we see aspects of the different segments of the party collide, or even actively fight against themselves. (Again, see the lame-duck sessions of the US Congress during the 2010's.)

    That said, the current Republican party consistent of both fiscal and social conservatives, religious evangelicals, defense hawks, and neoconservatives. They have a strong focus on lack of large government structures outside of those defined in the US Constitution, and generally believe that the best federal level government, is a government that is less involved in their day-to-day lives.

    The current Democratic party consists more traditionally Liberal (note that I'm not referring the lowercase "liberal" as in "more free" term. Liberalism in the United States is pretty well detailed here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States ) and I'm referring to the Liberalism defined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism )) leaning aspects of the American population. This means a coalition of social, religious, identity, and fiscal egalitarians. The modern Democratic party seems to be more focused on the equality of as many different groups of people as possible. The Democratic party generally believes in the active role of the federal government to participate in the lives of the citizens, in order to generate the equal opportunity of as many people as possible.

    I didn't specifically try to state many stances, because I think it's important to understand that each member of a political party, particularly in the United States, will have wildly different views due to the inherit need of any person to really partake in a political party in order to actually participate in the political process. Independents, while they exist, are rarely capable of generating enough capital to be elected in the modern environment.

    21 votes
    1. [4]
      unknown user
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      So, to summarise: left right progressive conservative (traditions, status quo) Democrat party (?) Republican party larger fed. govt ensuring equality smaller fed. govt. not involved in daily life...

      So, to summarise:

      left right
      progressive conservative (traditions, status quo)
      Democrat party (?) Republican party
      larger fed. govt ensuring equality smaller fed. govt. not involved in daily life
      Liberalism, equality liberalism, laissez-faire, libertarianism?

      Do you think that's fair to say (I know that the table is a bit oversimplifying it)?

      Edit: I can't get the table to format correctly, but it should be legible anyways. Sorry.

      Edit 2: fixed the table

      1. Lone
        Link Parent
        Roughly, yes :). Under Democratic Party, you may better abbreviate "larger federal government ensuring equality" to something more along the lines of "Larger federal government. Ensuring equal...

        Roughly, yes :).
        Under Democratic Party, you may better abbreviate "larger federal government ensuring equality" to something more along the lines of "Larger federal government. Ensuring equal opportunity." The reality of life is that some people are born into a situation with parents that are incredibly wealthy, socioeconomically. The Democratic party is generally interested in bringing the lowest common denominator up as high as possible.

        The final entry on the Left side, might best be described as "Equal Opportunity" versus "Equality". The Republican party itself, as far as I can ascertain, is more concerned with your ability as an individual to ascend to any height you are willing to work toward ("Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" fallacy.) rather than ensuring that by being born in the wrong neighborhood, or being born with a different skin tone, or being born with or without specific sexual organ(s), or being born to a fiscally poor family will have minimal impact on your ability to experience an equal amount of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness as someone who may have a different gender, sexual orientation, religious belief structure, culture, skin tone, or otherwise.

        The table is definitely an oversimplification, but if you are not from the United States, I wouldn't expect someone to have a perspective that reached much further than what your table portrays. As a citizen of the United States, I hardly know the names of the United Kingdom's political parties, much less their stances, philosophies or otherwise. If you are from/living in, the United States, you probably need to dig a bit deeper into it.

        2 votes
      2. [2]
        Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        You seem to be missing the formatting row, which comes just after the headings: This... |left | right | |:---|:---| |progressive | conservative (traditions, status quo) | |Democrat party (?) |...

        I can't get the table to format correctly

        You seem to be missing the formatting row, which comes just after the headings:

        This...

        |left | right |
        |:---|:---|
        |progressive | conservative (traditions, status quo) |
        |Democrat party (?) | Republican party |
        

        Displays as this...

        left right
        progressive conservative (traditions, status quo)
        Democrat party (?) Republican party
        3 votes
        1. unknown user
          Link Parent
          Thanks! I fixed the table now.

          Thanks! I fixed the table now.

          1 vote
  3. nacho
    Link
    I've been thinking about how to define these two terms for several minutes. I want to give a response with my definitions, but I know that one political side will largely disagree and feel...

    I've been thinking about how to define these two terms for several minutes. I want to give a response with my definitions, but I know that one political side will largely disagree and feel attacked. That doesn't help at all, because it closes any possibility of discussion.

    In the 1970s, everyone agreed on the basic facts. On where the political center was, and what was left and right of that center. Now that's not the case.

    Some groups have deliberately tried to push extreme views into the normal political discourse to draw the political center more towards their extreme views to further their personal political agendas.

    Those efforts to push all of US political discourse in one direction have been surprisingly successful.


    But at the same time, the Left/Right dichotomy is breaking down many places in US politics. While the whole horseshoe theory is a pretty extreme, there's something in that.

    Issues like large government seem (in practice) to be supported by both the extreme right and extreme left in US politics today. The disagreement is on what the spending should be, social programs or security/military programs.

    Other issues also don't fall along traditional right/left spectrum in today's US politics. Issues like privacy, gun control, claiming to be "independent" while always voting for the same team in practice, and many more.


    I know I'm tip-toeing around the question here, but that's because I believe the partisan nature where it's My team vs. the Wrong team, is what's leading national US politics to be so broken (and in many places local politics too).

    How can we go back to political climates where it's all about getting the credit for finding the best compromises and solutions to problems we all acknowledge, and that get broad support for either side of the isle?

    How can we get back to politics where people agree on some of the most important basics regarding what reality is, rather than to live in completely different worlds?

    I don't think that starts by defining what characterizes "my team" and the "wrong team" to draw up the trenches, and to be sure on who and what's part of the enemy.

    10 votes
  4. [2]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. unknown user
      Link Parent
      Thanks a lot for this clear and concise answer!

      Thanks a lot for this clear and concise answer!

  5. [4]
    Akir
    Link
    The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that "Left" and "Right" don't actually mean anything. At least in terms of US politics. I mean, we can't even properly define the...
    • Exemplary

    The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that "Left" and "Right" don't actually mean anything. At least in terms of US politics. I mean, we can't even properly define the terms, how can they possibly be useful in discourse?

    With only two political parties in the US, they and their platforms are the effective definitions that you are looking for. But the problem is that political platforms are complete bull; they never accurately describe any particular politician's viewpoint, being written instead with the express purpose of convincing people to vote for them.

    Very few people vote for a candidate because they like what they say or do. I would go so far as to say the majority of voters has never heard from nor read of a great number of the candidates they vote in for office. They vote for the candidate because they want their tribe to win. And this tribalism is a huge problem. This tribalism allows a number of political distortions that are generally much less powerful in other nations. Our "conservative" party is more obsessed with dismantling the government and civil protections than it is in protecting our economy or culture, and our "liberal" party is too conservative to pass any meaningful legislature.

    Of course, the most damning part of this American tribalism is that the logical conclusion of the increased polarization caused by it is authoritarianism. And as proof I present the American president, who at the very least seems to project the airs of a leader of a fascist state. And this isn't only a Republican problem; Nancy Pelosi is still loved by many Democrats in spite of her many flaws, and I would say that one of the deciding factors that encouraged a large swath of voters to choose Hillary Clinton over other candidates was because she was next in line in a (largely imaginary) Clinton dynasty.

    3 votes
    1. [3]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      Thanks a lot! We have the same tribalism problem here in Turkey too, most people just vote their party like they support a sports club. Ideas and symbols are sanctified, and become untouchable and...

      Thanks a lot! We have the same tribalism problem here in Turkey too, most people just vote their party like they support a sports club. Ideas and symbols are sanctified, and become untouchable and invariable. Very unhealthy.

      When I look at Trump, I think he has many similarities with Erdogan. That's more of a gut feeling because I haven't really given a thought to what those similarities are, but still.

      2 votes
      1. Akir
        Link Parent
        This is something I've been thinking about for a long time, and the more contact I have had with people with different views than my own the more that I realize that this is a systemic problem....

        This is something I've been thinking about for a long time, and the more contact I have had with people with different views than my own the more that I realize that this is a systemic problem. It's a problem that could be changed with very little effort if there was enough political will to do it, but since political will is controlled by the two parties (who have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is), that political will is unlikely to ever manifest.

        I have come to the oppinion that we need to run governments in a way like capitalism works. Capitalism has numerous problems, but it's incredibly successful because the system is designed to take negative aspects of human nature - specifically greed - and turn it into a productive mechanism that benefits society. In theory, the three branches of the US government has been set up in a very similar manner; it's designed to create consensus and prevent us from making stupid mistakes just because an idea is popular. In practice, the existence of our two political parties changes the goal of consensus into strong-arming when you have enough power and deal-making when you don't.

        1 vote
      2. Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        Your gut feeling is right. Donald Trump has a lot in common with dictators like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte and Kim Jong-Un. They all see themselves as men in...

        Your gut feeling is right. Donald Trump has a lot in common with dictators like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte and Kim Jong-Un. They all see themselves as men in control, who should be able to do whatever they want, however and whenever they want. Trump himself has aligned himself more with dictators than with democrats. Just look at how he treats his allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia (we still don't even have an ambassador from the USA). He's treating his allies like enemies and his enemies like allies because his enemies are "great and powerful men" like he imagines himself to be.

        1 vote
  6. Staross
    Link
    French here, left-wing is mostly about economic/power inequalities (income, taxes, working hours, social security, universal voting rights, etc.). The right-wing is basically the ones against that...

    French here, left-wing is mostly about economic/power inequalities (income, taxes, working hours, social security, universal voting rights, etc.). The right-wing is basically the ones against that and on the side of the wealthy.

    4 votes
  7. nic
    Link
    Which ideas and stances are classified as right wing and which left wing in the US politics? I read Fox News to determine which ideas are classified as right wing. American conservatives love Fox...

    Which ideas and stances are classified as right wing and which left wing in the US politics?

    I read Fox News to determine which ideas are classified as right wing.

    American conservatives love Fox News and despise all other news sources.

    If you view American politics through this simplistic lens, a lot of things start to make sense.

    Why do the conservatives love Trump? Because Fox News loves trump.

    Fox News promotes pro-Trump news, ignores negative Trump news, and amplifies Trump spin.

    Fox News even gave Trump a pass on his pro Russian stance, except for the one glaring exception of the Helsinki summit.

    Why would Fox do this? Trump is influenced heavily by Fox News. Fox flipped trump on Helsinki, and who knows what else.

    3 votes
  8. [5]
    jgb
    Link
    I don't understand this remark. Are you saying that outside of the US, free speech runs contrary to right-wing thought? I don't agree with this at all. To my mind, control of speech is a hallmark...

    Your right wing politics supports free speech for example, which in most parts of the world is an oxymoron

    I don't understand this remark. Are you saying that outside of the US, free speech runs contrary to right-wing thought? I don't agree with this at all. To my mind, control of speech is a hallmark of authoritarianism, not of the right-wing.

    2 votes
    1. nacho
      Link Parent
      Globally, it's generally right wing parties that're the defenders of anti-blasphemy laws, Lèse-majesté laws, want the strongest defamation protections, want the strictest restrictions regarding...
      • Exemplary

      Globally, it's generally right wing parties that're the defenders of anti-blasphemy laws, Lèse-majesté laws, want the strongest defamation protections, want the strictest restrictions regarding speech on national security, want to disallow pornography/prostitution, want government filters of online content, and government insight/access into citizen communications.

      The left generally advocate restrictions on hate speech, discrimination, fighting words, advocating violence, "extreme" views/ideas, insight into government activities/finances, political campaign contributions/financing/"speech", and harassment/bullying.


      Again, making sweeping, unnuanced generalizations:

      In the US the right wing believes that:

      • Free speech is maximized when you're permitted to say the most different things (including hate speech, permissive libel laws and strict standards/tests for designating culpability for wishing violence/harm to others, and so on)

      (again, completely ignoring nuance, like Trump clearly wanting to tighten screws on defamation)

      The left-wing in the US believes:

      • Free speech is maximized by curtailing extreme speech so the most people actually feel safe speaking or actually speak (here more types of speech are disallowed to ensure free/safe participation)

      Globally, that split is much, much more convoluted. The "more speech = freer speech" maximum prevalent in the US due to its First Amendment, is viewed as an intellectually outdated and rejected idea. The political differences on speech revolve more around different takes on what way to restrict different types of speech, not whether or not restricting speech in different obvious areas is the way to maximum freedom of expression in practice, and encourage strong public debate.

      11 votes
    2. [3]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      Authoritarianism, despotism and fascism are associated with right wing in many places.

      Authoritarianism, despotism and fascism are associated with right wing in many places.

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        jgb
        Link Parent
        Authoritarianism, despotism, and communism are associated with the left wing in many places. Both the left and right can be authoritarian and both the left and right can be libertarian.

        Authoritarianism, despotism, and communism are associated with the left wing in many places. Both the left and right can be authoritarian and both the left and right can be libertarian.

        10 votes
        1. unknown user
          Link Parent
          This has nothing to do with the question in hand and not constructive at all. It is perceived in such a way in these places and in such a way in other places. If there wasn't a difference I...

          This has nothing to do with the question in hand and not constructive at all. It is perceived in such a way in these places and in such a way in other places. If there wasn't a difference I wouldn't ask about it, no?

          3 votes
  9. [5]
    stephen
    (edited )
    Link
    It's tempting to see America as "polarized" in the sense of there being two poles. I see it along those lines but the two extremes are not monoliths and there are intersections between factions of...

    It's tempting to see America as "polarized" in the sense of there being two poles. I see it along those lines but the two extremes are not monoliths and there are intersections between factions of the left and right.

    On the right I observe three camps: the academic establishment right, the fascists, and the an-caps. These groups are not mutually exclusive in my mind and lots of people probably believe in something between these camps but these are the clusters I observe.

    The establishment right are mostly old timers like Mitt Romney and John McCain. They are famous for things like empowering the CIA to do whatever it needed to fight communism, lying about WMDs to justify invading other countries for oil, and being gung-ho about the red scare. These people are celebrated now for being the voices of reason against the fascistic Freedom Caucus.

    The Anarcho-Capitalists are the Silicone Valley types who think that private companies should rule the world officially as opposed to by proxy of the government like it is now. They are pro-science but are still right wing in my mind because of their belief that the internal power hierarchies of private firms is justified.

    Last but not least the fascists are currently being empowered by Cheeto Mussolini (AKA 45 AKA DTJ AKA POTUS AKA The Donald AKA Im sick of saying that fucking name). Yes I called them fascists.

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      unknown user
      Link Parent
      This means anarcho-capitalists, right? Is this Trump? Just unfamiliar with the jargon, sorry. Edit: Also, thanks a lot! The insight into the right wings sects has added quite a bit to other's...

      an-caps

      This means anarcho-capitalists, right?

      Cheeto Mussolini

      Is this Trump?

      Just unfamiliar with the jargon, sorry.

      Edit: Also, thanks a lot! The insight into the right wings sects has added quite a bit to other's definitions of right wing politics.

      2 votes
      1. stephen
        Link Parent
        You're better at parsing the jargon than you thought maybe!

        You're better at parsing the jargon than you thought maybe!

    2. [2]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      You missed half the question. You need to do the same sort of critical analysis of America's left wing.

      You missed half the question. You need to do the same sort of critical analysis of America's left wing.

      2 votes
      1. stephen
        Link Parent
        I need to? What's there to say about the left. I'm so discouraged by the left that it actually bummed be out to try.

        I need to? What's there to say about the left. I'm so discouraged by the left that it actually bummed be out to try.

        1 vote