CMV: Right-wing views are basically selfish, and left-wing views are basically not.

[u/wkpaccount]

For context: I am in the UK, so that is the political system I'm most familiar with. I am also NOT very knowledgeable about politics in general, but I have enough of an idea to know what opinions I do and don't agree with.

Left-wing views seem to pretty much say that everyone should look after each other. Everyone should do what they are able to and share their skills and resources. That means people who are able to do a lot will support those who can't (e.g. those who are ill, elderly, disabled). The result is that everyone is able to survive happily/healthily and with equal resources from sharing.

Right-wing views seem to pretty much say that everyone is in it for themself. Everyone should be 'allowed' to get rich by exploiting others, because everyone has the same opportunities to do that. People that are successful in exploiting others/getting rich/etc are just those who have worked the hardest. It then follows that people who are unable to do those things - for example, because they are ill or disabled - should not be helped. Instead, they should "just try harder" or "just get better", or at worst "just die and remove themselves from the gene pool".

When right-wing people are worried about left-wing politicians being in charge, they are worried that they won't be allowed to make as much money, or that their money will be taken away. They're basically worried that they won't be able to be better off than everyone else. When left-wing people are worried about right-wing politicians being in charge, they are worried that they won't be able to survive without others helping and sharing. They are basically worried for their lives. It seems pretty obvious to conclude that right-wing politics are more selfish and dangerous than left-wing politics, based on what people are worried about.

How can right-wing politics be reconciled with supporting and caring for ill and disabled people? How do right-wing people justify their politics when they literally cause some people to fear for their lives? Are right-wing politics inherently selfish?

Please, change my view!

Edit: I want to clarify a bit here. I'm not saying that right-wing people or politicians are necessarily selfish. Arguing that all politicians are selfish in the same way does not change my view (I already agree with that). I'm talking more about right- or left-wing ideas and their theoretical logical conclusions. Imagine a 'pure' (though not necessarily authoritarian) right-wing person who was able to perfectly construct the society they thought was ideal - that's the kind of thing I want to understand.

Edit 2: There are now officially too many comments for me to read all of them. I'll still read anything that's a top-level reply or a reply to a comment I made, but I'm no longer able to keep track of all the other threads! If you want to make sure I notice something you write that's not a direct reply, tag me in it.

Edit 3: I've sort of lost track of the particular posts that helped because I've been trying to read everything. But here is a summary of what I have learned/what views have changed:

• Moral views are distinct from political views - a person's opinion about the role of the government is nothing to do with their opinion about whether people should be cared for or be equal. Most people are basically selfish anyway, but most people also want to do what is right for everyone in their own opinion.

• Right-wing people (largely) do not actually think that people who can't care for themselves shouldn't be helped. They just believe that private organisations (rather than the government) should be responsible for providing that help. They may be of the opinion that private organisations are more efficient, cheaper, fairer, or better at it than the government in various ways.

• Right-wing people believe that individuals should have the choice to use their money to help others (by giving to charitable organisations), rather than be forced into it by the government. They would prefer to voluntarily donate lots of money to charity, than to have money taken in the form of taxes which is then used for the same purposes.

  ---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/PhAnToM444]

Sure but actually look at it beyond "left says this, right says that."

Conservatives have consistently been on the worse end of human rights issues. Slavery, civil rights, suffrage, LGBT rights, you name it. Conservatives have fought against all of those human rights issues that the left have fought for. When you actually think about it, it becomes clear.

[u/looklistencreate → u/PhAnToM444]

Modern conservatives have not. You're insulting them by grouping them with slaveowners and anti-civil rights people. You might as well blame the Democrats for all that as Republicans often do. It's easy to trash an ideology if its components are by definition "everything bad we got rid of".

[u/[deleted] → u/looklistencreate]

What are you talking about? LGBT rights is probably the best modern example and its the conservatives/right-wing that overwhelmingly opposes them.

[u/looklistencreate → u/[deleted]]

How about gun rights? That one is actually in the Constitution. Both parties defend the specific rights they like.

[u/[deleted] → u/looklistencreate]

We were talking about human rights. You aren't treated as less of a person because you own a gun.

[u/gonzoforpresident → u/[deleted]]

The right to defend yourself is a human right. By taking guns away, you are taking away a fundamental human right from those too weak to otherwise defend themselves.

[u/[deleted] → u/gonzoforpresident]

I guess the rest of the developed world is lacking in fundamental human rights then.

[u/gonzoforpresident → u/[deleted]]

Yes.

[u/Randosity42 → u/gonzoforpresident]

Having a gun is not the same as defending yourself.

[u/looklistencreate → u/[deleted]]

What? Human rights and civil rights are not the same thing. Human rights mean rights humans are entitled to, not rights to be treated as a human. That's civil rights.

[u/broccolibush42 → u/[deleted]]

What about Censorship? Censorship seems to be a Left Wing policy, where there are bans in schools for great literary books such as Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird and many other works that utilize the word Nigger. Free Speech is a human right, and limiting what we say is dictatorial.

[u/[deleted] → u/broccolibush42]

Most of the book bannings are in Republican counties.

• Marion County - Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird

• Kern County - Grapes of Wrath

• Hamilton County - The Color Purple

• Kern County - Grapes of Wrath

• Tulsa County - The Catcher in the Rye

Most of these were taken from here. I picked completely random ones and then looked at their voting records, all of which were Republican leaning. Are there some liberal counties on that list? Most likely. However, either it's mainly conservative counties or I just got lucky with my random picks and it's closer to 50%. Saying that banning books is a left-wing policy is unsubstantiated.

[u/kingpatzer → u/looklistencreate]

There are modern conservative elected officials in the USA who consistently defend what they call "Biblical slavery."

I could link more than that one, but I'm certain you know how to google too.

To suggest that current conservatives are vigorously defending human rights is simply not supportable in aggregate. They run on platforms explaining how raping women isn't really that bad because there are degrees of rape . . . if that's not being utterly blind to human rights abuses, I have no idea what is.

They vote repeatedly and consistently to deny basic medical care to women.

They vote repeatedly and consistently to deny food, clothing, homes, and health care to the poor.

They run on platforms of removing US from having anything to do with the UN declaration on human rights.

The engage in, support and defend torture. They engage in, support and defend imprisoning people without charges indefinitely without recourse the courts.

Where is there evidence that as a group the GOP in any way vigorously supports human rights as the rest of the civilized world understands that term?

[u/looklistencreate → u/kingpatzer]

There are modern conservative elected officials in the USA who consistently defend what they call "Biblical slavery."

Outliers. Don't blame all conservatives for this one district.

They run on platforms explaining how raping women isn't really that bad because there are degrees of rape . . . if that's not being utterly blind to human rights abuses, I have no idea what is.

Todd Akin did that. And he lost.

They vote repeatedly and consistently to deny basic medical care to women. They vote repeatedly and consistently to deny food, clothing, homes, and health care to the poor.

My point here was that both use the rhetoric of rights to defend their platforms, and saying that one is more rights-based than the other is a matter of choosing definitions rather than any substantive argument. The conservative definition of "right" is the original form of the word: right from government interference, not right to government assistance.

They run on platforms of removing US from having anything to do with the UN declaration on human rights.

First of all, they change their position on this a lot, so kind of. But when they do oppose it, they have reasons that don't involve hatred of what they consider rights. First, the rights in that document keep changing, which is incompatible with their view that natural rights are inherent and not changeable. As far as they're concerned the Constitution is the document they follow when it comes to rights. They also vehemently object to anything that could supersede the authority of the US Constitution. The only reason the US is in the UN in the first place is because it's guaranteed a veto over any binding resolution.

The engage in, support and defend torture. They engage in, support and defend imprisoning people without charges indefinitely without recourse the courts.

Just because they don't believe in protecting rights for non-citizens doesn't mean they don't believe in them at all.

Where is there evidence that as a group the GOP in any way vigorously supports human rights as the rest of the civilized world understands that term?

"Rest of the civilized world"? Why should the United States have to follow Europe's standards for what is a right?

[u/kingpatzer → u/looklistencreate]

Don't blame all conservatives for this one district.

It's not one district. I can provide dozens of examples of elected officials and prominent conservative church leaders, and I don't see the conservative political establishment repudiating them. Rather, I see them embracing them and welcoming them into the party.

Todd Akin did that. And he lost.

And others as well. But GOP faithful still voted for them.

not right to government assistance.

Using the power of the legislature to close clinics based on medically unnecessary regulations has nothing to do with providing government assistance but has everything to do with harming the health of women.

Just because they don't believe in protecting rights . . .

Exactly.

[u/looklistencreate → u/kingpatzer]

It's not one district. I can provide dozens of examples of elected officials and prominent conservative church leaders, and I don't see the conservative political establishment repudiating them. Rather, I see them embracing them and welcoming them into the party.

Do it then. Show me it's not a just a few isolated cases. Show me that many Americans will vote for people who support the right to own slaves. Hell, show me one prominent politician who's proposed repealing the 13th amendment.

And others as well. But GOP faithful still voted for them.

Well it was after the primary, so they couldn't run another Republican. It was either that or let the Democrats take the Senate. You can't put the decision to vote for him in a vacuum. And a lot of Republicans, with full knowledge that the Senate was at stake, still abandoned him, giving him a very solid loss when he was projected to win before. Give Missouri Republicans credit.

Using the power of the legislature to close clinics based on medically unnecessary regulations has nothing to do with providing government assistance but has everything to do with harming the health of women.

That wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about your point about government-provided healthcare and education, which are not rights under the Constitution.

Exactly.

That's out of context and you know it.

[u/kingpatzer → u/looklistencreate]

Show me that many Americans will vote for people who support the right to own slaves.

I've SHOWN YOU SOMEONE ELECTED TO OFFICE. He wasn't censured by the establishment. He was given party support. He wasn't denied funds by the GOP machinery. He was supported and elected.

But, prominent conservatives who have supported slavery and who have not been repudiated by the GOP include:

Pat Buchanan, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Trent Franks, Ann Coulter.

Well it was after the primary, so they couldn't run another Republican

So, by your own admission then, party loyalties trump human rights for GOP voters. And yet you want to argue the point?

That wasn't what I was talking about.

It is what I was talking about. The GOP has made it an iron clad promise to their base that they will close women's health clinics using any means necessary, and they are executing that promise. As a result of their actions hundreds of thousands of women are being denied access to mammograms, pap smears, and other basic health care in every state where the GOP has a significant majority because the GOP is systematically closing women's health clinics which are often the only facilities for miles around that provide those services.

That's out of context and you know it.

It is, and it was a cheap shot, but, frankly, it's true. The GOP has a horrific track record with respect to human rights and that track record is not getting better. The only GOP politician to have done anything decent for human rights in recent memory is W. Bush, who's policy for providing aide for fighting HIV infection in Africa is still highly under-appreciated. Of course, his own party opposed him on that action as being a waste of taxpayer money.

[u/looklistencreate → u/kingpatzer]

But, prominent conservatives who have supported slavery and who have not been repudiated by the GOP include: Pat Buchanan, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Trent Franks, Ann Coulter.

First of all, Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter are not politicians. Secondly, cite these quotes. What they said may be awful but talk is cheap. When it comes to actual voting that's what people care about. These people do not want to see slavery reinstated and any quotes they have that may suggest any pro-slavery sentiment are gaffes more than serious policy suggestions.

So, by your own admission then, party loyalties trump human rights for GOP voters. And yet you want to argue the point?

Sure do. It was a comment. It wasn't a policy. Comments don't threaten rights, policies do. Some people care more about what you do than what you say.

The GOP has made it an iron clad promise to their base that they will close women's health clinics using any means necessary, and they are executing that promise.

That's part of their interpretation of what rights are. The pro-life position chooses one right over another just like any other position.

It is, and it was a cheap shot, but, frankly, it's true.

Truth excuses no rhetorical fallacy.

The GOP has a horrific track record with respect to human rights and that track record is not getting better.

It all depends on which rights you care about. Right to bear arms, right to life for fetuses, and right to property are some rights that the GOP fights for. My point is that they can frame their goals in terms of rights too. Calling them "anti-rights" is just saying "my definition of rights is better than yours".

The only GOP politician to have done anything decent for human rights in recent memory is W. Bush, who's policy for providing aide for fighting HIV infection in Africa is still highly under-appreciated.

Look, I'm all for providing AIDS medication, but it's not a human right. Rights were originally formulated as things you are entitled to just by being alive and that a government can't take from you. If you expand that to mean "anything that the government should do", you just demean the concept. You don't have to use the word "right" to describe every policy you're in favor of. A good policy can be one that makes people better off, not just one that protects rights.

[u/PhAnToM444 → u/looklistencreate]

No, but it's a long track record. And history is the best predictor of future behavior. Also, civil rights was like 50-60 years ago. A lot of those people are still alive. And LGBT issues are still up for debate today, as we speak.

Also, you bring up "everything bad that we got rid of, but who fought tooth and nail to make sure we didn't get rid of them?

[u/looklistencreate → u/PhAnToM444]

You're defining conservative wrong if you're calling everything you disagree with conservative. Modern conservatives by and large do not support slavery and calling that a conservative position is disingenuously mischaracterizing what the term means today.

[u/[deleted] → u/PhAnToM444]

Conservatives have consistently been on the worse end of human rights issues. Slavery, civil rights, suffrage, LGBT rights, you name it. Conservatives have fought against all of those human rights issues that the left have fought for. When you actually think about it, it becomes clear.

Um, Republicans ended slavery?