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

Oh don’t worry, I was only kidding!?

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s a marathon shopping trip Daisy!

I can't answer posts that aren't there GSM. There were no new ones when I got home and I thought the thread had dwindled out.

I completely missed the posts on the following day. I imagine the thread dropped down my "I'm on" list. I will read them tomorrow and reply if they require a reply and enjoy what people have to say in either case.

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

I really do not think that statement is true, that or you are using a definition of character that is unknown to me.

Someone's character is a combination of both genes and upbringing, but all of us know of people with strong characters, both rich and poor. We see people poor from family circumstances, sickness and disability in themselves or their family who manage to cope with life, fighting authority, seeking help, which we know would break us and other people. You can see the same characteristics in better off people, but they need not be using them to make money, they may channel them into working for good causes, or campaigning for a particular social change - or they may become billionnaires

I quite agree that some people are born with more push and determination than others, but it doesn't mean that they can use it to make money. Many an able and determined child has left school early without qualifications because the home needed the money and never achieved what they could achieve if they had stayed at school and become a doctor or gone into business on their own.

Some people, at all levels will make the most of any opportunity offered but opportunities are fewer and more restricted the more deprived you beginnings, and you need to remember that because the exceptional people at the beginning and end of any distribution will have an exceptional lack of a quality or a super abundance of it, the fact is most people will fall in the middle area with neither lack or super abundane - and we are the majority.

But, I have never seen or read anywhere that conservatives see wealth or poverty as signs of 'character'. the Conservatives certainly measure success in monetary terms, but character?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/27/rich-poor-deserving-undeserving
I came across this from 10 years ago which I thought was interesting.

That’s a marathon shopping trip Daisy!

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Oops. That was in reply to M0nica.

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?

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

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

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