Right VS Left

Right and left as it concerns political or ideological alignment is surely one of the biggest mockeries of our intelligence I can think of. Are we to believe that in matters of public policy there are but two roads to choose? Have we become so lazy as to accept that our own beliefs must fit into one of these predetermined camps of thought? Are the two sides we have been given an option to choose from really all that different? Perhaps we should examine the origins of the terminology Right & Left, that we may decipher whether or not it merits our continued faith.

The first uses of these monikers right and left, to describe conservative and liberal respectively, can be traced back to the French National Assembly of 1789 where the more liberal delegates congregated on the left side of the chamber and the opposing conservative members camped upon the right. This simple seating arrangement has since swayed most legislative bodies worldwide, into this practice of creating an imaginary line of center which creates in turn the real divide of legislative members within the body. This has basically put form to the theory that all things political can be represented on a linear axis, a straight line going from one extreme to another. This two dimensional explanation states that going from either direction, simple steps of succession lead only to a more rigid belief in the pronounced extreme of either side.

The matter is exponentially complicated when we ask what ends populate either side of this given axis. To one it may be a line based on classes of society, the left being a champion of lower classes and the right being the friend of the upper class in society. Another explanation might show the divide in government involvement, the left representing large government programs and high taxation to fund them or the right’s belief that government should be limited in its reach and less of a financial burden to the citizenry. Another possibility might be in the manner of legislation. The right could be said to represent a rigidity of principle regardless of the tangible ends whereas the left might be said to follow the singular principle that every circumstance demands its own consideration based on expected ends. This invariably clouds the discussion when we argue one set line against another, whose line may have a different definition. If my interpretation of left to right was the amount government involvement with a belief that lower class citizens have the best chance of rising out of their current class by means of less government involvement, I would assuredly be on the right. With the same belief but on the scale of class compassion, wouldn’t I then be on the left? Also, if we took the level of government involvement method we would see socialism on the far left and anarchy, or the lack of a government, on the extreme right, right? Well perhaps, if all agreed on the axis but as I recall, fascism is most often considered being an extreme right system of government which is defined as a system lead by a dictator, regimenting all forms of industry and commerce. So this system of pure government control could be considered either left or right depending on the axis used.

Here in America the right and left is represented by the Democratic and Republican parties although the defined axis is less clear. It would seem that for any given topic each of these parties account for their respective sides but often by different views of the axis. When it comes to war efforts, the Republicans are the accepted champions, most often citing a principle of common defense for this stance, disregarding the largeness of government it entails. Likewise the Democratic Party is often marketed as the party of the free thought, championing the notions of free speech and expression. The term liberal even stems directly from the word, liberty. Free thought and expression however are most often coincided by a lack of regulation and therefore a more limited government which now places them on the right. This circular means of reasoning can quickly overwhelm those without the insight to see past this ploy and entices those easily led, to choose one or the other as if they were the only choices to be had.

This must be stopped. We must put away this erroneous delineation of a single line, explaining all positions of policy. Forget the idea that what is presented as left and right are actually the polar opposites of each other. We must choose for ourselves a position, based upon principles within us, to determine where we stand on every issue. Who can we trust but ourselves and our own personal lives and experiences to determine not right or left but right and wrong? Let us then make every effort to map our own political philosophies, individually with an understanding not only of where we stand but also why. Take any policy issue at hand, resist the impulse to jump into a familiar form of thought and treat this issue singularly and without prejudice. Look to history and good council to weigh your conclusion but begin with your own sense of conscience and let that be strengthened by the exercise that in time, when any new matter arises, your faculties may be sharpened for the consideration.

Finally, drop all names of confederation whenever possible, for to take on the name of any group entitles you also to their whole ideology. Likewise, abstain from determining another’s entire philosophy by concluding from a single position that they make known. This has stifled the furtherance of political discourse in America to a very sad degree. Every debate seems so quickly reduced to pitting one’s own group and all its positions against the other, instead of looking at the matter singularly and without thought or care to how a particular group views it. Take pride in your own beliefs and do not rely on others to define or defend them but take this responsibility on yourself. The pleasure of knowing why you believe something in addition to simply knowing what you believe, grants enough personal reward to condone the practice and more so when you consider the effects on this nation, should any large number of people subscribe to it.

Brutus Sophos Monticello