Mediaboss Marketing

My laptop has decided to stop charging, so this will be a quick one, whilst I have battery-life before I can go out and resolve the issue (hopefully its just the cable or power-pack/transformer).

I have been thinking about the key differences between the left and the right in general. And I noticed something which seems remarkably obvious, but that doesnt seem to be talked about much.

http://www.carlsontoons.com

In very broad strokes, the left believe in big government; the right believes in limited government.

By big government, the left generally means a body that does what is needed to secure the freedom of the citizenry by doing its best to quash systemic unfairness; the social safety net, free healthcare, free education, etc. In effect, it should be possible to have a decent life, even if youre in poverty.

By limited government, the right generally means doing what needs to be done to limit taxes and the government programs they fundand maximise the individuals ability to spend their own money as they see fit, with as few limitations as possible. Of course, maximising the ability to spend means precious little to people who are in poverty, they already spend, on average, 100% of their income.

Its worth noting that the left in one sense wants the same as the right, they want to spend their money in ways that benefit society as a whole and, in particular, elevates those at the bottom, so they elect the politicians that will do that.

Simplified even further. The left believes that life is not fair, and that, as fellow human beings, we should do what we can to support people when they are negatively impacted by that unfairness. The right believes that life is fairand that people get what they deserve. They will do what they can to improve their lives, and if that happens to benefit others, well thats just peachy.

This means that the right is voting for people like them, but at the same time voting for people who do not represent their interests because their representatives are looking to get into the government that they believe should be minimised. A politician with a long tenure, therefore, benefits from the incumbency effect, despite that incumbency being illustrative of failure to achieve the stated goal of their ownpolitical beliefs.

By contrast, the left is voting for people like them, who do represent their interests, because their representatives are looking to get into government in order to improve the standing of their constituents by expanding government. A politician with a long tenure, then, is a good thing except that politicians are almost invariably more right-leaning than the average left wing voter, especially in the States (because, as I have noted before, politics and religion are primarilyright-wing activities).

Of course, this is not something that those on the right believe, so whilst the liberal politician is almost invariably centrist, they are often painted as 70s-era unionists (in the UK), or outright socialists (in the US), when they are in fact, for the most part, more like the right, than the left-wing voter really wants.

Let that sink in.

The right is voting for people that they dont want in office, at all. The left isvoting for people that will do in the meantime, and who are more representative of the centre ground than the right-wing would care to admit.

Indeed, there does seem to be a trickle of more genuinely left-wing politicians coming through, particularly in the UK (and theyre mostly youngand female). So, there is the possibility that left-wing voters will be able to vote for people that represent their views (though not in the States, until the entrenchment of the two party system is addressed).

In the meantime, the right continues to be the people most likely to vote, and they continue to successfully elevate, and be apologists for, people they dont actually want to have as representatives.

Read the original:
The absurdity of the Culture Wars - Patheos (blog)