Left–Right Spectrum

[Originally written in late 2018.]

The popularised idea of a left to right spectrum of politics has universally grouped all parties and ideologies without question, but this is hardly ever described or justified. We commonly accept the muddled culturally self-evident categorisation, using the same left to group the more capitalist sides of the Democratic Party (in the USA) and the communist Rifondazione Comunista (in Italy). An apparent historical influence or ideological difference to explain what has become of the spectrum is difficult to find, but it offers an interesting example of an unkempt but easy to grasp political concept.

Any position left or right claims to hold the answer to true freedom and justice, the inevitable development of humanity from an unfair and limited but ever-changing and better developed nature. Left-leaning positions find freedom and justice in opposing oppression and upholding liberty, while right-leaning positions find freedom and justice in safety and naturally-granted rights.

Yet these definitions even within their own side is confused and changing, historically the left in France began opposing the king’s absolute authority, developing into opposing the king and finally opposing the strong executive in the republic. In contemporary times the left is more interested in helping the worse off and opposing the ruling class which enforces these inequalities, yet many parties categorised as left refute these positions.

The left and right in late 1700s France was a clear foundation to understand the political confusion which eventually developed into the revolution. The right supported a monarchical and strong authority while the left rejected it. It is easy to see why such definition would spread in a time where your political position meant possible execution. But in the conclusion of such times, with the popular spectrum remaining without an authority to support the definition it’s inadequate at best. The new movements inspired by old as they develop, still associated with their initial positions, while not making radical enough changes for a clear variation, muddle the definition. While there seems to be no reason for the definition to be globally recognised, its use as a foundation does not help it, the recent growth of populist “syncretic” and “third positionist” parties can only be a reaction to a spectrum that not only does not and cannot have a clear meaning, but gets more and more confused as more ideologies within a culture grow attached to it.