Everything about Left-right Politics totally explained
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.
The perspective of 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.
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 king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist
Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical
Montagnards sat on the left. This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the
Senate and
National Assembly of the
French Fifth Republic.
Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the 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. The earlier "left-wing" politicians were advocates of
laissez faire capitalism and the "right-wing" politicians opposed it, until the early nineteenth century when
anti-capitalism gained favour among the leftists due to the rise of
socialism. Despite this, the left-controlled French
National Convention decreed numerous economic interventions during the Revolution, including price controls (enforced under penalty of death), forced loans on those with incomes exceeding 1000 livres, and the abolishment of the Paris Stock Exchange and all joint-stock companies.
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. The most prominent of these was
Babeuf, now considered a proto-communist. On the right were the monarchists, who hoped to restore a monarchy, whether constitutional or absolute. 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
19th century found itself with a variety of political outlooks that were easily fitted into a left-right model. 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's to be clear consensus on the use or even the applicability of the terms. For example, in speaking of 1930s Europe, there's 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 once existed in the United States. Virtually every elected official during this period in the United States took a stance of
anti-Communism; it wasn't 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's no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect which is generally agreed upon is that they're 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 don't 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 understood as a category including
New Deal liberals,
Rawlsian liberals,
social democrats, and
civil libertarians, and is generally identified with the
Democratic Party. 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's entirely at odds with the modern liberal conception". The American right is broadly defined by upholding a traditionalist understanding of constitutional law, protection of fundamental rights, 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.
Meaning of the terms
The meaning of the terms "left" and "right" in a political context has changed radically over time. The Right is generally against intentional political, economic and social change, the Left is in favour of it.
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
| Left |
Right |
|
| economic interventionism |
laissez-faire |
In general, the political debate is about the extent to which the government should (interventionism) or shouldn't (laissez-faire) intervene in the economy in order to affect 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. From the 1980s onwards, free market economic views were widely adopted by the political right in many countries, notably the United States under Ronald Reagan, the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, and Australia. However, internationally there are numerous exceptions to this dichotomy; for instance, anarcho-syndicalists are viewed as left-wing despite opposing centralised economic control. In recent years, the left wing in many countries, including the British Labour Party, has largely moved away from socialist ideas of economic planning. |
| "larger" government preference |
"smaller" government preference |
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. In general, since the 1980s, the right wing in many countries has supported the privatization of state-owned enterprises and assets, creating a "smaller" government; this policy is particularly associated with Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, However, there are political ideologies that may serve as counter examples to this definition - libertarians, the authoritarian right, libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists and the old right. |
| workers' self-management |
employment |
Most left-wing ideologies prioritize workers interests and management of the means of production, while right-wing ideologies prioritize the right of the employer to pay wages. In fascist nations, while there was government intervention in the economy, it was in the interests of private enterprise and the bourgeoisie, who feared the growing popularization of the socialist parties after World War I. Support for Nazism was to be found in all segments of the population, but the majority came from the middle class and consisted largely of white-collar employees. |
| Equality of outcome |
Equality of opportunity |
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. Many leftists, however, do believe in human nature, some, such as Noam Chomsky, even making it central to their political philosophies., while right-wingers like De Maistre expressly reject the universality of human nature. |
Writers have also been known to use the term more loosely and perhaps anachronistically, as did H. G. Wells when, writing of the
Jews of the Roman Empire, he refers to the
Pharisees as "on the right" and Hellenised Jews such as the
Sadducees as "of the left."
Doubt about the contemporary relevance of the terms
Some contemporary political positions, such as the position known in the US as
libertarianism, have been argued as difficult to characterize in left-right terms. Libertarians may reject both the leftist advocacy of government regulation of the market and the protectionism which may be associated with some on the right, as with
paleoconservatives. Arguably, libertarian 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 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.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Left-right Politics'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://left-right_politics.totallyexplained.com">Left-right politics Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
