Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
27 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Left-Right Terminology Doesn't Work, Time for a new Paradigm

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 2   Must Read 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H1 7/26/12
Become a Fan
  (3 fans)

opednews.com

The people in favor of the status quo of bribery have been very successful in large part because of their success at framing the conversation in terms beneficial to their agenda. If we are to be successful at recovering our country, we must understand what they're doing, and reframe conversations in our favor.  Our political discourse needs a new paradigm, a new spectrum on which to place people and organizations that illustrates whether they tend to side with corporations or people.

New Paradigm

Even though a one-dimensional model is a simplification of politics, it does promote dialog and allows for a shortcut in political discourse. But because the left vs right dividing line is obsolete, we need new terminology.

The two extremes of this new spectrum are:
- the state is run for the benefit of corporations
- the state is run for the benefit of citizens

At one extreme (favoring corporations) you'll find both fascism (right-wing) and communism (left wing).  At the other extreme is populism. I hesitate to use the accurate term 'socialism' here, even though it means, in the classic sense, the country being run for the benefit of the citizens rather than corporations. But unfortunately, most people don't know what the term means, although they believe it's bad because the corporate news says it's bad. They don't know that many of our institutions from which they benefit are socialist - infrastructure (roads, etc.), insurance, police, fire, libraries, schools, Social Security, Medicare, and even the military because they have socialistic health care.

The Occupy Movement has already successfully coined the terms "1%" and "99%" so that they have become part of the mainstream conversation, but using those terms for this new spectrum implies that if you're in the 1%, you favor corporate policies and that's not necessarily true.


Instead, I propose that we use a metaphor from the Civil War (the South had slavery, and the North was free) and adopt the terms reflecting the economic slavery of corporate control:

south-wing - benefiting the rich and corporations
north-wing - benefiting most citizens

The metaphor fits quite well in addition, because the Southern leaders were able to convince many conscientious Southerners who didn't own slaves that the Civil War was about freedom - a second War of Independence - instead of being about the protection of the brutal institution of slavery, which benefited only the rich. Similarly, today, the south-wing leaders are successfully convincing a large number of people to support south-wing policies, even though these policies are against these people's own economic self-interest.

Distract and Divide

By focusing on wedge issues (gay marriage, religion, etc.) rather than issues that will determine whether our species survives (nuclear weapons, energy, global warming, the economy, etc.), they preserve the illusion that the battle is between left and right. The politicians (with a few notable exceptions on both sides) can continue to keep people divided and voting for tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee, both of whom are in the south-wing, instead of unifying behind somebody in the north-wing who would really make a difference to the status quo.

The great Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead once said: "If you're made to pick the lesser of two evils, you're still picking evil, aren't you?"

And the result of this fraud is a vast increase in the economic chasm between the very rich and everybody else which, as history has shown, will destroy us. The ancient Roman writer Plutarch observed that "An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."

Economic Inequality

There is nothing inherently wrong with being part of the rich 1%. Economic inequality is a fact of life. And 1% of a population is in the top 1% by definition. In fact, some of the people who are in the top 1% wealth group can actually be in the north-wing depending on their views. The real issue is how people got rich - was it through honest hard work? Or was it by gaming the system by bribing politicians and relying on corporate welfare while claiming to have built their businesses and become wealthy on their own? And, as Elizabeth Warren observed, that's not to mention they've probably used roads that we all paid for, and hired employees that we all paid to educate.

One of the purposes of government is to provide boundaries to the economic playing field so that the greedy and the criminals don't harm us and things don't get out of whack. The problem is that the greedy south-wing has gamed the system, and the boundaries are in some cases non-existent. As a result, we have huge economic inequalities that are destroying our economy.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

http://www.kinzelman.com

I was a computer engineer for ~25 years, now I've changed careers and am a First Officer in a Lear Jet, much more interesting! I'm also a member of http://www.occupyloslunas.info a local Occupy group. I've been rabblerousing for years, got on the (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Left-Right Terminology Doesn't Work, Time for a new Paradigm

Howard Zinn, Taking the Long View on Occupy

History shows that Republican/Tea Party Solutions Do Not Work

Support Eliminating Corporate Personhood & Money is not Speech for Municipalities

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 27 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

its wage earners v, capital and big corps that is ... by Kent Welton on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:42:36 AM
That feels like a better division but being called... by Lexi Mize on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:09:24 PM
I considered for awhile the 99/1 terminology, but ... by Paul Kinzelman on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:50:09 PM
The "Inner Circle of Our Society" and the "Outer C... by Daniel Penisten on Friday, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:54:02 PM
Maybe some kind of globalistic configuration? More... by Daniel Penisten on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:01:50 AM
I don't think we want to fight the civil war again... by David Zhavah on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:45:42 AM
North = industrialists, South = poor farmers, at l... by Lexi Mize on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:55:53 PM
Whether you like it or not (and I certainly don't)... by Paul Kinzelman on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:53:34 PM
There's an article titled How the Old South vs Nor... by E. J. N. on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:09:11 PM
You seem to be forgetting that I picked the north-... by Paul Kinzelman on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:02:09 PM
However, while the north-south terminology can be ... by E. J. N. on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:20:00 PM
I think you're detouring off into the weeds trying... by Paul Kinzelman on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:37:15 PM
Regarding the Second Amendment, that was apparentl... by E. J. N. on Friday, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:00:55 PM
That sounds great, but how would you go about it? ... by Paul Kinzelman on Friday, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:43:32 PM
...they are and vote not for them. ... by Daniel Penisten on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:12:52 AM
But corporate news (which most people mistakenly t... by Paul Kinzelman on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:48:17 AM
I'll just quote excerpts from the article that inc... by E. J. N. on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:28:53 PM
But the devil would be in the details of implement... by Paul Kinzelman on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:22:46 PM
The Executive Council (of six men and six women) w... by E. J. N. on Sunday, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:21:40 PM
> The Executive Council (of six men and six wom... by Paul Kinzelman on Sunday, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:21:33 PM
But seriously, as I said: "Of course they would al... by E. J. N. on Sunday, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:03:38 PM
If you look at The People's Campaign for Reformati... by E. J. N. on Sunday, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:28:36 PM
I suggest using Peacenik and Warmonger .  ... by Anton Grambihler on Friday, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:27:02 PM
Those terms, while accurate, just seem kind of bla... by Paul Kinzelman on Friday, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:00:58 PM
Although your observations are correct. The cause ... by Arend Rietkerk on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:00:47 PM
Economy and civics classes are one of the first th... by Paul Kinzelman on Saturday, Jul 28, 2012 at 10:13:40 PM
I forgot the other problem with the bourgoise/prol... by Paul Kinzelman on Sunday, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:15:11 PM