6 ms·
> A reasonable model of politics is that left-wing parties are norm-driven and right-wing parties are driven by self-interest. Or the opposite - when the Left
by implements 4y ago
> A reasonable model of politics is that left-wing parties are norm-driven and right-wing parties are driven by self-interest.
Or the opposite - when the Left seeks social justice it is to satisfy the self-interests of the relatively poor, and the Right often justify relative inequality by appeals to social norms around ethnicity, tradition and (supposed) class virtues.
- happytoexplain 4y agoYeah, you can categorize tons of political behavior as driven by norms or self-interest. Those are fundamentals, not particularly more left or more right.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- watwut 4y ago> when the Left seeks social justice it is to satisfy the self-interests of the relatively poor This works only if you assume that left is composed of only or primary "relatively poor". Otherwise the concern is not self-interest.
- michaelmrose 4y agoThe relatively poor could be generating substantial economic value for the the rich and providing useful services for the folks in the middle or they could be costing substantial resources to poorly manage on the street, wandering into emergency rooms as a train wreck and causing massive bills both in terms of law enforcement, social services, and medicine that they will never pay back based on whether we think affordable housing and safety nets matter. A functioning society is in everyone's interest. Only the really rich can afford to trivially live somewhere else and profit enough from austerity to net out to positive even while wrecking else's backyard which is why its so strange to see those in the middle jumping on that train.
- serverholic 4y agoI don't know why you're getting downvoted. Social norms serve to uphold the status quo which is a right-wing position.
- lazyeye 4y agoI find this absurd. The idea that those on left dont also have their own norms (which they police ruthlessly) is ridiculous.
- serverholic 4y agoMaintaining the status quo is absolutely a right wing position, and current social norms absolutely do serve to maintain the status quo. In our society we have an idea of an "ideal" human being, and the norms are designed to serve those people. Are you a tall, white, straight, neurotypical, handsome, wealthy, sports loving, business-minded person? Great! You'll fit right in. Anyone else? Well you're kind of a failure and you should try as hard as you can to act like the ideal person.
- lazyeye 4y agoYou seem to be conforming to a particular set of norms yourself very well.
- serverholic 4y agoI'm not sure what you're implying.
- lazyeye 4y agoThere is injustice in our society no doubt and there are many ways of interpreting this and how it should be understood. You simply appear to be following the very narrow railroads tracks (norms) of a particular ideology without seemingly any attempt at independent or critical thought.
- lazyeye 4y ago"Or the opposite - when the Left seeks social justice it is to satisfy the self-interests of the relatively poor" It also suits the interests of the rich if everybody is constantly arguing about issues that cost them nothing (gender norms etc) but at the same time ensures the spotlight is always on something other than them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- watwut 4y agoGender norms have quite concrete and material impact on people.
- lazyeye 4y agoSo does wage inequality (doesnt get remotely the same level of attention though "for some reason").
- watwut 4y agoEconomic inequality is written about constantly? Unless you mean something much more specific. The theory is opposed by one radical party, but it is talked about both by journalists and politicians. Most importantly, I responded to claim that this is not affecting people and "costs them nothing". It is actually affecting real world people.
- lazyeye 4y agoI couldnt disagree more. In terms of breadth of coverage all the woke stuff get ways more coverage and interest. I don't how any objective person could say otherwise.
- nverno 4y agoI don't think that is a very good explanation of conservative vs. liberal, at least in regard to economic policies. I'd say it's more a matter of conservatives focusing on the incentives created by policy, while the liberal focuses more on its intention. The conservative analyzes the incentives from the viewpoint of a self-interested individual, as we all are to varying degrees. One can be a proponent of liberal policy, another of conservative policy, but both be interested in helping the relative poor- they just disagree on the means to achieve similar goals.
- shanebellone 4y agoThe distinction between left and right is probably how one defines responsibility.
- serverholic 4y agoLeft and right have specific meanings that unfortunately have been muddled over time. The concept of left and right began in the french revolution when people were arguing inside a government building and they grouped up on the left and right sides of the room. The people on the right wanted to maintain the existing socioeconomic hierarchy whereas the people on the left wanted to get rid of the hierarchy in favor of more equality. So left means against hierarchy and right means pro-hierarchy. This is confusing because historically people like Vladimir Lenin were actually considered right wing because, even though he was a communist, his policies were very much pro-hierarchy.
- georgeecollins 4y agoSocial conservatives in the US define themselves as being values driven. I think the actual reasonable model is that both sides are a mix of values and self interest.
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoThis. Both parties carry a century of reactionary and identity/group politics baggage. You can't derive their policies from general principals.
- dash2 4y agoSure, but many politically active left wingers are relatively rich and would not themselves benefit materially from left-wing policies.
- implements 4y ago(Replies to self) Yeah, sorry - that was a bit of a half-cocked post. Both sides are indeed a mix of values and interests - I was just trying to refute the author’s premise by counter-example, and I should have explicitly said that for clarity.