 |
Add to My Group
By Ernest Partridge (about the author) Page 1 of 3 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Ernest Partridge - Writer
Some time ago, I heard an anonymous caller to a talk show remark that it is no mere coincidence that the word "right" refers both to the political "right" (self-described "conservatives") and to the moral right. In point of fact, it is exactly that: a mere historical coincidence, and nothing more.. The terms "right" and "left" are derived from the seating of the various parties in the French Assembly during the nineteenth century,.
Since then, due to the unceasing attacks by its establishment critics on the right, "the left" has come to be associated with "big government," "subversive," "un-American," and "sinister" (from the old French "sinistre," left-handed). Among the right-wing bloviators on AM radio and cable TV, "the left," and in particular the Obama administration, is accused of "elitism," "communism" and even "treason," "communism," and "fascism." "Leftists," thus identified, are definitely not the sort of folks that one would include in polite company.
Ask the ordinary man-in-the-street-American to define "the left," and that citizen will more than likely name "leftist" individuals (Jesse Jackson, Edward Kennedy, Bernie Sanders) and organizations (the ACLU, the NAACP, Move On, People for the American Way). Rarely will you hear a citation of a coherent set of political/economic doctrines. But that's OK. I doubt that many professors of political science could provide a concise definition of "the left" as it is used in popular discourse or in the media, simply because a concise definition is not possible. The best that we might do, perhaps, is to examine the convictions and proposals of these paradigm "leftist" individuals and organizations, as I shall attempt later in this essay.
Given the disrepute that the mainstream media and politicians have heaped upon "the left," and conversely the disrepute that the radical right has brought upon itself, the "sensible" citizen steers toward the "center" between these perceived extremes. Apparently, that is how most of our fellow citizens think, and, accordingly, how most politicians wish to appear to their constituents.
The tendency to steer toward the center "moderation in all things," "the truth must lie somewhere in between" has a long and honorable history. Aristotle taught that moral virtue is to be found in a "golden mean" between extreme vices. Thus courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness. Thrift is the mean between miserliness and self-indulgence. Pride is the mean between humility and vanity. And so on.
Aristotle's moral advice is appealing to common sense. But "the golden mean" must itself be examined critically, for it may not apply in all cases. Bertrand Russell, with his characteristic wit, explains:
"There was once a mayor who had adopted Aristotle's doctrine; at the end of his term of office he made a speech saying that he had endeavored to steer the narrow line between partiality on the one hand and impartiality on the other. The view of truthfulness as a mean seems scarcely less absurd." (History of Western Philosophy)
Other "unipolar" virtues come to mind. Can a judge be excessively just? Can a witness who has sworn to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" be excessively honest? Can a physician be too competent, or a philosopher too wise?
Implicit in the appeal of political centrism is the notion that political theories can be conveniently classified along a continuum, like hot and cold, high and low, young and old. This notion of a "political spectrum" is a cognitive "frame," rarely examined much less questioned, within which most public political and economic discourse takes place.
If so, then might not the right/left continuum distort that discourse more than enhance it? Where, for example, would one locate the libertarian along that continuum? Regarding economic policy and minimalist government, the libertarian is on the far right. Regarding personal liberties (e.g., abortion rights, gay rights, drug laws), the libertarian is decidedly on the left. And what of those on the right who call themselves "conservatives," yet clamor for the overthrow of established and proven political institutions, and are untroubled by the official violation of rights enshrined in the founding documents of our republic?
The continuum is especially conspicuous in the familiar rightist warning that favorite "leftist" programs such as collective bargaining, social security, universal health care, and the progressive income tax place the government on a "slippery slope" toward socialism and, eventually communism. The myth of the leftward slippery slope is conclusively refuted by history. The communists in Russia and China overthrew autocratic right-wing regimes, and the communist governments in eastern Europe were imposed through military occupation by the Soviet army. Moreover, the spread of communism in Europe was steadfastly resisted and successfully halted by "leftist" social democratic governments in western Europe. At no time in history has a socialist government ever morphed into communism.
These reflections suggest that political theories do not fit along a continuum, but are more like separate religious traditions or competing scientific theories. If so, they are best examined individually, on their own merits, rather than embraced because they reject an abhorrent "opposite" doctrine, or because they steer between some supposed "extremes" to the right and the left.
Accordingly, "centrist" convictions, while conventionally "respectable," can be the result of simple moral and intellectual laziness. In difficult and extraordinary times, "centrism" can be inappropriate and even immoral. After the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, the United States committed itself totally until unconditional surrender was achieved. Political saints and heroes such as Thomas Paine, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Andrei Sakharov are not renowned for their "moderation." There is some enduring truth in Barry Goldwater's pronouncement that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! ... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" (The leftist disagreement resides with Goldwater's conceptions of "liberty" and "justice").
We are now arguably at a time in our history when our politics and our economy has moved so far to "the right" toward economic exploitation, despotism, oligarchy, privatism that the preponderance of justice, compassion and renewal, and the most practical avenue of escape from the current crisis, are to be found in the proposals of individuals and organizations that have been conventionally labeled as "the left."
http://www.crisispapers.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Ronald J. Pestritto
$36.95
Lowest New Price $19.30
Number of pages: 296
Publisher: Rowman
by John Rawls
$24.95
Lowest New Price $13.99
Number of pages: 576
Publisher: Columbia University Press
by J. Gresham Machen
$15.00
Lowest New Price $7.99
Number of pages: 195
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
by Paul Edward Gottfried
$24.95
Lowest New Price $18.72
Number of pages: 200
Publisher: Princeton University Press
| 7 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
