Mutant for Hire wrote:RHJunior wrote:
They would fall on the Left Wing end of the scale.
You had me until this point. You're trying to impose modern late 20th century to early 21st century values on what constitutes left wing and right wing values here, or rather your perception of them. What has constituted "left wing" and "right wing" is highly contextual.
There always has been, and always will be, a basic divide: those who strive towards more individual autonomy, rights, liberty, and equality and the objective morality that is its foundation.... and those who strive towards "collective rights," centralized power, and subjugation of individualism to collectivism, and the subjective morals and situational ethics that underpin THAT worldview. Names are irrelevent, "context" is a smokescreen.
At the threat of dragging in modern politics, I would say that the centralization of power has pretty much become an apolitical attitude these days.
Government growth is, yes, apolitical. It is a natural property of government to seek to expand itself. However, the difference in the PARTIES lies in how they regard this growth philosophically and ideologically. the Republican politicians ESPOUSE-- even if they do not practice--- "smaller government." As such, the GOP's greatest failing is its refusal to practice what it preaches.... not in the content of its sermon.
When it gets to foreign policy, things are even more murky. I could make a very good argument that the Expansionists are "Right Wing" as they aren't going to molly coddle and deal with these other races that have oppressed them in history whereas the Open Trade people are "Left Wing" and are trying to deal peacefully with other races.
It has taken many long years of leftist schoolyard indoctrination to convince silly children that it is the RIGHT wing that is the party of "warmongers."
And there is a hell of a lot of difference between the right-wing policy of engaging in open trade with equals, from a position of strength.... and the left-wing policy of appeasement and trying to appease hostile entities with dane-geld, from a position of weakness.
Republicans may fight wars, but Democrats make them inevitable.
The conservative espouses a strong and powerful military <I> because that is the surest way to insure peace.</i> The liberal espouses a weak military, and inevitably provokes war with an outsider by appearing vulnerable.
In review:
The Open Traders are espousing a reconfiguration of their nation's whole military/national security policy and their trade policy as well. Their argument is that their nation has grown, both in numbers, infrastructure and technological capability, past the point of needing to hide in darkness and isolation, and that in fact they cannot sustain such a policy and continue to thrive. They also point out that the Wall of Mists hasn't exactly been a 100% deterrent for determined explorers and invaders--- as the Archivist's own "Hall of Kings" demonstrates. They want a stronger, visible military, a more "solid" and traditional securing of their borders to supplement or even replace the Wall of Mists, and a policy of open trade with likeminded outsider nations, as free association and exchange is viewed as an innate right.
The Expansionists argue for a continuation of the existing trade/military policy. They argue that the current policy of secrecy and isolationism has proven sufficiently effective at securing the nation, and that the Villages are currently too weak to support the military infrastructure necessary for safe contact with the outside world. They also argue that outsider trade would destabilize the economy and disrupt their culture(or plead, more cloyingly, that Racconan culture and trade would destabilize the "lesser" societies)... and that having an obvious, powerful military would provoke attacks from fearful and envious outsiders. They insist that the current natural resources within their borders are sufficient, and that at most a policy of slowly expanding the outer borders would be sufficient to keep pace with growing needs.
In the Questorverse, both parties espouse a plan that will lead to contact with the outside world. The Open Traders want to explore and contact other likeminded societies for equitable trade.... and trade, exploration, and (hopefully) eventual settlement by necessity (especially in the Middle Ages) has to be paralleled by an enlarged military program. It's a package deal--- if you want to take a trade caravan out to strange lands, you'd best have armed guards along with you, and watchmen guarding the gates back home in case someone decides your people are a fat plum ripe for the picking.
The Expansionists, on the other hand, are attempting to maintain the status quo. They wish to remain hidden behind the existing curtain of secrecy and are consequently opposed to enlarging the Seven Villages' military capability--- as this would encourage bolder ventures and a more confident attitude towards reaching beyond their own borders. There are many reasons for their opposition to outside contact, of course: quite a number of them have accumulated considerable political power or wealth due to the lack of outside contact, for one thing.... and outside contact--- and the consequent reconfiguring of racconan society to accomodate this approach --- would destabilize their power and financial bases.
The border-expansion scheme is their namesake, but it is just a stopgap measure (or perhaps better termed "half-assed plan") they have devised in order to justify postponing... preferably indefinitely... strengthening the Seven Villages' martial ability and its taking a more forward place on the international stage. By expanding the borders--- or at least by constantly harping on the idea--- they can provide the ILLUSION of progress, thus mollifying the malcontents, without actually causing any "infrastructure-destabilizing changes."
They're basically trying to sell the populace on the notion that they can have their cake and eat it too. (The bread and butter of every liberal politician.)
A secondary consequence of this is that they have to convince the people that they have a right to something-- the land bordering the Swamp of Mists--- that is not theirs.
