In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.
That's not quite it. They're also perceived to be for the expansion of government, more spying, less local and state autonomy, fewer guns, more regulation of businesses, more taxes, more diversity, more equal redistribution of wealth, and less prosecution of criminals.
(Now, we'll ignore that on at least the last three points, that's patently false, because their supporters and backers have no interest in such things.)
The thing that is probably biggest difference, though, is the way the two sides' members treat each other. I'd say that the right-wing folks view the other side with fear, because they're worried that they'll ruin everything. Their talking heads tend to treat the left with outright hostility and use very nationalistic notes and basically try to show that while they are the enemy, they are a legitimate enemy.
The left seems to view the opposition as backwards and deserving of contempt, as a group of bumpkins and idiots and sometimes subhuman. Their talking heads tend to appeal to how smart the reader/viewer is for following the party line, and espouse philosophies that require a strict adherence to lest one be considered ignorant and hence non-left.
It's hard to side with the left, for me anyways, because they seem to encourage a sort of arbitrary and baseless smugness I've never seen in the right. And that's unfortunate, because change is needed and some of their positions are unquestionably correct.
> The left seems to view the opposition as backwards and deserving of contempt,
> as a group of bumpkins and idiots and sometimes subhuman.
This.
John Oliver, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert each have an amazing ability to use humor/satire as a way to make a point. But I can't hardly watch This Week Tonight without feeling like he's portraying "the other side" in exactly this light. And it's a gimmick. A cheap way to put your viewpoint on display without actually lending any credence to anything your opponent would say (would it be fair to call this tactic an Ad Hominem?).
The sad part is, I get the impression that the generation who are now in their 20's and 30's have grown up knowing only this kind of "political discourse". They don't recognize that by sheltering their ideas from opposition in this way their viewpoints remain intellectually weak and stunted.
That's not quite it. They're also perceived to be for the expansion of government, more spying, less local and state autonomy, fewer guns, more regulation of businesses, more taxes, more diversity, more equal redistribution of wealth, and less prosecution of criminals.
(Now, we'll ignore that on at least the last three points, that's patently false, because their supporters and backers have no interest in such things.)
The thing that is probably biggest difference, though, is the way the two sides' members treat each other. I'd say that the right-wing folks view the other side with fear, because they're worried that they'll ruin everything. Their talking heads tend to treat the left with outright hostility and use very nationalistic notes and basically try to show that while they are the enemy, they are a legitimate enemy.
The left seems to view the opposition as backwards and deserving of contempt, as a group of bumpkins and idiots and sometimes subhuman. Their talking heads tend to appeal to how smart the reader/viewer is for following the party line, and espouse philosophies that require a strict adherence to lest one be considered ignorant and hence non-left.
It's hard to side with the left, for me anyways, because they seem to encourage a sort of arbitrary and baseless smugness I've never seen in the right. And that's unfortunate, because change is needed and some of their positions are unquestionably correct.