Tonight's "The Agenda" was about what we're going to argue about if/once the concepts of left and right are no longer on the table. Pretty interesting. But most of the discussion, rightly so, was actually based on what each panelist thought of the concepts of left and right. I don't really think any of them really got it. I think left v right is a little more basic and fundamental than government involvement v hands-off/minimal government. It's more like this, I think: The "right" sees the best outcomes coming naturally (or at least potentially naturally) out of much of what we do when left to our own devices. That human activities generally even themselves out to take care of the problems of the world. The "left" on the other hand feel that there is too much that falls through the cracks when humans act naturally, and that we have to act specifically to correct these problems, to help those who need it, and that aren't being helped by the others acting naturally. I think both of these extremes are true at times, depending on the situation: human processes do tend to be generally good and effective and self-regulating, that sometimes careless meddling can do more harm than good, but that it's too easy to be caught up in the momentum and miss the flaws in our systems, that we have to tweak the machinery and prod certain people to make it all work a little better.
What do you think?