Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The False Left Right Political Paradigm

January 4, 2012 by  

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The False Left Right Political Paradigm”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jeremy Leochner

    As someone on the left I would disagree with those on the left being labeled as Fascists or tyrants. But I would also disagree with people on the right being labeled fascists. I will be honest in that I believe Hitler, The Nazi and The Fascists were believers in the Status Quo. They believed in maintaining the old style of authoritarian government that they were accustomed to and wanted to curb social and political progress and reform. I believe their outlook was decidedly conservative. Having said that I believe Conservatism and Fascism are too very different things. I also believe Liberalism is less about how much government then it is the role of government. I believe Liberals wish to have government promote and protect progress and reform and to make great changes in society. Where as I feel Conservatives wish for government to preserve and protect existing laws and make moderate and controlled reform for the sack of maintaining a good society. I see it more akin to how you want the driver of a car to drive-fast or slow. I believe Liberals want to go a little faster while conservatives want to go a little slower or maintain the present speed. Extremes on either side would be bad but it dose not make one side better then the other. As I said I believe the difference is the responsibility of government not how much of government there is.

    • Karolyn

      It appears thaat libertarians are the true conservatives. Over the past year, I have had to rethink my own “label” and have come to the conclusion that my traditional label of “left” really does not fit. However, where does liberal fit in.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I don’t know. I have always liked to see labels like this. Liberal-Liberty- sounds pretty nice to me. Conservative- Conservation-needed to conserve our nation. Libertarian- Again Liberty-still good to me. Progressive-Progress- don’t have a rhyme for this-but progress is important. I suppose its a matter of how one views progress and change. Change is important but we don’t want to go crazy. I just see it like I said as a car. I guess if your a faster driver your more of a liberal, if you drive more slowly your more of a conservative. No idea is better than the other and its important never to go to fast or to slow. Though it makes if funny if as a driver your politically one and personally the other.

    • Mike

      It seems that the “lines” of distinction of left and right have been blurred. While I tend to follow christian principals in my life, I also respect the fact that others may not. My dad, who has passed, always told me that you cannot legislate morality. In retrospect, he was most certainly correct. Like anything, too much power is all corrupting, and large Governments and corporations are way too powerful, and most certainly corrupt. The rule of law should protect us from hurting/cheating/stealing from one another, but allow the “freedom” of free will, when it comes to personal “choices”. The founders of the U.S. were libertarian in practice, were varied in what they pursued and whom they worshipped, and understood the necessity of balance in power. The Federal Government was tasked with defending/protecting the union and regulating commerce within the union. The establishment of the rule of law, was granted to the “states” within the union, again, to help preserve the balance of power. What we have now, whether warmonger fascist neocon republican, or socialist/communist democrat, is simply a return to the power hungry tyranny of old. They all have one thing in common, and that is they are all “control freaks”, who have the delusional belief that if they just had a little more control of everyone else, all would be right in the world. Just my opinion, but I do have history on my side.

  • Karolyn

    Interesting. I’ve never heard it explaned like that. So I guess when some of the posters write that people who don’t believe as they do should be shipped out or move to another country, they really are fascists, as I have remarked. They think they’re conervatives. For me, it’s a little hard to grasp these concepts after thinking a certain way my whole adult life. However, it gives food for contemplation.

    • Texas_Gundealer

      Yes there are a few posters on here who do get somewhat heated in their arguements that claim conservativism, but then they go off and talk about how great it is that we toppled Saddam and don’t want to cut military spending due to everyone in the world wanting to kill us. Fascist? possibly, a true conservative would not just ask for cuts to welfare, medicare, or other social spending but cuts from everything the govt. is spending money on and over reaching on their responsiblities. And before someone argues that its the govt. job to protect us from foreign invaders, I would say that yes I agree with you but do you really need $1.2 trillion to do it? Seems to me if you require that much money to protect yourself then your not being a very good neighbor.

  • TANSTAAFL

    Sorry Jeremy, but fascism is a product of the left. That is not to say that all left wing people are fascists. In fact, the Nazi party stood for national socialism. I think the maker of this video did a really good job of explaining the difference. Sadly, a one-dimensional view of political views is insufficient. In fact, even a two dimensional view does not capture the complexity of political views.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      The problem I have Tanstaafl is that fascists were opponents of any sort of political reform and any form of human liberty. I don’t see how such an ideology is a product of any side of the political spectrum. I believe extremism of any kind has essentially left the political spectrum and gone to the world of potential insanity. After all Fascists and Nazi and Communists at least in the countries where such ideologies have been implemented have been authoritarian and have silenced their opponents. Any ideology where those who disagree are considered enemies or where those who disagree are seen as having nefarious schemes is one I would disagree with. And I believe any sane or reasonable person on the left or the right would disagree as well.

      • cawmun cents

        Hence the fallacy of the left-right paradigm,inherent in our system,right?Hmmmmmm….first we have to look at the inner workings of those who make this claim.
        Apparently there are two sides to every story.
        Somewhere along the lines,you have to see the writing on the wall for what it is.Example:
        Those who believe that”if it feels good,do it!”type of idealism,and the tendency to blame others for making them feel wrong about what they believe is right,based on the fact that it feels good.Hedonism.
        Those who believe that denying oneself,leads to more moral and virtuous living,”if it feels good,then you probably shouldnt do it.”idealism,tending to lean toward governing oneself.Religion.
        Selfishness,vs.selflessness.
        The aptitude for the attitude,of whether one leans toward the baseness of their instinct,which includes using their emotions to make decisions,or leaning toward the philosophy of restraint,using logic to obtain permissable action.
        Emotion would be said to be the great way of deciding whether to be a humanitarian,because you have the preconceived notion of caring for your fellow man.This is certainly a good determiner of emotional content,feeling for your fellow man.
        Love and hate are certainly extreme sides of emotion.
        Some would claim that not using that emotion,but using only logic is the way to determine how you can help your fellow man.
        That is because when you use emotions to dtermine how you feel about a certain subject,you often become confused but the content of the emotion rather than perceiving the logic of the subject in question.
        Using love as the basis for humanity is certainly ideal.But using hate for those who oppose that tactic,is unproductive.Moreover using your emotional content as a political vehicle is extreme to say the least.It would not really be perceived as logical,by those who use logic to obtain permissable action.
        Often the situation arises where you have people who use that content to help others,and wind up enabling them to continue on in refusal to rise up out of their situational difficulties on their own.This is co-dependency on a massive scale.The kind which causes nations to implode with argument about how conditions can be altered.
        This is the situation where we are confornted by the left-right paradigm.Those who believe they lean toward more freedom,and deference to their humanity,tend to believe they fall on the left.
        Those who see their brother and want to help him,but not just out of love,in the guise of emotional content,but out of the need to assist them in coming out of the situational difficulties,often are confronted with the need to architect such doings,through logic.
        These are seen as the heartless unloving kind of doings of the political right.
        You have on the extreme sides of the spectrum,the hurry up and get it done crowd,and the lets see what works best crowd.
        One translates to the same emotional use of appeal,and the other to the appeal to logic.
        Democracy=letting the people use their emotional content to decide,based on their preconceived notions of the conditions.
        Republic=letting the people decide by way of working out the conditions and then making a decision.
        Democracies inevitably lead to disaster.
        Republics have a way of lasting longer because they do not depend on the emotional content of the people,rather using loogic to dictate how things should be established.Therefore crafting the necessary leadership to get those things established,done.
        Again you have a left right paradigm.
        But it is not necessarily involving styles of gubment.
        More of involving styles of the way to appeal to humanity.
        If you build a building on emotional content,it will be a house of cards.If you use logic to obtain permissable action,you get a building which lasts.
        Hurry up and wait,vs.defining conditions,then taking action.
        How I feel,rarely matters in the grand scheme,but there are those who have purchased the whole enchilada based upon that particular notion of how things should be done.
        Not the difference between right and wrong,but if it feels good then do it…in other words feelings=right.
        the russian revolution was decided that way,as was the french revolution.
        The American revolution,was decided differently,out of a necessity not to control the conditions,and appeal to the emotional content of the populace,but to avoid having those conditions control the populace,and appeal to their logic.
        -CC.

        • Jeremy Leochner

          Personally I have always believed in logic as the basis of proper choices. I would worry about focusing to much on logic or to much on emotion. I believe both those and the left and those on the right wish to express caring to their fellow man and also to help them out of their situation. The problem is how we do it and sometimes its misinterpreted or disagreed with. Wanting to teach a man how to fish so he can feed himself dose not make one heartless but giving the man a fish when he is starving dose not make someone a bleeding heart. Its about our individual choices rather than our political labels.

        • Karolyn

          One point I take issue with is the selfishness vs. selflessness claim. There is nothing wrong with selfishness. When one takes care of him or hersel, one is more able to care for others. If you aren’t selfish enough to serve yourself, you have nothing to give to others. I totally get what you said, however; although, I do not believe that it is necessarily religion that correlates with morality. My belief is that we are all born moral and are corrupted by socieity, by what surrounds us. It is more a matter of spirituality than religion.

          • Vigilant

            Karolyn, there’s a LOT wrong with selfishness. You’ve got to understand the difference between “self-interest” and “selfishness.” It has the same difference as between “vested self interest” and “greed.”

  • JustSayin

    Glenn Beck explained this months, maybe a year ago. Say what you will about his “kooky conspiracy theories”, he did put out a lot of truth that most people had never, and but for him would never have been, exposed to.

  • JimH

    I guess it comes down to,”it all depends on YOUR definition of”.
    I always felt a society needs some leadership and organization. Even a primitive tribe has a chief.
    We don’t need an elitist who thinks he knows what’s best for us running our lives either.
    I think my distrust of a big government is throughout history it has not worked, either because of coruption or the ineptitude of the ones in charge.
    Just enough leadership so there isn’t anarchy and a lawless society, and provide for the common defense, should be enough.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.