Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor
The Crisis Papers
No question about it: We the People of the United States are now sharply divided into two hostile political factions, variously labeled as “liberal vs. conservative,” “left vs. right,” and (my preferred designation), “progressive vs. regressive.” Let a stranger utter just a couple of sentences of political opinion, and you will usually have a pretty good idea with which faction he identifies himself.
(There is a third part of our population, perhaps the largest: the a-political. When asked the question, “what do you think of the political ignorance and apathy of the American public,” they will likely reply “I don’t know and I don’t care.”)
The ongoing political debate in our country exemplifies one of the most remarkable paradoxes of language: namely, that while we routinely use abstract words without difficulty and are well understood when we do – such abstract words as “love,” “beauty,” “justice,” “freedom” – we find it very difficult to define them, when challenged to do so.
This paradox is well known to philosophers. For example, Plato wrote at length about all the above concepts, and often came to no firm conclusion. In fact his best known work, “The Republic,” is a book-length attempt to define “justice.”
In this essay, I will attempt the difficult task of defining “The Right” and “The Left” (and its synonyms) – concepts which are employed in public discourse with little apparent difficulty. In this brief space, I can only offer a grossly over-simplified analysis and some unqualified generalizations – a first approximation. For when we scrupulously examine the polar political concepts of “Right” and “Left” as they are used today, we encounter a great deal of vagueness, ambiguity, and even contradiction. Thus, after I have set down my ten brief and simplified distinguishing elements of “liberalism” and (so-called) “conservatism,” it is necessary that I offer five qualifications.
That task that I’ve begun here can not be accomplished in the space of a brief essay. It requires a book – and in fact that book is in progress. Subsequent essays in this space will be drawn from that book,Conscience of a Progressive, as work progresses.
One final note, before we proceed: In this analysis, I will use the contrasting terms, “Right vs. Left” and “progressive vs. regressive.” However, I will avoid the terms “conservative” and “liberal.” As I have argued elsewhere (here and here), the word “conservative,” in its traditional sense, simply does not correctly apply to the contemporary policies of The Right. As for “liberal,” that word has been so abused by decades of assault from the right, that it no longer serves to communicate its original meaning.
I propose the following ten pairs of distinguishing characteristics of “The Right” and “The Left.”
1. Is society a collection of private individuals or is it a community?
The Right: Society is an aggregate of self-interested individuals. Associations within the society are personal and voluntary. Social progress issues from private, self-interested behavior. Strictly speaking: “there is no such thing as society – there are individuals and there are families.” (Margaret Thatcher). “Good for each, good for all; bad for each, bad for all.”
The Left: Society is a community: “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage [which] makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts.” (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, p. 4) Common goods are achieved through individual constraint and sacrifice. “Good for Each, Bad for all; Bad for each, good for all.
2. Cui Bono? Who are the beneficiaries of the policies?
The Right: A “Master Morality” (the term is from Nietzsche). Policies and rules are designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful few who own and control national wealth at the expense of the masses who produce the wealth. For example,: George W. Bush’s 2006 Budget Proposal and his tax “reforms.”
The Left: A Social-Democratic Morality. Policies and rules are designed to result in the greatest good for the greatest number in a regime of “equal justice under law.” Examples: FDR’s “New Deal” and LBJ’s “Great Society.”
3. What is the function of government?
The Right: The function of government is to protect the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property – nothing more. “Government is not the Solution.” (Ronald Reagan, 1981). “Government is the most dangerous institution known to man.” (John Hospers). “Who is best qualified to spend your money? You, or the government?” (George W. Bush).
The Left: Government “of, by, and for the people” is a legitimate surrogate of the people’s interests and a protector of the people’s rights. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence, 1776). Citizens must constantly be on guard against abuses of office. However, the answer to bad government is better government, not the abolition of government.
4. What are the justifications for taxation?
The Right (i.e., the Libertarian faction): Taxes for any purpose other than the protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property, are a theft of personal property. (But for the religious right, tax revenue may also expended to compel private morality).
The Left: Taxes are legitimate dues that we pay for civilized society. (Oliver Wendell. Holmes). Taxes can be legitimately levied to support such community goods as education, the arts, national parks, basic research, and physical infrastructure. In general, to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” (Preamble, Constitution of the United States).
5. What is the function of free markets in society?
The Right: Social problems can best be solved through the unconstrained action of free markets. Private initiative and privatization of property produces results superior to government action. (Maslow’s Rule: To a carpenter, all problems can be solved with a hammer. Corollary: To the right, all problems can be solved by the free market).
The Left: Privatization and free markets, while valuable ingredients of society, must not be absolutes. They must be regulated for the common good by agencies of popular government. Unregulated free markets are self-eliminating, for their natural tendency is toward monopolies and the end of competition. Thus the necessity of anti-trust regulation.
6. Is wealth generated in society from the top down (“trickle down”) or from the bottom-up (“percolate up”)?
The Right: “Trickle-down.” Prosperity results from investment by the wealthy. “The rising tide lifts all boats.” “I never was given a job by a poor man.” (Sen. Phil Gramm).
The Left: Wealth “percolates up” from the labor and innovation of an educated work-force.
7. What is the role of language in society and politics?
The Right: Language is a political weapon, to be “shaped” to the advantage of the ruling elites. "Newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984 shows the way. (See "Newspeak Lives!" and"The Language Trap.")
The Left: Language is the primary (“keystone”) social institution. The distortion of language leads to social disorder, public alienation from politics, and economic inefficiency. In other words, the left takes an authentically “conservative” view of language.
8. How are human conduct and society morally evaluated?
The Right: Simple, dualistic view of human nature, morality, society and social problems. (“You are either with us or against us.” G. W. Bush).
The Left: Complex view of human nature, morality, society and social problems. Rules and principles often conflict and must be “bent” to accommodate circumstances. (The Religious Right derides this as “situation ethics” and “moral relativism”).
9. Political methodology.
The Right: Dogmatic approach to policy. “Top down:” unyielding principles applied to particular circumstances. “Unconfused by the facts.”
The Left: Pragmatic and empirical. “Reality based:” i.e., willing to be “instructed” by the real world. Principles adapted in the face of newly discovered facts and newly invented technology. Policies tried, and if they fail, are revised or even abandoned.
10. Moral perspective:
The Right: Egocentric point of view. Society viewed and evaluated through “the mind’s I.” The interests of the individual are supreme.
The Left: Moral Point of View. Society viewed and evaluated from the perspective of the “ideal observer” of the society as a whole, without advantage accorded any individual unless that advantage works to the benefit of all. (Equal opportunity, blind justice).
From these elements arise the contrasting policies of The Right and The Left, regarding such issues as the minimum wage, Social Security, worker protection, legal liability (torts), and environmental protection.
Some qualifications:
1. Political opinion is in fact distributed along a continuum – a “spectrum” – thus between the extreme Right and Left are the “centrists” and “moderates.” Because the above list suggests a polar dichotomy of political opinion, it is a distortion.
2. Accordingly, these elements are not “defining characteristics,” rather they are “symptoms.” (“Defining characteristics” are attributes that something must have for a word to correctly apply to it. For example, “unmarried,” “adult” and “male” are defining characteristics of the word “bachelor.”) Because these “elements” are not defining, a “progressive” or a “regressive” individual may exhibit many but not all of the traits attributed above to The Right and The Left. To cite a medical analogy, these traits are like “symptoms” that comprise a “syndrome.” Not all symptoms need be present to confirm a diagnosis.
3. To further complicate matters, there are strong disagreements among the factions that comprise “The Right” and “The Left” – within each “family,” so to speak. For example, the libertarian right opposes all legal restrictions on personal conduct (e.g., drug laws, sodomy laws, obscenity restrictions, banning abortion, etc.). The religious right, on the other hand, advocates the criminalization of “sin”.
4. These traits are not necessarily exclusive. A political position might “mix” both “right” and “left” traits, and do so consistently. Surely The Right affirms, for example, that workers produce wealth (“percolate up”), and The Left acknowledges the necessity of private investment in a thriving economy (“trickle-down”). (Only the radical left, e.g., the communists, would deny the necessity of private investment). The distinction is in the relative importance The Right and The Left assign, respectively, to private investment and to labor.
5. Finally, because this list has been drawn from a progressive point of view, regressives would surely object to several of “The Right” elements, listed above. Most notably, they would strongly object to the characterization of “The Right” as a “master morality.” Most regressives sincerely believe, or at the very least emphatically affirm in their public pronouncements, that their policies (notably “trickle down” and minimalist government) bring about “the greater good for the greatest number” of citizens. I will argue that this assertion is a delusion at best, and a fraud at worst. Examine each policy of The Right and ask, “Cui Bono?” – who benefits? – and the answer will almost invariably be “the privileged few.” An apparent exception would be The Right’s support for the agenda of the religious right – opposition to gay rights, advocacy of obscenity laws, the banning of abortion, etc. – but even these policies are also devised to benefit the oligarchy of wealth and privilege, for they are adopted to secure the enlistment of the essential “foot soldiers” of the Right, the evangelical Christians, whose votes are an essential ingredient of the political power of The Right.
The list is offered to progressives as an inventory of “targets” – of doctrines of the Right to be criticized, and of The Left to be defended. But to be of much use, these elements must be elaborated and examined – which is why I am writing my book.
As you read this list of “elements” and the qualifications which follow, you may think of some refinements and additions. By all means, share them with me with an e-mail to this address: crisispapers@hotmail.com . This is, after all, a work in progress.
Copyright 2005, by Ernest Partridge
No comments:
Post a Comment