The Issues of Left-Wing or Right-Wing Politics - Essay Example

The Issues of Left-Wing or Right-Wing Politics Left-Wing or Right-Wing politics are terms used to classify the inclination of any individual, political party, political positions, prescribed policies etc on the Left-Right political spectrum where “Left” and “Right” are in essence dialectic expressions of counter-balancing socio-political philosophies and ideologies1. The context of socio-political ideologies has observed radical transformation and consequently the concepts of the “left-wing” and the “right-wing” have observed considerable inter-temporal dynamism globally. Further, history has observed considerable number of conceptual overlaps and cross-laps resulting in an abstract blurriness regarding the exact political and implications these terms bear (Foldvary, 1998). According to Giddens (2001), ‘left’ refers to radical or progressive political groups while the term ‘right’ is used to imply more conservative groups. The left favours intentional political, economic and social change, while the right stands against it (Tansey, 2000). The purpose of this paper is to explore into whether fathomable differences exist within the left and right wings in terms of differential significance placed upon the individual and the group which requires developing a comparative understanding of the central themes these two concepts bear. The practice of using the left-right demarcation to imply particular distinct political inclinations originated in 18th century France during the revolutionary era when ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ were used to refer to the way seating was arranged in legislative bodies of France. Representatives of the third estate, a term collectively used to denote the working class, sat to the left of the president's chair in the Estates General of 1789 while the representatives of the nobility, known as the Second Estate, sat to the right. Again in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, the Feuillants who were moderate royalists, took seats at the right side of the chamber, while the more radical Montagnards sat on the left (Goodsell, 1988). In subsequent periods the "right" wing assumed meaning based on tradition and was taken to represent and upheld traditional moral values and traditional institutions and power relationships. Through the course of history in Europe and America, power had come to be based on not only the institutions of church and state, but also on the race, gender, and ownership of property, particularly land. Left-wing ideology, which arose to counter the right wing dominance, was based on reason, and the liberal philosophers pointed out at the lack of natural reason for the existence of relations centred around any form of dominance and concluded that all human beings have the same moral worth and thus should have equal rights and all religious practices should be equally treated by law. Observation of tradition could only be by voluntary participation and never by legal enforcement. These were in essence the original “liberal” ideas so referred to due to their favourable bias for liberty rather than for the authoritarian rule imposed by the state, the church and the landed aristocracy (Foldvary, 1998). But, the original political implications of 'left' and 'right' have been through considerable evolution since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. Then ‘leftists’ were more or less anti-state interventionist, pro laissez-faire and the ‘right’-wing more of state-interventionists of one kind and another. This sense lasted up to as late as 1848, with Frederic Bastiat, the pro-market and anti-privilege classical economist sitting on the left in the National Assembly (Lester, 1995).But the advent of Sismondian2 socialism led to the splitting of the liberals into two groups. One supported free-market economy and civil liberties, while the other, pursuing equality and sympathy for the exploited workers, favoured the path of socialism and the idea of the welfare state3. In Europe, since the aristocrats, large industrialists, and owners of land wielded power and favoured right-wing policies, there was no problem in identifying the ruling class. But there was no historic aristocracy in the United States and different classical liberal ideas such as the free market economy, democracy and freedom of speech were incorporated into the Constitution. As a result, these liberal ideas became traditional adoptions in the American ideology and hence assumed the stature of “conservative”, rightist notions. Consequently, the conservative right is divided into free market and minimal government promoting classical liberals and traditional value and nationalist policy favouring traditional ‘old order’ authoritarians and more interestingly, the “liberal” left is now Sismondian in supporting interventionism and the welfare state and thus flouting the classical sense (of promoting individual freedom) of the term.(Rothbard, 1965). So, what emerges is that through the course of time and across nations the “left” wing ideology has allowed shift from an initially free market and minimal interventionism philosophy to one standing against it while “right” wing philosophy has broadened in scope to accommodate these so that at the extremes the distinction does sometimes become blurry and debatably, the left-right spectrum obscures more than it illuminates upon in the present (Brittan, 1968)4. In the twentieth century the fact that the parties traditionally viewed as being on the extreme left and the extreme right have had much more similarities than of differences has been pointed out by many writers. Consider for instance, belief in regulatory government, planned economies, and the importance of the notion of the ‘state’ over that of the ‘individual’ were shared by both advocates of communism and other various forms of socialism as well as Nazism and Fascism. Interestingly, by origin, Mussolini was a very seriously dedicated Marxist while Nazism meant National Socialism (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1990) In spite of this blurriness there still exists a broad philosophical difference in the fact that the "left wing" tends to advocate more government intervention, favours a relatively “larger” government and is less pro-business (justifying these in terms of concern about the welfare of the social classes) compared to the "right-wing"(Dunlap, Xiao and McCright,2001; Neumayer, 2003) So, in interesting role reversals in respect to their 18th century stances, presently the “left wing” in most nations advocates state interventionism while the “right wing” prefers the “laissez-faire” stance5. Since the 1980s onwards, free market views gained popularity with the “right-wing” in the USA, the UK and Australia among other nations (Davies, 1993; Worthington, 2002). It is from these differential positions towards state interventionism that the distinction between stances of the “Left-wing” and “Right-wing” towards the individual and the group emerge. Preference for state interventionism is justified on the grounds of promoting social justice by the Left-wingers. Thus left wing philosophy allows regulation of individual lives by the state to ensure achievement of their version of social justice. The Right-wingers on the other hand believe governments to be unnecessarily large and unwieldy institutions to suit this purpose and thus should not interfere ‘individuality’ and moreover such interference flouts the notion of an individual’s right to liberty itself (Hardisty & Bhargava, 2005). As a result left wingers are in favour of a “large” government while the Right wing prefers a smaller one6 . The differences in Left-Right philosophy stems from, I believe, differential ideological evaluations of the notions of equality and liberty and not the fact that one believes in these while the other does not. Left-wingers and right-wingers both are in favour of equality and liberty, but it is in their respective interpretations of these ideals that are different. Bobbio, (1997), identifies the crucial difference between left and right as one of different priorities in that that the left prioritises social substantial equality, while the right prioritises individual responsibility and the maintenance of natural and inherent inequalities between people. According to him, or the “Left-Wing” social justice is achieved by ensuring substantial equality and liberty in terms of final social outcome for every individual. Pointing out that not all individuals enjoy the same skills and benefits by birth, “Left-Wingers” argue, equality in substantial terms has to be ensured by government policy as the free market will lead to deviations from attainment of this pattern of social equity. Provision of equal social and cultural rights and rights to affirmative action are examples of the “Left-Wing” notion of substantial equity. So, the final goal is to drive away all individual inequalities present in society and to create a society where individuals enjoy homogeneous livelihood in terms of culture, access and in kind. The “Right-Wing” on the other hand believes in formal equality and liberty in terms of opportunity. This implies equal treatment of all individuals by law and by the government. “Right-wing” formal equality is ensured by providing equal pay for equal work and identical civil and political rights for all (Bobbio, 1997). So, the discussion above does indicate the “Left-Wing” in all of its assumed forms, be it the pro laissez-faire anti-interventionist “Left-Wing” of the French revolutionary era or the interventionist and anti free-market Left of the phase of socialism and communism has throughout been primarily concerned with amelioration of the conditions for and provision of equal benefits to the working class and the common mass of people. Their concern has mainly been with the group of the non-privileged classes particularly the working class and as their outlook regarding the impacts that interventionism will have regarding this has changed they have embraced differential policy prescriptions and philosophical stances. The Right has throughout been concerned with provision of and preserving individual freedom and liberty. They have looked at all social groups as a sum of individuals and have sought to improve and preserve benefits for the individual which for them is the process through which the group will benefit. We can thus distinguish between these two in terms of the direct significance they place on the individual and the group. However on a concluding note I would like to point out that although it appears Left-Wingers stress on group benefits only and strive to earn privileges for those groups denied of them they do so as they believe that it is through this process that overall conditions for the general mass of people will improve and so the individual still denied of his basic social rights will gain access to them. Again, the Right-Wingers who stress upon provision of individual rights and liberty do hold that in this process the overall conditions of the society will improve and so will conditions for all social groups. Therefore, although the difference exists in terms of direct significance placed upon individuals and groups, these are in essence philosophies that strive to make the same ends meet and deeper introspection thus does create a blur of the distinction in terms of ideology. Bibliography: Blattberg C., (2001). Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies , Public Affairs Quarterly 15, No. 3 193–217. Brittan, S. (1968), Left or Right: The Bogus Dilemma, London, Secker and Warburg. Bobbio, N., (1997). Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, Translated by Allan Cameron, University of Chicago Press. Davies, S., (1993). Margaret Thatcher and the Rebirth of Conservatism, Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs Dunlap,R.E., Xiao, C. & McCright, A.M., (2001) Politics and environment in America:partisan and ideologica cleavages in public support for environmentalism., Env. Politics, 10:23-48 Foldvary, F.E. (1998) Left Wing and Right Wing, The Progress Report Editorial http://www.progress.org/fold64.htm Giddens A (2004) Sociology (4th ed.) Cambridge Polity Goodsell C.T., (1988), The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988) Hardisty, J. & Bhargava, D.,(2005) Wrong about the Right, The Nation,(November 7, 2005 issue) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/hardisty Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E.V, (1990) LEFTISM REVISITED: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, REGNERY GATEWAY publishers, Washington, D.C. Lester J.C., (1995) The Political Compass: Why Libertarianism is not Right-Wing, Political Notes No 116, Libertarian Alliance, London. Neumayer, E., (2003) Are left-wing party strength and corporatism good for the environment? Ecol. Econ., 45: 203-220 Rothbard, M.N (1965) Left and Right:The Prospects for Liberty, Left & Right, Spring 1965 (© 2002 The Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama ) Tansey, Stephen J., (2000) Politics: The Basics, London Welfare state defined, Encyclopedia Britannica online, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076482/welfare-state Worthington, G. (2002) Conservatism in Australian National Politics, Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library, 19 February 2002 Read More