Talk:Left–right political spectrum/Archive 4

US
I'm trying not to just be a whinger and a hand waver here, but it annoys me that there's an entire section devoted to left vs. right politics in the US, yet there's nothing similar regarding the rest of the world. The US bias of wikipedia is very irritating sometimes, though it shouldn't be, as most Internet users are in the U.S. In other words, i'm a whiny European who is too lazy to write a non US section.

From the US--> That's easy to fix. Start writing more about non-US views on topics, creating topics, and getting your friends to help. Something that is created by users being called biased only reflects the predominant users posting and thus can easily be remedied.

Also from the US--> No, it's NOT so easy to fix. Throughout Wikipedia you will see entries from (obviously) American authors who have no concept of a world view and automatically write from a US perspective without any attempt to qualify their language. What, therefore, tends to happen is that the US view becomes a default with international views living in ghetto-ized paragraphs. 621PWC (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also from the US--> That is actually kind of the problem with Wikipedia all around in the first place, and that is that popular ideas are not necessarily correct. You can have people posting information about the corruptibility of whatever organization, but then the organization can have its people change the entry the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.151.55 (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This entire dicussion lends a great deal of credibilty to the idea that the left-right spectrum poorly represents political and economic views. It seems to me that most of the debate below is equivalent to attempting to define the square root of negative 1 with only real numbers at our disposal. It is painfully obvious that politics is muli-dimensional. The most that can be hoped for here is to describe how the left-right spectrum is used and leave it at that. This should probably be a very short article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Better Chart
I think that this page needs a metter chart. Like this one http://studentnewsdaily.com/conservative_vs_liberal_beliefs.shtml Rdrg93 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit :

I actually think that the article, in fact the whole political movement, needs a better definition of "left-right". Most political parties cannot adhere to a single category, including revolutionnary movements and far-right groups, as described somewhere else in the discussion.

I suggest a new use of the "left-right" compass.

The political compass uses the "square" system with two axis : x and y (social and économic), which is not very accurate because I know my political ideas, and they tend to be pretty nearer to Mussolini than to Gandhi. Whatever.

What I suggest is a cube!

3 axis : x, y and z

Économic Social Politic

The first one defines the market system (if any) of a political group. The second defines the social standing of a political group about the welfare of the people (welfare checks/charity, private/public school/medical system, etc) The thirds one is, basically, the way a society treats it's people (rehabilitation/punishment, democracy/totaliratism (in which I include Soviet Communism!) etc)

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.122.167 (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting book
I came across this book: Left and Right in Global Politics by Alain Noël and Jean-Philippe Thérien. I haven't read it yet but it seems to be of great interest. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing unneccessary detail
I am removing several paragraphs that are unhelpful to the article:
 * Edmund Burke - terms left and right not used in UK then
 * Adam Smith - terms left and right had not yet been invented
 * 19th century British capitalism - left and right were not applied to them
 * Austrian scholars - their view of laissez faire makes no reference to left or right
 * Bolsheviks - the term left-wing was not applied to them at the time
 * H.G. Wells - his use of left and right to refer to the Roman Empire is not notable
 * Japan - Liberal Democrats do not consider themselves right-wing

Much of the rest of the article is poorly sourced and contains non-notable information.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bolsheviks? Really?  The rest of your removals make sense, but the Bolsheviks were certainly seen, and viewed themselves, as on the left. john k (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, thanks a great deal for removing Similarly, Nazism and fascism are now severely discredited and usually won't be recognized by modern Western rightists as their own, in particular because historical Nazis and fascists did not advocate or practice a laissez-faire approach to the economy, and never proclaimed "liberty" as a value in either political or economic matters. Charles X, Metternich, and Bismarck didn't advocate or practice a laissez-faire approach to the economy either, nor did they ever proclaim "liberty" as a value in either political or economic matters.  What actual academic source has ever defined advocacy of "liberty" as the key characteristic of the political right?  The fact that there are so many people who seem to embrace a definition of the right which excludes virtually the whole of the continental European pre-1945 right remains deeply tedious, so kudos on removing that.  john k (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apparently the terms left and right applied more to the deputies than to the parties and only became applied to ideologies in the twentieth century.  Marxists saw left and right as both bourgeois and they would not accept the term left.  (Lenin even wrote a book called Left-wing communisim:  an infantile disorder.)  By the twenties or thirties they started calling themselves left-wing.  I will try to find an article about this.  (Anyway Communists are already mentioned in the article so the paragraph I deleted added nothing.)  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is "Right and Left" by Marcel Gauchet, and it provides an interesting history of the use of the terms. It explains Communist opposition to being on the left on p. 267.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That reference doesn't seem to me to support the case you are making. It is referring specifically to French Communists, not (Russian) Bolsheviks.  And it doesn't say exactly that they rejected being on the left.  It says that they rejected the Cartel des Gauches alliance which was claiming to be on the left, but included the bourgeois, non-revolutionary Radical Party. They were saying that the cartel des gauches consisted of "left-wing capitalism," but weren't necessarily rejecting identification of themselves as left wing entirely.  And Gauchet also notes that the Communists' sometime aversion to the traditional French left did not keep them from frequently describing themselves as on the left.  "Even if the left-right distinction was declared meaningless in the official elections, it was inevitably in terms of that distinction that one oriented oneself politically and thought about the party's own everyday activity." The Communists were, at any rate, rejecting the idea that they had a natural community of interests with the Cartel des Gauches, not so much the idea that they themselves were on the left.  And this idea was, at any rate, a short-lived one - it seems to have lasted essentially from the party split in 1920 until the embrace of the Popular Front in 1934.  As far as I know, the SFIO always self-identified as on the left before 1920, and the PCF has always accepted itself as on the left, and accepted at least the idea of the Popular Front, since 1934.  So basically this appears to be an idiosyncratic French communist conception that lasted barely more than a dozen years, and was never even fully embraced by French Communists themselves. john k (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph began The Bolsheviks were certainly "of the left", and the advocates of Stalinist, Soviet-style communism considered themselves to be "leftist". My criticism was that I did not think they used the term at the time, and the text provided no source.  From what I have read I have not seen its use, and would be interested for any reference that they did use the term.  But the more important reason for removing the paragraph is that communism has already been mentioned as part of the Left and the paragraph provided no additional information.  As you pointed out the rest of the paragraph was misinformation.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fair. Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the removal, just with the description above. john k (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: You've taken out an awful lot. I hope you plan to replace what you've removed with stuff that's better.

I do think that it is of interest how historians use the terms left and right in talking about politics that took place before the terms were invented. I remember a long discussion in Talk:Philosophy about whether the many references that describe Confucius as a conservative philosopher could be used, because the word hadn't been invented in the time of Confucius. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Little of what I removed was about how historians use the term to apply to earlier periods. (Look at the differences in the history page.)  It would be interesting to have a section on how historians apply the left-right spectrum to earlier periods if there are any sources for this.  The terms liberal and conservative are applied to earlier periods but I don't find the terms left and right are.  Confucius may have been conservative but he wasn't right-wing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly the terms "left" and "right" are sometimes used, but generally as an analogy rather than strictly speaking. So, for instance, the democratic and oligarchic parties in ancient Athens are sometimes referred to as left and right, respectively, or the populares vs. the optimates in the late Roman Republic, or for various factions in the Reformation. john k (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

opposition to science
A section on the chart comparing the ways in which the Right and Left are each opposed to science in their own ways keeps getting removed, though it has been a part of the article for months and is backed by 5 reliable sources, including a political scientist who makes the precise comparison. I don't want to revert the removal without reaching consensus, but I would like the people who keep removing this section to explain themselves. If it is POV or biased, exactly which POV is being represented? It is not flattering to either the right or the left. PStrait (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Try changing the heading to "Views on science" instead of the negative, baiting term opposition. Neither left nor right (or in the US, liberals nor conservatives) are opposed on principle to science, the scientific method, or the standard procedures by which scientists and researchers make new discoveries.


 * Where they disagree, of course, is on what science has to tell us, and particularly how the latest scientific ideas should be used to inform public policy decisions. I daresay there are several scientific controversies which are polarized around left-right disagreements. Evolution and global warming show the greatest polarization.
 * The New Christian Right opposes "evolution", while the left generally favor it; there is roughly a 60-40 split in favor of evolution in the USA (or 15-85 if you go by "unguided evolution", but we don't even have a redirect for that!).
 * Americans are also split between belief in human-caused global warming (see AGW), with 75% of Democrats (i.e., the left) agreeing with AGW and 75% of Republicans (i.e., the right) rejecting AGW.


 * Still, each side of the spectrum says they respect science and often refer to scientific findings to support their public policy goals.


 * Perhaps we can say that one side has complained that the other side doesn't respect science. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with some references for that. For example, the UCS (which appear leftist, at least to me) accused Republican President Bush of being anti-science. And conservative think tanks accuse "liberal-left" politicians like Al Gore of distorting or ignoring the science of global warming (e.g., the correlation between air temperature and carbon dioxide levels: whether CO2 drives temperature, or vice versa).


 * I hope you all realize I'm not here to advance any position. I just would like to see an accurate description of:
 * how the general public (or at least academics) view the left and right
 * how each side defines itself


 * If we can write about all this neutrally, I think our readers will be interested. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should say modern science. De Maistre complained that modern science ignored final causes, while positivists claimed that nothing could be known except through the scientific method.  The intelligent design argument is a clear example of this.  The left see the argument as religious and philosophical while the right claim it is scientific.  The right may be criticised for rejecting modern science which does not allow such arguments.  The left may be criticised for not accepting the validity of religious or philosophical arguments.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the section, because the references support it. The points you make are cogent. (With one exception: the new Christian Right do not "oppose" evolution, they deny evolution, or at least deny macroevolution. The Left, in contrast, do not "deny" nuclear power, though some oppose nuclear power.)

That said, the divide between the Left and the Right goes beyond current hot topics and beyond US politics. Examples of conservatives rejecting science when science causes people to doubt traditional beliefs go back to at least the time when Galileo was forced to deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This theme, that scientific "progress" destroys traditional values, and that scientists deny traditional verities, runs through much of conservative thought. Another example (off the top of my head) was conservative resistance to contour plowing.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya, I've removed this again. While I agree--and more importantly, it's well sourced--that leftists often oppose nuclear energy and biotech, and right wingers often deny the science of climate change and evolution, there's really no parity between the two positions. The left wing opposition is to certain policies--they don't deny that GM cotton exists or that fission will occur when you get a critical mass of uranium, they just don't think you should use these things. The right wing opposition to climate change and evolution is a different beast--they are actually disputing the science. There's no parity between these positions and we shouldn't pretend that there is by contrasting them to one another, unless reliable sources make that this comparison, and none the cited ones do. Yilloslime T C  16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your claim that no reliable sources makes this comparison is difficult to understand. One of the sources cited is Levin, Yuval. Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy. Encounter Books, October 2008.  This is one of the theses of the text.  Further, you have mischaracterized the comparison -- it is not that both the left and the right as groups "dispute the science," whatever that may mean.  Rather, it is that both the left and right, in their own different ways, have adopted oppositional stances to scientific advances in various fields, whether those advances be epistemic claims (like warming is anthropogenic or that man evolved from lesser primates), or whether those advances be technostrategic (like the general utility and safety of nuclear power or agricultural biotechnology).  THIS is the precise comparison made by Levin.  It is not that their oppositions to science exactly track with one another -- the claim is much more nuanced than that.  Levin indicates that this comparison is nonetheless very important because anti-scientific tropes circulate between advocates on the left and the right.  It is also worth noting that, if nothing else, the Right's opposition to evolutionary biology and to climate science runs against the mainstream consensus among scientists in those fields, JUST AS the Left's beliefs that the risks of GMOs and nuclear power outweigh the rewards also run counter to the mainstream consensus among scientists.  Given the strength of this claim's treatment in a reliable source, I am having trouble understanding your opposition.  PStrait (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One other thought that is also worth mentioning re: your specific objections -- yes, the Left doesn't deny that GM cotton exists, and yes their opposition is to their use.... which in fact tracks pretty well with the Right's stance on embryonic stem-cell use in medicine -- they do not deny that stem cells exist, they just don't think they should be used. This is another explicit point made by Levin. And I know you might be thinking something like "yes but the Right's objection is on moral grounds, while the Left's objection is on safety grounds" but that would be imprecise at best, since often the objections to the patenting of specific genes, for instance, or the use of non-human animals in research, are made on entirely moral grounds (and, likewise, the Right sometimes couches its objections to scientific practices in safety terms, as in "birth control might cause breast cancer" and similar arguments).  And this is exactly Levin's point -- the Left and the Right borrow one another's rhetoric and language to advocate against various scientific positions.  From that perspective, the comparison is extremely meaningful.  PStrait (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no left wing and right wing in the US. No one wants to return to monarchy and no one wants to replace the constitution. Levin is just a neocon and while his thoughts may be interesting they are hardly authoritative. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is misleading, as the article makes clear that "left wing" and "right wing" in modern US politics no longer refer to the old monarchy issue. We need to help our readers by clarifying how the terms have shifted in meaning over the centuries. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So your three arguments are: 1) that the only "right" position is monarchy and the only "left" position is to replace the Constitution, so therefore there are no left-right politics in America.  2) The left and right positions on science described above are limited to US politics.  3) The opinions of a political scientist and bioethicist should not be included in an encyclopedia article if he or she is influenced by Leo Strauss.


 * Seriously??? *This* is what is motivating opposition to the science comparison?  It is now clear why I have had trouble understanding the objections before now.  PStrait (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PStrait: Your comments do not reflect what The Four Deuces said. If I may paraphrase his position as I understand it. I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong.

1) The generally accepted meaning of the left/right split is that the Left supports the working class, the Right supports the upper class.  Since America does not have an official hereditary upper class, it is inappropriate to apply the terms to American politics.  However, America does have a de facto upper class, though not a de jure upper class.  The Republican party usually supports the interests of the rich, while the Democratic party usually supports the interests of the working class.  Thus the words left and right are in fact used (however inappropriately) in the US to mean Democrat and Republican.

2) The left/right positions in science go back for centuries. Examples are cited from countries other than the US.

3) Encyclopedia articles should reflect, first and foremost, mainstream views, as represented in standard academic sources and standard reference books. The neocon position should be represented, but should be further down in the article, and identified as a neocon position rather than a standard position.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Levin is comparing the US to Turkey. He is equating American Democrats with Turkish Communists and American Republicans with the Turkish Right which supported Ottoman imperialism and later adopted first fascist and then fundamentalist Islamic ideas. The Turkish left and right are profoundly opposed to the status quo which makes them very different from the left and right in the US.

The article now says about the left: "opposition to technological advances related to agriculture and nuclear power". It would be more accurate to say they oppose the misuse of technology but then who does not? The implication is that the left (and in the examples given of birth control and humaning cloning for the right) that the underlying objection is opposition to technology, when it is the misuse of technology that is opposed. By this logic one could argue that the left opposed the electric chair because they were against technological progress.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have Levin, so I'll have to take your word about what it says. I do own Mooney, and it doesn't make the comparison being made in the table, and neither do the two online sources--they only verify right-wing support for teaching creationism. The other source, DeGette, I don't have access to, but it was added by Rick Norwood, so perhaps he can enlighten us about exactly what this source is being used for. Is it just to verify the right's position on stem-cells, or does it actually make the comparison in the table?
 * As as for Levin: if it's only Levin making that comparison then highlighting in the this table is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. If the this comparison is common in political science textbooks, then it should definitely be the article. If it's not common, but it nonetheless appears in a few books published in reputable academic sources (see WP:SOURCES) then we might consider including it. But if it only appears in one or a couple books or articles published by small, ideologically committed publishers, then it would be in violation of WP:NPOV to include it in this table as though it's an established, non-controversial analysis of right/left ideology. Yilloslime T C  20:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the complaint above about no true right or left in America has to do with this section. The de facto / de jure distinction is bizarre since these days, there are no de jure classes anywhere.  Furthermore, a reduction of right and left politics to upper vs. lower classes is bizarre.  What about all the poor people who vote Republican, or all the rich people who vote Democrat?  What do abortion, gun control, missile defense, etc. have to do with upper and lower class?  This reductionist view is stupid, but more importantly it has nothing to do with the science comparison.


 * As for WP:Weight, Levin is a noteworthy political scientist. If he is wrong, or if his views are fringe, then please provide a noteworthy source that challenges his claims.  He is a public intellectual -- surely if his opinion is outside of the mainstream, *someone* would have challenged it or rebuked it.  This is the central thesis of his text.  It is not simply a comparison between the US and Turkey -- have you even read the book?  How could you say such a thing if you have?


 * On what basis do you say that Levin's views are based on ideological commitments? If you could demonstrate to me that there is a connection between ideology and the thesis of his book, it would go a long way toward persuading me that the comparison should not be on the table.   PStrait (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at WP:SOURCES: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Levin's book is published by Encounter Books, which is by no stretch of the imagination a university press, and by all accounts has strong conservative leanings, as does Levin himself. Now take a look at WP:WEIGHT.Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. We can't portray Levin's views as though they are representative of mainstream political scientists, unless of course they are. And if they are, then I should be easy to find any number of "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses" that also make the comparison. To be clear, I'm not saying that this article can't mention Levin's comparison, I'm only saying that it can't make it look like his views are mainstream and generally accepted--and this exactly what the article does by tucking them into the table without obvious attribution, and in a section entitled "Typical positions" no less. So either pull this out of the table (and, if you want, find a place for it in the article, but clearly identify the idea as Levin's), or find some better sources and include them in the table. The status quo is not acceptable. Yilloslime T C  22:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are correct that his views are not generally accepted, shouldn't you be able to find an example of someone not accepting his views? Neither he nor his book are obscure in political science... PStrait (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, dude, you can't prove a negative. And even if you could, the burden in those seeking to add/retain controversial material to an article, not those seeking to remove it. Yilloslime T C  22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ok, "dude," I get that you cannot prove a negative. But I am not asking you to prove a negative.  I am asking you to find an example of someone disagreeing with Levin.  If you are correct that his views diverge from the mainstream, then there should be someone in the mainstream who says that he is incorrect.  You keep asserting that the material is *controversial* -- this seems like a claim without a warrant.  Show me proof that there is a controversy.  PStrait (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that there are people out there actively disagreeing with him, and my use the word "controversial" directly above applied to this controversy we're having right here--I'm not suggesting that his book is controversial out there in the real word. All I'm saying is that if you read the article in it's current state, you get the impression that an accepted way to dichotomize the political spectrum is along the lines of how science is viewed. And this *might* even be true, but thus far we've only identified one source that talks about the political spectrum this way, and it's a partisan source. If this is truly as common of a way to characterize the left/right as the other dichotomies in the table (economic interventionism vs laissez-faire; equality of outcome	vs equality of opportunity; etc.) then it should be easy to get some better sources. I'm not arguing that Levin's ideas have been rejected, I'm suggesting that maybe they've just been ignored, but I don't know: maybe they've even been embraced. Or maybe this isn't even Levin's idea in the first place, and we're just using his book as a random example. If it's either of the latter two, then it should be easy to find corroborating sources and we should keep this in the table. But if it's either of the first two, then it should go. Since you are arguing to include this material, the burden is on you to come up with the sources...Yilloslime T C  23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever anyone's views on abortion or environmentalism, the only way to define left and right that comes anything close to working for most usage of the terms for the last 220 years is that the left is in favor of greater egalitarianism, and the right opposed to it. This can manifest in different ways, and other things attached to it, but that's really the only (almost) universally applicable way to define left and right. Large portions of the historical right have supported neither laissez faire nor "equality of opportunity," for instance. Nor do abortion, gun control, or missile defense have much to do, at base, with the distinctions between left and right - these are superstructure, to borrow Marxist terminology (disclaimer: I am not a Marxist). But, seriously, our basic definition of "right" should be one which can include Metternich and Bismarck and Charles X as well as it includes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. On the science issue more specifically, I think it's problematic to say that opposition to science is a defining feature for either left or right. Opposition to evolution at present is something largely confined to American religious conservative, who are only a small portion of the right. Other right wing movements have embraced evolution to the extent of embracing social darwinism, or even taking Social Darwinism to its logical extreme in the manner of Ayn Rand, certainly a figure of the right. Global warming seems even more contingent - sure, most of those who deny global warming are on the right, but that hardly makes it a defining characteristic of the right. And, of course, there have been left wing movements which have denied science in the past - Lysenkoism comes to mind. I'd add that the particular attitudes towards science represented as "typical" here are really, really lame, because they aren't actually counterparts to each other in the way all of the other (often dubious) items on the list at least manage to be. john k (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more options I believe. The first is to identify left and right with the groups that emerged from cleavages in French poltics in 1815 and 1848 that gave rise to modern parties.  Of course the historic right has largely disappeared.  One can also refer to the seating of European deputies and divide left and right between government and opposition blocs.  Neither of these uses are controversial.  Social scientists have used the terms left, right and center in class terms.  An inherent problem of this is that it equates the modern bourgeoisie with the earlier aristocracy as the ruling class.  Norberto Bobbio tried to re-evaluate the terms left and right identifying equality as the main issue dividing them.  But we have to be aware that as we become farther removed from the French National Assembly in distance and time that the precision and acceptance of the terms decreases.  In particular, Ronald Reagan would not want to be compared to Charles X.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor would Barack Obama want to be compared with Stalin, but that doesn't really change the fact that both are normally identified with "the left" (although obviously in quite different ways). But Charles X and Reagan are both defined as being "on the right."  Either there is some feature which they have in common to justify that designation, or there is not.  Certainly whatever common feature Reagan and Charles X may share it is not support for equality of opportunity or laissez faire, or opposition to gun control.  Those are epiphenomena.  I agree that there are different ways to define it, and attitudes towards egalitarianism are only one, but it seems like the clearest and most universal way to create a left/right spectrum - it works roughly as well for the French Revolution as it does for modern day politics. But my basic feeling would be that left/right definitions cannot be based on a definition where "right" is defined as "economically libertarian." john k (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also possible the meaning and use of the terms right and left have evolved over that last 200 years. This article doesn't have to assume their meaning is static, and that there necessarily is a thread, however thin, connecting Reagan to Charles X, other than that their contemporaries called them right wingers. But a here's a question: What does this have to with the line in the table on attitudes on science? Are you saying it should be removed, or what? Yilloslime T C  20:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that the people in France today who think the July Revolution (not to mention the revolution of 1789) was a bad thing are, er, still on the right. The old school right is quite small nowadays, but it still exists in continental Europe, and is still on the right.  And that element of the right was actually still important through World War II.  The term has evolved, but it makes no real sense to act as though there is a "Present day" meaning which actually excludes the 19th century right from being considered to be on the right.  Present day usage of "the right" includes Metternich and Charles X just as much as it includes George W. Bush and David Cameron.  And yes, the science line should be dropped. john k (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few refs from the "science" section that are extraneous. While the irr.org.uk and msnbc sources verify that creationism is pushed by the right, neither make the comparison being made in the table: namely right wing skepticism of evolution and climate change vs left wing opposition to nuclear power and GMOs. And the same goes for Mooney. Having a bunch of references at the end of the section makes it look like the comparison is made by several authors when in fact only Levin and possibly DeGette seem to dichotomize the spectrum this way. We should be careful not leave the reader with false impressions. Yilloslime T C  20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note my comments below. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, given all of the fairly strong args above, I am willing to concede the point to those who want to remove this section. I do think that this section could be improved and re-written with better sources to correctly reflect the political science literature on this question, but the section as is probably does more to obfuscate than to enlighten. Also, since this is an academic research interest of mine, I'm concerned that I probably couldn't improve the section without straying into WP:OR problems. Having said all of this, I do think that the material should be moved into the article somewhere, because even if the positions described are not typical enough to merit inclusion on the chart, they are noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in the article. What I mean by that is that even if the Left as a whole cannot be characterized by opposition to nuclear power, biotechnology, bovine growth hormone, missile defense, etc., and even if the Right as a whole cannot be characterized by opposition to stem cell research, orthodox climate science, evolution, etc., those positions are very clearly associated with the Left and the Right, respectively. And it is clearly the case that partisans on either side tend to recirculate the anti-science tropes deployed by the other side, but on different issues. Far right evangelicals concerned about the dangers of vaccination sound an awful lot like far left environmentalists concerned about the dangers of roundup ready corn. Yet the issue selection is clearly and distinctively partisan.

In any event, if I was the only defender of including this section in the chart, then feel free to delete. PStrait (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Opposition to GMO is not based on an anti-scientic bias against splicing e coli DNA into grains, but is based on scientific objections, that GMO contributes to global warming, third world poverty and first world obesity, decreases biodiversity and that round up causes human death and birth deformities. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a table:

Is this common knowledge, or just my own ignorant idea? If it's close enough to the truth to have any value, please help me source it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We're trying to avoid being too focused on the US, and to consider worldwide use, though sometimes the use differs from country to country. If the chart is of any value (which I am beginning to doubt) it must stick to views common to many countries.  This is why the references on science include the US, Britain, and Turkey.  Examples from more nations would be desirable. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I set up a new section below. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

References, please.
It is possible to argue all day and all night about what the Left and the Right believe, but there are standard reference works that have been repeatedly quoted, and all agree that the Left favors the working class and the Right the upper class. Some of the reference works go on to add other beliefs common to leftists and rightists, such as freedom vs. authoritarianism or communism vs. capitalism, but no reference work I've seen lists these first. To argue that the dictionaries and encyclopedias are wrong is pointless. This isn't something for us to figure out. We need to read standard works on the subject and report what they say. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to avoid an edit war the Right-wing war on science. Please let me know what it is that you want.

A little history. The box on the Right wing war on science came first, and the references support it. At that time, the corresponding box on the Left just said that the Left, in general, supports science. There were at that time references supporting both boxes.

Someone, I don't know who, added the bit about Greens on the Left opposing nuclear power and bioengineering. That is true, if unreferenced and also not really parallel to the box on the left. Delete it if you choose, and restore the statement that the Left generally supports science. I'll be glad to supply references.

But the references clearly support the box on the right, so please stop deleting those references. They support the box on the right. They have nothing to do with the box on the left. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think I basically agree with this. As I was saying way above, there's no parity between right-wing denial of evolution and climate change and left-wing opposition to nuclear power and GMOs. One position is about faith, the other about policy, so it's an apples to oranges to comparison. I do agree 100% that opposition to nuclear power and GMOs is much more prevalent on the left than the right, and that denial of evolution and climate change is much more common on the right. My only problem is with comparing them to each other. It'd be WP:OR to do so unless WP:RS make that comparison. And if a couple RSs do make the comparison, but the idea hasn't gained currency in the field of political science as a whole, then it would violate WP:WEIGHT to present this dichotomy in the table as though it is a common way to analyze the political spectrum.
 * Mooney certainly does contrast the modern American right's denial of certain scientific concepts with the left's acceptance of the same principles. I would not be opposed to a line in the table making that comparison, assuming it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. And I suspect a lot of other authors make this comparison too, so as long as we cite some of them, it should be fine. Similarly, if there are more than a few books and articles comparing the left's Luddite tendencies with the right's acceptable of biotech etc, the I would not be opposed to a separate line in the table on this issue. (Though, John k's point about these modern divisions being merely epiphenomenal is a good one, and might suggest neither of these lines should be in the table...) Yilloslime T C  20:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I will list below some sources that are helpful. Perhaps others can add to the list. The Four Deuces (talk)


 * I think you're right about the left's opposition to nuclear power and bioengineering. Can we find sources for this, and restore that material? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should distinguish between defining characteristics and views on current issues, perhaps by having a separate section. Opinions on current issues vary over time and differ from country to country, but which side supports them depends on how they fit within each side's underlying belief system applied to specific circumstances.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yilloslime: You mention the "modern American right". Note that the sources you deleted all reference the Right outside of America, and examples from other periods of history are also easy to provide.

The Four Deuces: I wish that "which side supports them depends on how they fit within each side's underlying belief system", but in fact the recent Libertarian self-identification with the Right seems to have nothing to do with the belief system of the Right, but to be an example of political pragmatism: since the Right supports the upper class, and since the upper class supports low taxes, Libertarians are willing to ally with a group philosophically opposed to religious and cultural liberty to gain lower taxes.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick, I said that Mooney contrasts "the modern American right's denial of certain scientific concepts with the left's acceptance of the same principles." The other sources I removed made no comparisons between the right and left, either in America or outside of it. But what do you think about the compromise I offered a above? Yilloslime T C  16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Libertarians originally saw themselves as centrist (see the Nolan Chart e.g., economic right, social left) and Lipset in Political man saw Robert Taft as a centrist. However Lipset developed the concept of the radical right which is similar to Adorno's Authoritarian personality, Altemeyer's Right-wing authoritarianism and René Rémond's Legitimists.  Many of today's Libertarians would fit into these categories as they seem to be associated with a lot of far right thinking.  Sara Diamond (see section below) draws a connection between the American radical Right and class politics.  However I do not think we have to reconcile the two models just describe what the sources say.

Is logical reasoning OR
It seems to me that if a source says that Canada is north of Mexico, it is legitimate to cite that source as evidence that Mexico is south of Canada, even if the source does not explicitly say that. Similarly, if a source says explicitly that the Right holds such-and-such a belief, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Right differs from the Left in holding that belief. If not, why explicitly identify the belief as right-wing?

The primary reason that I want to restore the references that have been removed is that they are non-US references. I don't want the list to be Americentric.

I'm going to follow the suggestion above that we need two, parallel pairs of boxes, restore the references for the first pair, and let anyone who thinks the second pair is important reference the second pair. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion at WP:NOR/N. -- Vision Thing -- 08:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there. Your comment, however doesn't respond to my question.

In any case, I think the boxes are a bad idea, and should be replaced with information in paragraph form.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Typical positions chart
It would be helpful if someone could find a published left-right chart in the public domain that shows left right differences in attitudes. The current chart is subject to original research criticisms. (We should avoid US specific charts.) The Four Deuces (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problems with the US-centric divisions in the chart have been pointed out before:
 * Talk:Left-right_politics (2006)
 * That left/right divisions of the US are not universally applicable has been pointed out several times too:
 * Talk:Left-right_politics (2004)
 * Talk:Left-right_politics (2006)
 * Talk:Left-right_politics (2007)
 * Talk:Left-right_politics (2007)
 * Talk:Left-right_politics (2007)
 * Talk:Left-right_politics (August 2009)
 * Moving forward I can see only three options.
 * (1) limit this article to a discussion of the terms (for example, how they are used in various countries) and leave the agenda hashing for the Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics articles. Because most of the article is clean, this really just amounts to removing the 'Typical positions' section.
 * (2) merge Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics under the "Left-right politics" title. The structure used in those articles is the only sensible way to deal with (real or putative) 'Typical positions'.
 * (3) reconstitute this article as a subsection of Political spectrum.
 * Either way, something has to be done about the 'Typical positions' stuff. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I daresay part of the problem with answering your question is that left and right do not agree on the definitions of left and right. Bernard Goldberg, author of Bias, charges that New York "liberals" in the media see themselves as "middle of the road" and therefore honestly and sincerely view conservatives as "far right". Meanwhile, conservative authors and sources I've been running across lately view media workers as largely "left" and "liberal". This is a significant disconnect. (Recall, also, that Reagan slapped the L word onto Dukakis despite the latter's objections.


 * We might need two charts:
 * How liberals and/or progressives view the US political spectrum
 * How conservatives view it


 * I have seen a nice breakdown of typical liberal/conservative ideology and positions, and it looks "fair and balanced" to me, but - COI disclaimer: I am a conservative - it's very likely that this is only a conservative perspective on US left-right politics. (See Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, your chart might be okay as a characterisation of some of the US Liberal-conservative debate. But even the concept of "progressive" is far too right wing for most UK-AU-NZ / European / Indian / Chinese / Japanese concepts of "left."  I've been saying this quite alot lately in relation to attempts to provide a synthetic or cross-tendency homogenisation about the very terrain of debate on wikipedia:  There is a fundamental disjuncture between the left and the centre lying somewhere in the difference between old (pre 1936) and new Social democracy.  There's probably a disjuncture somewhere between vigorous US style conservatism, and the various proto-fascistic tendencies.  These disjunctures are about what the very nature of politics and political engagement itself is, there is no "spectrum" over such a chasm.
 * I agree with Ed's instinct to look for secondary sources that exemplify some kind of characterisation... but the source Ed's pointing to is deficient for the modern world in general. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the separate articles on Left and Right, the Left is a genuine subject for an article with shared history, symbols and values, and international organizatins, although it can reasonably be argued that most modern social democratic parties have abandoned the Left. But that article has been widened to include the UK Liberal Party and the Amercan Democratic Party.  There are however models of left-right politics (e.g., Bobbio) that divide identify a left and right in any society, which seems like the appropriate subject for this article.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, of course. The US spectrum will not correspond to the UK-AU-NZ / European / Indian / Chinese / Japanese spectrums. We'll need separate sections (or articles) for each area. For example,
 * The US political spectrum
 * The UK-AU-NZ political spectrum
 * The European political spectrum
 * Etc.
 * Much as we'd all love to generalize, it just may turn out that there simply are big enough regional differences to require distinct spectra. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the US political spectrum is all that different from the European one. The status quo in all the countries are different, which effects the specific policies supported by left and right, but the differences are not nearly so dramatic as these kinds of statements seem to imply. One can see many similarities between the European center-right and the US Republican Party, and many similarities between the European center-left and the Democrats (although there is a wing of the Democratic party is far to the right of anything you'll see in a European Social Democratic party, the Democratic mainstream is really not all that different from New Labour or the SPD).  The bigger issue is that the disputes between Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, between Labour and Tories, and between Democrats and Republicans really only occupies a narrow band in the center of the political spectrum.  The vast areas to the left and right of them (not just Communism and Fascism, but 19th/early 20th century Socialism and old school continental conservatism, as well) are not well-represented by the current chart. john k (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The logic behind using the term left-right politics is the theory that in any society the political spectrum will organize into a left-right spectrum, regardless of ideologies that are on offer. Therefore there will be a similarity between all countries.  On the other hand, the mix of ideologies will vary.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have a concensus that trying to express on a chart how the words "left" and "right" are used in political discourse is like trying to do surgery with a chain saw. Can we ditch the chart, and express the information in paragraph form? If so, I suggest we do it in two parts. First, replace the chart with paragraphs, without changing the views on the chart. Second, change what the paragraphs say, to correspond to what scholarly references say about usage worldwide, one paragraph at a time. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * God, please can we ditch the chart? Why don't we remove the whole thing and start from scratch instead of trying to salvage something.  If material in the chart is well-sourced it can of course be reintroduced, but I think it would be better to just start over. john k (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with RN and JK that the chart should go. I don't have a strong feeling as to whether we should simply paragraph-ize the material in the chart per RN or scrap it and start from scratch per JK. Yilloslime T C  23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning on a transition stage is this. If we just delete the chart, some people are going to revert that, starting an edit war. If we just change it to paragraph form, there is less likely to be a strong objection. Then we can then consider the paragraphs on a case by case basis, deleting some, moving some to a more appropriate section, and keeping any that seem worthwhile. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus to remove the information on the chart entirely, so I've reverted the recent deletion, changed the chart to paragraph form, and greatly shortened it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You need a source for religion. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Main objection was that the information on the chart was OR, not that it should be presented in different form. -- Vision Thing -- 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The original had no source for religion. But a source should be easy to find. The main thing is to find sources that are not US-centric. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also Christian socialism and liberation theology. I don't know if that makes a lot of difference however.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Typical postions
An editor deleted the "Typical positions" section with the notation "OR" although it is fully sourced. Could Vision Thing explain why he considers it to be OR, whether he believes that left and right typically hold different positions on political issues and if so whether he could suggest a source that conforms with his view of no original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A month ago I started a discussion at OR noticeboard about this. Problem with the section is that it makes generalizations about the right and the left, picturing them in black and white terms and ignoring different definitions of the right and the left. -- Vision  Thing -- 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and changes were made. But is it your position that there are no political differences between left and right?  Incidentally I remember your vigorous defence of using your high school textbook as a source for definitions of left and right, so obviously you believe there is some difference between the two.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Changes were made to the format but basic content remained the same. For example, claim "The Left tends to favor change, the Right to support the existing social order." is directly disputed by Ian Adams in Political Ideology Today. He says: "The American right has nothing to do with maintaining the traditional social order, as in Europe." The section is clear example of what is wrong with OR. -- Vision Thing -- 13:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

At best, your quote, if Adams is correct, only shows that the American Right is different from the Right in Europe. Historically, the Right supports the existing social order. In fact, that is the definition of the Right. If, for reasons unknown, a political group decided to start calling the Moon "the Sun", that would not make the Moon a Sun. I wish Libertarians would start to try to make a case for Libertarianism, instead of just trying to manipulate the language so that everybody is a Libertarian. I'm reminded of Lincoln's joke, "How many legs does a sheep have if you call a tail a leg." Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That shows the problem with using tertiary sources. The historic right supported the monarch, the aristocracy and the established church.  Obviously the US has none of these.  However social scientists applied the term anyway, because the American right supported established wealth and religion, which were America's "traditional institutions".  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actual use in current media.
There have been claims, in this article and others, that the meaning of Left and Right have changed, and also that they are different in different countries. This is true to some extent, but prehaps not to as large an extent as is sometimes claimed. I'm going to record below the next ten examples I happen to come across of these usages:

"LONDON Extremist faces nation: A far-right party leader who has denied the Holocaust and called Islam "a wicked and vicious faith" is complaining that people weren't nice to him on a tv talk show." The Week, November 6, 2009, page 8.

"Global warming: Why is skepticism growing? "Cue the rejoicing on the right," said Tobin Harshaw at TheNewYorkTimes.com." Quoted in The Week, Nov 6, p. 21

"Goddess of the market: Ayn Rand and the American Right" by Jennifer Burns (Oxford, 369 pages, $27.95) It's about time someone wrote a "through and largely unbiased" biography of one of 20th-century America's most influsntial political thinkers, said Brian Doherty in Reason." Quoted in The Week, Nov 6, p. 26,

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Typical Positions Section
Clearly this section does not properly generalize, nor does it do a sufficient job of generalizing for the world... Although there are some sources used, one has to be aware that there ARE slanted and incorrect sources out there. People couldnt honestly expect a source like FOX to be unbiased, nor could they expect CNN or MSNBC to be unbiased. Some logic has to be used here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.251.65 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you recommend any sources? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the job of Wikipedia to present the facts using reliably verifiable sources. That means that a news institution will be measured by its ability to stand up to scrutiny. Fox News and MSNBC are a conglomerate of news and entertainment. I think they would both be adequate sources in some situations and not others. For instance: Glenn Beck's OPINIONS should not be presented as FACT. If Glenn Beck says Obama hates white people, Wikipedia should respond (if need be) with the information that Glenn Beck believes Obama hates white people. It should, logically, not present the fact "Obama hates white people" with a source to Glenn Beck's blog, because that's an opinion.

The problem with Left-Right is that it's all opinions. There are few clear-cut facts about these terms as they're aspects of politics and culture. As such, we have to cast a wide net and try to find more academic sources regarding this "spectrum." Right now, I think the "Typical Positions" section tends to favour more modern trends in the left-right divide.

Right now, the article talks about Christian conservatism. While there certainly is a Christian segment of conservatives in England, the US, and France (and I'm sure elsewhere), I think in general the left-right divide should be discussed outside religion. In Iran, for instance, the left there is mostly Muslim and so is the totalitarian right. Discussing religion in certain aspects of this article only serves to muddy the waters: I wouldn't want someone coming away from this article with a distinct feeling that the right is religious and the left is not.

I've been typing this up for some time and I'm not really sure of the exact message I want to impart. I guess the most important thing is to give this article some more general perspective. -68.82.113.190 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Left Becoming Right
In a pretty well-established phenomenon (the entire point behind Animal Farm), in many cases where leftist revolutionary groups (Communists, Socialists, etc.) become the ruling regime, they are no longer the opposition party. When this happens, there can be a fundamental shift in the terms of the party. Revolutionaries may cling to the title "revolutionary," because the entirety of their power came from rabid populism. However, they become totalitarian states where egalitarian views are largely ignored. A fine example is Hugo Chavez. Even though he is a leftist in spirit and identified as such, in practice he is in many ways a fascist. In many cases, these new "revolutionary" governments may subdivide into left and right again, with new revolutionaries wishing to institute a coup.

My point is that in situations where these revolutionary governments exist, their egalitarian ideals are often platforms rather than practices. Should there be any attempt to differentiate between those who implement a leftist policy and those who espouse one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.113.190 (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just another example of why the left/right distinction, though popular, is flawed. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These types of arguments go back for centuries but it is convenient to categorize political parties by their professed ideology, self-identification, historical origins and membership. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)