Right Wing vs Left Wing[1] The right wing vs left wing debate has its historical origin in the French Revolution, and many people question whether the terms right and left are relevant today. Indeed, it is nearly an impossible task to explain the right wing vs left wing division to the satisfaction of everyone involved. [2] Ultimately, we are all political paradoxes and our individual philosophies are little more than bundles of contradictory beliefs. As such, classifying any particular person on the political spectrum is always an inexact science, particularly given the idealistic demands of our souls. [3] At the heart of the right wing vs left wing debate is a very crucial concept, which many people simply refuse to accept: A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. Certainly, in the center there can be some semblance of compromise, but any such bargain will tend to lean unhappily left or miserably right and human nature is such that even the most temperate, well-balanced state of affairs must inevitably provoke anxiety and discontent. [4] While it is true that certain forms of freedom and equality are connected, such as equality under law and freedom of opportunity, freedom and equality are more frequently at odds. And yet, for most people in the West, the ideas of liberty and equality are inseparable; so much so that they are frequently confused with one another and even used as synonyms. But elementary common sense suggests that where freedom is to be promoted, inequality must result and where equality is to be established, freedom must be curtailed. [5] As John C. Calhoun, the seventh vice president of the United States wrote, Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition.1 [6] In other words, if everyone is perfectly free, the gifted will rise to the top and the less fortunate will sink to the bottom; hence, everyone is unequal. Only if the gifted are impeded from rising too far and the less fortunate are elevated on their shoulders can perfect equality be established; hence, the strong are hardly perfectly free. [7] There is no end to the sophistries that deny the melancholy truth that freedom and equality are more often than not subtractive values. Chief among these is the notion that one form of freedom may be sacrificed to enhance another. Isaiah Berlin famously destroyed this claim: Nothing is to be gained by a confusion of terms. To avoid glaring inequality or widespread misery I am ready to sacrifice some, or all, of my freedom: I may do so willingly and freely; but it is freedom that I am giving up for the sake of justice or equality or the love of my fellow men. I should be guilt-stricken, and rightly so, if I were not, in some circumstances, ready to make this sacrifice. But a sacrifice is not an increase in what is being sacrificed, namely freedom, however great the moral need or the compensation for it. Everything is what it is: liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience. If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral. But if I curtail or lose my freedom in order to lessen the shame of such inequality, and do not thereby materially increase the individual liberty of others, an absolute loss of liberty occurs. This may be compensated for by a gain in justice or in happiness or in peace, but the loss remains, and it is a confusion of values to say that although my 'liberal', individual freedom may go by the board, some other kind of freedom—'social' or 'economic'—is increased.2 [8] In short, as our freedom increases, our equality decreases; as our equality increases, our freedom decreases. [9] The difference, then, between right wing vs left wing ideology, is that the right side of the political spectrum seeks to maximize freedom, while the left seeks to maximize equality. Elaboration of the Political Spectrum[10] Everyone disagrees about what the political spectrum should look like. In my own view, if we were to contrast the right wing vs left wing division on a diagram, it would look roughly like this:
[13] Democracy as the West understands it can exist only within the narrow liberal band at the center of the political spectrum; thus, the post-industrialized West is largely comprised of liberal democracies. The dead center of the spectrum represents the liberal ideal of perfectly balancing freedom and equality. While the realization of such an ideal is impossible given that everyone disagrees as to what such a balance entails, moderates nevertheless occupy the space on the spectrum closest to center, between the two divergent liberal philosophies. [14] On the right wing vs left wing diagrams above, socialism and libertarianism fall outside the realm of democracy. Whereas modern liberalism and American conservatism are best seen as heuristics (decision-making shortcuts), socialism and libertarianism are ideologies which invariably lead to tyranny. In the next section, we will examine why. Virtue Assumptions[15] Politics is inseparable from ethics. The right wing vs left wing debate is ultimately an argument over morality in which tacit assumptions about the nature of virtue are made. Those people who find it most difficult to place themselves on the political spectrum usually do not share the common moral assumptions underlying it.[16] Although we cannot delve too deeply into these assumptions here, American conservatives and modern liberals often equate virtue with the absence of suffering.3 Ideologues by contrast, who comprise the rest of the political spectrum, assume that virtue is either freedom or equality, depending whether they are on the right or the left. [17] As we walk down the right wing of the political spectrum, individual freedom increases as equality decreases and power becomes concentrated in fewer hands. The individual becomes more important than humankind. A libertarian society is an aristocracy (which I use as a synonym for oligarchy), or a tyranny of the few over the many. Such a society may retain a democratic appearance in so far as the few might conceivably vote amongst themselves on important decisions, such as in ancient Athens. But in so far as the many are prevented from empowering themselves, rights are hardly universal. [18] Similarly, as we walk down the left side of the right wing vs left wing diagram above, we find equality increasing and freedom decreasing. Society becomes more important than the individual. A socialist society may also resemble a democracy, but here the majority rules absolutely over the minority, without any respect for the latter's rights. Ironically, the majority's will frequently becomes manifest in a bureaucratic elite—the self-appointed, self-righteous rulers of the mob—and thus mirrors the privileged tyranny of libertarianism as individual rights are routinely denied. [19] Anarchy, which is the absence of a common authority, is represented by a break in the political spectrum which sweeps backward into tyranny. In contrast to its ideal of an orderly world without authority, the reality of anarchy is a chaotic struggle between competing authorities. Libertarian and socialist societies may devolve into anarchy as the privileged elite war against one another in pursuit of absolute power. [20] Anarchy often takes the form of civil war and ends with the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. Just as libertarian and socialist societies are similar in their distribution of power, so fascist and totalitarian societies mirror each other despite the theoretical differences between them in the right wing vs left wing division. [21] Nevertheless, the theoretical difference remains important. A fascist regime is the culmination of "perfect freedom" in the hands of a single dictator. The dictator is perfectly free in the sense that he or she no longer encounters any resistance to his or her individual will and can do anything humanly possible. A totalitarian regime, by contrast, represents "perfect equality" in so far as everyone is equally enslaved beneath the rule of a revolutionary party, which actively destroys any and every flourish of individuality. [22] Although the right wing vs left wing debate seemingly branches off in two separate directions, the political spectrum is perhaps best seen as a one way street to tyranny. Freedom and equality are all too often the banners of tyrants and the engines of extremism. When assumptions are made as to the nature of virtue, murderous mischief is inevitably the result. [23] John C. Calhoun, for example, whose terrific elucidation of freedom and equality is quoted above, was an ardent defender of freedom in his time with brilliant ideas about democracy. Tragically, and perhaps unforgivably, a large part of his peculiar definition of freedom was the "freedom" to own slaves and much of his brilliance was wasted by constructing arguments in the defense of the morally indefensible. [24] The left can be equally paradoxical in its view of equality. It is not an accident that the twentieth century's least equal societies were those of the communist nations. Marx essentially believed that in order to create equality, it is necessary to first impose inequality in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Right Wing vs Left Wing Circle[25] Another possible representation of the right wing vs left wing division is to redraw the political spectrum as a circle:
[27] Theocracy represents the complete absence of freedom and equality. In a proper theocracy, in contrast to how the term is used in popular discourse, the ruler elevates himself or herself to a human god, diminishing his or her freedom by assuming the burdens of godhood and introducing a stark moral inequality among citizens. [28] Although theocracy would certainly seem to be more logically approached from the right side of the political spectrum, the relatively early emergence of theocracy in human history (e.g. ancient Egypt) suggests that if Marx was right to view pre-historical societies as essentially communist, then theocracy can emerge from communism in relatively few steps. [29] This circular representation of the right wing vs left wing debate highlights two important points. First, it gives an interesting glimpse into which political positions are diametrically opposed. For example, American conservatism is 180 degrees from communism, while modern liberalism is 180 degrees from fascism; perhaps it is little wonder, then, that conservatives and liberals in America seem to suffer such paranoia over Stalin and Hitler respectively, often comparing one another to those most hated of foes. [30] Second, the circle illustrates how the anarchist is essentially outside the political spectrum. Ultimately, the anarchist represents either the very best of humanity or the very worst: He or she is either a gentle idealist or a dangerous fanatic. Whichever the case, it is ultimately anarchists who spin the circle of change, moving entire societies from one point on the political circle to another. Conclusion[31] Ultimately, the best defense against tyranny is awareness of how the ideas of freedom and equality are manipulated in the right wing vs left wing argument by extremists who would make them a sacred cause. As Eric Hoffer wrote, "The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause."4[32] Of course, freedom and equality should never be made holy causes because the closer a society comes to achieving one, the less it has of the other. This is the unfortunate nature of the right wing vs left wing division. It is precisely the ability to compromise which is so lacking in the fanatic that allows some measure of freedom and equality to co-exist, however imperfectly. 2006, 2008, 2009
|
