Politics is not two-dimensional
There is one thing I always struggle with when I write or debate about politics. It is, that most people and media always want to frame political views in a left vs. right debate. This is very understandable from a psychological point of view. Our brains are hardwired to categorize complex issues in clear boxes. This reduces overwhelm and stress and helps us make the decision process efficient.
But this strategy comes at a major cost. It forces us to ignore nuances. And when we work with complex political and moral issues, this is counterproductive. This is why I do not like to place myself in a clear left or right camp. Instead, I think a better way to look at things is to examine the concrete issues based on my values. But before I dive deep into my rant, it is worthwhile to make a short excursion into history.
The Historic Origins of Left vs. Right
The origin of the terms dates back to the beginning of our modern democracy. More specifically, to the catalyst that got the ball rolling. At least in the Western cultural sphere. Yes, I am talking about the French Revolution.
After the successful storm on the Bastille, the National Assembly formed itself. The assembly acted as a form of revolutionary government. Its main purpose was to write a new constitution for the nation. One of the key issues was, of course, how much power the king should have. Some favored the idea, that the king should have the power to veto any law. Others held the view that the king under no circumstances should hold such power. Most of the people in the former camp sat to the right of the assembly president. The participants of the latter camp sat to his left.
In other words, the traditionalists had gathered on the right side. All the while the radical reformists had gathered on the left side of the plenum. Thus, people started to use the terms left and right to identify the opposing factions.
This tradition spread subsequently to other modern parliaments in Europe. Most of those established themselves in the following hundred years, or so.
But even then, left vs. right was not a static issue. There are many examples of political parties, changed their political positions over time.
Historical Examples of Changing Political Positions
For instance, in Denmark, the party ‘Venstre’ is a party with conservative leanings. Yet, the name means ‘Left’. How does that make sense? The origin of the party goes back to the 1860s. This was the infancy of the modern Danish parliamentary monarchy. The Danish constitution was a mere 12 years old. At the time, the party represented the peasants in rural areas of the country. During feudalism, farmers belonged to the most disenfranchised class. So demanding more rights to farmers was a very progressive and liberal issue at the time.
Nowadays, however, the farming industry is a multi-billion dollar business. The farming industry is a major economic factor in Denmark. So this voter base holds mostly conservative viewpoints. Another demographic in the voter base of the party started to emerge around the turn of the last century. The emerging urban middle-class voters. They were very a key driver of the nationalist movement that the party represented. So they leaned conservative.
Another famous example is the Republican Party in the United States. Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party. It is this party, that advocated for abandoning slavery. But from the beginning of the last century, society changed rapidly. The Republicans represented the liberal views of the northern Union States. But as the Industrial Revolution carried on, a new class emerged. The working class. Now, the interests of the workers clashed with the interests of liberal industrialists. It is the Democrats, who instead captured most of the voters from the working class.
In both examples, the values themselves did not change. What changed instead is how those values were embedded in the larger fabric of society. What was once progressive became conservative, and vice versa.
The Left vs. Right Spectrum Lacks Clear Definitions
The example above demonstrates one of the major flaws in left vs. right thinking. Societies change and evolve. And with it do many of the values. This has always been the case. In most of Western Europe, for instance, same-sex marriage is a non-starter as a political issue. That is the case even in the most conservative parts of countries like Germany, or France. Hardly anyone bats an eye over two gay people loving each other and getting married. But just a few years ago, that was a different story. Even traditional left-wing parties such as SPD could not find a common ground on the issue.
Likewise, today no one would argue that we should reinstate slavery as an institution. Not even the most conservative politicians.
This makes it very difficult to view issues in a two-dimensional left-right spectrum. It is difficult to define what left and right means. For full disclosure, I should mention that I have my own definition of leftist positions:
- Absolute and non-negotiable adherence to Human Rights and its related international conventions.
- Striving for peaceful solutions to conflicts in all spheres of society.
- An absolute adherence to libertarian principles of freedom of expression and the right to autonomy for all.
- A dignified treatment of all humans.
- Committing to address the root causes of inequality that threatens the life and liberty of anyone.
- Striving to engage in political discourse based on facts, evidence, and good faith.
- An absolute commitment to respecting international institutions, such as the U.N. and the ICC.
If I check this list against party programs and agendas of various humanitarian and political organizations, I can only conclude that none of them fit the bill.
Of course, your definition may differ. Maybe we are both right. Or we both are wrong.
The Left Isn’t Left at All
There is a major gripe I have with most parties on the political left of the spectrum. They fail to represent what I consider absolute leftist ideals. It goes against my fundamental value of peace by peaceful means to support Israeli atrocities, not only with weapons but also by shielding the Israeli government from political consequences. Yet, most left-wing parties follow this line.
Also, many public proponents of identity issues do not argue in good faith. They frequently call for censorship of anyone who opposes their views.
At times the debates around identity issues ignore important factual evidence.
For instance, the fact that gendered language disenfranchises blind and dyslexic people. That makes the language not very inclusive at all.
And then there is the elephant in the room about how the focus on identity politics polarizes more than it unites and shifts the focus away from socioeconomic inequalities, which is why capitalist enterprises love to hop on board the identity train. But exploitation is still exploitation, regardless of whether its victims have a particular skin color or gender.
The Right Is No Better
The political actors on the right are no better. When it comes to immigration politics, they refuse to debate in good faith. Most of them do not see immigrants as people. They do not give a shit about humanitarian principles unless it suits their agenda.
Their logic is also flawed as hell. They claim that they want immigrants who want to integrate themselves. Schools, libraries, and neighborhood initiatives do the brunt of the work. But conservatives are always eager to slash funding for those.
In their frantic drive to expel immigrants, they hurt economic development and innovation. Businesses lose qualified workers en masse because they have the wrong passport.
I have met many migrants, throughout my career, who had to leave after working and paying taxes for 20 years or more. Not because they did anything illegal. But because they tripped over some arbitrary rule.
Illegal military interventions of the West are a major cause of refugee streams. Guess who is always in favor of those.
When it comes to climate, they are not very conservative at all. How on earth is it a conservative value to destroy the environment? The climate activists are the true conservatives.
They are the ones who fight for our children to have clean air to breathe. They want coming generations to get sustenance from Mother Nature, also.
Left vs. Right Is the Wrong Lens
As you can see, framing things in a left vs. right spectrum often makes little sense for understanding the world. That is why I avoid it, wherever I can. Instead, a better way to determine your political viewpoint is to become clear on what your core political values are. Then you can look at the issues and figure out, how this fits in with those values. But for heaven’s sake, don’t do it based on 30-second Tik-Tok videos or Instagram posts. And no, the TV news will not help you either. Your best option is to engage with long-form content, such as books, podcasts, or long blog posts. Stay critical.
