In this era of mass democracy, most Americans encounter an onslaught
of [mis]information regarding governmental matters during election
season. Especially during the presidential race, which mercifully ends
tomorrow, we are constantly exposed to advertisements from candidates
and special interest groups, as well as unqualified and unsolicited
opinions from laymen who have the pretense of possessing the slightest
modicum of political acuity. Most people think that they know where
they stand on the political spectrum that is commonly used today, but
how well do they really understand their beliefs?
Everyone
is familiar with the two mainstream political parties in the United
States of America: the Democrats and the Republicans. These parties are
associated, but not synonymous, with the political left and right. To
many, these terms are poorly-defined, and they are often abused.
Libertarians often proudly proclaim to be "neither left nor right", when
they mean that they dissent with both mainstream parties. Having been
involved with libertarian groups and discussions, I hear this claim a
lot.
On some level, I agree with it, but to be frank, it
greatly annoys me too. Essentially, libertarianism is the belief that
in terms of human interaction, coercion, whether implicit (e.g.
governmental) or explicit, is wrong. That's it. On the surface level,
this cannot be placed on the right-left dichotomy. To assess the full
validity of the assertion, we must ask what the meanings of right-wing
and left-wing politics really are.
In the United States,
left-wing politics is supposedly marked by liberalism (in the true sense
of the word) regarding civil liberties and illiberalism regarding
economic liberties. Right-wing politics is supposedly the converse.
Now, most Americans claim to be 'moderate' and supposedly lie somewhere
in the middle. This, of course, is a nonsensical term--what does that
really mean? Are they illiberal regarding both types of liberties? Are
they liberal regarding both types?
Both types of
liberties are very much related and complement each other. There is no
reason to believe that this setup is a valid dichotomy. Thus, many
libertarians profess to not believe in any sort of left-right dichotomy,
and claim that the real dichotomy is one of "freedom" and "statism".
Though it is true that liberty and tyranny are diametrically opposed,
the claim that this is a most basic philosophical dichotomy is
consequentialist nonsense.
What of the divide between
"mutualists" or "anarcho-syndicalists", who identify with leftism, and
"anarcho-capitalists"? Strictly speaking, they are both libertarian as
they subscribe to the principle of non-aggression. Consequentially,
they agree with a non-existence of government. But, notably, there is a
clear-cut difference in the more fundamental worldviews and values that
these groups espouse. In Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's great analysis of
leftism and rightism, he notes that the basic drive in leftism is identity, and that the corresponding in rightism is diversity.
As
the concept of identity implies equality, we can see why mutualists and
anarcho-syndicalists are considered to be on the left. And, since
humans are inherently unequal and diverse in moral, physical, and mental
matters, we can see why anarcho-capitalism is considered rightist.
Now, political systems that emphasise political equality are
democracies, so democratism [and republicanism] are properly placed on
the left. Traditionalist monarchies are rightist, of course, but what
of dictatorships and totalitarian states? Did the power structure of
the Soviet Union not appear to mirror that of the Russian Empire better
than that of the politically pluralistic United States of
America?
The monarchy, however, had no pretensions of
deriving legitimacy from the voice of "the people", as that implies that
people are equal. It only derived its legitimacy from tradition and
divine circumstances. By contrasting that with the Soviet, fascist, and
national socialist ideologies, it makes complete sense to place the
latter three in the leftist category. The monarchy theoretically is
socially and economically pluralistic; "liberal" democracies and the
totalitarian systems are monist in those senses. As human equality can
only be enforced through coercion, whether institutionalised or at the
hands of a rabid mob, the absence of that should be described as
rightist.
Humans are prone to logical
inconsistency, so systems of belief can simultaneously have leftist and
rightist aspects. This describes anarcho-syndicalism particularly well,
as it is leftist in character, but rightist in temper, due to its
belief in non-aggression. Similarly, many modern "conservatives" who
value tradition and legitimate authority simultaneously advocate strong
central government, enforcement of their moral ideals both within and
across borders, and identitarian beliefs. Though commonly called
"rightist", they are far more leftist in temper.
Why is
this semantic distinction between leftism and rightism important to
me? After all, shouldn't the modern left-right dichotomy be abandoned
due to its absurdity? My answer is that if rightist libertarians, who
are far more intellectually consistent than libertarians who identify
with the left, can understand these basic drives of identity and
diversity, they can greatly improve outreach efforts. Libertarians
often form coalitions with "progressives" in an effort to protest the
numerous wars and infringements on civil liberties that Republicans have
pushed through, yet they should know that this is nothing more than an
alliance of convenience, as progressives are very egalitarian. In
contrast, a good portion of the Republican-leaning rank-and-file can
identify far more with the rightist emphases on tradition and hierarchy,
and have been the most lucrative source of libertarian converts.
Furthermore,
the imperfection of having intellectual contradictions is something
that no human should strive for, and indicates a certain intellectual
immaturity. Almost all people are easily convinced by demagogues and
herdish to the point where they will adopt a position merely because
some critical mass of others has. Will you, as an intellectually
curious person, identify with them? Or will you advocate what is true
and ultimately right?
