Left-Right Politics
Left-Right Politics
Left-Right Politics
The leftright political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties. Leftwing politics and right-wing politics are often presented
as opposed, although a particular individual or group may
take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing
stance on another. In France, where the terms originated,
the Left has been called the party of movement and
the Right the party of order.[1][2][3][4] The intermediate
stance is called centrism and a person with such a position
is a moderate.
There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists,
nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries,
right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, theocrats and
traditionalists.[8]
1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the reactionaries who used red and white
ags to identify their party aliation.[12]
However following the Restoration in 18141815 political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists
chose to sit on the right. The constitutionals sat in the
centre while independents sat on the left. The terms exThere is general agreement that the Left includes: treme right and extreme left, as well as centre-right and
anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, autonomists, centre-left, came to be used to describe the nuances of
communists, democratic-socialists, feminists, greens, ideology of dierent sections of the assembly.[11]
left-libertarians, progressives, secularists, socialists, The terms left and right were not used to refer to posocial-democrats and social-liberals.[5][6][7]
litical ideology but only to seating in the legislature. After
There was asymmetry in the use of the terms left and right
by the opposing sides. The right mostly denied that the
leftright spectrum was meaningful because they saw it
as articial and damaging to unity. The left, however,
seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As
Alain observed in 1931, When people ask me if the division between parties of the right and parties of the left,
men of the right and men of the left, still makes sense, the
rst thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the
When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by question is certainly not a man of the left[14]
a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new memIn British politics the terms 'right' and 'left' came into
bers, the divisions continued. Innovators sat on the left,
common use for the rst time in the late 1930s in debates
moderates gathered in the centre, while the consciover the Spanish Civil War.[15]
entious defenders of the constitution found themselves
sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The
Rgime had previously gathered. When the succeeding Web of Government (1947):
National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangeThe right is always the party sector assoment continued, but following the coup d'tat of 2 June
ciated with the interests of the upper or dom1793, and the arrest of the Girondins, the right side of
1
3
inant classes, the left the sector expressive of
the lower economic or social classes, and the
centre that of the middle classes. Historically
this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought
for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged.
Defense and attack have met, under democratic
conditions, not in the name of class but in the
name of principle; but the opposing principles
have broadly corresponded to the interests of
the dierent classes.[16]
3
exercised through the legislature, social justice, and mistrust of strong personal political leadership. To the Right,
this is regularly seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred. The
Right are skeptical about the capacity for radical reforms
to achieve human well-being while maintaining workplace competition. They believe in the established church
both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion,
and believe in the need for strong political leadership
to minimize social and political divisions. To the Left,
this is seen as a selsh and reactionary opposition to
social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on
the population, and a tendency to authoritarianism and
repression.[33][34]
The dierences between left and right have altered over
time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the
Right) and those who wished to limit the kings authority (the Left). During the 19th century the cleavage was
between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage
was between supporters of a strong executive on the Right
and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the
Left.[35]
but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms left and right than understood
the terms liberal and conservative.[37]
The contemporary Left in the United States is usually
understood as a category that, in addition to more radical socialists and anarchists, includes New Deal socialliberals (in contrast to traditions of social democracy
more common to Western Europe), Rawlsian liberals,
and civil libertarians, who are often identied with the
Democratic Party. In general, the term left-wing is understood to imply a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that favor the working class, and
multiculturalism. The contemporary center-left usually
denes itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental
rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion;
and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic,
and sexual minorities and the working class.[38]
The contemporary Right in the United States is usually
understood as a category including social conservatives,
Christian conservatives and free market liberals, and is
generally identied with the Republican Party. In general, right-wing implies a commitment to conservative
Christian values, support for a free-market system, and
traditional family values. The contemporary Right usually denes itself as promoting deregulation of banking,
commerce, and industry.[39]
Whether something is considered to be Left or Right depends on ones point of view. According to liberal comAccording to Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy, mentator David Sirota, writing in Salon.com, On ecoHighly aggregated data on unemployment and ination nomic issues, we are often told that right is center, center
[40]
outcome in relation to the political orientation of govern- is left, and left is fringe.
ments in 12 West European and North American nations
are analyzed revealing a low unemployment-high ination
conguration in nations governed by the Left and a high
unemployment-low ination pattern in political systems 6 Relevance of the terms today
dominated by center and rightist parties.[36]
Main article: Political spectrum
Contemporary
United States
usage
in
the
Some political scientists have suggested that the classications of left and right are no longer meaningful in
the modern complex world. Although these terms conThe terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the tinue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum
to combine political, economic and social
United States but, as on the global level, there is no rm that attempts
[41]
dimensions.
consensus about their meaning. The only aspect that is
generally agreed upon is that they are the dening op- However, a survey conducted between 1983 and 1994 by
posites of the United States political spectrum. Left and Bob Altemeyer of Canadian legislative caucuses showed
right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and an 82% correlation between party aliation and score on
conservative respectively, although the meanings of the a scale for right-wing authoritarianism when comparing
two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending right-wing and social democratic caucuses. There was a
on the political aliation of the individual using them, wide gap between the scores of the two groups, which
these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A was lled by liberal caucuses. His survey of American
2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that respon- legislative caucuses showed scores by American Repubdents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and licans and Democrats were similar to the Canadian Right
left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as pos- and liberals, with a 44% correlation between party alisessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs, tation and score.[42]
8 NOTES
The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has proposed [9] Gauchet, p. 242-245
response to conict as the basis of a reinterpreted political
spectrum. According to Blattberg, those who would re- [10] Gauchet, p. 245-247
spond to conict with conversation should be considered
as on the left, with negotiation as in the centre, and with [11] Gauchet, p. 247-249
force as on the right. See his essay Political Philosophies
[12] Gauchet, p. 253
and Political Ideologies.[44]
Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and
right are used to spin a particular point of view rather
than as simple descriptors, with those on the left typically emphasizing their support for working people and
accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper
class, and those on the right usually emphasizing their
support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about
the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against
a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[45]
See also
[20] Ware, p. 47
Sinistrisme
Nolan chart
Notes
[2] Adam Garnkle, Telltale Hearts: The Origins and Impact of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement (1997). Palgrave
Macmillan: p. 303.
[27] Ware, p. 34
[28] Ware, pp. 4142
[29] Ware, p. 43
[31] Ware, p. 60
References
Gauchet, Marcel. Right and Left. In Pierre Nora,
Lawrence D. Kritzman (Eds.), Realms of memory:
conicts and divisions. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997 ISBN 0-231-10634-3
Lipset, Seymour Martin. Political man: the social
bases of politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1960. ISBN 0-8018-2522-9
Knapp, Andrew. Wright, Vincent. The government
and politics of France. New York: Routledge, 2001
ISBN 0-415-21526-9
10 External links
Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies
(PDF); by Charles Blattberg, originally published
in Public Aairs Quarterly 15, No. 3 (July 2001)
193217.
leftright, an online tool attempting to illustrate left
right political bias in American media through sideby-side web site searches
11
11
11.1
11.2
Images
11.3
Content license