The Culture of Divide

Roeland Decorte.

‘Clowns to the Left, jokers to the Right.’

Through centuries of vague characterization, deliberate misrepresentation and  manipulation of our innate tendency to consider the world through an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ narrative, society in the West has become heavily dichotomized.  Indeed, we are living in a time when political divisions, enmities and feuds are no longer limited to localities or individuals, but carry on, throughout time, from one generation to the next, bringing with them a premade set of ideals, hopes and beliefs, as well as vilification of the other side. In this post I will briefly argue why the use of terms such as ‘left’ and ‘right’-wing, as well as most terms like ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’, are not only futile in reasoned political debate but actually actively harmful and obstructive.

The History

In the early days of the French revolution, the “Assemblée nationale” – the transitional government – was divided into those in favour of the revolution, and those in support of the old monarchy. The revolutionaries sat to the left, whereas those in support of the old order were seated on the right. Though during the days of executions and arrests the right side was often abandoned, the seating arrangement survived in later governmental structures. In the successors of the Assemblée, the so-called ‘innovators’ were nearly always seated on the left side and the so-called ‘defenders of the constitution and faith’ on the right.

The Assemblée nationale

The idea of a ‘left-right’ division fitted well into the storm of political ideals overtaking Europe in the late 18^th and 19^th century after the French Revolution. The notion of a world-wide class struggle between the people as a whole and its ‘higher orders’ grew exponentially. And indeed, in those days there were actual entrenched political classes: the aristocracy still dominated the political landscape of Europe and the population as a whole had very little say in government. Following the seating arrangement of the French parliament, the term ‘left-wing’ became known as ‘progressive’ – consisting mainly out of ‘commons’ – whereas ‘right-wing’ became known as ‘conservative’ – consisting mainly of the aristocracy.

Road to Nowhere

Whatever original usefulness these terms might have had for the characterization of different sides during the French revolution, as well during the subsequent European struggle against the aristocracy, I need not point out to anyone familiar with the current political landscape that the terms have long since lost their meaning. With the disappearance of an actual aristocracy with political power, the terms are now used in a myriad of different ways, with a myriad of different – often contradictory – meanings. In our current representative democracies, not one major party proposes a reinstatement of aristocratic rule (though some propose bureaucratic, or ‘technocratic’ rule) and all sides – at least nominally but hopefully also genuinely – believe in the right of the people to govern their own affairs.

The ‘right-wing’ as it existed during the French revolution, therefore, no longer exists. Nor does, in fact, the French revolutionary left, as it was a mixed bag of what later would become defined as liberalism (meant in the original interpretation, not the new American one), socialism and centrism. Indeed, both the current ‘left’ and ‘right’ were born from what was ‘liberal’ opposition to traditional aristocratic rule. Really, what we now see as the difference between left- and right-wing politics is a split following the division in the mid-19^th century between capitalist and anti-capitalist movements. The fact that this is where the real modern division gets its first inception is best illustrated by the fact that ‘classical liberalism’ is deemed to be right-wing, whereas  ‘social liberalism’ is deemed to be left-wing.

Inauguration of the Statue of Liberty

It is a fact that is not often pointed out, but worth remembering, that both left- and right-wing movements, despite disagreement on how to run the economy, thus stem from a common plight. Indeed, modern conservatism, very often anti-statist and anti-government, has very little in common with oligarchic 'conservative' factions of 19^th century Europe, yet still uses its obsolete name.

Divide et Impera

Of course one could argue that the terms have evolved with time, and though none of the original premises hold true, the populace generally understands what is meant by ‘left’ and ‘right’-wing by observing political practice. As we will see below, however, this does not seem to be the case at all.

A very in-depth study conducted over the course of multiple years by the London School of Economics as part of the official British Election Studies found that, when asked to place themselves on the left-right scale, just over 18% of voters did not know what ‘left-wing’ meant. Of the remaining 82%, each gave roughly two answers. From all of these answers only 59 per cent could be said to ‘correspond unambiguously with even a broad-based conception of what political scientists mean by ‘left’ (that is, answers which said that ‘left’ meant in favour of working-class, poor, ordinary working person or against the middle class, the rich or business; answers which associated the left with Communism, Marxism, socialism, the Labour Party, or against Conservatism, fascism, etc.)’ [Heath and Lalljee 1996: 98].

The study also noted that ‘among the most common answers (given 45 times) were ones which defined the left as people who are extreme, dogmatic or militant but without any mention of the content of their extremism’ [Heath and Lalljee 1996: 99] – a fact, I would argue, clearly illustrative of the divisive nature of the left-right divide. On what was meant by ‘right-wing’ politics, there was again just under 20% of respondents that did not know the answer. The remainder gave about 1.2 answers per person, of which only 58% corresponded closely to the political scientist’s concept’ [Ibid].

This political confusion is fundamental to why the status-quo, maintained mainly by power-hungry self-styled 'centrists', holds such sway. Misunderstanding and mischaracterization from both sides, as well as party-political divisions, have kept power out of the hands of the people as a whole and into the hands of those few who, above all, desire political office. We are living in the age of the establishment, witnessing the attempts, through ever-growing national, supra-national and global governments, to create a new kind of ‘elite’. Indeed, while the ‘protectors of the people’ (as both sides like to characterize themselves) are busy in-fighting, we see the birth of a new political aristocracy in Brussels, London, Washington and elsewhere.

Methods define the Results

The motto of this establishment – often consisting of self-styled ‘technocrats’ – is simple: ‘people cannot think for themselves, therefore we must decide what is best for them.’ This, they say, is proven by data such as the study quoted above: people do not know what they want, or what is the best way to go about to achieve it.

Indeed, much previous research done in the line of the paper above (most notably Butler and Stokes' seminal work) seemingly observed the general population to be perpetually fickle in its allegiances and beliefs – often displaying little to no knowledge of the issues, voting based on arbitrary notions such as who their family 'always voted for’ or which politician's personality they liked. These studies then often ended by noting that the only conclusion one could draw was to ‘interpret the fluidity of the public’s view as an indication of the limited degree to which attitudes are formed towards even the best-know policy issues.’ [Butler and Stokes 1974:281] Such sentiments remained dominant amongst political scientist for decades, and were very convenient for those in favour of more centralization and less direct popular involvement.

The paper quoted above, however, [Heath and Lalljee 1996] explored the possibility that the problem actually was not the intelligence or involvement of the general populace but rather the models used to map political preference. Their paper was not the first paper to identify problems with the two-dimensional mapping of political opinions [see Luttbeg and Gant 1985; Himmelweit et al. 1985; Heath 1986a; Fleishman 1988]. In their research, however, they did not only inquire into the flaws of the model, but also demonstrated that, when using different models, people in fact appear consistent in their beliefs and ideals, as well as heavily involved in political issues.

Rather than using the one axis left-right identification, they offered another, that of authoritarian vs. libertarian. But most notably, they chose to ask people about specific political beliefs rather than just party-political issues or current affairs. This is crucial, as it serves to briefly break through the bonds of the partycratic politics dominating our modern representative democracies, and tap right into the personal beliefs and hopes of the individuals.

The study asked the interviewees for their opinions on things like big business, freedom of speech, tradition and the legal system. and then asked the same group the same question again one year later. Subsequently they used these specific issues to predict how the interviewees would vote in particular elections.

Unsurprisingly, this model yielded a stunning consistency in political beliefs and hopes, noting that ‘political attitudes are not random and unstable, neither are they constrained along a single left-right dimension, instead they are structured within a value framework involving dimensions of both left-right and libertarian-authoritarian beliefs and possibly several others. When measured suitably these values appear to form consistent, stable and consequential elements of British political culture.’ [Heath and Lalljee 1996: 109]

Indeed, the general uneasiness of the population in placing itself on the political scale, as well as their fickleness in supporting and opposing different parties and groups, is not a result of any supposedly inherent lack of knowledge, but rather of the unyielding and contradictory categorizations they are forced into.

The Science of filling pots with no bottom

One way of dealing with the left-right difficulties has been to create political spectrum maps: various graphs – sometimes simple, sometimes complicated – provide a series of different parameters. Indeed, the study by Heath and Lalljee used, as mentioned above, an ‘authoritarian’ vs. ‘libertarian’ graph. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ is purely seen as an economic issue, whereas social and idealistic preferences are mapped differently. This is similar to the so-called ‘political compass’ (illustrated above), which is now used widely – especially on the internet – to ascertain political stances.

Danaids

The problem with such multi-axis models (and there are a lot of them!) is that they are all, like the Danaids in Greek mythology, trying to fill a jar with no bottom. Even when defining left and right on purely economic terms, we encounter many problems. Though it has often been noted that the extreme left and extreme right, both authoritarian and statist, have much in common [Eysenck 1981,McClosky and Chong 1985], many parties which are generally considered to be right-wing (for example the most ‘extreme’ right-wing party in my native Belgium) favour interventionist economic measures. Equally, many ‘right wing’ parties, such as the Tories in the UK, have scores of Keynesian or state-interventionists among their ranks. While in theory such a graph – identifying individuals or parties as one of either ‘authoritarian or libertarian’ and ‘left or right’ – would work, the words ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ are simply not used like this  in practice, and therefore these graphs, which purportedly are to be a simplification of political reality, prove more often to be wrong than right.

Furthermore, the old idea of ‘conservative’ vs. ‘progressive’, which is still widely used in the characterization of right vs. left wing, also becomes useless if understood in economic terms like the graph above – even contradictory. Whereas most economic policy today is Keynesian (we’re all Keynesians now!), those who are generally labelled ‘fiscally conservative’ are the ones who want to radically change, limit and decrease government involvement in fiscal matters, whereas those who are generally characterized as ‘progressive’ want to ‘conserve’ and further current economic models, arguing for maintained belief in Keynesian socio-economic systems as well as resistance to new impulses of austerity, as prompted by the world-wide financial crisis.

Opposed Allies

Indeed, a quick look at one of the main issues that currently dominates Western political debate, namely how to combat the financial crisis and failing economies of the West, again reveals the futility, but also straight-out harmfulness, of such a left-right divide. The left- and right-wing narratives seem, at first sight, strongly opposed: while the former largely blames the crisis on the extravagances and moral corruption of the banks, bankers and large multinationals, the latter consider high tax-burden and mismanaged social policies as the main culprits. The solutions proffered are also radically different: one side wants to heavily regulate the banking sector (carrying slogans saying ‘Capitalism has Failed!’) the other proposes lower taxes and cutting social expenditure.

Indeed, it has come to this: the left considers the left-right divide as one of big business and rich elites versus the masses (the so-called 99%), whereas the right considers the right-left divide as one of big government and political elites versus the masses. Both sides, believing they are defending the masses – as their ‘liberal’ roots necessitate – are attacking different symptoms of the same disease. Yet the supposed political divide stops them from recognizing this. The disease is this: big business CEOs do not belong in government positions, and government officials do not belong on the governing boards of banks. Both sides recognize this, however one side blames the government, the other the bankers. But above all ... they blame each other.

View the difference

To illustrate this, and to end this brief foray in some of our oldest political terms, I have picked two videos – one from a left-wing background, one from a right-wing background – which talk about the financial crisis. First, quite a famous documentary, generally identified as ‘left-wing’, called ‘Inside Job’. In this documentary, though speckled with typical ‘capitalism has failed’ and ‘the free market doesn’t work’ narratives, the film-makers' research led them to the problem that so many of the people responsible for the crisis were paid by, backed by, or even working for, the government. A large part of the documentary is spent pointing out that many of the very same bankers which can be held responsible for the crisis now occupy high positions in government.

A brief promotional clip can be found here, though the full documentary is of course copyrighted (go and watch it!):

The second clip, by commentator and businessman Peter Schiff , shows Peter Schiff attending the Occupy Wall Street protests when they were still in full swing, carrying a sign reading ‘I am the one percent, let’s talk’. Though both sides disagree on who exactly is the instigator of the financial troubles, near the end of the video (if you only watch two minutes, watch this) both sides seem to agree on the problem, and invite each other to join their ranks. Strikingly, it ends by many of the Occupy movement expressing that they do not think capitalism is the problem.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Indeed, to briefly voice my personal opinion, ‘Inside Job’, though brilliant in bringing to the fore some of the problems in our current system, sadly, because of the party-political façades and the dichotomy described above, falls into the exact same pitfall which has led to those responsible for the crisis being in government. Seeing the negative effects the regulators have had on our economy, the documentary pushes for more regulation and more ‘oversight’. Though their intentions are commendable, the thought that any political organ – something which exists only to support certain political interests – could ever objectively govern the economy in the interest of all, is sadly vain hope.

Only if every single individual were directly represented in government, would the government realistically protect every individual’s interests in economic policy. This is not possible through any sort of indirect representation, or financial committee. It is, however, exactly what defines the free market: every single individual’s choices and preferences having a direct input, and it is the collective – made up of millions and millions of individuals – that decides which businesses are prospering and which aren’t. Not some bureaucrat with vested interests. As long as we make sure human rights and dignity are maintained and enforced across the board, the free market is the most egalitarian way of organizing the economy possible. As said in the video above by the Occupy protester, no monopoly can ever rise without government interference (also said by Hayek[1944] p. 48 onwards). Many have been conditioned to hate the free market. In this way, when government involvement fails, the establishment can claim it was because there was too little of it (leading to situations where those that failed the banks subsequently sat in government). The free market is, however, the fairest tool we have to organize our economy: too bad it has never been tried.

Come Together, Right Now

Taking a step back now from personal opinion, let us get to the point: the only reason those groups of the population that identify themselves as variously left- and right-wing are seemingly at opposite sides of the debate on the financial crisis, is because of the façade meticulously built up by those in power over the past centuries. Though different groups may disagree on the way the crisis started, all recognize what the problem is. Yet rather than attacking the problem, we limit ourselves to attacking each other. What is more, the current debate on the economy is just one of a myriad of issues where similar circumstances hold. It is time to leave antagonizing speech and characterizations behind, as well as void terms that do not even describe our real hopes and dreams, and for once start conversing clearly and straightforwardly with each other. Only then, will democracy truly thrive.