Hello all. I have a suggestion that would, at least I think, make AD a better place. I think that it is reasonable not to use the term leftist or commie or right-winger or religious right while debate unless the leftist commie, right-winger or religious rightist truly is a leftist, commie, right-winger or religious rightist. I just don't think that those terms add to debate, that...and I don't like being called a right-winger...it makes me sound extreme. And I'm sure liberals don't appreciate being called leftists. So, what do you think? Could we ease up on the labelling?

CP

Unlikely. There are leftists and right-wingers and other extremists on this board.

I would rather strive for accuracy in my analysis of someone's political leanings and personal philosophy than go out of my way not to hurt someone's feeligns. If I mischaracterize someone, they always have the option to point it out and tell me so.

Civility should always be adhered to. However, I am less concerned about the adverse reaction people may have to the labels they richly deserve being applied to them.

Ahh, there's the rub...

Just who are the extremists? By definition those whose positions do not share a large amount of popular support, correct?

Is that something to be ashamed of?

The labels (which you already implicity acknowledge are applied negatively) do nothing to aid debate and are simply ad hominem attacks.

There's the problem that they are relative to the population in question...

That and these labels are often applied inaccurately so those who choose to continue with personal attacks might want the check the label against a poll first.

My only regret is the term "leftist" for anyone who isn't on the political right.

"Leftwinger" used to adequately describe this, just as "rightwing" and "rightwinger" still do for the opposite view.

Making liberal or leftwing politics into an "-ism", the right can comfortably demonise about half of modern political discourse without having to engage with it at all, or explain why (they think) it is a bad idea.

While it does chime with the anti-intellectualism that often comes into play on the political right, I think it limits the choices available to the public unnecessarily, and it lets the right get away with carrying out policies that are, frankly, very old and discredited "leftist" ideas (e.g. trade protectionism, "big" government, and many of the current Bush administration's policies).

Must agree with Julian here. If it was left-wing and right-wing then there wouldn't be any problems, IMO. But leftist is certainly a term used by those on the right to belittle the left's points/values/beliefs whatever. It's like that lovely term "leftist mainstream media" that I hear so frequently - that's obvisouly not meant as a term of endearment. I do hear "leftist looney" and "looney liberal" and "bleeding heart liberal", but I am not as familiar with "attacks" against right-wingers since I don't use them and don't often hear them (as I'm not a right-winger).

Maybe it's just because I'm not being called by this name, but I don't see the problem with "religious right" - I mean, it's a reference to those who are on the right who are religious, is it not? Now if it were "religious right fanatics" that would be wrong, but I guess to me (and I would never assume it as a negative if someone else said it nor would I think it was negative if I used it) it's just an explanatory term.

I understand, but my whole point is that if someone isn't a rightwinger, don't call them a rightwinger, the same for leftwingers. To some people here there is no such thing as a conservative or a liberal, there are only leftists and rightwingers.

CP

I think I'll make my final point more clear because I think it goes to the heart of this issue, labeling another member left-wing, right-wing etc. is a personal attack. It does nothing to advance constructive debate, because it almost never has to do directly with the topic. I think the lesson here is debate the issue,

Not the people.

I don't have a problem with using the labels as descriptors, but I have seen a large amount of partisan blanket statements recently...mostly negative, and it's a major obstruction to debate.

The best analogy that I can think of is when you're watching a political debate with a candidate who's trying to convince you to vote for him, but rather than actually answering the questions to give you a clue about his position, he responds with an attack on his opponent. It's irritating, and it doesn't further the debate at all.

What's even worse is that the candidates try to mask their attacks by making blanket statements about the group to which the opponent belongs, which is just as distracting and meaningless, because political views differ from person to person no matter what group they belong to. It really hurts a person's credibility when they use such poor debate tactics.

Julian and kmsouthern,

You're right, but ... tha left does that vs. the right too, and quite a lot from where I sit, so it isn't a one sided thing at all.

Turnea,

Exactly so, debate the issue, not the person.


As for me, I don't take offense at all if I'm called a rightist or rightwinger, since I do consciously identify with the right, and in particular with the central concept that to my mind divides "right" from "left" -- Thomas Sowell's concept of the "constrained vision" vs. the "unconstrained vision."

I don't mind being called a libertarian, or a classical liberal, or an Old Whig, or a strict construction constitutionalist or a Goldwater conservative (though that's the only modifier that makes me accept the conservative label).

What I do not appreciate is being called an extremist; it doesn't offend me since I believe as Goldwater did that "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of virtue is no virtue." But it does bother because it's an attempt to sway the opinion the audience by a personal attack, and it does sometimes succeed in political campaigns if not on AD.

Hey! It's refreshing to hear people who want to avoid what I call "discretifying" a debate - attempting to reduce it, polarize it. Instead, you wish to revel in the deeper community, the continuous spectrum of people beyond their labelability.

I have a suggestion that might at times be too subtle to be useful, but might other times be a way to say more accurately what you want. If you want to mention that political entity that someone is leaning towards or sharing characteristics of, use it as an adjective form rather than noun.

For example, if someone was to complain about GWB taking funding away from the Head Start program, you could say that the person had a leftish concern, rather than that they were a left winger or such. Like I said, it's subtle, but nevertheless, the responder would have gotten to mention leftism, and the original poster would not have had to suffer a label, and the same is what all readers would of course see.

It's kind of parallel to the idea in mediation or social work, of making "I statements". 2 people that are in conflict can still complain about one another's behavior, but they do it in a way that reduces, rather than escalates, tension. Because an "I statement" will be inherently truer. The abovementioned use of an adjective is sort of an "I statement" of one's experience of the other's point of view, rather than any attempt to enforce what their point of view is.

I think we can all recognise when one of us leans to the right or left of a debatable issue. Recently I said to Conservpat that his arguement was the conservative side of the coin to my liberal one. These are realities, we can see them.

I think saying,' Jerry Falwell and his ilk are 'a bunch of right wing evangelical nuts' is acceptable, because its opinion based. I think saying, 'the LA Times is run and supported by leftist extremists' is also just. We can see these things.

Saying 'you are just a left/ right wing nut' is not. But lets be true to ourselves. I have no problem being called a liberal, damn right I am. What I do not like is anyone saying that because Im a liberal I have no intellectual reasoning. It would be like my saying all conservatives are war mongers and beyond that have no sense of civility. I think people look at your header to discern where you are politically more than read what you are saying, then run across some rhetoric like, ' If you dont like Bush, then come up with some Democrat alternative'. As if I could actually magically change the face of American politics today. So if I critisize I must have a valuable and voter alternative or keep my big mouth shut. (?) Thats not debate, its bullying.
I have been guilty of generalities, blanket statements, but I try, really try, not to , nor attack the posters for their politics, yet all of us wonder sometimes how each of us ignores what seems to each of us the obvious, then we uh...mention it? LOL. Of course I feel that politicians and the rest of the ilk surrounding are fair game for the most part in this forum, because thats what its about, true?