Two recent posts (and the comments) on Samizdata are good examples of knee jerk philosophising about the difference between left and right in politics. I've posted on this question before, but I still find it amusing that - as for example here in an excellent post about the problems of reaching a considered moral position on abortion - Perry de Havilland still can't resist a poke at the 'left'.
Many leftists support abortion (and generally wants it to be taxpayer subsidised, of course) on the grounds it is a woman's right to choose, which is ironic considering the left is dedicated to reducing personal choice in just about every other sphere. In truth I suspect many on the left support free abortion because so many conservatives oppose it.
Setting aside that he - like so many on Samizdata - seems to have only a comic book understanding of socialism and the historic left, I think he is falling into a much broader error here. I'm sure logicians have a term for it, but essentially, having recognised quite clearly and cogently that abortion is not an issue open to yes/no, pro/anti binary decision making, he still tries to subsume that into a categorisation of all social and political questions as a simple dichotomy - ie left/right.
I think this is because, to paraphrase Perry's post, socialism is only simple for those opposing it. It betrays a profound ignorance of the recent history of the left (or perhaps that ignorance is wilful - I don't know) to choose abortion as the issue to attack it, since abortion and feminism have been the cause of huge debate and soul searching since the 1960s.
Similarly this comment makes some pretty bizarre claims and attributes them to 'leftists'.
One must also remember that "the rich" is, to a leftist, a metaphysical concept (it need not depend on how much money someone has). For example, I have very little money (no job, lives on savings earned as a security guard, went to state school, lives in government housing), but I am a member (or at least a representative of) "the rich", whereas George Soros (and many other people who have vast amounts of money) are part of the "progressive classes", "the people" or even (and very oddly) "the poor".
Here again some good points about the misuse of language in political debate are thrown away because of the kneejerk desire to pillory the 'left' . My response to this - I'll keep you posted on any follow up - said:
Such sweeping statements really need to be justified. Please point to one person who think Soros is a member of the 'poor' - and then tell me why you think this person's view means anything at all given the reality they have clearly lost touch with...
(The link points to a Wikipedia article on Soros)
Given the libertarian credentials of Samizdata, even if many of its commentators are not themselves libertarian, you would think wouldn't you that they might recognise the variety of political perspectives on the 'left' - including some proud to call themselves libertarian.
