Old left-right model has failed us badly

At the heart of much academic work is the attempt to discover paradigms, models that put together and explain lots of information in a coherent way.

Good paradigms make both teaching and research a lot easier, and nothing contributes more to the advancement of learning than the discovery/invention of a particularly useful paradigm - unless, perhaps, it is the refutation of a faulty paradigm or the abandonment of a paradigm that's no longer useful.

Of all the academic paradigms, perhaps the most overdue for revision is the widely held view of the left/right political spectrum.

During the period between the two world wars, it made good sense to think of the political spectrum as extending between two totalitarian extremes, with totalitarian Communism on the left and totalitarian fascism and national socialism on the right. The Spanish Civil War and the street battles between Communists and Nazis in Weimar Germany did in fact take place in societies where many (if not most) were drifting toward one totalitarian pole or another.

But trying to apply this model to American politics today is extraordinarily misleading.

It's still fair enough, I suppose, to identify the extreme left in this country with Communism. The leftist fringe still calls for the old Marxist platform, things like an end to most private property, redistribution of wealth and government ownership of banks and utilities. Many on the left (particularly in the academic world) quite openly express their allegiance to the Marxist agenda.

But who occupies the opposite pole in American politics? What kind of philosophy dominates (say) the Tea Partiers? Fascism or national socialism?

Fascists and national socialists both insist on strong government. They want the government to fix their problems for them: to make the trains run on time.

What we generally call the “right” in American politics today wants nothing of the sort. The Tea Parties in particular have a strong libertarian flavor, taking to heart George Washington's admonition, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

So are there no fascists in American society? Well, there are - plenty of them. And here's where the old left-right model fails us badly. In the last couple of years, the government has expanded into completely unprecedented areas.

The government now owns 80 percent of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 27 percent of Citigroup and 60 percent of GM (despite phony claims that GM has “paid taxpayers back”). And the government in turn is owned by - well who exactly does hold the paper on our $12,868,099,196,678.66 national debt?

As Wall Street and Congress negotiate their nonaggression pact, the alarm bells should be ringing: We're getting awfully close to a big-business-friendly totalitarianism of the fascist/Nazi type.

But we have been slow to catch on because, somehow, the politicians (Democrat and Republican) who created this unholy marriage of big business and big government have convinced us that their policies are somehow “moderate” or “centrist.” And who would ever look for totalitarian extremism in the center? But that's just where we have to put it ... until someone comes up with a better paradigm.

authoritarian vs anarchy spectrum.

While anything as complex as human interactions needs more than one dimension, for the political axis your spectrum is correct.

On the one hand, all authority and responsibilities are collective. On the other, all authority and responsibilities are personal. Three key - and true to life - results can be seen from this "paradigm."

First, the extremes are truly polar opposites, and places in between are truly blends of the extremes. There is no place for anarchy on a spectrum where the ends are national socialism and international socialism. Yet when the extremes are socailism and anarchy, you can find a place for blended combinations (for example, the U.S. Constitution).

Second, on that spectrum, most people are truly moderates. They (we) want a middle-of-the-spectrum blend of some government authority, and some personal authority. The challenge for true moderates is to find an effective balance. One example of that sort of balance - where collective responsibilities (at least at the national level) are established, yet personal responsibilities are also established, is the U.S. Constitution. There can be others, but the real key is where to find the balance between true extremes.

Third, recognizing this as the true spectrum keeps extremists from accusing any opponents of being at the opposite extreme - when in fact they are advocating the same things (just with someone different in charge). It forces them to explain their fine differences in their philosophies rather than merely to demonize all opposition. It would be hard to call George W. Bush of Medicare-Drugs and No Child Left Behind an anarchist, so that means he must either be recognized as a moderate, or accused of being even more extreme than the avowed Marxists. That's a tough sell.

So, keep teaching that political spectrum, and recognize that there are other dimensions that may result in differences in objective between groups who fit in the same place on the one-dimensional political spectrum. Hence you can get socialists who want to use the power of government to make morality a collective responsibility and authority plotted near those who want to use the power of government to make 'immorality' a collective responsibility and authority.

There is a terrible, almost unavoidable tendency on the part of those who advocate collective authority to want every more authority - so even those who have divergent objectives for that authority, end up acting just the same. Only, of course, they want a different group to be dictating to everyone. Themselves.

The Right/Left Hoax

Words are tools of thought. That’s why, in George Orwell’s “1984”, the political goal of IngSoc was to reduce the number of words available, through a process of continuous redefinition and elimination. By reducing the number of words, and eliminating “undesirable” ones, the Party intended to utterly control the thoughts, and therefore the minds, of all its subjects.

In a prophetic way, we see this Orwellian “newspeak” going on today. And just one example is the way that political debate is constrained by the use of loaded terms. For example:

Are you right wing or left wing? Or are you in the middle?

Whether we like it or not, political labels are useful. Terms like racist, feminist, fascist, socialist, environmentalist, capitalist and so on, encapsulate a set of beliefs and are a verbal shorthand for particular world views - if there is a clear definition as to the meaning of such terms.

But there are two labels which, under closer scrutiny, prove to be utterly confusing and fundamentally flawed. I’m talking about the terms “right wing” and “left wing”. They refer to a political spectrum which has the “right” on one side and the “left” on the other. And most people accept these terms as both legitimate and self-evident. But are they?

More importantly, do the labels “right” and “left actually reflect reality, and enable clarity of thought? Or are they, in fact, an Orwellian tool of obfuscation that only obliterates sound thinking?

It’s a fair enough question, because the whole of our democratic system of political discourse is based on using such terms.

The concept of a political spectrum is sound enough, as it provides a frame of reference for various ideas and opinions. And the reason for using an axis of “right” and “left”, is to provide a means of identifying supposedly philosophically OPPOSITE ideas. Trouble is, “left” and “right” are NOT opposites - not in this case.

If I asked you to define extreme right wing, you’d probably come up with the term “fascism”. And If I asked you to define extreme left wing, then your answer would likely be “communism”.

So what we have is a political spectrum with fascism on the extreme right and communism on the extreme left. Now, because both of these extremes are usually considered undesirable, moderate people find themselves squeezed into the middle. The middle becomes the IDEAL. Which is not surprising really, when you consider the nature of what is waiting for you at either end of the political spectrum!

The middle ground becomes the “desirable” ground, and is supposed to represent a compromise between two opposite and undesirable extremes. But what is the fundamental nature of these supposed opposites?

Fascism is a totalitarian system, where big government and big business are in collusion to lord it over ordinary citizens. Private property is allowed “on paper”, but because owners are not free to use or dispose of their property as they wish, the term loses all its meaning. Under a fascist system of government, the individual’s interest is subservient to the national interest.

Communism is also a totalitarian system, where all property belongs to the state. Government and business are the same thing - as the state owns the means of production. Under a communist system of government, the individual’s interest is likewise subservient to the national interest.

Both political systems result in effective dictatorship. Both reduce their citizens to the status of serfs - under a ruling class. And we have plenty of historical examples to prove it - Germany under Hitler, The Soviet Union under Stalin, Italy under Mussolini and China under Mao - not to mention present day North Korea under “Dear Leader” Kim.

So here we are, stuck with a political spectrum where the extremes on both sides are variations on an identical theme (collectivism and property confiscation) - rather than actual opposites.

It’s like saying the “temperature” spectrum - zero to 100 degrees celsius - has the same state at both ends - freezing (or boiling, take your pick)! Such a temperature scale would be worse than useless.

And so it is with the current political scale/spectrum. Worse than useless - downright dangerous.

Whether you move to the right or the left, your final destination is essentially the same - the philosophy that the individual exists for the benefit of society and that your property can rightfully be expropriated. As the Nazi Goebbels said, “To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” He could just as easily have been speaking of Naziism or fascism.

The way we currently define the left/right political spectrum leaves no room for concepts like individual freedom and property rights. They are obliterated in the no-mans land of the mythical middle.

And this also explains why political parties, of all persuasions, now do battle over the “middle” ground - seeking to win the “middle” or centre vote.

Sure, these parties (no matter in which democracy) attempt to distinguish themselves in some way - but in the end it’s just Tweedledum and Tweedledee, forever moving closer to each other in the fight for the middle ground.

I believe it’s time we got rid of this notion of a political spectrum running between the false alternatives of fascism and communism. They are not opposites, they’re philosophical bedfellows, and should in fact be on the same side of the fence.

The opposite of the idea that the individual exists for the benefit of society, is that society exists for the benefit of the individual. The opposite of collectivism is individualism. The opposite of property confiscation is property rights. So as the philosophies of fascism and communism are both at one extreme of the political spectrum, then at the other extreme should be the opposite - the philosophy of individual freedom and property rights.

There has been an attempt, on the part of political libertarians, to rectify this false alternative - with a modified political spectrum that would put “minimum” government at one end, and “maximum” government at the other end. And while this appears to be an improvement, and perhaps closer to the truth of things - in fact it is neither.

One tool to illustrate this modified political spectrum is the “world’s smallest political quiz” - which promises to uncover your true political leanings:

See: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Another variant on the same theme prefers an “up” and “down” political spectrum.

See: http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/upvsdown.htm

However, in truth - having “small” government at one end, and “big” government at the other - is not really the solution, because it assumes as a given the very nature and need for the “political” means of organisation itself - government. A more logical axis would be total government at one end, and no government at the other.

Just as the traditional political spectrum has totalitarianism at both ends, in a similar way, the modified libertarian spectrum has “government” at both ends. So you could say that such alternative spectrums are simply a means of casting one’s own ideas in a more favourable light!

To get down to the nitty gritty of things, it is necessary to deal with fundamentals, with philosophic foundations.

So, my own favoured political spectrum could go from right to left, or bottom to top - or forward and backwards! The direction of the axis is unimportant. What IS important is that any attempt to define a spectrum of political philosophy should at least have opposites on either end.

And so, my own suggestion would be to have a political spectrum which has FREEDOM at one end and SLAVERY at the other. However, to make that work, it is necessary to define freedom in a practical way.

I find Andrew J Galambos’ definition fits the bill:

“Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (i.e. 100%) control over his own property”.

This definition clearly identifies freedom in a way that can be measured. And keep in mind that “property” includes your own life and body.

So, in my favoured alternative, you would have 100% control of one’s property at one end of the spectrum - and zero control at the other. Or in other words, having 100% freedom at one end of the spectrum, and 100% slavery at the other.

Such a political spectrum would immediately clarify issues and allow for meaningful discussion and disagreement.

However, I believe there’s one thing that wouldn’t change - and that’s the fact most people would still consider themselves to be in the MIDDLE - not too much freedom, and not too much slavery!

To be “extreme” on one side or the other would mean to hold consistently to either the property rights/freedom or the property confiscation/slavery ideal. Ideas that were a mixture of these philosophical opposites (like “I’m for semi-slavery, or semi-freedom”), could rightly claim to be “middle” or “centre”. This “centre” would then be exposed for what it is in reality - not any sort of ideal at all, but an inherently unstable compromise between two antithetical philosophies.

Being a “centrist” politician would have a distinctly unpleasant odour - that of being someone who is for a mix of freedom and slavery, in other words, a champion of moderate enslavement.

At least such an unequivocal political spectrum would draw the bugs out of the woodwork!

Yours in freedom

David MacGregor

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.