The "Right" see poverty and wealth as marks of "character" ;, the "Left" see them as marks of circumstance.

Character hasnothing to do with it. There are so many other factors. The economic and social conditions you are born into, how much poverty and deprivation you suffer as a child.

Extreme poverty and malnourishment stunts a child's physical and mental development. As does maternal drinking and a whole lot of other factors - then there is the quality of education you receive.

All these and many other factors, that I am sure other posters will add, contribute to your capacity to have access to well paid careers. Some will succeed, but if one succeeds it does not follow that everyone can do it. All sorts of opportunities light on one person and not another.

The way forwrad is to make sure from birth that those with most handicaps in life get the same opportunities to develop in life as more fortunate life, by concentrating more ressources, and most of all attention and help to their families from birth.

I would call mine the more centrist view, not your idea of the centre being half and half of each. The centrist view is the third point on a triangle, not the middle point on a line.

Good post monica

Sure start was developed to try to mitigate against children whose economic and social position was deprived.

Sure Start was not just about early intervention, but it was also about parental education and active assistance.

I don't have a lot of time this morning but I'd just like to throw in a couple of terms from social psychology - fundamental attribution error and spontaneous trait inference to get you googling if interested. Search on these + politics and you'll find a lot of scholarly articles. Anon.

POVERTY by Townsend was required reading for my Social Sciences degree. Its quite old now but explains the multi faceted nature of poverty very well- still a great book in my view.

Despite what you protest, you are claiming this as fact.

I don’t necessarily agree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Very sweeping generalisation which I find difficult to accept. I think life must be very different there.

I don't think I did suggest a centrist was half and half - or perhaps I did if you are thinking this is where someone who is neither centre-left or centre-right but simply and exactly in the centre. I don't think there are such people though. If they did they would think (according to my theory) that the influence of character and opportunity were exactly half and half.

You are right about it not being the middle point on a line. I have mentioned in the past something called the "political horseshoe" in the past. I'll add it if I can. I am very happy with that view of politics although I think there should be a chain across the bottom where the extremists meet and dictators are born.

What you are saying, when you say "Character has nothing to do with it" is that this is not where you reside on this political spectrum; that this is your opinion (which you thankfully then back with argument).

Dismissing character altogether, as you do,would put you according to the thinking I shared, on the far-left. Is that where you would put yourself?

Oops. That was in reply to M0nica.

Whitewavemark2

Good post monica

Sure start was developed to try to mitigate against children whose economic and social position was deprived.

Sure Start was not just about early intervention, but it was also about parental education and active assistance.

I agree Whitewave but I was hoping to discuss (and learn) about how different thinking about character and circumstance affect where we see ourselves on the political spectrum.

BigBertha1

POVERTY by Townsend was required reading for my Social Sciences degree. Its quite old now but explains the multi faceted nature of poverty very well- still a great book in my view.

I'll look for it BigBertha1. Thank you for that.

MawtheMerrier

Despite what you protest, you are claiming this as fact.

I don’t necessarily agree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I don't believe I am. It's just a point on the journey. It would more useful if you could explain why this theory does or doesn't hold water. It sounds -who can tell - as if you may not think it does.

nanna8

Very sweeping generalisation which I find difficult to accept. I think life must be very different there.

Thank you for replying nanna8. Where is "here", please?

DaisyAnne character does come into it, - eventually - but it is a long way down the line.

The "Right" see poverty and wealth as marks of "character" ;, the "Left" see them as marks of circumstance.

Could you enlighten us as to how your thinking came to this conclusion, please, DA? It's a huge stereotyping generalisation.

I ask because people I know don't fit into the categories you have outlined in the thread heading.

I don’t think it’s possible to generalise. The reason why any given person is where they are in life is surely down to circumstances unique to them, some of their making, some not. The circumstances into which they were born, the opportunities that have been given to them or which they have found for themselves, choices they have made or which have been made for them, their determination and drive or lack of, their health - myriad factors combine to mould each person’s life experience.

Here is Melbourne. I can’t relate to that initial title at all.

Baggs

*The "Right" see poverty and wealth as marks of "character" ;, the "Left" see them as marks of circumstance.*

Could you enlighten us as to how your thinking came to this conclusion, please, DA? It's a huge stereotyping generalisation.

I ask because people I know don't fit into the categories you have outlined in the thread heading.

I don't think I can tell you Baggs. That would be asking me to distil a lifetime of thinking about politics and people.

I have narrowed the differences I can see in others that seem fundamental to the policies and the politics they support. I don't feel happy with that but realise it could be changes in me and/or changes in politics and how people view parties and policies.

So, for instance, we could question whether the policies have become more or less polarised? Could that be giving me this impression. Your point about people not fitting those categories is helpful. How do they value these two points I mentioned and then how does it or doesn't it relate to where you would categorise they they fit politically?

nanna8

Here is Melbourne. I can’t relate to that initial title at all.

That's okay nanna. It could be that political basics are changing in the UK but not in Australia. It could (easily) be that it is something else in the political basics here that is changing. This thread was intended to be much more a question than an answer.

I'm struggling somewhat with the idea that anyone would regard poverty and wealth as "marks of character". It feels a bit like "Protestant work ethic" with the religion taken out of it. DaisyAnne Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "character" it might help.

M0nica

DaisyAnne character does come into it, - eventually - but it is a long way down the line.

Do you think that's how you think about it, Monica or how everyone thinks about it? Do you see opposite views to yours in this area or just incrementally different? Do those different views suggest a different place on the horseshoe (which I can't seem to copy) to where you would put yourself?

DaisyAnne, I wonder how you square what I said above with the fact that as you know I lean very much to the right?

foxie48

I'm struggling somewhat with the idea that anyone would regard poverty and wealth as "marks of character". It feels a bit like "Protestant work ethic" with the religion taken out of it. DaisyAnne Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "character" it might help.

I'll try but we are talking about how other people see "lack of character" or "good character" rather than how I see it.

One example. Mrs Thatcher once called poverty a "personality defect".

I think this is the same sort of thinking that says that it is a lack of "character" which makes people poor, i.e., poverty is of their own making or rich, i.e. wealth is of their own making.

From the other point of view, "character"seems to play some to no part and "circumstance" is in the dock.

As I have said these seem to have become the defining thinking of right and left - or perhaps they were always so and I missed it. Of course, I could be just misreading the whole thing. I know I am repeating myself but I feel I am taking a very narrow view.

Must go shopping. I'll get back and answer as soon as I can. Thank you all for helping me pull this apart

I think that defining the terms ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’ is a lot trickier than it is often made to sound.

On one level they are about how far someone believes in state involvement in /responsibility for the welfare of citizens and on another it is about how authoritarian states should be in regulating personal freedom, so on one axis there is Big State versus Small State, and on the other there is liberalism versus authoritarianism, and people can sit in various places on those axes - it’s not a case of all ‘left’ or ‘right’ thinkers being bunched together.

I suppose the attitudes above are philosophical underpinnings but they are layered with other perspectives about personal responsibility versus societal obligation, carrot versus stick, and whether (or how far) access to opportunity and assets should be regulated, but I am really struggling with all of those words, as they are loaded with attitudinal bias themselves - distilling what they mean in any sort of neutral way is all but impossible, at least away from the extremes, where right and left converge anyway.

I think it would be a very simplistic summary of right to left-wing thinking to say that either would see poverty as an indicator of either character or circumstance, although I do see what you are getting at. There are those on both ‘wings’ who would use either or both to excuse or explain differences in circumstances.