I was thinking last night about how I always proclaim myself a liberal (small 'l'), generally a moderate one, and usually describe myself (relevant the political spectrum) as being slightly left of centre.
For any political science neophytes who read my blog, I'm including here a quick lesson about the political spectrum. The spectrum has three main points: the left, the centre, and the right. On the extreme left is socialism (i.e. Marxism, communism). On the extreme right is nationalism (i.e. Fascism, Harperism*).** The extreme left, basically, believes in strict equality among people. They say the state should regulate all facets of the economy so as to ensure this equality.*** The extreme right, basically, believes in the people's freedom to act. They say the state should allow the economy to move as it will (laissez-faire economics), and allow people to either succeed or fail.**** The spectrum becomes very difficult to define at its borders, but I think this is generally a good description. In the centre we find the vast majority of Canadians. They believe the state should only intervene if it is necessary to maintain stability and standard of living. This, clearly, is a balance between the left and right. The spectrum becomes increasingly confusing as you expand beyond considerations of political economics and start to consider social factors. (Did I say "quick lesson"?) Basically: left = more government intervention to ensure equality, and; right = less government intervention to ensure equality.
An example:
Health Care:
Canada is very leftist here. All Canadians have public health insurance. The state picks up the tab.
The USA is very rightist here. Most Americans rely on private health insurance. The individual picks up the tab.
Now that I've confused the hell out of myself, I can move on.
In my blog I've talked smack about the Conservative Party (which I call slightly right of centre) and about George W. Bush (who is a couple notches right of the Conservatives). I've had both harsh (re: his consolidation of despotic powers) and kind (re: his belief in market protectionism for developing South/Latin American states) words about Hugo Chavez (who is miles left of centre).
My question is: Where am I? Am I a rightist? Am I a leftist? I claim to fall slightly left of centre, but does what I say/write back that up? Or am I confused? (I'm certainly confused, but I'm asking specifically about this topic.)
Here's part of the problem. I believe in Adam Smith's invisible hand, but I also believe in equality. But I believe more strongly in equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. That is, I think it is important that people have every opportunity to reach the same status, but that reaching that status is not a given. For example I'll talk about education. I think it is important that the government help fund post-secondary education (i.e. OSAP, tuition amounts on your tax return), but I don't believe the government should pay for everyone to get a post-secondary education.
I wonder where a regular Kerr's Comments reader would put me on the spectrum. I know Mr. McIver would put me somewhere left of Marx himself, but that's coming from someone who is slightly right of Dick Cheney.
Pondering such philosophical questions is great fun!
*****
* I think I made up "Harperism" and it is designed to refer to Stephen Harper. The reality of course is that Harper and his Conservative Party are quite close to centre, so ignore this and recognize it as a joke. Thank-you.
** The example of fascism probably leads people to think Hitler, and he was a rightist fascist, but fascism and nationalism do not necessarily mean Hitler-esque tyrany and evil. It just sort of seems that way.
*** For a true socialist the state becomes obsolete once true equality is acheived, so saying the state should regulate the economy is only half correct.
**** Unlike for a socialist, a rightist would never suggest the disappearance of the state system.
I tried reading that blog posting and you were successful in confusing not only yourself, but also your reader(s). Furthermore, after reading it, I'm not really sure what side of the spectrum you are on.
ReplyDeleteSo, to put my spin on it, I would call you neither a lefty or a righty, but probably more of an opportunist. That may sound harsh, but let me explain. You generally agreed with the party in power when you become interested in politics. I know how you feel; I was there. The party behaved in a reasonable and responsible (read: right-of-center) fashion, so hence, you are supportive of that party.
However, political maturity takes longer to achieve and even longer to understand. Some never leave the party that was in power when they first felt the political bug; others, leave the party early on when they 1) develop a brain or 2) stop caring altogether. Thus, the reason why I consider you an opportunist. I don't think you strongly agree/disagree with the Liberal's positions on various subjects (or Conservatives for that matter), but rather, they are your default political party; a go-to group of people to support when you haven't found anybody else to support. I'm not critizing, but rather, just explaining the way I see it.
Finally, I would disagree with your assertion that "left-wing = more government intervention and more equality" and "right-wing = less government intervention and less equality". I don't see the correlation between the degree of intervention by government and equality. The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc, have massive government intervention, but I think you would agree there's hardly equality amongst the masses. Rather, I would say "left-wing = more government pandering with a twist of paternalistic social programs" and "right = less government interference in our lives so we can succeed based on our natural abilities and take responsibility for our actions".
Let me know how the journey to Mecca turns out!
I don't like your choice of word when you call me an "opportunist." I will submit that I did indeed first join the Liberal Party more due to circumstance than political alignment, but I've since had many opportunities to withdraw my support. Even through the "Scandal Years" I have found more redeeming qualities within the Liberal Party (esp. in terms of policy) than the Conservative Party. I am 100% convinced that even had I not initially joined the Grits, I would now be a Grit. You are correct in saying I do not strongly agree/disagree with the Liberal's positions, but the Liberal's positions are more closely aligned with mine than are the positions of any of the other parties. So while I agree with much of your assessment, I disagree with the "opportunist" moniker. As I see it, were I an opportunist, I would not have hesitated to jump ship when the Tories rose to power - I would have jumped on the opportunities which can only be presented by a governing party. Call me a circumstantial Liberal if you like. I think that's sort of what you're getting at anyway. (I love arguing semantics!)
ReplyDeleteBut this blog is more about liberal vs. conservative than Liberal vs. Conservative. Though to be 100% accurate, it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, rather it is about left vs. right. You see a lefty in Canada is a conservative (but not a Conservative) while a lefty in the US is not a conservative at all. A righty in the US is a conservative. So conservative is not really related to left-right politics, it's simply a title given to people or the party that argues for the maintenance of the status-quo, which could just as easily be left as right. Indeed being liberal is not mutually exclusive of being conservative. A Canadian who is a liberal is a conservative, though not a Conservative.
Your comment on the USSR, China, N. Korea, etc not having equality among the masses is simply misinformed. The vast majority of the population of the USSR was intensely poor. A doctor in the USSR would live in a state-assigned apartment next to a janitor without any difference in condition (and little difference in wage earned). That changed a little into the latter days of the Soviet Union, but that was the way things were. In N. Korea everyone is dirt poor (except the very small class of ruling elite). China was the same, indeed in many areas is the same. The only places where you have class differentiation are the economic liberalization zones - areas of the country where the government allows more or less free trade and competition. Other than that, you have a lot of very poor people. But even if you disagree (or I'm wrong) about the actual level of socioeconomic equality in these leftist states, the ideal of the extreme left is complete equality (suggested readings: Das Kapital, Marx and Engels; and Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels). As far as the right, well, that was a little more difficult to explain. My "right = less government intervention and less equality" is a little problematic. When I say less government intervention I mean that specifically relating to the economy (laissez-faire) and society (libertarianism). In other areas the right would argue for larger government (i.e. national defence). As for the "less equality" part, I suppose that's up for debate. Certainly you are correct in saying that "right = less government interference in our lives so we can succeed based on our natural abilities and take responsibility for our actions," but really that's just another way of saying the right isn't concerned with ensuring equality. The right's idea of equality is put everyone at the starting line and make them start at the same time. The left's idea of equality is to make sure everyone in the race is on the same lap.
The more I read this post, the more I find to dislike about it. I want to clarify that the political spectrum (where we get the ideas of left and right wing politics) is very problematic. It has in fact largely been replaced in academic circles by more in-depth political spectrums which have multiple axes.
ReplyDeleteI also suggested that the extreme left would argue for no government at all, which is partially correct, except that the political spectrum is concerned with politics, and at that extreme, there is no politics, so it doesn't fall on the spectrum at all. And, unlike what I said in one of the sub-texts, the extreme right would also say no government, but again, that doesn't fall on the spectrum so it's not really the right at all.
Blah, Mecca is hard to find.