A few things I recommend reading:
A lot of good stuff from Matthew Yglesias some thinking on the issue of growth, resource allocation etc. Brings back to the issue that GDP measurement is awfully inadequate - maybe, since there is no better single indicator, we should start tracking a combination of indicators?? (like GDP, health data, income distribution, GDP composition etc.) - and also a nice post on health care...
And from the Dish on prohibition - reminding us that the desire to modify the other is not only from the right, but also from the left...
Enjoy!
Showing posts with label right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right. Show all posts
Monday, 8 December 2008
Left and right - alternate edit
Here is the original version of my post on left and right, which I had lost...some few additional ideas, so I just post it too...
First, let me link again to this excellent description in Secular Conservative:
Brilliant. Reminds me that in my opinion the pre-Enlightenment thinkers, in particular Montaigne and Pascal, were real temperamental conservatives: they could see all the evil with the status quo, but thought efforts to change it would likely make things worse. Many, but not all, Enlightenment thinkers thought the world could be improved, easily...Some were more realistic, in particular Voltaire: he cared, but was highly sceptical too...
Here is the post itself - sorry, not edited:
What are left and right? One of the smartest accounts of it is certainly Marchel Gauchet’s in the Lieux de Memoire, t.1 – unfortunately not available on line… In a nutshell, both are a lot about identity, memory, emotional links to one side or the other. One comes from a “left” or “right” family. In Italy, I have even seen this partly linked with and/or replicated by attachment to a football team. One supports the Roma or Lazio because grandfather did – and often this means also that one supported the Communists, or the (Neo-)fascists, etc. So, left and right as identity markers, taking partly over from the village, or religion, etc., in a time of urbanization and secularisation.
What might left and right otherwise really mean, in terms of politics and ideology. Two ways to approach this: “temperament”, or precise ideological contents. I tend to think temperament makes more sense (see in secular conservative the summary). Here is why: ideology-wise, what was left became right, and now maybe the opposite may become true…
Ever since the French Revolution occurred, and the terms made their debut, there has been a “race to the left”, or a gradual entry into the mainstream of ideas that were first thought revolutionary, but then were pushed “rightwards” by the emergence of more “progressive” ideas. This movement was essentially driven by the left becoming the party of “equality” rather than “liberty” (not necessarily against liberty, but with more emphasis on equality). This analysis is best seen in Furet- La Revolution Francaise.
There has always been a tension, however, and a return movement too. As the left became more associated with promoting/protecting certain social categories, it took a certain “corporatist” character, that was more in keeping with what the right had been in the early days of the French Revolution. This is not just a recent evolution, but one that was visible in the second part of the 19th century already.
Some transfers of ideas from left to right (or vice-versa) were also not just the result of the emergence of more radical proposals, and the “natural” push of previous radicalism “rightwards” as a result, but of a real “takeover” of ideas by the other side. This is most famously the case of nationalism which, while introduced in the Revolutionary times by the left (i.e. the Revolutionary movement), was taken over fully and with enthusiasm by the (far) right, and became a fantastic driver for it, in the late 19th century – and onwards, forever as it seems.
Interestingly, one could have assumed that, since the extremes of both left and right had demonstrated their essential similarity in results in the 1930s, the understanding of the misleading nature of left and right as ideologies would be understood. The Cold War, however, prevented this – but on what ideological delusion was it supported?
> some real issues: colonies, foreigners, sex, change?? Culture??
> Poverty/ what to do about it?
> Temperament
> At the end – Montaigne/Pascal/jansenistes vs. Lumieres (but maybe not all of them? Voltaire as right-wing libertarian or not even – conservative??) – in fact drawn both to the realism of the first and their attention to perverse unexpected consequences AND to the world changing enthusiasm of the 2nd (because otherwise nothing ever happens)
First, let me link again to this excellent description in Secular Conservative:
The Secular Left asks, why not?
The Secular Right asks, why?
The Religious
Left demands that we should, “Because god wills it!”
The Religious Right
asserts that we can’t, “Because god forbids it!”
Brilliant. Reminds me that in my opinion the pre-Enlightenment thinkers, in particular Montaigne and Pascal, were real temperamental conservatives: they could see all the evil with the status quo, but thought efforts to change it would likely make things worse. Many, but not all, Enlightenment thinkers thought the world could be improved, easily...Some were more realistic, in particular Voltaire: he cared, but was highly sceptical too...
Here is the post itself - sorry, not edited:
What are left and right? One of the smartest accounts of it is certainly Marchel Gauchet’s in the Lieux de Memoire, t.1 – unfortunately not available on line… In a nutshell, both are a lot about identity, memory, emotional links to one side or the other. One comes from a “left” or “right” family. In Italy, I have even seen this partly linked with and/or replicated by attachment to a football team. One supports the Roma or Lazio because grandfather did – and often this means also that one supported the Communists, or the (Neo-)fascists, etc. So, left and right as identity markers, taking partly over from the village, or religion, etc., in a time of urbanization and secularisation.
What might left and right otherwise really mean, in terms of politics and ideology. Two ways to approach this: “temperament”, or precise ideological contents. I tend to think temperament makes more sense (see in secular conservative the summary). Here is why: ideology-wise, what was left became right, and now maybe the opposite may become true…
Ever since the French Revolution occurred, and the terms made their debut, there has been a “race to the left”, or a gradual entry into the mainstream of ideas that were first thought revolutionary, but then were pushed “rightwards” by the emergence of more “progressive” ideas. This movement was essentially driven by the left becoming the party of “equality” rather than “liberty” (not necessarily against liberty, but with more emphasis on equality). This analysis is best seen in Furet- La Revolution Francaise.
There has always been a tension, however, and a return movement too. As the left became more associated with promoting/protecting certain social categories, it took a certain “corporatist” character, that was more in keeping with what the right had been in the early days of the French Revolution. This is not just a recent evolution, but one that was visible in the second part of the 19th century already.
Some transfers of ideas from left to right (or vice-versa) were also not just the result of the emergence of more radical proposals, and the “natural” push of previous radicalism “rightwards” as a result, but of a real “takeover” of ideas by the other side. This is most famously the case of nationalism which, while introduced in the Revolutionary times by the left (i.e. the Revolutionary movement), was taken over fully and with enthusiasm by the (far) right, and became a fantastic driver for it, in the late 19th century – and onwards, forever as it seems.
Interestingly, one could have assumed that, since the extremes of both left and right had demonstrated their essential similarity in results in the 1930s, the understanding of the misleading nature of left and right as ideologies would be understood. The Cold War, however, prevented this – but on what ideological delusion was it supported?
> some real issues: colonies, foreigners, sex, change?? Culture??
> Poverty/ what to do about it?
> Temperament
> At the end – Montaigne/Pascal/jansenistes vs. Lumieres (but maybe not all of them? Voltaire as right-wing libertarian or not even – conservative??) – in fact drawn both to the realism of the first and their attention to perverse unexpected consequences AND to the world changing enthusiasm of the 2nd (because otherwise nothing ever happens)
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
...the worst right in the world...
Some years ago, a right-wing politician wrote a book called "La droite la plus bete du monde" - the most stupid right in the world. I think I remember his idea was that France was essentially conservative, and somehow the right still managed to lose elections. I can't remember what his solution was, does not matter either. My point is: the right we have now in France, or at least the President and his cabinet, are really among the worst in the world. Granted, they still have Berlusconi to look down to, but soon they won't even have Bush.
I keep fighting against this French disease of misusing and abusing this beautiful word: "liberal" (often additioned with "neo"). I argue with good friends saying Sarkozy is "(neo)liberal". I mean, seriously, people? Even in the French meaning of "supporter of free markets": Sarkozy is more statist than the Socialists, he wants a French sovereign funds to hold "golden shares" in key industrial companies! His few free market proposals are usually withdrawn as soon as anyone screams against who could damage his prospects, say taxi drivers in Paris, even though there are NO TAXIS there at night, on Saturdays etc. Let's not liberalize, it could cost votes. So he is a liberal?
Well, surely he is no political liberal. Even though the cabinet in the meantime backed down and criticized the district attorney who ordered the raid (remember, the cabinet appoints district attorneys in France), the police two days ago raided a high school and went with dogs in classrooms to, apparently, look for marijuana (seems they found nothing of notice). They searched kids, rather brutally. Scared the hell out of them. Just read.
Or the hunt for illegal immigrants, including kids at school. Or the proposed reform whereby 12 years old could now be imprisoned. Or the proposal to lock up psychiatric hospitals completely, as if these were not enough hard for their patients. I mean, liberal? Do words have a meaning?
So if he is no liberal and not even a free-marketeer, what is he? An early 19th century "reactionnaire" (not even a conservative), this is what. Decrease taxes for the rich. Beat the hell out of the poor. Lock up foreigners and expel them, even the children, they are filthy. Scare the "bourgeois" and keep their votes.
Sarkozy is not France. He won (massively) only the "over 60s", and Segolene Royal (narrowly) won all the other age groups. He represents fear. Reaction. Brutal and unjust order. And, yes, sometimes he does do a couple of reforms which make sense (more autonomy for universities, which have less in France than in any other country with a decent higher education system - or a bit less red tape here and there), but this is on a really dark background.
Now, actually voters seem to think that socialists are better at running things, and they elected them massively at the local level. But why do they always run an identity-based campaign, talking only to their own frightened old "petits bourgeois"?
Segolene actually had some good points in her campaign, including not leaving "law and order" to the right, but at the same time talking to the immigrants' children. But she was a lousy campaigner and debater, and is far too much showing her arrogance (all politicians are arrogant - it is a question of showing it), and she does say a lot of nonsense too. Delanoe would have been good - but claiming the liberal heritage sunk him - can you imagine this? several centuries of progress, you just can't claim them as yours! How stupid are these people? Oh, when will we get open primaries?
I keep fighting against this French disease of misusing and abusing this beautiful word: "liberal" (often additioned with "neo"). I argue with good friends saying Sarkozy is "(neo)liberal". I mean, seriously, people? Even in the French meaning of "supporter of free markets": Sarkozy is more statist than the Socialists, he wants a French sovereign funds to hold "golden shares" in key industrial companies! His few free market proposals are usually withdrawn as soon as anyone screams against who could damage his prospects, say taxi drivers in Paris, even though there are NO TAXIS there at night, on Saturdays etc. Let's not liberalize, it could cost votes. So he is a liberal?
Well, surely he is no political liberal. Even though the cabinet in the meantime backed down and criticized the district attorney who ordered the raid (remember, the cabinet appoints district attorneys in France), the police two days ago raided a high school and went with dogs in classrooms to, apparently, look for marijuana (seems they found nothing of notice). They searched kids, rather brutally. Scared the hell out of them. Just read.
Or the hunt for illegal immigrants, including kids at school. Or the proposed reform whereby 12 years old could now be imprisoned. Or the proposal to lock up psychiatric hospitals completely, as if these were not enough hard for their patients. I mean, liberal? Do words have a meaning?
So if he is no liberal and not even a free-marketeer, what is he? An early 19th century "reactionnaire" (not even a conservative), this is what. Decrease taxes for the rich. Beat the hell out of the poor. Lock up foreigners and expel them, even the children, they are filthy. Scare the "bourgeois" and keep their votes.
Sarkozy is not France. He won (massively) only the "over 60s", and Segolene Royal (narrowly) won all the other age groups. He represents fear. Reaction. Brutal and unjust order. And, yes, sometimes he does do a couple of reforms which make sense (more autonomy for universities, which have less in France than in any other country with a decent higher education system - or a bit less red tape here and there), but this is on a really dark background.
Now, actually voters seem to think that socialists are better at running things, and they elected them massively at the local level. But why do they always run an identity-based campaign, talking only to their own frightened old "petits bourgeois"?
Segolene actually had some good points in her campaign, including not leaving "law and order" to the right, but at the same time talking to the immigrants' children. But she was a lousy campaigner and debater, and is far too much showing her arrogance (all politicians are arrogant - it is a question of showing it), and she does say a lot of nonsense too. Delanoe would have been good - but claiming the liberal heritage sunk him - can you imagine this? several centuries of progress, you just can't claim them as yours! How stupid are these people? Oh, when will we get open primaries?
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Giving thanks to whom?
I loved this secularist conservative/libertarian take on Thanksgiving:
And let me point to a few more posts on this brilliant blog, that proves that the American right is not yet entirely brain dead:
- on creationist nonsense:
- on left and right definitions:
If the secular right defines itself this way, along Montaigne's tradition, then it makes sense to read what they write...
The problem for the nonbeliever is not that there is no one to thank for our good fortune but that there are more targets of gratitude than we can possibly acknowledge.
And let me point to a few more posts on this brilliant blog, that proves that the American right is not yet entirely brain dead:
- on creationist nonsense:
...evolution is one of those things where I have a very high degree of certitude as to whether it is true or not, such that I feel ridiculous wasting my finite life discussing its truth or not.
- on left and right definitions:
The Secular Left asks, why not?
The Secular Right asks, why?
The Religious Left demands that we should, “Because god wills it!”
The Religious Right asserts that we can’t, “Because god forbids it!”
If the secular right defines itself this way, along Montaigne's tradition, then it makes sense to read what they write...
Political spectrum
"Obama is a socialist" -
now that he has been elected (and he has picked his economic team), we could laugh about this statement. But let's rather pick it apart:
(1) it means that "socialist" is an insult - interesting from Europe where pretty much every country is or has been governed in recent years by a socialist or social-democratic party...
(2) it means that, for many, any attempt at having the State provide some sort of health coverage for all and/or some kind of redistribution is "socialism" - which just indicates a very wide understanding of words indeed
(3) it illustrates the difficulty of communicating political debates across the Atlantic - some of the issues:
now that he has been elected (and he has picked his economic team), we could laugh about this statement. But let's rather pick it apart:
(1) it means that "socialist" is an insult - interesting from Europe where pretty much every country is or has been governed in recent years by a socialist or social-democratic party...
(2) it means that, for many, any attempt at having the State provide some sort of health coverage for all and/or some kind of redistribution is "socialism" - which just indicates a very wide understanding of words indeed
(3) it illustrates the difficulty of communicating political debates across the Atlantic - some of the issues:
- the Republican party is now so far "right" that many of its members would not even be accepted in "mainstream" extreme-right/neo-fascist parties in Europe - they would have to go to the "lunatic fringe" of the splitter-microparties. Say, Sarah Palin. Why? because no one remotely electable in Europe would stand for creationism - put in another way: no one would vote for a creationist!
- the political discourse in the US is still defined at least in part by "fear of the reds", even though 1917 and the Cold War are long past - the only other country where I can think of something partly similar (on the right only) is Italy (but obviously with very different roots)
- at the same time, the US sees, and has seen, massive State intervention in the economy, and everyone wants more, or nearly everyone!
Now, Obama probably would sit somewhere on the centre-right in most European countries, simply because the political field is in a different place altogether. But, lest you think this means you can just say Europe is more to the "left" or America to the "right" - where do you expect the next Prime Minister or President to be black???
[and, a wink to despairing French leftists, where do you get real primaries to choose your leader?]
But this leads us neatly to the car industry, I guess?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)