Видео

This topic feels a bit like splitting hairs. It's just plain easy to say I lean left or right. What's so unfortunate is that in recent times, we've brewed up this hostility toward one side or the other. It wasn't so long ago that President Reagan (R) and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil (D), engaged in some pretty hot debates with each other - then they'd go have dinner together. They liked and respected one another. They understood the need for checks and balances. They weren't threatened by an opposing viewpoint. In short - they were adults. What we have today in Congress are a lot of unruly children who all want their own way, and they throw tantrums if they can't get it. Politicians, such as they are by necessity - used to be more educated, open-minded, intellectual, and mindful of who they serve. They understood that compromise was a part of the deal; and they didn't fear having their agenda modified to fit the greater good. Yes, they fought for it, but when they had to give a little to get things done, they accepted it. Humility, character, and class are qualities we don't see much of anymore; not only in Congress, but in the electorate too. We're placing our own selfish desires far ahead of our practical sensibilities. Sounds like your typical teenager, right?

And the rwo idiots that went out of their way to block the camera

Great talk, as said. But at the end, when they start talking about the differences between two-party systems and multi-party systems, they're clearly stepping out of their area of expertise and showing that typical American ignorance (even there in academia) of the world outside of the US. They mention the UK having a three-party system and coalition governments - that's happened once since WWII.

Yeah, some really important points here, I think. Even if their account should be complemented with the work of people like Jonathan Haidt and George Lakoff. I mean, for instance, there are literally conservative dispositions and literally progressive dispositions out there and the clash between those dispositions is and always has been a big part of political life. Though a) the clash can be healthy or unhealthy, and b) what people of both dispositions actually want depends very much on what the status quo is - so, for example, people of a conservative disposition in the latters years of the Soviet Union wanted to preserve old school communist ways of doing things, and people of progressive dispositions wanted to welcome in market incentives and so on.

Great stuff! Joe Nashville

Who came from Leo Gura ?

This is a great talk and valuable information despite issues I might have with their ideas. "The Myth of Left and Right" seems to be a social or sociopolitical look at the political one-dimension of left v right, but is sorely lacking any material analysis. Here's what I mean- when they discuss where the false concept of "left v right" started, it seems almost a priori and emergent. This false dualism starts in the 20s, takes off in the 60s, and is normal discourse now, because humans are inherently tribal and inherently wanting of simple answers. That's the explanation they give. And it benefits the 2 political parties as they can just provide tribal rhetoric to agitate their political bases. Is there any discussion on the role of power and profit here? I can think of some movements that were outside of the mainstream D vs R, left v right political divide: the Black Panther movement, the anti-globalist movement of the 90s, the 99% movements after the 2008 crash, the current ongoing attempts to stop cop cities and defend the forests, anything Indigenous people try to do (yes they're still fighting for rights and freedoms in this day and age). Can you think of a trend with all these? They've been crushed, co-opted, and outright killed for their challenge to power. Also-reality check, universal voting power has only been granted to all U.S citizens with the passing of the civil rights act in the 60s... so less than 100 years. The U.S has been a settler colonial slave state for far longer than it has been a bastion of liberal democracy. When the enslaved Africans in Haiti won their liberation from the slavers, the leadership in the U.S had a heart attack. All this to say- the 100ish year discussion of left v right is certainly a red herring. I would also contend it's actively being used by the moneyed interests to keep their power entrenched- not some emergent phenomenon of human tribalism. When Reagan loosened regulations on newscasting and right wing think tanks pumped millions of $$ to make Fox news in the 80s-90s, was that just some symptom of peoples' needs for simple explanations? We know social media companies explicitly show enraging content to its users to drive higher engagement and this has been the case for at least 10 years... but we blame human tribalism and not the billions of dollars specifically generated from creating such divides as L v R? Is "tribalism" really something that we just naturally do, and have to "civilize" ourselves away from? Or are there interests in power whose existence specifically relies on us being as diverted, scattered, and chaotic as possible? Do you think big oil would have a chance if the average person could actually foment political change?

years ago you liked or disliked a policy and you liked or liked or disliked somone becouse they supported that policy you we start of hating the person and then hating the purely becouse there adocating them

LIES! RICH, ruling class capitalist oligarchic lies! You know who really benefits from obscuring the fact that the traditional left-right spectrum is real? The owning class CAPITALIST people … the ultra-rich, ruling class, ownership class, ideological capitalist class, the top 1% of the asset owners and wealth holders and their enablers of the top 5% of the economic wealth curve … those whose wealth is wedded to their ideological hyper-commitment to CAPITALISM … that’s who wants you to question the material reality of the “left versus right” political spectrum. The rich capitalist wants to lie to you and convince you “there’s no reality to this left-versus-right spectrum and the political division that we create with it.” And tricky liars like these men here will gladly take a few crumbs from the rich to lie to their fellow working class citizens that there’s no such thing as “left versus right” and that really there’s no consistent objective way to sort citizens and their values or political interests into a two dimensional system. Except there is. In a capitalist society there is the wealthy capitalist class … those who own the assets, the businesses, the corporations, the banks, the “means of production”, factories, offices, equipment, infrastructure, rights for resource extraction, land, etc. and use this private ownership (either direct or via shares of stock) to do two things: hire laborers to do the work using all the things he owns and use the “rights of ownership” to extract surplus economic value from the laborers and keep this surplus for himself as profit. Critically the capitalist does not work in order to live and pay for his housing, food, clothing, consumer goods and other things … he uses the profit generated by the labor of others to do this. The rich ownership capitalist DOES NOT WORK. He owns, and because of his legal right to own he uses the profit extracted from the WORK OF OTHERS to pay for his life. This is contrasted to the LABORER, the wage earner, the paycheck cashing citizen, the small entrepreneur who works for himself and might even have a few employees, the modern-day gig worker of most kinds. This is the vast majority of us citizens. We own little or nothing of lasting value ( In the mid-to late-20th century the “American Dream” included every working class, lower 95% family or person who supplied just 20 to 40 years of full-time labor of even the lowest paying sort to the capitalists would expect to afford owning a middle class house and the small piece of land around it … the capitalists took that part of the dream away between about 1990 and 2010 so they could keep that as more profit for themselves … homeownership is now off the table for all but the highest paid wage-earning laborers … a vanishingly small percentage) and most of us have little or no savings. (Until the late 20th century full-time laboring people lived off their savings … months or even a year or two of their saved wages … and we paid with cash or a check from our savings … that too is a thing of the past. The capitalists wanted these savings as profit for themselves and invented consumer credit cards … debt owed to a rich capitalists’ bank … to replace savings owned and controlled by the laborers.). These people … us … are the 95% of the citizens who do ALL the productive work in society and to our economic system. Whether we can see it easily or not, we all work FOR the rich capitalist ownership class of people who are extracting “surplus value” from our work and profiting from it and keeping this profit for themselves. The rich capitalists and liars like these paid-for intellectual shills and propagandists for the rich capitalists love for the rest of us … the hardworking laboring class … the lower 95% on the economic wealth curve … to listen to this video here and come away from it nodding our heads and thinking, “yes, it sure does seem like so many of the ‘cultural issues’ that divide us are impermanent, and shifting, and temporary, so why don’t we stop analyzing our society in terms of “left versus right’ because it does us social and ‘intellectual harm’ and keeps us divided and maybe it’s all an illusion anyway?” Then their work would be done hiding the fact that their is a very real, measurable, material and economic significance to the “left versus right” political debate and it comes down to our capitalist system of economics and the wealth accumulation and massive inequality that capitalism and our current laws encourages to grow. The rich ruling class economic conservatives (and their enablers and mouthpieces like these guys) would like to have the rest of us laborers in the lower 95% believe there is no reality between partisan, bipolar politics in the country, because this draws attention away from them, and their numerically tiny minority status in our democracy. The power laboring 95% has is with our numbers and the overwhelming power we can exert when we all push together in one direction. Or, in the case of “left versus right” politics, if we all collectively pull together and drag the power and the wealth of this great country back towards us again, back to where it belongs, so that the majority of Americans can begin readily enjoying far more of the benefits of all the labor we supply, instead of allowing the rich on the right to hoard more and more and more of it every year for themselves alone.

This is really superficial. Being “left” or “right” fundamentally comes down to something far more evolutionary than just mere shifts in attitudes. The personality and moral psychology research is really clear about this: the left is more egalitarian and the right is more hierarchical. You can trace this cross-culturally. You don’t need the labels to empirically see this pattern. They’re also totally leaving out Ancient Greece and Rome, where you have the Democrats and Oligarchs in Greece and the Optimates and Populares in Rome.

Age old story. Divide and conquer.

Hiram has 4 examples: 1) how watching Fox news forms your opinion (he mentions Fox in particular, not other outlet) 2) how knowing what Donald Trump thinks dictates how conservatives think, 3) How conservatives are “problematic” when they think in terms of left/right, and get letters from conservative organizations, and 4) again how watching Fox News prejudices your opinion. Seriously?? If Left/Right was brought in in the 1920s, it was by communists, as he says, and it was to divide us into groups. The issues themselves don’t matter-as he points out himself, they change drastically-just the division. That’s the real issue. -----I feel kind of stupid having accepted this dichotomy over the years too much, but Hiram is clearly still stuck thinking in these terms. Thinking of Fox news as the culprit shows tangibly that he has not come to understand that the machine is in charge, and he accepts Fox as the focus of his criticism rather than a useful vehicle for keeping people from understanding the machinery of propaganda that we have in this country.

How to turn 200 words into 20,000.

He's wrong. It's our plurality-based election system ONLY that drives this mad quest for control over POWER. It incentivizes bad behavior, and thus duopoly devolves in time even further into the uni-party: incumbents versus everyone else. Incumbents don't want to DO any work; so they don't even give their own faction's powerbase the things they want, EVEN when they control the entire government. It's not because humans are so stupid that we see politics through a mono-dimensional lens. It's because the interests of smaller groups MUST be flattened by the reward structure of our bad plurality-based election methods. 2-party politics will end when we institute range-score voting and shortest-split-line districting to eliminate gerrymandering, impose maximum income & wealth limits.

I am what most people call a conservative, actually a classical liberal. I loath Donald Trump, and I would vote for any reasonable alternative. But there is no reasonable alternative that can win. Trump is no conservative. Voting for Trump is cutting my arm off, voting for Biden is cutting my head off. I will not vote anyway since in Illinois the fix is in.

Propaganda dressed up as intellectualism 😂

---------- How Dual Brain Psychology Affects Our Politics. . Most of us experience complete dominance, meaning that one hemisphere or the other completely dominates our brain’s contribution to consciousness. Complete dominance divides us into two distinct groups, creating the basis of polarization. . By comprehending the split-brain’s influence on our perspective and response we learn what is dividing us and with this are able to create a mental roadmap to end our divisions. Our tendency is to want to educate those on the other side of the argument, but in most cases, others feel the same way about us. . Thus, if you find yourself on one side or the other, know that you are part of the problem.

People should be hesitant in pushing for change. Rather than using bad to determine what needs changing we should use broken, dysfunctional, or obsolete Something you view as bad you should take a 2nd look at from the perspective of what about it works? How much worse off would we be if it didn't work at all. Who would be in pain if it stopped working? What would be the difference between what you would consider good vs it's current state. Who would be better off? Would anyone be worse off? Change will always cause some one pain To replace an old system with a new one. You're removing the organic that had gone through trial and error over time to becomei increasingly fit to all needs & maximally fine tuned

Andrea needs to retire she can't speak and is having a difficult time getting her words out. Whe is full if shit anyway. So pathetic the anchors on MSNBC are they hate Trump so much and they couldnt even explain why if you forced them to give you a real reason. Not a lie that they pedal, but an actual reason.

But then you have 'the status quo' which is just right of center on this spectrum. Isn't the argument over a spectrum within a spectrum, as in maintaining the status quo? A moderate would look like an extremist to the status quo

Ranked Choice Voting, is the key to bringing about a true multi-party political system where you need to form coalitions with other parties to get things done instead of everyone either being in your party or the dreaded, evil, other party. It is part of The American Anti-Corruption Act.

This is an attitude that I live by, and I think the world would be a much better place if everyone adopted it: "If what you say is actually true, I would want to know it too. It's not that I have this bias from the onset and you'll never convince me and I'll never convince you, no that's wrong. You can convince me, and if it is true I want you to convince me ... and I will thank you for convincing me." Aron Ra

This is commercialized, “Both siding it” or “enlightened centrism.” additionally, nowhere are these historians contending with the veracity of these participants' claims or feelings based on an objective standard.

This is basically paid propaganda … Probably applies to America only After all , there are Marxists ( left ) and fascists ( right ) But a fascist and a Marxist could agree that education is important. Or women should have rights . Racism is always a right wing issue . In America , right vs left can be defined based on anti or pro black That never changes in America

The US elections system usually works on a winner-take-all system, and that enforced a two-party system. And if you can only have two real parties, then you must have a dualist spectrum. If we could close our own basket of goods and our vote would count, Left-Right politics would disappear.

This guy should listen to Matt Christman sometime

No one thinks left/right is about change. Being on the left has always been understood to mean favoring people who are perceived as disempowered, disadvantaged, or both; being somewhat to the right means being nominally neutral (which amounts to favoring the oppressor); and being definitely on the right means believing that order should actively be created or maintained. Insofar as people focus on existing hierarchies, being on the left correlates with favoring change. In the last few decades, though, past attempts to mitigate disadvantage have been eroding, so being on the left has meant trying to protect the surviving remnants of programs from the New Deal and Great Society eras. Socially, being on the left meant trying to uphold case law including Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas; as well as trying to uphold the very concept of rights as something that applies to everyone (including the disadvantaged), in contrast to privileges that come from rank, wealth, or conformity. In more optimistic times, fools imagined that the arc of history would bend toward justice. So it was assumed that favoring justice would usually mean speeding up change. But justice was always the core of the left/right concept, and change was only ever a correlate. Different people have different ideas about what advantages or disadvantages are most important. People supposedly acting in the name of the disadvantaged have often been self-serving. Different rationalizations for opposing justice have been prominent at different times. So there's some variation. But the core of the left/right distinction has always been some variant of justice versus some excuse for injustice. Meanwhile, no one has ever said that politics is only about left versus right. Sectional, religious, and ethnic concerns have always been present. Even different actual beliefs about what's efficient and effective have occasionally made it through the noise. But left/right has always been one thread in politics, and it has become more prominent since the interstate highway system diluted the effects of regionalism, and since the advent of mass communication (culminating in the era of three-network television) diluted some of the cultural distinctions.

For countries which do not even have a two-party system, a superimposition (or worse a mindless or even worse, a scheming import) of this (to use the word of Lewises) "myth" is, imo, at least one order higher absurdness because, unlike citizens of such countries, Americans have to--whether they like it or not--pick from only two choices.

To understand why the GOP refuses to work with Democrats, you have to understand the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt. While "The Concept of the Political" is incredibly stupid, it's also incredibly divisive. The GOP adopted this "friend or foe" concept in 1995 and have vowed ever since to stop co-operating and just oppose governance. The goal is the destruction of the Constitution.

Hey looks you got: Biden : Cultist Liberal Racist Trump: Cultist Conservative Racist Label and picking two sides of a pea, + shallow diversity is the goal of western democracy. Enjoy it.

The people don't have this monist conception of politics. The establishment media has it, because it is easy, and because they have no incentive to think any harder than they have to when producing content. It is so much easier to simply parrot the Democratic party narrative of the moment.

Neither left or right is basically right to paraphrase Marx.

I have a related idea... I call it political GPS. A way to avoid spin. Really how do you know where you even are? I talked to a guy so spun around that he said that Hitler was a socialist and therefore everyone on the left is evil and everyone on the right is good. He had no idea where he was. I keep with the most fundamental questions of government. 1) How many people is power divided among? 2) how many rules do we need? You’ll notice corps have their own special treatment here in America. 3) How do we split up the money? Every form of government answer these questions and the governments that answer these questions similarly also share a similar set of problems. All of the sudden you see the problems of different forms and you know where you are and more importantly can steer away from bad leaders and ideas because you can see the problem ahead. It’s also educational with a natural bias towards the center. It is pretty simple to talk about how if one person is in charge of all the power then if you have a bad leader then everything is bad in your country. Whereas if everyone has power to vote on every issue then debate is impossible to hear everyone out on that issue, you might as well just vote without debate. People now don’t even vote every 4 years. Both extreme positions are problematic. Too many rules is a police state too few rules is effectively anarchy. If one person has all the money then money is meaningless and capitalism crashes. On the other side if everyone make exactly the same money then you have communism and the poverty of everyone. It’s instructive to talk in terms people understand not in the doublespeak of politicians. “Supporting democracy” to a republican may sound like a bad thing if your opposition is named Democrats. “Rule by the people” sounds like something everyone can get behind.

Absolute trash. Left is always towards equality, and right is always towards hierarchy. A person can be left on one issue and right on another. No problem. The bolshevics were towards equality (left), but using authoritarian means to get it (right). Lenin even talked shit about people he called "ultra-leftists," who thought they could achieve socialism without the authoritarian methods that he supported. This video would have made perfect sense if it was about democrats and republicans because those titles dont really mean anything. The democrat party is not a leftist party. My explanation of this is not controversial. It is the normal explanation in political science. The explanations they use in this video are strawmen. If you think you have an issue that de-bunks my simple explanation, let me know and ill explain.

Of course, there is truth within this approach, and I have a lot of sympathy for it, but its problem is the attempt to ahistorisize politics. Take an example given about the linking of anti-abortion and low taxes. Of course, it is correct that it is possible to find ppl who don't agree with one thing or the other, but will cast their vote for Republican party to codify one of those issues, but what they seem to leave out is how those issues ended up under the same political banner.

Someone should download and edit and remove the 60Hz hum. Somehow I missed it the first time.

Presenters boring, impressed w themselves and redundant. title should read "Low T nerds explain politics"

It all started with the French

Where does the constitution fit in here, ie freedom of speech?. Pro constitution, anti constitution…. But you certainly make a case for a third party and mor choice on the ballot.

This speaker is heavy on sophistry, misstating political science facts, and sounds like a religious creationist video. The straw-man framing & overall dishonesty is gross, such as In reality the Left direction indicates an increased preference for egalitarianism, while Right indicates preference for hierarchy.

Conservatives are reactionaries. Liberals are centrists.

Liberals and conservatives are both right of centre. What we’ve experienced over decades is the neo-neo debate. Neo-conservatism versus neo-liberalism. By contrast, the political left, at its core is concerned with anti-capitalism.

Otra cosa que estos señores ignoran es que la "relatividad" de los dos polos concierne a las posiciones moderadas, no a las extremas y violentas.

Estos señores olvidan la faz agónica de la política, su lado de lucha y conflicto. El marxismo es izquierda, y condena como derecha todo lo que no sea marxismo. Esto sucede en Sudamérica porque la derecha tiene mala prensa. Además la extrema izquierda cuenta con la invaluable ayuda de la Iglesia Católica. La metáfora de la "medicina" que estos señores usan es totalmente equivocada.

Yo creo, por el contrario, que la negación de la diferencia de izquierda u derecha favorece mucho al marxismo, es decir, a la extrema izquierda.

We have left or right. The rulers have left and right. Can't fight Mike Tyson with one fist.

I think the idea is that the left generally tracks the interests of labor and the right tracks the interests of capital. To go beyond left and right you'd have to understand that policies that are good for some are bad for others. For that reason extremes in politics are generally bad. The best approach would be to have a system that can find balance between the stakeholders.

I don't know, man. Anti-abortion and tax cuts map pretty well onto basic rights and responsibilities of the individual. No doubt lots of people are in it because of Social factors, but acting like there's no philosophical basis for these ideas is pretty suspect.

Western society is a liberal society. There is a left and right wing of this society. The left by it's nature constantly pulls farther forward while the right acts as a brake of sort.

ps. Ranked choice voting of some form might eliminate the pitfalls of a multi-party system and build coalition. If you need minimum 50%, you have to build consensus.