Common Sense Ethics
  • Blog
  • About
  • My Books
  • Parenting Resources
  • Personal Growth Resources
  • Book Summaries
  • Contact Me

How the Left-Right Political Spectrum Decieves Us

9/16/2017

2 Comments

 
Picture
Observe most political debates and you'll see people arguing based on how far to the "left," or the "right," they are. This left-right spectrum is uncritically applied as a basis for classifying types of governments and political ideologies - it has become the only popular framework that we have for evaluating politics. Seems harmless enough, right? 

Except that the left-right spectrum is really a false dichotomy that renders the positions of both "sides," contradictory, while helping to control public debate. There are serious problems with the left-right spectrum as framework for understanding politics. ​A critical look reveals that the spectrum is incomplete, incoherent, leads to unnecessary polarization, and reinforces belief in hierarchy.

We need to confront the fact that the positions of both "sides," are riddled with contradictions. On this extremely flawed basis, people attack the so-called other side as though politics were some kind of team sport. In order to end such narrow and destructive partisanism, let's start thinking about whether the left-right spectrum is accurate rather than just assuming it is. (Hint: it's not, as we will see).  
​

What's Wrong With the Left-Right Political Spectrum? 

Designating political ideologies as left or right arose historically based on the seating arrangements of Royalist and Anti-royalist factions in the Assembly during the French Revolution.[1] The left-right spectrum solidified in the 19th Century with the emergence of Marxism. The splitting of politics into left versus right is now a mature dialectic, (thesis and antithesis) so ingrained in many people's minds, that it is more or less assumed to be true. 

The typical left-right spectrum consists of Marxism/authoritarian communism on the far left, and fascism on the far right, with liberal democracy in the middle. Every other position is reduced to a more moderate form of the aforementioned extremes along the continuum. No matter where a political ideology falls on this scale, a strong centralized government, whether left, right, or centrist, is presumed. There are no other options, and there is no place for more decentralized forms of government such as a limited constitutional republic, tribal government, direct democracy, or anarchy (no government).

​So the problem here is that the scale and vastly incomplete. It's a false dichotomy. It presupposes that there necessarily must be some form of hierarchical government. You are either authoritarian left, authoritarian right, or authoritarian centrist, which neatly reinforces belief in hierarchy in the first place. 

​In this brilliant piece, philosopher Crispin Sartwell lays it out more eloquently than I have: 

This spectrum stretches from authoritarianism on the one end to authoritarianism on the other, with authoritarianism in between. It makes anything that is not that incomprehensible...The arrangement of positions along the left-right axis—progressive to reactionary, or conservative to liberal, communist to fascist, socialist to capitalist, or Democrat to Republican—is conceptually confused, ideologically tendentious, and historically contingent. And any position anywhere along it is infested by contradictions. [2]
​

Contradictory Positions

One source of contradiction is that historically, the left-right political spectrum has pitted the state against the corporation or capital. However this distinction never made any sense to me, and it makes even less sense now when you consider countries like modern China in which the state encourages rabid capital growth, as Sartwell points out. 

Moreover, the extreme left (authoritarian communism) and right (fascism) actually both consist of total state control (authoritarianism).
 The only difference between the poles is that with communism, the state is the corporation, and with fascism, the corporation is the state.

The extreme left and right, despite being polar opposites, actually have a lot more in common with each other than they do with a limited constitutional republic, (America at the time of founding for example).

Sartwell explains this problem brilliantly, noting that all hierarchies tend to coincide:

The basic set of distinctions on both sides rests on the idea that state and corporation, or political and economic power, can be pulled apart and set against each other. This is, I propose, obviously false, because hierarchies tend to coincide. Let's call that PHC, or Principle of Hierarchical Coincidence. A corollary of PHC is that resources flow toward political power, and political power flows toward resources; or, the power of state and of capital typically appear in conjunction and are mutually reinforcing.  


What this means in layman's terms is that like tends to attract like, power tends to attract more power rather than eschewing it. Instead of the state acting as a check or a balance to corporate power, it actually tends to strengthen it. The corporation also strengthens the power of the state, without which, monopoly and corporate growth on the scale we typically witness would not be possible. 

The left-right spectrum produces all kinds of other practical inconsistencies and contradictions as well. What causes and principles the so-called left and right seem to support constantly change from year to year and decade to decade. As Sartwell notes, it's historically contingent. It's often quite hard to define what a progressive (left) or a conservative (right) even is, except using a very broad and shifting definition. The problem is with the arbitrary nature of the spectrum itself. Sartwell notes:


It's never a matter of simply starting afresh, employing no assumptions; both sides are engaged in interpreting and re-applying existing traditions, and both sides are doing that under constantly mutating conditions, so that each reapplication is a new and potentially controversial interpretation. 

To show how muddled things get along the left-right spectrum, consider the libertarian position, which doesn't really fit at all. Proponents of libertarianism tend to be economically very far to the "right," but socially "left," often being in favor of peace, legalizing drugs, prison reform, and other causes historically associated with the far left.

Some polls may indicate that the majority of Americans actually tend to be both economically conservative yet socially liberal. Yet as Sartwell notes, such a position, even if it's the majority position, doesn't make a whole lot of sense using the left-right spectrum. Consider:


The left pole, meanwhile, could be a stateless society of barter and localism; or a world of equality in which people are not subordinated by race, gender, and sexuality; or a pervasive welfare state; or a Khmer Rouge reeducation regime. The Nazi Party, Catholic Church, hereditary aristocracy, Ayn Rand capitalists, and redneck gun enthusiasts are all on the same side of the left-right spectrum. So are hacktivists, food-stamp officials, anti-globalization activists, anarcho-primitivists, and advocates of a world government. It would be hard to come up with a less coherent or less useful way of thinking about politics.


Alternative Spectrums

​There are probably many alternative spectrums that could replace what we have; Sartwell notes that the current spectrum:

Narrows all alternatives to variations on hierarchy, structures of inequality, or profoundly unjust distributions of power and wealth. There are alternatives, and the one I would suggest is this: We should arrange political positions according to whether they propose to increase hierarchy or to dismantle it.

So an alternative political spectrum, Sartwell notes, could be based on how much various systems tend to control people, or conversely, how much they propose to dismantle hierarchies of power and wealth. What this would look like is a vertical scale with the most hierarchical or authoritarian systems (whether political or economic) at the top, down to the least hierarchical, self-governing and decentralized at the bottom.

At the top of the scale would be authoritarian communism, fascism, absolute monarchy, caesarism, and so forth. Next would come socialism and progressivism. Limited constitutional republics, Classical liberalism, and libertariansim would be further towards the bottom, anti-authoritarian end. Finally direct democracy, tribalism, self-government, and all forms of anarchy (collectivist, syndicalist, market, etc.) would all be together at the very bottom of the anti-authoritarian scale.

A vertical, hierarchy-based political spectrum, is a much more complete and useful tool for evaluating political ideologies because it can actually include all positions, both political and economic, based on how hierarchical they are, not on some arbitrary definition of left versus right.


Polarization and Control of Debate

​While the left-right spectrum obviously isn't the only factor which produces narrow partisanism, narrow partisanism naturally results from the inherent polarization of the left-right spectrum.

The spectrum itself, as a preexisting framework which isn't complete, limits critical thinking and prevents individuals from evaluating political ideas based on a more complete framework. Rather, ideas are evaluated from a knee-jerk perspective based on how well they fit into the individual's predetermined belief structure within the false left-right paradigm.

It's rare to meet someone not operating from a knee-jerk perspective quite frankly. Often there is the unstated assumption that if my "side," of the spectrum or my political party is doing it, then it must be ok, instead of acknowledgement that both sides (left and right) are often at fault, and that both sides tend to want more and more control over people.


When you think about it, the left-right political spectrum is quite an excellent tool for controlling public debate through an obviously false dichotomy, and also for reinforcing belief in hierarchies.

Certainly some people will naturally favor hierarchies, but that they are good or bad shouldn't be the default assumption; just that hierarchies exist and that at the very least, we should be thinking more critically about them.
The left-right political spectrum has us fighting with each other, rather than questioning whether hierarchies themselves aren't a large part of the problems facing humanity.

For us to begin having more objective political discourse, it is important to evaluate ideologies in a more all-encompassing way.
The left-right spectrum is a trap for the mind. It creates false dichotomy, contradiction, and unnecessary polarization. We are doomed to continue fighting each other, and learning nothing new, if we remain dependent on this hopelessly flawed political framework.

Sources:
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
2. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-left-right-political-spectrum-is-bogus/373139/

~

You May Also Like:
Is Democracy a Utopian Ideal?

How to Make Yourself Immune to Propaganda
Are You a Disordered Philosopher?

2 Comments
Winton link
9/16/2017 05:07:06 pm

I agree with nearly all that.
However, I doubt this point made by Cripin Sartwell:
"The idea that free markets are historically distinguished from large, powerful states is an ahistorical ideology shared by the capitalist right and the communist left."
The only free market that I can think of that is supported by a large powerful state is Hong Kong.

Reply
Leah
9/16/2017 06:12:41 pm

Hi Winton,

Thanks for the good feedback!

What counter examples to Sartwell's argument can you think of?

I'm confused by the wording of his quote actually. The way it is worded, I would tend to agree with it. The larger the state, the more their willingness to meddle with the market or collude with corporations, right? So if hierarchies tend to coincide, free markets would be more of a product of decentralization.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Don't Miss A Post!

    Sign up to receive updates and special announcements!

    Thank You For Subscribing to Common Sense Ethics!

    You have successfully joined my email list. 

    .
    Picture

    About Me:

    Thank you for your interest in Common Sense Ethics! I'm Leah, a librarian and freelance editor with a background in history and philosophy.
    ​

    Most Popular Blog Posts:

    3 Unpopular (But Likely Correct) Opinions According to Cicero

    Beauty in Philosophy, Ethics and Art: A Conversation with David Fideler

    5 Ways to Counterbalance an Ugly and Barren Cultural Landscape

    How Propaganda Makes us Psychologically Totalitarian

    5 Things That You Need to be Happy According to Cicero

    5 Wholesome Character Education Books to Read to Your Child

    Why is Politics so Divisive?

    9 Great Critical Thinking Books for Children and Teens

    Why You Should Create Your Own Culture to Be Happier

    How to Make Yourself Immune to Propaganda

    ​The 10 Best Philosophy Books For Beginners

    The 13 Types of Modern Stoics...Which One Are You?

    How to be a Badass According to Cicero

    Quick Guide: Understanding and Applying Stoic Ethics in Modern Life

    Download My Stoic Printables For Tough Days:

    Picture

    Watch Common Sense Ethics On YouTube:


    Support CSE:

    Picture
    Picture
    Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com


    Topics:

    All
    According To Cicero Series
    Aesthetics
    Alasdair Macintyre
    Albert Einstein
    American Revolution
    Ancient Greece
    Ancient Rome
    Anger
    Antiauthoritarianism
    Applied Philosophy
    Aristotle
    Assertiveness
    Beauty
    Book Reviews
    Books And Reading
    Buddhism
    Carl Jung
    Cause And Effect
    Character Flaws
    Cicero
    Classical Education
    Cognitive Bias
    Consequence Based Ethics
    Consumerism
    Cosmology
    Covert Manipulation
    Critical Thinking
    Culture
    Cynicism
    Death
    Descartes
    Destructive Behavior
    Economics
    Edmund Burke
    Education
    Egalitarianism
    Emotions
    Epictetus
    Ethical Objectivism
    Family
    Fortitude
    Francis-bacon
    Freedom
    Freedom Of Speech
    Free Speech
    George-r-r-martin
    George-r-r-martin
    God
    Golden Rule
    Good Character
    Government
    Gratitude
    Happiness
    Heraclitus
    History
    Immanuel Kant
    Individual Rights
    Information Literacy
    Inner Life
    Integrity
    Introspection
    Intuition
    Iron Law Of Oligarchy
    Jaques Ellul
    John Locke
    John Sellars
    John Stuart Mill
    Jules Evans
    Karma
    Left-right Brain Balance
    Left-right Political Spectrum
    Liberal Democracy
    Literature
    Logic
    Marcus Aurelius
    Marriage
    Marx
    Mastering Emotion
    Media
    Metaethics
    Mindfullness
    Moderation/temperance
    Modern Stoicism
    Moral Relativism
    Moral Universalism
    Mortality
    Movies
    Musonius Rufus
    Musonius-rufus
    Natural Law
    Natural Rights
    Natural World
    Negative Freedom
    Negative-rights
    Neoplatonism
    Non Aggression
    Normative Ethics
    Normative-ethics
    Objectivismsubjectivism
    Oligarchy
    Parenting
    Personal Development
    Philosophy For Beginners
    Pierre Hadot
    Plato
    Politics
    Propaganda
    Psychology
    Pythagoreanism
    Relaxed Mental State
    Renaissance
    Responsibility
    Rhetoric
    Right Vs. Wrong Actions
    Robert Nozik
    Roger Scruton
    Self Defense
    Self Discipline
    Seneca
    Sexuality
    Simple Living
    Socrates
    Socratic Method
    Stoicism
    Stoic Meditation
    Stoic Virtues
    Television
    The Shadow
    Thomas Hobbes
    Traditionalism
    Trivium
    Utilitarianism
    Videos
    Violence
    Virtue Ethics
    War

    Archives:

    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013


    ​Book of the Month: Journal Like a Stoic by Brittany Polat

    Picture


    ​Personal Growth Resources:

    Picture
    Use this in-depth questionnaire to learn more about your faults and subconscious motivations.


    Understanding and Applying Stoic Ethics In Modern Life:

    Picture


    ​Follow Common Sense Ethics on Pinterest:

    Picture


    ​Join the Stoic Parents Facebook Group:

    Picture
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.