Neither Left nor Right but Irish

The idea that there is a left-right political index, outside of which no flavour of political opinion may exist, puts one in mind of Noam Chomsky’s insight:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

By far the most vocal proponents of this dualistic perspective are those on the left, as well they might be, since it is the left which decides what is left wing, and therefore the remainder is determined to be right wing. An adherence to this belief is a core pillar in maintaining not just the power but the bare relevance of the left wing in all of its many incarnations.

Others may add tendencies towards libertarianism, totalitarianism, anarchism or other -isms but the underlying system of classification remains unchanged.

However a brief examination of how the left defines itself quickly demolishes almost all of its claims to having a unique political identity. Social policies supporting both welfare and medical assistance for the very poorest and most vulnerable can be reasonably said to have if not originated with then were certainly enacted and enforced by the Catholic Church as early as the second century AD.

A stranger to this world, upon being given an introduction to the social doctrine of the Church, could be forgiven for thinking it a very left wing organisation indeed! And yet the left almost entirely despises and seeks to undermine the Church at every turn. Other individuals, groups and organisations predating any idea of political left and right while holding at least partially identical beliefs certainly also existed.

Contradictions

Contradictions and cognitive dissonances abound – Stalin, once the arbiter of what was to be considered left and what should therefore be seen as right wing, cheerfully signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Adolf Hitler in order to divide up Eastern Europe between the two regimes.

Hitler himself nationalised many industries and like Mussolini, was seen by many as a modernising and progressive individual before World War Two. His party was strongly supported in their rise by the left in Germany, demonstrating that one can be both a Communist and a Nazi simultaneously. Both sides busied themselves attacking and effectively destroying people who tended to reject the left-right spectrum, giving birth to the first Antifa organisations in the process.

“Left” and “Right”, “Progressive” and “Conservative”, are not descriptors with much value today, if they ever were. GK Chesterton reflected wryly upon the unipolar nature of these beliefs by observing,

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.

Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

A useful classification

So amidst all of this confusion, how can we usefully classify left, right, and other? In order to answer this question it might be productive to examine where they originated and how they were subsequently popularised.

The terms "Left" and "Right" first appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the Ancien Regime to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. The terrible events, massacres and brutality which occurred in France at that time helped to copperfasten the divide.

Karl Marx followed up by codifying the ideals and praxis of the left with his writing, which was then seized upon as a kind of Bible or as it was termed, a Manifesto, an ideological call to action, and this has persisted ever since as the root and foundation of the political left.

So we can apply an Alexandrian solution to the Gordian problem of defining the left’s shifting identities by simply acknowledging that all left wing groups or organisations which wish to take on a left wing mantle have one thing in common – an understanding that they lean upon, and refer ultimately to, the works of Karl Marx and his successors. That is the only common thread.

By this metric we can see how the classification of others as “right wing” can be reduced to their rejection or dismissal of the works of Marx et al.

It’s not simply about the foundations of course, but also about the means and ultimately the desired results that left wing groups are aiming towards, all of which tend to bear strong similarities to one another.

Supporting positive policies

One of several issues with the self-described left is that it rarely supports positive policies as good in and of themselves, but rather as vehicles to carry these organisations closer to their actual goals – usually without the awareness or conscious co-operation of their supporters, those who signed on for the headline policies without understanding the fine print.

This often leads to strange outcomes where a left wing movement will support goals apparently in contradiction to other claimed goals, simply because they feel it will move them closer to their true goals – referring again, although not exclusively by any means, to things like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the forcible dismantling of workers’ unions in the Soviet Union.

Their treatment of Russian unions in particular became an absurdity, since no degree of unsafe working conditions or low pay could be countered by the unions if the left wing party and left wing state decided that the sacrifices must be made. Has any capitalist ever enforced such a brutal regime and tried to justify it with such ideological piety?

As such we can safely say by reason, logical deduction and simple observation that it is entirely possible to stand outside the idea of the left-right political spectrum by noting that it is entirely possible to hold to social goods like democracy, welfare and social safety nets, fair pay, accessibility of education, housing and healthcare, all while rejecting the works of Marx and his ideological fellow travellers.

After all, many have, both before and after Marx put pen to paper.

Towards a more informed future

This makes objectors right wing in the eyes of nobody except those with an irrational, usually fanatical zealotry for the works of Marx, whose opinions can be safely dismissed given the degree of confusion and crossworking agendas they present.

By examining these facets of the so-called political spectrum it becomes apparent that the concept has little descriptive value, let alone and crucially predictive value.

Can we say that, because such-and-such a group is described as left wing, they will be in favour of certain policies and goals? Not with a high degree of reliability, and this has been demonstrated over and over again.

When universally acknowledged left wing groups and even governments not only consistently act in a manner completely at odds with claimed left wing ideals and desired outcomes, but are even celebrated by other left wing groups and governments for doing so, the emperor indeed has no clothes.

Likewise, if groups are branded right wing, are we going to be able to predict their actions and activities beyond their own public policy statements - what they explicitly tell us they're going to do?

Not especially effectively, no.

At best the "political spectrum" is little better than a tribal categorisation scheme, instead of giving us much insight into the motivations and strategies likely to be employed by various groups. Perhaps there is a certain limited value to such an arrangement, but only in the broadest terms, and not in the sense of the existence of a single monochrome spectrum, qualified or otherwise.

With that said, whatever value it possesses, the idea of a "political spectrum" is harmful to clear and open democratic interests, lending itself mostly to polarisation. It best seves the demagogue and the pub-stool polemicist, the intellectual football hooligan who seeks to inculcate the lowest and most base human instincts in order to achieve murky political ends and personal power.

Moving towards a post-leftist future we need to take a more informed and nuanced position on political opinion if we are to avoid the many terrible mistakes of the past, and to encourage the fullness of human ingenuity and creativity to flourish for the benefit of all.