The Name Game

Is there more to life than the left and right?

By
54

Is there really such a thing as left and right? Scholars Hyrum and Verlan Lewis don’t think so. In their book, The Myth of Left and Right, the brothers argue that this generalization is undermining sophisticated political discourse. And on today’s episode of The Remnant, they join Jonah to explain why, when two tribes go to war, a point really is all you can score. Do terms like conservative and liberal really have any use? Why are we having an election between two wretched candidates? How do industrialized democracies around the world think about the political spectrum? And will Jonah ever get sick of talking about Liberal Fascism?

Show Notes:

– Hyrum’s blog

– Verlan on the myth of ideological polarization

– Hyrum and Verlan’s book, The Myth of Left and Right

By
Comments (54)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Austin from Atlanta

    After digesting this more, there’s an important flaw in the guests’ argument. Their assertion that we should “go granular” and deal with issues individually assumes people will put much more work into politics than the vast majority will. The people having the conversation are waaaaayyyyyy on one side of the bell curve for their level of political engagement. Most of my family members? They put, perhaps, 15 hours into politics annually. Is that enough to analyze all issues and the veracity of candidates’ stated positions on all issues? Human nature will require a heuristic. People need a shortcut & they’ll create one if it’s not there.

    The discussion also glosses over two important areas of nuance:
    1) Parties will continue to have brands. Will these brands not create at least a close approximation of the problem the authors think they are solving?
    2) Many issues are interconnected. Free market principles have knock on effects for issues of individual liberty. Foreign policy has domestic implications and vice versa. It’s hard to (coherently) be both pro socialized medicine and put a priority on tax cuts. If enough of these issues interconnect, they begin to form the basis of a worldview. Why should we ignore the interplay of issues to exclusively evaluate them on infinite individual spectrums?

    Collapse
  2. Austin from Atlanta

    I'm late to the party on this one. Like Jonah, I think the authors are highlighting something useful, but have not discovered a silver bullet explanation for all tribalism in politics. The insufficiency of the left-right paradigm came up almost daily in my political science program more than a decade ago, so while insisting it must be rejected entirely is an edgier version of the case, it's not exactly an uncommon viewpoint.

    The main question I was left wondering throughout the conversation was "So how do you recommend we talk about political coalitions and is any mapping of the coalitions allowed?" Even the two baskets metaphor requires that some juxtapositions must be drawn. Arguing that we can't speak in generalities because 10,000 different spectrums can be considered by 160 million voters feels somewhat unserious.

    They criticize Jonah for defining his terms in Liberal Fascism, but in the next breath argue for a complete societal reordering of how we generalize political coalitions. Well which is it? Can we change people's conceptions of terms or not?

    The authors acknowledged the need for models, but only seemed to offer the grocery basket metaphor as an example. That is helpful to illustrate a point, but has little-to-no practical applicability in applied politics.

    Either way, the conversation was insightful & enjoyable. It made me want to read their book. Their mission seems to be a valuable one even if they are overbroad in their conclusions.

    Collapse
  3. Grandymitchell

    I would have liked to have heard more from the authors and less from Jonah. After one extensive Goldberg variation that dragged in Manichaeism, I changed channels.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Stephen.Tootle

    I've been thinking about this book for a while. I published a review of it in the Vital Center last year. Yes, it is ironic that Vital Center published a review that rejects their founding mission-- I think; check with 90s alt rockers for the proper definition of ironic.

    As I've thought about my review and the book, I've been reminded of a book called The Tangled Tree by David Quammen. We got evolution wrong because of the application of a bad metaphor that turned into a bad model. Let me see if I can answer some of Jonah's questions by (ever-so) slightly disagreeing with the Lewis Brothers.

    1. There is an actual Left and an actual Right
    2. The actual Left believes in all the things that socialists believe in and reject classical liberalism
    3. The actual Right believes in monarchy and/or authoritarianism and they reject classical liberalism
    4. The actual Right and Left do not exist on a spectrum where one is on the right and the other is on the left-- reject the model. Put the graph paper away. The Right has a cluster of beliefs. The Left has a cluster of beliefs. Do not put them on a grid with a line between them. Do not make a U shape. Do not draw any lines. If you need a model, draw a circle around the words "classical liberalism" or "pluralism" inside of it, then write "everybody else" outside of it. The crooked timber of humanity yada yada. Just don't yada yada the crooked timber part.

    As an old historian I'm reminded of the old joke.
    Q: What did the political scientist say to the historian?
    A: I know it happened, but does it work in theory?

    So I am on Team Goldberg and Team Lewis. Define your terms and reject the model. And yes, we will fail, but this podcast is called the Remnant. We should just try to keep our compass pointed at truth knowing we will fail and make mistakes. If we are looking at this stuff and --after really weighing it --we decide the whole world is wrong, so be it. We can always change our minds if more evidence comes in.

    Full disclosures for anyone who cares: I've become pretty good friends with Hyrum in the last year, although we mostly talk about how much we love riding Triumph motorcycles. Hyrum and Verlan are both really good guys.

    Collapse
    1. Bobby D

      I just got around to reading the book this past weekend. I agree with your analysis.

      I’m largely persuaded by the Lewis thesis, namely, that political entities are more social than essentialist. That said, I’d suggest that the Burkean Whigism that paved the way for Reagan—and to which most of us here probably espouse—was probably less social than what preceded it or followed it. Many of us likely hoped that we could retain a sort of Oakeschottian conservatism as the predominant embodiment of conservatism into perpetuity. It was not to be. The owl of Minerva spreads her wings to fly only at the gathering of the dusk.

      Collapse
  5. Philip.R.M.Hunt

    The critique I have about Jonah's "Liberal Fascism" thesis (Fascism is left wing, not right wing) is that it focuses more on the "Socialist" part of "National Socialism" than the "Nationalist" part. People who place a high value on economic liberty see the root of the evil of National Socialism was its socialism, whereas other people would say that the root of the evil of National Socialism came from its nationalism. I think the latter is the better view because the socialism of National Socialism was not too extreme, but its nationalism was very extreme.

    So, on an economic liberty axis with strong economic liberty on the right and weak economic liberty (statism is one form) on the left, the American Liberals and the National Socialists are on the left and with the American Conservatives on the right and Libertarians even further right. However, on a social liberty axis with strong nationalism (a type of collective social identity) on the right and strong individualistic identity on the left, the American Conservatives and the National Socialists are on the right while the American Liberals are on the left. The Libertarians are on the left on this axis as well, but the woke are on the right (the woke are actually illiberal and collectivist, but demand adherence to a universalist collective, not a nationalist collective). Under Trump the Republicans have moved left on the economic liberty axis, but further right on the social liberty axis.

    Too little economic liberty can be bad, and too much economic liberty can be bad. Too little social liberty can be bad, but the opposite - extreme individualism - can be bad as well. It is best to avoid extremes and try to find a balance in all things.

    Collapse
    1. Austin from Atlanta

      Sorry for responding to an old comment (I'm just getting to this episode.)

      The core of Jonah's argument was that it is ridiculous to imply American conservatives (specifically of the W Bush era) are anything akin to "liberal Nazis." At book length, he showed how German and Italian fascism had much more overlap with progressive views on a wide range of topics (not just economics) than most Americans realized. He also demonstrated how cornerstones of the American progressive movement (specifically Wilson, FDR, and JFK) had more in common with fascists than the average American realizes (again, not just on economics.)

      To your specific point on the "social liberty" axis, those claims would need much more explication. Political science accepts that the "left" is more collectivist than the "right." The right (especially how Jonah conceives of it) is all about federalism, localism, civil society, families, and, ultimately, the individual as the irreducible unit of politics. The left is, generally speaking, much more comfortable with federal legislation & infringing on the enumerated individual rights in the constitution (consider gun laws.) If nationalism is meant as "patriotism" or "love of nation," this doesn't feel like a particularly useful spectrum. If it is meant as "isolationism," this is something that runs through both parties & also is the exact opposite of fascist thought. To the degree it means "central planning," this is, again, the exact opposite view of American conservatives & to the degree the right moves toward that, it moves leftward.

      Collapse
      1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

        I agree that it is ridiculous to imply American conservatives of the W Bush era were similar to the fascists of the 1920s - 1930s. It was ridiculous of Progressives to make this comparison, but it was ridiculous when Jonah did it back. Jonah sort of says in the intro to his book that he wanted to get back at progressives to show how dumb this type of argument is. You can always say X is more like Z than Y is like Z. It is just a matter of defining terms to get the outcome you want and cherry picking examples from X, Y, Z to prove the point, while ignoring other evidence that does not.

        I should have probably just pointed out that this whole style of argument is dumb and pointless rather than pointing out the specific flaws of Jonah’s argument. My critique was off the cuff and not as well done as it could have been, and you raised some objections to it. Instead of responding directly, I will direct you to a better version of that critique of Jonah's book by Robert Paxton, the leading scholar in the world on fascism:
        https://archive.ph/20130506171901/http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html

        Regarding your critique of my Social Liberty axis – yes, it is a flawed model, as are all models. All models are false, some are useful. I gave another stab at improving it in the comments of another Jonah piece, Nations, Nation-States, and Nationalism. You might want to take a look at that and see if it addresses some of your critiques.

        You say: “The right (especially how Jonah conceives of it) is all about federalism, localism, civil society, families, and, ultimately, the individual as the irreducible unit of politics.” I disagree that that is what the right is all about, though those points are what I like best on the right and think are most important. As I pointed out in my original post, I think the most political pundits and philosophers on the American right put too much emphasis on economic liberty. See the Sharon Statement. It name-checks the Constitution and federalism, but then focuses on economic liberty. It is more Ayn Rand than Edmund Burke.

        Collapse
  6. Philip.R.M.Hunt

    I think most people do treat political ideologies as religions rather than toolboxes as I do. Marxists worship "History" not the state. Communism is just the statist phase of history, after which the state withers away and utopian anarchism takes over. For Marxists, good is the outcome of Hegelian Historical forces. Libertarians worship the market, which they believe solves all problems, provides all answers, and is the judge of what is good and right. For libertarians, good is the outcome of market forces.

    For traditional religious adherents such as Christians and Jews, good is what is within the will of God as revealed in the scriptures. If you are an adherent of a traditional religion, that is the source of your values, what are good and desirable ends. Then political ideologies such as libertarianism and Marxism (or other statist isms) are just toolboxes for achieving those good and desirable ends.

    Side note - in practice, Marxists seem to hate the market more than they love the state and Libertarians seem to hate the state more than they love the market. Libertarians are just Bizzaro World Marxists - whatever Marxist value and do, Libertarians value and do the opposite.

    I don't think "old fashioned liberals" in the tradition of Locke and Mills are Libertarians as they did not make a religion of Liberty. That really started with Ayn Rand as her reaction to her experience in the Russian Revolution led her to a polar opposite religion to Marxism.

    Collapse
  7. Philip.R.M.Hunt

    I have long thought along the lines of the Lewis brothers. Instead of shopping baskets, I called them toolboxes. When confronted with a problem, I am willing to rummage through all the toolboxes and look for what tools seems best suited for the task, based on past experience with similar problems. Sometimes a tool from the government action toolbox seems better suited, sometimes a tool from the private market toolbox seems better. I tend to be problem focused, but most people are tool focused - they have a favorite tool that they carry around and try to solve all problems with that tool. I also consider that sometimes, it is better to wait and see if the problem resolves itself or is not worth the trouble to fix.

    This pragmatic problem solving and tool selection approach to politics is probably due to my engineering career.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Carolyn

    This was a fascinating discussion and helps to explain why many of us are now independents and don't see ourselves as republicans, democrats, liberals or conservatives. Labels don't fit us. For me personally, first I start with character and if the person is like Trump or defends his coarseness and cruelty, they have no place in my "basket." I think this is why republicans have lost so many suburban women. They don't want their kids (and grandkids) to find what he has done to the character of the country to be acceptable.

    Collapse
  9. Echack

    I am surprised that they didn't bring up the "Pournelle chart", which is a two axis system. Jerry Pournelle was a science fiction writer, aerospace industry worker, and Reagan conservative that started out as a PhD in political science. His 1963 dissertation was about describing political positions on an axis on the role of the state (anarchy to state worship) and an axis of view towards rational, planned social progress (from no confidence to complete confidence).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart

    Collapse
    1. Philip.R.M.Hunt

      That is a good model. I liked his SF, especially "The Mote in God's Eye" and "Janissaries."

      Collapse
  10. Eric S.

    I've been mulling, in my non-professional, arts degree holding mind, on the meaning of Left and Right for a bit.

    I think the Lewii have something going when they (or was it Jonah?) bring up the source of the terms in Communism. The most consistent marker I can seem to see in Left vs Right seem to be on a nationalist axis. I don't know if that's the word, but the Socialists described themselves as thinking about the people about the world as united by their shared struggle, irrespective of nation, whereas the Western powers, even when allied, looked at nationality as a more important marker.

    In that sense, both Hitler and Trump are right wing, even if Trump couldn't repeal Obamacare, because their mindset is very "my nation, your nation" whereas the modern Democratic Party and Che Guevara would be more left wing, more assuming that you can implement policies without regard to the individual characteristics of the person's affected.

    It's likely imperfect, possibly fatally flawed, but does generally seem to check out for me so far.

    Collapse
Load More