Whats the differance between Liberal, Democrat, Socialist, the Left, the Right etc?

IvaBigWun

Could someone give it to me in laymans terms?

Im the newest biggest fan of the West Wing on DVD but some of the dialogue gets a bit muddled if you dont know your US politics.

Thanx

Hobbes

wikiepedia would be a good place to start off. Although milage varies for example for some people Liberal means you want have sex with Saddam and abort the baby if he gets you pregnant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
(so on)

globalconspirac

I'm no expert but will give it a go!!!

The right: Is associated with conservative and religious views. Strigent application of laws. Restrict freedoms. keeps government low key. Prefers smaller government

An example of this:
pay less tax to government so you have have more power to do what you want with your money. Do not let others spend your money ie government

Fascism would be extreme right wing.

The Left: A less conservative way of thinking. A more equal distribution of wealth ie tax the wealthy more. Do not restrict freedoms and liberalise laws ie abortion. Government plays a more prominent role in running of country. Semi state bodies etc.

An example of this:
Pay more taxes for the fairer distribution of wealth. Scandanavian countries are an example of this.

Communism would be extreme left wing.

This is very basic but hope it helps.

Zombrex

globalconspirac wrote:

I'm no expert but will give it a go!!!

The right: Is associated with conservative and religious views. Strigent application of laws. Restrict freedoms. keeps government low key. Prefers smaller government

An example of this:
pay less tax to government so you have have more power to do what you want with your money. Do not let others spend your money ie government

Fascism would be extreme right wing.

The Left: A less conservative way of thinking. A more equal distribution of wealth ie tax the wealthy more. Do not restrict freedoms and liberalise laws ie abortion. Government plays a more prominent role in running of country. Semi state bodies etc.

An example of this:
Pay more taxes for the fairer distribution of wealth. Scandanavian countries are an example of this.

Communism would be extreme left wing.

This is very basic but hope it helps.

Kinda, but it really depends on context

For example the PDs would be quite right wing when it comes to economics. They would be pro-business anti-unions anti-large social partnerships. They would put faith in the capitalist system to supply wealth and high standard of living. You don't need large public systems, what you need to do is increase private business which will allow everyone to be employed and do what they will with their own money.

But at the same time they would be quite liberal when it comes to social issues, such as gay rights, marriage, civil liberities and personal freedoms etc.

This would be different from in America where the right wing Republican party would also be very pro-business anti-social welfare, but be quite conservative with relation to social and personal issues, such as gay rights, sex education and marriage.

And facists such as the Nazis would be very conservative with relation to social issues, but would not necessarily be opposed to public spending and big government.

ronbyrne2005

in america most politicians are more to the right than anywhere in ireland uk or europe, the democrats are supposedly left wing but the PD's or FG would probably be more left wing than they are.
right wing left wing etc are labels that are becoming increasingly blurred, i would be socially liberal but when it comes to economics i would be more right wing.

lazydaisy

Heres a couple of quizes to help you figure out where you stand.

http://www.okcupid.com/politics

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

DadaKopf

In this post-ideological world, left-right has become a more meaningless divide as what politicians and people do have become more complex and harder to label.

For example, Blair and his superfriends are supposed to be socialists, but they act like Thatcherite, free-market right-wing, state security nuts. But David Cameron, the new Conservative (traditionally right wing) is making all kinds of pronnouncements that make the Tories sound like the Green party. Have Labour and the Conservatives flipped over? I doubt it, but the division has gotten way to soupy for it to be meaningful as parties now hunt after neglected demographic clusters, regardless of idological leaning.

Market politics.

Manic Moran

Left/right is unfortunately far too simple. You have progressives and conservatives, sure, but you also have libertarians and statists. There is a decent Libertarian movement in the US, whose moral attitudes can be summed up rather as 'If you don't bother me, I won't bother you'. Conservatives and Libertarians frequently have a lot in common (Small government, firearms etc) but occasionally part company as well (eg Abortion). Similarly, there is a fair bit of overlap between Liberals and Statists.

The problem is the American system is binary. You're in effect given a choice of the one or the other, so those of use who are probably categorised as 'Social Democrats' in Europe are stuck with no ideal candidate at all.

NTM

EFC-4eva

www.polticalcompass.org

Sand

The right: Is associated with conservative and religious views. Strigent application of laws. Restrict freedoms. keeps government low key. Prefers smaller government

The bold sections are contradictions, arent they? Repression of rights and freedoms has been carried out for the most part by powerful, centralised governments.

The reason why in *some* countries the religious factions are associated with the right is because communism/socialism is based in viewpoints that are and were intensely hostile towards religious people and their views. And again, the right tends to small government which tends not to intefere inor otherwise restrict peoples religious inclinations, for better or worse.

Im the newest biggest fan of the West Wing on DVD but some of the dialogue gets a bit muddled if you dont know your US politics.

Thats the pickle. Political language changes depending on which side of the Atlantic your on. Basically in so far as the US is concerned, Liberal=Democrat/Good/Babykillers and Conservative=Republican/Evil/religious loonies. I never noticed West Wing getting more complex than that tbh.

right wing left wing etc are labels that are becoming increasingly blurred, i would be socially liberal but when it comes to economics i would be more right wing.

Sounds like plain old liberalism to me. Been out of fashion ever since various Labour parties electorally devoured the liberals as the vote was extended.

Right and left have been devalued by the whole right=evil, left=good summary of politics that has been used to skew debate. I mean, how someone can reconcile Nazism and libertarianism as both being right wing is beyond me, and yet every single neo nazi movement out there is described as right wing. The greatest smear job in history tbh.

Manic Moran

globalconspirac wrote:

The right: Strigent application of laws. Restrict freedoms.

With the one exception of the abortion issue, most conservatives will probably argue that one with you. The 'right' in the US complains about the 'nanny state', where the government keeps telling you what you can or cannot do. Firearms are a popular issue, in which the left generally wishes to restrict freedoms. Speed limits. Even seat-belt/helmet laws are objected to in some circles. I know one guy on another board that said "I always make sure my son is buckled up, because he's too young to make choices, but I never do." Seems darwinian to me, but his viewpoint is it's his choice. If anyone suggest a london-like CCTV network, you can rest assured the right would be objecting loud and hard. They are already shaking their heads over Britains 'we will monitor every car journey' announcement this month.

The 'freedoms' issue is probably the area where the Right and Libertarians are most in agreement, though libertarians tend to be pro-choice.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

They are already shaking their heads over Britains 'we will monitor every car journey' announcement this month.

Not too sure about that one tbh. I recall a stories where US wants to monitor every car journey ranging from "Fighting Terorrism" to the latest where they plan to use it to monitor distance so you can be taxed on distance instead of petrol tax (as hybrids are hitting gas profits).

Tbh its not really a unique instance though. A couple of years ago Irish government signed a deal to have GPS blackboxes in Irish cars. Not sure if it ever went ahead though.

btw. what I find funny in the US in regards to left/right republican/liberal is that they both tend to be thrown around as insults by the other side. Just as funny was Bushes second term, Republican friends of mine actually got open hostility from people over thier vote while Liberals were basically told "Haha we win, we can do what we want" when a government should generally govern for the good of the whole and not just the percentage that voted for you (well certainly not in the case when its so close 50/50).

lazydaisy

This thread is bookended with utter rubbish. I have never read so much empty, misinformed, and reductive explanations of the political wings or of ideologies.

MM and Sand are the only ones who have spoken with any accuracy or substance.

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

I mean, how someone can reconcile Nazism and libertarianism as both being right wing is beyond me, and yet every single neo nazi movement out there is described as right wing. The greatest smear job in history tbh.

Now you know how must left-wing liberals feel everytime they are compared to Stalin and Lenin

The facist neo-Nazi parties are considered far right because the areas that most identify them as a political group (strong national policies, anti-immigration, anti-non British/French/German, anti-personal liberty etc) are also traditionally found in other right-wing and conservative parties such as the Republicans in the US and the Conservatives in the UK.

But it really depends on what you are talking about.

The Nazi party were right wing in a lot of their policies, especially the nationists policies. They were right wing in the way the BNP are right wing. But they also had some very large government, pro-welfare anti-capitalist economic policies. Hell the name was National Socialism.

But sure some of the Russian Communist polices were very right wing, when the party was traditionally considered very left wing because of their social and public sector policies (ie there is only the state, not individual freedoms).

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

This thread is bookended with utter rubbish. I have never read so much empty, misinformed, and reductive explanations of the political wings or of ideologies.

MM and Sand are the only ones who have spoken with any accuracy or substance.

Thanks for the contribution :rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

lazydaisy wrote:

This thread is bookended with utter rubbish. I have never read so much empty, misinformed, and reductive explanations of the political wings or of ideologies.

Obviously you didn't read the OP's request properly, you know the one where he says " can you give it to me in laymans terms?"

Yes we all know it is difficult to define the above terms accurately without going into a detailed thesis on the matter. For me a lot of it stems from the different definitions of liberal which are applied to all shades of the political spectrum. Basically parties that are economically liberal are the likes of the PDs and Conservatives in the UK, favouring "smaller government" i.e. less regulation and taxes, allowing the "free market" to operate with minimal government intervention etc. These parties generally tend to be conservative on social issues, for example they tend to be anti gay marriage, abortion (I just took this as an example seeing as most people tend to have some view on this).

On the other side you have what the Americans see as liberals i.e. parties on the left who tend to favour social liberalism i.e. generally pro gay marriage and abortion etc. But these also tend to favour higher taxes to fund their social programmes i.e adequate healthcare and free education for all as well as regulation of business e.g. Health and Safety, Environmental issues and so are seen as being anti business. This regulation can also tend to cover other areas of public life with the smoking ban being an example. Conservatives call this the Nanny State, or Big Government regulating people's lives when they are able to make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not.

As you can see things are not always black and white look at the PDs for example as Sand has pointed out they hold contradictory viewpoints being both economically and socially liberal (on some issues) but with herr Gauleiter McDowell around also wanting to restrict certain liberties in other areas i.e. he fought with the EU to allow Ireland to keep a record of all emails, phone conversations etc for 3 years. Which I'm sure you'll agree is an example of big government!

Anyway Iva click on the link below it's fun and it explains some of the different strands of political thought in one sentence each.

http://hypocrisytoday.com/polit-2.htm

lili

LostinBlanch wrote:

Obviously you didn't read the OP's request properly, you know the one where he says " can you give it to me in laymans terms?"

Yes we all know it is difficult to define the above terms accurately without going into a detailed thesis on the matter. For me a lot of it stems from the different definitions of liberal which are applied to all shades of the political spectrum. Basically parties that are economically liberal are the likes of the PDs and Conservatives in the UK, favouring "smaller government" i.e. less regulation and taxes, allowing the "free market" to operate with minimal government intervention etc. These parties generally tend to be conservative on social issues, for example they tend to be anti gay marriage, abortion (I just took this as an example seeing as most people tend to have some view on this).

On the other side you have what the Americans see as liberals i.e. parties on the left who tend to favour social liberalism i.e. generally pro gay marriage and abortion etc. But these also tend to favour higher taxes to fund their social programmes i.e adequate healthcare and free education for all as well as regulation of business e.g. Health and Safety, Environmental issues and so are seen as being anti business. This regulation can also tend to cover other areas of public life with the smoking ban being an example. Conservatives call this the Nanny State, or Big Government regulating people's lives when they are able to make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not.

As you can see things are not always black and white look at the PDs for example as Sand has pointed out they hold contradictory viewpoints being both economically and socially liberal (on some issues) but with herr Gauleiter McDowell around also wanting to restrict certain liberties in other areas i.e. he fought with the EU to allow Ireland to keep a record of all emails, phone conversations etc for 3 years. Which I'm sure you'll agree is an example of big government!

Anyway Iva click on the link below it's fun and it explains some of the different strands of political thought in one sentence each.

http://hypocrisytoday.com/polit-2.htm

it's also my view point.at least in my country.
socially speaking the right party is considered less enclined to follow evolution of the society than the left one.
economically speaking, we have to deal with globalisation. the liberalism option seems to be the only choice to go out of the crisis according to the right party leader (sarkozy).

LostinBlanch

lili wrote:

it's also my view point.at least in my country.
socially speaking the right party is considered less enclined to follow evolution of the society than the left one.
economically speaking, we have to deal with globalisation. the liberalism option seems to be the only choice to go out of the crisis according to the right party leader (sarkozy).

Well if Sarkozy does get in power I think he'll have a hell of a time trying to push through economic reforms in France to the detriment of the health service etc. I can see barricades burning on the streets already.

lili

LostinBlanch wrote:

Well if Sarkozy does get in power I think he'll have a hell of a time trying to push through economic reforms in France to the detriment of the health service etc. I can see barricades burning on the streets already.

if sarkozy get the power, i leave france. it's simply as that:)

LostinBlanch

I'm sure you'd be welcome over here

But I don't think it'll come to that

Sand

Now you know how must left-wing liberals feel everytime they are compared to Stalin and Lenin

True.

The Nazi party were right wing in a lot of their policies, especially the nationists policies. They were right wing in the way the BNP are right wing. But they also had some very large government, pro-welfare anti-capitalist economic policies. Hell the name was National Socialism.

I dont accept nationalism/racism as being the preserve of one particular branch of political thought tbh. Are free marketeers more or less associated with nationalism than say unions arguing for economic protectionism to prevent their jobs going abroad? The unions talk about fraternity and international socialism, but when it comes down to the crunch international socialism was finished off with ice picks last I heard. Sweden, the hallowed land of social democracy, is holding an inquiry into the widespread practise of eugenics and forced sterilisations back in the 70s. Are they suddenly right wing now? And theyre not the only nation mentioned in that story that you might consider to be more social democratic than free market. Perhaps visionaries of a new society can stray beyond purely economic theories on what comprises a "perfect" society?

To my own mind, the most defining difference between right and left is the role of government in carrying out the policies of whatever faction you want to mention. Right would tend to favour private interests over public, and generally attempt to restrict the government to set areas such as defence/law enforcement where other solutions cant be found. Left would tend to the other view, that a strong government is required to best serve people, and that private interests such as property need to take a back seat to the common good. Right would tend to view a strong government as being dangerous to individuals, whereas Left would tend to see it protecting individuals. It gets into value judgements after that, but basically both sides come to different conclusions on the role of government. A right wing racist might be free to discriminate against people under a weak government, whereas a left wing racist might be able to use a strong government to discriminate against people systematically. Which is the worse threat is debateable.

Well if Sarkozy does get in power I think he'll have a hell of a time trying to push through economic reforms in France to the detriment of the health service etc. I can see barricades burning on the streets already.

Agreed, that time when they burned animals alive as an act of protest is memorable of the sort of mentality Sarkozy is up against.

Manic Moran

I recall a stories where US wants to monitor every car journey ranging from "Fighting Terorrism" to the latest where they plan to use it to monitor distance so you can be taxed on distance instead of petrol tax (as hybrids are hitting gas profits).

The states where this is being kicked around are generally left-leaning. Washington and California.

Some of the car companies have a couple of 'features' in them that really irk the more conservative of the right. The one they really object to is 'OnStar'-like devices. It's a GPS-based transceiver system, that both broadcasts and receives voice and location information. Theory being, for example, if the airbags deploy, it sends a signal to the monitoring station, tells them where you are, and if they don't get a reply on the two-way intercom system, they send the ambulances/police out to you. Some people consider this an intrusion on their privacy, both in terms of 'where they are' and also because the technology allows 'bugging'. Basically, you have an inbuilt listening device in your car already, and even though listening in without a court order is likely illegal, who's to say people wouldn't be doing it anyway? Who knows what personal information could leak out?

NTM

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

I dont accept nationalism/racism as being the preserve of one particular branch of political thought tbh.

That was kinda my point ... the terms "right wing" and "left wing" are not set in stone, they are defined cyclically by the actions of groups that claim to be right wing or left wing.

For example, the ideas that nationalism and anti-immigration are right wing come from the fact that these policies have been championed by political groups that are considered right wing in the first place, such as the Conservatives in the UK and Republicans in the US (and that Nazi party in Germany, who rose to power on a promise to combat the Communist left wing parties). So anti-immigration polices are right wing because they are put forward by conservative governments who are right wing. And around we go.

In recent times, due to what DadaKopf called "Market Politics" this classification has become increasingly blurred because it is becoming harder and harder to actually figure out what positions the political parties are actually taking. Labour seem quite anti-immigration at the moment, Labour our a left-wing party, does that mean anti-immigration is a left wing concept?

The terms right and left wing are really starting to lose meaning in this increasingly market/focus group driven world on politics.

Sand wrote:

Perhaps visionaries of a new society can stray beyond purely economic theories on what comprises a "perfect" society?

Er .. ok .. not quite sure what point you are making there, or what Sweden killing feteous in the 70s has to do with anything, but I agree that groups such as unions, ecomoically considered "left wing" (ie the working class socialists) can hold very traditionally "right wing" or conservative social view points on issues such as civil liberities, racism and immigration.

Or groups can even simply hold non-traditional "left wing" or "right wing" views that don't match easily into what has come before. I mean it was the unions that brought down the Eastern Block after all.

Sand wrote:

Right would tend to favour private interests over public, and generally attempt to restrict the government to set areas such as defence/law enforcement where other solutions cant be found. Left would tend to the other view, that a strong government is required to best serve people, and that private interests such as property need to take a back seat to the common good.

Well apart from the last bit which is more far left than left wing (left wing social democracies don't have much against private property so long as you pay your, quite high, taxes), that seems about right in an econmic sense.

But you are ignoring the other major issue in politics that lives along side economics, morality. As well as leading society in a governing and economic sense, western democracies have always looked to governments to provide a moral basis for society and societies laws. These classifications fall better under the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal", but due to the fact that ecomonic and social/moral issues are often bundled together in the same package, it is impossible to escape the fact that moral issues will become associated with the parties that claim to be left or right wing.

For example, the Republicans are right wing by your economic standards. But they also had (have?) quite strong views on morality issues. It is inevitable that these views will get muddled together and become associated with the term "right wing" .. after all the Republican party don't start off a broadcast with "First we will show you our Conservative moral polices, then we will show you are right-wing economic policies".

Húrin

IvaBigWun wrote:

Could someone give it to me in laymans terms?

Im the newest biggest fan of the West Wing on DVD but some of the dialogue gets a bit muddled if you dont know your US politics.

Thanx

Liberal supports capitalism and fewer laws restricting personal behaviour (e.g. Progressive Democrats)

Democrat one of the two American Parties (often thought to be to the Left of the Republicans, but in reality, the same.)

Socialist opposes capitalism; supports ownership of the means of production by society (e.g. Socialist Worker's Party)

the Left socialists, communists, (e.g. Socialist Worker's Party) also may include parties which are capitalist but support many regulations. e.g. Labour Party, Green Party

the Right capitalists (PDs)

the Centre people who support policies influenced by both left and right (e.g. Fine Gael, Fianna Fail)

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

Some of the car companies have a couple of 'features' in them that really irk the more conservative of the right. The one they really object to is 'OnStar'-like devices.

Yea and it appears the onStar can be set to "Listen" without the drivers approval. There was a late night show with some famous person (Jessica Simpson? or Pam Anderson, I forget) where she was saying that OnStar were listening to her conversation for ages and they only knew when one of the people in OnStar on the other end said they didn't believe it was really the superstar and asked for confirmation.

Hobbes

I think as Sand pointed out Hurin that some of this is certainly open for debate. For example Liberals are for gun control which would imply restricting personal behaviour.

lili

Sand wrote:

Agreed, that time when they burned animals alive as an act of protest is memorable of the sort of mentality Sarkozy is up against.

one day, you will have to explain to me why this aversion toward the french.

Sand

For example, the ideas that nationalism and anti-immigration are right wing come from the fact that these policies have been championed by political groups that are considered right wing in the first place, such as the Conservatives in the UK and Republicans in the US (and that Nazi party in Germany, who rose to power on a promise to combat the Communist left wing parties). So anti-immigration polices are right wing because they are put forward by conservative governments who are right wing. And around we go.

Are you arguing that an idea is to be judged based on who advocates it? If Labour advocate a higher minimum wage its a left wing idea, but if the PDs call for it, then its right wing? I think its more commonly understood that the ideas someone advocates defines them, rather than the other way round.

Labour seem quite anti-immigration at the moment, Labour our a left-wing party, does that mean anti-immigration is a left wing concept?

As I said, I wouldnt consider nationalism to be a right or left wing preserve - though there seems to be some sort of commonly held view that only right wingers can be racists, even if that belief is accompanied by protectionism, right to employment, state run industry, restriction on private investment and so on and so forth.

Er .. ok .. not quite sure what point you are making there, or what Sweden killing feteous in the 70s has to do with anything,

I was demonstrating that theories on race, eugenics and the engineering of society and culture is not the preserve of the right wing. Is it such a far leap from demonising fat cat bussiness men to demonising fat cat jewish bussiness men?

But you are ignoring the other major issue in politics that lives along side economics, morality. As well as leading society in a governing and economic sense, western democracies have always looked to governments to provide a moral basis for society and societies laws. These classifications fall better under the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal", but due to the fact that ecomonic and social/moral issues are often bundled together in the same package, it is impossible to escape the fact that moral issues will become associated with the parties that claim to be left or right wing.

Ive understood that people tended, certainly in modern times, to look outside the government for moral guidance - to various religions, with the resulting clash of church and state. Throughout time, the state has been subverted and used to impose moral codes by agencies that would otherwise be merely powerful rather than the authority. The criminalisation of homosexuality until recent times for example, where the government decided it didnt actually have a role to play in telling people what sexuality they should be.

The danger of the state providing a moral code other than "So long as youre not hurting anyone, its nothing to do with us" is that its one agencies moral code trumping everyone elses. If you mean more a moral code along the lines of basic guaranteed standards of living then youre back to economics.

one day, you will have to explain to me why this aversion toward the french.

I only noted the sort of opposition Sarkozy can expect. Get over it.

lili

Sand wrote:

I only noted the sort of opposition Sarkozy can expect. Get over it.

you can't assimilate the whole french nation to a bunch of dumbasses countrymen.

Nuttzz

lili wrote:

you can't assimilate the whole french nation to a bunch of dumbasses countrymen.

you're quiet correct, however a lot of people on this forum have no problem doing the same with the whole US nation.......

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

you're quiet correct, however a lot of people on this forum have no problem doing the same with the whole US nation.......

No just the ones that voted for Bush