'Left' or 'right' is just a colloquial term, which gathers preferences and trends we have on the political, economic, social, religious and even philosophical views of the world in which we live. Then we put them altogether, mix and make two piles crossed by a line: on one side, the left and the other, right.
I know many will say that they are in the middle of the line, or even beyond that line, but that this is not a question of a single dimension. (Do not get upset with me those who know the subject in much greater depth than I).
In the first place, we have the 'liberal' and 'socialist': We can draw line number one.
The first ones prioritize above all civil liberties and individual initiative as the main shaft of the policy and economic growth, as opposite to the intervention of the government and its institutions, which are in danger of promoting, among other things, the stagnation, lack of ambition and social parasitism. The latter prefer to a greater extent the role of public administration as a tool to ensure the public interest, in addition to community needs that are not covered by private initiatives, and minimum rights to the most disadvantaged members of society. Would you prefer that certain things are organized through a government body, or on the contrary, prefer full freedom?
Then there are the 'conservatives' and 'progressive': line number two. The first are those who believe, in general, we should avoid changing what works, and should follow the traditions, because the past is the best teacher and often changing things is destabilizing a balance that can take long to recover. Progressives prioritize the value of change as the main instrument to improve and build progress. They are actually two very deep-seated views of the world, one that states that change involves risk of losing the accomplished, and the other taking considering risk as necessary if we are to get better.
Lay and religious: the first advocate a secular society, where no religious denomination is prioritized over others, while others are convinced that a deeper religious establishment is necessary (usually their own) to structure society.
Militarists or pacifists, there goes another line. Those who argue that the lack of a military force if only as a deterrent is absurd and irresponsible, and those who believe that there would be no wars without armies, and to that end it is best to move towards total disarmament. And still more distinctions exist, Republicans or monarchical, democratic or fascist (the term is very bold, by historical experience, but remember that these undemocratic approaches were also suggested by Plato), environmentalists and their counterpart (do not know how to call), etc. and so on.
Well, you see that there is no right and left, is a multidimensional issue: left, right, up, down, forward, backward... We could say that there are so many theses as forms of power have existed in the past (political, religious, military, monarchical, dictatorial, communist ...).
So I ask again, are you the right-winger, or liberal-progressive -lay-pacifist? Face it; politicians are not much interested in this degree of specificity (which would result in certain loss of votes). Increasingly less interested in fact I would say. If not, look at the more mature democracies tending to rather murky two-party system. I guess we're going to keep moving a little longer between right and left, to call it somehow.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment