One side of the aisle (left) tends to favor
the wealthy more than the other (right).
If they favor the wealthy, that automatically puts them on the right.
Still defending the Democrats, eh.
I don't agree, but does it matter either way?
Nixon only popularized the term, "war on
drugs". It was in place long before him.
Not really until the drug counter-culture started becoming more popular. There were open calls to legalize marijuana, and cocaine became known as the "designer drug" for the jet set. It was still obviously illegal, but it wasn't really until the 1980s when both Ronald and Nancy Reagan doubled down and escalated the war on drugs, at which time the police became more militarized and the anti-drug propaganda shifted into high gear, with the "Just say no" campaign and "this is your brain on drugs" propaganda. The media also put out shows like "Cops," which launched a whole genre of reality law enforcement shows. Jimmy Carter didn't do all that.
I suppose that as a socialist, every US politician
would be on the right. But for most of us, there
is a left & right.
Further confusing the issue, the term, "right", doesn't
only mean capitalist / economic liberty...it can also
mean conservative or authoritarian.
It basically means favoring the wealthy and privileged, and also tends to be focused more on tradition, and is resistant to new ideas or any real change. In a class-based society, those who are wealthier are of a higher rank, and have less to fear from an authoritarian government.
So, as I see it, the main difference between left and right is that the right favors an unchanging society and supports that which they will believe will maintain the status quo. This is, for all intents and purposes, the overall position held by both parties. But the left tends to favor change and justice for the masses. The way I see it, the world is constantly in motion and society is in a constant state of flux and change. I think a key reason why most historical empires have fallen is because they couldn't keep up with the changes.
My main political position (beyond anything related to my views on the economic system) comes down to this: America has to be flexible and be able to adapt to a changing world. If we don't, then it may be detrimental to the lives of the citizenry. I'm not concerned about patriotism or longstanding American myths, but I do care about the survival and well-being of the citizenry, since I am also a citizen.
I'm also not as heavily devoted to an "ideology," per se. I have no problem with being labeled a "socialist," as my views tend to fall within the same ballpark as socialism. But as I said, I also believe in flexibility and adaptability. So, I don't believe in total socialism or even that it should have to be permanent.
I also try to look at all of this from an international perspective, as I believe that our own well-being and survival also depend upon the well-being and survival of other nations and humanity as a species. We must strive to seek peace and cooperation among the nations and governments of the world.
Socialism favors cooperation, while capitalism favors competition - which doesn't just end like a game of Monopoly. The competition escalates, whether it's between economic factions, class factions, nationalist factions - and that's where it can rather ugly.