What is Your Political Orientation?

[Daverz]

Quote from: Jill Lawrence
The Pew Research Center classifies only 6 percent of Americans and 12 percent of Democrats as "progressive left."

I know what a progressive Democrat looks like, but the phrase "progressive left" seems ambiguous to me.

[Brian]

I know what a progressive Democrat looks like, but the phrase "progressive left" seems ambiguous to me.

Yeah, that term makes me think of 1905-1925 progressives like Robert LaFollette and Charles Evans Hughes.

[Todd]

Yeah, that term makes me think of 1905-1925 progressives like Robert LaFollette and Charles Evans Hughes.

I'm not sure I would associate Hughes with the left or even very strongly with Progressivism of the era.

[Brian]

I'm not sure I would associate Hughes with the left or even very strongly with Progressivism of the era.

Maybe I got the wrong guy. Been a while since my last plow through the amazing Edmund Morris Theodore Roosevelt trilogy.

(TR is also an example of the slipperiness of labels.)

[Todd]

TR is also an example of the slipperiness of labels.

To say the least.  Hey, at least a lot of luminaries of the age supported Eugenics, so there's that.

[Florestan]

I agree completely with Jo. What today pass as far right was mainstream social-democracy 50 years ago.  At least in non-Communist Europe. În Communist Europe they did pass as far right 50 years ago.

[JBS]

I agree completely with Jo. What today pass as far right was mainstream social-democracy 50 years ago.  At least in non-Communist Europe. În Communist Europe they did pass as far right 50 years ago.

I would disagree. Perhaps mainstream social democracy of the 1920s/1930s.

I was still a kid 50 years ago, but old enough to follow the news; European nationalism was much less prominent, at least outside the Communist bloc. Perhaps the effects of WWII were still too strong. The primary exception was France, what with DeGaulle's amour-propre setting the tone (even if he himself died in 1970). The same was true of the US: MAGA type existed but were far less powerful culturally or politically.

[greg]

I'd like to vote but don't really feel comfortable with identifying as anything. Closest might be centrist? It's pretty much what I get on the political compass (the good version- the crappy version makes me super lib-left, like it does everyone else). 

(The weird thing about centrist is that you could either be pro-status quo or some insane Nazbol- they are both technically centrists.  )

Also, basically every ideology sucks. The problem is, there's no way around the human condition, so it's like trying to patch a flawed program- you are fixing bugs but only creating more bugs in the process, so you are just moving the bugs to a location that doesn't affect you. No such thing as a utopia, no system that is best for everyone- people are too different for that. Turn your environment into an ideal tropical paradise and you will make many animals happy, but there's still going to be enough Polar Bears out there who will be driven insane and want to revolt.

[Todd]

I'd like to vote but don't really feel comfortable with identifying as anything.

That will not do.  Just say that you are far right and then righteous people will pillory you.

[Florestan]

I would disagree. Perhaps mainstream social democracy of the 1920s/1930s.

Read the 1959 Bad Godesberg Program of the German Social-Democratic Party. German patriotism, check; Christian heritage, check; family values, check; protection of family, check; biological and psychological differences between men and women, check; protection and encouragement for mothers and housewives, check; protection of national borders and of German citizens, check.

https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/Parties%20WZ%203%20ENG%20FINAL.pdf

[drogulus]

     In the past I voted for the Housewife Party. I don't think the party disappeared the housewives, I think they disappeared themselves, with a little help from the economy.

     Ideology will follow change even while it purports to instigate it. As much as I may want to instantiate a decades old fantasy of Mom, Dad, Bud and Sis attending church on Sunday (I can't wait!), I can't help noticing that I never actually lived in that world even when belief in it was common.

     People "believe in" things when they can't actually believe them. That's why the extra word "in", to mark the difference. Is it surprising that party platforms tend to be full of this stuff?

     

[Florestan]

What I'd very much like to know is who is the other person self-identifying as center-right. Step up, brother! 

[greg]

That will not do.  Just say that you are far right and then righteous people will pillory you.

Nah, you don't even have to say or identify as anything, just disagree with the "tolerant" people slightly about some politically sensitive topic and they will be convinced you are far right, and any defensiveness on your part will be just seen as making excuses.

Identifying as their enemy would only confirm their delusions.

Remember, don't go down without your middle finger sticking up. 

[JBS]

What I'd very much like to know is who is the other person self-identifying as center-right. Step up, brother! 

Me.
I would think it rather obvious.

[Jo498]

I was still a kid 50 years ago, but old enough to follow the news; European nationalism was much less prominent...

Nationalism is ambiguous. When I was a teenager in the 1980s virtually no West German would have flown a German flag privately. It was strange to see this done in Britain or in Danish summer homes or so. The reason is obvious despite the "black red gold" having been a democratic flag since the 19th century with no relation to the 2nd or 3rd Reich. That flags can be flown without appearing right wing slowly changed during the 1990s but finally with the World cup 2006 (of course Turkish or Italian Germans had no problem at all to fly "their" (see?) flags and drive around honking after "their" team had won a soccer game already in the 1990s).

BUT: The implied "minimal rational nationalism", i.e. that Germany like most European countries (and unlike the US) is and should be a fairly homogeneous ethno-state, that immigration should be restricted and controlled, that "parallel cultures" from oriental/muslim immigrants with very different traditions could be a problem, so they would have to assimilate, that economic and foreign policies should put German interests first etc. was the standard position. Maybe veiled with some talk about "European integration" (although I think even the mainstream center right had a slogan "First Germany, then Europe" in the 80s or early 90s). Germany also (unlike France) has had a ius sanguinis for citizenship, not ius soli. All of this was mostly unchallenged and undisputed, even within the center left of the 1980s. The center right flipped very recently within less than a decade. In the early 2000s there were speeches by Merkel about the failure of multiculturalism that would appear far right today (despite being simply empirically true...).

Now the demand for assimilation is considered "racist" in some (leftist) quarters. About half of comments from politicians now cry racist when it is pointed out that mostly Albanians and Near-Easterners burned cars and attacked ambulances for fun on New years Eve in Berlin and elsewhere. Conservatives have demanded that first names of German perpetrators should be published. But that's racism because it would clearly show the both the lack of integration (i.e. that 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants are typically not called "Max" but "Ahmad") and the disproportional delinquency of these children of migrants. This must not be true, and if, it's the fault of "structural racism". 

In the early 2000s, after 9/11 the left liberal magazine "Spiegel" had one blatantly anti-islamic cover after the other (which I found exaggerated and repulsive at that time) that would only be found in right wing publications today and considered hate speech. Despite Bataclan and Charlie Hebdo etc., the media decided to completely flip the script on islam and immigration around 2015. Go figure. It certainly does not appear "natural".

(As an aside: The popular/children's history etc. books I read in the 1980s (though some of them were from the 50s, I'd guess) were also mostly naively positive about most of Western/German history, discovery of the world etc. Except for the Nazis/WW II there was a generally positive stance towards the historic and cultural heritage. This has also changed.)

edit: Undeniably, there are some people in the only established right wing party in Germany (AfD) that would have been considered far right even 30-40 years ago. But the core positions and many members would have been considered center right/mainstream conservative at that time (and as I said, many of these positions would have been unquestioned and shared by almost everyone). Their chairperson is a Lesbian (very smart, McKinsey consultant type, not at traditionally conservative) which would obviously have been impossible except for a Green/Fringe alternative party in the 1980s.

[Florestan]

Me.

Thanks.

I would think it rather obvious.

Well, there were a few other candidates too.   

[Jo498]

Read the 1959 Bad Godesberg Program of the German Social-Democratic Party. German patriotism, check; Christian heritage, check; family values, check; protection of family, check; biological and psychological differences between men and women, check; protection and encouragement for mothers and housewives, check; protection of national borders and of German citizens, check.

https://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/Parties%20WZ%203%20ENG%20FINAL.pdf

It was common in my ca. 1990 politics/history class to show the students excerpts (without revealing the source at first) from this and from the 1947 Ahlener Programm of the conservative CDU (Christian democrats) that called for state control of all key industries. It reads fairly socialist (and was revised quickly, probably with some US influence) But even at my school days, in the time of Kohl before the reunification  e.g. the Railroad and postal services were not at all privatized (some of them are still only semi-privatized, like with many current things having worst of both worlds, i.e. socialist inefficiency and capitalist grabbing of public money).

[Florestan]

It was common in my ca. 1990 politics/history class to show the students excerpts (without revealing the source at first) from this and from the 1947 Ahlener Programm of the conservative CDU (Christian democrats) that called for state control of all key industries. It reads fairly socialist

Indeed. But even so, they clearly state:

it is necessary to:

Strengthen the economic position and freedom of the individual, and prevent economic forces from being concentrated in the hands of individual persons, companies, and private or public organizations, which could endanger economic or political freedom.

Efficient small- and medium-sized businesses must be promoted for the sake of their national economic value and for the opportunities they provide for social advancement. Within industry, commerce, handicrafts, and the trades, private entrepreneurship must be preserved and supported.

Incidentally, note the use of the word "national". 

In the context of discussion, though, my favorite part is this one (all highlights are mine):

Within every reform of the German economy, regardless of whether it might involve land reform, the reconstruction of the industrial economy, or the redefinition of the relationship between employees and companies, the first and foremost goal is the welfare of the entire people [Volkes]. Above all, the German economy serves neither the welfare of a particular class nor that of foreign nations. After the German people's necessities of life have been satisfied, the Allies in particular do have a right to, and an interest in, the elimination of the excessive war industry as well as reparations payments. But they have no right to curtail German industry in such a fashion that the vital needs of the German people are neglected, nor to mold it according to the export needs of their own industries.

This is even more explicitly "far right" than the Bad Godesberg Program.

the Railroad and postal services were not at all privatized (some of them are still only semi-privatized, like with many current things having worst of both worlds, i.e. socialist inefficiency and capitalist grabbing of public money).

It's the same here.

[Florestan]

Italian Christian-Democrats were also "far right" 50 years ago. Here are some electoral posters from 1963.



The left one reads "Protect Me!" and it's clearly anti-Communist.

The center one reads "The Christian-Democracy Has Turned 20" and it's clearly traditionalist.

The right one reads "Mum and Dad Vote for Me" and it's clearly about family values.

[71 dB]

According to this poll the Overton window of GMG covers LEFT to CENTER-RIGHT. A little bit left from center is the average orientation. We "lack" true socialists and communists as well as the true right/far right members. Appreciation of classical music demonstrates some level of intelligence and intellectual interest beyond "intellectually less-demanding" popular music. A person of intelligence and understanding/knowledge of the World is more likely to have somewhat centrist than far left/right political orientation. 

On economic issues hardly nobody seems to be very right-leaning, but on social issues some members say they are conservative.

"Far-right" is a very badly defined term. Far-right people in the lower class are economically actually quite left-leaning, but instead of being progressive they are conservative. Far-right thinks things have progressed worse and the solution is to go back to "better" times. That's why progress (and change) as a concept is something negative for people in the far-right. Rich people who benefit from the status quo as it is "rigged" for them don't want change at least to a direction wrong for them. So, rich people use less educated and perhaps not so bright individuals to adapt this progress hating ideology. Billionaires pay people like Ben Shapiro to brainwash less educated people to think that the reason they are struggling in life is not because the rich rob them blind, but because "illegal" immigrants take the minimum age jobs and oppressed groups of people such as people of LGBT+, women, people of colour, people of religion other than christianity etc. are getting more rights and protection to be equal with other people. That's the trick to prevent these economically struggling people to realize their "place" on economic issues is in fact in the left. Billionaires who want most people live in poverty working 60 hours or more a week are the real far-right, the crony capitalists. Poor people who were brainwashed by Andrew Tate/Charlie Kirk/Ben Shapiro/Fox News/etc. ready for violence to "save" America from wokeness and CRT should not be called far-right. These are just people who know too little about the World to have a political orientation of their own! They are politically disorientated.