Understanding Left and Right

7 October, 2008

I had a fascinating conversation with a young lady the other
day.  She is originally from Germany and has spent a great
deal of her life going back and forth from Germany to the US, if I
understand correctly.  She has just the faintest hint of a
German accent but is completely fluent in English — so much so that I
often forget she is originally a German citizen.  I happened
to mention that I had, not long ago, begun writing a technology column
for the “right-wing website WorldNetDaily.”

“So, you’re a fascist?” she asked innocently.  To her
credit I think she honestly was willing to accept this datum and simply
file it away.  Had I said, “Oh, yes, I’m very active in my
local chapter of the Junior Neo-Fascists,” she may well have smiled,
nodded, and thought nothing more of it.  Instead, because I am
used to right-wing thinkers being summarily and incorrectly
characterized as “fascists” by leftist ideologues, I said what I always
say.

“No,” I paused, “but many people don’t stop to realize that
fascism is a product of left-wing thought.”

“No it’s not,” she said quickly.  “Fascism is
right-wing.”

“Actually no,” I said, “it’s an outgrowth of left-wing
ideology.”  She became very agitated before we realized just
how deeply entrenched and synonymous the terms “right-wing” and
“fascism” are in Germany, where the many neo-Nazi groups are generally
mischaracterized culturally as “far right wing” organizations.

The best book I’ve read to date on the topic of leftism (and
the growth of fascism from it) is Liberal
Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.  In an interview with
Salon magazine, Goldberg argues,

There’s this [erroneous] idea that the further right you go
the closer you get to Nazism and fascism,
and the further left you go the closer you get to decency and all good
things, or at least having the right intentions in your heart…
 …To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism
as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of
right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a
socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the
most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the
most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got
dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported
World War I.

…Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing
socialist, and the problem is that we’ve incorporated these European
understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist. In the
American context fascists get called right-wingers even though there is
almost no prominent fascist leader — starting with Mussolini and
Hitler — who if you actually went about and looked at their economic
programs, or to a certain extent their social program, where you
wouldn’t locate most if
not all of those ideas on the ideological left in the American context.
[emphasis added]

What Golberg is saying is that if you examine the actual
content of
the policies enacted, and the actions taken, by history’s famous
fascists, they were left-wing ideologues, not right-wing extremists. In
the American context, then, the political spectrum starts with
totalitarian socialism at the far left and ends with anarchism (or some
form of anarcho-capitalism) at the far right.  The far left
represents government control; the far right represents the complete
absense of government.  Where you fall on that spectrum can
thus
be charted according to some central tenets that are all consistent
with those notions of government or its absence. 

A lot of people start mewling that we shouldn’t put “labels”
on
people, when ideological labels are invoked, because this is somehow
judgmental and limiting.  I’ve never understood this
complaint.
 Every word is a
label.
 A word represents an idea, and those ideas have meaning.
 If
you don’t like the label applied to you, what you’re really saying is
you don’t like the meaning it conveys.  Either you can be
accurately described in that manner or you cannot.  Denying
the
reality of it changes nothing.

Let us look at the defining tents of left-wing and right-wing
beliefs.  These are commonly accepted ideas, commonly
described as
respectively leftist and “rightist” in popular culture.  Most
reasonable people can agree that the tenets described correspond to the
sides of the political aisle to which I’ve assigned them.  If
we
cannot agree on that, you need to take some time to consider, very
seriously, what you actually believe and why.

LEFT-WING IDEOLOGY	RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY
Believes the United States is part of a global community and that it should seek the approval of and cooperate with the other nations of the world.	Believes in the concept of American exceptionalism; puts America first and believes all other nations’ interests are and should be second to the interests of the United States.
Advocates some form of limited, mixed, or total socialism, wherein earnings are redistributed through confiscatory taxation in order to accomplish egalitarian social-leveling goals to varying degrees.	Advocates some form of mixed or total capitalism, typically laissez-faire, wherein individuals retain as much of their earnings as possible.
Supports controls on firearms and other tools and weapons in an effort to make society safer; may support a complete ban on some or all personal weapons.	Opposes “gun control” and other laws restricting the possession and carry of personal arms.
Supports gay rights and gay marriage.	Opposes making homosexuality a protected class of “rights” and opposes gay marriage.
Opposes military spending and more often than not opposes whatever wars the nation wages.	Supports military spending and more often than not supports the wars the nation wages.
Supports speech codes and other facets of political correctness on the grounds that some speech is hurtful or hateful.	Opposes political correctness as the establishment of thoughtcrime and an infringement on free speech.
Believes government must be secular and that religion has no place in the public sector.	Believes freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.  May or may not support legislation of various morality issues.
Supports abortion.	Opposes abortion.
Believes the Constitution is a “living document.”	Believes in strict construction of the Constitution.

These are generalizations, and the average individual may display
several departures therefrom.  If your personal beliefs
correspond
to both columns equally, you possess a very conflicted and paradoxical
personal philosophy.  If, however, your beliefs fall more
often in
one column than in the other, you are, generally speaking, a rightist
or a leftist depending on with which column you agree more frequently.

This established, what is the justification for
these distinctions?  We first must stipulate the political
scale we are using, which I have. I will reiterate here.

TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT CONTROL
<———————–> MINIMIZED GOVERNMENT/TOTAL
ANARCHY

At the left end of the spectrum, we place total government
control,
and at the far right, we place total anarchy — the absence of
government. Very few people who take the time to discuss these concepts
are completely at one extreme or the other; while the average person’s
beliefs generally put him or her on one side or the other, very people
actually advocate the beliefs held at the far ends.  Let’s
take
the table already cited and replace the tenets with justifications for
their placement in their columns.

LEFT-WING IDEOLOGY	RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY
Global Community:  A belief in government control is naturally compatible with a belief in meta-government (such as the United Nations), a government control uniting lesser units of government control.	American Exceptionalism: A belief in individuality and individual liberty is naturally compatible with a belief that the United States stands alone (and that it should stand alone).
Socialism:  A belief in government control is naturally compatible with a belief in centralized economic planning, and in transferring wealth from haves to have-nots in order to assist the latter.	Capitalism:  A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the capitalist system, which trades value for value and rewards only producers.
Living Constitution:  Given the severe limitations on government power imposed by the Constitution, a belief in government control is naturally incompatible with struct construction of the Constitution.  The Constitution must therefore be reinterpreted.	Strict Construction:  The Constitution is a forceful set of limitations on government control and a protection of individual liberties.   A belief in individual liberty is thus best supported by strict construction of the Constitution.
Gun Control:  A belief in government control is naturally compatible with the belief that private individuals cannot be trusted with the means to impart force.	Second Amendment:  A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the belief that individuals should be able to protect their own lives and property with force.
Gay Rights:  A belief in government control is naturally compatible with the belief that citizens are homogenous and interchangeable, regardless of religious belief or moral standards.	Traditional Families:  A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the notion that individual faith and morals factor into decisions of what to approve and affirm.
Anti-Military:  A belief in global community is naturally antithetical to the use of military force to impose national will on other nations.	Pro-Military: A belief in American exceptionalism is naturally compatible with the belief that military force may have to be imposed on international neighbors, in defense or preemptively.
Politically Correct:  A belief in governemnt control is compatible with the restriction of free speech and thought for the accomplishment of egalitarian goals.	Politically Incorrect:  A belief in individual liberty is naturally incompatible with restrictions on free speech.
Secular Government:  A belief in government as the highest authority is naturally incompatible with a belief in some religious faith as the supreme authority.	Freedom of Religion:  A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the belief that government should not interfere in the expression of one’s religious faith, even in public.
Supports abortion:  Support of the “living document” interpretation supports finding within the Constitution support for protection of freedoms not defined or implied within the Constitution, such as abortion rights.	Opposes abortion:  A belief in individual liberty is naturally compatible with the belief that unborn children are individuals with individual rights in utero.

Given these definitions and the support thereof, it is my
assertion
that left-wing ideology — leftism — is bulit on irrationality.
 What is irrationality?  To be irrational is to
contradict
reality (to be illogical or unreasonable), to be self-destructive, and,
ultimately, to advocate (or to actually do) harm to others as a logical conclusion of your
stated and expressed philosophy (which means regardless of
whether you are aware of the ultimate or unintended consequences of
your ideas).  Let us examine each of the tenets described
herein.

• At the national level, one must put one’s national interests
  first.  To do otherwise is to behave in a self-destructive manner,
  because it is to elevate the interests of other country’s citizens
  above your own.  What logical person would do this?  The
  emotional criticism of this attitude is that it is selfish — but of
  course this is what people who say when they wish you to trade your
  interests for theirs.  The only logical course of action for an American citizen is to uphold American exceptionalism.

• Collectivist economics divorce producers from the product of
  their labors.  To redistribute wealth for the accomplishment of
  “social leveling” goals (egalitarianism) is, therefore, to deny reality.
   First, socialism denies reality by forcing this division
  separating producers from what they produce. More importantly, however,
  socialism is almost always a
  failure at the large scale, because the level of totalitarian
  government control it entails usually fosters corruption, despotism,
  and even atrocity.  For every peaceful socialist nation (like
  Sweden) there are multiple examples of totalitarian socialist tyrannies
  (like Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Communist China).

• For the Constitution (or any written document) to have meaning, it must mean what it says.
   The Constitution can only be a “living document” in that
  provision has been made to amend it.  To treat the document as a
  malleable, ever-changing, “living” thing, wherein one may find meanings
  not explicitly stated, or find ways to circumvent prohibitions
  explicitly outlined in the Constitution, is to deny reality by seeing what is not there and denying what is clearly written there.  The “living document” approach is thus fundamentally irrational.

• The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly
  prohibits infringement of the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.
   Support for any infringement of this right is to deny reality
  (and also to deny the fundamental natural right of self-defense, which
  is self-destructive).

• Homosexuality
  is a mental disorder and, until relatively recently, was categorized as
  such by the psychological establishment. While it is a benign mental disorder, claiming that it is perfectly normal and/or natural is to deny biological reality.

• The nation’s military is the mechanism through which self-defense is achieved at the national level.
  To view your nation’s military as evil, or to demoralize its troops by
  criticizing their missions, is to attack your own country’s ability to
  defend you.  This is a self-destructive and thus irrational act.

• Political
  correctness — speech codes and codes of conduct that
  have no bearing on what is legal — is an intellectual form of tyranny,
  through which reality is denied. Political correctness dictates that to
  express an idea (or to express it in a certain way) is somehow
  emotionally hurtful or otherwise socially unacceptable.  Because
  the speaker has no control over the emotions of the audience, and
  because emotions are not actually tools of cognition, It is irrational
  to censor the expression of ideas on these grounds.  (It is also a
  violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.)

• The United States Constitution clearly protects freedom of
  religious expression.  It does not purge religious expression from
  the public sector, and no “wall of separation” exists within the
  document as written.  Strict construction of the Constitution
  renders such an interpretation unsupportable and thus irrational
  because it is not contained within the document.

• One may only justify abortion in two ways:  Either the
  aborted fetus is not yet a “person,” or the aborted fetus is a person
  but killing that person is acceptable for some reason (perhaps because
  that person is deemed “unwanted”).  Because life begins at
  conception (the biological process that begins with the fertilization
  of an egg invariably ends in the birth of a human being if the process
  continues undisturbed and uninterrupted), any attempt to deny that
  abortion is the taking of a human life is fundamentally irrational and
  denies reality.  If one admits that abortion is the taking of a
  human life, one is attempting to justify murder, which is also
  irrational.

In all things, “the devil is in the details.”  There are, most
certainly people reading this who are very angry to have their beliefs
categorized as they are here.  I would challenge you, however, to
stop and examine your personal philosophy for consistency.  You
have one, after all; even if you don’t believe so, and even if you’ve
never thought about it, your belief system is your philosophy.
 That philosophy can be rational or irrational, and it can lean
left or right.  It is my assertion, as described herein, that to
be rational your philosophy must correspond more often than not to the
ideas I have outlined as “right-wing” herein. The alternative is to be
illogical and self-destructive. >>

---

<<
PhilElmore.com  ::  Go Home

Martialist
MySpace
Join Our
Mailing List
Discussion
Forum
Our
Current Issue
Contact
Information
Hire Phil
Elmore