Many political analysts seem to have moved beyond left and right. Sorry to reference Wikipedia, but their entry on the political spectrum demonstrates how complex nailing down one's position really is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

I've always identified with the left. About a decade ago, when I was working with asylum seekers, I realised what a crock our our political blanket rules are. While the meeja and culture in general regarded the fight to close down detention centres as a "lefty" struggle, the reality was that the ALP in government built most of the centres, and the Liberals in government closed Woomera down. Of course, the Liberal government had some ridiculously draconian policies regarding asylum seekers. But some of its biggest critics were Liberal backbenchers.

A lot of people who identify as right-wing think we should have stronger border controls and let fewer people in. Yet a true liberal position — a laissez faire immigration policy — would have us open our doors to all and sundry, and let the market decide how many it can support.

These are simply examples. My question is, are the terms "left" and "right" still useful?

Is it right wing to think government should be a strict father, and left wing to think it a nurturing mother? If the Liberal Party is based on liberalism, why does it appear to care who sleeps with whom and whether they should be allowed to spend their hard-earned on IVF? Why are they called the conservatives when their social policies are often pretty radical? How come our current PM is a fiscal conservative? If the ALP is supposed to represent big government and the Liberal Party is supposed to represent small government, why does the public sector appear to gradually decrease no matter who's in power? How come we had a Labor government who deregulated the economy and the Liberal government who created SBS?

If you're unsure where you stand, have a go at the world's smallest political quiz: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html I was liberal (small "l", natch), leaning toward libertarian.

Or see where you fall on the political compass: http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/test

Who are these political analysts you speak of? If they reside in academia only, there has always been resistance to the left/right classifications.

Dear Vanilla,

Why can't we have a type of politics which judges the issues as they come?

Don't you think that people today increasingly care more about issues and less about party politics?

Why is it that if we made the members of both major political parties swap places, after two days no one would notice the difference?

Left/Right thinking is still used to describe a particular economic or social outlook in a general sense but I think we have gone beyond the stricter ideological parameters to a more inclusive mindset. You will always have your passionate left and right wingers but middle Australia is not so easily defined.

My own views would probably be considered eclectic and I tend to lean to the left but take a more pragmatic approach ("capitalism with a heart" if you like) and don't believe that a free market means a free people. Uncontrolled capitalism is equally undesirable to me as Communism, both systems create a powerful ruling elite and inhibit the democratic process.

Most people are not as confined by those stereotypes as in previous decades. Even the die-hard Communists have moved on. At the global level there has been a shift to the 'right' which is concerning and some more 'left' thinking is needed to bring us back to a healthy balance.

Interesting tests Vanilla and they were pretty much as I expected - left liberal and in the other test landed in the Green square scoring Economic Left/Right: -3.88 and for Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69 (almost centre in the green square but heading towards the middle slightly).

Still there are some basic differences between right and left but these differences become smaller as we are moving from the base to the top, as we are moving from poor countries to rich countries, as we are moving from non Anglo Saxon Countries to Anglo Saxon countries.
The main differences between left and right are the following.

1. The lefts are innovators, dreamers, creators, they open paths, roads highways to the future. The rights protects, maintains, repairs the existent, the present! If for the lefts the present is a moment into the future for the rights the present is a moment from the past.

2. The lefts are more sensitive for the people in need, workers, migrants, aborigines, women, children, pensioners, refugees etc. They have developed sensitivities about social justice, social responsibility, mutual benefits, democracy, peace, environment etc.
The rights care mainly for their own benefits but they say that lefts are dreamers and sensitive on social justice etc because they are weak, because they can not realize their dreams. They say that left's sensitivities are an excuse for their weakness and personal failures that when left individuals become strong enough, they forget their dreams and social sensitivities!
Karl Marx did not write that capitalists are bad persons with low moral code and labors are good with high moral code but that the capitalist system is enough complex and it is not easy to see how unfair it is. While for slaves seemed that they was working ONLY for their bosses (in really they was working for their self too)and while the modern workers are working MAINLY for their employers it is seemed that they are working ONLY for their self. The moral code, character depends on many factors and not only from the left or right.

3. The lefts start from the general to parts to individuals, to real persons. Social justice, working class, Antonios Symeonakis. They have very good views, pictures from the whole, from the forest, they can find enough good solutions for general problems but maybe they find Antonios's victimization very late.
CONTINUE

Hmmm,

I heard somewhere a right wing person under 30 has no soul, a left wing person over 30 is a dreamer.

ASymeonakis, your post suggests that you don't really understand the diversity in the so called "right".

Many of the attributes you ascribe to the left are ones I'd ascribe to sections of both left and right and there are others on both ends of the spectrum who I think would have few of those attributes.

It's so easy in these debates to see "the other side" as less caring, less ethical or just plain evil. Often the truth is that it's about seeking the the same ends by a different path. Not always exactly the same end but close, we make different choices about what comprimises we are willing to accept to get there and what costs we are willing to pay. That does not make the heart less caring or the goal less noble, just a different perspective.

R0bert

To clarify the situation.Our left is our emotional social side,while our right is our hard headed survival side.Without the right there is no time for the indulgences of the left.We need both sides.It is just a matter of finding the balance.

part two
The rights do not care enough for the general problems. They say as they try for their own benefits they create wealth, they improve the general conditions. As each individual landlord try to wipe the fire and save his/her house at the end they wipe the whole fire and save houses and forest

4. government-managment
The lefts have good ideas, big dreams but the implementations of these ideas or dreams it is not an easy issue. They have big problems to implement their ideas, goals to facts. It is not easy to put together general's, part's and individual's interests when the society is not really ready for it The difficulties and the cost increased as we are moving from individual's to general solutions. If the lefts lose the elections and this happened often it is not of cause their goals but of cause their weakness to realize their goals.
The rights have an advantage on the government- management as they have more clear and limited goals and they service mainly the Businesses-corporations. Right's lack of social sensitivities plus clear, simple, specif goals makes the realization of their goals much easier. Many voters think that rights are good to create wealth and lefts to spread this wealth with a fair way.

5. Nation-religious
Lefts are more internationalists, more sensitive for world problems, they support the international bodies, UN, International Criminal Court, Kyoto Protocol, Amnesty International, Peace, Cooperation, Understanding, mutual benefits, common goals, common future, World brotherhood. Lefts are more opened to various religious and most atheists come from the left.
For rights these have a meaning when there is no other choice, but if they think they have a choice then they are ready to use any way for their goals. Although rights are more realistic from lefts, usually they cause many wars, hate and international problems. For rights nation and religious are going together and they are strong supporters for their religious, some of them are religious extremists.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
CONTINUE

yes.. we have to put off the old robes of 'LEFT/RIGHT' and put ON the new clothes of 'balanced politics'...

BUT.. as a new discussion I hope to have approved will show, there is nothing new under the sun, and the 'neo-cons' and the 'bleeding hearts' existed wayyyyy before this century.

BEYOND... L/R yep..its quite easy really.

a)Usually "Left" means 'working class' "Right" means 'land holders/big business/employers.

b)So, our 2 major political parties are both primarily based on 'us/them' as our friend Passy clearly demonstrates "class struggle" duh....

The only way to go beyond this, is to adopt a value system which is best for all.

The 'best' value sytem is "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

Now..this works, until we begin to get multiple definitions of what 'we' would have done "for us".

On the issue of Assylum seekers, there is a clear difference of view.

My view. "I would not expect YOUR country to accept me as a refugee if I'd specifically chosen 'your' country based on it's economic status, rather than closeness to my home and the assurance of safe haven"

but..it appears that this is where we begin to diverge.

If we don't diverge here, we would be left with an open borders situation and soon we would be standing in food ques not having a clue 'who' we are anymore.

Will a 'Christian' government solve this problem? would that ensure we all 'do for others' etc? nah.. because unfortunately our political reality is that neither Left nor Right really matter in the end, we are at the mercy of the various 'national interests' of much bigger countries. So, most of it is just idealistic wishful thinking of people who actually think there is a political utopia out there just waiting for us to discover it

Close, Usual Suspect. The original quote is from Aristide Briand, and goes "The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head".

It's not complimentary to either socialists nor capitalists, but it's frequently misquoted to seem as though it is.

Vanilla

Thanks for the tests, came out as Lefty leaning libertarian, which is by no means surprising nor a complete analysis of what constitutes my character.

I agree with the premise of your article that simply attaching a label of 'left' or 'right' is very limiting and inaccurate.

Or even 'libertarian' or 'authoritarian' - there are people on this forum who claim to be libertarian, who I would describe as being very authoritarian indeed. Same for religion, some who claim to be Christian are very judgemental of others, incapable of turning the other cheek in fact.

Labels - useful in the supermarket not really helpful for defining people.

And so it goes..

Thanks for an interesting thread, Vanilla, and some good links. Some good potential discussion starters on the Political Compass Test too I thought for anyone so inclined.

Yes, I turned up Libertarian Left, and again no surprises there. I tested further to the economic left (-8.5) than I did on the social libertarian scale (-5.38). Also, no surprises about that. It's why I can find myself in agreement with the socialist views of posters such as Passy and yet occasionally, and most scarily, also find myself on the same side of a debate as Gibo and BD. Though I hasten to add for very different reasons.

Left and Right will always be with us. I find the people calling it an outdated concept are usually those who either don't understand it or who know they sit on the right but want to disguise the fact. Simplistic? Probably. Biased? No doubt! But that's my take on it.

I must admit, my number one peeve on OLO is people who start statements with "the left say that" or the same for the right.

When people do that, my brain immediately categorises them as a politically ignorant ideologue. I assume they're the kind of people that won't listen to the other side of the debate, and worse still, it's the kind dumb that thinks it's smart and already knows everything.

I try not to, but I'll admit. I don't try very hard to resist that, because all too often it's accurate.

Sorry if you're one of those, but I'm being honest here. I suspect I'm not the only one who reacts with those thoughts.

As I see it, there are two separate spheres - economic, and 'social' or 'cultural'. Your economic issues are your issues like privatisation, tariffs, access to services, government handouts, welfare, measures to handle inflation - essentially, your socialism/capitalism debate.

The other side is your cultural/social issues. Censorship, abortion, crime and punishment penalties, drug or euthanasia legalisation, etc.

It all comes down to the level of government intervention in either. You're either 'libertarian' which means the government should keep their hands off, or there's the alternative. I'll use the word 'conservative' but it gets complex, because for some reason, people who are libertarian in one respect, tend to be conservative in the other.

Think of the 'neo-cons'. They speak of free markets and claim to be economic libertarians (which is crap actually, they presided over big-government spending like never before, but they talk as if they are). So while they preach economic libertarianism, they also preach cultural conservatism.
Same deal with Howard and the Liberal party.

On the other hand, your traditional left wing groups like the greens preach liberal conservative values, but high levels of government intervention on economics. Opposite altogether.

More or less, as the political compass demonstrates.

A genuine Liberal would be libertarian on both. Small government in all respects. Permit abortions, but lower taxes. They'd probably also be lax on gun control.

The alternative is a socialist type model of high intervention - high taxes, free healthcare for all, no abortions, no guns.

As you can see, few people would fit into either. I'd be very liberal on my cultural issues, but I'm keen on gun control. I don't mind privatisations, but only when it won't create a monopoly situation and I think for this reason, all the Australian examples have been stupid, from an economic point of view. I don't mind taxes, but I want well funded schools and healthcare.
I don't like tariffs or subsidies, but I'd be in favour of Australia using them only in cases where our chief rivals are using them as well (with us pegging our subsidies to a fraction of theirs to encourage them to drop them).

I'd call it the centre-left, a social libertarian position. Accepting the free market is the best solution to most economic issues isn't a traditional left position, so I wouldn't quite fit the 'left' stereotype.

For a long time, there has been a mantra that in order to be economically successful, you must adopt the most extreme right-wing economic models in order to thrive.

Problem is, the economic indicators tend to show that centrist economies are the most successful - witness Denmark and Finland, some of the world's most competitive economies, albeit with high taxes. Socialism is of course, no answer, but pure capitalism doesn't work either.

I don't think many people do fit into a stereotyped role. I think this monolithic 'left' that is referred to, is crap.

Insulting the 'left' or the 'right' en masse, is the tactic of simpletons who can't discuss the issues sensibly.

Dear Vanilla,

Thanks for the test. A few surprises. I scored as a Liberal(Left), and my husband scored - 'Centrist.'

Whereas the reality is - we fluctuate, depending on the issues.

Still it was interesting to see how we rated.

I think so little of left/right cept on footy field, I refuse to try to understand what is might mean

best comparison is why churches are so ineffectual, ie they HAVE a stance eg catholic say this must be truth [no thought allowed] and other mob say something else must never be given logical thought

so back to politics etc, to say you are left etc is simply to say you are just a puppet and no good to anybody

R0bert: "It's so easy in these debates to see "the other side" as less caring, less ethical or just plain evil. Often the truth is that it's about seeking the the same ends by a different path. Not always exactly the same end but close, we make different choices about what comprimises we are willing to accept to get there and what costs we are willing to pay. That does not make the heart less caring or the goal less noble, just a different perspective."

I'm glad I started this thread, just to house that pearl of wisdom.

I wholeheartedly agree. One of my dearest friends is a Liberal Party member who thinks we should abolish all "nanny state" subsidies — the dole, carer's benefits, everything — and turn the whole lot over to the private sector. She works her arse off for charity herself, and is brilliant at inspiring others, and really believes a US-style campaign to harness and create philanthropists would serve our cultural underbelly better than the government. I am not convinced she's right, but she's motivated by an ardent desire to improve the lot of others. Yet, when we became friends years ago, one of my leftie friends couldn't believe I was associating with the enemy and attributed her good deeds to a grab for power.

Meanwhile, a conservative relative of mine on a prominent leftie: "He's just motivated by the size of his d!ck."

Maybe there are some genuinely evil operators out there, maybe there are people with cardboard cutout personalities who are motivated by flashcard attributes like "power" and "size of dick", but they are few. Cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the intellectually lazy option.

Of course, if we attribute base motivations to others, our own political personality gleams in comparison. It's all too easy, isn't it?

cont

cont...

Nevertheless, I'm not so convinced that we should throw out all labels, as others on this thread seem to be. Political labels can be a shortcut to others ideas about how they might handle particular issues. As long as they're descriptive and flexible rather than prescriptive and boxy, I think they serve a purpose. I also like the way we can trace certain ideas and groups of ideas back to their sources. These labels carry their history with them.

Antonios, I loved your comprehensive and passionate description. I agreed with much. Yin and yang were interlacing in much of your characterisation.

TRTL, re the "you on the left/right think [x]" stuff, yeah, bugs me too. Particularly when people interpret a commitment to freedom of speech and/or religion as evidence the leftie in question favours some particular religious or cultural group (usually Islam). Or, conversely, when people think an advocate for small government does not believe in helping those less fortunate. It's all simplistic hogwash.

Dear Vanilla,

What I'm curious about is - how do people define their understanding these days of 'left' and 'right'?

I've always thought that the 'left' prioritises social equality, while the 'right' prioritises individual responsibility and the maintenance of natural and inherent inequalities between people.

Any thoughts?

Vanilla,

'Cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the intellectually lazy option.

Of course, if we attribute base motivations to others, our own political personality gleams in comparison. It's all too easy, isn't it?
'

Too true. Now if only Fractelle would read this and think about her attacks on Col in the TAX forum...

whatever you think about the left and right is probably true. there is one thing that they have in common, and that is spending more of your money on ridiculous policies and drafting more laws to control and manipulate your behaviour as a citizen.

examples of spending:
-the wars and the second hand junk to go with it
-the recent punitive taxing of some alcoholic drinks

examples of control:
-the new isp censorship proposals and rigid censorship control in our country
-discriminatory banning of gay marriage for no rational reason other than to enforce control on a group of Australians

Surprise surprise I find myself a centrist according to the test.

Extreme left and right alike are totalitarian, and their 12 o'clock position is opposed to the 6 o'clock of liberalism. I measured as a 4.30 Libertarian. But my freedom is the freedom to create and contribute, not the freedom to f oneself with drugs,for example.

To argue that liberalism should allow all 'victimless' activity does not gel with me. To my mind that is the left liberal position.(witness the recent debate had on OLO re prostitution; fine with me, but not my daughter).

Vanilla
who is Yin and yang?
About my description, I speak generally for lefts or rights, I did not write for specific persons.
Today I read on the BBC that the New Labour of UK is further to the right (whatever that means these days) than many alleged parties of the right in Europe. Less or more we have the same problem in Australia, some labors here are not left at all. In Europe even the most conservative parties support paid maternity leave for 14 weeks, in Australia even the Unions do not support it strongly, although the women are their main hope for new members.

CONTINUE.
6.Women left-right,
Silvio Berlouskoni, Italian prime minister, few months before in the election campaign, said that the right women are better than left one!
My grandfather said me that women love left men and marry the right one! I say from statistics that more women are left than right, more women are members and officers in left parties than in right parties. As I wrote in other thread most new members of the Union movement worldwide are women than men. All the governments (4?) with 50% men 50% women are left, as the Socialist Party of Spain, Zapatero etc.
The right women usually avoid the politics as in their environment women are more for home, children and kitchen than for political activities.
6. Migrants
Generally, worldwide, most migrants are left than right. In USA Cubans
prefer Republicans but all other migrants prefer mainly Democrats. In Europe most migrants are left (with social democrats) but in Germany a big part of the left migrants prefer Greens. The cooperation of Greens with Christian Democratic Party (right governing party) in the state of Hamburg last week will turn many of them to SPD. In Australia most migrants vote Labor, some like me prefer Labor for parliament and Greens for Senate.
Last years we see many migrants to turn to Liberal Party and I am sure much more was ready to support it but the hard nationalist policy of John Howard's government blocked them.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

palimpsest, so you are anti-prostition and anti-drugs. That is definitely from the right, and parts of the left. There is no way you can consider yourself anything but auhtoritarian.

Dear Vanilla.....

<<Cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the intellectually lazy option. >>

Speaking about 'pearls' -hows that recliner feeling mate :)

R0bert you wrote that I " don't really understand the diversity in the so called "right".
I spoke very general about left and right and I understand very well -the diversity in the so called "right"-, in really we have a big diversity with lefts too.
Already I wrote that the New Labour of UK is further to the right (whatever that means these days) than many alleged parties of the right in Europe. in Australia, some labors are not left at all. In Europe even the most conservative parties support paid maternity leave for 14 weeks, in Australia even the Unions do not support it strongly, although the women are their main hope for new members.
Read the following :
-THE federal Liberal MP Petro Georgiou has rubbished the Government's planned citizenship test and has warned the party's principles of individual expression and social justice are threatened by a growing dominance of conservatives."The social justice constantly proclaimed by Menzies as one of the party's cornerstones has been forgotten by many members of the Liberal Party, and has been reviled by others," he said.
I respect Petro Georgiou and probably 99% I could vote him if he was in my area. I prefer honest and fair politicians than programs which most times are promotion tricks and nothing else. Petro Georgiou is much better from many MPs from ALP. There are left for justice and left for the chair. The lefts for justice are under threat of extinction! we know that as we know that all rights are not same.
REGARDS
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Vanilla: Cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the intellectually lazy option.

Boazy: Speaking about 'pearls' -hows that recliner feeling mate :)

Vanilla: Sorry Boazy, the last half of the sentence was cut off. I should have read, "Cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the intellectually lazy option — except when the cynical dismissal in question is applied to Boazy's motives, in which case your views are extremely valid and laudable and everyone agrees with you."

Sorry about the mix up.

Very comfy thanks.

Antonios perhaps just a phrasing issue but I found your generalisations to be very unfair to the right. Clearly a section of the right is as you describe but many share most of the values you attribute to the left.

R0bert

The New Paternalism — an article from The Chronicle Review. "An economist and a legal scholar argue that policy makers should nudge people into making good decisions."

It's well worth a look if you have the time.

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=pwq4w52rk7wg916xkfflm6r43x0h2d5s

R0bert
Are you sure that you are RIGHT? You are sensitive, polite and probably fair person. You are not simple RIGHT but enlightened right! as Petros Gergiou is an enlightened right MP.
Robert Sorry! It is seemed that I took the best from the lefts and the worst from the rights or the most known from the rights as BUSH, HOWARD, and other conservatives hawks.
Robert my goal is not the confrontation but the understanding and cooperation between people from different political parties. I trust more a simple person from an other party than an officer from left parties.
Are you ready to cooperate with lefts (people)for a specif goal? What do you think about the paid maternity leave?
The European right parties support it. This is part from the fundamental European rights. Why not in Australia? Why ONLY Australia and USA do not pay maternity leave from the whole world?
Do you love Australian mothers? Do you love Australian babies? Do you want more Australians than migrants? THEN LET'S SUPPORT AUSTRALIAN MOTHERS. ENCOURAGE THEM FOR MORE CHILDREN!
I AM READY TO COOPERATE WITH YOU AND OTHER RIGHT (AND LEFT) PEOPLE FOR THIS PURPOSE, IF YOU AGREE LET'S START ALL TOGETHER, LEFT AND RIGHT, FOR PAID MATERNITY LEAVE!
Regards
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Vanilla

That was a very interesting read - 'New Paternalism'

Making it easy for people to simply 'do the right thing' - like an opt-out of organ donation, rather than trying to persuade people to register for organ donation. Stuff like that.

Incentives, gentle nudges - I thought the decreasing spaces between lines across the road was a very clever way to induce people to slow at particular road hazards.

Haven't a lot of time ATM. But found the article well worth the read and gave me a lot to think about.

Not sure about the LABEL though - have had enough 'paternalism' new or old.

:-))

Antonios, I've commented on the maternity leave thing on other threads. I remain undecided about it, I see both good and bad points in the suggestion. One thing I am very clear about is that it should be parenting leave rather than maternity leave with the parents involved making the decision based on their circumstances and priorities rather than a gender based system which entrenches gender roles which are hurting both men and women.

The tendency to see greater wrong in those on "the other side" is a common one. I've often been bemused by the apparent moral outrage from the left at Howards lies from people who did not seem to care about Hawkes or those of state labor leaders. You have probably seen the Gibo's "Inept Governments" thread where he won't discuss examples of ineptness from the liberal government.

I've tended to find many of the best people on OLO are nominally on the other side of the political spectrum from myself. Thats part of the greatness of these forums if we are willing to let it be so.

R0bert

Steel, I may be anti drugs and anti prostitution but I do not urge that we either outlaw prostitution or run around locking up drug users.

Almost daily I am appalled by Iemmas latest little new law headline grabber, or things like Rudds diversionary binge drinking bull.

If a law doesn't reflect societies habits and mores it is authoritarian. Moral taboos re prostitution came about for lots of reasons, and were not simply imposed by the Church and State- the spread of diseases, the harm done to families, the divulgence of secrets, the degradation of many who partake, slavery.

Steel, I am against all sorts of things, including, in many situations the force of the State

R0bert
=it should be parenting leave rather than maternity leave=
Maternity leave is different from the parenting leave, The countries which give paid maternity leave, give parenting leave too but most times not so big paid parenting leave.
=The tendency to see greater wrong in those on "the other side"
This is normal and logical.
If I think that I am an honest, fair, mature, responsible, humanist, sensitive etc and I support a political party because I thing it is the best then I expect also the people who support it are honest, fair, mature, responsible, humanist, sensitive etc.
The voters of the opposite party maybe, probably, YES! they believe to opposite values! A mind game! Always the generalization is not enough accurate but it is good for general descriptions.
R0bert I am not member from any party in Australia. I am a left voter and nothing else. My behave, the way I am thinking is very different from party members or left chair hunters. I am fully independent and if I think the left parties make mistakes then I kick them hard! I am a left free thinker and activist. I am not a left party puppy. Nothing can limit my political activities except from my ideas and my personal values.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Good topic Vanilla, sorry to see it hijacked. It was quite a shock to discover Gandhi a close neighbour on the social scale, but not as much as Kevin Rudd’s position so far to my right. I wonder where Howard would have plotted and await this year’s budget with renewed enthusiasm. Or do I?

Great links Vanilla. Enjoyed them all.

I've just recently read Tim Hartford's book (he's an economist as well) 'the logic of life', I enjoyed it a lot. I think I'd like to read Thaler's and Sunstein's book to compare. Nudging to make good decisions-sounds like what parents do to their children on a daily basis!

The distinction between left and right doesn't bother me. It should give a basic indication of from which philosophical viewpoint somebody argues. Both are valid.

The only thing I find irritating is when an opinion of mine gets dismissed as being that of a feminist-leftwing-chardonnay sipping-do-gooder. (I don't even really like Chardonnay, prefer an earthy Shiraz) I try very hard, but on occasion I've stooped down to their level and thrown 'conservative right wing' back, though it isn't really an insult is it?!

A well argued challenge to an opinion exposes gaps and potential problems. That's why most of us probably prefer a forum like this than one were only like minded people form a mutual admiration club.