I see many claims about political partisanship being a sham. It’s just one term against the other, neither is fundamentally different. To a certain extent, I agree.
We are tribalistic creatures. We are more likely to demonize our enemies for bad behavior while making excuses for people on our side when they do the same thing. Equivalently, we will downplay good actions done by our enemies while promoting upstanding behavior on our side as evidence of our side’s innate higher morality. It is a universal rule that society is improved by being able to better view one’s own side objectively, and to hold people accountable for their actions even if they are your friend. If not publicly, at least privately.
That said, I don’t think right and left politics are synonymous. I think there is a vast divide in the fundamental principles both sides hold, and this is shown in the policies pursued and how the aggregate of the party behaves. Now, I’m no political science expert… this is my opinion based on everything I have seen. Especially with this post, I encourage people comment with their own thoughts, whether they are in agreement or disagreement.
The political right, currently most represented in the mainstream by the Republican party, is premised on the ideas of individual rights, personal responsibility, and equality of opportunity. An individual is both responsible for and entitled to the profits of their own actions, and no one else’s. Government is not the answer to problems like running the economy or creating jobs, that is the job of the individual to make their own way in life. They tend to be more traditionalist, valuing things like the nuclear family and charity, which is supported by statistics. They support lower taxes and the preservation of life, which is why they also tend to be pro-life and pro second amendment; both things that are designed to safeguard innocent life.
The political left, currently most represented in the mainstream by the Democrat party, is premised on the ideas of group rights, group responsibility, and equality of outcome. If an individual is part of a group that also includes other individuals who have done bad things, they are guilty by association, and similarly are granted benefits/social credit if other individuals in that group have done good things or historically been oppressed. Government is the answer to problems like running the economy and creating jobs, as they can influence public behavior through executing policies. They tend to be less traditionalist, wishing to try alternatives to the status quo such as promoting the social acceptance of non-traditional family arrangements, or even advocating for their abolition altogether in similar fashion to a Marxist framework. In fact, many on the left are open socialists, and many more advocate fundamentally socialist policies even if they still maintain that they are not socialist. They support higher taxes and the right of the powerful to control the fate of those they rule over, which is why they also tend to be pro-choice and anti second amendment; both of these stances being designed to remove protections from those deemed undeserving of it.
Now, I think it’s clear by my framing that I’m quite firmly on the political right. But at this moment, I believe these are the fundamental differences between left and right. Generally speaking, the left is collectivist, while the right is individualist.
You may point out that many individualists creating a political party is inherently contradictory. To say so is to misunderstand the difference between collectivist thought and individualist thought. Collectivist thought demands conformity. It demands that people follow the orthodoxy, or be excommunicated from the group. Disagreement is seen as an attack on the institution, and the individuals which it contains.
Individualist thought, though, does not demand complete conformity. There is frequently a wide variety of thought, and debates both friendly or more hostile can occur without any real schism opening up within the group. This is because the group is premised by certain fundamental principles that it’s members agree upon at their core; if someone decides to then oppose those principles(things like freedom of speech and personal liberty), that is when they are no longer considered part of the group. This is much different from collectivist thought, as disagreement is allowed over differences in interpretation of those principles with individualists.
Overall, I think this difference is why the political left opposes their enemies the most not through debate, but by shaming tactics. I've seen this both in mainstream politics, and in more informal contexts, where the political left will lose an argument(or just refuse to debate), instead opting to attack via deplatforming, censorship, or even doxing.
Far leftists often just glaze over right wing arguments because they believe they can dismiss them at their face, calling them uninformed or unintellectual. But I have found that if you point out at length that they are the ones ignoring evidence and behaving in a way more descriptive of a religious zealot instead of an objective intellectual, they become incredibly angry. In this rage, they see you as evil itself, and you must be destroyed by any means necessary.
I believe people on this far left especially are okay with any and all tactics to defeat their opponents. There are no bad tactics, only bad targets. In the age of the internet, where things can be verified as true or false with increasing efficiency, I think these slimy tactics will be their ultimate downfall. All of that is just my understanding mixed with my opinions and obvious bias, though. Feel free to weigh in on this topic as well, and thanks for reading.
Same Post on Minds