davo
10-14-2007, 01:42 PM
All too often political discussions tend to be divided between what's considered 'left wing' and what's considered 'right wing' and these are supposed to represent opposite extremes. In truth this political spectrum is entirely man-made and one can have views from both 'wings, and from the shades of grey in the middle. Some people get really worked up in smearing someone as a 'liberal' or a 'lefty', or in the opposite way as being 'right wing' or 'far right'. In fact many times they might share common ground against greater powers yet they seem intent on throwing smears at each other.
I might ask is who's interest does this serve? If you do smear someone for being on a certain 'wing, ask yourself what common ground you have with them. In fact, what's conventionally known as the far-left and the far-right often share much common ground in their opposition to how things are currently run. Yet having them painted as being opposite ends of a fictional political spectrum is a great way for power elites to put these people at each other's throats.
For example, the 'far right' figures David Duke and Pat Buchanan have views identical to the far left about the United States government and foreign policy. Yet university radicals would react strongly, perhaps violently, if they were ever to speak at their campus. Even though they have exactly the same ideas about the most important issues, they seem not to care because they're 'far right' and therefore evil.
The same could be said about the 'far right' when it comes to issues involving minority groups and so on. Both groups are unhappy with the way they're governed, but the 'far right' thinks tapping into a diverse support base is acting 'lefty'. If they recognized the overgrowth of government power is the enemy of both groups they'd probably have a fair bit in common.
This is one of the reasons the Ron Paul campaign has been such a success so far. He reaches out beyond the man-made divide of left and right. It involves anti-war liberals, and anti-war paleoconservatives. It involves blacks and whites. It involves atheists and the devout. They do have their differences between them, but they are united in their value for liberty, and their opposition to big government run amok. The key to success against tyranny is looking beyond left and right.
I might ask is who's interest does this serve? If you do smear someone for being on a certain 'wing, ask yourself what common ground you have with them. In fact, what's conventionally known as the far-left and the far-right often share much common ground in their opposition to how things are currently run. Yet having them painted as being opposite ends of a fictional political spectrum is a great way for power elites to put these people at each other's throats.
For example, the 'far right' figures David Duke and Pat Buchanan have views identical to the far left about the United States government and foreign policy. Yet university radicals would react strongly, perhaps violently, if they were ever to speak at their campus. Even though they have exactly the same ideas about the most important issues, they seem not to care because they're 'far right' and therefore evil.
The same could be said about the 'far right' when it comes to issues involving minority groups and so on. Both groups are unhappy with the way they're governed, but the 'far right' thinks tapping into a diverse support base is acting 'lefty'. If they recognized the overgrowth of government power is the enemy of both groups they'd probably have a fair bit in common.
This is one of the reasons the Ron Paul campaign has been such a success so far. He reaches out beyond the man-made divide of left and right. It involves anti-war liberals, and anti-war paleoconservatives. It involves blacks and whites. It involves atheists and the devout. They do have their differences between them, but they are united in their value for liberty, and their opposition to big government run amok. The key to success against tyranny is looking beyond left and right.