“Left” and “Right” in Politics Does More to Confuse than Inform.
The “Leftists.” The “Right-wingers.” Total opposites of each other. Right? Wrong!
In 1789, as the French Revolution began to boil, members of the National Assembly sat with their like-minded compatriots. Seated on the right side of the chamber were the royalists, supporters of the monarchy, entrenched hierarchy and tradition-laden status-quo. On the left were the “radicals,” the “innovators,” sick and tired of the monarchy, itching for a revolution to liberate “the people” from stultifying oppression.
And so came about terms we still use today, the “Left’ and the “Right,” bookend descriptors for the grand, worldwide “political spectrum.”
There’s only one problem. It’s woefully inaccurate and incomplete, at best. Stupidly insipid disinformation, in reality.
As the French Revolution became very nasty, indeed, the terms “Left” and “Right” survived, even multiplying to include the “Extreme Left” and “Extreme Right” and, of course, the “Center,” then quickly thereafter split further to incorporate the “Center-Left” and Center-Right.” Exactly how and where each was demarcated was never quite figured out.
The “Left” would win the French Revolution. Sort of. In ways that would utterly betray any presumed virtues. They ousted the king and queen and court, and then fell into bickering and bruising and beheading these people and that people and even their own people. It was called the “Reign of Terror.” The “Leftists” had become as stupid, careless, cruel and violent as the “Right-wingers.” So one system was “royal” and the other “democratic,” to the average commoner there was scant difference; no one gave a damn about them, they still had no power, they were still oppressed and starving. A “king” would eventually be restored, then ousted himself, and then a guy named Napoleon showed up and crowned himself “emperor.” Good thing the “Leftists” and “Right-Wingers” knew what they were doing.
America, of course, earlier had its own revolution. With a far smaller population, and relatively few outright peasants, it was a clearer, cleaner affair. Nobody used the terms “Left” or “Right” back then. But many of the same, essential parameters were in play. There was the power of a monarchy, a hated king, a highly hierarchical social system, virtual monopolies on commerce, a state religion, inequality, as well as bullying, oppression and forcible conformity versus an out-gunned, motley mob of complainers and dreamers. The revolutionists in France were inspired by and hoped to emulate their would-be allies, those clearly very “Leftist” American revolutionaries, who actually defeated the world’s greatest military force at the time.
America, too, had its royalists, determined to conserve tradition, and, of course, their own advantage, privilege and power. They were the Tories, the name still used in the UK for the conservative party. And they joined right in with the British occupiers to taunt, torture and kill American patriots. My essay, The Forgotten Greencoats of the American Revolution, goes into more detail about these original American conservatives, who firmly established the conservative tradition of being forever wrong. Along with the British military, they were defeated. Unlike the British military, not all of them left the country, and their conservative belief system festered right back into a cancer. With every American conservative since that time effectually a Tory, that ideology of not believing in those original American values has continued to plague our nation. Not least of all, today!
The philosophic, political and moral ideals of liberty, equality, justice, pursuit of happiness for all, and government by the people are not “Leftist.” They are liberal. They existed long before any such seating arrangement in the French Assembly. Certainly “liberal” and “Leftist” are completely separate, unaligned concepts, if the latter word even really means anything at all.
How the French Revolution turned so quickly from a theoretically noble attempt to liberate its people from a palace of overlords into a Reign of Terror is a lesson in itself. Lofty ideas gone bad. Future revolutions that also ended up in rivers of blood are sometimes compared, in particular the communist revolutions in Russia, China and elsewhere. They aren’t the same. Those revolutions never had a good idea in the first place.
Karl Marx was no liberal. Among other non-starters for liberals, including the state owning most or all of the instruments of production and most other property, Marxism calls for the abolition of the family and removal of children from parents, to be raised by the state. Umm, nope.
Rightfully shocked by the horrific abuses by factory owners and operators of their workers, Marx and Friedrich Engels (whose father was one of those owners), concocted a scheme for the liberation of workers and other oppressed people. They meant well. But they were nightmare dreamers. Their plan was never executed as they explained it, and hopefully never will be. Not that the “Marxist” systems that did materialize weren’t very much worse.
With Marxism opposed to royalty, religion and capitalism, extolling the worker and other “proletariats” (common folk), the old, French “Leftist” label was slapped on it. Forget liberals, the old “Leftists” would have likely been flabbergasted and insulted by the association. Nevertheless, it stuck. And likewise the “Right Wing” was attached to traditionalists, fundamental religionists, ruthless captains of industry and any remaining royalists, in a word: conservatives.
Maybe you can already see a problem. If conservatives, more or less accurately, represent the “Right,” then the liberals who perennially so often oppose them, must be “Left?” To the simple-minded, yes, indeed. Over time, it became rock-solid “truthy.”
Importantly, the “Left-Right” logic featured another nutty assumed truism: Both sides of the spectrum get worse as they get more extreme. They both end up in some form of totalitarianism. Proof of this adage was supposedly nailed down in the run-up to World War II with the examples of the “Leftist” Soviet-style communists and the “Right-wing” Nazis and Imperial Japan.
But wait! Does this make any sense whatsoever? So, in the scheme of “Left/Right,” the murderous near-twins Hitler and Stalin are opposites? And, of the two, Stalin is the so-called “liberal?” Liberals founded the United States of America. Liberals are for religious freedom. Liberals are in favor of fair, regulated capitalism. Liberals do not support the abolition of property. Liberals are not for a classless society, just one that is not stupidly unequal. Liberals are for civil liberty and a limited government. Liberals support freedom of speech. Liberals are for liberty for all, not just for the higher rungs of a strict hierarchy. Liberals are for equality of personhood, not designated rank. Liberals are for personal autonomy. Liberals are for education for all. Liberals are for justice for all, pursuit of happiness for all. Liberals are for friendship, peace, cooperation, compassion, diversity, inclusion. Liberals are true “pro-lifers.” Liberals actually try to love their neighbors. Liberals wish to protect and defend both people and the planet. Liberals liberate the oppressed. They are not the oppressors.
And what about the notion that “Left” and “Right” get worse as they get more concentrated and “radical” or “extreme?”
We can easily visualize how that could well happen with the dour, stodgy, rigid, traditionalist, fundamentalist, religiously zealous, fearful, angry, ever suspicious of the “other,” superior-feeling, clan and hierarchy and strongman-loving, and often pugnacious and punitive and militaristic conservatives. They would just be ramping up their perennial proclivities, especially that of not playing well with others. They would just be continuing their age-old “conserving” one of the oldest traditions: Might Makes Right.
But how on Earth is it possible for the Ideology of Liberation and equality and justice and care and concern for the other, and love, to somehow do a U-turn as it gets more “extreme” and become the total opposite: vicious totalitarianism? How, again, do “extreme” liberals end up as the Soviets, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot? Keep in mind, the “Left/Right” hypothesis does not posit that it is just rogue individuals who go bad, it’s the entire system, the philosophy, the ideology that purportedly somehow insanely flips from love to hate, from magnanimity to meanness, from equality to Dear Leader.
It doesn’t. It’s not possible. The “extreme” form of liberalism would be more, better, wider, deeper, more profound liberty, equality, justice, pursuit of happiness, education, perfected government, friendship, compassion, inclusion, science, art, peace and love. Utopia? Here we come!
Can it be done? Maybe not. No one really knows. A lot of brilliant minds, including a certain Yeshua, thought it could be achieved. But we can shoot for it. If we fail, we still may create “Almostopia.” One thing for sure, the liberal “extreme” won’t remotely be any kind of totalitarianism.
So we can already perceive that this “Leftist” and “Right-Winger” nonsense is as flimsy as as a bicycle made of taffy. It’s not going to get you anywhere except into a sticky mess.
That’s not to say there is not a socio-political spectrum. There most certainly is. And it’s a lot easier to understand, and with far fewer holes than “Left/Right” taffy logic.
There are various ways to calculate and evaluate the actual political spectrum, and where any particular person or group aligns in favor or against. You can measure disposition to liberty within a civilized society, most to least. You can measure disposition to personal autonomy, greater to lesser. You can measure disposition to justice, fairest to most unfair. You can measure disposition to pursuit of happiness, fewest to most obstacles. You can measure disposition to how political power is shared, most democratic to most autocratic. You can measure disposition to equality of personhood, broad or narrow. You can measure disposition to disparity of wealth and ownership of assets, manageable or toxic. You can measure disposition to how much power and influence religious dogma has within the system, overriding or not so much at all. There are other benchmarks of this sort.
However, all of these are but characteristics of an overall socio-economic-political orientation. It can become a complex web of disparate issues, as there are innumerable positions on a wide range of topics, and most governments and economies and people vary considerably in their “comfort zone” on each and every issue. To make sense of it, we need to figure out what drives these characteristics and states into being? And what are the desires, the impulses, the beliefs, the behavior and actions behind that drive? What makes us settle, individually or collectively, at a particularly spot or range on the socio-political spectrum? Is there a correlate that connects all of this?
And this is where the whole, seemingly complex question collapses into a single, child-like answer:
The fundamental socio/political spectrum runs between selfishness and selflessness. All the other spectra are framed and bounded by this uber spectrum. The impulse of all of human culture and history can be seen in a kindergarten class. Some kids are empathetic, friendly and fun and giving, and some kids are grumpy, stingy and hitting. There you go. That’s the human condition, in a nutshell. That’s also the socio-political spectrum, a spectrum of selfishness (to varying degree) vs. selflessness (to varying degree).
The “Left/Right” spectrum does not comport to this uber spectrum for one reason: it’s nonsense.
Still not convinced? Still wanting to believe in “Left/Right?” Let’s compare the “findings” of each of these systems to see what truths they actually reveal.
According to the “Left/Right” spectrum” -
The Right believes in God and religion. The Left does not.
The Right believes in capitalism. The Left does not.
Both sides start off rather mild and meh.
Both sides get very oppressive and violent at their “extremes.”
That’s pretty much it. Those are the “truths” this system gives us. That’s the gist of the “Left/Right” spectrum. It doesn’t even address the vast bulk of real human concerns and proclivities.
The notion of an ideology getting worse as it gets more strident is only accurate for the conservative side. Yet, conservatives, in particular have long hammered this basic system as a stern warning of an impending liberal, i.e. “communist” or “socialist” takeover of our American culture. It’s been a reliable scare tactic for over one hundred years. Yeah right, the ideology that is at the center of ALL of America’s darkest chapters warning about the other side, you know, the side that has brought every stitch of progress! In reality, the United States of America has never come close to embracing classical “socialism.” The “socialist” (which could actually be rebranded “compassionate” or even “Christian”) programs it has enacted hold none of the stridency of the classic economic-political theory, and have been some of the most beneficial and popular policies in our history. Yet the USA has, indeed, experienced traumatic and tragic episodes of conservative rampage over and over and over again. And here we go again, in this very decade.
Now, according to the “Selfish/Selfless” spectrum -
The Selfish support traditions, customs, institutions, myths that serve them, particularly, and will seek to undermine or eliminate those that do not. The Selfless support traditions, customs, institutions that serve a virtuous, sustainable society, and will seek to modify or move on from those that do not.
The Selfish are clannish, insular, suspicious and excluding of the “other.” The Selfless are less clannish, more inclusive, appreciative of diversity, and open to friendship and cooperation with the “other.”
The Selfish believe the world is a dangerous and dirty place, and people are likewise dangerous, dirty, untrustworthy, sinful, and out to get them. The best thing to do with both is avoid if possible, or dominate and exploit. The Selfless have affection for both nature and the vast majority of the people of the world, while still noting the dangers of both. The best thing to do is to learn more about both.
The Selfish believe in superiority and hierarchy and class structure. They are perfectly OK with inequality, oppression and suffering of the “other.” The Selfless are dubious of any claims of superiority, as well as hierarchy and classism, and believe in equality of personhood, wide open opportunity for all, and assistance for those in need.
The Selfish tend to move toward philosophic or religious beliefs that emphasize myth, division, separateness, justifications for punitive behavior, an “eye for an eye” justice, and after-life reward. The Selfless tend to prefer philosophic or religious beliefs that emphasize togetherness, unity, forgiveness, gratitude, compassionate justice, love for one another, and worldly care and concern.
The Selfish are easily disgusted and repulsed, largely because they tend to rigidly emphasize “purity.” Purity of sex and gender, race and state, which can accentuate prejudice, bigotry, sexism, toxic masculinity and femininity, racism, homophobia and xenophobia. The Selfless are far less easily disgusted or repulsed, and place much less emphasis on outdated or prudish notions of “purity,” which helps render them less susceptible to such prejudice and bigotry.
The Selfish are emotionally-driven, prone to elevated fear, anger, jealousy, greed, and likely to act out these impulses in ways that can become violent. The “leaders” of this contingent are experts at knowing which buttons to push to elicit such responses. The Selfless are more in control of and less affected by such “negative” emotions, and find better results from the emotional responses of empathy, compassion, kindness and affection.
The Selfish love “authority” figures and schematics, and eagerly accept an autocratic strongman, or strong clan, rule. The Selfless are highly resistant to such autocratic systems, believing in democracy as the best form of government, with representation from the common folk not some authority figure or group.
Even as they often think of themselves as “rugged individualists,” the Selfish expect conformity of belief and behavior among their adherents, with deference to authoritarian figures and traditional, self-serving myths. The Selfless recoil at such constraints and demands, and welcome non-conformity, actual individuality and diversity of ways of being.
The Selfish prefer a simplistic view of the world; they crave predictability and eschew new experiences and change unless it is change favorable to a restoration of an older status-quo or other alteration that benefits them to an outsized degree over any “others.” The Selfless understand and react better to novel experience, nuance, complexity, variability, unpredictability, and welcome change that works better for all.
The Selfish believe in “Law and Order” and “justice” that advantages them. They have no problem with “Law and Order” that is unjust or cruel, as long as it is being dealt to the “other.” They love the death penalty. The Selfless believe in law and order and justice that is fair and humane to all. They despise the death penalty.
The Selfish believe quality of life, including basic necessities of housing, sustenance, education, healthcare, opportunity should be a privilege earned (even if merely by being born into the right circumstances). The Selfless believe these are rights of citizenship that a civilized state will assist to provide if necessary.
The Selfish believe education and media should reinforce their own approved cultural myths and traditions, and that otherwise it can represent a threat to their “way of life.” This is why science is so often doubted or denigrated. Education should even be discouraged for certain segments of the population, and instead religious indoctrination substituted. The Selfless believe that the “truth can set you free,” and encourage all citizens to get as much formal education as possible and continue to be a student and learning all your life, including learning how to know if information is true or not.
The Selfish do not believe in personal autonomy, but rather that each individual, in some manner, is the property of the patriarch, the clan, the race, the religion, the state, the authority. Your body is not completely yours. The “authority” has the right to intervene. Even thinking for yourself is often discouraged or forbidden. The Selfless reject this claim outright, believing that physical and mental and spiritual autonomy is an inherent right of the individual insofar as it does not harm others.
The Selfish extend their “separateness, “superiority,” easy disgust and repulsion to nature, regarding the natural world as a dumb commodity, something to to own, to use, to extract and/or profit from. The Selfless regard themselves as part of the natural world, and nature as a wondrous, living entity, to be nurtured, defended and adored for its own sake, used only with care and concern for proper use and sustainability.
The Selfish, believing themselves to be the “true” or “real” believers and rightful beneficiaries of any particular system, can easily justify forcing those beliefs upon others. All oppressors throughout history have been of this selfish mindset. As with personal autonomy, the Selfless renounce efforts to force any ideology or philosophy upon an individual or group within the framework of liberal democracy.
There’s much more, but you get the idea. The real spectrum is not Left or Right, but one of selfishness/selflessness. Not that most people, or systems for that matter, on either side, are very far along in either direction. Not every conservative is very selfish, or any particular liberal very selfless, the latter requiring, you know, actual effort. But they could be, if conditions are right… or wrong.
There is an imaginary point, square in the middle, where it’s just nothing. No selfishness. No selflessness. No impetus or impulse whatsoever. That’s dreamless sleep, literally and figuratively. You are unconscious, or just don’t give a damn, about anything. But most of us, in our waking state, are on the move, on any particular issue dodging and weaving, moving up and down the scale, away from that imaginary point one way or the other. The microsecond you go this way, you are one of the Selfless, when you go that way, you are the Selfish. You are generally believing and behaving on one side or the other of that dead zone all the time. Make the right choice.
Of course, both Selfishness and Selflessness, being age-old conditions, impulses, inclinations, indoctrinations, beliefs, traditions, customs, ways of life, have their own socio-political homes. Conservatism is the Ideology of Selfishness. Liberalism is the Ideology of Liberation, which in its nobler form is heroically selfless. The true liberal does not merely liberate them self and their ilk, they liberate the “other.” The conservative is always seeking ways to oppress. You can see the perennial clashing dynamic.
[NOTE: I realize that the very terms “conservative” and “liberal” can get very confusing, and mean different things in different cultures. I use these terms on the basis of their etymology and essential impulses through history —and according to English language definitions, synonyms and antonyms. If these don’t quite fit in your culture, substitute the terms that best fit your “selfish” and “selfless” ideological parties.]
As I write in my essay, The Whole Liberal, it is perfectly normal to be liberal on one issue and conservative on the other. I said “normal,” not fine. Whenever you step into conservative mode, you have joined the selfish. Yet most conservatives are liberal about something or another.
Now, c’mon folks, here we are not talking about being “liberal” in handing out gifts to your grandkids, or being “conservative” in being cautious or prudent with your retirement fund or around power tools. We are talking about bigger picture socio-political philosophy and mindset, beliefs and behavior around others, disposition toward the wider world, and voting habits. We are talking about how you think the world should work, and who/what should, by rights, benefit.
In the chart below we see a more realistic alternative to the lame and erroneous “Left/Right” myth. The Selfish/Selfless spectrum. As being selfish is so much easier for anyone, effectively the human default disposition, it should be no surprise that most of the socio-economic-political systems of history have been some variety of conservatism. All were/are “conserving” advantage, privilege and power for a special elite of some sort, while everyone else was in some ways or means oppressed. The “Left/Right” scheme is right about one thing. Basic, run-of-the-mill “conservatism” is the selfish gateway to much worse. Not that recent emissaries of that comparatively diluted variation haven’t been harmful enough. Had enough of the Handmaiden’s Tale Supreme Court yet?
There is only one socio-economic-political system that has even attempted to thwart this long and tragic tradition of selfishness. That is the liberal model that idealizes democracy, liberty, equality of personhood, opportunity, justice, care and concern for all. The forms of liberalized government and economic systems that have advanced furthest toward Almostopia have been those which accepted responsibility for assisting the “pursuit of happiness” for all of their citizens, and protecting them to a large degree from assault by outside enemy, inside bully, unfortunate circumstance or mercenary market.
I fully realize conservatives, moderates, even some liberals don’t want to believe this. I didn’t want to believe it for the longest. But we believe in bullshit at our own peril. The evidence of its veracity is history, itself, and any current event you want to examine. Every villain in history was of the conservative stripe. Conservatives condemned Socrates. Conservatives crucified Jesus. Conservatives burned the Library at Alexandria. Conservatives burned Joan. Conservatives imprisoned Galileo. Conservatives spawned the Reign of Terror. Conservatives perpetrated the Inquisition. Conservatives rampaged against the Indigenous people of the Americas, Australia and elsewhere. Conservatives were against the formation of the United States of America. Conservatives “conserved” slavery. Conservatives were the KKK. Conservatives started both World Wars. Conservatives caused the Great Depression. Conservatives murdered JFK and MLK Jr. and RFK. Conservatives lie their asses off. Conservatives tried to overthrow American democracy. Conservatives don’t give a damn about the environment. The woeful list of crimes against humanity and the Earth goes on and on and on.
Currently, American conservatives are having a ball showing off just how selfish they can be. They still have a ways to go to match their Tory and Confederate ideological brethren. But they have found the perfect avatar for their ideology in Donald Trump, who has never had even a fleeting thought about the welfare of anyone beyond his own hooded eyelids. He is, by far, the most selfish human being ever to achieve national prominence. And other professional conservatives have a compendium of plans, called Project 2025, they will put into action when and if the Great Orange Ego returns to the White House. It all amounts to, in their words, “repealing the 20th Century.”
Imagine that! We will be sprinting down that road toward dystopia! It will be a nightmare for almost every American. But a dream come true for the clever thugs ginning up the Ideology of Selfishness. What do they get out of it? What conservatives always try to conserve: their own advantage, privilege and power. And they don’t even care if what they rule is a wasted country on wrecked planet.
Whether we ever come close or not, I, for one, would feel a whole lot better about the sanity and morality of the human species if we were instead on a course headed toward Almostopia!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
No Hate.
No Violence.
All Life is Sacred.
The Universe is Magnificent & Beautiful.
Love is the Way.
Copyright 2024, Rusty Reid
