Sounds like Canada. In Canada the Conservative Party is blue while the Liberal Party is red. I guess the US got their colours mixed up somehow.
Alternatives to the political terms "left" and "right"
Sounds like Canada. In Canada the Conservative Party is blue while the Liberal Party is red. I guess the US got their colours mixed up somehow.
The USA red/blue split is an invention of the TV networks and a product of color TV, although when first introduced in 1980 the colors were reversed. This entire thread is about utter BS since reducing the political divisions of all states into a single bipolar pair of descriptions is ludicrous. Actually JFP is 1/2 right when reducing conflicts to order vs equality. The other major traditional division is centralizing vs local/regional/federalist (the modern version of court vs country). The currently ascendant division of cosmopolitan vs nationalist/traditionalist can accommodate either division (cosmo and centralizing vs traditional and regional) but that is a product of the 21st century. And please spare us the colors since the association of colors and political movements can be specific to each nation. Thanks for listening.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I'd say flipping the associations shows that equality v order really lies at the heart of how we understand "Left v Right" -- if it were a debate between localist cosmopolitan and centralized traditionalist hierarchy, which would be the left and which the right?
What's interesting is imagining a world where this dichotomy is less important to how politics is commonly perceived than others (like centralizing vs regionalism).
Skallagrim
Banned
Except for the fact that red=progressive/radical/socialist/social-democratic, blue=conservative, white=royal etc. have been pretty universal in the West for ages. Observe how the royalists were the Whites in the Russian civil war (as they had been in France and other European states), while the communists were the Reds (just as the Parisian communards had already been). Anyone who thinks the red-blue split and all those colour-associations are very recent and always differ by country is just plain wrong.
As for universal political divides, I would say the following are pretty much the age-old ones:
-- established elite/aristocracy vs. lower classes/'new men'
-- tradition/conservatism vs. reform/progressivism
-- hierarchy vs. egalitarianism
-- state authority/big government vs. personal freedom/small government
-- free markets/capitalism vs. economic planning/wealth redistribution
-- free trade vs. economic protectionism/mercantillism
-- centralism ('court'; 'urban') vs. decentralism/localism ('country'; 'rural')
It's worth observing that established elite/aristocracy, tradition/conservatism and hierarchy are almost always represented by one faction, while the opposing faction represents the lower classes/'new men', reform/progressivism and egalitarianism. This is essentially the universal struggle of the 'haves' versus the 'have-nots'. It is this struggle that @John Fredrick Parker describes, I think.
Free markets/capitalism and free trade tend to be linked, just as economic planning/wealth redistribution and economic protectionism/mercantillism often turn out to be linked. This is what one might call the 'economic right' (free markets/trade) versus the 'economic left' (protectionism/central planning). Unlike the way it may seem from politics today, the 'haves' don't have to be linked to the economic right. Whichever system has led to their power is the one they will defend... and the have-nots will likely strive to implement the opposite.
Either side can also be the one that wants a big, powerful government, so state authority/big government vs. personal freedom/small government is also very murky. In some cases, the 'haves' want to preserve a minimalist state, while the 'have-nots' desire a big government (presumably for purposes of redistributing the wealth). In other cases, the 'haves' in fact represent a big powerful and repressive government, while the 'have-nots' wish to overthrow it (presumably for the sake of increasing personal liberty). I do think that the 'economic right' tends to want a small government, while the economic left tends to want a big government.
The centralism vs. decentralism issue can also go either way. Any party can be centralist or decentralist, depending on the circumstances.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
@Skallagrim I should note that Right Wing Populism is absolutely a thing, so the dichotomy between "elites" and "new men" aren't really close to the core of "Left vs Right". Traditionalism can also be Left Wing, at least in theory, when its focus is on minimizing inequality (eg protecting local cultures and customs against global culture).
Skallagrim
Banned
I agree. But as far as I'm concerned, 'left' and 'right' are simply useless as political terms. And indeed, the various divisions I have 'grouped' here are not always linked. Just... often. I think my overview does describe the main divisions, even if the way I have loosely 'grouped' some of them is of course far more 'up for debate'.
Last edited:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
"Useless", except they're by far the most common way people understand their own political beliefs and the ideas of others; most common dichotomies have at least some left and some right on each side, except for the underlying issue of egalitarianism (and order, so long as it is understood as being distinct from often allied values of "harmony" or "predictability").
Skallagrim
Banned
"Lots of people use this classification" doesn't mean that it's a good classification.
Let us suppose that a guy, let's call him Patrick, has zero problems with abortion or gay marriage (left-wing), wants to legalise marihuana and decriminalise all drug use (left-wing), cares a lot about sustainable energy sources (left-wing), favours mostly unrestricted restricted immigration (left-wing), supports free trade (right-wing), is a big supporter of unregulated gun ownership (right-wing), wants very low taxes (right-wing), doesn't want government to redistribute wealth (right-wing), and is a proponent of a decentralised, localist political system (...could be either, really: localism is a known left-wing hallmark in Spain, and very much a right-wing hobby in the USA).
So what is he? Left or right? I don't think the left-right division can place him at all. So, yeah, I think that crude left-right division is pretty useless, no matter how generally accepted it might be.
Needless to say; anyone should just use whichever classification he or she prefers. Some obviously dislike colours for this end, others dislike left-right, etc. I think those Hats and Caps that @Dathi THorfinnsson mentioned might be the coolest thing yet. On that note, let's get back on topic: have we considered animals? Flowers? The USA uses an elephant and a donkey. And there was that whole thing with the Wars of the Roses, so flowers as the emblem of factions has precedent. If some people dislike colours as faction-markers, they might like such alternative emblems better.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
@Skallagrim Regarding Patrick, the question of how he rationalizes his positions is just as important, if not more so, than what his positions are. If his "small government" is primarily defended in terms of regulatory capture and public choice theory, then I'd expect he's most likely a version of Left.
Conversely, if he only cares about legalization so he can get smoke weed, and immigration so he can get cheap maid services, and just doesn't actually care about gay rights or reproductive rights at all... well, he may not be Left.
Conversely, if he only cares about legalization so he can get smoke weed, and immigration so he can get cheap maid services, and just doesn't actually care about gay rights or reproductive rights at all... well, he may not be Left.
Not to get too off topic, but the question of what's next for the political dichotomies of the future is an interesting one; my guess is it will be between what can be called "Leisurism" and "Anti-Humanism".
@Skallagrim I would class "Patrick" as a pro-green Libertarian. I'm not sure if libertarianism can adequately be classed as definitively left- or right-wing.
Which just further shows the confusion because I would instinctively think of Libertarianism as right wing, showing that there really isn't any meaningful concencus.
Skallagrim
Banned
There really are all sorts of possible movements/ideologies that are hard to fit. I mean, most American libertarians are (as far as I can judge such things) indeed culturally/socially right-wing. But in Europe, some seem to be very left-wing, culturally/socially, and are only right-wing in an economic sense. (Ideologically descended from movements such as the anarchists of the Spanish revolution, maybe?)
I mostly made up this hypothetical Patrick to show how certain ideologies are hard to place. That might be mostly related to the fact that small government ideals are seen as right wing, and big government is seen as left wing, while progressivism is left and conservatism right. But even though those are often aligned handily nowadays, they don't have to be. What's a small government progressive, or a big government conservative?
If we go back to the years following the American revolution, the Democratic-Republicans (esp. the devout Jeffersonians) were (relatively speaking) the social progressives/radicals but favoured small government/free trade, but were also notably defined by their ruralism/decentralism, and by an egalitarian streak (Jefferson was called a demagogue by his opponents). The Federalists (esp. the Hamiltonians) were the social conservatives/traditionalists but favoured (relatively) big government/economic protectionism, and also defined by their urbanism/industrialism, and by an elitist/hierarchical streak (Hamilton feared 'too much democracy').
By today's standard, it's almost impossible to determine which was 'right' and which was 'left'. But although such terms were not used in the USA at that time, their respective views on the French Revolution tell us a lot: the Democratic-Republicans identified with the French 'left' (the revolutionaries/republicans), while the Federalists associated themselves with the right (the conservatives; especially with Britain and its struggle to restore the traditional order in Europe). But nowadays, Jefferson is mostly idolised by undeniably right-wing Tea Party types, and Hamilton is the subject of a popular musical with a cultrually left-leaning tone (in which he is portrayed sympathetically). How things change!
A hundred or two hundred years from now, the meanings of 'left' and 'right' might be so changed that it's impossible for people to tell whether today's Republican Party (in the USA) was the right-wing or the left-wing party (by their hypothetical future standards, I mean).
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I vaguely remember something similar about Britain in the 1700s. The Liberals wanted free trade and a relaxation of economic regulations so that new people could become rich. The Conservatives liked things the way they were.
At the same time, Conservatives wanted to keep institutions so that there was at least a public perception that the poor were being taken care of. And the Liberals had a 'Devil take the hindmost' attitude.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
@Skallagrim
Libertarianism is, above all, a branch of liberalism, and can be Left or Right Wing; more often than not, they're rightist liberals who value the Order of the Market first and foremost, people who think employers having power over their employees, or the "successful" rich organizing society, are "natural". Patrick, if I had to guess, sounds like one of the other ones who honestly bieves that the government inevitably always an extension of "powerful special interests" and that state intervention can only hinder equality (whether he's correct has less to do with whether he's left than if it's what organizes his beliefs).
Most libertarians I know don't believe that employers having power over their employees is "natural," they believe that competition can have the same effects on labor markets as it does on markets for goods/services, which negates a great deal of the power that an employer would have over an employee, and that this process is arrested by economic sclerosis caused by bad government policy.