Where Left Means Right

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/where_left_means_right ^ | JULY/AUGUST 2010 | JOSHUA E. KEATING

[dr_who]

Where Left Means Right

What happens when political parties trend in the other direction?

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | JULY/AUGUST 2010

Ever since rival factions arranged themselves on opposite sides of a meeting hall during the French Revolution, the political meanings of the terms "left" and "right" have been pretty constant. Left-wingers everywhere like high taxes, big government, and social change. Right-wingers prefer low taxes, small government, and free markets.

Except when they don't.

Margit Tavits of Washington University and Natalia Letki of the University of Warsaw studied political parties in post-communist Eastern Europe for a recent article in the American Political Science Review and discovered a peculiar reversal. They argue that, across 13 of these countries, leftists have gone right, establishing their democratic and capitalist bona fides by pursuing pro-market policies, while right-wing parties have done the opposite, bulking up spending to win over swing voters.

For instance, Hungary's first post-communist government increased government spending. It fell to the Socialists to implement austerity measures and revive the country's economy in the early 1990s. In Poland, Social Democrats were firm supporters of controversial "shock therapy" privatization policies that fast-tracked economic liberalization. In both cases, voters didn't seem to feel betrayed by the change in direction, reelecting the flip-flopping parties multiple times over the following years.

[dr_who]

I don't think articles from this magazine show up here very often, so I thought I'd post this one since we watch foreign election results (especially in Europe) with interest. A lot of FP position pieces regarding the Chinese military seem to offer some interesting facts although they can sometimes exihibit the sort of bad judgement and wooly thinking that better people might get marched to the wall for. Anyway...

[dr_who]

If nothing else, the political slant of this periodical might be evident by the position of the “origin” of the above chart relative to Obama. Obama’s not an economic centrist and the Democrat party is not right-of-center on much of anything. Makes me wonder if the current ( and Bush-era) state department bureaucracy thinks otherwise.

[skintight buffoonery]

That graph there is...definitely open to question. Actually I’m familiar with the British conservatives and the cdu and I can’t see the logic behind their relative placement.

[GeronL]

that graph doesn’t make any sense to me.

[RachelFaith]

This chart is CRAP.

There are only two world views. And not much of a sliding scale on them. Politics and Religion are not grays they are binary. One and zero. On and Off.

Christian world view and ALL that comes from it. Or God hating and all that comes from that. You ARE one or the other. And if you think you are NOT, or think this is wrong or an over simplification, you are God hating.

Now, if we are all God fearing, Christians, we will STILL have issues over which we disagree, but, in the same wisdom of our founders will prayerfully work them out knowing our end goals are the same.

Anything less than this, is utterly absent of this.

[skintight buffoonery]

I suppose by your standards I’m a god hater, in that I’m a social conservative presbyterian, but in a vague sense - I was baptized but I can’t remember the last time I read the bible, I intend to get round to it though.

However I do agree that the chart is nonsensical.

[dajeeps]

Besides having issues with the placement, things are much easier for me to understand with the up-down axis being authoritarianism/free choice (classical liberal or libertarian) and the left/right being social.

There really isn’t much difference between being authoritarian in economic vs. social aspects, because if someone is like that for one, they usually tend to be that way toward the other. Healthcare is a pretty good example of this.

On another point, however, it’s pretty difficult to find a classical liberal in Europe. Perhaps this graph is depicting the various shades of authoritarianism and if so it makes far more sense.

[dr_who]

So you’re saying there’s no hope for any nation on earth until its political leadership is dominated by southern baptists? Or are you more partial to roman catholics?

[RachelFaith]

No. You sound just willfully ignorant, in the polite but accurate meaning of the word. A god hater will not respond to it lightly.

[skintight buffoonery]

Well, thanks for not calling me a god hater. I am indeed ignorant, but I do intend to change this fact.

[skintight buffoonery]

Well, thanks for not calling me a god hater. I am indeed ignorant, but I do intend to change this fact.

[RachelFaith]

I am partial to the “Self evident” truths that all rights come from God and that any debate which accepts that given has the correct starting point, and that any who deny it outright or are unsure, do not. Either there IS a God and His will is revealed to man, OR might makes right and the ends justify the means. Those are the only two real choices. One of those world views is a path to “come and let us reason together” and the other will only be settled via the ammo box. Or put another way, the blood of Christ, or YOUR own blood. Everything comes down to blood in the end when there is a disagreement. Now, show me 2 people who never disagree.

[RachelFaith]

We all are. There are only two states of being. Informed or Ignorant. I am informed on many things and I am sure ignorant of far more things.

[dr_who]

Now, show me 2 people who never disagree.

You show me 2 Christians who never disagree.

[skintight buffoonery]

from emo phillips:

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."

[RachelFaith]

Are Christians not people? Of course they are. So, it remains MY point. HOW two people who disagree work it out is all that is unknown until it happens. If they both have the same heart filled with the same Spirit, they will work it out on way, if not, they will fight it out the other way. Always. Everytime. And anytime you see it happen, the “other” way, you can be sure one of them is NOT filled with the Spirit of Christ, but with anti-christ. Always. No exception. No debate too small, no war too great.

[dr_who]

Are Christians not people?

No, they aren't, going by your definition as far as I can make out. They're all super-human.

Your rants sound really nice but they seem to me to be more self-serving than coherent as intellectual arguments go. This isn't church.

[ash-housewares]

bump, but the argument in this article feels as old as the hills. Of course left and right are not absolute eternal definitions; they are relative to one’s perspective. I remember the people feverishly working on new charts, diagrams, after 1989

So if in Germany, 27 February 1933, the NSDAP was “right” and the KPD was “left” (where Rosa Luxemburg had defected), does that furnish any guidance whatsoever today? Everything depends on circumstances, otherwise there’d be no need to think

[ash-housewares]

Godwin in 18

[raygun]

Christians are not people. They are super-human altruistic bigots.

The problem arises from the issue that biblical Christianity is an all exclusive doctrine and that these non-human cult members demand inclusion of their all exclusive belief into the umbrage and embrace of the everything goes philanthropy of modern decadance.

Any preacher that hasn’t lusted at a voluptuous woman is not human. Ergo, ALL woman should be banned. Wait. I’m not liking where this is going...