The "left" and "right" have never been totally stable terms...they are always changing in meaning. This thread is intended to collect observations on how these terms are changing with today's drastic changes in economics, world affairs, etc.

What I see, first of all, is a lot of people who rail against "the left" dropping support for the war(s) and uncritical support for the government in general...in other words, becoming more libertarian and less neocon, or even taking on some views that would have been considered frankly "left-wing" only a few years ago.

On the left, I also see criticism of the government in terms of taxation and the way the bailouts/economic rescue package is being handled, although there is still a lot of (what seems to me like) uncritical support for Obama.

There seems to be more concern about survalience, civil liberties, enforced flu shots, etc. on both sides, which strikes me as a positive thing.

Gerald Celante sees the formation of a viable third party coming soon (the term he uses is "progressive libertarianism"), which combines various elements of left and right, and an erosion of the traditional party lines as more and more people realize that the government is increasingly "selling them out" and the traditional lines between left and right blur. What this would entail, seemingly, is a government less focused on big business/banking and more on the "little guy" (the "progressive" part of the equation) while also being opposed to excess taxation and government interference in people's lives in general (the "libertarian" part). Its an interesting proposition and personally I'd love to see a third party along these lines come into being.

Other thoughts or perspectives?

What I find most disturbing about the ‘new’ left is this desire to control everything. To me the ‘old’ left – to which I belonged – was all about “do your own thing” (assuming it didn’t hurt someone else). I was all in favor of gay unions and engaging in *****self-censored***** and all that individualistic line of thinking.

Now, the ‘new’ left seems all about controlling how much you buy, how much you make, how much you eat, how much toilet paper you use, etc, ad nauseam.

I am speaking of American versions of the left here. But it seems to me the hippies of yesteryear have donned the robes of the tyrant and are now just as bad – if not worse. At least the old tyrants just wanted to control your money. Now the new Hippie Tyrants want to control everything you put in your mouth and whatever comes out the other end.
Also note how they replaced the old sacrificial altars of God & Country with the new bloody altars of Environment & Diversity. Meet the new dogma, same as the old dogma…

It's funny...during the Bush years I was frequently called a "liberal." Nowadays I'm more frequently labled a "conservative." But the funny thing is, I have never really changed my views. They overlap both left and right, and thus generally tick people off on both sides. For example: I am pro-guns-rights (right) yet also pro-choice (left). I am pro-traditional-culture (right) yet anti-Christian-Right politics (left). I'm an environmentalist (left) and take strong stances against "political correctness" on the campus and the demonization of the straight white male (right). I'm a semi-isolationist, which doesn't seem to make anyone happy. To me, none of these things contradict one another.

On the economic front, well, what's the difference, really? I don't think it matters whether a puppet on the left or a puppet on the right dances a jig in the oval office; banks are still going to get their bailouts, the "little guy" is going to be more and more screwed; the middle class is going to shrink. The same lobbyists pay money to BOTH parties in many cases: these are the ones to watch. The forces that control these movents are HISTORICAL rather than ideological: slowly-grinding tectonic plates of demographics, developments in other nations, cultural decay, etc. Not to mention the raw power of good ole' fashioned human greed, folly, and shortsightness.

The war? The war is just an extention of economics...OIL economics to be specifc. Though it also serves other interests, such as the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us against, to pick one example. I remember when Obama promised to end the war thinking, "He's not going anywhere. The US isn't leaving the Middle East until and unless forced out by financial collapse." Sure enough, the wars continue and will do so until the weakening dollar forces them out. We will also see pressure by India, China, and Russia to establish an increasing presence anywhere there is oil, and wherever the US leaves pockets of vaccum, they will be filled by these nations...which may also get into scrapes amongst themselves. It's going to be "interesting" to say the least.

None of this has much to do with adhering to a "liberal" or a "conservative" line, does it? Its more about looking at history and human psychology frankly and without denial, and drawing some pretty grim conclusions.


[edit on 10/12/09 by silent thunder]