I'm not confident that they have clear definitions. But even if they do, people don't fit neatly into them. I have heard being "in favor of big government" and being "anti government" both described as being "leftist" positions. If a feminist were campaigning against pornography one might say "what a loony leftist". If an Evangelical Christian were leading the same campaign one might say "what a right wing nut". Incidentally, Noam Chomsky, who describes himself as "conservative", but is typically described by others as an "extreme leftist", is against porn.
It does make the world seem less confusing to try to fit everything into categories, so I understand why people do it. But, definitions aside, I think this "left/right" construct we've created causes people lose sight of solving actual problems. It causes them to demonize the "other side" unreasonably. It causes them to defend those on their own "side" unreasonably. And it causes them to be resistant to facts and good ideas that don't fit within their ideology. None of this is far fetched with some basic observation of human behavior. Psychology confirms some of these types of effects through scientific study.
The last time I checked, Noam Chomsky described himself as an Anarchist. I actually have a number of his books.
Look, I agree in principle, but the reality is that most people that actually bother to self identify, or actually bother to make the effort to have political/economic and or theological views and express them can be identified by the ideologies they espouse.
It's true that there are a lot of people (possibly the majority, depending on what country they live in) who don't really have a clue what they really believe. These folk may identify as "moderate" "centrist" "independent" or even generally "liberal" or "conservative" without having any clear idea what the political language means. More often than not, these people will just go along with the general background assumptions that frame the dialogue in the mainstream media.
The mainstream worldview presented in US Media tends to be mostly Center/Right (MSNBC notwithstanding). So many of those people, who haven't given a lot of thought to what their ACTUAL interests are, just react based on the stuff they watch or listen to the most.
The Corporatists have spent over a century refining propaganda techniques based originally on the theories of Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew. Nowadays they just call it PR. But it amounts to the same thing--Manufactured Consent--a way to exert a great deal of influence on the way people think about things. If you know Noam Chomsky's work you should have a good idea of what I'm talking about.
So a lot of people just buy into the Consumerist worldview presented to them.
Cultural Conservatives (generally those brought up in a heavily religious background) might have some populist views. But Corporate sponsored groups like the John Birch Society or the Tea Party promulgate a special kind of Conspiracy laden Propaganda designed to specifically steer them into a fear based ideology that is actually antagonistic to what these peoples' own interests are. This is how the Corporate Right co-opts the Religious Right.
Ayn Rand style Libertarian Corporate PR is designed specifically to target the majority of people that just accept the Consumerist worldview presented to them. And as I said, this can include a lot of people who are fuzzy on ideological definitions and self describe as liberal to conservative. Though this has also filtered into the belief systems of some who consider themselves Culturally Conservative.
The people the Corporate Right have the hardest time propagandizing to are those who identify as Anarcho-Syndicalists, Socialists, and a fair number of Progressives.
Ultimately the name of the game is Class Warfare, the Rich against everyone else. And the Wealthy will use whatever means necessary to protect their interests. But again, by definition the Wealthy Owning Classes are generally considered Right Wing--though this doesn't mean that they all subscribe to Culturally Conservative views.
This is why the usual model that people have of Left vs Right is overly simplistic; it has to be considered in the context of Wealthy Elitists vs Populists.
I know that just taking some of my previous posts at face value may give the impression that I am coming from the overly simplistic "Left/Right" view promulgated in our media, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I understand very well the complexities of political ideologies, and that people don't always fit into neat little boxes.
I might call myself a Democratic or Libertarian Socialist or a Progressive or a Libertarian Populist, but when I've had face to face conversations with "Right Wingers" who also consider themselves "Populist" I've found that there is a certain amount of common ground--particularly in terms of identifying the excessive measure of control Bankers and Corporations have over ostensibly democratic institutions of the State. But where the Rubber hits the Road for me, is when Right Wing Populists start spouting Bircher/Birther/Racist/Anti-Gay etc rhetoric.
GB
