Left or Right?

My Recent Posts

The media has labeled certain politics as left and others as the right. But what is left and right and does the media label each correctly or is their labeling a part of their obvious disinformation?


First, let's make sure we are all on the same page. Consider the political scale as a 10-inch ruler with 5 inches the middle. We will start on the right with zero inches and the far left as 10 inches.


The political scale starts from total government control of all citizens, 10 inches. This type of government would include monarchies and dictatorships, either total control through communism, control by the masses, or fascism, total control through business and industry, they are both still about total control. The far right would be zero inches and anarchy or no government, that is the far right.


The US Constitution is not far right, it advocates control through the rule of law. On our ruler, this would appear as maybe 2-3 inches. The constitution provides just enough governmental authority so the government can protect citizens and their property from within and from without. It is this protection that enables freedom. If a society were under anarchy each person would have to protect their own life and property with NO HELP! Therefore no real freedom to do what you want.


Far left could be exampled by the nationalization of industry and banking like the automobile industry as in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and during Obama's Presidency. It could be exampled by the nationalization of education and healthcare as both Hitler, Stalin, and Obama all did.


But many in the media call what President Trump is doing far right. I see nothing he is, has been, or plans to do that may lead to anarchy. Anarchy would only result from the overthrow of US government and society. Since anarchy cannot be maintained, far left totalitarian dictatorship quickly takes over, historically. So the goal of wanting anarchy is for your dictator to become the supreme leader, typically a far left leader.


It seems many in US society are very mixed up. For example, let's consider freedom. Why is the US a free society? I am sure some will say because the government guarantees it. Ignorant of history are we? Throughout the last short history, say 5000 years, it is governments, including the US government, that TAKES freedoms from their citizens, not the other way around.


Let's try again, from where do US citizens get their freedom? Some may say from the courts. However, US courts have systematically RESTRICTED citizen's freedoms, not guaranteed them.

Let's try again, from where do US citizens get their freedoms? The US Constitution, should you take the time to read it, says our freedoms are granted by God. The Founding Fathers had just fought a civil war against their government, the British government, we call the Revolutionary War, to guarantee we had these rights.


The British government was and is a Parliamentary Monarchy. Why? One King was so authoritarian that the landed people, the Lords, and Nobles, forced the King of England to sign the Magna Carta, limiting the King's authority. This was the FIRST time in history where the people recognized that the far left form of government, total control by one, could be bad. The new Parliamentary Monarchy was maybe 7-8 inches on our ruler, still a lot of government control. It is this form of government from which we rebelled.


The US Founding Fathers knew this British history and they did NOT want a Democracy. A Democracy is ruled by the majority. If the majority of people decided you were not fit to have your children, then they could vote for it and then take your children. If a majority of people decided that the rich should share some or even all their wealth with the rest, vote together, then they could just take all the wealth of that person, who would no longer be rich. If the majority decided black people should be hanged, then they would collect them up and hang them. BTW: this was actually done by the far left KKK just a century ago by Democratic vote within their group applied to those outside their group. The KKK obviously wanted to be the only ones in control.


Larger governments were all Oligarchies, rule by the few. Monarchs of larger countries had their advisors, as did and do all dictators. So an ideal government needs to be big enough so the "few" are not too few. But it also needs to be small enough that it does not take freedoms from citizens, maybe 2 to 3 inches on our ruler. Oh yeah, kind of like the US Constitution originally did.


Our Founding Fathers also understood that the vote must be limited. One, at this agrarian economic period, had to be a landowner to vote, had to have "skin in the game" so to speak. The Magna Carta also was only signed by the landed aristocracy. Otherwise, as was pointed out by Ancient Athens' thinkers, citizens would learn they could just vote funds from the government treasury. Oh yes, they have already learned to do this, it is voting Democratic and getting a welfare check. This only occurred AFTER legislators began to be elected by popular democratic vote instead of through the electoral college, the buffer between the masses and good government. So now the candidate who promises to take money from those who have it and give to those who don't are effectively buying votes by offering government funds, taken from others, to buy those votes. This promise has names like "soak the rich" and "social justice".


So our Founding Fathers formed a Republic, thus we have rule by a few. But that few were divided. The legislature into the House and the Senate. Then they further separated the powers and authority, of this government into 3 divisions, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. Why?


The purpose was and is to limit the power and authority of any one person or group within the government. But then what if one part of this government gets too much power. For example, FDR threatened to "Pack the Courts" to force the Supreme Court to make decisions the way he wanted. His party was in control of both Legislative Houses. So basically FDR became our US Constitutional Dictator with a large group of advisors, both houses of Congress and the courts.


This is what was happening all over the world, historically. England had their PM who had total control, Stalin had total control in Russia, Mao began consolidating his control in China, Hitler in Germany, Musulani in Italy, Hito in Japan, so why not FDR in the US.


In a sense, WWII could be thought of as consolidation of all world power under one dictator or ruler, also a logical step in social evolution. One group of very controlling dictators on one side, the Axis Powers, and another group of less controlling dictators on the other. Had the Axis Powers won, I have no doubt Hitler would have emerged as THE Dictator. But the less controlling side of dictators won and no one emerged as THE Dictator. Stalin wanted to but was originally one of the Axis Dictators and therefore not able to be considered for that reason.


Well, have you figured out how the US maintains its citizen's freedom? If you said the 2nd Amendment, you got it right. Japan and Germany were both afraid to invade the US because of its armed citizens. But the US government is afraid to overly control and take away citizen's freedoms because so many citizens are armed. How can disarming citizens be done?


First, teach a couple of generations of citizens that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed, the government will provide protection (From itself?). Diluting the effect of the 2nd Amendment by making citizens register their guns and limit the kind of weapon citizens may have and teach them this REASONABLE would be a good first step.


But legally the 2nd Amendment can only be removed in one of two ways, another amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment or another Constitutional Convention. There is no way citizens will permit the repeal of the 2nd Amendment directly, however, that can and is being pushed as a ploy, a distraction by a few of the left.


The real effort must come in the form of a Constitutional Convention under the guise of "fixing" what is broken. Our US Government has moved our nation from 2-3 inches on our ruler to about 5-6 inches. But, those who actually have studied the US Constitution know the problem is the misinterpretation of the original and the diluting of its intent is the reason we have lost so many freedoms and are now 5-6 inches on our ruler. So we do not need a new Constitution, we just need to follow the one we have and go back to 2-3 inches on our ruler. So why the push for a new Constitutional Convention? Certainly not for a more limited government. This is an important point! If we want a more limited government, we just need to follow our original US Constitution. So a Constitutional Convention must be to create an even bigger government much farther left on our ruler, maybe to 8 or even 10 inches.


The purpose of a new Constitutional Convention is nothing less than the legal overthrow of the United States of America. Some say it will be limited to - whatever. However, historically the last Constitutional Convention was limited in its authority to fix the Articles, but then they scraped the entire Articles of Confederation and started over, NOT WITHIN THEIR MANDATED AUTHORITY! But they did anyway and we have the new, wonderful, and brilliant US Constitution. BTW, the reason the Articles did not work was that it was too far right, not enough government, maybe 1 inch on our ruler.


What will a new Constitution look like? How about one that is more like China's or Russia's? What would be stopping them? Obviously, a new constitution will not reduce the power and authority of government, just following the original constitution would do that.


So ask yourself WHO would be willing to be a delegate? Who decides who will be a delegate? Will it be popular people, like Rosanne or Opera? Will it be political leaders, like Pelosi or Reid? Will it be everyday people who cannot afford to go like you or me? I understand Soros is willing to take care of that problem. Everyday people can go because Soros has offered to pay all expenses for anyone who goes as long as they rewrite the constitution the way he wants. Then there are anarchists like Hogg who would be willing to be a delegate. So please tell me who decides again?


Just some food for thought.


Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 1, 2018 - 5:24pm
Left and right were words coined during the French Revolution. The Gerondists were right, the Jacobines were on the left. It reflected the sitting order of the National Assembly.
Over time, people with different ideas sit here and there. The left and the right always reflect the ideas of the milieus they represent.
Every notion of an axis or an overarching principle that one defines to make one's own group look better is propaganda indeed.
opher goodwin Added Apr 1, 2018 - 6:30pm
I do not think that it is very helpful to label anyone. What I want is a fairer, caring society that works for everyone. Simple.
Phil Greenough Added Apr 2, 2018 - 8:46am
The media isn’t to blame for the labeling of our politics, nor is there any disinformation campaign.  We the people label ourselves by joining or voting for candidates from the two major parties and if we don’t like what the media is saying, we the people, can turn the channel.  Besides, I’d love to know the conspiracy theory that supports your assertion there is a disinformation campaign. Is Dr. Evil in control of the media? 
Dave Volek Added Apr 2, 2018 - 11:05am
I stopped reading when you cast Hitler, Stalin, and Obama in the same light.
Obama is no dictator. He tried his best to work with Congress and really didn't get very far. The current president is having the same problems. 
When his eight years were up, he willingly stepped aside. There was no attempt to keep his power. That is the difference between a democracy and dictatorship.
Joe Chiang Added Apr 2, 2018 - 3:57pm
Ben, thanks for the historical reference.  However, one point I was making is the media misuse of the terms right and left.  Each country has its own idea of what left and right are.  I believe the current use is communism is on the left and fascist is on the right.  This does not make sense.  Both have the exact same goals and methods, total control of citizens.  Communism justifies their control as "for the people".   Fascists justify their control as for business economic reasons.  The end result is total control.  Therefore, on a scale measuring lack of freedom, both communism and fascism are equal.
The meanings of terms often change over time.  One obvious one is the term GAY!  LOL
Opher, I agree we should not label.  But 100 million people just cannot be evaluated any way but to form groups.  And logically 100 million groups cannot be evaluated in any way.
Dave, I think we are not connecting.  My grouping of those three was based on their control of government and society.  A dictator, in theory, has control over all legislative (making laws), Judicial (the court decisions), as well as executive (deciding on which laws to enforce and how to enforce them).  Each of these three had such control.  Two of the three have been determined by history to be dictators.  Since Obama and FDR both held those same controls, why should they not earn the same label?
If you argued that Obama and FDR did not exercise their powers in the same kind of negative way, I would have to agree completely.  But the power was consolidated in their hands nevertheless and they had the opportunity to utilize those powers.  
We have parents who do not exercise their rights, authority, and responsibility as parents.  They are still, nevertheless, parents.  Being good or bad does not change the label.
Just my food for thought. 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 2, 2018 - 4:05pm
I agree with Dave. It is really problematic to assert that democratic politicians like Barak Obama are anywhere near a tyrant. You must make sure that the alarm still can be heard when a president really turns bad.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 2, 2018 - 5:29pm
The left and right are as old as time itself. The left have been the empiricists and the right have been the rationalists. Empiricists wish to react to transient conditions, rationalists hold fast to the law.
Dave Volek Added Apr 2, 2018 - 5:58pm
From my perspective, Obama really didn't do much in eight years to change the nation--for the better or the worse. 
FDR did indeed change the nation. But he did this within the workings Congress, not because he somehow became a tyrant.
Just because you don't like FDR's policies or whatever Obama did  does not make these two fellows like Hitler and Stalin.
Joe Chiang Added Apr 2, 2018 - 7:50pm
I guess I did not make my point very clear.  My reference had nothing to do with what Obama or FDR did.  It has everything to do with the authority they held.  They held the power and authority of a dictator.  I never said they used that power for bad.  Hmmmmm, not sure how to make that any clearer.  I do thank you one and all for this insight that there might be such a great lack of understanding.  Thank you.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Apr 2, 2018 - 7:56pm
Joe, I re-read the text. And I understand that you did not try to paint Obama as a dictator. It was a quip. I got carried away with Dave's comment.
Dave Volek Added Apr 2, 2018 - 8:34pm
Far left could be exampled by the nationalization of industry and banking like the automobile industry as in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and during Obama's Presidency. It could be exampled by the nationalization of education and healthcare as both Hitler, Stalin, and Obama all did.
Joe: You put Hitler, Stalin, and Obama in the same sentence TWICE. You are trying paint him as comparable to these two dictators.
They [O and FDR] held the power and authority of a dictator. 
If Obama indeed had all this power, then so too did the former president and the current president. Why not put their names in that list with Stalin and Hitler?
You are trying malign Obama as a certain kind of political leader.
I'm glad I didn't read the rest of the article.
Joe Chiang Added Apr 3, 2018 - 10:09am
Dave, my point was that to be capable of being a dictator, the leader must have control of all of government, not just a part.  
There were only two US presidents that had such control, FDR and Obama.  All presidents have and had control over the executive.  Some presidents had control over one house and some over both.  Some had control over the judiciary.  However only both Obama and FDR had control over the executive, both houses of Congress, AND the Supreme Court.  President Trump does not even have full control over both houses of Congress.  Democrats and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) make up about 50%, therefore he certainly does not have a super majority in reality.  He certainly not have control over the rulings of the Liberal Supreme Court.  However, as I said, both FDR and Obama did.  I never said they WERE dictators, just that they had the power of a dictator, the total control over all areas of the government.
Dave Volek Added Apr 3, 2018 - 11:59am
From my sense of history, this is total illogical.
FDR wanted to take a his New Deal a lot further, but he had to make compromises to get it through Congress. And he was constantly working on members of Congress to sway votes his way. He was a great political deal maker (whether or not you like his policies); he never made a decree and expected it to work out.
If Obama really had his way, he would have brought USA into the 21st century and instituted a government-run health care system----like all other western countries. But he made great compromises on this, leaving the insurance companies still in charge.
You wanted to put Stalin, Hitler, and Obama in the same category of rulers.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 3, 2018 - 4:03pm
re "Joe: You put Hitler, Stalin, and Obama in the same sentence TWICE. You are trying paint him as comparable to these two dictators."
Stalin and Obama are/were International Socialists working for the banks. Hitker was a national socialist working for the German people and the Jews (They never had a better friend than Adolf). Big difference.
George N Romey Added Apr 3, 2018 - 5:08pm
I wouldn’t ever put Obama and FDR in the same sentence. FDR delivered most of what he promised despite political enemies abound in BOTH parties. Obama the neoliberal folded like a cheap tent and ran into the arms of his corporate sponsors,
Joe Chiang Added Apr 3, 2018 - 5:24pm
George, FDR had 16 years to get his politics through.  Obama only had 8.  FDR had Democratic control of both houses for all 16 years, as I recall.  Obama only had Democratic party control for 6 of his 8 years.  FDR had to grease the pocket of his own party to get what he wanted.  Obama got the Jewish vote, but then crapped on Israel, then he pissed away his power and authority on everything except ObamaCare.  He almost got gun control through the back door, a UN treaty, but in the end screwed that up (thank God).
Doug, I think Stalin was an international communist, not socialist.  Obama was an international socialist or globalist or New World Order.  Hitler was a national socialist and he was never the friend of Jews.
Dave, Obama had the power and authority, but as mentioned, he pissed away his opportunity.  He did give away the most valuable things the US owned, US Uranium and the Internet.  A parent has the authority to discipline their children, but if they do not, that does not mean they are not the child's parent.  Obama had the power, he was just not leader enough to effectively use it.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 3, 2018 - 8:06pm
re "Doug, I think Stalin was an international communist, not socialist." The two terms are synonymous in the political realm even though communist does not mean what it does in the political domain if you are talking to a bunch of hippies.
re "Hitler was a national socialist and he was never the friend of Jews."
How come he had the star of David on his coins? He was a major agent in getting them Israel. The Establishment stuff you have heard about ww2 just isn't true at all, nor a word of it.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 3, 2018 - 8:07pm
re "Obama got the Jewish vote, but then crapped on Israel" I think Israel still got billions of dollars in aid. I wouldn't call that being "crapped on". No one pees on Israel.
Doug Plumb Added Apr 3, 2018 - 8:09pm
re "I wouldn’t ever put Obama and FDR in the same sentence. " FDR had to sell the bankruptcy, placate everyone. He took everyone's gold from their safe deposit boxes.
Morgoth Added Apr 3, 2018 - 11:17pm
Doug shows his craziness by saying the Jews never had a better friend than ol’ uncle Dolfy.  Doug, did you plagiarize David Irving for that sentiment?
Joe, I hope the day finds you in good health.  Best wishes on your recovery.
Dino Manalis Added Apr 4, 2018 - 9:16am
We should strive to be centrists and pragmatic in order to adopt reasonable ideas from the Right or Left.  We need to be flexible and open-minded!
Tamara Wilhite Added Apr 4, 2018 - 10:25am
Joe Chiang Added Apr 4, 2018 - 10:35am
Doug, have you read Mein Kamph?  Hitler authored this book while in jail well before he became the leader.  He says all of Germany's problems are because of the Jews.  Have you head of the holocaust?  Hitler had about 7 million Jews killed.  He may have executed them in love, but that is had to prove.
Dino, nice thoughts.  But when we have to decide if we are going to take the left fork in the road or the right fork, that does not leave a middle path.  Back in the 1960s there was a saying from the left, "Better Red Than Dead".  That was the choice given by the left, nationally and internationally, make the US a communist nation or die.  The hippies claimed they would prefer being a slave under communism than die fighting against communism.
How will you be "reasonable" with an Islamic Fundamentalist who says to lose your soul by denying Christ or lose your head?  What is the "reasonable" negotiating point?  LOL 
Morgoth Added Apr 4, 2018 - 11:41am
@Tamara Wilhite:
”A Guide to Basic Differences between Left and Right by Dennis Prager”
That was fascinating reason, in particular from a man who also wrote an article on why the Left hates America.
No, not biased at all.
Morgoth Added Apr 4, 2018 - 11:42am
*reading, not reason.  Sometimes WB’s spellchecker makes odd leaps on what I’m trying to say.
Joe Chiang Added Apr 4, 2018 - 12:32pm
Tamara, thanks for your input.  I'm doing chemo, so my focus is not what it used to be.  Would you mind a short summary of that author's definition of left and right.  I am interested.
Jeffery, didn't mean to miss you on my last post.  I'm feeling much stronger this morning, thank you.
I love and hate spell checker.  LOL
My education was switched from phonics to sight reading.  I was tested in 6th grade as having a HS graduate's vocabulary, and a 3rd grade spelling ability.  Sight reading has been proven a failure over the last 5 decades, yet Common Core's basic reading component is sight reading, a failed system.  Sorry a different rant!  LOL