The Deep Roots of Left vs. Right

http://www.alternet.org/culture/deep-roots-left-vs-right

The Deep Roots of Left vs. Right
And how to get both wings to fly together.
By Jeremy Sherman / Psychology Today June 9, 2017

No discussion? Or upon reading this, is it so obvious there's not much left to say?

your topic didn't have Sex in it, how interesting can it be? :dry:

Also: Forum time - You dropped this 5pm yesterday, and it's now 4am.

Surely you can wait a full spin of the rock for the chips to fly

(Reading it now...)

Edit: Alright, read it.

Has anyone seen the movie "Don's Party" ?
I recommend it.

Anyway, The "take away" - being that the Canadians People's Front and the People's Front of Canada are mostly arguing about nothing and that tearing each other up when you're supposed to be on the same team (huh...) is silly, is well enough.

I'm not hugely political, and my government lets "independents" win seats (sort of) to keep the Major parties (sort of) honest.

But....yes? I mean I have not looked at a donkey or elephants plans for the USA, but in looking at my own government - The public Marketing appears of one or another's Position and Values often has little or less to do with their actual policies (and their supposed policies have little or less to do with what ends up happening once they get the big seat with the fancy arm rests)

There's a logical fallacy for this? If THEY are wrong, they I must be right? so I don't have to prove I'm the Good guy, just that my opponent is the Bad guy (or at least, also Not the Good guy)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY

Another topic I dunno much about. Enough to sound like dill. I think the 'contract' society needs to have a good measure of stability (ie conservative progress) otherwise there is no foundation for risk taking.... or rather the risk and uncertainty increase without that stability. And a free market iteration of this inherits its liberalism in that free market dynamic - but government has its hands in not only providing the regulatory environment for that free market but all the other things a government has to look after. So it really does need to be a bit of both, but perhaps in different areas.

In Australia it is different, as both left and right are conservative yet liberal. Its just in different areas, the left is conservative towards the union movement and liberal towards welfare, while the right is conservative towards welfare and liberal towards business. Since we didn't have the communist and union crackdown the US did, our left is a bit socialist while our right is a bit big business.... which means if the country is going well we vote in the left to splurge and protect unions, and then have to vote in the right to pull the belt in tight, get back on track and put the unions back in the box a bit, then repeat
Of course these days political parties run strong narratives about the identity and role of themselves and the opposite number, which are not always truthful. The real thing to look out for is when they try and incite violence, as that is a step too far and probably a form of terrorism to be honest. It would be a shame to create such a political landscape that people are turned to anger over these things, as that is one step away from fascist nationalism and war. They should really stick to running a tight ship and being transparent and honest. It would be good if there was no money in it, but then who'd be bothered?

I think if the majority of left/right wing people sat down and had a normal conversation rather than a point scoring debate, they would find they agree on quite a lot. The big difference is what they put emphasis on, for example I doubt many right wing people at all are for having a health service in which poor people simply have to die, or disabled people unable to work have no way of living, and I doubt the majority of left wing people are totally against tradition, culture and social independence.

Unless of course they are on the extreme sides of the spectrum I think they are mostly reasonable and just have different priorities which may be drawn from different upbringings or situations, and if they were to talk rather than argue perhaps they could bring a really constructive mix to the table. From my personal readings this is what happens in Norway, quite a healthy mix.

(: