At the most basic level, the definitions are that the right wing wants to keep things as they are and the left wing wants to change them. There is one way to do the first, and innumerable to do the second. This probably accounts for a large part of the effect you observe.
(There are of course, many exceptions to the given definition; for example, conservatives wanting to eliminate government programs that are currently part of the status quo. But in this case, they are likely to frame this as a return to a previous state when they didn’t exist, which is still a well-defined Schelling point. Right-wingers that do not fit this categorization, such as extreme libertarians calling for a minimal state that has never existed, are known to squabble among them as much as left-wingers.)
This is not actually accurate. On virtually any issue you can think of, the right-wing consensus supports changes in government policy. This is true to an extent such that some have argued that Republicans oppose everything about the liberal executive branch and civil service, simply because Obama is in office.
“This is true to an extent such that some have argued that Republicans oppose everything about the liberal executive branch and civil service, simply because Obama is in office.”
The arguments could be rhetorical, hence not demonstrative of the extent of the truth of such proposition. Weak evidence without discussing how those arguments are put forth.
Are you claiming that Republicans are only claiming to oppose Obama, and secretly support him on many issues despite their habit of verbal attacks, filibustering policies they claim to support as a means of threatening Obama on unrelated issues, and swearing to avoid compromise? I would need very strong evidence to believe this.
I don’t know how you get that from what I said.
I would claim the following three things, at least, that are relevant:
Republicans are not an especially united group; some will fillibuster the same policies that others support, like Rand Paul vs John McCain on the NSA programs.
Republicans, or pluralities of them, do not oppose all of the Presidents policies, such as much of the foreign policy and bank bailouts.
The opposition to the Presidents policies drives opposition to him being in office, and not vice versa.
Looking back, I misread your first post- I thought you were claiming that the Republicans’ arguments were rhetorical. My response would’ve been, a) your response didn’t really address my argument, since the section you disagreed with and b) you have no reason to assume bad faith.
Republicans are not an especially united group; some will fillibuster the same policies that others support, like Rand Paul vs John McCain on the NSA programs.
Well, yes, I wasn’t claiming that every conservative holds the exact same opinion on everything; this is not true in politics in general, and is more-or-less assumed.
Republicans, or pluralities of them, do not oppose all of the Presidents policies, such as much of the foreign policy and bank bailouts.
The bank bailouts were conducted under President Bush, not Obama, and in any case poll poorly with all Americans, including Republicans. Americans as a whole oppose Obama’s foreign policy, which has a 16% approval rating among Republicans.
The opposition to the Presidents policies drives opposition to him being in office, and not vice versa.
This is disproven by the fact that strong pluralities of Republicans supported almost identical policies under a different president.
Also, Republican and right wing are not synonyms.
In general, people base their identities around political parties or organizations like the Tea Party, not general political affiliation. Therefore, the relevant groups are political parties, not ‘left-wing’ vs ‘right-wing’. Party membership is also a lot easier to measure. Therefore, people in general talk about the parties, rather than specific points on the left-right axis. (e.g. note that the above poll broke data down by Republicans vs. Democrats, not left-wing vs. right-wing)
“This is disproven by the fact that strong pluralities of Republicans supported almost identical policies under a different president.”
Well, look, I think you are casting people as acting in bad faith but it is a lot more complicated than that, for example, different nuances in how the policies are crafted, promoted, or enforced; learning from what are viewed as mistakes; or different sentiments among the population at large. It’s hard to say because you haven’t given any examples.
I’m also not sure if you mean congressional Republicans or individual voters or activists or whathaveyou.
But I’m not really interested in defending Republicans any further than this here.
At the most basic level, the definitions are that the right wing wants to keep things as they are and the left wing wants to change them. There is one way to do the first, and innumerable to do the second. This probably accounts for a large part of the effect you observe.
(There are of course, many exceptions to the given definition; for example, conservatives wanting to eliminate government programs that are currently part of the status quo. But in this case, they are likely to frame this as a return to a previous state when they didn’t exist, which is still a well-defined Schelling point. Right-wingers that do not fit this categorization, such as extreme libertarians calling for a minimal state that has never existed, are known to squabble among them as much as left-wingers.)
This is not actually accurate. On virtually any issue you can think of, the right-wing consensus supports changes in government policy. This is true to an extent such that some have argued that Republicans oppose everything about the liberal executive branch and civil service, simply because Obama is in office.
“This is true to an extent such that some have argued that Republicans oppose everything about the liberal executive branch and civil service, simply because Obama is in office.” The arguments could be rhetorical, hence not demonstrative of the extent of the truth of such proposition. Weak evidence without discussing how those arguments are put forth.
Are you claiming that Republicans are only claiming to oppose Obama, and secretly support him on many issues despite their habit of verbal attacks, filibustering policies they claim to support as a means of threatening Obama on unrelated issues, and swearing to avoid compromise? I would need very strong evidence to believe this.
I don’t know how you get that from what I said. I would claim the following three things, at least, that are relevant:
Republicans are not an especially united group; some will fillibuster the same policies that others support, like Rand Paul vs John McCain on the NSA programs.
Republicans, or pluralities of them, do not oppose all of the Presidents policies, such as much of the foreign policy and bank bailouts.
The opposition to the Presidents policies drives opposition to him being in office, and not vice versa.
Also, Republican and right wing are not synonyms.
Looking back, I misread your first post- I thought you were claiming that the Republicans’ arguments were rhetorical. My response would’ve been, a) your response didn’t really address my argument, since the section you disagreed with and b) you have no reason to assume bad faith.
Well, yes, I wasn’t claiming that every conservative holds the exact same opinion on everything; this is not true in politics in general, and is more-or-less assumed.
The bank bailouts were conducted under President Bush, not Obama, and in any case poll poorly with all Americans, including Republicans. Americans as a whole oppose Obama’s foreign policy, which has a 16% approval rating among Republicans.
This is disproven by the fact that strong pluralities of Republicans supported almost identical policies under a different president.
In general, people base their identities around political parties or organizations like the Tea Party, not general political affiliation. Therefore, the relevant groups are political parties, not ‘left-wing’ vs ‘right-wing’. Party membership is also a lot easier to measure. Therefore, people in general talk about the parties, rather than specific points on the left-right axis. (e.g. note that the above poll broke data down by Republicans vs. Democrats, not left-wing vs. right-wing)
“This is disproven by the fact that strong pluralities of Republicans supported almost identical policies under a different president.”
Well, look, I think you are casting people as acting in bad faith but it is a lot more complicated than that, for example, different nuances in how the policies are crafted, promoted, or enforced; learning from what are viewed as mistakes; or different sentiments among the population at large. It’s hard to say because you haven’t given any examples.
I’m also not sure if you mean congressional Republicans or individual voters or activists or whathaveyou.
But I’m not really interested in defending Republicans any further than this here.
The pole in question fails to deal with the questions of whether they think it is too interventionist, not interventionist enough or something else.