Everytime I hear someone make the argument that there is no coherent Right and Left, I wonder how Wikipedia makes those nice election results graphics that almost perfectly place all political parties on the ideological spectrum.
Here is just one example out of hundreds of election results:
The reason is simple, because the Left/Right political spectrum is by far the easiest way to convey the policy stands of political parties in democratic societies. Pointing to exceptions does not invalidate the rule.
And claiming that they are really “tribes” doesn’t give proof that those tribes cannot be correctly arranged on the Left/Right spectrum. Wikipedia does it all the time.
The Left believes the government should implement major policies to fight Inequality and promote Equality, while the Right thinks other goals are more important. It is not complicated.
I do believe, however, that the Left/Right spectrum is largely useless for:
1) Traditional pre-industrial societies with emperors, kings, tribal/clan leaders, big men, and informal leadership within Hunter Gather societies.
2) Totalitarian movements and regimes, all of which share far more in common with each other than differences once you get beyond the terminology and symbolism. These include Communist, Fascists, and National Socialists.
I don't follow the details of Euro political parties, but in places with multiple parties, do you get less bundling, as you can find a party that represents your mix of views?
There would still be some, of course, because if there were 10 key issues, that would require 1024 parties to represent all the combinations (assuming only 2 choices on each issue, in reality, there are often 3 or 4 choices per issue).
A question for you guys (and everyone). Can you imagine a universe where the left vs right positions on abortion are flipped? Where the typical left inclination to champion the helpless faces off against the right's tendency to keep government out of family decisions--or some other differential values? Or, in keeping with the theme discussed by Lewis, just a different social bundling with other issues?
Yes, I can. Much of the "bundling" (good term) is mysterious to me. Maybe to some others, too. GOOD subject for extensive analysis (which I'm sure is well-underway).
I can very easily imagine such a universe—I'm generally opposed to economic redistribution, especially for the sake of equality, and I'm strongly in favor of abortion on demand.
So what might this universe look like? The right might, as SDNC suggests, emphasize individual freedom from government control. They might also argue that a ban on abortion means more births among the parasitic classes of society, leading to a future electorate that would lean more strongly toward taxing productive and useful people to provide more goodies for unproductive and useless ones. Indeed, they could take the position that society should have no obligations to impecunious mothers and children than the cost of an abortion.
Meanwhile, on the left, where the invocation of the word "vulnerable" is considered a telling agument, it'd be argued that abortion on demand is a thinly disguised attempt to eliminate ethnic minorities, thus diminishing their power to seek justice at the ballot box. We'd be told that heartless right-wingers would rather kill babies than provide for their basic human needs.
I believe Daniel Ortega is prolife, and he was famously a Communist opposed by Reagan. Ceausescu in Romania was another Communist, and he was notorious for his restrictions on abortion.
Have you read the book? They make it clear in their chapter on the history of the left and right that abortion was not a left or right issue until the late 1970s.
So we don't have to imagine it, it has already happened.
Most people really *do not care* about politics for most things. So it makes sense they only have consistent views on a grab-bag of things that stir them up (i.e. abortion, gender) then are inconsistent with everything else.
They #1 - haven't thought much about economics and don't understand it.
#2 - They don't *care* enough to understand it.
If the Leader says, "this is what we think on those issues", they fall right into line. It would never occur to them to object that tariffs are a violation of rights, that the seperation of powers gives Congress the power of the purse, that these barriers exist to protect against Dictatorship, that if the opposing side gets into power these new abuses will be turned against them - they don't care, don't think about it, and repeat what the Leader says.
If you object, you're "with the Libtards, think men are women" etc, even though the link between State abuse and gender theory don't logically follow.
That's why intellectual dominance is so powerful. Most people only pay attention for these handful of issues, and unless it gets to the point that literal smoke and fire is raging outside and you can't drive to the store - that the streets are clogged with protestors, inflation is hitting double digits- now the Average Joe starts to care about more than one issue and pays attention.
That's why chasing the Average Joe voter around is ultimately a losing proposition. They're inconsistent and would crash the ship. They aren't tethered to reality enough to decide on national policy covering 320 million people - and why should they be? In a free society, people work in narrowly defined fields to create the values they need. The opinions they have on everything else are necessarily limited -most don't have the time or energy or inclination to read up on the Middle East, biology, or economics. They'd rather watch Netflex or a ball game.
The *real* problem exposed by 2020 is that the so-called experts, the intellectuals, were exposed as incompetent partisan hacks. Which empowered the incompetent, partisan hacks of the opposing side.
Madison said it best in the Federalist Papers, and the above is why - Democracies tear each other apart.
Everytime I hear someone make the argument that there is no coherent Right and Left, I wonder how Wikipedia makes those nice election results graphics that almost perfectly place all political parties on the ideological spectrum.
Here is just one example out of hundreds of election results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Norwegian_parliamentary_election#Results
The reason is simple, because the Left/Right political spectrum is by far the easiest way to convey the policy stands of political parties in democratic societies. Pointing to exceptions does not invalidate the rule.
And claiming that they are really “tribes” doesn’t give proof that those tribes cannot be correctly arranged on the Left/Right spectrum. Wikipedia does it all the time.
The Left believes the government should implement major policies to fight Inequality and promote Equality, while the Right thinks other goals are more important. It is not complicated.
I do believe, however, that the Left/Right spectrum is largely useless for:
1) Traditional pre-industrial societies with emperors, kings, tribal/clan leaders, big men, and informal leadership within Hunter Gather societies.
2) Totalitarian movements and regimes, all of which share far more in common with each other than differences once you get beyond the terminology and symbolism. These include Communist, Fascists, and National Socialists.
In Parliamentary terms, there will always be Government vs Opposition. https://occludedsun.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/the-right-left-fallacy/#comment-471
Could you please insert some paragraph separations so I can read your comment?
There are 8 paragraph separations in my comment. It must be your browser.
This is a fascinating thesis and discussion. Thank you for sharing it.
I don't follow the details of Euro political parties, but in places with multiple parties, do you get less bundling, as you can find a party that represents your mix of views?
There would still be some, of course, because if there were 10 key issues, that would require 1024 parties to represent all the combinations (assuming only 2 choices on each issue, in reality, there are often 3 or 4 choices per issue).
A question for you guys (and everyone). Can you imagine a universe where the left vs right positions on abortion are flipped? Where the typical left inclination to champion the helpless faces off against the right's tendency to keep government out of family decisions--or some other differential values? Or, in keeping with the theme discussed by Lewis, just a different social bundling with other issues?
Yes, I can. Much of the "bundling" (good term) is mysterious to me. Maybe to some others, too. GOOD subject for extensive analysis (which I'm sure is well-underway).
I can very easily imagine such a universe—I'm generally opposed to economic redistribution, especially for the sake of equality, and I'm strongly in favor of abortion on demand.
So what might this universe look like? The right might, as SDNC suggests, emphasize individual freedom from government control. They might also argue that a ban on abortion means more births among the parasitic classes of society, leading to a future electorate that would lean more strongly toward taxing productive and useful people to provide more goodies for unproductive and useless ones. Indeed, they could take the position that society should have no obligations to impecunious mothers and children than the cost of an abortion.
Meanwhile, on the left, where the invocation of the word "vulnerable" is considered a telling agument, it'd be argued that abortion on demand is a thinly disguised attempt to eliminate ethnic minorities, thus diminishing their power to seek justice at the ballot box. We'd be told that heartless right-wingers would rather kill babies than provide for their basic human needs.
I believe Daniel Ortega is prolife, and he was famously a Communist opposed by Reagan. Ceausescu in Romania was another Communist, and he was notorious for his restrictions on abortion.
Have you read the book? They make it clear in their chapter on the history of the left and right that abortion was not a left or right issue until the late 1970s.
So we don't have to imagine it, it has already happened.
Most people really *do not care* about politics for most things. So it makes sense they only have consistent views on a grab-bag of things that stir them up (i.e. abortion, gender) then are inconsistent with everything else.
They #1 - haven't thought much about economics and don't understand it.
#2 - They don't *care* enough to understand it.
If the Leader says, "this is what we think on those issues", they fall right into line. It would never occur to them to object that tariffs are a violation of rights, that the seperation of powers gives Congress the power of the purse, that these barriers exist to protect against Dictatorship, that if the opposing side gets into power these new abuses will be turned against them - they don't care, don't think about it, and repeat what the Leader says.
If you object, you're "with the Libtards, think men are women" etc, even though the link between State abuse and gender theory don't logically follow.
That's why intellectual dominance is so powerful. Most people only pay attention for these handful of issues, and unless it gets to the point that literal smoke and fire is raging outside and you can't drive to the store - that the streets are clogged with protestors, inflation is hitting double digits- now the Average Joe starts to care about more than one issue and pays attention.
That's why chasing the Average Joe voter around is ultimately a losing proposition. They're inconsistent and would crash the ship. They aren't tethered to reality enough to decide on national policy covering 320 million people - and why should they be? In a free society, people work in narrowly defined fields to create the values they need. The opinions they have on everything else are necessarily limited -most don't have the time or energy or inclination to read up on the Middle East, biology, or economics. They'd rather watch Netflex or a ball game.
The *real* problem exposed by 2020 is that the so-called experts, the intellectuals, were exposed as incompetent partisan hacks. Which empowered the incompetent, partisan hacks of the opposing side.
Madison said it best in the Federalist Papers, and the above is why - Democracies tear each other apart.
I can't see any of them on the Substack app on my phone