Hacker News Reader

Comment by epistasis | Hacker News Reader

That's definitely going on. There's also something that I've heard called "reactionary centrism:" a feedback loop of people who think that truth lies in the middle between the two extremes, and also that assumes that no mainstream position in a political faction can itself be the "extreme." And that if they find that one political faction is doing something that seems extreme to them, that in the interests of fairness and centrism, they must start considering something that the other political faction does as equally extreme.

A lot of pundits that were center-left in past years fall into this trap, and normalize extremely right-wing positions these days because of it. They are stuck in an media and information environment of politics and, lacking many core values to guide them, they navigate to the middle of the media that they consume, assuming that the truth will be there in the middle just like it was in the past.

View on HN

> lacking many core values to guide them

This is a fundamental problem and one reason we're mired in this culture war. Social friction is caused by jostling based on group membership, and there's no common values-based scaffolding we can use to collaborate in building a better way.

I used to scoff when told to say the pledge of allegiance as a young person. Now, the closing words "liberty and justice for all" sound quite aspirational.

That's a very astute observation, thank you.

Right vs left makes the assumption there are two sides / options. I have long thought that the 'left' was too extreem socialist - that doesn't mean I think current 'right' is any better.

The far right and left are always going to be homes for extremists, by definition.

And also practicality. Extreme people are highly motivated to push their agenda, and that requires a party. They adapt and find a way to participate, one way or another. Often simply by ramping up awareness of the opponent party's inevitable extremes.

The real question is: how do the moderates in a party operate, and are they currently tolerated and reasonably well represented within the party.

(I am using extreme here to mean a lack of operating in objective reality, or a strong will to divide who "matters" from who doesn't. Usually they go together.)

I think it's also matter what percentage of each party you would consider extreme, and I realize that's subjective

Would Kamala have invaded Greenland? No, of course not, and you know it.

Plenty of people wouldn't even count her as "left".

you miss the point. The two sides are different they are not all viewpoints though.

There are more options for your own opinions but those don't matter.

In a representative democracy it doesn't matter what you believe only what the person you vote for believes.

I know political discussions on HN are discouraged but let me chime in as the one who made a comment higher in the thread: From a European perspective, both US Republicans and US Democrats are right-wing, except for guys like Bernie Sanders whose positions are close to a typical European center-left social democrat.

However, IMHO this doesn't really matter because in the US both the left and the right tend to score high on authoritarianism on the freedom vs. authoritarian axis on a two-dimensional political spectrum view if you look at their actual policies and views they defend. That even includes the almost nonexistent US far left. Strongly anti-authoritarian viewpoints are extremely rare in the US. Even self-proclaimed "libertarians" in the US tend to have fairly authoritarian views when you press them about it, they're usually merely anti-federal-government pro business right-wing neoliberals.

It's quite silly how people talk about the "left" in the US. There's barely any left present in politics. Much less "far/extreme left" or anything close to that. Nobody is really fighting for UBI, nationalisation of large utility-like corps, redoing healthcare completely, wealth taxes, dismantling the two-party system. And these ate still fairly chill ideas that recently happened in other countries, far from "extreme".

Your position is they are not extreem. Mine is that what we call left is already too extreem. However what the 'right' wants is different but mostly not in the direction I want to go.

A minority of people in the developed world would agree with your assessment that the American left is "extreme". It's mostly American "centrists" and conservatives that think so.

Again though, the original point is that left/right assumes there are extremes. All you have said is that in the rest of the world the "left" is more extreme.

If that extreme is good or not is a mostly a value judgement - there is no right or wrong answer. There are consequences to what answer you pick though.

The thing about extremes is you can make anything so by choosing a reference point. My reference is from the centerpoint of most prosperous and educated countries, because those are most likely to be ones with good ideas to be emulated. All decision we make are based on value judgements. Obviously there's no way to know what the most sensible thing is but in absence of perfect heuristics, "what other successful countries think" seems like a good one.

I know you said there are consequences to which one you pick, so we partially agree. But "There is no right or wrong answer" implies all value judgements are purely subjective, that all values are purely subjective. But I think we agree this couldn't be farther from the truth - these values _govern society_ - they affect everyone around us. Choosing bad values is genuinely harmful. Having the value that slavery is okay isn't just subjective, it's harmful and evil. Maybe if you believe slavery is okay, then you might disagree, but it doesn't make you any less objectively wrong. We could get into a big long thing about how this becomes objective, but suffice to say, if people do not want to be owned, and see being owned as harmful to them... then... they are being harmed.

It really doesn't matter what non-Americans think in this context; only Americans get to vote in American elections. (And additionally, I think you're essentially wrong that American politics is to the "right" of other developed countries in general.)

What laws or presidential orders have the US Left done that shows how extreme they are?

The US Left doesn't represent a broad enough population to win most national elections; certainly not enough to pass national law. They win local elections in places like SF or Seattle that were Harris +52 (e.g. contrast with Maduro's fake election only claiming a 9 point margin) and are over-represented in Dem party donors, which influences Dem representatives.

Nevertheless, they express extreme positions. Like "people should be treated preferentially by race" or "private property should be abolished/confiscated" or "the police should be defunded" or "transwomen should be allowed to compete in women's sports categories" or "illegal immigrants should receive taxpayer-subsidized healthcare." These are like 70-30 or 80-20 issues at the national level, with Leftists on the wrong side.

https://decidingtowin.org/

I asked for policies or laws they have implemented not whether they have expressed extreme views.

Ok. I think I adequately answered that. They're a minority faction; they can't pass laws. I think you know this, and your comment suggesting a faction must pass laws in order to be extreme (bluGill's contention) was a deliberate sleight of hand.

You can also use examples from when their was a Democrat president and Congress was controlled by them.

> The US Left doesn't represent a broad enough population to win most national elections;

What's your evidence for this?

The Democrats made small progress on healthcare.

Insurers couldn't deny coverage due to existing conditions

Kids could stay on parents until 26 even if they aren't in school

There were also subsidies for the lowest income people to help pay for open market plans.

This is something right? This is a step in the right direction?

If one party wants this and the other wants to dismantle then the first is left and the latter right.

It's bare minimum. It's "not-right". You don't normally call someone leftist for just saying "people should have access to healthcare without going bankrupt".

If I said I was going to lose weight and started jogging would you criticize me for doing the bare minimum after my first day?

If you're still eating doughnuts on the way in this stretched metaphor, yeah, I'd say you're doing the bare minimum.

Your use of the bare minimum implies a one time action with no further potential changes.

How do you know that was the case?

Because it was given up for a promise to talk about it later maybe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com