[quote]AceRock wrote:
Why the fuck does anyone want to have a wedding in the first place? Selfish, trite ritual to invite the government into your sex life while simultaneously boring the absolute tits off every sad fuck you know that couldn’t come up with a half decent excuse or muster the gumption to say “No thank you, I’d rather be jerking off than watch you waste a fortune and your future in one fell swoop.”
Craziness incarnate.[/quote]
Southern Catholic weddings=Open bar.
Surely the LGBT community can find willing photographers and caterers in the few states not backwards enough to recognize them as equal members of human society.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Maybe in the bible belt a hundred years ago?
[/quote]
What an idiotic suggestion. Your credibility factor drops to sub-zero when you show such blatant ignorance.
[/quote]
Given we aren’t the most respectable bunch, what do you expect? If everyones credibility dropped every time someone were off color, everyone’s credibility would be sub zero. But, carry on.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think any private business should have the right to refuse service to people based on skin color. (And sexual orientation, and whatever else.)
It is a matter of principle that underlies this belief of mine, but I will enumerate one pragmatic consequence of such a policy: Racists–real ones–would be forced either to act in accordance with their conscience, in which case they would be shamed in the national media and, 999 times in 1000, driven out of business. Or, they would have to live with the knowledge of their own cowardice–with the knowledge that they are free to ban blacks, for example, from entering their doors, but are too chickenshit to do so.[/quote]
This right here ^.
The problem is, even this position will carry a double standard.
The CEO of Mozilla who was pressured to resign due to his stance on gay marriage held the same position as Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008, yet got off without an earful.
Would a gay business owner who denied business to straight people face the same downward spiral ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think any private business should have the right to refuse service to people based on skin color. (And sexual orientation, and whatever else.)
It is a matter of principle that underlies this belief of mine, but I will enumerate one pragmatic consequence of such a policy: Racists–real ones–would be forced either to act in accordance with their conscience, in which case they would be shamed in the national media and, 999 times in 1000, driven out of business. Or, they would have to live with the knowledge of their own cowardice–with the knowledge that they are free to ban blacks, for example, from entering their doors, but are too chickenshit to do so.[/quote]
This right here ^.
The problem is, even this position will carry a double standard.
The CEO of Mozilla who was pressured to resign due to his stance on gay marriage held the same position as Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008, yet got off without an earful.[/quote]
^ That is an absolutely excellent point.
[quote]
Would a gay business owner who denied business to straight people face the same downward spiral ?[/quote]
You’re probably right about this.
However, the double standards of private society may well be ineradicable, or at least largely uncontrollable. Better to eliminate double standard in government and accept the temperament of the collective wallet–which exercises the ultimate kind of voting power–for the messy, glaringly imperfect hypocrite that it is.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Why the fuck does anyone want to have a wedding in the first place? Selfish, trite ritual to invite the government into your sex life while simultaneously boring the absolute tits off every sad fuck you know that couldn’t come up with a half decent excuse or muster the gumption to say “No thank you, I’d rather be jerking off than watch you waste a fortune and your future in one fell swoop.”
Craziness incarnate.[/quote]
Southern Catholic weddings=Open bar. [/quote]
Northern wedding of any type=Open Everything! (kind of like the the onion article you posted in another thread)
[quote]Severiano wrote:
All of a sudden you chose to not serve someone because they are sinners as a Christian? That’s some bullshit, everyone’s a sinner.
[/quote]
For one moment, let us leave aside the legalities, and leave aside the specifics of what is or is not sin. Do you not see a moral difference between refusing to sell a sinner a cake to celebrate a sin and refusing to sell a sinner a cake to celebrate his birthday? These are very different things, and pretending they are the same is bullshit.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think any private business should have the right to refuse service to people based on skin color. (And sexual orientation, and whatever else.)
It is a matter of principle that underlies this belief of mine, but I will enumerate one pragmatic consequence of such a policy: Racists–real ones–would be forced either to act in accordance with their conscience, in which case they would be shamed in the national media and, 999 times in 1000, driven out of business. Or, they would have to live with the knowledge of their own cowardice–with the knowledge that they are free to ban blacks, for example, from entering their doors, but are too chickenshit to do so.[/quote]
Doesn’t this assume that anti-racists are the overwhelming majority?
Isn’t that why we specifically needed laws saying that you cannot deny services to due to skin color? Because at one point racists were the overwhelming majority?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how this gets so disconnected.
This is a rights issue… It would be wrong for a business to deny you service because you were of a certain denomination, or because you were a certain race.
Why is it different for sexuality? If a cakemaker or flower arranger would do business with a Christian couple looking to be married, but you wouldn’t provide the same service for a gay married couple, that’s pretty clearly discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. It’s a business right? They have the right to refuse business to people for lots of reasons, just not reasons that are in violation of people’s human rights.
You see the difference right?
It would be no different than say Mormons refusing to serve dark skinned people just a few years ago because their scripture said that dark skin was a mark of evil. It would still be a violation if they refused to serve people of dark skin… Even if the reasons were religious. Still a violation of a persons civil rights.
[/quote]
Does a Muslim restaurant have to serve pork?
No, but obviously they can’t just throw out Christians because they don’t like Christians
How about a Christian couple comes in and orders food? Then they take payment and give food, obviously
How about a Christian couple comes in trying to set up catering for an upcoming wedding? The wedding is going to be at a church and they want him to come and serve food for some length of time. Are you telling me that him declining to take part in a Christian religious ceremony would constitute a violation of a persons civil rights?? (the supposed right to get married)
More examples:
A personal trainer refusing to train somebody. He says he takes pride in his work helping people learning how to squat, deadlift, heavy compound movements, etc. That’s training. Not like this former client who he has now refused. All he wanted to do was cables, machines and cardio equipment. So he fired him. Didn’t really matter that he was both gay and black, he worked with him for a while knowing that, but real training is this guys passion blah blah - you get the point
Dude comes into a barbershop wanting a customized fucked up haircut. Barber refuses cuz that’s not a real haircut, he believes in karma and wouldn’t feel right doing that to another mans hair. Plus if people find out that haircut came from his shop, it would bring shame to him and his family, not to mention bad publicity. I’m a professional, I don’t deal with crap like this - out of my shop!!
Now a gay couple at a bakery, florist, or photographer. Baker, florist, photographer believes that marriage is between a man and woman. They want no part in this. Let’s send them to prison
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I don’t understand how this gets so disconnected.
This is a rights issue… It would be wrong for a business to deny you service because you were of a certain denomination, or because you were a certain race.
Why is it different for sexuality? If a cakemaker or flower arranger would do business with a Christian couple looking to be married, but you wouldn’t provide the same service for a gay married couple, that’s pretty clearly discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. It’s a business right? [/quote]
I have the ability to see it as other than just simply discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. This does not mean that there is no such thing as discrimination based on sexual orientation, but its hard to accurately detect. If the OP is true then this sounds more like a witch hunt than a civil rights movement to me[/quote]
Not bad, SB. Not bad.
[/quote]
thanks
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I know I’m biased but Sloth and SM are slaughtering the opposing viewpoint. My hat’s off.
One of the reasons I continue to participate on PWI all these years is to hone my skills at expressing my views and you guys (and DD) are great coaches.[/quote]
Aw shucks push…
Honestly, I often feel a bit guilty about rushing out posts in a time crunch, only to come back later and realize how sloppy I was. But, I appreciate the above.
Now, how has our notion of “rights” shifted so much? Our expectations, and definitions, of 'freedom" and “liberty?” Simply the persuasiveness of the left? I think not. In fact, I think some of the rhetoric of the right (and the philosophical language of our founding, truth be told) has badly backfired. “Individualism.” “Liberty.” Well, what if over generations we did come to take these words to heart? And, what if it is THAT which has caused us to realize “an active cradle-to-grave entitlement state allows me to be the most liberated and individual snowflake?”
Last Saturday I had the honor of addressing the 50th anniversary meeting of the Philadelphia Society. The title of the meeting was “The Road Ahead–Serfdom or Liberty” My remarks sought to suggest that conservatives should be more circumspect about their rote incantation of the word “liberty,” and that there may even be something to be said for “serfdom,” properly understood. My remarks in full are printed, below.
“The Road Ahead–Serfdom or Liberty?”
The Philadelphia Society Annual Meeting–50th Anniversary
Patrick J. Deneen, The University of Notre Dame
I would like to begin my remarks by calling to mind two commercials that aired at different points during the last five years. The first aired in 2010, and was produced by the Census Bureau in an effort to encourage Americans to fill out their census forms. It opens with a man sitting in his living room dressed in a bathrobe, who talks directly into the camera in order to tell viewers that they should fill out the census form, as he?s doing from his vantage as a couch potato.
Fill out the census, he says, so that you can help your neighbors–and at this point he gets out his chair and walks out the front door, past his yard and the white picket fence and points at his neighbors who are getting into their car–You can help Mr. Griffith with better roads for his daily car pool commute, he says–and then, indicating the kids next door, “and Pete and Jen for a better school,” and continues walking down the street. Now neighbors are streaming into the quaint neighborhood street, and he tells us that by filling out the census, we can help Reesa with her healthcare (she?s being wheeled by in a gurney, about to give birth), and so on…“Fill it out and mail it back,” he screams through a bullhorn from a middle of a crowded street, “so that we can all get our fair share of funding, and you can make your town a better place!”
The other ad, produced in 2012, was produced by the Obama re-election campaign, though it was not aired on television and has today disappeared from the internet. It was entitled “The Life of Julia,” and in a series of slides it purported to show how government programs had supported a woman named Julia at every point in her life, from preschool funds from a young age to college loans to assistance for a start up to healthcare and finally retirement. In contrast to the Census commercial–which portrayed a neighborhood street filled with people who knew each others’ names–“The Life of Julia” portrayed a woman who appeared to exist without any human ties or relationships, except–in one poignant slide–a child that had suddenly appeared but who was about to be taken away on a little yellow school bus, and as far as we?re shown, is never seen again. No parents, no husband, a child who disappears.
The first ad is a kind of Potemkin Village behind which is the second ad. The first ad shows a thriving community in which everyone knows each others’ names, and as you watch it-if you aren’t duped by what it’s portraying–you are left wondering why in the world would we need government to take care of our neighbors if we knew each other so well? Why is my obligation to these neighbors best fulfilled by filling out the Census form? The commercial is appealing to our cooperative nature and our sense of strong community ties to encourage us to fill out the Census form, but in fact–as the commercial tells us–it is in order to relieve us of the responsibility of taking care of each other; perhaps more accurately, it’s reflecting a world in which increasingly we don’t know our neighbor’s names, and instead turn to the government for assistance in times of need.
The second commercial is what lies “behind” the Potemkin village of the first. Julia achieves her “independence” by means of her reliance upon the government. Her life is a story of “success” because she has been supported at every step by a caretaker government. She has been liberated to be the person she wants to become by virtue of being the beneficiary of the government dime. Julia, in fact, is freed of the bonds that are portrayed in the Census commercial. Freedom is where there are no people–only Julia and the government.
The title of this meeting is “The Road Ahead–Serfdom or Liberty?” I think it’s clear what the answer is supposed to be, and we are all aware that “liberty” is the watchword of the conservative movement. But here’s the problem: I think Julia regards her condition as one of liberty. She is free–free to become the person that she wanted to become, liberated from any ties that might have held her back, whether debts to family, obligations to take care of aging parents, the challenge and rewards of living with a husband and father of her child, or relying on someone to help her with a business or with her care as she grew old. Would she call her condition “Serfdom” I rather doubt it.
Serfdom, to be accurate, is an arrangement whereby you owe specific duties to a specific person, a lord–and in turn, that lord owes you specific duties as well. What the life of Julia portrays is, in a strictly factual sense, the direct opposite of Serfdom–it portrays the life of a human being who for the first time in human history is FREE from any specific bonds or obligations to anyone (except maybe for getting her child onto a little yellow bus, never to heard from again). If you were to ask Julia what she would prefer–Serfdom or Liberty–she would surely respond Liberty.
But it’s a particular kind of liberty–a liberty unaccompanied by concrete duties and responsibilities to one another, but rather, abstract relationships increasingly and ever-more comprehensively mediated through the State. Because for Julia, and the denizen of the modern liberal state, our truest liberty is achieved when it is uniformly and unfailingly provisioned by the State, and not dependent on the unreliability of any other set of relations or institutions. This was the main point of E.J. Dionne’s latest book, Our Divided Political Heart, who argued that “community” and the State were the same thing, and the point summed up in a line stated several times during the Democratic National Convention, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.”
And this was exactly what early conservative thinkers recognized was the “end-game” of liberalism–it sought, to the greatest extent possible, the elimination of all constitutive ties to any mediating or civil institution, to be replaced by our direct relationship with the State. This would be accomplished not by means of enslaving the population, but by promising that this constituted the very essence of liberation. This was the basic insight of Tocqueville’s culminating chapters of Democracy in America–that the democratic despotism of a mild “tutelary” state would come about not by force and terror, but by the willing acquiescence of an isolated and individuated citizenry. This was the argument of Bertrand de Jouvenel, who observed in his neglected masterpiece On Power that the rise of the centralized modern State was spurred when monarchs, seeking to break the power of local lords, promised liberation to the people in return for their direct fealty, and thus began a long and familiar tradition of expanding State power in the very name of liberation of individuals from mediating ties. His argument was refined and made with distinct power in the modern context by Robert Nisbet in the earliest years of American conservatism, in his 1953 book Quest for Community, in which he argued that the totalized State was not simply the imposition of despotic force upon a recalcitrant people–it was never that–but was desired by populations whose “longing for community” had been transferred from a range of identities and memberships below the level of the State, to the State itself.
We begin to see this with ever-growing clarity in our own times–a new, kinder and gentler total State. It promises its citizenry liberty at every turn, and that liberty involves ever-greater freedom from the partial institutions of civil society, or ones remade in accordance with the aims of the State. The states as sovereign political units have been almost wholly eviscerated, and are now largely administrative units for the federal government. Satisfied with that victory, we now see extraordinary efforts to “break” two institutions that have always been most resistant to the total State: churches and family. We see an unprecedented efforts by the Federal government to abridge religious liberty by conscripting religious institutions like Little Sisters of the Poor (and my institution, Notre Dame) to be agents conscripted into providing abortifacients, sterilization and contraception–in the name of individual liberty. We can expect determined and even ferocious efforts to bend Churches to accept gay marriage as a norm, even to the point of forcing them entirely out of the civil realm. And we see increasing efforts of the government to “liberate” children from their families–represented perhaps most chillingly by the MSNBC clip showing Melissa Harris-Perry explaining how the greatest obstacle to State education has been the pervasive notion that kids “belong” to families rather than belonging “collectively to all of us.”
This broader social, cultural, political and economic pedagogy is having extraordinary success. A recent Pew study on the behavior and beliefs of the “Millennial” generation–those 18-32 years old–suggests that this is the least connected, most individualistic, and therefore “freest” generation in American history. In comparison to previous generations at a similar point in life, they are least likely to belong to a political party, least likely to be members of a Church, least likely to be married by age 32. They have high levels of mistrust, yet strongly identify as liberals and support President Obama. These are the generation whose best and brightest occupied the administration building this week at Dartmouth, demanding “body and gender self-determination”–that sex-change operations be covered on campus insurance plans. They are a generation that is increasingly formed by a notion of autonomy as the absence of any particular ties or limiting bonds–and while they highly mistrust most institutions and relationships, they nevertheless view the government as a benign source of support for their autonomy.
So, as I look again at the program title, I must admit that it’s not obvious to me what I’m supposed to favor–The Road to Liberty or Serfdom? Because, as thinkers like Nisbet recognized at the very beginning of the conservative movement in America, the rise of individual autonomy and centralized power would grow together–Leviathan would expand in the name of liberty. He understood that the most fundamental obstacle to the rise and expansion of the State was the “little platoons” praised by Edmund Burke–particular and real ties to private, religious, and civil institutions. He called for a “new laissez faire”–a laissez-faire of groups. He understood that what would prevent the rise of the kind of Liberty promised by Leviathan would be something like a robust patchwork of more local institutions and relationships that gives at least this nod to one aspect of “serfdom”–debts and gratitude to each other, obligations and responsibilities should and must be grounded in real human relationships.
Now, I?m not proposing that the conservative rallying cry should be, “Give me Serfdom or give me death!” I don’t think pushing serfdom is going to make conservatives more popular today. But I do think we need to recognize that conservatives haven’t cornered the market in promoting “liberty,” and if that is our totem, then the Progressives will win the debate, as on many fronts they are today. What distinguishes Conservatism is not that it believes merely in liberty–understood as autonomy–but that it has always understood that liberty is the necessary but not sufficient condition for living a human life in families, communities, religious institutions, and a whole range of relationships that encourage us to practice the arts of self-governance.
I’ve been asked to speak on the “the road ahead” in the realms of economics, culture, and politics. For the central vision of conservatism to survive the coming storm, in all these realms it must provide a better and fuller understanding of liberty, liberty as self-rule learned and practiced amid robust human relationships and personal bonds of trust and shared sacrifice. Conservatives just can’t be against Progressivism, because increasingly that is seen by the world as being against the freedom of everyone to do anything. It can’t simply be against government, but must be engaged in “demand destruction” of the individualist impulse that leads people to look to the government for its realization. In the realms of economics, politics, and culture, it must turn creatively to promoting ideas, policies and ways of living that show, support, and protect the excellence of the life, not of Julia, but of families, communities, Churches, and institutions that have always been the schoolhouses of republican self-government.
@sloth - interesting post and some good points there. But it needs to be remembered that freedom or liberty mean different things to different people. A 60’s radical calling for ‘freedom’ is demanding to be free from both responsibilities and consequences. He wants to be free from the duties and responsibilities imposed by civil institutions like the family and church.
By contrast a conservative is likely already fulfilling many of these responsibilities and merely wants to be left alone to do so without crushing taxes and inordinate government intrusion into his life.
Conservatism goes beyond leaving things alone so they can go about their business. Conservatism puts laws in the books and selectively enforces them for the sake of, “Conserving” their way of life. There are many examples, but in the case of homosexuals it has historically been Anti-Sodomy laws which were unconstitutional.
They were enforced selectively in that there weren’t women going to random bars offering their asses to straight men, but they went ahead and did such to target gays which was a law breaker in entrapment, those are the sorts of power plays Conservatives make… It’s not just about being left alone, it’s been about you guys imposing your ideals and particular moralities upon everyone else by perverted laws and violations of the constitution itself. Not just with gays but with blacks and Jim Crow as well.
Back in the day it may have been conservatives that wanted to conserve the status what they felt was the norm… Maybe they were uncomfortable seeing a black and white couple, and used things like, “The Tragic Mulatto” as ammo against mixed marriages. It’s the resistance to change on a human rights level that Conservatism has a bad reputation is what I’m trying to point out/ counter. Your legacy as conservatives isn’t just about being left alone or keeping things as they are. It’s about the ends conservatives have gone to for the sake of doing such, seems to have been by any means necessary…
The more recent things that follow along the same footsteps outside of gay marriage are examples of efforts Conservatives took in Florida during the elections in blatant attempt to prevent people who they thought would vote D, from voting at all. I’m not saying Dems don’t have their issues, but it’s this underhanded, undemocractic shit Conservatives do that gets under my skin. The whole bullshit with voter ID at the last minute was another gambit used to rile people up to fit their agenda, when there was literally almost zero examples of the sort of fraud they were trying to prevent. It was a blatant attempt at keeping people from voting. That in of itself alienates people, and at least to me it re-defines what, “Conservatism” means.
Now, where’s all the vigor for voter I.D.? Are there measures being put in place to ensure all American voters have I.D.? If it’s such an important thing to prevent fraud then why isn’t it being taken care of NOW before the election to make sure everyone can vote? Reason, because they don’t want people to vote and will likely use this underhanded gambit again in the future. It’s an issue Conservative politicians like to use to round up their scared flock to get them energized with fear and anger rather than a good understanding.
Dems in a sense do it too, but it’s so damned easy. Conservatives do enough on their own to make me sort of fear them… But, these days I don’t want to vote for anyone if I see them as the lesser evil. I’m not going to be pro Hillary or pro Obama just because another Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan clone is running.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:ch.
By contrast a conservative is likely already fulfilling many of these responsibilities and merely wants to be left alone to do so without crushing taxes and inordinate government intrusion into his life.[/quote]
You mean the same people who are against strip clubs, internet poker, evolution in science classrooms, etc. That isn’t intrusion? The party that brought us the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay and two wars doesn’t want crushing taxes and doesn’t want government intrusion?
This is where “conservatives” lose me. They talk about small government, but it’s largely small government in areas they think the government shouldn’t do things. In other areas they have no problem expanding the holy heck out of the federal government.
If I thought conservatives actually governed and believed what you said I would never vote for another Libertarian as long as I live. It’s just too hard for me to forget that not long ago the opposite side was sitting in the ivory halls and doing everything that seems to bother them so much right now.
That was the neocons. That was the RINOs. That wasn’t “us.” They are doing their damnedest to try and convince everyone they aren’t those people. It’s the only way to get back in power after everyone despised the last era of politicians.
The nice thing about this dumbass country is we will continue to elect Republicans and Democrats despite claiming we are sick of everyone in Washington.
[quote]H factor wrote:
The party that brought us the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay and two wars doesn’t want crushing taxes and doesn’t want government intrusion?
[/quote]
Oh please. BOTH parties overwhelming voted yes on Patriot both times, and a democrat president signed it the second time, along with the NDAA.
and two wars? WWII was FDR, Vietnam Johnson… Only one of the four that have been mentioned was really justified. So stop being selective with revisionist history…
well… I suppose Afghanistan was justified, or at least more so than Iraq. So that is one okay war blue team, and one red.
Let’s not pretend Iraq is the only war we’ve been in that was questionable.
To the people saying that the punishment should be the same for people refusing to serve based off sexual preference as race, I agree. And that punishment from a legal standpoint should be nothing in today’s age. Let consumers decide with their dollars if a business should go under. If a business refuses service, people can just to not support them then they can put them under. I don’t understand why anyone would disagree with that. If they don’t want your business, bring the “bad” (Chick-fil-a may disagree with how bad it actually is) publicity on them in heaps and ruin their business. This is not a court issue and never should be.
Also, race and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Regardless of whether or not you believe that sexual orientation is born or developed, there is ultimately a choice of whether or not to express it. The last I checked, people couldn’t choose to not let people know that they were black, white, or asian.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The party that brought us the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay and two wars doesn’t want crushing taxes and doesn’t want government intrusion?
[/quote]
Oh please. BOTH parties overwhelming voted yes on Patriot both times, and a democrat president signed it the second time, along with the NDAA.
and two wars? WWII was FDR, Vietnam Johnson… Only one of the four that have been mentioned was really justified. So stop being selective with revisionist history… [/quote]
And Woodrow Wilson and Truman and JFK and the party of slavery and segregation. No one mentioned parties until these guys come in with their selective memories and incoherent arguments.
They don’t want non-citizens to vote or for people to be able to cast more than one ballot. Neither do 75% of Americans according to Rasmussen. And there are already 19 million more drivers licenses than there are registered voters. The argument that voter ID laws hinder US citizens from voting is nonsense. You need ID to buy a beer. No one suggests that alcohol ID requirements prevent Democrats from obtaining alcohol.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The party that brought us the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay and two wars doesn’t want crushing taxes and doesn’t want government intrusion?
[/quote]
Oh please. BOTH parties overwhelming voted yes on Patriot both times, and a democrat president signed it the second time, along with the NDAA.
and two wars? WWII was FDR, Vietnam Johnson… Only one of the four that have been mentioned was really justified. So stop being selective with revisionist history… [/quote]
BOTH parties being the problem was my point. I have no idea how anyone could read anything less. I’m trying to CONVINCE people on this forum they are the same, not that one is better or worse than the other. That is what both sides are going to constantly do. And both sides are going to be “small government” when the other team is in power.
We will keep getting this shit as long as we keep pretending one is better than the other and talk in terms of “the left” and “the right.”