"Left wingers tend to judge a policy's value based on the effect it will have on their entire community. For lefties, community ranges from everything from a local council area, to the entire country, and often to the whole world. Conversely, right wingers are much more likely to think first and foremost of the policy's impact on themselves and their immediate family."

Wedge politics, anyone? Perhaps we could rewrite this as follows: "Right wingers tend to judge a policy's value based on what they actually know, and the conclusions they can draw about what it will really achieve, based on their background and experience. Left wingers are much more likely to think first and foremost of the ideological stance of the policy source and how it fits in with their personal goals for large-scale disruption of the current system."

There, I fixed it for you.

You've 'hit the nail on the head' with article Victoria; got to the very crux of nearly every issue.

It's definitely a character thing and character depends a lot on personality, which is influenced by genetics. Right wingers are self interested but also materialistic - they see things and riches as being essential to their material and psychological well being and security. They also see their work in accumulating money and spending it on things as being 'good for the economy' and therefore that's the best thing they can do for others. I'd say this is true to a point but can't quite see where the line should be drawn.

Using myself as a 'laboratory' to analyse a leftie - I've always been compassionate for others, idealistic, loved justice, like a bit of personal hardship and know when enough is enough e.g. owning a small house, garden, bike, small car, modest superannuation. I feel insecure when I see greed and selfishness ruling and injustice at the inordinate power of the moneyed. I've always been like that and at 59, am unlikely to change. I also know that every one of us is a feeble insignificant being so I look to a higher power - higher motivation - to rule my life, not any earthly being(I call it God but I s'pose the Commies called him Lenin).

We can change our character, although it's limited by our genetics. Rightie - leftie switches can happen, such as when person's journey in the world takes them away from the values they inherited socially from their family (my father was a case in point). The opposite does happen too , usually when idealistic students become wealthy capitalists when they get good jobs.

The left are stupid:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/9/the-end-of-the-age-of-reform/page:printable

Yet another example of the Left's belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority while being blind to their own logical and moral deficits.

The Romney statement has been totally misinterpreted by the author. It was meant to show the hollowness of Obama's unattainable and outrageously expensive idealism which allows him to allocate the people's money for pointless exercises in impractical feelgood ideas vs Romney intention to simply make life better for families (eg get people back to work). The Obama administration has wasted a fortune on feelgood schemes which subsequently failed and cost the taxpayer money and jobs. (e.g Solyndra, electric cars etc) How is that humane? Its the people's money he is spending.

Its completely untrue that Conservatives don't care about the environment (another false Lefty belief). The reality is that they include Humans in it as a priority and don't see Humans as an inferior species who are ruining the environment like the Left do.

After all the talk about "treating people equally" the Left are the greatest haters on the planet, Conservatives to them, don't rate as equal and deserved to be punished.

The Left are the great wasters of tax monies under the guise of 'social justice' rendering the whole population poorer by their notion that the rich can pay for everyone.The Left are economically illiterate and we pay for it every time.

The author fails to understand that it is the prosperity brought about by profitable enterprises which leads to medical discoveries, improved care and funds social schemes. Yet, there is no chance that logic or information will alter her unshakeable belief in the superiority of her views.

Victoria gets some things right, however, the left aren't as egalitarian as she wants you to believe.
Why do they care more for people on the other side of the planet than the person down the road? There's plenty of homeless, mentally ill, and unemployed here, yet saving people 10,000kms away seems to be more important. Furthermore, I have great concerns that altruism is the motivating factor in this 'egalitarianism.' Having once been a lefty and having spent 9 years in the Academe, I found these 'egalitarians' to be persuaded more by reactive motives than genuine concern. It seemed to be little more than a 'point scoring' opportunity over the Liberals or the business community. Their personal lives were far from egalitarian, usually so full of self-importance, snobbishness, and highly intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Additionally, their 'altruism' was often palmed onto the state, thus depersonalizing their 'egalitarianism.'
It is also interesting to note that the genuine egalitarians often come from the church, a group much despised by the left. It is the Christian missionaries who go around feeding and clothing the homeless late at night, whereas the academic and intellectual left are nowhere to be seen.

I moved to the right because I found the hypocrisy of the left unbearable. The right are far more honest in their views.

That all seemed self serving and overly simplistic. I guess that its difficult to consider broad political positions without resorting to broad stereotypes however the author is either lacking in understanding of what motivates a lot of those nominally on the "right" or is deliberately misrepresenting both sides.

Good people with compassion and a car for the wellbeing of society exist on both the left and right of politics as do the selfish hate filled bigots.

As someone on the right of politics I have the perception that those on the left are more inclined to do compassion (or dismissal ) for people based on ideological groupings than on the reality of their lives than those on the left. The social or human cost of policies seem to matter little if those on the downside ar not part of some group deemed worthy of care. I'm also aware that we all sit on a continium rather than at some fixed point.

I'm more than tired of politicians on both sides of politics valuing other peoples life choices and priorities ahead of mine when it comes to deciding what happens with my income.

A basic test for those who think they hold some sort of moral high ground on this. Of those who advocate for higher taxes how many routinely send some extra off to the tax department even if you don't think you can afford to do so? Not to a favorite charity but to the tax department. If you don't do that then you are making a similar choice to those who want to maintain control of their income, you just dress it up in a pretense.

R0bert

I sort of agree with Aristocrat.
Moreover I just don't see a distinct left or right in today's politics or politicians?
Just an up or down, or good policy versus bad policy.
We talk about carbon reduction, while illogically irrationally locking away our lowest carbon producing resources and instead, importing twice refined products, that collectively produce four times more carbon that that which we've locked away; ostensibly, to save the planet!
We wring our hands over people that are living in survival camps, while routinely ignoring the third world conditions that are the everyday reality for many of our indigenous citizens, or the thousands made homeless right here, I believe, by the rampant serial stupidity of mantra muttering political parties/incompetent govt/empire building bureaucrats?
Or, enormous never ever satisfied insatiable greed; of a few quite massively/undeservedly privileged individuals, or around 1% of our population?
If there is a left or right, then surely it is only ever seen at the extreme ends of the current political spectrum, with each side being insulated from; or selectively deaf, dumb or blind to the inevitable negative consequences, of their often entirely irrelevant or irrational decision making processes?
Lenin and the greens on the one side and exceptionally over rewarded corporate cowboys or psychotics on the other?
[Improving the rewards for the latter never ever translating to improved employment or growth outcomes, aside from the growth of economic waistlines or insatiable appetites of the already over rewarded/privileged?]
And never the twain shall meet or ever agree on so much as a single item?
Sadly, only something as severe as a world wide Great depression is ever likely to allow the genuine pragmatist to once again emerge and institute the art of the possible?
Rather than the eternally opposing evocations of the opposite political poles of the eternally warring propagandists/confidence tricksters and the harm they do or cause, unintentionally or otherwise?
Rhrosty.

Right wing people have a strong inner-parent, left wing people a strong inner-child.

Adults create a balance between right and left wing views.

The right tend to think that market forces can act without government. They ignore the fact that companies, including the banking system, are artificial constructs of government and the laws politicians have introduced.

Without adequate government laws and regulation the Gresham phenomena gains traction and only the rogues succeed. That is how Wall Street brought on the GFC. The rogues will bring on the same problem again because no one has been willing to reintroduce adequate regulation.

Romney and his 1% mates want smaller government yet in the USA government is only 20% of GDP whereas France runs a successful economy with Government share at near 50%.

Many large companies are run much less competently that much of government. John Ralston Saul has made some excellent comments on just that subject.

I have little objection to migration and refugees provided they don't bring with them the philosophies and customs that caused the problems they wish to leave behind.

The Right v Left issue assessed (brilliantly) by a black Conservative Economist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related

The best way to help poor people is to pay them less.
Yeah, that'll work.

Well done Roses, but do take care. You'll pull a muscle with all that reaching around to pat yourself on the back. Then as a lefty you'll expect my taxes to pay your doctor for you.

And there we have it all. Lefties are very good at spending other peoples money in their chosen area, where the right are much better at saving their money, & paying their own way.

You only have to look at this fool Julia & her mob. They have broken the bank, knocked a hole in the money pipe line, but continue promising to spend money they, & their replacement government will never have.

Our bleeding hearts can bleed all over some often undeserving mob, but have not a single thought of what their actions will consign our kids to in the future. They do not even seem to care about their own kids future, as long as they can admire themselves.

Truth be known, we should be locking them up for the potential child abuse they are causing.

But, Hasbeen, even "righties" are happy for their medical bills to be paid for by taxes....as you have enlightened us in the past of your own medical procedures being paid for by the public purse.

(tell me if I'm mistaken)

>>The left are stupid<<

But not as stupid as the right:

http://www.motivationalposter.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/194139252_5020fc53cf-400x320.jpg

http://www.picturesandjokes.com/pictures/palin-15.jpg

http://dailywire.com.au/uploads/img-731-1-clipboard01.jpg

Cheers,

Tony

Wonder if Hasbeen has private medical insurance, if so the low paid are subsidizing him !

More taxes are paid by high income earners, so in effect they are subsidising low income earners, not the other way round.

Typical left, with a pincer movement to make sure I'm wrong, what ever I do.

Kipp reckons I'm a crook if I have private insurance, & Poirot wants a bit of me if I use the public health system.

Come on people, do try to get some agreement please.

OH, & if you have forced me to pay for a public health system, don't expect me not to use it. That really is hypocrisy with a capital H.

My own taxes pay for my medical bills Hasbeen, though I do try to minimize them by living a healthy lifestyle. Incredibly it's not just your taxes that pay for the health of the 'undeserving poor'.

By the way are (or were) you actually one of those incredibly hard working selfless, self employed rich ? I been privileged to know few e.g. farmers who bought the farm by shearing sheep and remained active in the community all their lives - conservative voters too.

Maybe like me you were once a humble schoolteacher / civil servant, but I doubt it. (now that's a tough selfless job if ever there was one; I could only hack it for a few years). Seriously though, I think one defining factor between left and right voters is whether they are self employed / in business or work for government, and it's not difficult to see why. But both are equally likely to be conscientious hard workers contributing a lot to society.

It's increasingly clear that many of the rich and most of the very rich got there by mainly by luck, inheritance,(e.g Gina) swindling, deception or a combination thereof.

There are a few exceptional tycoons such as Dick Smith who gives over $100,000 a year to charities. He exhorts his fellow multi-millionaires to do the same but laments the dismally low statistics of wealthy givers.

PS Foyle, liked your point re % of GDP From government sector in France and the US. Maybe the 'socialist' France has been the better place to live at least since 2008?

right wingers are much more likely to think first and foremost of the policy's impact on themselves and their immediate family."
Jon J,
You've really got that back to front, just look at the unions.

Roses1- you said "It's increasingly clear that many of the rich and most of the very rich got there by mainly by luck, inheritance,(e.g Gina) swindling, deception or a combination thereof."

Really? Name a prominent wealthy person who you know simply swindled or lucked their way to the top? Its clear you have zero understanding of what people have to do to succeed at that level. You don't seem to understand that it takes a lot of ability to do what Gina Reinhart has done.It seems you believe people are rich because they are evil and lucky and you are not because you are good and unlucky. Seriously?

Hasbeen,

I believe you have every right to use the public system.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of you saying to Roses:

"...Then as a lefty you'll expect my taxes to pay your doctor for you.....Lefties are very good at spending other peoples money in their chosen area, where the right are much better at saving their money, & paying their own way."

Hasbeen writes: "...if you have forced me to pay for a public health system, don't expect me not to use it. That really is hypocrisy with a capital H."

I look at it more as common decency.

I earn enough to not need the public health system, so I don't use it. But I'm still happy for my taxes to pay for the health care of those who can't afford private health. There's nothing socialist or "bleeding heart" about that, it's just part of living in a civilised society.

The thing irks me the most about the Right, is the fact that so many of them would quite happily see our public health system abolished for a fully americanised one. One where those who can't afford health care are sent home to die or left with a second mortgage after a life-saving operation. That's not just wrong, it's downright evil.

I have complete faith that the Coalition will one day realise this dream. It's their final frontier. But I won't feel sorry for you're average rightwing suburbanite bogan if they wake up one day, only to find that they've lost all access to affordable healthcare just because they didn't like the fact that Labor restricted where they could fish, or because they don't like those funny looking people invading our shores.

Fishing restrictions and boat people won't seem like much of a problem after you're told that the excess after the car accident you were in will still be in the tens of thousands.

AJ Phillips,
I have lived through the Joh era in Qld & let me tell you we had free health, dental etc. no death duty & all worked well. Then Labor got in & the rest is history. Don't preach to me about left vs right. The Left is constantly harping on about democracy & education when really they're building an Ineptocracy & dumb-down our kids.

Tony Lavis; very witty Tony; a picture of Bush to prove the right are stupider than the left; yeah right; which one of these is you:

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

Are you in there Poirot?

I have no idea, cohenite.

And clicking on a link titled "zombietime" is not in my OLO itinerary.

It's about your speed though.

Carry on....

The article by Julie Bishop is not a bad example of what I think characterises the "rights" thinking on personal vs social.

Its not entirely personal, it's not driven by a blind ideology that ignores the flow on effects of a particular action but rather tries to the balance. Not suggestion BTW that our current crop of pollies generally take that approach.

I liked a point made by Thomas Sowell in the Utube clip linked to earlier that there is always a trade off, that any attempt to create a social good will do some harm elsewhere and its about finding the best balance.

R0bert

they've truly lost it !
They've turned so far to the left they're now hard up against the right's
rear, bring on smellyvision.
It is appalling that we're forced to support such morons.
Thank you Labor ! Thanks for nothing.

Poirot, you're such a snob; and I'm worried about your lack of a sense of humour; let me test it; I'm currently reading a book called 'Cecil the Aardvark goes quantity surveying'; what do you think?

cohenite (my sweet),

I think that is an excellent title.

(It's time for the penguin on top on your TV to explode!)

Who is left, and who is right?
I believe wholeheartedly in Capitalism. I believe in competition. I believe in everyone having the freedom to start their own business, work as many hours as they want or need to, and enjoy an infrastructure that allows everyone a fair go, and the opportunity for everyone to achieve their potential, whatever that may be.
Does that make me a 'leftie'?
I don't believe Arch Capitalists like Capitalism. I don't believe they like competition. The evidence irrefutably demonstrates that the most successful Capitalists hate competition, and want nothing more than the freedom to buy, steal or destroy anyone or anything that tries to compete with them.
The dream of the Arch Capitalist, the Pot of Gold at the end of the Rainbow, is to have a complete monopoly, and to be Too Big To Be Allowed To Fail.
I don't want to live in a world where a small handful of people own everything, and everyone in the world works longer and longer hours just to make them richer.
I don't want my children to either.
Does that make me a 'leftie'?
As parents, we have a simple choice.
We can either try to give our own kids the best possible future, in spite of every other kid in the world, or...
We can try to create a better world for our kids, by giving every kid a better life.
That's the difference between left and right.

Is this article for real? Pathetic is the word i would use, and i am being kind.

>>which one of these is you:<<

This one:

http://cdn.mgsrvr.com/q-qr/asset/53096/images/badges/nerd.gif

You seem to have made the mistake of confusing 'hippies', 'retards', 'deadbeats' and 'fuckwits' for 'lefties'. But trying to equate all lefties with insane extremist lefties is like trying to equate all righties with neo-nazis: so wildly inaccurate that it is laughable.

>>I'm currently reading a book called 'Cecil the Aardvark goes quantity surveying'; what do you think?<<

Speaking of inaccuracy...

I think that title should read 'Ethel the Aardvark goes quantity surveying'. Do you ever check your facts?

>>Is this article for real? Pathetic is the word i would use, and i am being kind.<<

Is this comment for real? It doesn't even qualify as pathetic, and I am being kind.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony lavis,
So, what is your take on the lefties then ? Do you agree/disagree that they're a pointless outfit ?

Ethel or Cecil ? This will settle it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPouuA0KMO4

Isn't dividing politics into either Left or Right just so last century? I like Houellebecq's analogy.

I think having government that seesaws between two extremes, because we insist on only either having a left wing or right wing party in is harmful. It would be great to have government that is in the centre with a slight movement to either the right or the left of the spectrum depending on what is happening, what is deemed more important at that time. So a multiparty system. The Liberals should divide into 2 parties, Labor 3. Us voters would get a clearer picture then on the genesis of some policy proposals.

And the argument re private vs public health is a strawman. Private insurance pays a very small percentage only, not even half, of the cost of health care. Medicare pays the biggest slice towards the cost of private hospital care. And then you still are out of pocket. Pushing people taking up private health insurance is a rort only benefitting insurance companies who will not even cover you fully even if you wanted to and pay for it.

Atman,
yeah, very funny. Just sad that this has actually become reality since.

>>So, what is your take on the lefties then ?<<

Which lefties?

Cheers,

Tony

"So, what is your take on the lefties then ?"

Is this asked by a, of a, or about cockalorum? For me, ambivalent sums it up. When pushing pleasure buttons – your own or others' – taking sides and preferring the left or right hand makes very little difference.

My experience has been that evenhandedness is preferable. Ambidexterity is best. It helps prevent repetitive strain injuries.

Where did we come from?
Listening to some of our most privileged, or self made millionaires, you'd be forgiven for believing they were born in the log cabin they created with their own hands!?
Wealth, even extreme wealth, is the product of many hands and minds, not just one!
No man risking/using just his own money and endeavour, can create a multi billion dollar empire in a single lifetime!
As a former businessman, I can say, that my most valuable asset was my staff!
Good staff are the very lifeblood or any income earning enterprise!
Almost exclusively, the only business models that survived the last Great Depression, largely intact and economically well, were cooperatives!
Comparing business bankruptcies. Conventional corporations top the list, whereas, co-ops have little of any history of failure, unless unfairly targeted by right wing politicians, seeking to downsize the left wing support populations, who almost invariably, are part and parcel of caring and sharing cooperative capitalism?
We really do need to reverse recent trends, towards foreign carpet bagging ownership, and back onto cooperative capitalism, which has room for the entrepreneurial innovator; or, family run enterprise and the individual.
Regardless of our political affiliations, we do need to refocus on Australia, Australians and putting our own people first!
By investing in our own people and their better ideas, rather than the whims of debt laden, tax avoiding, asset stripping foreign investors, who invariably ask Australia and Australians to carry the can, service their debt burdens and foreign shareholders' ever increasing expectations.
Only those blinkered by seriously flawed, or extreme right or left wing ideologies, would ever believe we needed that example of banana republic, rust belt creating, foreign capital?
Rhrosty.

taking sides and preferring the left or right hand makes very little difference.
WM Trevor,
that's ambivalent alright. In fact I think it's just plain pointless. If it is still not obvious to some that the Left simply can not govern & the Right at least has a track record of getting a few things right then the remarks of those who fail to see are, as I said, pointless.
However, they're not irrelevant because the can not see sense make up more than half of the electorate.

Ever noticed a vivid imagination and a sense of humour tend to go hand in hand?
But rarely from left hand to right hand.
Keep the good work up, WmTrevor, -for as long as is comfortable.