I seldom do requests but defining your terms every now and then is good exercise. So here we have it. What exactly is a Lefty?
When I say Left, I am referring to Marxists or post-Marxist liberals who think anti-imperialism is more important than human rights.
I refer to people who will side with a foreign dictator instead of the labour unions he puts the boots to. The people who will accept the worst libel against the Middle East’s only credibly social democratic state, while accepting without question the word of goose-stepping fascists like Hezbollah.
A Leftist opposes everything our democratic government does because either, it’s a sop to their big business cronies, too little too late, or beside the point. Nothing is ever an improvement for them.
The Left for me are the nihilists who bitch at the world but have no concrete program for making it better.
Marxist in their outlook, anti-imperialist above all else, anti-compromise, and bereft of a positive program for change - take any of those ingredients, adjust them by degree to meet your local circumstances and you’ll have yourselves a capital “L” Lefty.
Now, is this too broad a brush? I don’t think so. I’m not talking about all of the left. Look closely at the definition - it does not apply to the Liberals, the Greens, or the Euston wing of the NDP (although the first two do occasionally pander to the Left fringe of their parties). All of these groups have a political program and a positive message. Certainly it is because of this that all are regularly damned by the Left.
Try listening to the splenetic verbal flatulence of the Leftist dead-enders. They attack progress and offer nothing in its place. Here they are on America, on the War, on the Army, on Free Speech, and on Trade. Contrast them with mainstream politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, or god forbid, even our own Stephane Dion. On the one hand you have substance, plans, and on the other, an attack on substance. At best the Left are critics, and at worst they’re haters.
You want a definition? Find a ‘useful idiot’ sans the utility and you’ve found yourselves a Lefty.
Phew. For a while there I thought you were talking about me.
Best damned description I’ve ever read.
Fortunately it doesn’t actually describe many people in the real world.
Just what the Internet needs, another “personal” definition of left
Those “lefties” sound like pretty awful people, don’t they, Stage? Wow. Imagine people who “oppose EVERYTHING our democratically elected government does”, “NO program” for making things better…phew. Thank God we don’t know any “leftists”.
Seriously , Robert, you could have a pretty good blog here if you’d leave this kind of silly generalizing to lesser souls like Canadian Sentinel and Mike Brock, and focus on actual issues. You’re pretty good at real discussion - you don’t need to lean on this ancient meme for cheap threads.
:)
Perhaps one other defining quality of a ‘Lefty’ which I have not read above:
‘Someone who truly believes in their ‘left’ ideology with the fervor of fanatical religious faith. Their perception of reality cannot be influenced by facts that directly contradict their dogma….to the contrary. These people will attack all facts that do not ‘fit’ into their twisted beliefs, and shout them down rather than check to see if these are congruent with reality, and actually worthy of consideration….
“These people will attack all facts that do not ‘fit’ into their twisted beliefs, and shout them down rather than check to see if these are congruent with reality, and actually worthy of consideration.”
Wow. So Small Dead Animals and Little Green Footballs are completely infested by “Lefties”. I had no idea.
Oooh, what do we have here?
An ‘ad hominem’ attack! I guess the definition itself was accurate, then.
You may wish to review the definition of the term “ad hominem” before attempting to use it. Just a friendly suggestion.
@Balbulican:
Ah, thank you. Friendly suggestions are always welcome.
Luckily, I did take some Latin. Yet, long gone are the days when I was easily fluent in 7 languages!
This was a few years back, so your comment made me think that perhaps I might have made a mistake. You see, I remembered that ‘ad’ means ‘ towards, and ‘hominem’ is the proper case of the noun ‘man’ or ‘human’ to go with the preposition ‘ad’.
I also thought that I remembered that when this particular phrase was applied to an argument, it had a specific meaning: instead of addressing the argument itself (or, in my case, definition), it is an attack on a person, or a personality, of the person making the argument or a person perceived as somehow ‘associated’ with that person. But, I am the first to admit, my memory is faulty…
Also, you sounded so certain I was wrong, I thought it prudent to double check that my memory is not playing tricks on me. It does do that sometimes! :0)
So, I checked my Latin. And, I checked the use of this ‘label’, as applied to an argument. I did not find that my memory was in error…
Perhaps it is my reasoning that is faulty…let me walk you through it. That way, if I fall astray, you could, perhaps, give me a friendly suggestion….so, let’s examine the exchange.
First, I made some observations regarding ‘Lefties’ and their negative qualities.
Second, instead of addressing my propositions (in plain language, criticizing my argument based on its merits), you chose to imply that the term ‘Leftie’ (which, as my proposition clearly demonstrated, was a derogatory term) to people whom you loosely imply as being on ‘my’ side of the political spectrum. Thus, indirect though it may be, this is - by definition - an ‘ad hominem’ attack.
Third, ‘reading between the lines’, I correctly identify your fallatious argument and called you on it.
Fourth, unwilling to face the fact that people actually recognize what you are doing, and are not afraid to state it, you give me a ‘friendly suggestion’ to ‘review the definition’ of what it was I called you out on….
Perhaps you were hoping that your patronizing tone would cow me. Perhaps you thought I was too stupid to figure out what you were doing. Perhaps you thought that patronizing me would be enough to put me into my place. Perhaps I don’t understand your motivation - and your level of understanding of this discussion - at all. I simply do not have sufficient evidence to make an assertion.
What I do have sufficient information to assert is that, instead of addressing my definition of ‘Leftie’ (an insult), you resorted to calling people (i.e. humans, or, in Latin, homina) whose thought patterns you associate with mine, insults. Thus, it is an ‘ad hominem’ attack….
OK, I admit. ‘Ad Hominem’ refers to an attack upon one person. You attacked two. So, my noun should be plural, not singular….Yet, I doubt your intent was to correct my Latin grammar…
“Friendly suggestions are always welcome.”
Excellent. Always glad to oblige my fellow writers with assistance.
I originally considered a response reflecting your satirical pedantry, but perhaps a more direct debunking will be adequate. However, a tip - if you’re going to play the scornful scholar, the little things (facts, spelling, punctuation and so on) matter. Usually they can be overlooked, but a response in your satirically lofty style absolutely requires that you get it right. Otherwise, I fear, you end up in the embarrassing position of attempting a voice you can’t quite carry off.
Now to the substance of your argument. You are, I’m afraid, mistaken.
I’m not sure you actually understood the point I initially made, so I’ll summarize. You attributed to “lefties” a set of attitudes that are, in fact, demonstrably present on mediocre blogs of ALL political persuasions, and among inferior pundits of every political stripe. If you’re in any doubt about that, I respectfully suggest you visit the sites I referenced.
Your definition of “ad hominem” is correct. However, your use of it on the occasion is mistaken. I did not “attack a person.” I noted that the insults you directed at a mysterious category of humans you call “lefties” could, with equal accuracy, be applied to others on the opposite end of the political spectrum. What “insults” were uttered originated with you: I was simply pointing out the inaccuracy inherent in your tribalism.
Oh, and although I have neither Latin dictionary nor grammar handy, I don’t think “homina” is the plural of “hominem”. “Hominen” is the indicative case of the singular “homen”.
Here endeth the lesson.
Hi Robert.
I’ve always considered myself of the Left, and when asked, I persist in describing myself as a socialist, or a democratic socialist, or a social democrat, and while I do not get worked up about any political philosophy, I do still tend to see the world in a Marxist sort of light.
All that said, I think who have provided a fairly clear-eyed and perhaps too kind characterization of the prevailing habits of mind abroad on the “Left” today, but I put the term in parentheses because the milieu (or the “ideational package”) you describe, I tend to refer to as the counterculture left, or the pseudo-left.
Here’s my handy little guide to figuring out how to situate those who pose as Leftists or use the language of the Left these days. Ask yourself this honest question: Is this person - this movement, this party, whatever - on the side of human progress? Are they sincerely committed to first priorities - the abolition of poverty and inequality, the emancipation of women, the cause of a just peace between all peoples? Is their primary motivation altruistic, rather than narcissistic; empathetic, rather than narrowly self-interested?
It’s not always an effective test, but it first helps distinguish between creeps and good people who have found themselves advocating creepy things, and it more importantly exposes - and here is where I find myself agreeing, at least on this point, with my conservative friends - that the “Left” as it appears in your description, and in the links you provide, is no longer a force for human progress.
Cheers,
TG
Hi Robert.
I’ve always considered myself of the Left, and when asked, I persist in describing myself as a socialist, or a democratic socialist, or a social democrat, and while I do not get worked up about any political philosophy, I do still tend to see the world in a Marxist sort of light.
All that said, I think you have provided a fairly clear-eyed and perhaps too kind characterization of the prevailing habits of mind abroad on the “Left” today, but I put the term in parentheses because the milieu (or the “ideational package”) you describe is something I tend to refer to as the counterculture left, or the pseudo-left.
Here’s my handy little guide to figuring out how to situate those who pose as Leftists or use the language of the Left these days. Ask yourself this honest question: Is this person - this movement, this party, whatever - on the side of human progress? Are they sincerely committed to first priorities - the abolition of poverty and inequality, the emancipation of women, the cause of a just peace between all peoples? Is their primary motivation altruistic, rather than narcissistic; empathetic, rather than narrowly self-interested?
It’s not always an effective test, but it first helps distinguish between creeps and good people who have found themselves advocating creepy things (and who can be engaged by rational argument), and it more importantly exposes - and here is where I find myself agreeing, at least on this point, with my conservative friends - that the “Left” as it appears in your description, and in the links you provide, is, tragically, in the ascendant, and it is no longer a force for human progress.
Cheers,
TG
So… you’re redefining a commonly-used term, then? Ok. Just keep in mind that most people don’t share your definition, so there are likely to be misunderstandings if you persist in adhering to those limitations when using it in ordinary conversation.
Might I suggest that “Left” is too simple and common a word for your rather complex criteria? If you really want the concept to spread, I’d suggest making the descriptive term a bit more unique and memorable. Maybe “Nihilist Left” or something? Because if the two of us were to converse about politics at present, each of us would have a different definition of a common word, and this would cause confusion.