Lawrence:
> For my part, I will never understand why anyone would ever want to be seen
> as advancing a "left" or "right" agenda. Why not be seen as advancing an
> "intelligent" agenda? Why not be seen as advancing the "best" agenda? Or the
> wisest? Or the most informed? Why "left" or "right"? It amazes me that some
> people identify with these labels, so much that they want to compete for it.
> As a purely practical matter, I think most of the public wants to hear the
> "best" agenda, not a "left" or "right" one. But even if pragmatism is not a
> concern, I still have never understood why someone would prefer labeling
> their opinion as "left" rather than "intelligent."
We had that. They were called "the best and the brightest".
I consider myself to be on the Left because I favor freedom, equality and peace over authority, power, private wealth, slavery, and the war necessary to sustain them. The left-right metaphor goes back to antiquity, showing up famously in the seating arrangements of the French parlement just prior to the Revolution: the friends of the king of France seated themselves on the right, this being the place of military honor and preference.
I don't think "Left" is equivalent to "intelligent", "materialist", "Marxist". Marxism, materialism and intelligence, for some widely-used definitions of each word, can all be used in a repressive, that is, rightist manner, as we can observe in history without trying very hard.