I’ve spent a little time thinking about the concepts of left/right, and decided to do some research on the web to find out why we define people one way or the other, and what that really means. I’ve come across a couple of discussion groups weighing the different things that determine where one sits on some graph. And everyone wants to have a graph. For example, the Nolan Chart and others attempt to define axes which place a person’s individual philosophy in a field relative to their strength. Nolan used Economic Freedom and Personal Freedom as his measures, as if the two were distinct. His version of Libertarianism is at the maximum for both, which makes him pure, I guess. I don’t see how any freedom is separated from any other. Without economic freedom, do you really have personal freedom?
The best I can come up with after observing many different cultures, societies, and governments is a one-dimensional plot. Collective is on the left, and individual is on the right. I know the theorists will be disappointed. It should be at least two-dimensional, with maybe even three or four. I agree that probably ten dimensions would be inadequate to explain human philosophy. So, I’ll settle for the simplest way to describe what I see.
I think it fits quite well. The far ends have little to do with the original left vs. right, which was merely a description of where the Revolutionaries and Aristocrats sat in France’s government. And it shatters a few conceptions we’ve all grown to know and love.
For example, I am religious in the same way Dubya is. I have some strong beliefs. Instantly, some would jump up and scream, “Right-wing fanatic!” Hmmm. Perhaps. But religion, to me, is a personal thing. Individual. That does put me to the right on my scale. But my religion is different from that of Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden. Theirs are group religions–the collective. That puts them together on the LEFT. Organized religion moves that direction because it is run by human beings. Humans are social, and church is a social affair. And with that, you sometimes end up with folks who like power, and the group environment breeds that. Any group. Union, church, PAC, 527, NAACP, NOW, faculty group. Any group.
Government becomes wrapped up in this for the same reason.
Individuals are often shunned in our society. We don’t know how to deal with them. We want them to JOIN. But people who are individualistic aren’t joiners. In my day, kids rebelled with long hair. Today they do it with tatoos and piercings. Each thinks he is being a radical individualist. No. They’re joining. Just like the “suits” they may profess to hate. But they are free to think they are being individualists.
Our Constitution was written to protect the individual from government interference in his life. The ideal of that document would be my definition of far right. Yet the Founders knew there was no Utopia. So the Constitution provided for a government while limiting its power. That, in itself, moves our nation to the left of ideal. Some cooperative effort was necessary to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.”
Communism, the final goal of socialism, will be attained once a socialist world exists and the need for government “withers away.” Communism and socialism are the same. One has a government, one doesn’t. Both would fall on the extreme left as the collective is everything in those systems. Individuals do not exist. A person is simply a part of the whole. That becomes less and less an issue as you move farther right on my scale. Fascism is the opposite side from Communism of the socialism coin–strong government in a socialistic environment.
So, where do our current political parties lie on this axis? Both are far from the right, as each requires some modicum of group interaction and cohesiveness. Yet the Democratic Party is more apt to celebrate group identification and a person’s merits as defined by their group. “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child.” And it is not surprising that the Democrats have far more groups who support them. They believe that the government is better able to provide for the common welfare–not just promote it. In this way they are closer to the socialist parties in Europe.
Republicans fall somewhere between Democrats and the Constitutional mandate, although they also promote many things which could be called collective.
So, when I write about the left or right, understand that my perspective has more to do with a person’s view of individual rather than group liberties. I find groups abhorrant, and avoid them whenever possible. I’m not a joiner.
And when it comes to politics, on my scale I’m farther right than either political party.