Framing our politics in terms of left vs. right is just plain wrong.
It is ridiculous that in an era when almost everyone reading this carries a device in their pocket providing instant access to all accumulated human knowledge, we still organize our politics based on the centuries-old concept of “left” and “right.”
The left-right spectrum doesn’t have grand, serious philosophical origins. It came into existence based on where people sat in the National Assembly chamber during Revolutionary-era France. Those loyal to the king sat to his right; supporters of the Revolution sat to his left.
The year was 1789. Back then, it took somewhere between 6 weeks and 3 months to cross the Atlantic. So for the US to engage in a single exchange of diplomatic messages with a European power took up to 6 months — one eighth of a US president’s term. If, that is, neither ship carrying a message sank while crossing the ocean.
Antoine Lavoisier had only recently managed to prove that fire wasn’t caused by phlogiston, an “element” that was pretty much… um… fire, and was thought to be magically contained within things that could be burned. The phlogiston theory had been accepted scientific wisdom for about two centuries.
But of course, many people alive at the time didn’t get the memo that phlogiston didn’t exist. Or, if they did get it, they couldn’t read it. The estimated literacy rate in the US back then was only 60%.
The barbaric practice of slavery was still legal. It was an acceptable view among educated, intelligent people that women were inferior to men. Electric power wasn’t a thing. Antibiotics hadn’t been discovered, so if you got a cut on your finger and it became infected, there was a possibility you’d die. And by the way, your doctor? He believed in miasma theory, which held that diseases were caused by “bad air.” And he probably thought that bleeding you with leeches was good medicine.
Yet we cling to a political paradigm from this primitive era based on where people sat in a room — a paradigm predating centuries of advances that have fundamentally changed how humans live, work, travel, communicate, and more.
The notion of a left-right spectrum is flawed in obvious ways. What does trade or tax have to do with reproductive freedom? What’s the connection between military spending and LGBTQ equality? These things are completely unrelated, yet it is widely accepted in America in 2018 that if I hold a view on one of them, that puts me on Team Left or Team Right, which then auto-enrolls me in a whole set of affiliated beliefs.
(For the record, my views are: free-ish trade, but we need to hold our trading partners to high standards on human rights, labor practices, wages, and environmental responsibility; progressive taxation; the only person who should be able to make decisions about a woman’s body, including reproductive decisions, is the woman herself; a strong military is, sadly, a necessity, especially in light of rising authoritarianism and nationalism around the world; and yes, of course LGBTQ equality, are you kidding me?!)
Up till 2016, the notion that someone could or should be “for progress” (the ostensible ideology of the left) or “for tradition” (the ostensible ideology of the right) across the board, in all categories, was just dumb. But now, even if you want to apply that thinking, it doesn’t work anymore.
The “left” is defending the FBI and our intelligence agencies, and the “right” — long the self-appointed “law and order” people — hates the FBI and intelligence agencies because they won’t twist reality to protect our corrupt president.
The “left” is talking about restoring decorum, decency, and civility to our politics, and the “right” — long the self-appointed arbiters of “family values” — continue to support our pig of a president.
The “right” — long the self-appointed defenders of fiscal discipline — passed a tax cut overwhelmingly benefitting the rich that blew a $2.3 trillion dollar hole in the budget, relying on the same old thoroughly discredited supply-side mumbo-jumbo as a justification.
The “left” — which is supposedly anti-corporate — is recognizing that corporations have an important role to play in the public square, as Nike launches its Colin Kaepernick-fronted campaign, Dick’s Sporting Goods ends the sale of assault rifles and sets stricter age standards for other gun sales than the law requires, and Levi Strauss partners with Everytown for Gun Safety to reduce gun violence and enlist business leaders in gun control efforts.
In other words, “left” and “right” no longer apply, because the pre-Industrial Revolution world that gave birth to them no longer exists.
Why should a thinking person have to choose between believing that markets are a powerful engine for innovation and growth and also believing that markets need to be regulated?
Why should we have to choose between believing that we need to build a cohesive society and also believing that society is enriched when people stay connected to, and celebrate, their respective heritages?
Why should we have to choose between believing that we need border security, and also believing that children shouldn’t be ripped from their refugee parents, it’s un-American to demonize immigrants, and since it’s not the Middle Ages, our security needs can’t be met by a wall?
I’m not suggesting we scrap our political parties. (At least not the Democratic party.) What I’m suggesting is that we need to get away from this obsolete way of thinking and talking about politics. It’s completely artificial and locks us into simplistic positions that don’t reflect the complexities we’re facing.
No one sitting in the National Assembly chamber in France in the 1780s could have imagined our world. So let’s stop framing our beliefs and choosing our leaders based on theirs.
