on the left we find a focus on ideas like liberty, equality and progress, while on the right there's more focus on authority, hierarchy
It's authoritarianism versus liberty.
Always.
The left or right cannot have liberty to function. ...Same BS, different labels.
(the leftist mindset is more authoritarian - it has to be to maintain the collectivist mindset idiocy - history tells us so)
Yes, I see it also as an over-simplification and I like to explain why.
The so-called representatives in politics and their directions cannot hide the fact that they represent nothing more than themselves and their personal interests. As long as people at the centre of power believe that a few representatives can represent millions of individual people, nothing will change in the fact that these people remain convinced that they are capable of doing so. Which they are not.
No human being is capable of speaking and deciding on behalf of so many people. Governments, by their very nature, probably only came into existence because of monetary sovereignty, trade and border agreements. For example, to settle conflicts with neighbouring countries and to resolve armed conflicts diplomatically.
A government that has succeeded in settling border conflicts, regulating the inflow and outflow of goods and services at the borders and passing on the results of the negotiations has then completed its temporary task and ceases to govern.
Think of it as between two families who are at loggerheads and since the dispute cannot be settled, one sends the people chosen for that situation at a time to negotiate with the neighbours. Once the negotiations have been successful, the content has been decided in consultation with the family members and the dispute has been settled, the representatives return to their real work and are no longer representatives. From now on, they take care of their own local (family) concerns. Until the moment when a new situation arises and either conflicts are settled or wars break out. One way or another, every dispute ends at some point. The disputants seize to be disputants and go back being farmers, laborers, merchants, crafts men, doctors and so on and so forth.
But what has happened instead - on a grand scale - is that a so-called elected government has simply stuck to governing. Representation has been conceived as a permanent institution in which new representatives have always lined up and from this, politics has been established. Since there was basically nothing to do in a time of peace, people thought about what else there was to do. That's crucial, if you ask me.
"For the country and the people" and so on.
The representatives simply enjoyed representing too much and since they would otherwise have run out of work, they invented more and more issues and problems that, from their point of view, could only be solved by them and them alone. The myth of a representative democracy was born. But there is no such thing. No federal government, and certainly no central European government, has ever been in a position to know what would be good for the people. Because they are not with the people and no longer belong to these people. No matter who makes themselves heard and attaches importance to themselves on the political chairs of the right or the left, nothing will change the fact that it is not understood that governing is always a finite matter and must not be permanently established centrally.
Re-elections and limitation to a few years should not hide the fact that such permanent governance is unnecessary and even harmful, because over the duration of such fixed houses of representation, a huge structure is formed around them, more and more sectors work for the houses and are sworn to an ideology in which people stick to the labels and are forced to consider the resistances arising in them - the confluence of all conceivable positions - as non-existent and therefore disregard them.
Where power is concentrated in this way, it does not matter how it is labelled, is my point of view.
I'd tend to disagree with this take with regard to what the idealized version of american conservatism is. I see conservatives as more representing individuality by prioritizing individuals first over groups or identities. It focuses on laws and even handed application of law - it believes this included doing this consistently, over decades, even centuries. It holds tradition in high regard and moves on from them only grudgingly- it looks askance at what it sees as degraded falls from tradition into chaos. It is skeptical of the ability of government to help through meddling schemes that claim progress. It also tries to avoid either rule of the mob or rule of a king- representatives preferred. It can have the fault of tending to preserve old mistakes or outdated ideas even when the rationale for them has ended- but in it's best form it upholds truth and liberty as high values.
I dont think we see it in this ideal form today. Much as progressive politics is often limp wristed centrism and platitudes with no relief for the oppressed in sight- but at it's best it is a tech forward egalitarian ideology that looks to move the needle in a positive way for those who are struggling. What you termed the "status quo".It is more understanding of difference and quicker to embrace new positive things even when untested. This can be both good and bad at times. It's good when it is based on reason, logic, evidence, carefully considered. It can be cone bad and reinforce dogmatism however when it becomes based entirely on emotion driven factors as is often the case.
I actually believe the old left right dichotomy is crumbling and being g replaces by an authoritarian vs libertarian split in today's politics.
on the left we find a focus on ideas like liberty, equality and progress, while on the right there's more focus on authority, hierarchy
It's authoritarianism versus liberty.
Always.
The left or right cannot have liberty to function. ...Same BS, different labels.
(the leftist mindset is more authoritarian - it has to be to maintain the collectivist mindset idiocy - history tells us so)
Your post is reblogged and upvoted by me. It is a good post. Thank you @zyx066
Yes, I see it also as an over-simplification and I like to explain why.
The so-called representatives in politics and their directions cannot hide the fact that they represent nothing more than themselves and their personal interests. As long as people at the centre of power believe that a few representatives can represent millions of individual people, nothing will change in the fact that these people remain convinced that they are capable of doing so. Which they are not.
No human being is capable of speaking and deciding on behalf of so many people. Governments, by their very nature, probably only came into existence because of monetary sovereignty, trade and border agreements. For example, to settle conflicts with neighbouring countries and to resolve armed conflicts diplomatically.
A government that has succeeded in settling border conflicts, regulating the inflow and outflow of goods and services at the borders and passing on the results of the negotiations has then completed its temporary task and ceases to govern.
Think of it as between two families who are at loggerheads and since the dispute cannot be settled, one sends the people chosen for that situation at a time to negotiate with the neighbours. Once the negotiations have been successful, the content has been decided in consultation with the family members and the dispute has been settled, the representatives return to their real work and are no longer representatives. From now on, they take care of their own local (family) concerns. Until the moment when a new situation arises and either conflicts are settled or wars break out. One way or another, every dispute ends at some point. The disputants seize to be disputants and go back being farmers, laborers, merchants, crafts men, doctors and so on and so forth.
But what has happened instead - on a grand scale - is that a so-called elected government has simply stuck to governing. Representation has been conceived as a permanent institution in which new representatives have always lined up and from this, politics has been established. Since there was basically nothing to do in a time of peace, people thought about what else there was to do. That's crucial, if you ask me.
"For the country and the people" and so on.
The representatives simply enjoyed representing too much and since they would otherwise have run out of work, they invented more and more issues and problems that, from their point of view, could only be solved by them and them alone. The myth of a representative democracy was born. But there is no such thing. No federal government, and certainly no central European government, has ever been in a position to know what would be good for the people. Because they are not with the people and no longer belong to these people. No matter who makes themselves heard and attaches importance to themselves on the political chairs of the right or the left, nothing will change the fact that it is not understood that governing is always a finite matter and must not be permanently established centrally.
Re-elections and limitation to a few years should not hide the fact that such permanent governance is unnecessary and even harmful, because over the duration of such fixed houses of representation, a huge structure is formed around them, more and more sectors work for the houses and are sworn to an ideology in which people stick to the labels and are forced to consider the resistances arising in them - the confluence of all conceivable positions - as non-existent and therefore disregard them.
Where power is concentrated in this way, it does not matter how it is labelled, is my point of view.
I'd tend to disagree with this take with regard to what the idealized version of american conservatism is. I see conservatives as more representing individuality by prioritizing individuals first over groups or identities. It focuses on laws and even handed application of law - it believes this included doing this consistently, over decades, even centuries. It holds tradition in high regard and moves on from them only grudgingly- it looks askance at what it sees as degraded falls from tradition into chaos. It is skeptical of the ability of government to help through meddling schemes that claim progress. It also tries to avoid either rule of the mob or rule of a king- representatives preferred. It can have the fault of tending to preserve old mistakes or outdated ideas even when the rationale for them has ended- but in it's best form it upholds truth and liberty as high values.
I dont think we see it in this ideal form today. Much as progressive politics is often limp wristed centrism and platitudes with no relief for the oppressed in sight- but at it's best it is a tech forward egalitarian ideology that looks to move the needle in a positive way for those who are struggling. What you termed the "status quo".It is more understanding of difference and quicker to embrace new positive things even when untested. This can be both good and bad at times. It's good when it is based on reason, logic, evidence, carefully considered. It can be cone bad and reinforce dogmatism however when it becomes based entirely on emotion driven factors as is often the case.
I actually believe the old left right dichotomy is crumbling and being g replaces by an authoritarian vs libertarian split in today's politics.