Posted on 09/17/2013 10:35:16 AM PDT by Enza Ferreri
Is Ron Paul a left or right winger?
He is a Republican, so on the face of it you would say he's on the right.
But his foreign policies, particularly his pacifist stance and opposition to American military interventions, place him on the left.
Not only that. He, like other Republicans and conservatives, is a libertarian.
Let me start with a little historical digression.
The first time I came across the word "libertarian" it was in conjunction with "communist". Communist libertarians is another name for anarchists: that's how many anarchists in the 19th century were called, to distinguish them from individualist libertarians like the French Proudhon, the man who wrote "Property is theft".
This association between libertarianism and anarchism should not be surprising, since anarchy, as its Greek origin indicates (privative alpha + arkhe, power), is the absence of a state, and libertarianism is the drive towards decreasing the size and reach of the state. So anarchism is, in some way, just the extreme form of libertarianism.
And here we have a clear paradox of the left-right divide in politics: anarchism is a classical leftist movement. At the time of the First International, Karl Marx and the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin famous disagreements did not focus on the goal: they both wanted the same thing, the abolition of the state. Their disagreement only concerned the means to reach that goal: Bakunin advocated the establishment of anarchism immediately after the proletarian revolution, whereas for Marx after the revolution there was to be a transitory phase, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which he (obviously wrongly) thought would eventually dissolve itself to give way to anarchism.
So, we have a political position typically associated with the right, libertarianism, which is just on the same spectrum of opinions of Marxist and anarchist aspirations.
What is ironical, of course, is also to think of classical communists wanting to abolish the state, albeit only after establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, when today leftists the world over are trying to increase the size of governments beyond any autocrat's wildest dreams.
The problem is also to do with the meaning of the terms "freedom" or "liberty" which, like "justice", can have diametrically opposed interpretations.
In the case of justice, some people believe that what is just is that everybody, irrespective of what good or bad, much or little they have done, should get identical outcomes and have as much as possible the same: they see justice as a leveller.
Others think that justice means rewarding people for what they have done good, punishing them for what they have done bad, and doing neither if people omitted to do good or bad: they see justice as a life guidance, something that guides you to make the right choices.
The latter definition, in my view, is the one that is likely to produce better results in helping people to express the best of themselves and achieve their potential, whereas applying the former interpretation of justice almost inevitably leads to complacency and even downright abuse.
As for liberty, Marx stretched its meaning beyond recognition, in a way reminiscent of the Orwellian 1984's "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is knowledge". He thought that liberty meant giving people everything they needed, he was thinking of freedom from need rather than freedom from the controlling power of others, be they the government or other citizens.
The latter is clearly the historical liberal interpretation and the most commonsensical use of the word.
It is no coincidence that the communist and even socialist distortion of the meaning of freedom has led to some of the most oppressive, repressive and liberty denying regimes the world has ever seen.
Since "libertarian" derives from "liberty", again it is no coincidence that the conflict of opinion surrounding the latter is transferred into the controversy around the former.
In conclusion, my answer to the question that forms the headline of this article is that the words "left" and "right" in politics still have a meaning, in the sense that they represent real differences in world views about humanity, society and government, albeit not as clear cut and defined as some would have it.
I don't expect to treat this issue exhaustively in an article, but it's fair to say that the demarcation lines are much more blurred than is usually thought.
In particular, what I find objectionable is some behaviour, much more often seen in people on the left, of referring to the opposite end of the spectrum, in this case "right wing" or "fascist", as an epithet to shut down debate in the absence of valid arguments.
The fact that there is a certain overlapping, historical and ideological, between right and left makes this behaviour even more irrational.
I started with Ron Paul as an example of a difficult definition, now I'll give the example of myself: on most things I would be classified as being on the right, but I am a supporter of animal rights. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Photo by George Kelly
Jut as much a difference as Right vs Wrong
Left= communist, all that is wrong in the world, evil
right =right, good, wholesome
Having said that, I think the spectrum is really "Individualist -- Collectivist".
I want the government to leave me alone. I want taxes to be low. I'm mostly an individualist.
Barack Obama wants society to take of my medical insurance, wants society to make sure no one carries a gun anywhere near me, wants all the children to attend government schools, and wants society to give goodies to the poor folks. Obama is a Collectivist.
Fascism is most definitely a collectivist philosophy (Mussolini made this very clear). The folks called "the Left" try to distance themselves from their own past by calling Fascism "right-wing" but this is a red herring intended to fool people.
As indicated, nothing is black-and-white. Although I am an individualist, I do want society to pay for the common defense, and a few other things. For me, it's small list of things that "society" should be responsible for.
“Ignorance is strength’’.
Great article. Libertarianism has much more to do with Marxism and anarchy than it does with conservative values.
That’s why we typically plot political views on a two-axis chart. The libertarian-authoritarian axis and the left-right axis. The two are entirely different in nature and it is entirely possible to be a leftist libertarian or a rightist one. Your position on the libertarian axis is determined by how much you love the use of government power. Libertarians seek to eliminate it as much as possible, authoritarians seek a totalitarian state that runs your life in every way. The left-right axis is divided on the question of equality. The left holds equality to be the highest virtue, to be achieved by all means possible. The right believes that each individual is unique and that to try to make everyone equal in any way is immoral. Additionally, there may be a conservative-liberal split, mostly based on religious beliefs.
Fascism is most definitely a collectivist philosophy (Mussolini made this very clear). The folks called "the Left" try to distance themselves from their own past by calling Fascism "right-wing" but this is a red herring intended to fool people.
I'm more inclined to call it a lie.
Right and Left WAY oversimplifies things and relying on those labels is a fools errand. However, it does make some sense to start there and is a decent, if limited and innacurate, shorthand.
He is a Republican, so on the face of it you would say he's on the right.
But his foreign policies, particularly his pacifist stance and opposition to American military interventions, place him on the left.
So Washington's farewell address where he warns about being wary of foreign entanglements proves he was an anarchist as the author would have us believe and not a Republican. well I guess we should attack Syria because that is conservative. The author is a fruitcake.
A child could say the same thing, the pro-abortion people, the homosexuals in the military, gay marriage, open borders, Sodom and Gomorrah positions are all part of that libertarian childishness and ridiculous contradiction.
The libertarian war against conservative values and American conservative culture, destroys any chance of low taxes and smaller government, because it creates liberal voters, not conservative voters like social conservatism does.
You need to look in a dictionary. Some conservatives hold common individual positions with libertarians but the terms are not, nor have they ever been, equivalent.
Individualist...small but effective government. Personal freedom and responsibility.
“The government that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you.”
“Get the HELL out of my way!”—John Galt char., Atlas Shrugged
Some “classical liberals” adopt social liberal but fiscal
conservative stands. Talk host Alan Nathan: “I want the
Republicans out of my bedroom, the Democrats out of my
wallet, and BOTH away from my First and Second
Amendment rights!”
Wiki. on Classical liberalism:
“ It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy”
Some leftists think there should be no private property!
Communist.
“Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government”
Wiki on Ayn Rand:
“Although she rejected the labels “conservative” and “libertarian,” Rand has had continuing influence on right-wing politics and libertarianism...The political figures who cite Rand as an influence are usually conservatives (often members of the United States Republican Party),] despite Rand taking some positions that are atypical for conservatives, such as being pro-choice and an atheist.”
And (same source):
“Rand’s political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights), and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights. She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.Rand believed that rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term “radical for capitalism.” She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics. She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism. She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.
American conservatism isn’t about authoritarianism at all, it is about a functioning, decent, God oriented, family friendly culture that leads to conservative voters.
Libertarianism/liberalism breeds, creates, and imports, lefty voters which leads to authoritarian government, the last 50 years proves that.
Conservatism is one the verge of being destroyed by the libertarian/lefty double team as even the rinos in the GOP embrace the libertarian agenda on social liberalism.
Which is why I identify as a Conservative and not a Libertarian. When I say I am an individualist and I like low taxes and small government and I am declaring to the world that I am not a Libertarian.
Oh, sorry about that.
As you know libertarians have corrupted so many familiar words and sayings in an effort to reframe the left’s positions, that now when we hear them it is easy to assume that it is a libertarian pushing gay marriage or something.
The first time I came across the word "libertarian" it was in conjunction with "communist". Communist libertarians is another name for anarchists: that's how many anarchists in the 19th century were called, to distinguish them from individualist libertarians like the French Proudhon, the man who wrote "Property is theft". This association between libertarianism and anarchism should not be surprising, since anarchy, as its Greek origin indicates (privative alpha + arkhe, power), is the absence of a state, and libertarianism is the drive towards decreasing the size and reach of the state. So anarchism is, in some way, just the extreme form of libertarianism. And here we have a clear paradox of the left-right divide in politics: anarchism is a classical leftist movement.
A-friggin-men!
The first time I heard the name "Reagan", it was in conjunction with an essential but unmentionable-in-polite-company bodily orifice. By Enza Ferrieri's "logic", this proves that Reagan was an a-hole.
Obviously, Ferrieri needs to go back to Logic 101.
The joke I’d heard was libertarian = a Republican who wants to legalize pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.