Extremism, centrism, 'the far right', (and the 'far left')

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

I don't agree that the extremism that the West is being subjected to is 'far right'. It is far too confused in nature to be called any sort of coherent ideology. That's not to say I don't think there's real far right attitudes in there in the mix, but I also see strong hallmarks of far left ideas in there. I'm also skeptical of the assertion that the 'far right has changed' and speaks to a desire to dismiss the more complicated elements of the maelstrom of extremist ideas pulling society apart. 

There's no doubt the far right's in there among the extremist forces fracturing Western society, but I think it's in there with a mish mash of other extremists. This is a large part of why I was critical of Starmer for branding the recent riots as 'far right'; I was very pleased to see him shift the rhetoric more towards acknowledging wider social ills regarding the riots on Kuensberg's show yesterday while also (correctly) holding firm on the law and order element unequivocally condemning the riots. 

As an example, Reform, the Front National and Alternatif fur Deutschland all have some policies that speak to extremist pacifist ideology that's a hallmark of the far left; the arguments against arming Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion could as easily be coming from Jeremy Corbyn or George Galloway as they could from Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, or JD Vance. 

To a large extent, I believe the left/right paradigm itself is now the biggest problem in political discussion. I think a better paradigm for the current state of is centrist/extremist. 

How would those two camps be characterised? Personally, I think centrism isn't necessarily being strictly down the middle on everything, but rather being simultaneously open to new ideas, being open to criticising all ideas, and also believing that sometimes it's possible to take what seemed a good idea too far and see a need to row back in the other direction.

I think the hallmark of extremism, on the other hand, is taking any point of principle and taking every piece of evidence that supports it as proof its right, while seeking to dismantle any evidence that demonstrates a failure of the principle; trying to force reality to conform to preconceived ideas never ends well. 

 

 

[Fen Canary 1,362]

36 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't agree that the extremism that the West is being subjected to is 'far right'. It is far too confused in nature to be called any sort of coherent ideology. That's not to say I don't think there's real far right attitudes in there in the mix, but I also see strong hallmarks of far left ideas in there. I'm also skeptical of the assertion that the 'far right has changed' and speaks to a desire to dismiss the more complicated elements of the maelstrom of extremist ideas pulling society apart. 

There's no doubt the far right's in there among the extremist forces fracturing Western society, but I think it's in there with a mish mash of other extremists. This is a large part of why I was critical of Starmer for branding the recent riots as 'far right'; I was very pleased to see him shift the rhetoric more towards acknowledging wider social ills regarding the riots on Kuensberg's show yesterday while also (correctly) holding firm on the law and order element unequivocally condemning the riots. 

As an example, Reform, the Front National and Alternatif fur Deutschland all have some policies that speak to extremist pacifist ideology that's a hallmark of the far left; the arguments against arming Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion could as easily be coming from Jeremy Corbyn or George Galloway as they could from Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, or JD Vance. 

To a large extent, I believe the left/right paradigm itself is now the biggest problem in political discussion. I think a better paradigm for the current state of is centrist/extremist. 

How would those two camps be characterised? Personally, I think centrism isn't necessarily being strictly down the middle on everything, but rather being simultaneously open to new ideas, being open to criticising all ideas, and also believing that sometimes it's possible to take what seemed a good idea too far and see a need to row back in the other direction.

I think the hallmark of extremism, on the other hand, is taking any point of principle and taking every piece of evidence that supports it as proof its right, while seeking to dismantle any evidence that demonstrates a failure of the principle; trying to force reality to conform to preconceived ideas never ends well. 

 

 

I think left/right is largely redundant now. I’ve seen the split now referred as somewheres/anywheres.

The somewheres generally live close to where they grew up, less likely to have been to uni, work in more blue collar jobs etc. They tend to have been the losers from neoliberalism/globalism, seeing their jobs shift abroad (the rust belt in America or the old mining towns in the UK), been more adversely affected by immigration such as competition in the building trades or manufacturing, and have seen their towns and cities largely left behind. They’re often more socially conservative and parochial while being left leaning financially.

The anywheres by contrast are more likely to have moved to the cities after going to university and work in white collar jobs. They tend to be more left leaning culturally but more Blairist/Thatcherite in their economic outlook, believing that immigration keeping prices lower is a good thing even if that means others have to live on lower wages. They prefer supranational groups such as EU over the national parliaments like Westminster.

Both sides are a contradiction of the old left and right, taking positions from both. While obviously not every voter or group will fit perfectly into these descriptions, I think it’s a lot closer than the old left/right blocs of the 80’s

[sonyc 6,059]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I think left/right is largely redundant now. I’ve seen the split now referred as somewheres/anywheres.

The somewheres generally live close to where they grew up, less likely to have been to uni, work in more blue collar jobs etc. They tend to have been the losers from neoliberalism/globalism, seeing their jobs shift abroad (the rust belt in America or the old mining towns in the UK), been more adversely affected by immigration such as competition in the building trades or manufacturing, and have seen their towns and cities largely left behind. They’re often more socially conservative and parochial while being left leaning financially.

The anywheres by contrast are more likely to have moved to the cities after going to university and work in white collar jobs. They tend to be more left leaning culturally but more Blairist/Thatcherite in their economic outlook, believing that immigration keeping prices lower is a good thing even if that means others have to live on lower wages. They prefer supranational groups such as EU over the national parliaments like Westminster.

Both sides are a contradiction of the old left and right, taking positions from both. While obviously not every voter or group will fit perfectly into these descriptions, I think it’s a lot closer than the old left/right blocs of the 80’s

Goodhart reviewed his take on his book after Brexit on the Somewhere / Anywhere categorisation. Although he has been criticised for his analysis, I like ideas that attempt to draw broader themes. I can see also Fen just how his ideas have really struck home with you. If you read the extract below it nearly (neatly?) sums up your position on many things (e.g. immigration to pick one issue). It's a decent 15 minute read, especially on Brexit (and why it was inevitable - for Goodhart).

There have been (and are) many posters on this site who also dislike anyone who they see as coming across as superior - the result being that they feel like they are somehow being made to feel like "second class citizens"(a quote here from this article). The so-called left wing posters get painted into this 'characterisation'. Though, as Goodhart says in this article there are many areas where the somewhere and anywhere groups may find common ground. Yet, as we know, people like to take a side. Especially, they have a love of labels. Article here for interest.

https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/figaro-interview/

For what it's worth my view is that ultimately it's about self awareness. That is never going to win me any arguments because it's far too much an individualist position to garner much support or ground. It's too abstract as well perhaps. What I mean is the ability to check your own position on any issue, be wary of fixed positions and embrace uncertainty - the older you become ought to find you becoming more uncertain not leaning back on your many years of experience as your guide. All that does is cut you off from new information, it makes you ultra cynical (and cynicism can be useful)...but worse, it's a form of death (before you've even crossed the final finishing line). It means that you are closed off - your experience has closed you down. You've already made up your mind. Worse still, you can prove it!

I'm of the view therefore that LYB's take has merit because it dispenses with the simplistic left/right axis. Your somewhere/anywhere position also has merit. I would add for me though it's principally about how open-minded you can be and that reverts to my idea of generating the many means possible of being more self-aware. Not a sexy position, nor is self awareness easy, but it's the answer to virtually any problem any of us face in terms of arguing or debating about opinions, policy and so on (to make an extreme generalisation as a way of ending my post!). 

 

Edited September 9 by sonyc

[Yellow Fever 4,316]

14 minutes ago, sonyc said:

'm of the view therefore that LYB's take has merit because it dispenses with the simplistic left/right axis. Your somewhere/anywhere position also has merit. I would add for me though it's principally about how open-minded you can be and that reverts to my idea of generating the many means possible of being more self-aware. Not a sexy position, nor is self awareness easy, but it's the answer to virtually any problem any of us face in terms of arguing or debating about opinions, policy and so on (to make an extreme generalisation as a way of ending my post!). 

I'm more with you there SC. For me its not left / right but progressive / small c conservative (always looking back). Hence I can agree with rational thought through, even unemotional tough policies, from both the traditional left and right (the WFA) if it is for the greater good of society / fairness (yes there is such a thing as society / civilization).

Alternatively much as you suggest being able to question your assumptions and biases (we all have them) and being able to change your mind  - 'open minded' with new evidence. The latter correlates with education (but is not a prerequisite) which can then lead to those 'woke' labels by the unquestioning we see elsewhere. 

Edited September 9 by Yellow Fever

[Fen Canary 1,362]

4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Goodhart reviewed his take on his book after Brexit on the Somewhere / Anywhere categorisation. Although he has been criticised for his analysis, I like ideas that attempt to draw broader themes. I can see also Fen just how his ideas have really struck home with you. If you read the extract below it nearly (neatly?) sums up your position on many things (e.g. immigration to pick one issue). It's a decent 15 minute read, especially on Brexit (and why it was inevitable - for Goodhart).

There have been (and are) many posters on this site who also dislike anyone who they see as coming across as superior - the result being that they feel like they are somehow being made to feel like "second class citizens"(a quote here from this article). The so-called left wing posters get painted into this 'characterisation'. Though, as Goodhart says in this article there are many areas where the somewhere and anywhere groups may find common ground. Yet, as we know, people like to take a side. Especially, they have a love of labels. Article here for interest.

https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/figaro-interview/

For what it's worth my view is that ultimately it's about self awareness. That is never going to win me any arguments because it's far too much an individualist position to garner much support or ground. It's too abstract as well perhaps. What I mean is the ability to check your own position on any issue, be wary of fixed positions and embrace uncertainty - the older you become ought to find you becoming more uncertain not leaning back on your many years of experience as your guide. All that does is cut you off from new information, it makes you ultra cynical (and cynicism can be useful)...but worse, it's a form of death (before you've even crossed the final finishing line). It means that you are closed off - your experience has closed you down. You've already made up your mind. Worse still, you can prove it!

I'm of the view therefore that LYB's take has merit because it dispenses with the simplistic left/right axis. Your somewhere/anywhere position also has merit. I would add for me though it's principally about how open-minded you can be and that reverts to my idea of generating the many means possible of being more self-aware. Not a sexy position, nor is self awareness easy, but it's the answer to virtually any problem any of us face in terms of arguing or debating about opinions, policy and so on (to make an extreme generalisation as a way of ending my post!). 

 

That’s a very interesting interview, and you’re right it does largely align with my political outlook, albeit he’s able to articulate it much better than I ever could.

I do agree with you it’s important to try and prevent yourself becoming too fixed in your preferred ideology, although it can be easier said than done and boards such as this can often harden peoples views especially when those opinions are often dismissed out of hand by others (which is alluded to in the interview).

I like to think my politics is a bit of a mish mash, although as I’ve said in the past this does have the downside of making me incredibly cynical when it comes to politics and politicians as I find common ground with almost none of them. I’m also praying that the Tories don’t choose another Blair/Cameron/Starmer clone as leader, not because I support the Tories in any way but simply because I want to see some daylight between the parties and actually have a meaningful choice at the next election.

https://unherd.com/2019/05/who-broke-the-left/

The article above says much the same as the interview you provided, but it’s another handy piece to add to the debate in my opinion, even if it is now an old article it’s one I’ve remembered

[sonyc 6,059]

25 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Alternatively much as you suggest being able to question your assumptions and biases (we all have them) an being able to change your mind  - 'open minded' with new evidence. The latter correlates with education (but is not a prerequisite) which can then lead to those 'woke' labels by the unquestioning we see elsewhere. 

Yes agree. I often think it's lazy when people simply decree others on the grounds of 'left' or 'right' because it  almost feels like a dead end. I rarely then get involved because a person has made up their mind. My experience tells me that too naturally but I will hold back and wait and see if there are other avenues later where we might form a consensus. Not that argument doesn't have a place. It sometimes helps to form a basis (for something!). Yet, with a closed mind what can you do? Education can be a personal thing too (you educate yourself) rather than any elitist idea of it. I think self awareness is just not something taught at (many) schools and I wish it was - the ability to examine your own world view critically, and not just in our relationships with others but our wider values too.

I often think about marketing today. When I see adverts I often think they are trying to tell you the opposite of what something actually is. And it's the same with people for me. I don't take them as I find them (don't let my initial impression take a hold) but just remain a blank book. It's useful but it does mean that your own personality suffers (do I actually have one?.....I complain about this to Mrs S). And people do like people with a personality (that includes me) and those that stand for something.  That sounds contradictory... and it is! That's the other problem with self awareness - you find yourself in contradiction a lot! A double-edged sword (hence this really is a boring subject for many).

Edited September 9 by sonyc

[Fen Canary 1,362]

23 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm more with you there SC. For me its not left / right but progressive / small c conservative (always looking back). Hence I can agree with rational thought through, even unemotional tough policies, from both the traditional left and right (the WFA) if it is for the greater good of society / fairness (yes there is such a thing as society / civilization).

Alternatively much as you suggest being able to question your assumptions and biases (we all have them) and being able to change your mind  - 'open minded' with new evidence. The latter correlates with education (but is not a prerequisite) which can then lead to those 'woke' labels by the unquestioning we see elsewhere. 

This to me reads very much like the condescending attitude that the interview Sonyc linked to was lamenting. You’re implying that anybody more conservative in their opinions is automatically backward looking, and that being progressive is always a positive for society, even if it causes certain groups to lose out.

I also disagree that education leads to people to be more open minded, as some of the worst ideologues are some of the most highly educated 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

29 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm more with you there SC. For me its not left / right but progressive / small c conservative (always looking back). Hence I can agree with rational thought through, even unemotional tough policies, from both the traditional left and right (the WFA) if it is for the greater good of society / fairness (yes there is such a thing as society / civilization).

Alternatively much as you suggest being able to question your assumptions and biases (we all have them) and being able to change your mind  - 'open minded' with new evidence. The latter correlates with education (but is not a prerequisite) which can then lead to those 'woke' labels by the unquestioning we see elsewhere. 

In many respects, I think the progressive/conservative thing is a fairly superficial repackaging of left and right; I certainly can't think of anything that would be characterised as 'progressive' that wouldn't also be characterised as 'left wing', or the same with 'right wing' and 'conservative'.

I also think it's a clever use of language to imply that any change is automatically a good thing, while the status quo is automatically a bad thing, which is a dangerous way of framing things given that change can easily be for the worse as much as for the better. 

Edited September 9 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 6,059]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't agree that the extremism that the West is being subjected to is 'far right'. It is far too confused in nature to be called any sort of coherent ideology. That's not to say I don't think there's real far right attitudes in there in the mix, but I also see strong hallmarks of far left ideas in there. I'm also skeptical of the assertion that the 'far right has changed' and speaks to a desire to dismiss the more complicated elements of the maelstrom of extremist ideas pulling society apart. 

There's no doubt the far right's in there among the extremist forces fracturing Western society, but I think it's in there with a mish mash of other extremists. This is a large part of why I was critical of Starmer for branding the recent riots as 'far right'; I was very pleased to see him shift the rhetoric more towards acknowledging wider social ills regarding the riots on Kuensberg's show yesterday while also (correctly) holding firm on the law and order element unequivocally condemning the riots. 

As an example, Reform, the Front National and Alternatif fur Deutschland all have some policies that speak to extremist pacifist ideology that's a hallmark of the far left; the arguments against arming Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion could as easily be coming from Jeremy Corbyn or George Galloway as they could from Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, or JD Vance. 

To a large extent, I believe the left/right paradigm itself is now the biggest problem in political discussion. I think a better paradigm for the current state of is centrist/extremist. 

How would those two camps be characterised? Personally, I think centrism isn't necessarily being strictly down the middle on everything, but rather being simultaneously open to new ideas, being open to criticising all ideas, and also believing that sometimes it's possible to take what seemed a good idea too far and see a need to row back in the other direction.

I think the hallmark of extremism, on the other hand, is taking any point of principle and taking every piece of evidence that supports it as proof its right, while seeking to dismantle any evidence that demonstrates a failure of the principle; trying to force reality to conform to preconceived ideas never ends well. 

 

 

You might have seen Blair talk on a recent news programme? May have seen it in X myself. He argued that things actually get done by having a centrist government - because it assimilates information all round and then legislates. He has a new book on political leadership. Despite my many misgivings about him he still has something to say worth listening to.

 

Edit: found a link here:-

 

 

Edited September 9 by sonyc

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

This to me reads very much like the condescending attitude that the interview Sonyc linked to was lamenting. You’re implying that anybody more conservative in their opinions is automatically backward looking, and that being progressive is always a positive for society, even if it causes certain groups to lose out.

I also disagree that education leads to people to be more open minded, as some of the worst ideologues are some of the most highly educated 

I think it's more likely to be that educated people are more likely to be open-minded when researching/looking into a matter, but potentially likely to become ideologues as for them, if they've found a position they agree with and have (potentially) looked at from different angles before reaching said position. 

So my instinct is that they're more fluid as they're aware they're unaware, but when they look more into a matter, they may become far more fixed.

[Fen Canary 1,362]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I think it's more likely to be that educated people are more likely to be open-minded when researching/looking into a matter, but potentially likely to become ideologues as for them, if they've found a position they agree with and have (potentially) looked at from different angles before reaching said position. 

So my instinct is that they're more fluid as they're aware they're unaware, but when they look more into a matter, they may become far more fixed.

So it’s simply coincidence that those who have done ok in the current system are overwhelmingly in favour of the status quo? I’m more of the opinion that they more likely to overlook flaws in the current system when it’s not them negatively affected by them, rather than the fact they’ve looked at the issue in depth and reached some deep logical conclusion. They’re simply protectionist the same as those who have voted for the more populist parties 

[sonyc 6,059]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I think it's more likely to be that educated people are more likely to be open-minded when researching/looking into a matter, but potentially likely to become ideologues as for them, if they've found a position they agree with and have (potentially) looked at from different angles before reaching said position. 

So my instinct is that they're more fluid as they're aware they're unaware, but when they look more into a matter, they may become far more fixed.

Agree TGS. Though being fluid still makes you keep looking also! Because, what if a so-called solution isn't the optimal one?😉

That being said, (talking to myself here as much as anything) you do have to get off the fence at some stage🙂 Ultimately, it is important to take a stand politically speaking - it is what drives progress and real change.

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So it’s simply coincidence that those who have done ok in the current system are overwhelmingly in favour of the status quo? I’m more of the opinion that they more likely to overlook flaws in the current system when it’s not them negatively affected by them, rather than the fact they’ve looked at the issue in depth and reached some deep logical conclusion. They’re simply protectionist the same as those who have voted for the more populist parties 

We're talking about two different groups of people with considerable potential overlap. My comment was squarely aimed at education level, not their economic/financial position at the time of voting.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

You might have seen Blair talk on a recent news programme? May have seen it in X myself. He argued that things actually get done by having a centrist government - because it assimilates information all round and then legislates. He has a new book on political leadership. Despite my many misgivings about him he still has something to say worth listening to.

The problem for me with this is that it can also be used as a veiled argument justifying autocracy and technocracy as a way of governing, bypassing democracy altogether. "We're the experts and we'll consider all the angles so just leave it to us'; there's not really any need for a public debate encompassing the full range of thinking and competing arguments".

 

 

[ricardo 7,843]

There is far too much civilized discourse on this thread.

Please disist before the reputation of this great Forum is dragged through the mud.

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

There is far too much civilized discourse on this thread.

Please disist before the reputation of this great Forum is dragged through the mud.

As it's you, Ricardo, **** off! 😉

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

We're talking about two different groups of people with considerable potential overlap. My comment was squarely aimed at education level, not their economic/financial position at the time of voting.

The more educated you are, the more developed your critical thinking skills will be. In terms of open-mindedness, I think it can be a mixed bag. Sometimes being trained to think a certain way can prevent you looking at things from a different angle; you see this in academia, where sometimes people from entirely different disciplines can trigger progress in another discipline because of a line of thought that might not have come about in that discipline. 

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

The more educated you are, the more developed your critical thinking skills will be. In terms of open-mindedness, I think it can be a mixed bag. Sometimes being trained to think a certain way can prevent you looking at things from a different angle; you see this in academia, where sometimes people from entirely different disciplines can trigger progress in another discipline because of a line of thought that might not have come about in that discipline. 

That brings us back to my earlier point - I basically said more educated people probably tend to be more open-minded to start with when it comes to looking at matters, but can be more fixed afterwards. Which means they might not readily see that different angle due to greater exposure within the realm in question.

Possibly the nearest person I ever had to a childhood hero, the Norwegian explorer and researcher Thor Heyerdahl, would be a splendid example of that when he had the idea that the Polynesian islands were populated from South America instead of prevailing wisdom at the time, which then lead to the Kon-Tiki expedition.

(Subsequent research seems to show that whilst his mission was remarkable, the wisdom of the time probably was correct after all though).

[sonyc 6,059]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The more educated you are, the more developed your critical thinking skills will be. In terms of open-mindedness, I think it can be a mixed bag. Sometimes being trained to think a certain way can prevent you looking at things from a different angle; you see this in academia, where sometimes people from entirely different disciplines can trigger progress in another discipline because of a line of thought that might not have come about in that discipline. 

This reminds me of when I heard about Mercedes and Formula 1 (and I think Swatch) meeting up to just share their company stories. The just in time principle changed the way that pitstop tyre changes came about. I may have lost the exact conversation along the way but you'll get my point.

Different organisations and people can often help each other because of the way they approach and think about stuff. I met three Dutch people a decade ago (all at different times and at different points)...their big idea was just to get folk all together in a room (from multiple disciplines and stratum) and talk! They love meetings in the Netherlands😅...because you often find you just work through to solutions - nothing is off the table. It's exactly how innovation comes about. 

In my business days I used to recruit and employ people very different to me. It didn't make for easy and harmonious work environments all the time but it did create success because one set of people would be very critical of some others in terms of an approach or monitoring or finances (and so on) and vice versa - meaning you looked at an issue in the round. There's a limit (rightly) to psychological profiling but it has it's place and merits in management.

[Barbe bleu 990]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm more with you there SC. For me its not left / right but progressive / small c conservative (always looking back). 

I want to agree with most of this but the 'progressive' label puts me off a bit.

I think there is something important in saying that there is a continuum of thought that ranges from 'revolutionary change' to 'preserved in aspic' but 'progressive' isn't the correct word.   Change isn't always necessarily good is it? 

34 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I basically said more educated people probably tend to be more open-minded to start with when it comes to looking at matters,

You could well be right in the generalities of this (though we need to be careful in ascribing to the individual the characteristics of the group, that's the very definition of societal prejudice) but I think, ironically, you may be overthinking the role of education. 

Degree holders like to think of themselves as a cut above, and maybe they are, but maybe having a degree is a symptom of them being the winners in society, a benefit of which is the ability to support all manner of good causes and to feel all good and superior about doing so. Conversely those without degrees are more likely to be in the losing group and have enough problems of their own to solve before having the luxury of solving other people's?

Edited September 9 by Barbe bleu

[A Load of Squit 6,040]

I think this considered analysis of the events yesterday in George Square Glasgow answers the question accurately.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

 

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I like to think my politics is a bit of a mish mash, although as I’ve said in the past this does have the downside of making me incredibly cynical when it comes to politics and politicians as I find common ground with almost none of them. I’m also praying that the Tories don’t choose another Blair/Cameron/Starmer clone as leader, not because I support the Tories in any way but simply because I want to see some daylight between the parties and actually have a meaningful choice at the next election.

https://unherd.com/2019/05/who-broke-the-left/

The article above says much the same as the interview you provided, but it’s another handy piece to add to the debate in my opinion, even if it is now an old article it’s one I’ve remembered

I think meaningful choice on points of principle/values is very difficult when there are only two main parties, especially where it comes to more controversial topics like euthanasia/assisted dying as an example. With only two main parties, neither will ever step out of line with the status quo for fear of alienating more voters than they win and individual politicians won't stand up for fear of damaging their careers.

 

Edited September 9 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 4,316]

3 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

I think it's more likely to be that educated people are more likely to be open-minded when researching/looking into a matter, but potentially likely to become ideologues as for them, if they've found a position they agree with and have (potentially) looked at from different angles before reaching said position. 

So my instinct is that they're more fluid as they're aware they're unaware, but when they look more into a matter, they may become far more fixed.

I would actually use the phrase 'evidence based'. What actually 'works' may be different to what our 'gut' or natural 'instincts' tell us (prisons, gun control, immigration (small boats), benefits etc). That generally tallies with what are called 'progressives' which is the new word on the block it (beyond left/right). 'Progressive' taxation, or enlightened polices etc. 

Being able to accept the evidence and modify your view in the light of it is what a matters. 

[Yellow Fever 4,316]

3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I want to agree with most of this but the 'progressive' label puts me off a bit.

I think there is something important in saying that there is a continuum of thought that ranges from 'revolutionary change' to 'preserved in aspic' but 'progressive' isn't the correct word.   Change isn't always necessarily good is it? 

You could well be right in the generalities of this (though we need to be careful in ascribing to the individual the characteristics of the group, that's the very definition of societal prejudice) but I think, ironically, you may be overthinking the role of education. 

Degree holders like to think of themselves as a cut above, and maybe they are, but maybe having a degree is a symptom of them being the winners in society, a benefit of which is the ability to support all manner of good causes and to feel all good and superior about doing so. Conversely those without degrees are more likely to be in the losing group and have enough problems of their own to solve before having the luxury of solving other people's?

Progressive seems to be the new word that's around.

By small c conservatism (or even big C) was if I recall not wishing to change anything unless it needed changing. A definition. It's always resistant to change be that social or economic - in a fast changing world! 

I did mention that education is not a prerequisite but it sure helps to challenge your biases if you want to be 'open-minded'  

Edited September 9 by Yellow Fever

[Midlands Yellow 4,583]

When will this thread explode and the insults get traded? Fingers crossed before midnight just to give it some interest. 

 

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

13 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

When will this thread explode and the insults get traded? Fingers crossed before midnight just to give it some interest. 

 

Might as well kill two birds with one stone and put in my suggestion for the national anthem at the same time. 😉

(Not remotely suitable for work)

 

 

[PurpleCanary 6,196]

Slightly at a tangent, but only a bit, and to frustrate Midlands Yellow some more, the French writer and thinker Raymond Aron, who was politically of the centre,  was honest enough to admit there was a crucial difference between Communism and Fascism, which I would say applies to left and right generally, even if less much extremely.

Which was that however Communism turned out (ie often very badly) in practice, it was at least theoretically idealistic and aimed at bettering the world. Whereas the whole theory of Fascism, its raison-d'etre, as well as its practice, was forced domination and the triumph of the supposedly better over the supposedly lesser.

Things are not now as bad as they were in the 1930s and 1940s, happily. But as a generality I would defend, the left at least in the western world has kept some of that idealism, and is inclusive and international-minded, and looking to the future.

Whereas the right is still exclusive, with some people better than others, insular (in the case of Brexit literally so) and backward-looking, usually to some imagined golden age of imperial power.

Edited September 9 by PurpleCanary

[Midlands Yellow 4,583]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Slightly at a tangent, but only a bit, and to frustrate Midlands Yellow some more, the French writer and thinker Raymond Aron, who was politically of the centre,  was honest enough to admit there was a crucial difference between Communism and Fascism, which I would say applies to left and right generally, even if less much extremely.

Which was that however Communism turned out (ie often very badly) in practice, it was at least theoretically idealistic and aimed at bettering the world. Whereas the whole theory of Fascism, its raison-d'etre,, as well as its practice, was forced domination and the triumph of the supposedly better over the supposedly lesser.

Things are not now as bad as they were in the 1930s and 1940s, happily. But as a generality I would defend, the left at least in the western world has kept some of that idealism, and is inclusive and international-minded, and looking to the future.

Whereas the right is still exclusive, with some people better than others, insular (in the case of Brexit literally so) and backward-looking, usually to some imagined golden age of imperial power.

Couldn’t agree more purple, good analysis especially for an early autumn Monday. 

[Barbe bleu 990]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Slightly at a tangent, but only a bit, and to frustrate Midlands Yellow some more, the French writer and thinker Raymond Aron, who was politically of the centre,  was honest enough to admit there was a crucial difference between Communism and Fascism, which I would say applies to left and right generally, even if less much extremely.

Which was that however Communism turned out (ie often very badly) in practice, it was at least theoretically idealistic and aimed at bettering the world. Whereas the whole theory of Fascism, its raison-d'etre, as well as its practice, was forced domination and the triumph of the supposedly better over the supposedly lesser.

Things are not now as bad as they were in the 1930s and 1940s, happily. But as a generality I would defend, the left at least in the western world has kept some of that idealism, and is inclusive and international-minded, and looking to the future.

Whereas the right is still exclusive, with some people better than others, insular (in the case of Brexit literally so) and backward-looking, usually to some imagined golden age of imperial power.

I'm not going to disagree but some points for thought.

Theories are fine and good, but it's outcomes that matter. With that in mind does the palatable ideological wrapping of the extreme left make it more a insidious, and dangerous, threat?  

And is it quite easy to fall into a trap of defending left wing extremism because of some highly abstracted theory when in practice the extreme left and extreme right have more in common than points of difference and the consequences for the individual in such societies are practically indistinct?

Good mention of brexit though.  Midlands will be happy!

 

Edited September 9 by Barbe bleu

[PurpleCanary 6,196]

7 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not going to disagree but some points for thought.

Theories are fine and good, but it's outcomes that matter. With that in mind does the palatable ideological wrapping of the extreme left make it more a insidious, and dangerous, threat?  

And is it quite easy to fall into a trap of defending left wing extremism because of some highly abstracted theory when in practice the extreme left and extreme right have more in common than points of difference and the consequences for the individual in such societies are practically indistinct?

Good mention of brexit though.  Midlands will be happy!

 

I take the point about actions. However I don't believe that even the practice the extreme right and the extreme left in the western world have more in common than their points of difference. It is certainly not true of the extreme right and the extreme left in the UK.