What do you think distinguishes those on either side?

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
What would be the fundamental difference, if any?

Obviously I’m not talking about issues. For example there are a good number of folks on either side that are for some sort of gun control or abortion.

It would seem to me to be a matter of (perceived) individual rights vs the (perceived) collective good.

Any other possible differences?
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,712
7,384
1
What would be the fundamental difference, if any?

Obviously I’m not talking about issues. For example there are a good number of folks on either side that are for some sort of gun control or abortion.

It would seem to me to be a matter of (perceived) individual rights vs the (perceived) collective good.

Any other possible differences?
not sure if this is what you're looking for but......democrats believe and have believed for a long time that big federal government - government can solve most problems - is the way forward. Republican believe and have believed in a long time in limited federal government, more power to states and individual responsibility
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
32,215
39,282
1
Oscar-II-Socialist-v-Conservative.jpg
 

RoyalT12

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2020
6,391
4,762
1
What would be the fundamental difference, if any?

Obviously I’m not talking about issues. For example there are a good number of folks on either side that are for some sort of gun control or abortion.

It would seem to me to be a matter of (perceived) individual rights vs the (perceived) collective good.

Any other possible differences?
The right is about “me”, the left is about “all”. Simple.
 

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
not sure if this is what you're looking for but......democrats believe and have believed for a long time that big federal government - government can solve most problems - is the way forward. Republican believe and have believed in a long time in limited federal government, more power to states and individual responsibility
I thought that a possibility as well. I’m unsure, however, if that state vs federal government issue is simply a means of distinguishing the end goal of either individual freedom vs collective good.
 

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
The right is about “me”, the left is about “all”. Simple.

I think you'd agree that goes to the individual rights (Right) vs. collective good (Left).

So as a corollary, can we agree that, to some extent, the Right is willing to forego the collective good in exchange for individual rights and vice versa (the Left will is willing to forego individual freedom for the collective good)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR4PSU

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,860
12,121
1
SE PA
I thought that a possibility as well. I’m unsure, however, if that state vs federal government issue is simply a means of distinguishing the end goal of either individual freedom vs collective good.
Right = Individual freedoms
Left = Collective control

I would not necessarily say that the left is based on the collective "good", because many of the positions the left takes I would not qualify them as being for "good". They are, however, based on control.
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,860
12,121
1
SE PA
The right is about “me”, the left is about “all”. Simple.
That's absolutely false.

#1: The right is about individual freedoms to decide for myself, which may be to come to a conclusion that is not necessarily good for "me" specifically, but it is I that gets to choose.

#2: The left is NOT about "all". They are about minorities, which is definitely not "all". The left's positions are rarely, at least recently, for the good of "all". They are usually targeting a small minority at the expense of the large majority.

Defund the police is definitely not good for all, but addresses black folks' angst. Abortion is not good for all, it targets women's concerns but ignores the life of an unborn child. Which is more important, someone's mental health or someone's life? Trans-athletes competing targets a VERY small segment of the population but hurts a VERY large segment of the population. I could go on-and-on-and-on.
 
Last edited:

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,712
7,384
1
I think you'd agree that goes to the individual rights (Right) vs. collective good (Left).

So as a corollary, can we agree that, to some extent, the Right is willing to forego the collective good in exchange for individual rights and vice versa (the Left will is willing to forego individual freedom for the collective good)?
no that is not something I would agree with. There is a place for the collective good and individual rights at the same time. One does not negate the other. Take National security for example - collective good. Desiring to serve or not - individual right.
There are some among us, through no fault of their own, who cannot support themselves. We as a society, in my opinion, have a responsibility to help.
I really don't think either party supports an either or when it comes to collective good or individual rights. Its a matter of degree, IMO
 

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
no that is not something I would agree with. There is a place for the collective good and individual rights at the same time. One does not negate the other. Take National security for example - collective good. Desiring to serve or not - individual right.
There are some among us, through no fault of their own, who cannot support themselves. We as a society, in my opinion, have a responsibility to help.
I really don't think either party supports an either or when it comes to collective good or individual rights. Its a matter of degree, IMO
I agree.....it is a matter of degree. But generally speaking, the left is willing to forego the individual for the good of society. I'm certainly not saying that it is an all or nothing proposition, though I'm sure there are some on either end of the spectrum who would support such an idea (at least in theory).
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,880
38,814
1
What would be the fundamental difference, if any?

Obviously I’m not talking about issues. For example there are a good number of folks on either side that are for some sort of gun control or abortion.

It would seem to me to be a matter of (perceived) individual rights vs the (perceived) collective good.

Any other possible differences?
As Thomas Sowell said "You can't subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible". Yet that's the democrat plan. When it doesn't work they say it's because they didn't subsidize it enough.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,777
11,760
1
I agree.....it is a matter of degree. But generally speaking, the left is willing to forego the individual for the good of society. I'm certainly not saying that it is an all or nothing proposition, though I'm sure there are some on either end of the spectrum who would support such an idea (at least in theory).

The left is willing to forego the individual for the good of society except when that individual is them. "You all need to travel less and use one sheet of toilet paper after a dump to save the planet, but I am too important not to fly my private jet all over the world for convenience and to have 4 inefficient, energy sucking homes around the US. I am doing my part for the cause by making my voice heard."
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted and bdgan

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
My original post was innocuous enough that I thought more folks on the left would have responded.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
6,230
10,588
1
It is no mystery.

Men and women with good men are conservatives.

Most women (except those with good men) and weak men are liberals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,448
7,942
1
What would be the fundamental difference, if any?

Obviously I’m not talking about issues. For example there are a good number of folks on either side that are for some sort of gun control or abortion.

It would seem to me to be a matter of (perceived) individual rights vs the (perceived) collective good.

Any other possible differences?

The left wants to control (socially engineer from a macro perspective) our lives - what we do, think, and say... And they want us to be materially impacted if we don't agree and fall in line.

That is the fundamental difference.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
44,637
15,775
1
I think you'd agree that goes to the individual rights (Right) vs. collective good (Left).

So as a corollary, can we agree that, to some extent, the Right is willing to forego the collective good in exchange for individual rights and vice versa (the Left will is willing to forego individual freedom for the collective good)?
This used to be somewhat true prior to Trump. Now the Right is an Authoritarian White Nationalist Party who will sacrifice individual rights for a Right Wing Authoritarian stongman.
 

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
The left wants to control (socially engineer from a macro perspective) our lives - what we do, think, and say... And they want us to be materially impacted if we don't agree and fall in line.

That is the fundamental difference.
But to what end? I could see a politician (somebody in a position of control) wanting that control for their ego. But why would an NJPSU or a LaffyBear want that?
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,704
7,832
1
The right is about “me”, the left is about “all”. Simple.
Except when it comes to who pays taxes, who can exercise their constitutional rights, who can riot, who can use identical language when it comes to inciting violence, who can use racism etc....then the "all" magically gets tossed out the window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,448
7,942
1
But to what end? I could see a politician (somebody in a position of control) wanting that control for their ego. But why would an NJPSU or a LaffyBear want that?

The answer to that is complex, but in a nutshell, they have been trained/conditioned to want that.

The "end" is that they think that if everyone lives/thinks a certain way, it's just better - more correct. They have been trained to believe that when their party determines that a particular way is better, that makes it virtuous enough that everyone should live that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,704
7,832
1
This used to be somewhat true prior to Trump. Now the Right is an Authoritarian White Nationalist Party who will sacrifice individual rights for a Right Wing Authoritarian stongman.
Lol you actually believe this
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
The answer to that is complex, but in a nutshell, they have been trained/conditioned to want that.

The "end" is that they think that if everyone lives/thinks a certain way, it's just better - more correct. They have been trained to believe that when their party determines that a particular way is better, that makes it virtuous enough that everyone should live that way.

If that is true, can the same not be said about those on the right? That they have
been conditioned? It’s not like this is communist China and a person doesn’t have a choice.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
107,937
62,504
1
The right is about “me”, the left is about “all”. Simple.

It's actually totally opposite.

The left is all about themselves. Thomas Sowell wrote a book about it over 20 years ago. The theme was "self congratulations as a matter of social policy."

Here's one great example.

https://nypost.com/2013/11/22/the-war-america-lost/

As with the war in Vietnam, LBJ got the escalation he wanted for his War on Poverty. And the federal dollars started flowing in. From 1965 to 2010, more than $23 billion in federal aid was pumped into Appalachia for highway construction, water lines, public buildings and so forth.

Hundreds of billions more in aid came via welfare, food stamps, jobless benefits, economic-development incentives, affordable housing, worker training, Head Start and so on. On top of this, private charities still send volunteers each summer to build or repair homes.

What never came were the results LBJ promised when he launched this war: a victory that would “conquer poverty” and “chart an entirely new course of hope for our people.”

It hasn’t turned out that way in Kentucky. A former elementary-school principal says that even the children in this area find themselves sucked in by the culture of dependency. “Instead of talking about a future of work, or a profession, they talk about getting a check,” he says. “That’s what they’ve heard all their lives.”

The quotation and the facts and figures all come from an extraordinary dispatch published a few days ago in the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader. In it, John Cheves describes the devastations of 50 years of federal aid on people who’ve traded one form of impoverishment for another.

“The problem facing Appalachia today isn’t Third World poverty,” writes Cheves. “It’s dependence on government assistance.”
--------------------


Listen to the choice of words of LBJ "conquer poverty", "chart an entirely new course of hope for our people." It's about him, not the result. It's always that way. The left is thoroughly self absorbed. Selfish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

TN Lion

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
33,614
14,037
1
You never had sexual with a woman, did you?
Sure he did. She was nice but it was odd Maypo thought that her hair was longer on one side and the part in her hair was off to that side. And that she wore a turtle neck on their date to the beach.
 

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,448
7,942
1
If that is true, can the same not be said about those on the right? That they have
been conditioned? It’s not like this is communist China and a person doesn’t have a choice.

Well, first, I said it was complex - And I mean it's more complex than what I put in that response. But that response generally makes the point.

Secondly, to answer your Q here: For as long as I've been paying attention to politics, a percentage on each side has been trained/conditioned to blindly accept their party's narrative/agenda (effectively outsourcing their thinking/thoughts regarding political issues). So yes, of course that phenomenon exists on the right as well.

BUT:
1. At this point, as people like me leave (and trust me, I'm not claiming to be some unique independent thinker - There are many of us who effectively detached from the Democratic party over the past several years) that percentage is approaching 100% in the Democratic party. Whatever the percentage is for the Republican party, it's much much less.
2. While there are a few pet issues in the Republican party where, if they got their way, the issue would exert control over the general population (with regard to the issue), but trying to control virtually every aspect of how people live, think - and even what they say - isn't a modus operandi of the party like it is the Democratic party today.

The Republican party isn't constantly trying to socially engineer our way of life, but the Democratic party is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,878
2,545
1
Well, first, I said it was complex - And I mean it's more complex than what I put in that response. But that response generally makes the point.

Secondly, to answer your Q here: For as long as I've been paying attention to politics, a percentage on each side has been trained/conditioned to blindly accept their party's narrative/agenda (effectively outsourcing their thinking/thoughts regarding political issues). So yes, of course that phenomenon exists on the right as well.

BUT:
1. At this point, as people like me leave (and trust me, I'm not claiming to be some unique independent thinker - There are many of us who effectively detached from the Democratic party over the past several years) that percentage is approaching 100% in the Democratic party. Whatever the percentage is for the Republican party, it's much much less.
2. While there are a few pet issues in the Republican party where, if they got their way, the issue would exert control over the general population (with regard to the issue), but trying to control virtually every aspect of how people live, think - and even what they say - isn't a modus operandi of the party like it is the Democratic party today.

The Republican party isn't constantly trying to socially engineer our way of life, but the Democratic party is.

I'm going to preface by saying, you are correct that this is complex and I can't help but go off on tangents.

One could argue that capitalism is a means of social engineering through the market. So perhaps the difference between the right and the left is the means by which "social engineering" occurs? (Though I don't think capitalists (and, therefore, conservatives) necessarily care about social engineering unless it affects them personally. I suppose that is more libertarian. )

If "social engineering" is the differentiating factor, I think it goes back to what the person wants to achieve and, perhaps more importantly, at what price. (I think the price being personal freedom.) How much freedom is a person willing to relinquish? And for what purpose? Or perhaps, it is a matter of how much of somebody else's personal freedom a person is willing to forego.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) I think where we are going is taboo. Perhaps this is why those on the left haven't been engaging in this thread. Whether it is social engineering or a willingness to give up freedoms (one's own freedoms but, more importantly, OTHERS freedoms), it is not a topic that those on the left are willing to discuss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoulderFish

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,448
7,942
1
I'm going to preface by saying, you are correct that this is complex and I can't help but go off on tangents.

One could argue that capitalism is a means of social engineering through the market. So perhaps the difference between the right and the left is the means by which "social engineering" occurs? (Though I don't think capitalists (and, therefore, conservatives) necessarily care about social engineering unless it affects them personally. I suppose that is more libertarian. )

If "social engineering" is the differentiating factor, I think it goes back to what the person wants to achieve and, perhaps more importantly, at what price. (I think the price being personal freedom.) How much freedom is a person willing to relinquish? And for what purpose? Or perhaps, it is a matter of how much of somebody else's personal freedom a person is willing to forego.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) I think where we are going is taboo. Perhaps this is why those on the left haven't been engaging in this thread. Whether it is social engineering or a willingness to give up freedoms (one's own freedoms but, more importantly, OTHERS freedoms), it is not a topic that those on the left are willing to discuss.

Yeah, this is getting too deep for the amount of time I have today. :)

I will say thought that since capitalism is, and has been since the beginning of our country/society the framework within which we all agreed to live and operate, arguing that capitalism is a means of social engineering is like saying physics is a means of engineering the physical technology and devices we use to survive and thrive here on Earth. In other words, I don't think that analogy tracks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitanee123

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,704
7,832
1
Absolutely. If Putin was running against Biden, the new MAGA Republican Party would happily vote for Putin and rally for him.
Then you need to revisit your understanding of white nationalism and individual rights.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
107,937
62,504
1
Absolutely. If Putin was running against Biden, the new MAGA Republican Party would happily vote for Putin and rally for him.

Likewise, if Hitler was running vs. Trump, you clowns would be on the Hitler bandwagon.

This is why you are the board jester.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,817
765
1
Likewise, if Hitler was running vs. Trump, you clowns would be on the Hitler bandwagon.

This is why you are the board jester.
trump loves dictators. MBS, Xi, Putin, Orban. Why would he run against one?