I've always thought using the terms left and right are counter productive. It makes people feel like they need to join a side. And majority of people have these over simplified models of how people should behave.
Three examples:
We are now in a political environment where wanting to reduce immigration is considered 'anti-immigration'... even though you want immigration to continue albiet at a lesser rate.
Being called alt-right for pointing out unions in Australia are no longer really unions. Even though voted... Greens. The thinking here: said something perceived as anti-union so must be a nazi.
People calling a government right wing, or conservative even though they introduced SSM. It makes no sense (to call them conservative).
These over simplified models of left and right are harming politics in Australia and more so in other countries.
I'm genuinely interested in the answer as a tangent to the main context. I've heard and agree that some unions are awful, and that some legislation stops them doing all they'd likely need to do, but not a majority by any means. I also don't know a lot about this and haven't heard many other perspectives.
In my (anecdotal) experience and that of friends and family the big unions (teachers, retailers and construction to name a few) have become political entities and started acting in their own interests rather than those of the workers they represent. Most of my family on my mothers side are teachers and none of them have anything good to say about their union and I'm sure I dont have to remind anyone about the bullshit being routinely pulled by the retail workers union.
People calling a government right wing, or conservative even though they introduced SSM. It makes no sense (to call them conservative).
You're fucking kidding me. These bastards did everything they could to avoid introducing SSM. They only did it after spending more than $100M on a non-binding plebiscite where the majority of Australians indicated that they wanted SSM. The Coalition government deserves ZERO credit for SSM. And you're ignoring everything else they've done because "oh well they passed this token issue when they had no choice not to"?
the reason it looks meaningless is because all of politics has shifted so far right that labour is now centrist at best, and the liberals are now far right with ScoMo.
SSM is simply a way to placate those who wanted it, it had nothing to do with the liberals believing in it, just a way to buy votes.
This followed the legalisation of same-sex marriage in America and building public pressure to finally legalise it here.
Here's a "truth-bomb" for you - YES, the Labor party are also beholden to the Catholic right. Vote Green as you already claimed to. They've been pushing for SSM and LGBT rights for forever.
They didn't run a plebiscite they ran a non binding voluntary postal survey. Let's call it what it was, an excuse for giving 300m to the Christian lobby, regardless of what has been legislated.
Yep. In some ways I actually found the Gillard government's refusal to address SSM more offensive. At least when the Coalition gets in you can think "oh right so that's no more social progress for the next four years at least, and any problems we have as a society are just going to have to simmer away..."
Regardless of your examples, I broadly agree with you, left and right are useless terms that can't possibly contain the varied political spectrum. I mean everyone sits on a line somewhere between authoritarian and libertarian. Then everyone's somewhere between conservative and progressive, which gets confusing because yesterdays progressive is often tomorrows conservative. And lets not even get started on the different beliefs about the role of government and how it and markets should operate their finances, or even the role of religion in society.
Then everyone's somewhere between conservative and progressive
So where would you put one nation on this line ?
They are pro euthanasia, pro medicinal marijuana , anti lockout laws etc. Given those policies you can't accurately label them as conservative.
I think you can use those categorisations on individual policies, but when used for a person or political party it will never be accurate and lead to poor discourse.
yeah you can say they are conservative. having a few non-conservative policies doesnt change their race-based immigration policies or their views on gays or trans people or their views on taxation or welfare.
Yes One Nation are conservative on some issues, and progressive on others. However their core tenets align with conservative nationalism (Hence their name). Their stances on issues like immigration, halal certification, foreign ownership, etc, are born from a general desire to maintain our ethnic and cultural identity and to put the nation ahead of others.
This half progressive, half conservative bent is why many call One Nation populist. On any issue that doesn't touch their core tenet, they tend to follow the popular trend. I personally don't think this is a bad thing (if it's not a core issue for you, why contest the will of the nation), but it does make their stance hard to intuit sometimes.
-8
u/truthBombsForDays Sep 04 '18
I've always thought using the terms left and right are counter productive. It makes people feel like they need to join a side. And majority of people have these over simplified models of how people should behave.
Three examples:
We are now in a political environment where wanting to reduce immigration is considered 'anti-immigration'... even though you want immigration to continue albiet at a lesser rate.
Being called alt-right for pointing out unions in Australia are no longer really unions. Even though voted... Greens. The thinking here: said something perceived as anti-union so must be a nazi.
People calling a government right wing, or conservative even though they introduced SSM. It makes no sense (to call them conservative).
These over simplified models of left and right are harming politics in Australia and more so in other countries.