Why is climate change in the USA treated as a left-wing, right-wing battle?
The politicization of ‘climate change’ goes back aways. In Communist East Germany, young people, indoctrinated in a centralist governmental system but hating the nepotism and insularity of communism, realized that by championing climate change they could maintain their centralist political leanings with a cause that everyone agreed upon —clean air and oceans without human-manufactured junk floating around in them. Who isn’t for that? Hence the founding of the Green Party. Other than doctrinaire conservatives who reflexively oppose any change to the status quo, almost all thinking people embraced human efforts to achieve clean air and water, protecting the ozone layer and any other collective actions to make our planet a healthier place to live now and for in the future. But then came problems. Some of them started with Al Gore’s book ‘A Convenient Truth’. Gore is no scientist, but he did seek out leading scientists in weather and its effects, got these scientists’ predictions of what would happen if humans did not intervene environmentally, and published them. In his book, he pretty much blames humans for all the pollution, ignoring Nature’s forest fires, volcano eruptions and other natural events that also pollute sometimes to an even greater extent than do humans. Almost none of Gore’s predictions of disaster came true, showing that scientists have proven to be bad prognosticators of impending environmental doom. Since the Gore book, scientists have been unmasked manipulating data to show that the environment deteriorating faster and in more deleterious fashion that it actually is. In the meanwhile, the Democrats, always attracted to collective actions in which a small coterie of ‘experts’ decide what is best for all of us, have leaped on board and made ‘climate change’ one of their top priorities. Al Gore and others have also made fortunes ‘hyping’ various environmental initiatives. This has caused Conservatives to get their backs up and resist. So now we have a democratic push to regulate everything that produces noxious gases and Republicans arguing for restraint and more careful vetting of research conclusions. What was once a universal desire for clean air and water has become a political football.
Does being "right-wing" or "left-wing" in Israel mean the same as in the United States?
No, it does not. Mainly because the meaning of left-wing and right-wing in Israel is defined with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:Being left wing boils down to believing that it is in Israel's best interest to conclude the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as soon as possible, and it is preferable to do so through negotiations leading to a full peace agreement. You are willing to make concessions in terms of territory to achieve this goal.Being right wing means that you are very skeptical about the chances of achieving real peace with the Palestinians, and thus very hesitant to give up anything in negotiation, as agreements made might not be honored. You usually believe Israel will have to continue defending itself using force for the foreseeable future, and so maintaing a strong army and an aggressive international posture is very important.These opinions are not uncorrelated, but only loosely correlated with views on what would constitute left and right in the US - the role of government and how much of a safety net society should provide. While the biggest parties (Labor on the left and Likud on the right) have a diluted left wing and right wing agendas (in American terms), those are far weaker than those of the leading parties in the US.Beyond this, you've got a whole spectrum of parties that break these correlations - the super-right-wing Shas party is very religious but advocates for a strong welfare state with generous "entitlement" programs. The party currently being built by Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) is in the center of the left-right axis, but calls for an economic policy which is on the right side of the Israeli map in terms of size-of-government.
What do Indian right wingers have to say about the right wing terrorism in New Zealand?
I think this question has been asked because of the underlying assumption (among muslims) that since Hindus have an unfavourable opinion of Islam, they would be happy regarding these terrorist attacks.There is certainly some truth in the assertion that a number of Hindus have a not so favourable view of Islam (and probably, vice versa). Islam and Hinduism are different from each other in ways more than one, after all.While Hinduism says that many paths lead to God, Islam claims a path of exclusive salvation. While (Theistic) Hinduism is essentially polytheism culminating in monism, Islam is strictly monotheistic. While Hinduism has no problems with idolatry, it's a sin in Islam to make images of even their prophets.However, being a right wing Hindu myself, I can’t help but feel saddened by this (the assumption that Hindus would be happy at this heinous act of terrorism).People need to realise that Islam and muslims are two different things.Islam is an “idea”.Muslims are “people”.Ideas are not sacrosanct. Ideas can, and should be criticised (if required).People are different from ideas. People deserve respect. And love. And tolerance.They certainly don’t deserve to be gunned down by madmen.People are sacrosanct.I can only speak for myself (although I am hopeful that most of my fellow Indian right wingers would share my view), but I personally feel deeply saddened by the loss of human life that occurred and sincerely pray that no human being (muslim or otherwise) be subjected to such brutality in the future.This Indian right winger condemns this terrorist attack from the bottom of his heart, and hopes that the attacker receives what’s due to him by the hands of justice.
Why do right-wingers hate the idea of social justice so much?
That depends on what your conception of social justice is, and also on what your conception of right-wingers are. Both of those are somewhat fluid concepts.If by social justice, you mean that every American should have their rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights recognized equally, and free of discrimination of any kind, regardless of sex, race, creed, sexual orientation or whatever, then most people on the political right have absolutely no problem with this. The only exception is some on the religious right, who are opposed to LGBT rights, but even many of them now differentiate between “civil” marriage (the piece of paper from the government) and “religious” marriage (where they give their vows in a church, before God). I think the growing trend toward libertarianism will solve most of those issues in time.However, if by right-wingers, you mean the worst of the alt-right movement, the kinds of people who hang out at Stormfront, count David Duke among their heroes, and may have bedsheets and dunce caps in their closet, they hate the idea of social justice because they thing anyone who isn’t White, of Western European descent, and Protestant, and who doesn’t think like they do, is sub-human and not worthy of any human rights at all. I don’t see why anyone should care what they think, unless they go beyond words into action, like that church shooter in South Carolina, whose name I won’t deign to mention.And then there’s category three, the worst of the “social justice warriors,” the types who are always looking for some perceived slight, even when it flies in the face of all common sense. This group is more annoying than dangerous, but their actions are more counterproductive than helpful for the causes they’re espousing, because they tend to become the “face” of the movement, which is then branded as moonbat crazy.
Why can't the left wing and the right wing just find some middle ground to agree on?
Because they want diametrically opposing things. It used to be that there was plenty of mix among the two parties, conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Since the 90’s, however, there has been what is called an ideological sorting of the parties; the middle of the road politicians vanished from each party as they became more purely of the left and right.The Right believes in personal responsibility, liberties, the Constitution and small government. The Left, by contrast, believes in identity politics, wants to do away with fundamental rights such as the 2nd Amendment, hates the Constitution for its limitations, checks and balances on government power, and believes in having an ever-larger and more powerful federal government so it can build a utopia.There is no longer any middle ground, not with such opposed beliefs and desires between the two parties.
Is it weird that I'm gay but becoming right wing?
the left's appeasement of Islam worries me Maybe because i'm an gay ex muslim and I escaped Saudi Arabia. my experience with Muslims was very traumatizing.
Who here is a Republican but doesn't care about abortion?
I always liked Barry Goldwater. He didn't care about gays or abortion. I don't either. Marry whoever you want. Abort your fetuses if you want. Its none of my business. Less government. More liberty and freedom. That's important. The democrats don't want that. They want to take your liberties away, one right at a time just the same as the religious right does too. They have both sorely disappointed me. However, until a third party emerges with the kind of popular strength that it takes to bring Americans together rather than divide them, the Ratpublicans are my choice, even though I disdain the right wing entirely. I take no issue with their personal views. They are just not my own and I aim to keep my own moral views without theirs being imposed on me by force of law.