Motion: THW rethink the roles of the Left and the Right in politics
Role: MP (govt.)
There is one eternal Question.
Should I vote Democrat/Republican? Should I vote Labour/Tory? Should I vote leftwing/rightwing? Socialist/capitalist? Or, liberal/conservative? (In my country, this latter division is not very prominent.)
How should I vote? What decides my vote? Who decided my parents’ vote? Should I vote as my parents would? What if my parents are or were divided by 180°?
A subversive, simplistic, reductive way to tackle the problematics of voting is to think that most of us are underclass, working class or lower middle class, and the better off are somewhere higher up. That means we’re for the most part Labour/leftwing/liberal. We will vote for lefties and liberals, until we become so wealthy that we can afford to vote otherwise in an attempt to preserve our privileges, our frequent-flier mileage and our distant holidays in the sun. At least most conservative parties in a given country aim at the retention and legal protection, with armed forces if needs to be, of the value and worth of accumulated PRIVATE material property. That’s what the name conservative means in democratic nation-states, perhaps even more so under military-led or fascist regimes.
The split between poor leftists and wealthy rightwingers can be seen as a seesaw. We’re either at one end of the seesaw (poor), or at the other end (wealthy or rich). There is hypothetically a clear fulcrum or tipping point at which our loyalty changes. It is the moment when we have gotten enough or too much through the toil of our hands and minds so that we become fearful of losing or sharing it. After we’ve plentifully, our natural inclination is to vote for rightwingers, just as it was before for leftists. In this scheme, voting is a matter of preservation, self-interest and survival. Of course, it isn’t quite that clear-cut and simple, so more on that….
Some people live in rags throughout their lives, while others make the transition from rags to riches. Such as artists and actresses, who typically wait on tables at the beginning of their careers. One has to wonder why the cultural agents, actors, producers, artists and their spokespeople always speak for and to the Left (we don’t know if they vote for it.) That doesn’t make any sense. They are as if saying: ”We want to make a money transfer from the Loaded to the Underdogs.” In reality, what happens is that they make the opposite money transfer: they direct money from the penniless (their senior high-school/street-living/student audience) to the loaded (their production/record company) in selling merchandise, products, records and tickets. This is the usual modus operandi business-wise. I suppose that these people have to state the opposite by 180°, since otherwise they would not do much business. There are blatant examples of e.g. musicians who say one thing and do the other thing.
Then there are the reputable people who do the caring, daring and sharing, who can both ”eat off the cargo” and deal that cargo up. Leftist parties are often such that they will rather keep the status quo than change it for the significantly better. If there are needy and poor people around, leftists have more leverage to pressurize anyone with that living proof. Consequently, most leftwing parties don’t want the situation to change A LOT, since otherwise their ”business” would come to a dead end. They need a nice amount of needy, poorly, sick and unemployed people in their constituency. The latter are the votes and they are the weight, worth it in gold.
As I see it, there is a general instinctive divide. All kinds of rightwingers everywhere would have it so that
a) we have a certain amount of tax revenue and we want to have a govt. whose scope is limited to the amount of tax money that we have and can collect at the most. I.e. this way we’d never run into debt, save for some special contingencies, such as a war with foreign nation-states, for which purpose we’d take money on credit.
On the other hand, all kinds of leftwingers everywhere would have it so that
b) we have a certain, gradually accumulated level of public sector that we simply want to entertain, and we have to extend our debt to the level of expenditure that running this kind of government requires. In turn, this type of governance would redeem a greater social rest as opposed to more social unrest, no matter how high the debt ceiling should ultimately be raised to.
As the situation is ultimately strange and unlovable, I can not recommend let alone dictate how you should vote. Vote according to your conscience. If you feel that the Left Wing is the right choice, vote for it. If you feel that the Right Wing is the only true longterm choice left, vote for it. Whichever way you vote, you will get the result that suits you, Sir.
Puheen kesto: 5 min 36 sek
Arvio: * * *. Puheessa analysoidaan ansiokkaasti aloitteen käsittelemää asiaa, mutta siinä ei oikeastaan oteta kantaa itse asiaan millään tavalla. Siinä ikään kuin dekonstruoidaan pelikenttä palasiksi mutta sitten jätetään palaset paikoilleen odottamaan, että joku muu rekonstruoi ne yhdeksi uudeksi kokonaisuudeksi. Koska järjestyksessä seuraava puhuja on whip, tätä ei kuitenkaan periaatteessa tule tapahtumaan. Jos whip on fiksu, niin hän voi kuitenkin halutessaan tehdäkin näin, jotta kaikille jäisi hyvä maku suuhun. Tästä syystä puheen pisteet nousevat keskitasolle.