LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES

[rushmc 23]

Interesting read. Especially given the debate on this site. Posted for your pleasure and comment. Link is at the bottom of the page


LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES
Analysis © 2007 January 16 by G. Edward Griffin

Would you rather be a Neoconservative or a Progressive? That is a trick question. The trick is in the fact that, although there may be differences between the rhetoric and short-term agendas of these groups, their long-term goals actually are the same. They may differ over how to fight a war in the Middle East but not over the right of the President to wage such a war empowered by the UN instead of Congress. They may differ over what kind of speech should be forbidden ("subversive" speech vs. "hate" speech, for example) but not over the right of the government to forbid it. They may differ over how fast to bankrupt the nation to provide benefits for its citizens but not over the assumption that providing benefits is what governments are supposed to do. They disagree over tactics, timing, and style, but not objectives. They fight for dominance within the New World Order, but they work together to build it. That is because both groups have embraced the underlying ideology of global collectivism.

The illusion of opposites has been a dominant part of the world's political landscape for over a century and it has been the primary reason for the advance of collectivism during that time. In the epic struggles of World War II, millions of patriotic citizens within the combatant nations passionately supported their leaders, believing they were defending against an evil empire. Russians fought for Communism; Germans fought for Nazism; Italians fought for Fascism. Yet, these were merely variants of the underlying ideology, called collectivism, that was common to them all.

Americans, of course, were horrified by such political doctrines and fought, instead, for Democracy. They did not realize that, while that word filled their heads with visions of freedom and justice for all, their leaders had another definition as they quietly converted the United States into a collectivist regime incredibly similar to the ones against which they fought. The contest was never about ideology. It was always about who would be the victor and who would be the vanquished; who would emerge from the war with world power; who would control the natural resources; who would create the new boundaries; who would judge and who would hang.

In our present era, there are few champions for Communism and practically none for Nazism or Fascism, but everyone claims to be a champion of Democracy. Neoconservatives and Progressives, alike, sprinkle their rhetoric with this word like salt on a fresh baked potato. This is a clue that it has no meaningful definition. It is used as a political mantra to hypnotize the masses into a receptive state of mind. After all, anyone who speaks in defense of Democracy has got to be a good guy, right?

In today's debate, the illusion of opposites has become a myth of gigantic proportions. On one side - supposedly the Left side - we have Leftists, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Neo Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Liberals, Progressives, and (in The U.S.) Democrats. On the other side - supposedly the Right side - we have Rightists, Nazis, Neo Nazis, Fascists, Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Reactionaries, and (in the U.S.) Republicans.

Almost all modern political debate is framed by these words; yet, there is no one who can define what they mean except to their own satisfaction. There is no universally accepted understanding that will be accepted by advocates and critics alike. The possible exceptions are those that bear the names of authors, such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao, because it could be argued that they represent the views expressed in their writings. However, we are still left with the formidable task of accurately summarizing those views to everyone's satisfaction.

Social mores and religious beliefs sometimes divide along the Left-Right political axis. Those on the Left are more likely to embrace life styles that those on the Right would consider improper or even sinful. Those on the Right are more likely to be church-going members of an organized religion. But these are not definitive values, because there is a great deal of diversity on both sides. Republicans smoke pot. Democrats go to church. Social or religious values cannot be included in any meaningful definition of these groups.

Be that as it may, the degree to which there truly are definable qualities to these labels is the same degree to which we can understand that they are similar. For example, if there is any doubt of the similarity between the collectivism of Marx and the collectivism of Hitler, all one has to do is read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The point is that, when the labels are peeled off and the underlying ideologies are examined, we come inexorably to the conclusion that every one of them is built upon the foundation of collectivism. We are expected to choose sides when, in reality, there is no substantial difference between them. No matter which side we choose, we are on the side of collectivism. That is the trick.

What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

These are the core principles held by collectivists in their quest to remold mankind to their hearts desire. The main disagreement among them is over how those principles should be applied. They do not realize that it's not the application of those principles, but the principles themselves that cause injustice, scarcity, and freedom's demise. History has already shown this truth in the form of despotism under Nazism (the so-called Right) and Communism (the so-called Left). It is sad that intelligent people with knowledge of this history still cling to the myth that they are opposites when it is so clear they are merely different manifestations of the same ideology.

MEET GEORGE LAKOFF
In 2006, the illusion of opposites was brilliantly performed in a book entitled Whose Freedom, by George Lakoff, an illusionist for the Democrat Party. Lakoff is a professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. His motivation for writing is revealed by his previous works. One was a political strategy entitled, Don’t Think of an Elephant! self-labeled as “the Essential Guide for Progressives”, which featured a foreword by former Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean. The other was a video presentation entitled How Democrats and Progressives Can Win.

As we would expect, Lakoff says that the choice in America today is between Neoconservatives and Progressives. He, of course, is a self-styled Progressive, but nowhere does he define what that word means. Instead, he devotes the entire book to a spirited monologue describing how evil and ignorant neoconservatives are and how humanitarian and enlightened (and intelligent, too) progressives are. That's all we need to know. By the way, the Left-leaning collectivists also enjoy describing themselves as intellectuals, implying that anyone who does not accept their world view is stupid or anti-intellectual. That's just more of the psychological word games that Lakoff, as a linguist, knows so well.

Lakoff skillfully places the issue of freedom into the cracked mold of left/liberal/progressive vs. right/conservative/reactionary. As I have argued previously, these words are not definable and, worse, tend to hide the fact that advocates of both groups are united behind the political philosophy of collectivism. Lakoff, himself, advocates many features of collectivism in his books.

Both “Left and Right” are ready to sacrifice freedom for the furtherance of their agendas. Both camps are willing to grant freedom to those who accept their political and social mores but do not hesitate to withhold it from those who oppose them. Both camps are skilled at creating laws that convert dissidents into criminals. If today’s so-called progressives were to gain control of the government, they would be no different. They would justify oppression, not in the name of national security as the neoconservatives do, but in the name defending democracy and peace, as Communist regimes do.

Perhaps I am too quick to judge Lakoff as an illusionist, for that implies he is a willing agent of the enemies of freedom. It is entirely possible that he has not yet considered all the ramifications of this issue. It is possible that he has never heard individualism advocated and defended. Without that, he likely would consider it to be the creed of selfishness and ignorance. With that view, collectivism would be the only reasonable option, and he would have to choose between the Left and Right manifestations of it.

And so, to George Lakoff and all others who identify with any of the terms on the Left or Right, I invite you to climb to the next plateau of understanding. I am grateful that you care about the future. Error is better than apathy. Error can be corrected in time to change the outcome. Apathy is seldom corrected until it is too late.

For the author's deeper analysis of this issue, see The Future Is Calling, Part One.
www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Fascinating. Here's another:

Quote

]Left Versus Right -- John Ralston Saul

The result of an unfortunate seating arrangement.

In October 1789 the Paris mob, led by women, walked to Versailles, stormed the palace and dragged the king back to town with them. The Assembly had no choice but to follow. Louis was put in his gilded cage, the Tuileries Palace. The nearest building capable of seating several hundred elected representatives in the same room was the palace stables out in what are now the Tuileries Gardens. The need to board and exercise a large number of horses had imposed a particular sort of structure. That shape in turn imposed a semi-circular seating plan on the carpenters brought in to do the emergency conversion.

It naturally followed that those who hated each other most sat as far away from each other as possible, to the extreme right and left of the podium. Thus the needs of horses helped to create our idea of irreconcilable political opposites. Had architecture permitted this semi-circle to complete itself, the reactionaries and the revolutionaries would have found themselves quite naturally sitting together.

From "The Doubters Companion", pub. The Free Press (Simon and Schuster), 1994.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,173]

Perceptive article. It echoes much of what Orwell wrote on political language in the 1940's. Many political terms - democracy, fascism, totalitarianism, freedom - have lost all meaning beyond "something good" or "something bad." And indeed, many words that we consider opposites (like 'democrat' or 'republican') exist primarily to preserve the illusion of free choice, without which the pretense of open debate cannot be preserved.

[Nightingale 0]

That article is a good explanation of why I'm a libertarian. I gave up on both the republicans and the democrats, because they're both all about controlling people, although in different ways. I want a government that exists to provide an environment where people can make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

[Gene03 0]

Yes, a very consice analysis.

To put it in different terms, "opposite sides of the same coin", or my favorite; "Politicians? Turn them upside down and they all look the same."

Thanks for a great reference.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[SpeedRacer 1]

excellent & very perceptive article. Really explains a lot.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

That article is a good explanation of why I'm a libertarian. I gave up on both the republicans and the democrats, because they're both all about controlling people, although in different ways. I want a government that exists to provide an environment where people can make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

Have you heard of or been following the court case related to the attachment?

http://givemeliberty.org/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Good article, dead on with my opinions on the subject. I'm surprised there aren't any denial posts yet in this thread ("but, but, my party/philosophy REALLY is better than the others").

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Good article, dead on with my opinions on the subject. I'm surprised there aren't any denial posts yet in this thread ("but, but, my party/philosophy REALLY is better than the others").

Ya, I guess I don't look at a party. I know I ague for the R's but I consider myself more of a conservative. Fiscally and socially. The R's today, including the pres do not fit that (my) definition of a conservative..

I think that most politions are out to get re-elected instead of doing what is right.

The party I defend (and this is only my opinion) is more civil in the debates (this will get things going I bet) but I realize that can be said depending on your point of reference

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,219]

Quote

Quote

Good article, dead on with my opinions on the subject. I'm surprised there aren't any denial posts yet in this thread ("but, but, my party/philosophy REALLY is better than the others").

Ya, I guess I don't look at a party. I know I ague for the R's but I consider myself more of a conservative. Fiscally and socially. The R's today, including the pres do not fit that (my) definition of a conservative..

I think that most politions are out to get re-elected instead of doing what is right.

The party I defend (and this is only my opinion) is more civil in the debates (this will get things going I bet) but I realize that can be said depending on your point of reference

Are you sure you're feeling well today?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Good article, dead on with my opinions on the subject. I'm surprised there aren't any denial posts yet in this thread ("but, but, my party/philosophy REALLY is better than the others").

Ya, I guess I don't look at a party. I know I ague for the R's but I consider myself more of a conservative. Fiscally and socially. The R's today, including the pres do not fit that (my) definition of a conservative..

I think that most politions are out to get re-elected instead of doing what is right.

The party I defend (and this is only my opinion) is more civil in the debates (this will get things going I bet) but I realize that can be said depending on your point of reference

Are you sure you're feeling well today?

Surprise you a little did I?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

That article is a good explanation of why I'm a libertarian. I gave up on both the republicans and the democrats, because they're both all about controlling people, although in different ways. I want a government that exists to provide an environment where people can make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

Have you heard of or been following the court case related to the attachment?

http://givemeliberty.org/

The case is basically one of the occasional ones in which people try various ways, some more creative and some less so, to craft a constitutional argument that the government doesn't have the right to levy income and similar taxes on people. Those cases always, always, always lose. This one will, too. The named plaintiffs, by identifying themselves and antagonizing the IRS, will find themselves being aggressively audited for the rest of their lives.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That article is a good explanation of why I'm a libertarian. I gave up on both the republicans and the democrats, because they're both all about controlling people, although in different ways. I want a government that exists to provide an environment where people can make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

Have you heard of or been following the court case related to the attachment?

http://givemeliberty.org/

The case is basically one of the occasional ones in which people try various ways, some more creative and some less so, to craft a constitutional argument that the government doesn't have the right to levy income and similar taxes on people. Those cases always, always, always lose. This one will, too. The named plaintiffs, by identifying themselves and antagonizing the IRS, will find themselves being aggressively audited for the rest of their lives.

I think you need to look a little deeper. This one is much much more than taxes. It is more about the clause in the constitution about redress of grievances. Taxes are just a part of it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That article is a good explanation of why I'm a libertarian. I gave up on both the republicans and the democrats, because they're both all about controlling people, although in different ways. I want a government that exists to provide an environment where people can make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

Have you heard of or been following the court case related to the attachment?

http://givemeliberty.org/

The case is basically one of the occasional ones in which people try various ways, some more creative and some less so, to craft a constitutional argument that the government doesn't have the right to levy income and similar taxes on people. Those cases always, always, always lose. This one will, too. The named plaintiffs, by identifying themselves and antagonizing the IRS, will find themselves being aggressively audited for the rest of their lives.

I think you need to look a little deeper. This one is much much more than taxes. It is more about the clause in the constitution about redress of grievances. Taxes are just a part of it.

No, taxes always has been the driving force behind this kind of stuff, and it is in this one, too. Sure, it's couched in terms of "redress of grievances", and plenty of other "redress" issues are tossed in there for good measure as cover (i.e., camouflage), but that's just the latest tactical approach. There may very well be some named plaintiffs who have been snookered into thinking this is a broader case, but they're just gullible window dressing in tin foil hats, and the people who are really behind this are laughing at them behind their backs. As the saying goes, there's a sucker born every minute. Don't be fooled. When you cut through the BS, the TRUE agenda is all about taxes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Perceptive article. It echoes much of what Orwell wrote on political language in the 1940's. Many political terms - democracy, fascism, totalitarianism, freedom - have lost all meaning beyond "something good" or "something bad." And indeed, many words that we consider opposites (like 'democrat' or 'republican') exist primarily to preserve the illusion of free choice, without which the pretense of open debate cannot be preserved.

So let's all become Libertatians...... sorry, didn't mean to precede your next assertipon

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

That article is a good explanation of why I'm a libertarian. I gave up on both the republicans and the democrats, because they're both all about controlling people, although in different ways. I want a government that exists to provide an environment where people can make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.

OMG, I wrote the previous w/o reading this!!! I agree with you, the church and other donations will care for the sick, the other 95% that the church budget won't cover can die in the f/n streets. The Libertaiian take o medical care is not only delusional, but several rungs of even the incompassionate Repubs..... it's sci-fi laughable, so much that even the greedypublicans aren't going there.

I would say any government should regulate things and that is what the gov does. To think that all people are crwated equal and that free choice is workable is beyond utopian.

[billvon 3,173]

>So let's all become Libertatians......

Right now libertarians represent a quite different political party because they have the luxury of not having to capture the popular vote - so they can base their positions on ideology rather than popularity. If they ever wish to field electable candidates, their platform will have to change to become more populist. And that will significantly change their ideology, and bring it much closer to the "center" that the republicans and democrats are occupying now.

That's one of the inevitable results of popular elections. Parties coalesce towards the more popular positions, and this tends to blur the differences between parties.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Ya, I guess I don't look at a party. I know I ague for the R's but I consider myself more of a conservative. Fiscally and socially. The R's today, including the pres do not fit that (my) definition of a conservative..

If you're fiscally conservative you would vote Dem, but I think that's an impossibility, so you really are more of an R than a fiscal conservative.

Quote

The party I defend (and this is only my opinion) is more civil in the debates (this will get things going I bet) but I realize that can be said depending on your point of reference

If you want civil debate then Obama is about as civil as it gets.

I think you're an R in denial..... most Libertarians I know are really disgruntled R's.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>So let's all become Libertatians......

Right now libertarians represent a quite different political party because they have the luxury of not having to capture the popular vote - so they can base their positions on ideology rather than popularity. If they ever wish to field electable candidates, their platform will have to change to become more populist. And that will significantly change their ideology, and bring it much closer to the "center" that the republicans and democrats are occupying now.

That's one of the inevitable results of popular elections. Parties coalesce towards the more popular positions, and this tends to blur the differences between parties.

I agree with a lot of that, essentiually become mainstream, but you must admit their medical scheme is hocus pocus. Medical care is the most compelling issue of today and has been, so to sweep it under the carpet as if it will fix itself is just idiotic. This concept of donations and churches healing teh poor is inane. If the Libertarians has a plan for that then they would garner a lot of credibility. At least the R's wanna shift it solely off on the people by way of idiotic so-called tax credits, teh LIbertarians wanna pretend it doesn't exist.

[billvon 3,173]

>but you must admit their medical scheme is hocus pocus.

I wouldn't say it's "hocus pocus" - I'd say it's more a pure ideological theory that definitely has its merits but has not yet been tempered by reality. Like their approach to environmental protection (private ownership and the courts will ensure the environment is protected.) Good idea in theory, some problems have already been seen in practice.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>but you must admit their medical scheme is hocus pocus.

I wouldn't say it's "hocus pocus" - I'd say it's more a pure ideological theory that definitely has its merits but has not yet been tempered by reality. Like their approach to environmental protection (private ownership and the courts will ensure the environment is protected.) Good idea in theory, some problems have already been seen in practice.

Perhaps hocus pocus is somewhat the wrong label, maybe "ignoring and it will go away" is better. Perhaps, "See and hear no evil since my eyes are closed" is good too. Point is, to say, "ah, tha group will take care of it s fuck it" is apathetically inane.

The Libertarians, as I understand them, solve problems by refusing to acknowledge them as issues/problems, hence, there are no problems.

Libertarians should call themselves the Darwinians, as with their system only the most capable will survive. As much as the Republican system is elitist and exclusive, it at least addresses these issues, so I must say that that I feel the current LIbertarian system is rungs below even the R system. Perhaps this is why they never get a real # of votes, but they claim it's due to this locked 2-party system. I think not. Hell, even Perot got 19% of teh populous vote, so that establishes we can deviate from the 2-party system. I think the Libertarian paltform sucks all on its own.

[billvon 3,173]

>The Libertarians, as I understand them, solve problems by refusing to acknowledge them as issues/problems . . .

I think that's an unfair characterization. They don't sit there saying "hey, let's ignore this problem and put some meaningless phrases on our website!" They have solutions that they believe will work, and indeed would probably work to some degree. I think the one thing they are missing is real-world experience in turning their ideas into valid policy.

Give them a few senate/house seats, let them start getting some experience with getting actual legislation passed, and it would be interesting to see what they come up with. It would likely be very similar to what's churning through congress now, but their views might at least bring some new insight into the process.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>The Libertarians, as I understand them, solve problems by refusing to acknowledge them as issues/problems . . .

I think that's an unfair characterization. They don't sit there saying "hey, let's ignore this problem and put some meaningless phrases on our website!" They have solutions that they believe will work, and indeed would probably work to some degree. I think the one thing they are missing is real-world experience in turning their ideas into valid policy.

Give them a few senate/house seats, let them start getting some experience with getting actual legislation passed, and it would be interesting to see what they come up with. It would likely be very similar to what's churning through congress now, but their views might at least bring some new insight into the process.

I like their ideology on governmental intrusions, but the mechanical means in which things are paid for is out of a sci-fi thriller. Especially with healthcare, they act as if charitable contributions will cover it. Hell, even with billions of US gov help the system is still in trouble and doesn't cover n1/6 of the population, scantly covers the rest other than teh rich.