Many pundits are now using the term “angry left” to describe the liberal analog of the “angry right.” Sites like When Angry Democrats Attack are springing up to document acts of vandalism and rage from the left, and many are saying that the angry left is hurting the Democratic party. But I think that the angry people in each party are those farthest to the extreme left or right – the fanatics.
But my question is, who do we think represents the far poles, and what specific things to they believe? I don’t know all the personalities involved, so you’ll have to help me. However, I wanted to at least document the issues, and what I perceive as the far left, far right, and middle ground on each. Am I correct? I have a feeling that I may not be getting the middle left correct.
Abortion
- Far Left: Unrestricted abortion, and required abortion for certain defects (coming to a hospital near you)
- Far Right: Abortion illegal under any circumstances, prosecution of doctors and patients for murder
- Middle Left: Abortion illegal in 2nd/3rd trimester, allowed under certain circumstances (mother’s life, severe congenital defects, rape, incest).
- Middle Right: Abortion illegal after 4-6 weeks, allowed under certain RARE circumstances (mother’s life, severe congenital defects).
Sex Ed
- Far Left: Teach only contraception. Abstinence is an inhuman, religious concept that has no place in schools. Encourage sexual exploration, both homo and hetero.
- Far Right: Teach only abstinence. Birth control is contrary to what is right and is immoral, and encourages promiscuity. Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral.
- Middle Left: Abstinence is a nice concept, and we should mention it, but it’s not realistic. We should focus on contraception and leave value judgments about sexuality to the family. We should acknowledge that sexual exploration occurs. Choosing a homosexual orientation is normal for some people, and we should teach it.
- Middle Right: Abstinence is a realistic and laudable goal for young people. We should encourage it as a virtue worth pursuing, but should also teach about contraception as a fallback. Homosexuality should acknowledged as a sexual orientation, but it should be mentioned that many consider it unnatural, and it may be a reversible condition.
Homosexuality
- Far Left: Homosexuality is a valid sexual alternative, is totally natural and healthy, and is in all ways equal to heterosexual attraction and unions. It should be acknowledged by society as valid, and should have all of the “civil rights” accorded to hetero unions, esp. legal marriage. Homosexuality is biologically determined.
- Far Right: Homosexuality it not only unnatural, it is immoral and a sin. It is dangerous to society and should be criminalized with anti-sodomy laws. I should not have to hire or rent to anyone who I think is immoral, including gays. Homosexuality is a perversion equal to that of pedophilia and bestiality. Homosexuality is a choice.
- Middle Left: Gay marriage should not be elevated to the same status as hetero marriage, but they should have all the human rights that others have. Civil unions seem to be a perfectly reasonable solution. Homosexuality is mostly determined by biology, but may have sociological factors, and therefore, is not immoral.
- Middle Right: Homosexuality should neither be condoned through legal marriage nor criminalized via sodomy laws. Gays should have the same protections under the law regarding housing and employment, but legal marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is mostly determined by sociological and developmental factors, and may be caused in small part by genetic factors. However, regardless of its origins, it is immoral, just like promiscuity and adultery.
Separation of Church and State
- Far Left: Religion has no place in the public policy arena, nor in civic life. We should avoid all entanglement between government and religion. The establishment clause means protection of religion from government AND protection of government from religion. Government should be entirely secular and based on secular ethics.
- Far Right: America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles by Christians. We should not only acknowledge this heritage, but fulfill our divine destiny as God’s chosen nation in this era. The establishment clause is only meant to protect religion from government. Both religious and ethical principles should be law. In fact, we should re-institute Old Testament punishments for such things as adultery and homosexuality. The term “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution (true).
- Middle Left: The state should be secular and free from sponsoring religion, but it is OK if religious values are in the marketplace of ideas. Faith is a good thing, but it must be kept mostly in the private, personal realm, and out of politics. I have no problem teaching and acknowledging the religious history of our country, both good and bad.
- Middle Right: The establishment clause and the term “separation of church and state,” when rightly understood, means that the government can not sponsor or promote a single religion, nor can it prevent the free exercise of any religion. However, it does not mean that religious values and appeals to the Creator are improper in public life. In fact, our nation was founded with a respect for the Christian faith. The Christian scriptures contain wisdom for political life and legislation, and we should use them as a guide. However, we are not supposed to legislate religious rules (like what people should wear), nor are we called to re-institute biblical punishments.
Immigration
- Far Left: This is a nation of immigrants. We should consider them as humans first, and not play politics with people’s lives. Border security is an impossibility. We should grant them all amnesty.
- Far Right: Anyone who is here illegally should be treated as a criminal and deported. Any type of program that allows them to stay, even with conditions, is de-facto amnesty. We need to secure our borders with a wall and armaments, and protect our people first.
- Middle Left: Let them stay and earn citizenship first, and in the meantime, build a wall.
- Middle Right: Ensure border security first, and let them earn citizenship.
Death Penalty
- Far Left: Inhuman. Should not be done ever. In fact, I am a pacifist. Taking a human life is always wrong.
- Far Right: Kill them as soon as you can. In fact, we should expand the death penalty to include rapists and child molesters.
- Middle Left: Death penalty is not really a good idea, since we could kill innocent people. Life without parole is enough. In some rare and obvious cases, it may be OK (admitted serial killers).
- Middle Right: Death penalty is a just punishment for those who have killed. We acknowledge and accept a small error rate, made much smaller now by DNA testing. Life without parole is not acceptable, and it too lenient for murderers.
Aaron,
Whether you meant to or not, you're presenting those positions of the middle left as being flighty, ignorant, and dreamy, while you're presenting your positions in the middle right as being realistic, honest, and true. That bias is telling.
Also, your willingness to accept that the death penalty would inevitably kill some innocents is quite concerning to me; do you actually believe that we ought to tolerate a one-percent error rate? Because God only knows you wouldn't feel the same way if you're were the one-percent.
Trying to document the progression of left or right viewpoints are on a scale is not easy. I think Seeker gave it an honest attempt so I’ll give my honest input. Sam, I do agree about the inconsistency between thinking the death penalty is okay even if some innocents die (pro-death) and being pro-life.
Abortion – I think this is pretty accurate but I think under your catagorization there are many many more people who hold a far-right abortion viewpoint the the far-left. The far left sounds like people who use abortion as a form of birth control and I don’t think there are many people who feel that way.
Sex-Ed – Okay, here is where Sam’s point of you showing bias against the far-left is apparent in your catagorization, Abstinence is an inhuman, come on. I would say that the far left thinks preaching abstinance is so unrealistic that it’s not even worth mentioning. I also think you should say that the middle-left believes homosexuality is not a choice, it’s a trait: The Only Question That Matters: Do People Choose Their Sexual Orientation? The middle-right and far-right think homosexuality is a choice.
Homosexuality – The catagorization of the middle-left as thinking Gay marriage should not be elevated to the same status as hetero marriage is, I think inaccurate. I think the middle left believes this gay marriage amendment is no big deal either and view civil unions like Sweeden does. From Wikipedia…
A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. They are typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage. Some jurisdictions, however, also allow entry by opposite-sex couples. Unions that are similar to or synonymous with civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships , and domestic partnerships. Some jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have unions that are identical to marriage in nearly every way except name, while some only allow minimal reciprocal benefits. The differences between same-sex marriage and civil-unions can be inconsistant. For example; Belgium’s laws allow same-sex marriage, but not adoption, while Sweden’s laws allow civil-unions nearly equal to marriage but also allow adoptions of children, even children other than those of one of the partners. Other countries, such as Norway allow nearly all the same rights as marriage but not adoption of unrelated children. There is currently a debate in Sweden to change partnerships into marriage. Many people are critical of unions because they say it creates a separate status that’s unequal to marriage. Others are critical because they say it’s introducing same-sex marriage by using a different name
I guess it all comes down to how you define civil union.
Separation of Church and State – I can say with certainty that the middle-left does not feel that the “religious history of our country” is not necessarliy a good thing and that it should absolutely kept out of government. In fact, I think the middle-left do not think of “religious history” as “the Christian roots of our country” at all. They have a completely secular viewpoint where all religions are equal and should be treated as such. The far left I think would be catagorized as anti-christian, mostly as a reaction to the agressivness of far-right Christians. I think of your discussions with Louis here.
Immigration – I agree mostly except I really doubt that the middle-left wants anything like a wall or fence. I think they want more border patrol and laws with some teeth. They believe what it says on that French female statue in NY city.
Death Penalty – I pretty much agree except for the discrepancy in people who are both pro-life and pro-death penalty. Both acknowledge innocent lives are lost but half formed babies are more important than innocent adults?
I also wanted to add evolution –
Far-right-creationists, fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam, etc.
Far-left-Atheists who believe in no possibility of a creator.
Middle-right-religious people who accept evolution but also are theists.
Middle-left-secularists, agnostics who accept evolution but not necessarily a creator.
Yes, I think the far right are the only people in the world who deny evolution.
The middle-right and far-right think homosexuality is a choice.
This may be true of the far right, but not the middle right. The middle right thinks that homosexuality is an unchosen self-defense or emotional coping mechanism, like other types of reactions like attachment disorder, that are chosen in response to poor developmental circumstances. While they are not consciously chosen, they can be consciously abandoned in a healing and self-knowledge process as an adult.
I would say that the far left thinks preaching abstinance is so unrealistic that it's not even worth mentioning.
OK
The catagorization of the middle-left as thinking Gay marriage should not be elevated to the same status as hetero marriage is, I think inaccurate. I think the middle left believes this gay marriage amendment is no big deal either and view civil unions like Sweeden does.
OK.
They have a completely secular viewpoint where all religions are equal and should be treated as such.
How is this different from the far-left? It may not have any animus towards xianity (and maybe that's the diff), but it's goals regarding public life and government seem the same if it is entirely secular. Also, this means that you are putting all religous people into the middle right, and excluding them from the left. But maybe we just need to describe it better.
I really doubt that the middle-left wants anything like a wall or fence. I think they want more border patrol and laws with some teeth.
Well, that might put me into the middle left on this issue instead of the middle right.
the discrepancy in people who are both pro-life and pro-death penalty. Both acknowledge innocent lives are lost but half formed babies are more important than innocent adults?
If by discrepancy you mean contradiction, I'd have to say that there is no real contradiction there. They would argue that the numbers are very different (5000 abortions a day v. how many unfair executions?) – not that lives can be reduced to numbers, but sometimes, it does come to that. We allow for inefficiencies in all of our programs. I mean, if you execute no one, that I would argue that you are miscarrying justice in all of those capital murder cases, since I don't think lifetime incarceration is really enough. But I could be swayed.
Evolution
By your definitions, 50% of American would be far right. I would have made far right being SURE of creationism, while middle-right acknowledges that it may be true, and that evolution is not a fact. I would put theistic evolutionists in the middle-left, or leave them with the gentle creationists in the middle right. But good job in general, just splitting hairs maybe.
Once we define these, it would be neat to do a bar graph, matching these definitions against poll data to see the distributions. Yeah, when i get time ;)
Sam, seeker wrote this not me.
I think what we see here in seeker’s posts and everyone’s agreement or disagreement with it is that we do not want to see ourselves as “far” anything. We always define the debate in a way that keeps us in the middle. We don’t want to view ourselves as extreme.
None of us may be extreme in any of these issues, but even if we were we would define the termonology so that we would be firmly in the middle.
We always define the debate in a way that keeps us in the middle. We don't want to view ourselves as extreme.
Nice observation. I would add that clearly defining the extremes on these issues can help us see where we are extreme and help us move towards the middle, even if it is the middle on "our side."
The middle-right and far-right think homosexuality is a choice.
This should read far-left, middle left. You have middle left thinking homosexuality is a choice under sex ed which is I think inaacurate.
I would divide people up into two catagories: those who divide people up into two catagories (or more) and those who just see them as people.
I don't think I've ever seen as stupid a thread as this one.
“You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.”
from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
So Louis, you are part of the people who divide people up in categories right? Because I have seen you do that with Christians and those on the Right numerous times.
No one is denying that everyone in the categories are people – just people with different views. Why is that so "stupid" or apparently insulting?
Well, Louis makes a good point and I'm a little ashamed because I'm guilty of stereotyping in this post. They used to do tests to measure the distance between the eyes to determine if your a criminal. There were many other similar tests the Nazi's performed. Catagorizing people ideolgically may be no different from catagorizing them ideologically. Thanks Louis for reminding me of that.
er physically
What stereotyping? It’s merely categorization of ideas. You can align with any ideas you want without having to label yourself or others. But labels, and stereotypes, are actually useful devices for communication and practical decision making.
It’s just the abuse of stereotypes (or use the word “archetypes” or “ethnographic generalizations” if you associate the word stereotype with “prejudice”) that is not good.
Interesting classification system. I think on your first three points that there are a good number of people somewhere between far right and middle right. The other points I think are fairly accurate.