Talk:Left–right political spectrum/Archive 1

In the article: "Estates General (usually, if not entirely accurately, translated as National Assembly)." "Estates General" and "National Assembly" are not interchangeable terms, and refer to two distinct legislative bodies (the former evolved into the latter). See Glossary of the French Revolution. I honestly don't know in which body the left/right distinction was first applied, so I am commenting rather than editing, but someone should probably fix this. -- Jmabel 19:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I understand. My best understanding is that the terms did come from the Estates General, but for some reason English speakers inaccurately refer to it as the National Assembly.   Perhaps we shoudl say instead "(later known as the National Assembly)".  Would that clarify things? Drernie 17:43, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The Estates-General and the National Assembly are two quite distinct entities (although, admittedly, the National Assembly, by its end, consisted of roughly the same individuals who constituted the last Estates-General). The Communes (representatives of the Third Estate) seceded from the Estates-General May 6. Some clergy and a few nobles defected to join the Communes. On June 17, this body declared itself the National Assembly. On June 19, the majority of the clergy voted to join them; the next day was the "Tennis Court Oath". The nobility came around little by little. On July 9, with pretty much everyone in the fold, this became the National Constituent Assembly. So, over much of its 22-day existence, the National Assembly included few representatives of the Second Estate.


 * Again, I'm not absolutely sure at what point the tradition began of monarchists sitting on the right and radical republicans on the left. For all I know, the representatives of the Third Estate may have arrayed themselves this way for the two days before they seceded from the Estates-General. I'm not even absolutely sure that this arrangement had set in with the National Assembly as against the National Constituent Assembly. I suppose it might be interesting to do some research as to exactly which body first sat in this array, but that seems to me to border on trivia. However, the outcome of that research does not change the fact that the Estates-General and the National Assembly were different bodies, and while it would be legitimate to say that the Estates-General evolved into the National Assembly, it would not really be correct to say it became the National Assembly, since there is a period of several weeks when both existed. Jmabel 02:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the history.  To be safe, I've modifed the page to be a little more indirect:

"The terms originated during the French Revolution in the Estates General (or possibly the National Assembly, into which the Estates General more-or-less evolved)."
 * If you find out more precise information, please let me know; better yet, add it to French_States-General. Also, is it better to say it evolved into the National Assembly, or the National Constituent Assembly? Drernie 17:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Jmabel for all the comments and revisions; I'll try to work this back into the original Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics articles.

Replace with political spectrum?
I just saw the political spectrum page, which I think actually addresses the Left-Right issue better than I did here, even with Jmabel's editing help. Should I just turn this page into a redirect for that? Are there any worthwhile factoids from here which we should add to that article? - from Drernie, I presume

Well, I think there is material in this article that is missing from that one, and some of the missing material is worth keeping. Especially, that article doesn't talk about class interest as much as this one. Let's not do anything hasty. I'm not sure if we would be best off integrating everything into "political spectrum" or keeping some material here in a separate article. If I haven't come up with a proposal by 07 Jan 04, please feel very free to prod me. -- Jmabel 00:36, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, here's what's in this article and missing from political spectrum:
 * Despite the prevalence and durability of these terms, there is no clear consensus on what it actually means to be Left or Right.
 * Emphasis that "left" originally meant bourgeois free market liberalism.
 * Ambivalent relation of western leftists to State Communism.
 * Who embraces the terms today, who rejects them
 * distinguishing conservatism and nationalism as two different types of right-wing politics
 * the fact that the spectrum often shifts with the prevailing political winds of the time.
 * There's probably more - and more that should be added - but that seems enough to merit keeping this article. I think the two articles should be carefully integrated. The sections on left-right politics in political spectrum need to be viewed as summaries of a longer article here, and should point here. Any points in that article not made in this one should be reiterated here, but this one gives more opportunity for expansion; also a better place to link to terms like "New Left". Drernie, does that strike you as a reasonable approach? Jmabel 22:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Perhaps we should ask the folks at political spectrum what they think.Drernie 17:16, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- I miss mentions of political center, extreme right and extreme left.

I removed three of the left/right distinctions:

- Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or liberty (right). - Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). - Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right)

The middle one seems particularly bad. I do not see a clear distinction between the left and right regarding government involvement in the economy. There may be differences in approach, but I do not see much of a difference to draw a left/right distinction. The others seem odd as well, many right wing people say they are for "equality of opportunity" while many left wing people would say that liberty is a priority for them. The last one is confusing, I'm not really sure what a fair outcome or fair process is, it would seem to me a fair process would lead to a fair outcome (if you have a fair trial, your verdict will be fair, yes?). I don't really understand what is meant. The top and bottom one we should discuss. The middle one seems rather ridiculous to me. Richardchilton 18:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I am going to restore these removals. They are precisely in a context of "there are various opinions". Perhaps they (and others in the list) need better attribution of who holds these opinions, but how can you deny that the opinions exist? Frankly, I also think some of these opinions are dubious, but I don't think there is any denying that each of these is held by a significant number of people. Again, it would, indeed, be better to document who holds these opinions. -- Jmabel 22:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I've now given what I think are reasonable attributions for all but the one you recently introduced. I assume you can come up with your own attribution, so I leave that one to you. -- Jmabel 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need any objectionable distinctions here. Plenty of people are happy to line up on one side or another of an issue like abortion, or Bush's tax cuts and the like. These removed distinctions are objectionable, and I see no reason they should be there. Like to paraphrase "left means changing stuff just to change them, right means having a good reason to change". Why not just say "left - stupid, horrible, evil; right - wonderful, fantastic, good"? Since there are so many clear distinctions I don't see why these objectionable ones would be needed. -- Cowpoke 03:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I am restoring these. People keep deleting part of the list as irrelevant, but they each keep deleting different parts! The context is clear: "There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis." For each of these opinions, a reasonable source is cited. It seems to me to be sheer hubris to say (for example) that Eric Hoffer's views are irrelevant and don't belong in an encyclopedia.


 * I personally feel that some of the views expressed are just plain wrongheaded, but this is not about being politically correct. This is about documenting what reasonably influential people have written. The Wikipedia is not a work of political philosophy. It is an encyclopedia, and its job on a political topic is to provide broad information useful to someone wishing to understand the range of opinion, not to push a particular opinion.


 * If we can get something like a consensus to delete some of this, fine, but it should be on a basis that these are not encyclopedia-worthy because they are unimportant, not because the opinions accurately attributed are found by someone to be objectionable. -- Jmabel 05:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think it is not difficult to put in entries that both sides will be happy with, and would prefer a few aggreable ones to many disagreeable ones. However, since you reverted it and put back some that may be "found by someone to be objectionable", I'll put some in that some may find objectionable as well.  This one is from Michael Rectenwald http://legitgov.org/mike_essay_leftist_power_the_60s_and_theory_101503.html .  I still would prefer all the possibly objectionable ones to be removed, even my own. Cowpoke 00:18, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the additions are appropriate. I don't think we can remove controversy from an inherently controversial topic, but we can be comprehensive. (On the second addition (status quo), a citation would be good). -- Jmabel 02:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jmabel on this.  All the items he restored reflect ways people actually describe themselves.  If you don't like them, please help us find more neutral phrasing.   There's no point in being gratuitously objectionable, but we should try to capture as much of the reality of the dispute as possible.Drernie 02:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A young Russian anarchist once said that if he says that the world is ruled by a handful of capitalists, he will be labelled extreme left. But if he says what nationality these capitalists are (namely Jewish), he will be labelled extreme right. It's a very simplistic view of course, but it's good to illustrate how hard it is to define political right and left today. In Poland the only very clear distinction between left-wing and right-wing politicians is that the former are atheist and the latter are Catholic. Perhaps these examples could be used somewhere in the article - just a suggestion. Kpalion 13:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edit 15:53, 22 Mar 2004 by User:WHEELER to the article is falsely marked minor and is very POV, might even be a troll. I don't have time to deal with it now (I'm very limited in my online time now due to a back injury), but it needs dealing with, maybe reverting. Someone please look at this. -- Jmabel 04:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Looks like others have simply reverted it, which is fine by me. -- Jmabel 03:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should've noted here that I chose to revert User:WHEELER's changes in their entirety, because I know of quite a few who profess Christianity who also do not agree with "right-wing" politics. --Joe Sewell 12:09, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source on the "historical origin" part? My understanding was always that the term arose in the 1791 Legislative Assembly, when the Feuillants and their constitutional monarchist supporters sat on the right of the chamber, and the radical republican types sat on the "Mountain" on the left. I've never heard of any such division in the original Constituent Assembly. john 22:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that I didn't have a source for this. Previously, the claim was that it arose in the French States General, which I knew to be false. I had some back and forth with Drernie over that (see top of this page). However, john may well be correct here. -- Jmabel 01:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to change it, then. john 01:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Description of left/right distinction. Can some one explain to me what the devil all this means?
 * 'Whether one is historically that social force which is the most marginalised by, and has the least commitment to, the status quo and power relations of the existing society, and responds to this position by being reformist or revolutionary (left) or if a social force is by and large committed to reinforcement of, or at least adaptation to, the status quo and its power relations by being conservative or reactionary (right).'

It doesn't read as if it was written by a native English speaker (no offence intended) and therefore, they may be struggling to make themselves clear. Or it could be that, given it's gone 2300 local time, nothing's making sense any more. Either way I don't understand it : ) There isn't even a name attached to this view, so I'm sore tempted to delete it--if I'm in a better frame of mind and still don't get what it's going on about. Wooster 22:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I kind of understand it, but it's quite poorly written. john 22:52, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe I understand it, though I find it rather vacuous. In short it seems to say the following: that left and right refer to "social forces", a vaguely defined term, rather than the politics of individuals and parties; that the right favors the status quo, the left the contrary (which makes some sense, but seems redundant to Hoffer's definition); that the left is reformist or revolutionary and the right conservative or reactionary (which seems to me to be tautological in terms of the word "conservative", and almost tautological in terms of "revolutionary/reactionary". So an insurrection from the left is a revolution and from the right is reaction? As for the remaining terms, saying that the left is more "reformist" than the right just seems to me to be a value judgement: certainly the Bush administration has, for better or worse -- I say worse -- "reformed" education, and would like to "reform" tort law).
 * Normally I would try to edit it for clarity, but since (1) I find this vacuous and (2) User:Cowpoke added it after something of a disagreement with me (see above), I hesitate to do so. You might contact him/her. And I agree about the issue of lack of attribution, but that was part of my disagreement with Cowpoke. Anyway, up till now, I'd kept quiet, but since someone else opened the issue, I thought it was ime to add my two cents. -- Jmabel 00:37, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Rereading it with intonation, and after a good night's sleep, I *think* I nearly understand it. There's got to be a simpler way of expressing this, and I'm afraid it will definitely need two sentences.  If you don't want a one sentence definition of this particular left-right distinction, we'll have to chop it.  Incidentally, my beef is not that the sentence is wrong--I didn't understand what it meant until a few minutes ago, and I'm not qualified to pass judgment.  It's that this sentence is far too long--it's a whole paragraph, for heaven's sake!
 * Removing tautologies (such being oppressed <=> no commitment to existing power structures) and clearing up the language a little, I can come up with this.
 * Support for the marginalised in society, frequently by means of reform or revolution (left) or support for the status quo (right).
 * I contend that this is the heart of what it's driving at--and that both the (left) and (right) parts are present in other definitions, so I'm going ahead and removing it. Wooster 09:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems fair. Is it time to archive this Talk page? Most of the issues here seem to have become moot. Drernie 14:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Usually we don't archive till we hit about 30K. -- Jmabel 18:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Conservatives have no problem with diversity, except when arbitrary quotas are mandated by the government. TDC 00:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are extrapolating from a certain narrow conception of American conservatism to a sense of conservatism in general. Many conservative movements oppose cultural diversity. Just look at European conservative parties, to start with. john 00:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, then bring that up in a separate point. I think that mainstream conservative thought only opposes diveristy when its mandated by the government. Please show me otherwise if you disagree with that. TDC 00:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Conservatives oppose immigration practically everywhere. That seems like opposition to cultural diversity to me. john 00:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not correct on the facts. Many of the strongest proponents of increased immigration are pro-growth economic conservatives (think The Economist) who see free and open borders through the same lens as they see free trade.  Now, it's also true that many of the strongest opponents of immigration are cultural conservatives (think Pat Buchanan).  But this just means that the question is being played out among conservative factions.  It hardly means that conservatives in general are identified with opposition to immigration.  Indeed, one might argue that with the departure of Pat Buchanan from the Republican Party, the position of opposition to immigration is becoming marginalized withing the conservative movement.
 * Ronald Reagan, a noted conservative, implemented a blanket amnesty to _illegal_ aliens in an unprecedented act in 1986. It is hard to imagine a more strongly pro-immigration stance than amnesty to _illegal_ aliens. --141.156.18.180 22:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to an open borders policy is not the same as opposition to immigration, and I say that as a first generation American. I'm sorry but the immigration=cultural diversity does not pass the smell test. Try again. TDC 01:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Immigration has to do with cultural diversity. So does the question of regional autonomy. Conservatives tend to oppose this in, for instance, Spain and Britain - again, this relates to cultural diversity. The statement as it is is not a hard and fast statement, but a general tendency - parties on the right tend to oppose cultural diversity. In the United States, this is comparatively mild. At any rate "state mandated cultural diversity" is utterly POV. People on the right frequently think that any state accommodation with cultural diversity is inappropriate, as with English-only rules in the US. john 01:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Woah, what gives you the idea that "state mandated cultural diversity" is a POV statement? Minority set asides for education, contracts, and employment is real [except for Asians of course], and most every conservative objects to this. I also do not buy that diversity=immigration and have made that clear in the article.TDC 01:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, this article is not about the United States. It's about left-right politics in general. Affirmative action, which, so far as I can tell, has little to do with cultural diversity, is pretty specific to the US. Conservative opposition to cultural diversity goes well beyond that. Look at all the English-only groups in the US. If that's not opposition to cultural diversity, I have no idea what is. Look at the way the Tories in 2001 basically made their whole campaign about opposition to immigration. Or the LPF in the Netherlands. Or the Conservatives in Denmark. Or how the Tories opposed devolution to Scotland and Wales. Or how the CDU in Germany fought so long against allowing Turkish guest workers to be naturalized. This is a general trend in the parties of the right throughout the world, and putting it in terms of "open borders" and "state mandated cultural diversity" is terribly POV. I'm not sure the other phrasing is put as best as it can manage, but it should be noted that the article does not say that this is a trait universal across the right, just that it's fairly common. And it doesn't necessarily say that conservatives are opposed to any cultural diversity. At any rate, I would argue that opposition to cultural diversity is almost certainly the policy which most unifies the right throughout the developed world, certainly much more than any economic policies (the Christian Democrats of the world, for instance, tend to be almost as much in favor of the welfare state as the socialists). john 01:41, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Affirmative Action is not specific to the US. See India, for example.

I think TDC is probably right about open/loose borders belonging on the list and being a separate issue from the diversity one. How about everyone back off from editing that "cultural diversity" phrase for a bit and let's see if we can reach a consensus? It may not be so simple as to be handled in a 2 or 3 word phrase, and there may be more of a need to talk about various countries. I don't think TDC is totally off base here, although I think he overstates his case.

However, I have reverted TDC's edit that removed "In practice, much Cold War era Leftism in the west seems to have been defined as much by its opposition to State Communism as their shared assumptions...". This is fundamental to the nature of the "left" in most Western democracies. Consider, for example, Americans for Democratic Action, or the British Labour Party. In the US, "liberal anti-communism" is almost a cliche, and describes the dominant politics of the 1960s (Kennedy/Johnson and arguably even Nixon): generally social democratic in outlook, but resolutely anti-communist. -- Jmabel 05:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed that phrase is because I think a strong case can be made that western leftist, not just in the US but all over the world, were not opposed to state communism and were, in fact, the most vocal supports. TDC 17:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would say I was probably a bit too harsh in this case. It's fine to talk about immigration issues separately, certainly. But I still strongly object to saying that conservatives only opposed "state mandated cultural diversity", which is just a code word for affirmative action, and is thus completely americo-centric. john 06:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * So maybe let's try for an edit that, instead of simple enumeration in a list, talks specifics? Preferably with references (which I've found is the best way of dealing with POV issues: make it clear whose view is being stated, instead of having it be in the authorial voice of the article). -- Jmabel 06:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I just think that applying the label that all conservatives reject diversity is not only not true, but extremely POV. But if you can source it......... TDC 17:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The article didn't say that all conservatives reject diversity. It said that the right was typified by various things, including that.  There was a "and/or" there, which means that every group on the right doesn't necessarily follow all of those tenets. john 19:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I myself don't have sources handy, but I can suggest where this might go if someone wants to do the work. (1) I think there is a need to distinguish (for example) ethnic diversity in employment (affirmative action in the US, for example, whether government-mandated or not) from issues of cultural diversity (English-only in the US, the nationalist politics of Le Pen in France or the National Front in the UK, etc.). (2) Each of these probably deserves much expansion, not just a point in a bullet list. I'd look for documentation of the following:
 * The use of rhetoric against cultural diversity by anti-immigrant groups in various countries
 * The English-only movement in general
 * Conservative condemnations of cultural relativism


 * I don't think the picture will be black and white. There is a tension on the right in this matter between privatism and traditionalism and also (for example) in France the issues over secularism have not broken down neatly along left/right lines. My own inclination for now would be simply to remove the item from the existing "laundry list", pending the addition of a much longer researched, nuanced discussion of the issue. -- Jmabel 18:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense. It is a very complicated and nuanced issue. I think that opposition to (or at least strong ambivalence about) immigration, specifically, ought to be mentioned as a facet of the right, even if we're going to take out the cultural diversity bit, though. john 19:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, since TDC added the phrase about the right generally opposing "open/loose border immigration policies", it sounds like the two of you are actually in agreement on that. -- Jmabel 20:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The quotation I added from H. G. Wells's The Outline of History is on p.527 of the one-volume edition from Garden City Publishing Company (New York, 1931). I couldn't think of any way to get that specific a reference into the article without interrupting the flow, but someone else is welcome to do so. -- Jmabel 22:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it breaks up the flow very badly, ocurring as it does in the middle of a list. --141.156.18.180 22:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Reading it again, I think it's best to remove the quote to the Talk page below. HG Wells is hardly a noted scholar of history and politics.  Perhaps his thoughts could go on to an HG Wells page.


 * ... and is how H. G. Wells used the term in The Outline of History when, speaking of the Jews of the Roman Empire, he referred to the Pharisees as "on the right" and Hellenized Jews such as the Sadduccees as "of the left."


 * Wells may not be a great historical scholar, but his Outline of History was a major bestseller, and is quite representative of prevailing thought in the English-speaking world in the period between the two World Wars. That said, I have no problem with removing it from this particular spot in the article, but I'll put it in a different place.

The second sentence of this definition is really a tautology or somethin. I'm removing it to the talk page below.


 * Support for the economic interests of the poor (left) or the rich (right). For example, this is implicit in the arguments of those like Michael Parenti who argue that the present media market inherently favors the interests of the right, because the wealthy have greater ability to pay for that access.

This definition begs the question by giving an example that simply assumes wealthy=conservative. In addition, if this point is merely "implicit" in Michael Parenti, his works are probably not exemplary for the purposes of a definition.--141.156.18.180 23:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

AndyL and TDC, we bumped into each other all trying to fix the rich/poor dichotomy definition. AndyL's last version was


 * Support for the economic interests of the working class and unemployed (left) or of business, entrepreneurs and investors (right).

My last version was


 * Whether living standards can best be improved by direct economic support to the poor (left) or by job creation through greater economic activity (right).

AndyL, I didn't mean to just hammer yours but I got the edit conflict, pasted mine in and brought them over here for discussion. Now I see you have added both in. I don't agree that they are different -- and the reason why cuts to one of the left/right dichotomies that makes it interesting to discuss. The right thinks that supporting the economic interests of business etc. is a necesssary condition for improving living conditions. This is the "rising tide lifts all boats" theory (actually Kennedy's phrase). The left believes this is better accomplished through more direct means such as redistribution. The key is that the _motivation_ of conservatives in supporting business, etc, is for economic growth to come around to the masses and get them re-elected. --141.156.18.180 23:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...some elements of the right believe this. More traditional conservatives (as opposed to liberal-conservatives) tend to hold to the position that there's always going to be poor people, and that there's no real point in helping them, beyond relieving the most abject poverty. john 23:14, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you name some of these conservatives who hold that there is no point in helping poor people? Maybe give me a quote from one of them? I offer Reagan, Nixon, Bush I, Bush II, and Thatcher as representatives of the &quot;lift all boats&quot; club. I can even add Hoover, whose policies (though tragically wrongheaded) were inarguably intended to raise common folk out of poverty.--141.156.18.180 23:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with John on this last point. But, most importantly, as stated in the section after the one we are now discussing, the left/right dichotomy originated in class distinction. Surely it is important that we reflect that clearly in at least one of the definitions/usages we provide. -- Jmabel 23:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This view is not so common anymore, but it once was. The viewpoint of Reagan and Thatcher is, in fact, a pretty classic liberal idea, and would have been rather on the left in the 19th century (Thatcher herself was rather Gladstonian, in fact).  Hoover was not really considered a conservative during his time in office, btw.  He was elected as a progressive.  He only looked conservative in comparison with what followed - his views were pretty classically liberal, in fact. On the other hand, I'm not sure I like Andy's wording, either. john 23:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware of all of that and agree. "Classical liberal" ideas are very popular among the right in the US and Britain at least. But the propounding of "classical liberal" ideas by those on the right does not make them any less "of the right".  It's a kinda big theme and a deep part of the definition of the right.  A couple of the entries here refer to the the right prioritizing of "liberty" and "individual rights".  These are also "classical liberal" ideas, but that doesn't make them any less the values of the right.


 * In fact the right in the US right now is strongly reformist (seeking change), while the left is performing the "classically conservative" function of putting on the brakes. Just because the left is trying to conserve left-architected laws and policies, does not make the left any less left.


 * To return to my point, I argue that the left/right dichotomy on the poor and working class is "give assistance directly" (left) versus "rising tide lifts all boats" (right). You argue that the dichotomy is "give assistance directly" (left) versus "no point in trying" (right).  I offer notable examples, along with the philosophical argument that, as politics is about getting votes, it is not plausible that people actively seek to dismiss large numbers of voters.


 * I greatly appreciated your comments and hope I can succeed in responding both strongly and respectfully.--141.156.18.180 23:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I totally concur with Thatcher being more of a classic liberal than a classic conservative. Alex Cockburn, of all people, has written quite well on that point. "Tory Wets" are classic conservatives, and whatever Thatcher may have been, I think we can all agree she was no "Wet". -- Jmabel 23:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Guys, we know Thatcher's a "classical liberal" when you put things in a full perspective of political thought. But, we can't overthink this till we get to the point that our article denies that Reagan and Thatcher were on the right.  Come on!  They defined the right.  Would we say that because Thatcher is a "classical liberal" we could use her to define the left?  No, Labour represented the left.  Labour argued for radical distribution of property, including (in the platform explicity) the abolition of personal property (did that plank get taken out during Thatcher's reign or just before?).  There's the dichotomy: Left argued direct economic redistribution.  Right argued rising tide lifts all boats.--141.156.18.180 00:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I utterly agree that Thatcher is/was on the right. And that nearly all contemporary rightists at least claim to believe that a "rising tide lifts all boats." But in the 19th century, the right-wing defense of the rights of property had not yet acquired that veneer. The "rising tide" argument would have been called "left" in 1800, "liberal" in 1848, and probably "center-right" today. No? -- Jmabel 01:01, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, TDC's changes have made this less necessary, but I don't agree that


 * Jmabel (The characterization of definitions as "neutral" vs. "critical" is itself POV. Let the reader draw his/her own conclusion.)

Many wikipedia pages have sections clearly devoted to "criticism". Look under George W Bush or Ann Coulter or many others. In this page we had critical comments/thoughts which were even attributed to partisan or interested parties. Those are opinions, and are permissible with proper attribution according to the NPOV policy. Readers can figure it out, yes, but labeling things brings clarity, which is easier on the reader.


 * My problem is with calling any of the definitions neutral. I think we can accomplish as much by putting the less polemical ones first (which was a good edit). If you need me to go into why I would dispute the neutrality of almost any of these definitions, I can. Note that by disputing their neutrality I am not objecting (at all) to their inclusion with appropriate attribution, but saying overtly that they are neutral effectively makes them part of the narrative voice of the article. (For your analogy to hold, these would have to be comments critical of the left-right distinction, a matter we mostly take up elsewhere, in Political spectrum.) -- Jmabel 23:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for replying. If it would not take too much of your time, I would appreciate hearing some of the logic behind your disputation of neutrality on those. I'm just learning the wikipedia ropes here myself, so I need to know how people see things to avoid wasting effort. I understand that your term &quot;polemical&quot; is considerably more precise than &quot;critical&quot;, but that is the general usage elsewhere. Perhaps it is a question of semantics. Perhaps there is a better word to use than &quot;neutral&quot;. But one of my favorite thoughts is the DP Moynihan definition I added, which, being a simple inversion, hardly takes sides. I thought of &quot;not taking sides&quot; as meaning &quot;neutral&quot;. Also, this is the word wikipedia uses in the NPOV document.--141.156.18.180 23:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * First, one general statement. The NPOV issue is that the narrative voice of the article must maintain neutrality, and that we attempt, within that voice, to incorporate (by mention) material from a wide variety of POVs.


 * As for the specific: "Whether the government promote secularism (left) or promote religious morality (right)" is hardly neutral. Are we to say that this makes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and William Jennings Bryan men of the right, or Ayn Rand a leftist? Similarly, "Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right)." So Adolf Hitler was on the left and all anarchists are on the right? Again, I think it is important that these widely held views be stated, preferably with the most appropriate attribution we can find, but I recommend taking them all with a grain of salt and certainly without the endorsement of calling them "neutral". -- Jmabel 23:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I find that unenlightening. Nazism's interventionist economy is simply an exception to a well-established trend.  The fact that there are exceptions to trends hardly pertains to the neutrality of observing the trend, nor to the neutrality in expression when making the observation.  The statement on economics is neutral because it is a perfectly balanced observation, which does not assign  values to the position of either side.  Likewise, MLK, Bryan, and Rand have nothing to do with the interest in secularism/religion by goverment.  As far as I know, these figures never advocated a position by _government_ on these matters, no matter how strongly motivating they were for the person.  Even if they did so, this does not cloud the issue:  it is possible for MLK to be conservative on religion without changing the definition of what it is to be conservative.


 * However, I agree that the secularism/religion dichotomy is one of the problematic ones. It's a pity you don't address the DP Moynihan definition.  I think it is patently neutral because it is expressed as a perfect inversion.  If the whole article employed such thoughful balance it would be ideal for this tricky subject.--141.156.18.180 00:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "As far as I know, these figures never advocated..." Rand was a firm secularist on the political right, but something of a sexual radical; as for Bryan, do you remember the Scopes Trial? -- Jmabel 01:04, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Jmabel - I enjoyed speaking with you tonight - just read all of your last postings. Anyway, I'm about to turn in. One last thing: you said


 * Excuse me, you can't remove the original meaning of the term as one of its meanings!)

and reverted my recent edit on the basis that class distinctions are the historical basis for the origin of the Left and Right labels. You also refer the reader to the Historical Origins section in your edit.

However, and this is a big "however", if the basis for your edit is to preserve the "original meaning of the term", then you must _reverse_ Left and Right in your class-based definition. You have given an opposite definition to the one you are referring to in the Historical Origin section. The reader will be confused.

I think the "can't remove the original meaning" argument doesn't fly because the classes thought to be represented have switched. (User: 141.156.18.180 )


 * I am guessing that what is confusing is that in the first two years or so of the use of the terms, anyone less privileged than the rising bourgeoisie were completely disenfranchised: it was the bourgeoisie on the left, vs. the aristocrats on the right. By 1792 the franchise had broadened, and many forces were in play left of the original left; the bourgeoisie were now in the economic middle class of political actors. Yes, it is hard from 2004 to remember that there was a time (ending roughly with the French Revolution) when non-noble owners of property were an oppressed but rising class.


 * Certainly, by the time of Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto (1848, the next great revolutionary year in Europe), the typical bourgeois would no longer be considered "on the left".


 * Maybe this needs expansion one or more places in the article. I'd like to see a few others weigh in on this: I don't want to see this turn into an article on 18th and 19th century class distinctions, but maybe part of it needs to. I'll take a stab at refining just the item in the list, see if this needs more. -- Jmabel 19:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)