Understanding Left and Right
by BenthamiteJanuary 6th, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Filed under: Politics
 |
|
When recently asked what exactly defines right and left in terms of political affiliation, knowing that a simple one-line answer would not suffice, I was drawn into a rather elaborate discussion regarding the concepts in which some key distinctions between them and political affiliation were established. To condense the dialogue, it went something like this: 1: Are all democrats leftists? 2: No. That is not true. In fact, left and right are not political affiliations. They are simply concepts, or connotations, marking dispositions in very general terms. 1: But, aren’t right wingers republicans? 2: Perhaps some are, but we cannot assume that all are by any means. You see, in the context of status quo, someone on the right is quite simply the same as all persons favoring their right hand: they are a majority; just as the majority of all humans are right handed. Conversely, people considered leftists are thought of as the minority. Comparing actual handedness with the political connotations of left and right is a very reasonable solution. (Remember, though, left and right, in the political sense, are connotations, NOT denotations; a single connotation could never justly describe or present an individual’s entire set of beliefs.) Just as throughout history were left-handers have been considered odd and in need of conformation (as their left hands were slapped with rulers so they would write with their right hand), the same is true of persons marked as leftists regarding their opinions in numerous subjects, not only politics. They are thought of as extreme and in need of conformity in order to avoid and change outlier status. Most importantly, these connotations must be based on an ultimate end or view point for them to validate any type of logical and intelligible thought and avoid the trap of being the logical fallacies that they so often take the form of since right and left are used so loosely to describe individuals and entities. A logical fallacy is something that contains no logic or reason and is basically hot air. Fallacies are presented in contexts where not enough information is provided or given for any judgment or reasonable evaluation to be made; in other words, the subject cannot be proved or disproved, or furthermore, even considered for any reason until more factual information is provided. 1: What do you mean by connotation? I have always thought that by being on the right, you were republican. 2: Allow me to elaborate. The assumption that most republicans are on the right, or right-wingers, can be made and is logical for the following reason. Based on the status quo, our country’s state of affairs, most republicans are in support of that which is occurring at this time, such as the war in Iraq, boarder control, and the other pressing issues. Bottom line, they may be considered right wingers because they comprise the majority of support for the current agenda and offer no conjecture conflicting with the ultimate end or view point of the majority. However, they may offer different solutions for obtaining the ultimate end or view point, but they accept and do not stray from the at-large solution for obtaining the ultimate end via the predominate view point. Now, let us take US weapons exports as an example. For many years, the US has sold weapons to many foreign countries, just as global powers have done for centuries. Noam Chomsky, a scholar in many fields, whose endeavors I am understating in that simple tag line, publicly condemned US weapons sales by identifying the cause and effect of such actions based on the observation that the countries receiving the weapons have used them negatively, resulting in multitudes of civilian deaths, civil war, and terrorism, just to mention a few effects. Now, the ultimate end, a term that reappears often in this discussion, is simple: The US sold weapons for valid reasons. Perhaps it was good business, and that’s enough justification for public acceptance and is quite agreeable since the public is thankful for living in America in comparison of the quality of living in other countries; better business means better economy, which means a higher quality of living for all. Moving on, Noam was reluctant to accept that logic, noting that the logic, as much as it offers the sensation, or motivation, for fulfilling the ultimate end, which could be called the manifest destiny of the US, does not necessarily justify the negative results of such actions, the causes and effects: otherwise avoidable deaths of humans. Returning to the point at hand, in the above example I have presented the three elements necessary to understanding the application of the connotations right and left: There must be two parties, Noam and the receivers of publicly dispersed information, and an ultimate end, the US’s agenda. These three elements are absolutely necessary for the concepts of right and left to be assigned to any person or entity and, furthermore, be intelligible and make any factual sense. If these three elements are not clearly included in any argument in which the terms right and left are being used to describe a person or entity, then the concepts’ inclusions would be invalidated since there are no signifiers (specific objects) for the signs (the connotations, right and left) present. Bluntly stated, if one were to assign the connotations of right and left without having the three elements present, the result would be gibberish. Simply declaring someone as right or left holds no logic unless a specific context is provided that allows observers of the argument to apply and think through the supporting points or reasons for the connotation, which in this case would be right or left. As you may have realized by now, right and left have been widely misused and accepted by many persons without the three elements being present. In instances where this has occurred, the acceptance of such connotations without proper context is, unfortunately, a false belief, or false knowledge; and in cases as these, the connotations must be re-examined in a context in which the three elements are present in order for any factual knowledge to be established. Otherwise, there is no true knowing or basis for establishing a valid and defendable opinion. Returning to my example, Noam is considered on the left because his point, that US weapons sales have negative effects, is a minority opinion that conflicts with the ultimate end, which despite the conjecture surrounding it, retains majority support. Just as with handedness, if the roles were reversed, and right handers were the minority, we would then consider Noam a right winger. |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest First
stableman on January 8th, 2008 at 7:41 AM
I only give this 3 star rating Marc because it is over
talked and (explained) without really explaining it!
\Marc says above: "A logical fallacy is something that contains no logic or reason and is basically hot air."
Sounds like he is talking about this article? I still
do not know the difference between left and right. Is
it because you simply take a position, (relative) to a
position another group is taking... that is not the way
(same way) the other group is thinking? And - if there
is a right & left what is the middle? (Status Quo?) Or
just a snap-shot of history & current thinking trends?
re: US Weapons Exports
This probably wasnt't the best example to use in trying to explain right vs. left, as it is a subject that on it's own would be the topic of many articles.
There are a myriad of reasons the United States exports weapons and most have less to do with economics and more with strategic policies and programs (macro and micro) abroad.
As for the topic at hand, Left and Right are probably best described as two polar opposites with gravitational pull. Leaving the majority orbiting somewhere in between and only zealots at either extreme. You can generalize someone as being left or right, but it's just that, a generalization, they may happen to have more check boxes marked on one side than the other, but it's not a zero sum game.