Left or Right?

[Maximus]

Politically, I was a Jeffersonian Liberal (in the Enlightenment sense of the term, believing that government derives its powers from the just consent of the governed, limited Federal involment in the affairs of the States, and Free Market Capitalism). I still am. The catagories in the poll do not really seem to fit, except perhaps "other."

[Devils_Advocate]

I was a die hard, gun loaded, bible thumping Republican. Socially, I was less controlling than others (my 'soft' stance on immigration and marajuana) who called themselves Republican, but I was mostly on board with the rest (the whole 'abortion is murder', 'marrige is man-woman only'). Economically, I was almost laissez-faire. I did, however, support minimal welfare, taxation, and public services such as roads. I didn't support private currencies either. I was sort of a mixture between William Buckly Jr. and a softer Milton Freidman.

Thinking back on it, if I ever met myself exactly 1.5 years ago today, I'd probably slap him (me) and tell him (myself) to get a brain.

A much better thread would be: Before you discovered Objectivism, where were you on the intellectual spectrum?

This is interesting for me; until I read Rand, I never quite grasped the idea of a "contradiction in terms". I lived and spouted die hard logic and reason, and used that for my explanation for almost everything. But when it came to religion - I was a self-blinded, mystical, "god is independent from logic", intense bible-waving Christian. Thank God I had the logic behind me - I might never have become an objectivist. The only reason I found Rand was because I heard AS had some pro-capitalist views.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Devils_Advocate

[John McVey]

During the whole time until I became an Objectivist I was all over the place economically, but always an atheist and socially pro-freedom from age 13 on. Economically, I was never communist but I have been from socialist on up. By the time I was early 20's I had already worked my own way towards capitalism, and was told about the existence of Objectivism because of what I was talking about on the Usenet.

JJM

[MichaelH]

Before discovering objectivism, I was a rather unintegrated leftist.

I would not have called myself socialist, but in retrospect I was. The problem, and it's something I didn't realize until today, was that I committed the Atlas Shrugged sin of calling myself "the public".

I thought people should feel bad for driving large vehicles. Didn't they realize "the public" needed cheap gasoline and they were using more than their share? I thought that right up until my little car got rear-ended and totaled. I bought a Suburban to replace the little car, but felt guilty about it.

Because I couldn't afford auto insurance in CA for many years, I thought the government needed to make it a priority to invest in better public transportation. Didn't they realize "the public" needed reliable, timely transportation? Once I had a car, I realized how much superior it was to public transportation.

My view on health care is shifting similarly. I used to think universal health care was such an obvious good thing I couldn't imagine why anyone would be against it. I'll have actual health coverage from my employer starting in January. I'm honestly not sure if I'd prefer federalized health care to what I'm getting; all of my options are very rather expensive! However, now I recognize that my opinion is based on pragmatism rather than sound philosophy.

And, of course, I made the same shift on taxes just about everyone makes. When I was just starting out, taxes were the cost of having an advanced society, of providing necessary services to "the public". Now that I'm working professional-level and have bought a house, I realize just how much taxes hinder and shackle the economy. At least I now have the philosophical backing to remain anti-tax when I'm retired and it's other people are paying the bill!

[fletch]

Economically: Right

Socially: Largely indifferent, but sided mainly with the right because I so detested the left.

As an aside, it seems that President Bush has revealed himself to be an economic liberal and a social conservative. Not sure how many people fall into that odd category, but it might explain his poll numbers.

[flatlander]

I was raised in a devout Catholic household, my parents were staunch pacifists of the "Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek" mentality. My parents were "right" leaning on social issues, ie, they were vehemently anti-abortion, against premarital sex and birth control. I lived a very sheltered life in a little town with a large Catholic population, so topics like so-called "gay rights" weren't really on our radar. When they did talk about homosexuality my parents described it as a sinful perversion, but that homosexuals themselves weren't irredeemably evil. Economically my parents didn't really seem to have a position on the role of government in the economy. They thought socialized heathcare was what made us Better Than Those Americans (ugh!!). I remember them voting for either Liberal or Progressive Conservative (now there's a name for a political party with neurotically mixed premises. Oh, Canada!!! ) candidates, depending on who claimed they were "pro-life." They were essentially one-issue voters.

As a child I followed along with my parents views, as many kids do. As my teenage years progressed, I gradually reflected upon, and rejected, every one of my parents premises. Without telling my parents, of course. I attended Catholic youth-movement events when I was in high school mainly to get away from my home town and meet girls. I sat through all the indoctrination and basically ignored it.

In my university years I was largely apathetic to politics, seeing them as irrelevant. Over time I began to agree with the economic positions of the right. I also agreed with the right on crime and punishment and being in favor of a strong military. This was an especially important position in Canada, for our military had been stripped down to tragically low levels of capability under the UN peacekeeping model and the resulting Liberal funding cuts.

I diverged widely from the right on social matters. I knew socialized health care was not all it was cracked up to be, but was unsure how (or why) it was bad. It bothered me that the right had conceded to the left that the discussion on health care was over. I was pro-abortion in that I recognized that it was a question of a woman's sovereignty over her own body, but I was against taxpayer funding of abortion. "Gay rights" didn't matter much to me. I thought that whatever two consenting adults did with each other was none of the government's business. I didn't think it was a big deal if gays wanted legal recognition of their relationships, so I was in favor of legalized civil unions. I didn't think it should be called marriage. But my biggest opposition to the right was their rejection of Darwin's theory of evolution. As I have a background in biology, I thought it was ludicrously irrational that anyone would consider Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as scientifically valid. So the right bothered me for their anti-intellectual attitudes towards science. As far as religion goes, I became agnostic in my early twenties and an undeclared atheist shortly thereafter.

So, I held a series of general principles that were in favor of man's right to his own life, in favor of limited government, and in favor of capitalism. In short: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As I began to frequent political discussion boards in my mid-thirties, I saw myself as a fiscal conservative, then as a right-libertarian. It was in discussion with other such individuals that I first learned of Ayn Rand and became a student of Objectivism. And my only regret is that I had never heard of Ayn Rand when I was in high school.

[flatlander]

Economically: Right

Socially: Largely indifferent, but sided mainly with the right because I so detested the left.

As an aside, it seems that President Bush has revealed himself to be an economic liberal and a social conservative. Not sure how many people fall into that odd category, but it might explain his poll numbers.

You would be surprised how many fall into that category. Most of my family does. Check the premises of a lot of social conservatives and you will find that they agree with Christian Leftists on a disturbing number of issues. The biggest difference is that Christian Leftists tend towards pacifism and anti-Americanism.

Edited February 11, 2009 by flatlander

[cliveandrews]

I was a classical liberal prior to discovering Objectivism. My political views haven't changed much except in the area of foreign policy.

Edited February 16, 2009 by cliveandrews

[SD26]

I was very apolitical for most of my life. Having kids go to school changed that.

Economicall, right. Less control.

Socially, right. Which is only the need to establish some control when the social issues get out of control. Social liberals have little control other than welfare for all in the interest of fairness. Conservative social control serves to try and slow that down as it has no moral compass to fall back on.

Edited February 17, 2009 by SD26

[Space Patroller]

Do I read aright?

"In social matters

Left (less government controls)

Right (more governemtn Controls)'

WHAT THE #@$% ARE YOU @&%#&ING TALING A#^#^INGBUTO!!!??? Pardon My French but I just picked up my jaw and have to practice with it after re-attaching it.

On a far distant planet called Earth, the left was responsible for forced busing, the food police, gun confiscation, government education monopolism, complsory seat belt use (called "seat belt nazis"), Environmentalism (as much a religion as any; they want to see "global warming deniers: tried and jailed), mandatory re-cycling (when you're scavenging paper,you're really a basket case), racial quotas and set-asides (read "Whates need not apply") and the whole lockstep thing that is called "Political Correctness". (a term used on college campi c1988; "politically correct" meaning leftist and was used in the same way in the early Soviet Union). They're so fascistic that P.J. O'Rourke called them "saftey nazis' and Dr. Dean Edell wanted to subtitle his book "Why the Health Nazis Are Wrong" but his stones-free publisher put the kaibosh to it and made him use "Nags". In fact, "social Engineering" in some insidiious sense of the term has come to be synonymous wiht the left which has routinely supported the Soviet Union and Red China and Cuba (those bastions of social freedom). Any questions? Aren't you glad you don live on Earth?

This is Politics 101 not 392. They make the Christian theocrats look like stark raving Objectivists.

Has anyone read THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION or THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO ("State Ownership of News Organs") unless you want to tell me that Marx was a Rightist (please do and totally discredit yourself)

Over thirty years ago. CBS used to run a thing on Saturday morning for kids called "In the News". It was 1 or 2 minute segments between programs. One was the difference between liberals and conservatives and it said that "liberals favor government action in many matters" and the graphic was of a green map of the US with a whole bunch of armw extending from Washington DC to all points. It reminded my of "The Octopus".

The reason you don't see it is that the mainstream media is in cahoots with the left or even part of it so they just pump out the party line. What would the left do if it dind;t have the universities and media in the tank? Take a thermonuclear blowtorch to the First Amendment at lightspeed.

This is so bass-ackwards, it calls the mentality of the poster into doubt and the credibility of the forum into question on the basis of fraud (the claim that nothing disrespectful to Objectivism will be allowed here).

Who is minding the store that let that whopper in? Alfed E Neuman? It's a total disrespect of anything Objectivism.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Space Patroller

[FeatherFall]

That last post of yours strikes me as an overreaction, Space Patroller. I'll admit that I don't think the left is the standard bearer of social freedom, but they did strike me as better than "God owns your body from conception to life-support" social conservatives, if only by degrees. I entered 'socially left' when I took the poll, though there is confusion over classic liberalism and new left liberalism. I never bought into affirmative action, reparations or the fairness doctrine, so in retrospect I might have selected 'other' to signify classic liberal.

I was a free-market anarchist (and a high school student) before I seriously started to consider Objectivism, but had read The Fountainhead as early as middle school. I was an easy sell on the need for a government in order to provide for a judicial system. I began to identify with the LP, but moved away as I learned more about the importance of a grounding philosophy and began to understand that the LP lacked one.

I mirrored my parents political leanings until late high-school. I voted for Ross Perot in my 2nd grade mock election, then for Harry Browne in an early high school mock election. I remember harboring a strong dislike for the Clintons from before I was even capable of intelligently evaluating political figures.

[SD26]

That last post of yours strikes me as an overreaction, Space Patroller. I'll admit that I don't think the left is the standard bearer of social freedom, but they did strike me as better than "God owns your body from conception to life-support" social conservatives, if only by degrees. I entered 'socially left' when I took the poll, though there is confusion over classic liberalism and new left liberalism. I never bought into affirmative action, reparations or the fairness doctrine, so in retrospect I might have selected 'other' to signify classic liberal.

I agree with Space Patroller, and, as a result, I could not find a way where I could vote in the poll as I do not recognize it as being representative of each side.

I'll redirect.

"New left liberalism" is really a radical system. Certainly real liberals are recognizing this as their voice is being squashed by the radicals also. The religious have been bashed by liberals, so their only course of action was to hang their hat with conservatives. Additionally, with liberalism being corrupted into the mainstream government system by radicals, which really has nothing to do with individual freedom, the conservatives have only fought this by going into trying to continue to redefine issues within the frame of government as it is reconstructed by the radicals.

In the end, radicals serve only to generate more power for their goverment elite and to generate hopelessness for the masses of liberals and conservatives. Give them no choices. Give them no opportunities. Give them no voice. That is their revolution that has probably been going on for over fifty years.

[Chris.S]

my brother and i were raised in the "do what you want as long as you dont hurt anyone else or break the law, and always do your best" sort of fashion. through high school i went back and forth on the spectrum based on the information presented, but always staying close to "the middle". being an army brat caused me to be a bit at odds with a lot of people in high school since i was pro-military action. and since my family always shopped at the discount stores (not really a bad thing), i always wanted to make lots of money - which requires "elbow grease and space" as my grandpa says (ie, hard work and freedom). and my brother and i never liked or went to church unless our grandma bribed us with ice cream.

but i never had a philosophic/conscious/intellectual basis for my political views until AS and TFH, and i never wanted to be a political activist until reading those either. but in Canada, we have 3 left-wing parties (2 far left and 1 getting farther and farther left every day), and 1 right-wing but leftward-leaning party - so i really had no choices except independent. luckily i recently found Freedom Party of Canada/Ontario through Paul McKeever, so that's my new party of choice.