Now ask him if Christianity should play an official role in the German government. Or if he objects to people practicing cultures other than German in Germany. Both of those would be radically far-right in North America, but are pretty standard in Europe.
What’s going on here is that people tend to arrange themselves along a left-to-right line, but where exactly in the multidimensional space of viewpoints that line cuts through varies dramatically between times and places. It even inverts - your Prussian conservative would have taken a much dimmer view of free markets than a contemporary to their political left.
In god we trust was added by the American right during the frenzy of the 1950’s, with the argument was that it doesn’t specify which god, so it’s okay. Like, there are factions there, and to a degree in Canada that want to make Christianity official, but they’re kind of radical.
Separation of church and state is embedded in the US constitution, even if they’ve always thought of themselves as a Christian nation. This is because it was founded by the day’s radical left. Meanwhile, the German conservative might vote CDU.
or what the north american anglosphere has to say about Quebec’s secularism?
Nobody has a bad word to say about the quiet revolution, actually.
There was a bill written about Muslims and hijabs specifically, which was unpopular outside of Quebec and found to be illegal. And then a bunch of similar bills but with “no oversized crosses” added on. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.
Which goes back to the thing about multiculturalism. In Anglo Canada the mainstream debate is literally whether less integration is always better (postnationalism), or if there’s some kind of common Canadian identity that you should have even if you’re Muslim and speak Arabic at home. In Europe that would be radical, and the debate seems to be about whether the domestic culture should be allowed to mix or change at all.
Edit: If you yourself are French, that might be the one exception. There was a revolution around the same time as in America, and it left some of the same legacies.
I don’t know. I mean, it’s pretty easy to find uncontroversially evil people on the left as well. Jim Jones had some pioneering takes on racial harmony, and did not get along with the right of his day. Or cynical people on the left - ask Lemmy about if climate change is going to kill all humans in the next few decades.
The term itself comes from the French revolution, with the revolutionaries sitting on the left. Since then, you’ve had ship of Theseus things happen where a classical liberal might end up on the right, because they follow a chain of intellectual forerunners tracing back to someone opposing the French revolution. In other cases some kind of analogy is made, like the Japanese wartime government being right-wing because many of the dynamics were shared with the European right of the day. Or how Cato the Elder was “conservative” because he promoted a traditional way of life, even if that tradition was being bi and not reading.
All in all, left and right might be great names, because they’re directions that always exist, but depend completely on where you’re standing.
Not bad but might apply more to liberalism IMO. I think the word “accepting” (of change) is doing a lot of work when you consider revolutionary communism, whose whole mission is to force change at any cost.
The left-right dichotomy is almost completely useless IMO. “Almost” because for some mysterious reason everybody can situation themself on it. I think it’s more about identity than anything else. Football teams.
Now ask him if Christianity should play an official role in the German government. Or if he objects to people practicing cultures other than German in Germany. Both of those would be radically far-right in North America, but are pretty standard in Europe.
What’s going on here is that people tend to arrange themselves along a left-to-right line, but where exactly in the multidimensional space of viewpoints that line cuts through varies dramatically between times and places. It even inverts - your Prussian conservative would have taken a much dimmer view of free markets than a contemporary to their political left.
You’re full of shit. Those things are very far right in Europe.
Also, remind me what’s written on the american Dollar, or what the north american anglosphere has to say about Quebec’s secularism?
In god we trust was added by the American right during the frenzy of the 1950’s, with the argument was that it doesn’t specify which god, so it’s okay. Like, there are factions there, and to a degree in Canada that want to make Christianity official, but they’re kind of radical.
Separation of church and state is embedded in the US constitution, even if they’ve always thought of themselves as a Christian nation. This is because it was founded by the day’s radical left. Meanwhile, the German conservative might vote CDU.
Nobody has a bad word to say about the quiet revolution, actually.
There was a bill written about Muslims and hijabs specifically, which was unpopular outside of Quebec and found to be illegal. And then a bunch of similar bills but with “no oversized crosses” added on. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.
Which goes back to the thing about multiculturalism. In Anglo Canada the mainstream debate is literally whether less integration is always better (postnationalism), or if there’s some kind of common Canadian identity that you should have even if you’re Muslim and speak Arabic at home. In Europe that would be radical, and the debate seems to be about whether the domestic culture should be allowed to mix or change at all.
Edit: If you yourself are French, that might be the one exception. There was a revolution around the same time as in America, and it left some of the same legacies.
My mental model of the right-left dichotomy:
Anything more complex and the labels hit their limits.
I don’t know. I mean, it’s pretty easy to find uncontroversially evil people on the left as well. Jim Jones had some pioneering takes on racial harmony, and did not get along with the right of his day. Or cynical people on the left - ask Lemmy about if climate change is going to kill all humans in the next few decades.
The term itself comes from the French revolution, with the revolutionaries sitting on the left. Since then, you’ve had ship of Theseus things happen where a classical liberal might end up on the right, because they follow a chain of intellectual forerunners tracing back to someone opposing the French revolution. In other cases some kind of analogy is made, like the Japanese wartime government being right-wing because many of the dynamics were shared with the European right of the day. Or how Cato the Elder was “conservative” because he promoted a traditional way of life, even if that tradition was being bi and not reading.
All in all, left and right might be great names, because they’re directions that always exist, but depend completely on where you’re standing.
Good exposition of the problem.
I think a better one is acceptance of change.
Sometimes change is good, sometimes the world is not ready. I think this aligns closely with “cynical” and “naïve” but just makes it more abstract.
The trouble being that this possibly makes the Nazis left wing, which nobody contemporary with them saw them as.
In school this was taught to me as reactionary-conservative-progressive-radical and contrasted with left vs. right.
Not bad but might apply more to liberalism IMO. I think the word “accepting” (of change) is doing a lot of work when you consider revolutionary communism, whose whole mission is to force change at any cost.
The left-right dichotomy is almost completely useless IMO. “Almost” because for some mysterious reason everybody can situation themself on it. I think it’s more about identity than anything else. Football teams.