Left-Right divide no longer relevant in modern politics?
A very good essay below which sets out how policy preferences change over time. The changes can indeed seem rather surprising.
What the author overlooks is that changing times require changing policies. A policy that seems right in one context may seem wrong in another. Change is always ongoing so policies have to cope with that and may need to change too
Because policies change so much, the author sees no continuity. He says a policy simply cannot reliably be described as Right or Left. There is no consisteny over time in the policies of our major political groups.
He is however looking in the wrong place for consistency. Consistency can be found only at the psychological level -- at the level of basic motivations. The "Right" will always be cautious and the "Left" will always favour feelgood ideas. And those two can very easily be in conflict.
The author gives as an example Trump's support for tariffs. That did indeed make some conservatives' head spin. It was a major departure from something dear to the hearts of most conservatives: free trade.
But Trump's respose to free trade arrangements was a cautious one. He was was acutely aware that by the time of his Presidency, free trade had become socially disruptive and he wanted to stop that disruption. He was cautious about how it was impacting the lives of many Americans and wanted to call a halt to the disruptions concerned. He felt that free trade had gone too far.
He was precisely NOT subservient to prevailing conservative policies. He saw the need to call a halt to something that had got out of hand. He saw that the prevailing circumstances in the world called for a new approach if Americans were to be looked after.
So he put forward a new policy that had very old and basic underpinnings. His cautious values had not changed, only the application of them to changing times. Trump was perfectly consistent in his love of America and its people
You’ve probably heard Donald Trump described as “right-wing” or “far-right” even. But what does this actually mean?
It turns out very little, given the former US president advocates policies that only a few years ago were considered “left-wing”, making a mockery of the idea that some timeless unidimensional spectrum informs how we should understand politics.
It’s really all just name-calling nonsense, as US politics demonstrates. Trump is in favour of higher tariffs on imports and a foreign policy anchored in isolationism, which were considered left-wing positions during the presidency of Republican George W. Bush less than two decades ago.
On the other side of the divide, President Joe Biden’s administration is in favour of empowering government agencies to censor “misinformation”, a position diametrically opposed to the anti-censorship stance of Democrats a generation or two ago.
For most of the 20th century it was “the right” in favour of political censorship.
In the US, as in Australia and throughout the world, the left-right dichotomy has become a divisive delusion, a legacy going back to who sat where in the National Assembly during the 18th-century French Revolution that has no relevance to the complexity of modern political life.
Modern political parties promote a hodgepodge of policies that bear little relationship to each other. Why, for example, should someone who supports the voice or abortion necessarily be in favour of higher taxes or using the military to “spread democracy” abroad?
What individual political leaders advocate at any given time and place determine the left and right, far more than any underlying ideology.
Lockdowns during the pandemic, for instance, became identified with left-wing politics in the US purely because Trump at one point opposed them – even though socialist governments in Mexico and Sweden roundly rejected them. “Ideologies do not define tribes, tribes define ideologies; ideology is not about what (worldviews), it is about who (groups); there is no liberalism and conservatism, but liberals and conservatives,” write Hyrum and Verlam Lewis, two American politician science academics (and brothers), in a provocative new book, The Myth of Left and Right.
We are social creatures who tend to feel strongly about one particular aspect of a political party’s platform, and then feel obliged to support the rest of it. Yet there is far more disagreement within political parties than between them.
“Why do we refer to Milton Friedman (a Jewish, pro-capitalist pacifist) and Adolf Hitler (an anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, militarist) as right-wing when they had opposite policy views on everything?” the authors ask.
Of course, tribalism is often determined by social background and governs most political interaction. Julian Assange is widely perceived as left-wing in Australia, but right-wing in the US, simply because he infuriated the Democratic Party in the US by releasing its embarrassing private emails before the 2016 election.
Members of the two warring tribes like to tell themselves stories to justify their positions: leftists advocate for “change” and “progress”, while those on the right apparently “conserve”.
So why, then, do conservatives support capitalism, the most intrinsically revolutionary economic system ever devised?
Meanwhile, the supposedly pro-change left has for decades fought globalisation to maintain national and indigenous cultures.
The “left” is also for bigger government (except in the US for issues relating to policing and illicit drug regulation).
Why were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – Democrats allegedly in favour of bigger government – the most fiscally conservative presidents in half a century? Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan, a champion of limited government, increased US debt and deficits more than any other administration outside war time.
As for religion, for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, Christian socialism was the predominant combination; the somewhat bizarre relationship between faith and free-market ideology developing much later.
Private banking, once the enemy of left-wing parties everywhere for a multitude of philosophical reasons, is now far more comfortable with parties of the left. Democrats in the US get far more donations from Wall Street, while the Labor Party has been the best friend to Australia’s funds management industry.
Italy’s “far-right” Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, was recently attacked by mainstream media outlets for proposing a tax on bank super profits, something Ben Chifley (one of Australia’s most left-wing leaders) would have been proud of.
Cynicism about mandatory vaccination was more common among those who considered themselves left-wing until Covid-19, when it became a “right-wing issue” across much of the West.
Left-wing China, meanwhile, was one of the few nations not to mandate Covid vaccines. Maybe Xi Jinping is right-wing?
The left-right dichotomy serves two purposes. First, it enables many of us to feel righteous and principled – even though the vast bulk of political participants are really tribal lemmings without any real beliefs except, perhaps, for personal career advancement.
Second, it provides a simplistic framework to dismiss people we don’t like. Because the bulk of those in the media and academia now consider themselves “left-wing”, one almost never sees individuals described that way. By contrast, the pool of alleged “right-wingers” has exploded.
Elon Musk, who openly supported the Democrats, is now “right-wing” because he wasn’t enthusiastic about the war in Ukraine, which is currently a “left-wing” cause. The top US podcaster, Joe Rogan, who openly supported Bernie Sanders, is now regarded as “right-wing” because he questions compulsory Covid-19 vaccination.
Germaine Greer has also been called “right-wing” for suggesting trans women aren’t real women. In a similar vein, a powerful essay by John Pilger, published last month about Western propaganda, could just as easily have been written by Tucker Carlson.
But Pilger remains firmly associated with the “left wing” because he’s in the “right” tribe, while Carlson is “right-wing” because he’s in the “wrong” tribe.
If the term “right-winger” has any meaning at all, it appears to be one that dissents from whatever official orthodoxy prevails at the time for any given policy.
Whatever, the terms are highly divisive and it’s time to move on from this meaningless division. Individuals have complex views and they should be treated on their merit.
*******************************************************
Biden's relationship with his AG Merrick Garland is now in 'DEEP FREEZE' because White House 'thinks tough probes into Hunter and classified documents are unfair'
Hoist with his own petard
Joe Biden's relationship with his attorney general, Merrick Garland, is so icy it is 'in the deep freeze', according to a report on Saturday.
Biden and his aides are infuriated by Garland's decision to appoint special counsels to investigate both Biden's handling of classified documents, and his son Hunter's business affairs. They told The Wall Street Journal that Garland was seen as going too far in his effort to appear independent from Biden, who appointed him.
But Garland's aides told the paper that the widely-respected, low-key official was simply trying to stop any suspicion that Biden was influencing his decisions.
Biden, 80, stressed repeatedly in his hiring of Garland, 70, that he was choosing someone with integrity and independence.
Determined to differentiate himself from Donald Trump, who repeatedly lent on his two attorney generals - Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, Biden vowed that he would not interfere in Garland's work.
'The past four years we've had a president who's made his contempt for our democracy, our Constitution, the rule of law, clear in everything he has done,' said Biden in January 2021, naming his Cabinet as president-elect.
'More than anything, we need to restore the honor, the integrity, the independence of the Department of Justice that's been so badly damaged.'
As he ushered Garland onto the stage, he told him: 'You don't work for me.'
Yet now that very independence is proving problematic, sources told the paper.
Biden's aides noted that prosecutors have already closed their investigation into former vice president Mike Pence's handling of classified documents, after papers were found at his Indiana home.
Pence's papers were found in the same month that documents were located at Biden's Delaware home: both Biden and Pence handed over the documents to the authorities, and declared the discovery themselves - unlike Trump.
But Biden's case has now been referred to a special counsel, the aides pointed out.
And a lawyer for Hunter Biden - who on Thursday was federally indicted on charges of lying about his drug use on a gun permit - accused Garland of being biased against the Bidens.
The lawyer said the decisions to appoint a special counsel and indict Hunter, after he had agreed to a plea deal, showed 'partisan interference in this process.'
Some Biden aides felt that Garland should have done more in response to an IRS whistleblower, Gary Shapley, who claimed publicly that the Justice Department was interfering in an investigation into Hunter Biden's business and tax affairs.
Biden's aides believed Shapley's approach to Republican members of Congress, telling them he had concerns, was improper leaking of information.
Garland worked as a senior official at the Justice Department under Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, who angered Clinton by launching an investigation that ultimately led to the revelations of his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
'Merrick comes from exactly the same school,' said a former department official who worked with both Reno and Garland.
'They both believe very strongly in the independent and nonpolitical nature of the department, which is good for the department, but not always so good for the attorney general's relationship with the president.'
Barack Obama, conversely, was criticized for being too close to his attorney general, Eric Holder.
Trump, however, was famously combative with his, publicly criticizing them and weighing in on their decisions.
'Attorneys general should be sympathetic to the goals of the administration but shouldn't be too close personally to the president,' said Bill Barr, Trump's last attorney general.
And Barr told The Wall Street Journal it was a thankless task.
'There's no escaping,' he said. 'The attorney general has to own these decisions in high-profile cases. He can't say, 'Well, I just left it up to someone else.'
Garland's spokesman declined to comment.
White House spokeswoman Olivia Dalton said Biden appointed Garland 'because of his decades of fidelity to the rule of law consistent with his commitment when he ran for president to restore the independence of the Justice Department, free from political interference.'
*************************************************
NYC Council advances bid that could yank monuments honoring Washington, Jefferson, Columbus
New York’s City Council — which just passed a budget that’s already been deemed a flop — is now spending some of its time advancing a plan that could kill off monuments honoring figures such as George Washington.
The Democratic-led council’s Cultural Affairs Committee is set to hold a public hearing Tuesday on a proposal to yank artworks from city property dedicated to historical figures such as George Washington, Peter Stuyvesant and Christopher Columbus because of their controversial pasts.
But critics immediately branded the effort as cancel culture run amok.
“Columbus was a migrant!’’ fumed Angelo Vivolo, president of the Columbus Heritage Coalition.
Vivolo vowed to fight any attempt to remove monuments of the famous Italian explorer from city parkland — including the most recognizable statue at Columbus Circle.
Among the council’s usual major responsibilities is passing a budget.
The lawmakers approved a spending plan at the end of June, but it’s already a disaster — with Mayor Eric Adams ordering city agency cuts because it’s potentially out of balance to the tune of billions of dollars thanks to the migrant crisis, critics note.
The 51-member council also oversees the operation of city agencies and passing of local regulations and laws that span everything from outdoor dining to zoning matters.
But now, a main focus is cancelling historical figures.
And it’s not an idle threat.
A statue of Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president, was removed from City Hall because he was a slaveholder.
The Cultural Affairs Committee’s upcoming hearing involves legislation that would require the city’s Public Design Commission to publish a plan to remove works of art on Big Apple property “that depict a person who owned enslaved persons or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity.”
If the commission determines that a statue or monument honors a person who committed crimes against humanity but votes not to remove the artwork, it would require the city to install an “explanatory plaque” about the misdeeds of the historical figure, according to the bill authored by Brooklyn Council Sany Nurse and co-sponsored by 16 other lawmakers.
“This bill would also require the Department of Transportation to consult with the Department of Education to install plaques on sidewalks or other public space adjacent to schools that are named after a person that fits the criteria,” Nurse said in a memo explaining the bill.
There are more than a half-dozen monuments on city property honoring slave-holder Washington, also America’s first president and revolutionary hero — including in Washington Square Park and Union Square Park.
Peter Stuyvesant, a Dutch governor, early New York settler and a slaveholder, has a statue in Stuyvesant Park, and prestigious Stuyvesant High School is named after him.
Other famous slaveholders who have schools in the city named after them include John Jay (CUNY’s John Jay College) and Dewitt Clinton (Dewitt Clinton HS).
Columbus, while lauded for discovering the new world, has been targeted for elimination from the public square for brutalizing native populations during his travels, and monuments of him have been taken down elsewhere.
“This is little more than an attempt by the radical left to rewrite our nation’s history,” said Joann Ariola (R-Queens). “These men all had an enormous impact on this country, and these statues commemorating their achievements have been in place for decades.
“The radical left has been trying to reframe our nation as one born from evil, and it is time we put our foot down and say enough is enough,” she said. “The Founding Fathers and the others who worked so hard to establish this great country should be celebrated, not eliminated from memory.”
Council Republican Minority Leader Joe Borelli, who represents parts of Staten Island with the largest Italian-American and pro-Columbus population, said his left-wing Democratic colleagues are turning the council into a punchline.
“How original. The Council is good for a statue-banning committee every year or so, second only to our annual ‘cars are bad’ hearing,” Borelli said.
“By now, they get the same attention as the World Series of obscure Canadian winter sports on ESPN Ocho. Even the MyPillow guy wouldn’t buy ads during the broadcast,” he quipped.
Former city Mayor de Blasio also created a panel while in office to look at monuments honoring famous figures to see if any should be removed for a history of inhumane actions.
But the 18-member panel of experts whose commissioning led to protests ended up focusing on just four public monuments — with controversial 1800s gynecologist Dr. J. Marion Sims being the lone figure to get the boot.
“I thought this was behind us,” Vivolo said. “This woke group wants to cancel our culture.
“I’m here for the fight. The Italian-American community will come out strongly against this move to ban Columbus, a symbol of Italian-American accomplishment. But it’s not just Columbus. You’re going against Washington, Jefferson. You’re going against the people who contributed greatly to America,” he said.
************************************************
Binary Australia campaigner Kirralie Smith has AVO against her withdrawn
How absurd can you get? This pleasant country lady was held to be a physical threat because she spoke out about transgenders in sport. The only thing she would be likely to threaten anybodyn with would be an offering of pumpkin scones. "apprehended violence" indeed. Another case where the law is an ass
A high-profile campaigner against transgender women competing in female sports is claiming victory after a restraining order against her was withdrawn in court.
Police had taken out an apprehended violence order out against Kirralie Smith, 52, to protect an amateur NSW soccer player at the centre of a transgender row.
The player, who towered over most players, was the league's leading goal scorer and a clip of them sending a rival player flying in a tackle went viral earlier this year.
The director of Binary Australia led a protest campaign which bombarded soccer bosses with more than 12,000 emails demanding Football NSW take action.
Ms Smith's campaign also included a petition entitled: 'Keep blokes out of women’s sport!'
Police initially applied for the AVO in April and served it to Ms Smith at her home in Mt George, 200km north-east of Newcastle, NSW.
It prevented her from discussing or approaching the player, and also covered electronic harassment of the trans activist player, who lives more than 300km away.
But when the case returned to Burwood Local Court in Sydney on Monday, police withdrew their application and the AVO was dismissed.
'We won!!!!!!' Ms Smith posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. 'The AVO was withdrawn!!!! 'It is not violence to defend women’s spaces or sport.'
The mother-of-three added: 'The police prosecutor simply withdrew the application - after wasting a lot of time and $.'
Ms Smith currently has one other AVO application against her, which is due back in Taree Local Court on October 10, and another previous AVO was withdrawn in April.
She added on Tuesday: 'The first win in this series of law fare against me is greatly encouraging. 'I still have an AVO application by another male player in a female team and two vilification complaints. I will stand firm and not shrink back. 'I will have this week off to celebrate and recover and be back soon!'
The decision comes as Ms Smith celebrated her birthday on Tuesday. 'I can’t stop smiling,' she said. 'What a gift for my birthday today. A win for female sport and freedom of speech.'
Ms Smith has been highly vocal around the participation of transwomen in women's sports and the risk of injury to female players.
She was backed by failed federal Liberal candidate Katherine Deves who has been a high profile critic of transgender athletes in women's sport.
Ms Smith angrily denied she was a threat to the player after the AVO was imposed and told Daily Mail Australia in May: 'I've never been violent in my life. 'I have a very long-standing knee injury. I'm not violent and not capable of violence.'
She added: 'It's important for women to be able to draw boundaries and speak freely about how males impact their spaces and services.' 'I will continue to speak truthfully about matters of biology and how they affect women and children in Australia.'
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment