There is no “exactly” Right or Left in politics. It is a broad band of political-thought or preference that goes from the Far Right to the Far Left with many stops in between.
Somewhere in the middle there is a spot for those who think neither Left nor Right but “personality” - meaning they can take a liking to a political-personality without any concern for their stated party …
And there was me thinking Al Gore invented climate change.
Fun Apple fact: There was a meeting room on the original Apple Campus in Cupertino named after his book, but then there were a bunch with Star Trek references and the meeting rooms in their U.K. office near LHR were named after rock bands.
That’s a very problematic perspective Tony.
People that see their politics as ‘in the middle’ often think of right and left as ‘ideological’ but themselves as ‘practical’ (or similar self-descriptions like ‘a-political’ ‘balanced’ ‘pragmatic’ ‘common sense’ etc). But when you look at history (evidence of how people thought, not just events, etc) you find that this ‘centre’ is just as shifting ground as left and right. It is indeed in some ways even more dangerous ground, because it doesn’t see itself as just another ideological perspective.
This is the key to understanding the problem with the BBC version of ‘balance’ - it sees two sides to a question and assumes the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But as the old saying goes: if a decent journalist wants to know whether it’s raining, they don’t ask for a range of opinions, they go outside and see if they get wet.
In most theories of ideology, in fact, the ‘centre-ground’ is seen as the most ideological, because it accepts, is locked inside current norms of thought and behaviour, what passes for current ‘common sense’. When slavery was the norm, centrists believed in a more humane version of slavery; when women had no votes, centrists believed in universal male suffrage; before gay liberation, they thought homosexuality was ‘queer’ - etc, etc. Only now, with their 20-20 hindsight, can centrists see that in fact the left-activists of past times were perfectly correct (but, mysteriously, they still see today’s left as wrong!)
It is in our own time a particularly dangerous ideology, because it’s basic proposition (ie. things are not too bad, there’s not really any alternative to capitalism, it would be nice to make life more comfortable for everyone but there’s not much we can do) is not adequate to the scale of the climate/ecological crisis we are facing. This is where, now, the ‘balanced’ view hits the rock of the truth - which (unfortunately for centrists) doesn’t lie anywhere near the middle-ground.
The political formation in ‘the west’ today is pretty much this: almost every expert that actually understands what is happening to the planet, and people on the left, versus a centre that doesn’t deny the science but doesn’t think anything much can be done, or can’t be bothered, and a right that (as always) denies the science, or doesn’t care.
I read this article with despair. How bloody stupid are we 
Right now, today, the problem in America is the shifting of upper-income taxation that has come about in the past 30 years starting with, of all presidents, Jack Kennedy. Who lowered upper-income taxation to please his father (because he had help finance his election).
The Republican Party continued with the effort and it has ended up (after half a century) at around 40%, down from 90% as shown on the graphic. (See here if interested.) Americans seem complacent about the notion that upper-income should have a maximum. So, it will go on-and-on-and on.
Ad nauseam … - it should be put back at 90% for all income above a megabuck …
Yes - and it’s not just America: there is a very clear correlation in recent economic history between high tax rates and general prosperity. As I commented in another thread:
Only really in the ‘Bretton Woods’ period - approximately the 30 years 1945-75 - was capitalism made to work reasonably for some of the world - basically by constraining it within a socialist framework (the welfare state, etc), strict regulation of monopolies, currencies, etc, and very high redistributive taxation (90% marginal rates).
Added to this, of course. it emerged that the ‘Laffer curve’ - the supposed inverse relationship between high marginal tax rates and the sums actually collected - was never based either on any coherent theory or real evidence - it was in fact just invented! In a bar! It goes alongside Sir Cyril Burt’s original justification for the 11-plus and grammar school system (for which he simply invented research findings) as a ‘factoid’ (an accepted truth we really know to be false) that has shaped right-wing policy for years and is still frequently repeated even though everybody now knows its a lie!
However, in the other thread I go on to warn…
But even then, this [the short period of relative stability and ‘success’ of capitalism] was only for part of the world, was dependent on exploitation of much of the rest - and moreover on the historic wealth retained in the developed world from the previous period of slavery and colonialism - and, I suspect, was only possible in the immediate shadow of the terrible shock of the second world war and holocaust, and the perceived threat of communism.
It may well be that when future historians look back across the whole history of capitalism from the end of the medieval period to global climate/ecological breakdown, their judgement will be that it always led to unacceptable exploitation, slavery, colonialism, depression, war - and more loss of life than any other social system in history - except for one very brief and very exceptional period after 1945.
– except for the periods when some form of socialism was doing the same thing.
It is clear that polarisation between different political factions is a huge impediment to actually resolving the mess we are in.
It also seems to be the case that throughout time any political movement on any spectrum can effectively warp into a dark and dismal display of human cruelty.
And yet changes and solutions are also possible even if these will inevitably be hijacked again by more malevolent forces at some point - human nature doesn’t change.
Opening lines of communication between communities/factions may not be easy but it has to happen if we are not all going to stand around arguing as the world burns.
Exactly. It’s in the interests of the extremists - which includes people on the Left and Right - to demonise their opponents, to shut down discussion, to no-platform anyone with unacceptable views.
What I find really depressing is that many younger people have a bloc of ideas which they have swallowed whole as the current orthodoxy, without ever having been exposed to a different view and without ever needing to defend their views (and certainly without ever having tried to find out why those whose views differ came to that conclusion).
The result, of course, is that the only thing they are capable of doing is to repeat slogans and no-platform their opponents.
I was very surprised to read this - my own experience (and the evidence I’m aware of - eg. the huge majority in the UK against brexit among the young) is that younger people are generally far more questioning, independent-minded and understanding than older generations - and, naturally, more concerned about climate/ecological breakdown.
As Marijkeh says - maybe time for us older generations to listen more carefully to the young?
If only that were true. You just have to look at the way the young flock to ‘influencers’ that infest social media to see that they are so far removed from being independent-minded. What us ‘oldies’ are guilty of is exploiting this naivety for financial gain.
I always think people who share my views are "questioning, independent-minded and understanding "!
But where’s the evidence?
Tim mentions social media ‘influencers’, but these are very diverse, generally quite a-political, and followed by all ages. Some indeed are specifically concerned with youthful pursuits - but I see no evidence in the fact that some young people like to, say, watch really skilled gamers play, that they have ‘swallowed current orthodoxy whole’.
But there is evidence that young people are generally more questioning, independent-minded and understanding than older generations (apart from my personal observation of my kids’ friends, etc). The brexit vote is objective evidence, isn’t it? This was a clear case of a rational evidence-based case versus deliberate mythologising and deception: around three-quarters of young people saw through it; a similar percentage of elderly people ‘swallowed’ the lies.
Which was five years ago. Where were these enlightened and questioning young voters in December 2019 when Brexit was about to become a reality?
Voting against the Tories in similar numbers, actually.
More on-topic - fascinating interview with Paul Mason here…
Includes a spectacularly existentialist definition of fascism as ‘the mobilisation of people’s fear of freedom’.
They’re not just afraid of other people becoming free. Deep down, they fear their own freedom, too.
Straight out of Sartre!
That exactly sums up most of my former in-laws, very few of whom could be described as young. I’d say many older people suffer from sclerosis of the mind.
Sartre again: some people - many people - allow life’s inevitable disappointments - sometimes tragedies - to distort their youthful dreams and optimism into a grotesque, embittered shadow of what it might have been, resentful of all change, cynical about youthful optimism, and (as Mason paraphrases) fearful of any freedom - or in Sartre’s more poetic formulation ‘longing to be the stone’.
The answer is to try everyday to be the person you always dreamed of being.
I think you’re right. Perhaps that is (at least partly) because it is often so much more difficult for older people to get out and have discussions.
Which makes it all the more sad to see places where young people might become exposed to new ideas and have the opportunity to discuss them, like universities, being rebranded as “safe spaces” where the orthodoxy is never challenged.
Yes, I’m not sure that is as much the case in France as in English-speaking countries but no doubt we will catch up 
