Left–right political spectrum

Left-Right politics or the Left-Right political spectrum is a common way of classifying political positions, political ideologies, or political parties along a one-dimensional political spectrum.

Left vs. Right is an imprecise, broad, dialectical interpretation of a set of factors or determinants. "The Left" and "The Right" are usually understood to represent polar opposites for each determinant, though a particular individual or party may take a "left" stance on one matter and a "right" stance on another.

Meaning of the terms

The meaning of the terms "left" and "right" in a political context has changed radically over time. Generally speaking, the Right is seen as "against political, economic and social change", the Left as "in favour of it". The Left is broadly identified with "the interests of the masses", while the Right "favours the interests of the established propertied classes".

Some commentators, such as Norberto Bobbio, have argued that the central difference between left and right is that the left prioritises social equality, while the right prioritises individual responsibility and the maintenance of natural and inherent inequalities between people. Bobbio also makes clear, however, that "left" and "right" are not absolute terms, but vary between different countries and different periods.

Definitions

Economic interventionism is left; laissez-faire is right.

In general, the political debate is about the extent to which the government should (interventionism) or should not (laissez-faire) intervene in the economy in order to effect desired social outcomes. The Nolan chart proposes this as one of its axes of distinction between left and right. This is a reversal of the situation of the late 18th century, when the left favored laissez-faire and the right favored mercantilism.

Preference for a "larger" government is left; preference for a "smaller" government is right.

Large and small here refer to policies and attitudes - although the number of government employees is often used as an indicator - and to social and economic policy rather than to military, police and judicial institutions and activity. This definition is most common in American politics, where the mainstream right has been most heavily influenced by free market economics and the mainstream left most influenced by Keynesian economics. Some, however, cite the existence of factions that may serve as counterexamples to this definition -- libertarians, the authoritarian right, libertarian socialists, anarchists and the old right -- and see the above definition as an entirely distinct political dichotomy.

Equality of outcome is left; equality of opportunity is right.

Two writers who characterise the distinction along these lines are Norberto Bobbio and Danielle Allen. In his book Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, Bobbio argues that the only valid difference between left and right is people's attitude to the ideal of equality. Left-wingers and right-wingers alike tend to speak in favour of both equality and liberty, but they have different interpretations of each of the two terms.

A secular government is left; a religious government is right.

This distinction has deep roots in Europe's early modern period when the left-right distinction first emerged, as the Ancien Régime associated with the right was closely connected to the Catholic church and the left was thus often anti-clerical. It remains relevant in the United States, India and the Catholic countries in Europe, but there are now many examples of religious movements associated with the left (such as liberation theology or certain forms of Islamic radicalism) as well as many atheist or secular people on the right.

Innovation is left; conservatism is right.

Although in some countries 'right' and 'conservative' are used loosely as synonyms, this aspect gets little attention in discussion of the left-right axis. The American left writer Eric Hoffer was one of those who emphasised it.

The idea that law dictates culture is left; the idea that culture dictates law is right.

This formulation was put forward by US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but is prefigured by Edmund Burke.

The idea that human nature and society are malleable is left; the idea that they are fixed is right.

This is an example of the "nature versus nurture" argument. It was proposed as a definition of the left-right dichotomy by Thomas Sowell, and later endorsed by George Lakoff in his book Moral Politics. Many leftists, however, do believe in human nature, some, such as Noam Chomsky, even making it central to their political philosophies.

History of the terms

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was attitudes towards the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were regarded as being on the left whereas today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. But even during the French Revolution an extreme left wing called for government intervention in the economy on behalf of the poor.

In Great Britain at that time, Edmund Burke (now generally described as a conservative) held similar economic views to this first French Left. Nonetheless, he strongly criticized their anti-clericalism and their willingness to turn to mob violence for support and to overturn institutions of long standing. Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France criticized the Left as excessively rationalistic and disrespecting of the wisdom of tradition.

During the French Revolution, the definition of who was on the left and who on the right shifted greatly within only a few years. Initially, leaders of the Constituent Assembly like Antoine Barnave and Alexandre de Lameth, who supported a very limited monarchy and a unicameral legislature, were seen as being on the left, in opposition to more conservative leaders who hoped for a more British-style constitutional monarchy (the British monarch was a very powerful figure in 18th century British politics, unlike today), and to those who opposed the revolution outright. By the time of the convening of the Legislative Assembly in 1791, their party, now called the Feuillants, had come to be seen as on the right due to its support for any form of monarchy, and for the limited franchise of the 1791 Constitution By the time of the National Convention only a year later, the Girondins, who had been on the left in the Legislative Assembly due to their support for external war to spread the revolution, and strong dislike for the king, had themselves come to be seen as being on the right due to their ambivalence about the overthrow of the monarchy, their opposition to Louis's execution, and their dislike for the city of Paris, which had come to see itself as the heart of the Revolution.

It should be emphasized that in these years there was little in their views of economic policy to distinguish the various factions of the French Revolution from one another. Both Montagnards on the (1792-1793) left and Monarchiens on the (1789) right were essentially orthodox liberals on economic matters, although the Montagnards proved more willing than other groups to court popular favor in Paris by agreeing to (temporary) economic controls in 1793, and there were indeed economic radicals to the left of the Montagnards who insisted on genuine economic redistribution to achieve the Egalité promised by the revolutionary slogan.

Instead, the focus of ideological differences during the revolution had much more to do with attitudes towards the Revolution itself - whether it was a horror against God and Nature to be turned back and destroyed, a necessary rupture with the past that must (at some point) be brought to a close so order and good government could be restored, or a necessary and permanent feature of French political life. For the most part, nearly all of the political figures of the Revolution itself held the middle position, and disagreed largely on at what point it was time to call the Revolution fulfilled.

After the revolution settled down in 1794 following the fall of Robespierre on 9 Thermidor, a more clear-cut political spectrum began to emerge - on the left were Jacobins, former supporters of Robespierre and the Terror, who longed to see the restoration of the democratic Constitution of 1793; on the right were the monarchists, who hoped to restore a monarchy, whether constitutional or absolute; and in the center were the Thermidorians, who wrote the Constitution of 1795 and hoped that the limited republic of the Directory would stand in the middle position between these two extremes. The failure of the Directory did little to change these basic political alignments - Jacobins and Monarchists remained, and most of those who had initially supported the Directory came to support the dictatorship, and eventually the rule, as emperor, of Napoleon Bonaparte.

It was during this period of retrenchment in France itself that the idea of the left-right political spectrum began to be exported to the rest of Europe. As the French conquered and annexed lands beyond the French border, it was again the issue of attitudes towards the French Revolution, which largely determined political alignment. With the rise of Napoleon, though, matters became more complicated, as those outside France who had supported the Revolution were forced to decide whether this also meant supporting Napoleon's dictatorship. At the same time, the traditional rulers of the other states of Europe - whether Napoleon's enemies in Austria and Prussia, or dependent rulers in German states like Bavaria, often came to a nuanced position on Napoleon and the Revolution's legacy, hoping to import many of the centralizing reforms which had brought the old regime to an end and allowed, it seemed, Napoleon's great victories, without opening the way for the chaos and violence of the Terror.

It was in this spirit that the statesmen of Europe came together after Napoleon's defeat in 1814 to reconstitute Europe at the Congress of Vienna. Rather than restoring the old regime wholesale, the conservative statesmen at Vienna (men like Prince Metternich and Lord Castlereagh) hoped to arrive at the best system to maintain order, if necessary through judicious use of the reforms of the French Revolution. In France itself a similar spirit prevailed in the person of the restored Bourbon Louis XVIII, who realized that a full restoration of the Old Regime was impossible.

Evolution of the terms

The meaning of the terms Left and Right has evolved over time; it has also spread from a specifically French context to a European (or at least continental) context to a worldwide context.

Europe in the early nineteenth century found itself with a variety of political outlooks that were easily fitted into a left-right model of a political spectrum. As described by historians like Michael Broers, we see on the far right the forces of Reaction, who hoped for a wholesale restoration of the ancien régime, including traditional privileges and limits on central authority. Although governments - in order to retain support - frequently used these elements, in only a few cases (most notably the Kingdom of Sardinia) were reactionary policies actually put into effect. To the left of the reactionaries came more moderate conservatives who were willing to accept some of the outcomes of the French Revolution, in particular those elements which led to greater state power, and favored autocratic central control - whether at the expense of traditional estates or liberal parliaments. To their left appear the liberals, who hoped for representative governments and respect for civil liberties. In practice, though, the distinction between liberals and conservatives could be vague - notably, in states with parliaments, conservatives were willing to work with representative government when necessary. To the left of the liberals came various stripes of radicals and republicans, who favored the overthrow of monarchies and the establishment of universal suffrage either on the model of the Spanish Constitution of 1812 or the French one of 1793.

Over time it became clear that there was something to the left even of that "left": the precursors of socialism and communism. The original left, and their radical or republican descendants, had stood for a certain abstract equality of rights, but this emerging socialist left stood for a more radical notion of equality: in its more extreme forms, for an absolute leveling of wealth and a willingness to use the power of the state to achieve that postulated "equality". The traditional right views civilized society as existing primarily to defend property rights.

As late as 1848, even with the participation of socialists in the European revolutions of that year, many liberals, with essentially the same politics as the Girondists of 1791, and certainly the radicals and republicans, remained considered unequivocally part of the Left. However, the increasing importance of socialist, anarchist, and especially Marxist Communist politics over the next century would steadily move the scale farther to the left, so that by the time of the Russian Revolution, many would confine the use of the term Left to Communists, or at least socialists. Increasingly, and especially in economics, the laissez-faire views that once defined the Left came to be characterized as a rightist position. The right wing of absolutist monarchism or theocracy became increasingly rare, and is practically non-existent in the west today.

The Bolsheviks were certainly "of the left", and the advocates of Stalinist, Soviet-style communism considered themselves to be "leftist". Most Western leftists would now dispute at least the Stalinist claim to Leftism, due to the general suspension of even non-economic liberties and the gross inequities created by Stalinists and Maoists in practice.

In different countries at different times, Left and Right have been differently understood, and the farther one gets in time and space from late 19th-century Europe, the less likely there is to be clear consensus on the use or even the applicability of the terms. For example, in speaking of 1930s Europe, there is little consensus on what is meant by Right beyond an opposition to Bolshevism. Although Adolf Hitler in Germany and Winston Churchill in the United Kingdom were both characterized in their own countries as right-wing, there was obviously a tremendous difference between the two leaders' policies, and even their anti-communism was expressed in radically different ways.

Similarly, during the Cold War in the United States, there was no significant socialist presence in electoral politics, and very little overt social democratic presence. Instead liberalism in the United States, blending elements of classical liberalism with elements of social democracy, came to constitute the electoral left. The Right, in its original European sense, was associated with the defense of a traditional political order that had never existed in the United States. Virtually every elected official during this period in the United States took a stance of anti-Communism; it was not until the mid-1960s that the New Left arose and, in some cases, proclaimed its "anti-anti-Communism", without, for the most part, actively embracing Communism.

Meanwhile, in Western Europe, social democratic parties often participated in, or even led, governments; in several Western European countries, Communist parties remained an important part of the political landscape, to the point where what constituted the "left" of U.S. electoral politics would be considered "centrist" in Europe.

As with Left, the meaning of Right changed over time. By the late 19th century, virtually no one in Western Europe advocated a return to the societal organization of the Ancien Régime; instead, Right generally came to refer to those who wished to uphold any form of monarchy or aristocracy, those who held conservative religious views, or those who merely wished to defend the now-entrenched interests of that same bourgeoisie that had been coming into its own in 1789. The first half of the 20th century saw the rise of revolutionary right-wing populist and nationalist currents, notably fascism, that were distinct from the older right-wing political currents that continued to exist alongside them. Right is still used to refer to radical nationalist or racist politics; according to Stephen Tansey, "in the twentieth century...the forces that are generally seen as furthest to the right are not those of monarchism, but those of Nazism or fascism."

In recent years, with the rise of globalism and neoconservatism on the right, the term paleoconservative (the "old right") has emerged to describe the localism, isolationism and classical liberalism of the right wing of years recently passed.

Modern U.S. use of the terms

These terms are widely used in the modern United States, but as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect which is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. "Left" and "right" in the U.S. are associated with "liberal" and "conservative," respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms "left" and "right" than understood the terms "liberal" and "conservative".

The contemporary left in the United States is usually defined as a category including social democrats, socialists, communists, and some anarchists. Liberals are also commonly seen as being on the left (see Liberalism in the United States for more on this issue). Due to the extensive pejorative use of the term liberal, some parts of the American left decided in the 1980s to begin using the term "progressive" instead. In general, left implies a commitment to egalitarianism, support for a 'liberal' social policy and multiculturalism. The contemporary left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce, and industry; protection of fundamental rights (especially freedom of speech and separation of church and state); and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the poor.

The contemporary right in the United States is usually defined as a category including Republicans, classical liberals, religious conservatives, and some libertarians. Although often in disagreement with religious conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians define themselves as part of the right, and separate themselves from modern-day liberalism; libertarian David Kelley states that classical liberals had "a concept of freedom that is entirely at odds with the modern liberal conception". The American right is broadly defined by upholding of constitutional law, protection of fundamental rights (especially the right to own firearms), opposition to governmental regulation and income redistribution, immigration control, and opposition to reverse discrimination. These stances are motivated by traditional values (conservatism), protection of freedom and the rights of private individuals (libertarianism), or doubts about the benefits or efficacy of governmental regulation.

Doubt about the contemporary relevance of the terms

Main article: political spectrum

Some contemporary political positions, such as the position known in the US as "libertarianism", are very hard to characterize in left-right terms. These libertarians are socially liberal, but reject the leftist advocacy of government regulation of business, or the protectionism of the right. Arguably, their politics are the most similar to those of the classical liberalism of the old left of 1789; according to an Institute for Humane Studies paper, "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal,' perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary.'"

Many modern thinkers question whether the left-right distinction is even relevant in the 21st century. After all, in most countries left-right appears more a matter of historical contingency and local politics than any coherent statement of principle. After World War II, in order to remain politically relevant, the Western European right embraced most "leftist" aspects of economic intervention by government (see also Post-war_consensus and Butskelism). Similarly, many on the left went along with the privatization and anti-communism of the Reagan-Thatcher era.

See also

• Political compass
• Political spectrum
• Nolan Chart
• World's Smallest Political Quiz
• Sinistrisme
• "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, an essay by Lenin (1920)

References

• Charles Blattberg Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies (PDF); online, previous version published in Public Affairs Quarterly 15, No. 3 (July 2001) 193–217.

External links

• The Political Compass - an innovative view of the political spectrum and left/right differences
• The World's Smallest Political Quiz.