Have Traditional Left & Right Political Poles Flipped?

Explanation: Does anybody remember this meme from Elon Musk?



Personal Disclosure: LOL

The right claiming they are the more tolerant is freaking hilarious. LMAO

They are also claiming they are open for debate. LMAO

How about they are also claiming to be open minded. LMAO

Or how they are the most honest. LMAO

The right can lie to themselves all night but they know what they are and who they. The are the bud light of extremist terrorists such as HAMAS but only because they don't have the same power as they did back in the day. They used be called democrats but the name has changed throughout the years but not their mentality. Look at the right now, banning books that teach real history in order to whitewash history.

originally posted by: TurkeyGoose
Goodness, a really interesting spectrum of thoughts and views here!

To answer one posters query regarding my dad's views, I'd summarise that he's overall 'Old School' Conservative (UK Party). Not a fan of Labour or more socialist policies. I believe this poster may have also misinterpreted what I said regarding Ukraine war, I'm certainly not a Russian backer. I think UK should only be providing humanitarian aid. Save our military budget for ourselves, we might need it soon enough! The posters misinterpretation was easy enough to make, I could've been more precise.

I wonder if the differing viewpoints are as simple as my dad see's my views as being inline with the hippies (for want of a better term!) from his younger days, whereas my brothers think my views resemble Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan etc. who the media tend to portray as on the right.

I'm certainly going to do more research into the specific classification of what makes somebody left or right, from a more historical perspective.

From the views shared by others, I feel a centre right nationalist possibly ticks the box. I voted for Brexit on the sole basis of sovereignty, and stand by this.

I've got some reading to do, thank you all very much!

Yes very interesting reading of both sides' evolutions.

Old Left:

Many of these movements were Marxist movements that often took a more vanguardist approach to social justice; focused primarily on labor unionization and social class in the West. Generally, the Old Left, unlike the New, focused more on economic issues than cultural ones.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=Many%20of%20these%20movements%20were,economic%20issues%20than%20cultural%20ones.

New Left:

In the United States, the "New Left" was the name loosely associated with liberal, radical, Marxist political movements that took place during the 1960s, primarily among college students. At the core of this was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).[27] Noting the perversion of "the older Left" by "Stalinism", in their 1962 Port Huron Statement the SDS eschewed "formulas" and "closed theories". Instead they called for a "new left ... committed to deliberativeness, honesty [and] reflection".[28] The New Left that developed in the years that followed was "a loosely organized, mostly white student movement that advocated for democracy, civil rights, and various types of university reforms, and protested against the Vietnam war".[29]

The term "New Left" was popularised in the United States in an open letter written in 1960 by sociologist C. Wright Mills (1916–1962) entitled Letter to the New Left.[30] Mills argued for a new leftist ideology, moving away from the traditional ("Old Left") focus on labor issues (whose entrenched leadership in the U.S. supported the Cold War and pragmatic establishment politics), into a broader focus towards issues such as opposing alienation, anomie, and authoritarianism. Mills argued for a shift from traditional leftism, toward the values of the counterculture, and emphasized an international perspective on the movement.[31] According to David Burner, C. Wright Mills claimed that the proletariat (collectively the working-class referencing Marxism) were no longer the revolutionary force; the new agents of revolutionary change were young intellectuals around the world.[32]

en.wikipedia.org...

Old Right:

The Old Right is an informal designation used for a branch of American conservatism that was most prominent from 1910 to the mid-1950s, but never became an organized movement. Most members were Republicans, although there was a conservative Democratic element based largely in the Southern United States. They are termed the "Old Right" to distinguish them from their New Right successors who came to prominence in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Most were unified by their defense of authority, tradition, morality, religion, limited government, rule of law, civic nationalism, capitalism, social conservatism, anti-Communism, anti-socialism, anti-Zionism, and anti-imperialism, as well as their skepticism of democracy and the growing power of Washington.[1] The Old Right typically favored laissez-faire classical liberalism; some were business-oriented conservatives; others were ex-radical leftists who moved sharply to the right, such as the novelist John Dos Passos. Still others, such as the Democrat Southern Agrarians, were traditionalists who dreamed of restoring a pre-modern communal society.[2] Above all, Murray Rothbard wrote, the Old Right were unified by opposition to what they saw as the danger of "domestic dictatorship" by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal program.[3] The Old Right's devotion to anti-imperialism and isolationism was at odds with the interventionist goal of global democracy, the top-down transformation of local heritage, social and institutional engineering of the political left and some from the modern right-wing.

en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

New Right:

The first New Right (1955–64) was centered on the right-wing libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists at William F. Buckley's National Review.[36]: 624  Sociologists and journalists had used new right since the 1950s; it was first used as self-identification in 1962 by the student activist group Young Americans for Freedom.[37]

The first New Right embraced what it called "fusionism" (an ostensible synthesis of classical liberal economics, traditional social values, and anti-communism)[36]: 338–41  and coalesced in the years preceding the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. The Goldwater campaign, which failed to unseat incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson, hastened the formation of a new political movement.

The second New Right (1964 to present) was formed in the wake of the Goldwater campaign and had a more populist tone than the first New Right. The second New Right tended to focus on wedge issues (such as abortion) and was often linked with the Religious Right.[38] The second New Right formed a policy approach and electoral apparatus that brought Ronald Reagan into the White House in the 1980 presidential election. The New Right was organized in the American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation to counter the so-called "liberal establishment", which they viewed as a contributor to corruption and mismanagement of the federal government. In elite think tanks and local community organizations alike, new policies, marketing strategies, and electoral strategies were crafted over the succeeding decades to promote strongly conservative policies.[2][39] The second New Right objected to a perceived decline in morality, including increased drug use, more public and open displays of sexuality, rising crime rates, race riots and unrest from civil rights protesters, and Vietnam War protesters.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

So it would appear both parties did not 'flip' but rather 'fused' ideologies, I suppose according to the changing social ideologies and as younger generations dictated.

a reply to: quintessentone

correct. The left is still racist and paints themselves with virtuous colors to hide it, while the right is still about rule of law, and order, small government, and individual accountability. I think you summed it up about right.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

correct. The left is still racist and paints themselves with virtuous colors to hide it, while the right is still about rule of law, and order, small government, and individual accountability. I think you summed it up about right.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion when I said "fusion" and not "flipping". It is the younger generations that decide on the evolution of political ideologies. The upcoming generations now are leaning more left, whatever that may turn out to be.

a reply to: quintessentone

I should have used the crayon font.

You were correct in the "fusion not flipping" part. The left has always been racist (KKK and such) they just try to hide it with the virtue signaling. So no flipping. Just as you said. If you are confused, go back and read the links you provided.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I should have used the crayon font.

You were correct in the "fusion not flipping" part. The left has always been racist (KKK and such) they just try to hide it with the virtue signaling. So no flipping. Just as you said. If you are confused, go back and read the links you provided.

Put down your crayons, first of all, then stop assuming you know what I am trying to relay, which you don't and can't seem to ever understand.

a reply to: quintessentone

you should stop eating them, and take some time to both read and comprehend what you link.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

you should stop eating them, and take some time to both read and comprehend what you link.

I did and my conclusion was posted at the end, it's a fusion not a flippin. What don't you understand about that?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

correct. The left is still racist and paints themselves with virtuous colors to hide it, while the right is still about rule of law, and order, small government, and individual accountability. I think you summed it up about right.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion when I said "fusion" and not "flipping". It is the younger generations that decide on the evolution of political ideologies. The upcoming generations now are leaning more left, whatever that may turn out to be.

They are for sure -- at least in social acceptance/equality.

I am curious if they will be more financial savvy.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

correct. The left is still racist and paints themselves with virtuous colors to hide it, while the right is still about rule of law, and order, small government, and individual accountability. I think you summed it up about right.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion when I said "fusion" and not "flipping". It is the younger generations that decide on the evolution of political ideologies. The upcoming generations now are leaning more left, whatever that may turn out to be.

They are for sure -- at least in social acceptance/equality.

I am curious if they will be more financial savvy.

I would think the upcoming younger generations will have no choice but to be more financial savvy. Or, if financial survival is not attainable in the future, then I would think they (both sides now) would rise up and make, or more likely force, the necessary changes.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

you should stop eating them, and take some time to both read and comprehend what you link.

I did and my conclusion was posted at the end, it's a fusion not a flippin. What don't you understand about that?

LOL, this is comical, so points for that. I'll type this part slower, for maximum grasp.

I agree with you and this article. You are spot on.

the sides didn't flip.

Left is still racist.

Right is still about small government, and personal accountability.

That is all.

Now spit out those crayons, brush those teeth, and pat yourself on the back once you understand all that.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

correct. The left is still racist and paints themselves with virtuous colors to hide it, while the right is still about rule of law, and order, small government, and individual accountability. I think you summed it up about right.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion when I said "fusion" and not "flipping". It is the younger generations that decide on the evolution of political ideologies. The upcoming generations now are leaning more left, whatever that may turn out to be.

They are for sure -- at least in social acceptance/equality.

I am curious if they will be more financial savvy.

I would think the upcoming younger generations will have no choice but to be more financial savvy. Or, if financial survival is not attainable in the future, then I would think they would rise up and make the necessary changes.

They are the first fully internet "educated" generation.

Never before has the entire world been open to an upcoming generation.

I think it's exciting.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

you should stop eating them, and take some time to both read and comprehend what you link.

I did and my conclusion was posted at the end, it's a fusion not a flippin. What don't you understand about that?

LOL, this is comical, so points for that. I'll type this part slower, for maximum grasp.

I agree with you and this article. You are spot on.

the sides didn't flip.

Left is still racist.

Right is still about small government, and personal accountability.

That is all.

Now spit out those crayons, brush those teeth, and pat yourself on the back once you understand all that.

I never said any of that, that's your bias take on today's fusion from the historical wiki sources.

Left and right both are works in progress.

Look beyond your bias, open your mind, research both sides of the coin, and see where politics is heading.

Don't you think GOP has split already? It's history repeating itself for another fusion reset.

Don't you think Dems are winning the young people's hearts and minds?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

correct. The left is still racist and paints themselves with virtuous colors to hide it, while the right is still about rule of law, and order, small government, and individual accountability. I think you summed it up about right.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion when I said "fusion" and not "flipping". It is the younger generations that decide on the evolution of political ideologies. The upcoming generations now are leaning more left, whatever that may turn out to be.

They are for sure -- at least in social acceptance/equality.

I am curious if they will be more financial savvy.

I would think the upcoming younger generations will have no choice but to be more financial savvy. Or, if financial survival is not attainable in the future, then I would think they would rise up and make the necessary changes.

They are the first fully internet "educated" generation.

Never before has the entire world been open to an upcoming generation.

I think it's exciting.

Absolutely, they are in a precarious position for survival considering the dire state of the Earth and the world, so watch them rise up.

a reply to: Annee

I believe it's causing an evolution in human psychological development. I agree it's exciting.

And with all growth, comes growing pains.

Each generation remakes the world. We have to let go and leave them to it. But the world they make will be theirs.

I have faith and think in the end it will achieve a certain 'one world' perspective. Which we need to survive the challenges ahead.

originally posted by: quintessentone


Look beyond your bias, open your mind, research both sides of the coin, and see where politics is heading.

Don't you think GOP has split already? It's history repeating itself for another fusion reset.

Don't you think Dems are winning the young people's hearts and minds?

The GOP has some confused leadership at the moment. But the core values exist, and won't be changing.

The Dems are destroying America willfully and on purpose. It's really obvious with the open borders, the push to destroy our energy sector without a viable alternative, and the appeasement of terrorist rather than their destruction.

If that's what the new generation wants to cling to, that will be the world they inherit. But I won't be cheering for it like a #ing DERP. you do you.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

I believe it's causing an evolution in human psychological development. I agree it's exciting.

And with all growth, comes growing pains.

Each generation remakes the world. We have to let go and leave them to it. But the world they make will be theirs.

I have faith and think in the end it will achieve a certain 'one world' perspective. Which we need to survive the challenges ahead.

I keep saying "One World" is the logical progression.

Not IF or WHEN -- but HOW.

Panicking against it is a waste of time and energy.

How to develop it and move it forward is where the focus should be.

I like the trend of tiny houses and drivable homes (work from anywhere). But we are losing neighborhoods.

Anyway, changes in how we live everyday need to be addressed.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

I believe it's causing an evolution in human psychological development. I agree it's exciting.

And with all growth, comes growing pains.

Each generation remakes the world. We have to let go and leave them to it. But the world they make will be theirs.

I have faith and think in the end it will achieve a certain 'one world' perspective. Which we need to survive the challenges ahead.

I keep saying "One World" is the logical progression.

Not IF or WHEN -- but HOW.

Panicking against it is a waste of time and energy.

How to develop it and move it forward is where the focus should be.

I like the trend of tiny houses and drivable homes (work from anywhere). But we are losing neighborhoods.

Anyway, changes in how we live everyday need to be addressed.

Tiny houses and zoning bylaw changes is the solution to end homelessness in cities, but some people don't want certain people in their neighborhoods, so seems to be the pushback from single dwelling homeowners that want to keep the status quo.

It may take a lot more time for changes, such as I mentioned above, to become reality, but perhaps these single dwelling homeowners may lose their homes because very soon they may not be able to pay their mortgages and buy food too. To walk a mile in their shoes.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

I believe it's causing an evolution in human psychological development. I agree it's exciting.

And with all growth, comes growing pains.

Each generation remakes the world. We have to let go and leave them to it. But the world they make will be theirs.

I have faith and think in the end it will achieve a certain 'one world' perspective. Which we need to survive the challenges ahead.

I keep saying "One World" is the logical progression.

Not IF or WHEN -- but HOW.

Panicking against it is a waste of time and energy.

How to develop it and move it forward is where the focus should be.

I like the trend of tiny houses and drivable homes (work from anywhere). But we are losing neighborhoods.

Anyway, changes in how we live everyday need to be addressed.

Tiny houses and zoning bylaw changes is the solution to end homelessness in cities, but some people don't want certain people in their neighborhoods, so seems to be the pushback from single dwelling homeowners that want to keep the status quo.

It may take a lot more time for changes, such as I mentioned above, to become reality, but perhaps these single dwelling homeowners may lose their homes because very soon they may not be able to pay their mortgages and buy food too. To walk a mile in their shoes.

Oh, absolutely. New realistic zoning for tiny homes is a must.

Some areas of Los Angeles you can legally live in your car.

And edible gardens in front yards.