Anyone who is genuinely left wing will easily recognize that neither party in the US represents their interests.
No one is a role model.
Maybe a firefighters or a teacher or a policeman should be looked at as a hero before a politician.
Humans are flawed - we can't escape that. Every human has a dark side but, it seems, some humans have a very large one.
Or do you mean the sympathetic and nice personality he showed in public?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTm5rp8r6fE&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE&feature=emb_imp_...
What does that even mean ?
Any one with half a brain will find good ideas from the far left to the far right. This "left vs right" is the dumbest thing we ever came up with. Vote and fight for ideas, not sport teams... keep the fanatism for football
To any thinking person the left-vs-right paradigm is beyond stupid, but yet, it keeps persisting, even worldwide.
Actually, the parties are themselves to blame, as wrong-thinkers gets weeded out or re-educated.
But if we were to apply labels to UBI, I imagine that the left would mostly be in favour, and the right would mostly be against it. Ideally, everyone should consider the notion on its merits. It's just that what way you're leaning, will inevitably influence your thinking to some extent.
Edited to add: To be more concrete, consider two possible effects of UBI: (1) Raising the quality of life of poor people, and (2) Discouraging people from seeking work. I imagine that a right-wing thinker will weigh (2) more heavily than (1), while a left-wing thinker will do the opposite. Each may even say that the other outcome is not even going to happen, or only negligibly so.
But we live in an age of political parties. It seems we can't do representative democracy without them, for better or worse: And given that, we need a language to talk about parties' politics in broad terms. And then we inevitably come up with various axes such as left/right, authoritarian/liberal, and so forth to describe them. So long as we remember that these are rough categories, I think it is useful and harmless. But of course, once fronts harden and the tribal impulse sets in, that important caveat may be the first to go out the window.
this is the claim, what is your supporting reasoning?
>we need a language to talk about parties' politics in broad terms
Why? Why should we strive to generalize something so inherently complex and impactful as policy.
>once fronts harden and the tribal impulse sets in
I'm not understanding how simplistic labels can contribute to anything other than this outcome.
Because we (most of us, myself included) don't have the capacity to reason about the entire complex mess at once. To some extent, all thinking about the real world must be simpler than reality. This is true even of mathematical models of physical reality, even more so of mental models of politics. Yes, we should strive to improve our understanding, and I struggle with this daily, but if you remove all broad categories from consideration, leaving only the details, I for one will be lost. The usual metaphor is something about forests and trees, I believe.
The more dimensions there are, the more you need to make allies to reach that bar. Nobody exactly agrees with you on all things. In order to get them to vote for your things, you need to agree to vote for their things. There's no other way to achieve it.
Policy is complex and impactful, but in the end a decision gets made. The goal is to make a decision that most people can live with. That's the best you can hope for. And you achieve that by assembling a group who support each other. That group is a real thing, regardless of the label you put on it. You're either part of that group or you're not, and you have to live with the outcome.
Leftism and rightism are little more than broad, inchoate moral intuitions that are ultimately given concrete form and specific content by ideologies, philosophy and realpolitik.
For example, economic class-driven socialism and wokeness will conflict with each other but both are driven by a thought pattern that's descended from Marxism. Gendercrit feminists and the woke, same thing, but both more or less want to strangle each other.
On the right, you get can have Nietzsche-influenced hyperindividualist überman strivers and a kind of communitarian neo-trad thinking. Both clearly rightist, both in tension with each other. The GOP and the aforementioned localist Christian tradheads are definitely against each other, but not leftists.
List goes on. I'd consider the woke ideology genuinely leftist, it's just not very genuinely pro the little guy, pro the working man. Many traditional Marxists are certainly tearing their hair out from what I've read some.