Following my last post, which touched on a few of the issues below, I thought I may as well write a few words on what I find problematic about the left-right spectrum in politics.
I guess that I should provide some background before proceeding. One of the reasons I dislike the left-right spectrum is that it has never been able to accurately categorize me. I will admit a guilty pleasure in undertaking those online political surveys (the in-depth ones, not the 5-question clickbait quizzes) which purport to tell you where you lie on the spectrum, what party you align with, etc. The algorithms never seem to work for me, and usually give up in frustration (not literally, I would imagine) and place me dead-centre. In UK-specific tests, I have often been said to be almost-equally likely to vote Liberal Democrat or UKIP, which if you know anything about British party politics is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
For some time, I have found this simple spectrum to be fundamentally flawed, and I am not quite sure why we still pretend it is valid. To see its multiple flaws, let us look at the general way the political spectrum is seen to work in the West.
If you are on the “right”, you are generally believed to be more socially conservative (tough on drugs, suspicious of gay marriage, etc.), perhaps more nationalist (fond of a larger military, less happy about immigration), and usually supportive of “small government” and a free-market approach to the economy. For this reason, libertarians, social conservatives and nationalists are all seen to be somewhat “right-wing” in the general perception. A casual look at the broad ideological views of these different groups will reveal they are almost incompatible with each other. Libertarians are generally fond of the smallest government possible, with no regulations on the economy and complete social liberty for its citizens. Nationalists support almost the opposite views, generally calling for tighter immigration controls, an emphasis on traditional national culture and a larger military (which requires greater government spending). Indeed, a glance at the current wave of successful populists in the West will often reveal they are not really that “right-wing” economically at all; President Trump calls for large increases in infrastructure spending (including that infamous wall), greater tariffs and he threatens businesses who attempt to shift abroad for reasons of economic efficiency. The Front National is protectionist and apparently quite fond of greater state intervention in public services. Yet somehow they are lumped in the same category as the libertarians and the free-marketeers.

I won’t go into analysing the “left” for sake of time; what I will do is draw your attention to the two “extremes” of the left-right divide as it is commonly seen; communism and fascism. Both are seen to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum, as different from each other as they could possibly be. Yet, it can soon be seen that they are really not that different at all in many ways. Let us look at the great clash between the two main proponents of these ideologies, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany of the Second World War. Both were one-party states run by totalitarian dictators with a violent approach for dissent; both had nationalist, populist tendencies; both were protectionist; both had heavy state intervention in the economy (admittedly, the Soviet Union more so than the Third Reich). While in theory these ideologies might technically be opposites, in the practicalities of the real world the two enemies were actually very similar.
While obviously the example above is an extreme one, even today it is not as hard to hop widely between the purported “left” and “right” as it is often seen. Multiple studies have shown that in Britain, a large proportion of those who now support UKIP were former Labour voters, and indeed the populist party is now actively targeting working-class Labourites. In a similar fashion, Trump’s success is partly due to the support of working-class whites who formerly voted Democrat. The rise of the right-wing populists is being sustained by the support of former left-wingers, and the established political realities of the UK and USA are reeling as a result.
Perhaps a major reason everyone is so shocked about the recent elections is simply because we are so tied to our concept of the political spectrum that we cannot imagine people shifting so rapidly from one end to the other. Perhaps if they did not think from within this constrictive box, the analysts would have seen how futile left-right divisions have become.
It was not always like this, of course. Before, the left-right divide did have genuine meaning, usually when it was constricted within narrower margins. In Revolutionary France, the Left and Right referred to the anti-monarchists and monarchists respectively. Later in Europe, it would generally come to be divided more along class lines; the working-class usually voted left, the middle-class generally voted right. Nowadays, however, even these very broad divisions don’t really work anymore. The major left-wing parties in the UK and the USA have left their working class roots behind, and now the spectrum is a shattered mess.
There are further problems with the left-right spectrum as I see it. Firstly, people tend to associate with one side or the other (the only real argument for its continuing relevance). I am fairly certain that people tend to support policies or positions because they are considered to be “left-wing” or “right-wing” rather than on the basis of the actual merit of the policy. I have done so myself in the past, when I have been more aligned with traditional party beliefs, and still do instinctively have an instant negative reaction to anything I consider “too leftist” or “too rightist”. This enforces an unfortunate ideological view of politics rather than the pragmatic approach that I believe we need, especially in our rapidly-changing world.
Secondly, this left-right spectrum enforces upon us a binary way of looking at the world. You are labelled as a “right-winger” or a “left-winger”, “centre-left” or “centre-right”. For left-wingers, the right-wingers (and vice versa of course) become the “Other” – a being seen as fundamentally different, perhaps subconsciously slightly less ‘human’. You hear terrible news after turbulent elections about people who broke off friendships with those who vote differently from them. Is that person fundamentally different from the friend they knew and loved before the election? I doubt it.
Thirdly, how far is this left-right spectrum going to sustain us in the future? We are looking at a century where the very nature of work, economy and human value could fundamentally change. How are the ideologies of our current system going to work in a world where the majority of human beings might not be working for a living? Where capitalism might not exist in a form remotely similar to the way it is today, or may not even exist at all? Where humanity itself might start to change biologically? I have no answers, but that does not make the questions any less pressing.

Of course, there are always going to be opposite ways of looking at the world, and methods of categorisation (especially when it comes to political views) are never perfect. But a single sliding scale to categorise all political beliefs seems ridiculous. I would suggest a more pragmatic and topical approach to political categorisation. Rather than talking of “left” and “right”, talk maybe of conservatives and progressivists, statists and free marketeers, authoritarians and libertarians as the need arises. These scales and categorisations aren’t particularly exceptional either, of course. No form of categorisation, of putting billions of individuals in a few arbitrary boxes, is ever going to be accurate – but surely using multiple scales is better than relying on just one outdated system?
The left-right spectrum is an unfortunate binary system that stratifies and divides society, building walls between us and reinforcing them at a time when they really need to be broken down. Our civilisation is broken enough without these arbitrary divides; let us try and remember our fundamental solidarity with fellow humans, rather than focusing on these petty differences.
This is a very lucid and refreshing analysis of the drawbacks of the Left-Right model in the modern world. Much of what you espouse is along the lines of what I myself have been thinking. For example, there are far more similarities than differences between Fascism and Communism, and so it seems odd that Fascism should still be associated with the Far Right, and Communism with the Far Left. I would also posit that the mainstream media purposely steers the public toward focusing on this false Left-Right dichotomy, in an effort to divert public attention away from what’s actually going on; since, of course, the mainstream media is largely a gigantic pawn of special interest groups, most of them multinational.
I’ve been gathering that you’re a student on some level – or maybe a professor – because your posts refer to your being associated with a University. I’m wondering what your major or emphasis is. Maybe Political Science or Philosophy? You definitely think like a political philosopher.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am indeed a student at University, though I actually study English Literature. However, as you can probably gather from this blog, I have a rather diverse array of interests!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you do. Also, you write very, very well. English Literature does therefore seem like a good major for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much! I try my best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on secreteyes4.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for the support!
LikeLike
To steal a joke from Mark Twain – “All generalizations are false including this one”
Of all the ways people have tried to illustrate the political compass, the four box libertarian-authoritarian/ left-right one is probably the best, albeit (as you yourself point out) hardly perfect. The horseshoe is also an interesting way to look at it, whereby the far-left and far-right are actually a lot closer to each other than they are to the centre. That being said, it ignores some glaring ideological differences and is often used by centrists to show how they’re better and more enlightened than everyone else (this is coming from someone near the centre, mind you).
Another option is simply to ditch the whole compass thing entirely and instead categorise people on the basis of what type of political ideology they largely follow. For instance, Libertarianism, Socialism, National Socialism, Social Democracy, Social Liberalism, Anarcho-Capitalism and so on. Unfortunately, that would be a rather tribal way to look at it as well. Personally, I’d probably find myself in the “Social Liberalism” box on most issues, but frankly no single political party or ideology quite has a monopoly on good ideas, and I think we would benefit greatly if more people realised that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All very true. I did consider discussing the horseshoe theory, but in essence all it does is prove that fascism and communism are not that different. Apart from that, it is not much more helpful than the standard model.
LikeLike
Are fascism and communism always mutually exclusive though? Most people seem to view is as such, however, I’d personally argue that the Soviet Union was by most metrics a fascist state.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, I am with you on that one. I know the political wonks will debate ad infinitum over the theoretical differences between the two, but for practical purposes there was little to distinguish between the two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In America, there are a number of parties, and that number is much greater than the number two. However, because the two largest parties have been so predominant for so long, people tend to categorize themselves according to one party or the other. Then, they tend to vote “along party lines.” This was touched on in the original post.
It’s natural for people to do this, because it keeps them from having to think for themselves on every issue. It also enables them to move very quickly through the voting process. How much easier and faster it is to vote Republican on every issue, or Democrat on every issue, whether one has taken time to examine each separate issue or not?
I for one am opposed to the building of the “infamous wall,” and opposed to the forcible removal of illegal immigrants, since in many cases that would send them to their deaths. But that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to all of Mr. Trump’s policies. Yet, I feel that, if I among my liberal friends, and I say anything good about Donald Trump at all, I am often immediately branded a Fascist or a racist or some other label that does not fit my character in the least. I did not personally vote for Trump, but I know people who voted for him only because they voted “against Hillary,” and it doesn’t help the common cause of humanity for these people to be branded in that fashion.
The party system seems to be inherently divisive. I may be politically naive in many ways, but I really don’t see where they should be any parties at all. There should only be a statement of the issues and the bills that are drafted accordingly, and one should vote for against the separate issues, and for against the separate candidates – or else not vote at all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very well put. You should try suggesting anything positive about Donald Trump among lefty-liberal students….the experience is not pleasant!
On your latter point, while in our current system I don’t think it is possible to have a complete lack of parties (unfortunately), it may be so in the future. As I alluded to in the article, there are big technological changes coming in the future. Voting systems that seem ludicrous or fanciful today may very well be possible in the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I too meant to mention the circular (or horseshoe) spectrum. I do feel that it fits better, but hardly perfectly.
George Norris precedes us in feeling that the parties were/are superfluous, in fact, in my state of Nebraska, officially we do not list any parties on the statewide issues or candidates. Sadly all it does, is make it even more difficult to be an informed voter. At least with the ‘D’ or ‘R’ moniker, we get some indication of what they officially believe, although they often fail to live up to it.
Nor do I have the answer for any of this, but I wish we could find one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. We can all see the problem, but nobody seems willing or able to solve it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was a very interesting read. Let me first say that i’m geared toward conservativism. Anyways I look at both parties and ideals as a two headed monster. We bicker and bicker over certain issues without finding any common ground. One huge mistake both sides make is assuming they’re right about everything. I believe there are good values in both liberal and conservative thinking, yet if the weight of the scale is too dynamic we’re setting ourselves up for disaster.
LikeLiked by 3 people
When you talk of the two parties I assume you are talking about the American system? In any case, I agree. Partisan politics is intensely divisive and in many ways stops people thinking straight. It’s good to hear that others share my perspective!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, sorry for not mentioning which country. Blonde moment lol.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree completely. If you’ve ever watched a Congressional hearing, you will see all kinds of finger-pointing and assigning of blame. It’s a wonder we accomplish anything at all in such an atmosphere.
LikeLiked by 2 people
On occasion, I wonder if not accomplishing anything isn’t the greatest achievement of government, but that may be my conservative, libertarian streak showing. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Re-posted on Twitter and Google+.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m in the same position (a “die-hard moderate”, I facetiously say), and I think you and other commenters hit on just what can make the left/right, conservative/liberal labels dangerous. When people accept such a designation for themselves, they tend to use it as a crutch against critical thinking, adopting its superset of ideologies wholesale, conforming their views to the label rather than letting them form naturally (and, heaven forbid, evolve and change with new information).
I’ll admit, when I can accurately predict the entirety of someone’s political stances from one or two Facebook posts, I tend not to hold his or her opinion in very high regard.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reblogged this on kendunning and commented:
A timely article about the growing obsolescence of political categories.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you very much! I highly appreciate the support and interest!
LikeLike
Of course the right-left spectrum doesn’t measure everything. Some things that were once seen as left-wing (free trade with minimum government intervention, nationalism) are now seen as right-wing. Take an issue where a proposed factory complex on nature reserve land would provide both jobs for unemployed people and profits for richer people, but destroy valuable wildlife habitat and recreation for rich and poor. It isn’t clear at all which is the right-wing, which the left-wing position. However, right-left does measure views on poverty and redistribution of income. Low, flat-rate taxes and abolish income tax is a right-wing position because it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. The NHS was a left-wing measure compared to the previous situation where many poorer people couldn’t afford health care.
I think there are three reasonable measures of politics: left-right; open(tolerant, diverse) – closed (intolerant, anti-different-people) and green versus anti-green.
LikeLike
Some good points. However – what about free-marketeers and right-wingers who promote universal basic income? And I would be careful about suggesting that abolishing income tax is a “right wing” position. Also, may I ask what you define as “left” and “right” on your proposed scale?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometime I feel the left-right spectrum is like religion. If you were raised by parents in a specific faith, it often becomes part of you. You may drift from this as you age, but it is deep rooted. My parents were Democrates as I am and most of my family.
I agree with a few of Trump’s ideas but I find it difficult to separate his good ideas from his revolting style of governing.
God bless America.. we need your help now.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m in about the same camp. Some of the man’s ideas are good, and even refreshing – in and of themselves – but his *style* (as you put it) is a huge concern. I’m hoping that this will prove mostly an effect of political inexperience and less an effect of megalomania. The former can be alleviated by experience, the latter only worsened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
During these end-times many of us are beginning to grasp ideas of a radial perspective as we begin to totally part from duality as our societies spiral out to a detached disillusionment. See you guys on the other side. -MIKE EYE
LikeLike
A good and insightful post. I’ve long been suspicious of the whole left/right view of looking at politics. People don’t fit into nice neat categories, their beliefs can be all over the political spectrum, and the events of the times can push people into different beliefs they may not have had before. I find that the top to bottom approach to looking at politics is more helpful. The top are the extremely wealthy and their allies (toadies) in the government that do their bidding. The bottom is everyone else, from those earning six figures a year all the way down to the destitute. The first group has all the power to affect the changes that determine the political and economic course of a nation, and the second group doesn’t.
The only thing that beats organized wealth is organized people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As someone who studied political science in college, I am an incredibly big believer in the PCM. Measuring in two dimensions rather than on a line allows a much more accurate display of views. On a left-right model, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are on opposite ends of the spectrum. On a PCM, you can see that Jill Stein (perennial left wing third party presidential candidate) is further from Obama than Romney. Great piece, enjoyed reading it.
-John
LikeLiked by 2 people
ah yes straight away I can see that this spectrum is flawed- for one thing communists are on the far left, not socialists (an important distinction). haha I’ve had similar problems with those tests- believe me. And I definitely agree with you about communism and Nazism being two sides of the same coin. I also agree that the left-right divide is less important than people think- and that’s why media outlets are so flabbergasted by the outcome of elections and can’t understand why people are voting in different ways (leading to, in my opinion, insulting conclusions to large swathes of people and misjudging them entirely). I think it’s actually a lot more complicated when it comes down to it how people vote. The reason why it comes across as a “shattered mess” is because people expect people to be partisan and vote along the lines of their identity- when in actuality people are more complicated than that- I think deep down people will vote on individual issues (and this has historically proved to be the case). Not necessarily because they’re pragmatic (although I too wish this were the case) but because people just refuse to fit into boxes. I agree that the term “leftist” and “rightist” are way too oversimplified- but I just don’t think using more boxes to try and categorise people will help. It’s clearly already failing when it comes to trying to predict how people will vote (I could go on forever about how many polls have got elections wrong- including the last two general elections in the UK, Brexit and Trump) I really think the only solution is to look at individual issues. If you tote up the most pressing issues, then it’s actually a much better predictor of how people will vote. The canny politician usually appeals across the board to different ideals to win an election by answering the questions that people are asking at that moment in time. Anyway, sorry for rambling, that was just my two cents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I heartily agree – I very much appreciate your rambles, thank you for commenting!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLike
Yes, death to the binary spectrum. I track left (U.S.) on 40%, right on 10%, and on 50% I am at a third uncharted pole equidistant from today’s left and right. I agree that it “was not always this way.” In the late 60s, libertarians were lumped in with liberals more than with conservatives because social freedom was the foreground issue. Now they’re lumped in with conservatives because small govt/taxes and guns (in the U.S.) are foreground issues. You and I have enjoyed each other’s posts before, and I think you’ve seen my post on “The End of All Politics.” We are, unto each other, the millennial/baby boomer amen chorus!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed, I am an avid recent follower of your work, and always look forward to it. I’m glad you appreciate my writings too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed I did like this post. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the new left/right divide is between the globalists and anti-globalists. Between those that want to protect the independence of nation states, and those who seek to abolish them to create a globalised world with open borders and free trade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is certainly one of the many sliding scales involved in contemporary politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I take it you mean that the globalists are the ones leaning to the Left and the anti-globalists to the Right?
LikeLike
I would definitely agree with you that the left/right spectrum is outdated and misleading in modern democracies. With that said, for most nations with majoritarian voting systems it works bearably – frankly the bigger issue is the voting system themselves! The political compass works a lot better but it is difficult for one to define themselves by it. Moreover, I think that very few people in this generation take the same level of pride in aligning themselves with a single political party as generations before them did so this problem creates a pluralism which is ignored by the left/right spectrum but also not especially fitting for the political compass either. The idea of globalist/protectionist is effectively an extension of the original left/right debate and is, as you note in regard to left/right, still binary. It is certainly a complex issue which is easily ignored in favour of less ideological, more tangible issues…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just stumbled across this blog there and found this post really thought provoking. I cover a lot of stuff like this on my own blog too so decided to give you a follow. Good luck going forward!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much! Our blogs certainly cover a lot of common ground – an excellent match, I would say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Definitely, thanks for the follow!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I enjoyed this post. I have to admit with all that’s happening here, in the US, I am woefully unaware of the particulars of British politics beyond the term Brexit, but one revolution at a time is probably best.
What you were thinking about today as left or right, I was thinking in terms of red or blue and all this ridiculous hype over who will do what where and how effectively based on this color assignment in states. As though people were really that easy to categorically place.
So, yes, this term bothers me in a similar way right/left bothers you.
As I watched a recap last night of Bernie Sander’s town Hall meeting in West Virginia, the “red” state where 80% voted for Trump, I realized something important. Bernie was greeted with a standing ovation from a room full of Trump supporters who then had a real discussion with him about the issues and nearly everyone agreed with Bernie.
That’s because of Bernie’s about issues, not politics, political parties, red state, blue state, it doesn’t matter. He just sees people who need solutions and they see someone who is genuinely trying to help. That’s the way it should be.
This party BS or left right nonsense needs to go. Political beliefs and priorities are not that black and white.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. I believe the U.S has a particular problem with this because its system is so heavily based around two parties, which leads to binary thinking. Even in the UK, we don’t have the same overwhelming dominance. You cannot simply separate people into “blue” or “red”. The world does not work that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am really late to this article, but again I am so impressed with your analysis. While I can’t pretend to be anywhere as knowledgable about politics as you, I have also been discouraged with the left-right spectrum in politics, mainly because I feel as though both sides have good points, but taken to an extreme, both are bad at heart. And it divides people too.
But this analysis was written so well, and you communicate your thoughts perfectly. You must get such good grades on essays. 😅
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks for your kind words!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A very thoughtful piece which I enjoyed reading. As I progressed through it I noted signs of emerging thought that I have been heartened to observe from growing numbers of millennials. A central problem in the polarized scale is one of language. Too often there is the misuse of words, incorrect or unfixed and vague definitions of terms. For example: What is a progressive? This depends on who is being asked the question. Those from different parts of the spectrum have differing ideas about what the term actually means. Here in the US most younger Americans have little concept of John Stuart Mill or the definition of classical liberalism. Liberal has, for right or wrong, become synonymous with Progressive. This is, I believe, largely the result of the effort by Liberals to rebrand themselves as something they are not. A sober examination of liberal thought and policy reveals that they are if anything regressive, not progressive. What is defined as liberal today is so far removed from the ideals of classical liberalism as to be insulting. Many younger Americans have made an error in assuming that because they share a root word the terms liberal and libertarian are the same thing. Among more and more there seems to be the dawning realization that though they may have identified as Liberal they are slowly discovering that they are in fact Libertarian.. I deal with these themes at length in my blog and I invite you to follow. I will be following yours from now. Thanks for sharing 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
All very true – the Liberal/Progressive thing especially. Thank you for your kind words – I will certainly check out your writing!
LikeLike