The binary
dualism of ‘Left/Right’ politics can be blamed on the French. In Revolutionary
times those who supported the King, and generally thought change might bring
about the unacceptable situation of owning less stuff, sat to the right of the
President of the Assembly. This self segregation was largely brought about by a
desire amongst the aristocratic caste to avoid the unpleasant vernacular and
general obnoxiousness of those who were starting to harbour disrespectful ideas
about perhaps owning more stuff than they presently did. This latter group of
people banded together on the left of the President. At this stage the ‘left’
was mainly made up of people who would most likely be ‘right’ by today’s standard
– the filthy masses had not been invited to partake in politics just yet. When
they eventually demanded a place the ‘left’ became divided up into all sorts of
sub groups, whilst there wasn’t much left of the old ‘right’ at all. Over time
balance was restored as more and more people came around to the idea that the
‘left’ always seemed to be about redistributing wealth, which was not a good
thing if you happened to have finally gotten a bit of it. So the ‘right’ grew a
little.
By the
early twentieth century the British took it upon themselves to organise
everything and it wasn’t long before you could tell if a chap had a few bob
just by where he sat in parliament. It seemed like the perfect way to arrange
things but then of course back then people weren’t used to time and space being
relative, so a linear, dualistic way of looking at politics still made some
kind of sense. Today it does not. The Wikipedia entry for the ‘left/right’
political model states that things like civil liberties are associated with the
Left for example. And yet last century is cluttered with ‘Leftist’ regimes that
set about crushing civil liberties. Apologists always say things like, ‘but
that wasn’t true socialism’ with a tone of understandable bewilderment. I hear
their pain. It’s meant to be a Utopia where everyone is equal and gets along,
but it just never seems to work out like that. Can it be that guys like Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot and even charismatic killing machine Che Guevara really be that
far off the mark? Or is it a matter that we are overlooking something when we
try to describe political affiliation?
I believe
the ‘Left/Right’ duality makes virtually no sense without an axis for
‘Free/Unfree’, or ‘Libertarian/Authoritarian’. Under this model Gandhi and
Stalin are both to the Left, but the former is down south in Libertarian land,
and the latter is way up in Authoritarian –ville. Under this model the basic
structure of a society is either Free or Unfree, with ideology providing the
social refinements. To further complicate matters let’s also allow for
differences in Left/Right ideology depending on what we are talking about – it
is for example entirely possible to be fiscally conservative and socially
liberal. And liberalism is an ideology like any other, so when this is enforced
as the dominant paradigm, then that society is Authoritarian in nature, even if
the values it is enforcing are ‘progressive’. Small ‘l’ liberals have a
terrible time understanding this. The imposition of any ideology upon others,
even if you feel yours is more ‘fair’, is still Authoritarian in nature.
Which
brings me to ‘liberalism’ and ‘progressive’. Both words have been co opted by
dreary cultural Marxists in unwashed cardigans, and now mean something quite
different to their original intention. Liberalism in the classical sense was
all about diversity of thought, but it has now become synonymous with the
Authoritarian imposition of a politically correct orthodoxy. Same thing with
‘progressive’ – it is a great word that is now used to describe a complete lack
of evolvement in social and political thought. The Left has been especially
keen to embrace Authoritarianism because of this deep seated belief that their
social construct is morally superior. Traditionally the French have seen the
Left as being the realm of ‘movement’, whilst the Right represents ‘Order’. But
the Left has become so enamoured of the justice of its cause that time and
again it has resorted to Authoritarianism to impose itself, which instantly
destroys key Leftist principles. And in doing so the Left has sent Libertarian
elements to the Right, and helped create an environment whereby it is
increasingly the domain of
‘progressive’, dynamic political dialogue. It is interesting to observe
the vibrancy of grassroots political activism on the Right, and the confused
hand wringing of the generally Left leaning establishment in the West,
especially the media and academia. They can’t seem to understand why these
dreadful Rightists don’t like their Utopian social constructs, much in the same
way as the people on the right hand side of the French Assembly could not quite
grasp why those on the left wanted to cut their heads off.
Of course
this contains vast generalisations, and the tiny little part of the Right
spectrum I am talking about is also treated with suspicion by the turgid
monolith of the Centrist Right establishment. It’s just interesting that
supposedly key elements of Leftist philosophy are now in the domain of the
Right. I think it would be a great exercise to get some Tea Partiers and some
Occupiers together in a room with a large whiteboard. I would ask them to list
some basic ideas about preferred social constructs. You would start with things
like getting rid of the corporatist influence on government. And government could
be smaller and less Authoritarian. And individual freedoms need greater
protection. And so on. Quite a long list of shared preferences would emerge. Then
of course, the shouting would start. ‘You’re unwashed dope smoking hippies!’
‘You’re beer guzzling squares!’ Huge differences would emerge over the details
of individual lifestyle preference. But perhaps some would see that on a
‘macro’ level they basically want the same general social configuration, whilst
on a ‘micro’ level they will disagree on all sorts of things. This is the key
lesson of Libertarianism.
In a
Libertarian society we have to accept that we will share the air with people
who we do not agree with. They will be ‘too conservative’ or ‘too liberal’.
Their ideology may seem less fair than ours, or weak minded or whatever. For
those who hold Utopian visions of how society should be, this is an intolerable
state of affairs, which may explain why the Left has embraced Authoritarianism
so wholeheartedly. If your vision of society is perfect, it ‘logically’ follows
that anyone who thinks it isn’t simply needs to be ‘educated’. Or gotten rid
of. You may recall a chap called Adolph Hitler. He ran a political party that
started out all ‘socialist’ and ‘workers’. He was the darling of the progressive
types of the day, delighting them with his beer hall oratory that spoke of a
Utopian vision of a Greater Germany. Of course there were a few changes needed
and a bit of social reorganisation. When charismatic guys start mentioning
having to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, the alarm bells should start to
go off.
But they
never do. Hitler wrote his autobiography before he became famous. Barack Obama
also did this. I am not presenting an Ad Hitlerum, despite its obvious appeal,
just an observation that meglomanical sociopaths tend to do this. Through his
penchant for Executive Orders, signing of the NDAA’s clause for indefinite detention
without trial, and many other acts he has done more to concentrate dictatorial
power s in the office of the Presidency than anyone else. And that is saying
quite a bit because some of his predecessors gave it a real shot. But of course
a black man couldn’t be a dictator could he? Actually come to think of it, perhaps
Amin, Mugabe and Taylor to name but three, kind of speak for the non racially
discriminatory nature of despotic absolute power. But Obama is pro gay marriage
point out his apologists – how can this possibly be congruent with the idea
that he is Authoritarian? Well Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals.
Authoritarianism is seductive because it often first appears in a role
supporting something you may cherish dearly. But once you let it have its way,
don’t be surprised if there’s a shift in ideology, and an unpleasant one at
that. The groovy modern artist who listened to a young Hitler in a beer hall in
Munich,
probably didn’t expect to wind up in a concentration camp because his art was
‘decadent’. He probably thought, ‘hey – this Hitler cat is an artist like me!’.
It’s a slippery slope.
Of course a
Libertarian society is a ludicrous joke that will never work. It relies upon
people being self responsible and making informed decisions, all the while
respecting that others may have different worldviews. When has that ever
worked? Much like the Left/Right divide, it only really has a chance if we
accept that we may have different models for different aspects of society. In a
way Libertarianism needs to be ‘encased’ in Authoritarianism. For example it
would be possible to envisage a country that has a strong military, that deters
potential aggressors, but within that country there is a high standard of
personal liberty. And perhaps a strong police force that regulates behaviour to
ensure that freedom of expression is maintained and those who threaten it, or
others, are dealt with. Unrestricted Libertarianism is possibly as naïve as the
Utopians who believe that everyone will adopt their particular social model if
only they can be ‘educated’ about its merits.
But by at
least having an awareness of the Libertarian/Authoritarian dynamic and
incorporating it as an axis in how we position ourselves politically, we are
able to better understand why it all keeps going so horribly wrong. The key
thing to watch out for is when the dissenting voices disappear, especially the
ones you don’t agree with. When that happens enjoy your beer because your
little victory will be short lived. Ultimately there is only Free and Unfree,
and whilst there are people you disagree with ideologically, there is still
some hope.