08-22-2020, 08:55 PM
Changed my mind, putting the "leftist" discussion in a different post.
What makes political parties, programs, and platforms "left," "center," or "right"? Maybe the best way to answer is to look to historical usage. The classification enters Western political discourse with the French revolution, when after 1789, at their National Assembly, representatives of the aristocracy and the church generally sat to the right of the speaker, and the lawyers, merchants and tradesmen--all commoners--sat on the left. What came to separate these groups was that those on "the right" of the speaker tended to support a hierarchical status quo, a residue of l'ancien regime, underpinned by supernatural authority. Those on "the left" supported equality, the "rights of man," and challenged traditional hierarchy.
In the wake of the Revolution, this distinction passed into 19th century political discourse of all European countries as "leftist" uprisings occurred throughout the German provinces, Italy, and Poland, and were opposed by still powerful representatives of a still powerful feudal hierarchy in those countries. In France and Great Britain, and eventually Germany, a middle class enamored of both equality and order arose to form a kind of "center," often opposed to a "left" which represented a growing urban working class. In each case, the "right" defended existing social hierarchy, even as it sometimes included new members (like rich commoners), while the "left" challenged hierarchy in the name of social equality--a natural soil in which anarchism, socialism, feminism, anti-racism and similar movements could take root and grow. I cannot think of a right wing European party that fought against racism--until it had already been rendered untenable by "the left." There could be individual "leftists" then who were racist, like most of their 19th century society, but their parties generally were not advocating or defending or perpetuating racism.
The North American states are European transplants, adopting their languages, legal systems/norms and state forms, but the U.S. case has some important differences--namely it was never dominated by a powerful aristocracy and never developed a left of serious mass--closest thing maybe came with Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of America in the early 20th century. Rather, it was dominated until the post civil war years by a middle class. US "conservatives," who began appearing in the late 19th-century in the US were not conserving a feudal order, but a liberal one defined by Locke and Montequieu and Smith against the the 18th century European "right." There were efforts in the South to inscribe its plantation slavery into an aristocratic politics, in which race replaced birth as primary class distinction, validating a hierarchical and non-liberal society. So I guess you could say we have definitely had an empowered Right in the US, in control of many state and at times the national government.
If there was a "right" in the U.S. then the pro-slavery movement would exemplify it, not the free-soilers and Whigs who would form the Republican party. If anything, between 1854-70, Democrats and Republicans were the inverse of today, with Dems fighting "big government," supporting slavery and receptive to the nativist "Know Nothings" when the latter's party failed, and Republicans, to the left in that political spectrum, opposing slavery and (by 19th century standards) embracing government. You mentioned the 13th Amendment. Might as well throw in the two after that as well. The Republicans also set up a Freedman's bureau to help freed slaves become self-supporting citizens, and the created pensions for 600,000 wounded veterans and their widows--two large scale BIG GOVERNMENT programs. They also passed the Morrill Act in 1862 to help create universities in every state. RESEARCH universities which would become home to natural and social sciences, upon which big government would rely.
So yes, Republicans freed the slaves--not the party opposing big government and immigration. Had Fox news existed in 1865, we'd know which party was "the left" by their definition, and it would not be the Democrats.
It is always difficult to translate my understanding left into yours, but my point is that, historically, since the French Revolution, those people/groups which have opposed racism and sexism have tended to be liberal/leftists, and the people opposing them have tended to be rightists. I can think of no examples of a "right wing" in any country opposing slavery, unless it is 50 years after they have defended it. When you speak of Blacks and Hispanics who are both "leftists" and "racists," I don't clearly understand what you mean. E.g., Black and Hispanic gang members cursing each other would not likely count as an example of "leftist racism." A good example would be would be a "leftist" political party that excluded Jews or supported white supremacy or refused membership to Blacks. Can you think of any examples offhand?
*I never use the term "objective" to describe political observations, and never myself claim a "position of objectivity." Far more important is getting the logic and facts right.
Quote: Wrote: Wrote:I think there are few "racists" at any point in the political spectrum who view their racism as "racism"-- except on the right. Left-wing "racists," if there be such, tend to fight against racism, so that raises the question of how "racism" is defined here, not to mention the "right/left" spectrum.
This section is so insanely partisan and biased that I don't think you'll ever be able to claim a position of objectivity again.* You honestly don't think left wing racists exist? But if they do exist they only fight against racism? This would be laughable if it wasn't so frightening. I can tell you from personal experience, that the most racists statements and actions I have ever witnessed were all committed by blacks or hispanics (usually directed at the other) none of whom would be described as "right wing" by any measure of the word.
What makes political parties, programs, and platforms "left," "center," or "right"? Maybe the best way to answer is to look to historical usage. The classification enters Western political discourse with the French revolution, when after 1789, at their National Assembly, representatives of the aristocracy and the church generally sat to the right of the speaker, and the lawyers, merchants and tradesmen--all commoners--sat on the left. What came to separate these groups was that those on "the right" of the speaker tended to support a hierarchical status quo, a residue of l'ancien regime, underpinned by supernatural authority. Those on "the left" supported equality, the "rights of man," and challenged traditional hierarchy.
In the wake of the Revolution, this distinction passed into 19th century political discourse of all European countries as "leftist" uprisings occurred throughout the German provinces, Italy, and Poland, and were opposed by still powerful representatives of a still powerful feudal hierarchy in those countries. In France and Great Britain, and eventually Germany, a middle class enamored of both equality and order arose to form a kind of "center," often opposed to a "left" which represented a growing urban working class. In each case, the "right" defended existing social hierarchy, even as it sometimes included new members (like rich commoners), while the "left" challenged hierarchy in the name of social equality--a natural soil in which anarchism, socialism, feminism, anti-racism and similar movements could take root and grow. I cannot think of a right wing European party that fought against racism--until it had already been rendered untenable by "the left." There could be individual "leftists" then who were racist, like most of their 19th century society, but their parties generally were not advocating or defending or perpetuating racism.
Quote: Wrote:You say "the left," the group(s) which have fought for and won the racial equality we have, refuses to address the issue as a whole, and now stands in the way of resolving racial problems in the US.
I thought it was the Republican party that ended slavery? Didn't they also get the 13th amendment passed? That was a rather important move for "racial equality", no?
The North American states are European transplants, adopting their languages, legal systems/norms and state forms, but the U.S. case has some important differences--namely it was never dominated by a powerful aristocracy and never developed a left of serious mass--closest thing maybe came with Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of America in the early 20th century. Rather, it was dominated until the post civil war years by a middle class. US "conservatives," who began appearing in the late 19th-century in the US were not conserving a feudal order, but a liberal one defined by Locke and Montequieu and Smith against the the 18th century European "right." There were efforts in the South to inscribe its plantation slavery into an aristocratic politics, in which race replaced birth as primary class distinction, validating a hierarchical and non-liberal society. So I guess you could say we have definitely had an empowered Right in the US, in control of many state and at times the national government.
If there was a "right" in the U.S. then the pro-slavery movement would exemplify it, not the free-soilers and Whigs who would form the Republican party. If anything, between 1854-70, Democrats and Republicans were the inverse of today, with Dems fighting "big government," supporting slavery and receptive to the nativist "Know Nothings" when the latter's party failed, and Republicans, to the left in that political spectrum, opposing slavery and (by 19th century standards) embracing government. You mentioned the 13th Amendment. Might as well throw in the two after that as well. The Republicans also set up a Freedman's bureau to help freed slaves become self-supporting citizens, and the created pensions for 600,000 wounded veterans and their widows--two large scale BIG GOVERNMENT programs. They also passed the Morrill Act in 1862 to help create universities in every state. RESEARCH universities which would become home to natural and social sciences, upon which big government would rely.
So yes, Republicans freed the slaves--not the party opposing big government and immigration. Had Fox news existed in 1865, we'd know which party was "the left" by their definition, and it would not be the Democrats.
It is always difficult to translate my understanding left into yours, but my point is that, historically, since the French Revolution, those people/groups which have opposed racism and sexism have tended to be liberal/leftists, and the people opposing them have tended to be rightists. I can think of no examples of a "right wing" in any country opposing slavery, unless it is 50 years after they have defended it. When you speak of Blacks and Hispanics who are both "leftists" and "racists," I don't clearly understand what you mean. E.g., Black and Hispanic gang members cursing each other would not likely count as an example of "leftist racism." A good example would be would be a "leftist" political party that excluded Jews or supported white supremacy or refused membership to Blacks. Can you think of any examples offhand?
*I never use the term "objective" to describe political observations, and never myself claim a "position of objectivity." Far more important is getting the logic and facts right.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
