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..