 |
| |
|
|
Al'Kimiya
|
|
There is a reason one direction is called "right".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
Hmm...
To me:
"Right" generally means conservative, probably religious (and thus probably anti-abortion and gay marriage), probably pro-military, probably anti-taxes and government spending (other than military) in general.
"Left" generally means liberal/progressive, if religious of the tolerant sort, but possibly even aetheistic, probably not big on the military, probably pro-goverment spending (social welfare spending, education, etc), and happy to tax me for it.
Unfortunately for me, neither Left nor Right are producing leaders that do what I want. The Right will babble on about fiscal conservatism (which I'm all for, though perhaps a bit different than they mean, but in general I want us to at least try to stay within our means) and then go out and blow billions on the military and/or Senator so-and-so's favorite pork project. Not to mention the Right's tendency to pander to the Relgious Right (my personal "most hated" group). The Left... well, they generally say things I agree with on social issues, but there is always the worry that they will go too far with "tax & spend" (the repub criticism of them). It seemed to work alright when we had a Dem president & repub congress (Clinton). On foreign policy, they all pretty much suck.
So I vote 3rd party, in a vain attempt at strengthening parties other than the Repubs & Democrats.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Left means new, progress. Right means old, anti-progress. All extensions of freedom came because leftists forced rightists to give it up.
La Lucha Continua. |
Venceremos.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
It seems to me that in America the definition of these terms is set by the partisan nature of our politics. You can cling to some other definition but for all intents and purposes the side of an issue taken by the Democratic Party is the left and the other side is the right and the Republicans are found there.
Seldom is an issue found to have three sides. Intellectually, we all now that you can approach any issues from many perspectives but the debate is framed on the positions of the opposing parties.
This is really the reason why we do not have a third major party. Most efforts to promote a third party are doomed because of the perception that they come from the extreme end of the political spectrum. In order to make a third party viable, you would need, in addition to money and a charismatic leader, a major signature issue that lends itself to a third distinct viewpoint that appeals to the center. That issue is elusive. Given the current trend of both parties to co-opt the issues of the other, if only in name only, how can such an issue spring forth, never mind a whole new political philosophy.
Perhaps the only possibility for a third party would come in the form of a movement instead. I think there are both the need and the promise of a movement to direct democracy in the country. This is the only thing I see on the horizon that could disturb the status quo. Until something happens, however, the left will continue to be almost inextricably associated with the Democratic Party and the right with the Republicans.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2004 19:49
) not be too ideologically overloaded?
|