The Rational Left-Right Political Spectrum

 

The political spectra of the past have suffered far too long from either ambiguousness or outright confusion. Whether it’s the linear or circular spectrum, or the Nolan Chart, each has ultimately left most people wanting of a simple and rational explanation of our forms of government. The traditional spectra have failed due to their own distinct fallacies or equivocal validations.

The Nolan Chart attempts to separate economic and social liberties, as if such a separation is logical and could be rationally applied in any form of government. One cannot be socially free if bound by economic controls of the state – as the ability for individual economic liberty is denied, and therefore, all related individual aspirations are stifled. Likewise, one cannot be economically free if bound by social controls of the state – as the ability to decide what is in one’s own best interest is curtailed by social policy. If we are not free to earn, keep, and use our property as we see fit in the pursuit to achieve our individual happiness, then we have neither economic nor social liberty. The Nolan Chart’s initial premise is erroneous, leaving the chart subjective, even if accidentally accurate.

Most findings of circular spectra are a result of either intellectual contortionism, or absolute bewilderment by complexity. The mental contortionist will argue that one can be so extreme in a particular direction on the spectrum that their position could actually become the polar opposite of itself. On the other hand, the convoluted political scientist submits so many criteria for political beliefs that there can be no rational definition for any type of government due to the constantly competing opposites around the circle – thereby making every political stance contrary to another, but providing no context for how they are applied to, or by, any particular government and what the effects will be.

Although the conventional understanding of the linear spectrum is flawed, it is the most rational because it has the potential to properly recognize the one fundamental aspect of any government and its relation to the governed. Correcting the present defects and providing a straightforward and logical explanation of the linear political spectrum is an essential component for understanding government.

In order to define the forms of government and place them on any spectrum, we must first define what a government is and acknowledge its purpose.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, the term govern means “to exercise continuous sovereign authority over,” especially “to control and direct the making and administration of policy in.” Thus, government is defined as “the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it.” These definitions make it clear that it is the actions, or policies of the government, and the results of those policies that determines the form of government.

The legitimate purpose of government is to provide security for a society of individuals – to protect their rights. In order to provide that security, the individuals must agree to relinquish specific powers to the state. Thus, the amount of power the state has reflects the level of authority maintained over the individuals in the society. If more power is surrendered to the government, less power is held by the people.

So, governments are defined by their ends – i.e. the degree of authority and control they have over their citizens or subjects. All political spectra ought to be based on this simple premise, yet, even if they begin with that premise, most of them fail to proceed logically from there. Despite the claims by those supporting the irrational spectra previously mentioned, it does not matter why the powers of government are implemented, or by whom.

By defining governments in terms of their level of authority and control, only one conclusion is permitted: Either the government holds more power, or the governed do. (The only possible caveat to the aforementioned limitations on the classification of a government – results vs. reasons – would be if the policies of the government were intended to control the population. But even in that case, it would still be classified according to the amount of control sought by that government, not why they want the power.)

Governments and individuals cannot similarly hold absolute power in any given society. As a result, two extremes must be identified. One extreme is the absolute power of the state, and the other is absolutely no state authority or control. Consequently, at one end of the linear spectrum will be a government with absolute power over its citizens, and at the other end will be no government whatsoever – therefore, no government powers. Placement on the spectrum depends on the effects of the policies that have been enacted and whether those effects contribute to either more state power or greater liberty for the individual.

This leaves us with only one decisive question in need of an answer: Which entity has more authority and control – the government, or the individuals that comprise the society?

Each government is to be placed on the spectrum according to how this question is answered. The final step in the foundation of the spectrum is to determine which end represents absolute government and which end represents no government.

In the past, the linear “left-right” spectrum has been muddled by inaccurate or irrational descriptions of government. Instead of defining governments by their ends, they were defined by their means. Rather than looking at the effects of the policies and how they resulted in greater state control or greater individual liberty, much of the established “intelligentsia” categorized governments based on why policies were enacted. This erroneously led them to characteristics such as nationalism, religious authority, or an assumed racial supremacy as the defining traits of government. The results of this backward analysis begot unreasonable classifications and the creation of undesirable alternative spectra that are equally fallacious and confusing.

In light of this intellectual pandemonium, let us begin anew and allow for a simplistic approach to an area of political philosophy that ought to be easily understood.

Most people today already associate the “left” with concepts such as economic equality, centralized government, and collectivism. They similarly associate the “right” with concepts such as laissez-faire capitalism, limited or decentralized government, and individualism. For the purposes of this essay, the establishment of the political spectrum defined in it, and to make matters simple and to avoid further confusion, what we commonly describe as “left” and “right” will basically remain the same in regards to the form and functions of government. The left end of the spectrum will continue to be associated with more government power and the right will be associated with less government power.

With all of these factors now explained – left and right, the effects of government actions, and the rationality of the linear spectrum – we can now determine where each form of government fits into their respective places on the political spectrum.

At the extreme left of the spectrum is totalitarianism, which is defined as “the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to absolute state authority.” This is a somewhat broad definition of government into which several forms can fit, and there are two common aspects of totalitarianism: One is authoritarianism – “of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people”; and the other is statism, defined as the “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.”

A government can be authoritarian, but not statist – and vice-versa. However, a totalitarian government will always be both. The government will be “highly centralized” and there will certainly be a body that is not “constitutionally responsible to the people” and which has amassed absolute power. In simple terms, totalitarianism is absolute government authority.

Socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” Socialism is not by any means a new form of government, only brought to the world in the mid-19th century. Its roots can be traced back to at least the dawn of modern civilization where the collectivist ideology – combined with some version of authoritarian or statist control – ruled from ancient Egypt to the Roman Empire. The only difference between the old world and the new is the manner in which it was and is to be implemented in the respective societies. No span of time can change the fact that socialist empires and nations of the past were, by definition, socialist.

Every socialist government is oppressive because each denies the rights of individuals in one way or another. The only difference between socialist states is the degree of oppression within them.

Many people make the mistake of associating socialism with a lesser form of leftist government. But what is forgotten is that economic freedom is inseparable from social freedom. One cannot truly exist without the other. Consequently, socialism is merely a broad definition of the various forms of statist governments. According to that definition, we will see that the most totalitarian governments are simply a specific brand of socialism.

There are two particular forms of government that are socialist and totalitarian by definition: fascism and Nazism.

Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Fascism fits into all of the previously mentioned definitions, thereby making it the most totalitarian form of government by design.

The argument that fascism is a right-wing ideology – as opposed to a left-wing totalitarian state – is an absurdity. The only way that such a government can be classified as right-wing is if the reasons for implementing that form of government were treated as the mode of classification. However, as it was previously pointed out, why a government adopts specific laws and policies is irrelevant when determining whether or not they deny basic human rights. If one government confiscates property because they don’t believe a certain religion ought to be practiced and another confiscates property because they think rich people don’t deserve all of their wealth, then the result is still the same: citizens are deprived of their rights. One cannot be a right-wing ideology and the other a left-wing. It defies reason to set up that premise, let alone make an entire argument out of it.

Nazism was “the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Worker’s party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the fuhrer.” Strictly by definition, Nazism was totalitarian, as the Nazi Party had specifically adopted that philosophy. They also explicitly advocated the socialist ideology – as the term Nazism implies (Nationalsozialismus, or “National Socialism”). Their model of government is essentially identical to fascism, and both are left-wing at their core.

In addition to the abovementioned forms of government, there are two more that fit into the socialist category, but both are not totalitarian by design. One must achieve its goals by openly adopting totalitarian rule temporarily (or so it is claimed) and the other must become totalitarian by necessity. However, both must accomplish their stated goals through totalitarian principles. These forms of government are communism and its more intricately defined sibling, Marxism.

Communism is “a theory advocating elimination of private property : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.” Marxism is defined as “a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.”

In and of itself, communism is not necessarily authoritarian, statist, or even autocratic, let alone totalitarian. However, it is a collectivist ideology, which does in fact infringe on basic human rights. Much like Marxism, strict government authority of the socialist philosophy is necessary to curb any influence from the principles of individualism and capitalism – i.e. the acquisition of wealth, or property, through individual achievement and ingenuity. Communism is the antithesis of individualism, and therefore, represents an ideal contrary to liberty.

Communism cannot be implemented without an implicit acknowledgement of the need for totalitarian principles in order to restrain the citizenry and hold society together to attain a common, or collective, goal. Marxism acknowledges totalitarianism as a necessity to reach its stated end. So, while fascism, Nazism, and – for all intents and purposes – Marxism are totalitarian by design, the general communist theory is totalitarian by necessity. All are socialist and authoritarian at their core.

With regards to the political spectrum, socialism – and therefore, all four of these forms of government – is placed at the far left. For a more nuanced position, it could be argued that totalitarian governments by design would be to the left of totalitarian governments by necessity.

To the right of the socialist governments is democracy. Democracy is defined as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” It is commonly referred to as the “rule of the majority.”

Democracy, in and of itself, is by no means a benevolent system. The mere fact that there are elections for representatives and a majority vote rules instead of the written law does not necessarily beget a society of individual opportunity, prosperity, or justice. At any time, the whims of the majority can trump the natural liberties of any individual. And there is also no assurance that socialism cannot be implemented by a simple majority vote. In essence, a democracy is fragile and there is nothing that guarantees the rights of individuals or a freedom from oppressive government.

Democratic socialism actually combines the economic theories of the left with the representation and voting privileges of the citizenry common in a democracy. By name, this form of government would appear to fall just between socialism and democracy on the spectrum. However, in reality – and as previously mentioned – economic and social freedom are inseparable. As a result, the term “democratic socialism” is nothing more than an oxymoron and finds itself under the umbrella of the common socialist form of government.

A republic, defined as “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law,” would be to the right of democracy. In a republic, the rights of citizens can be protected by law, which representatives in the government must not violate. The government’s authority and actions can also be limited and defined by its citizens. This type of government is commonly referred to as a constitutional republic.

There are many versions of republican government, but they are not to be confused with governments that call themselves “republics” – such as China or many of the national governments that comprised the former U.S.S.R. (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Contrary to popular belief, the term republic does not merely refer to any type of government. It would take some extreme mental contortion to argue that the Soviet Union had no less a republican government than the United States of America does. The various “republics” that govern by totalitarian principles merely feign a level of responsibility to their citizens and adherence to the law. Also, in many cases, the “law” has already codified the socialist agenda or the totalitarian rule, so the appearance of citizens having a say in government policy is little more than a cruel joke.

At the extreme right of the spectrum would be anarchy, which is the “absence of government.” However, as anarchy is just an abstraction, there cannot be a legitimate place for it on a political spectrum that defines governments. In fact, a state of anarchy neither has a government that can legally control its citizens, nor does it have one that can legally protect them. Consequently, it is a failed condition that eventually leads to some form of tyranny by not having the ability to prevent thugs and dictators from menacing or enslaving any individual or group they desire to menace or enslave. It essentially creates a society of mob, or tribal, warfare. 

As a result, the extreme right of the spectrum would contain a form of republicanism that ensures the greatest liberty for the individual. Such a government would be based on the concepts of absolute individual rights, a strictly and constitutionally limited political authority, and laissez-faire capitalism. Only laws that are essential for the protection of individual rights could be created in such a society.

All forms of government other than a capitalist and constitutional republic, which recognizes and maximizes individual liberties, are statist – only differing by the degree of tyranny that is implemented.

When studying political powers and determining where the various forms of government fit into a spectrum, it should not matter whether you’re “conservative” or “liberal” – two labels that have been perverted by the political class. It only requires an honest look at objective and measurable facts. This is precisely why we cannot identify governments according to policies that are considered “conservative” or “liberal.” These terms do not reflect anything about the level of government authority over its population. There may be no difference between a “social conservative” and an “economic liberal.” Both positions can represent a limitation on individual rights which would place both on the left of the spectrum.

It is not a responsibility or a legitimate purpose of government to legislate on issues that belong to the field of ethics and morality – especially if individual rights are not being deprived. A theocracy that denies individual liberties based on religion is not so different from a secular fascist regime. Identifying which governments are in opposition to individual rights is crucial to understanding politics and an always shifting political atmosphere. If we cannot rationally identify, explain, and classify the forms of government, then we won’t be able to comprehend how or why those governments come into existence.

It is likewise important to recognize and reject contradictions. There are no such governments that are democratic republics, socialist republics, or democratically anarcho-communist. A state is either fascist or it is a republic – democratic or Marxist. It cannot be both and the name cannot reasonably imply the existence of a form of government with components that otherwise could not co-exist. It is simply a logical failure to ignore a concept such as the law of identity.  Just as one cannot be a “liberal conservative,” a government cannot be a “totalitarian republic.”

With a rational and simplified political spectrum now defined, it is easier to discuss government and its policies in a clear and comprehendible manner. When a debate turns to the perils of fascism and Marxism, it can be readily recognized that they are malevolent because they both strip away the inherent liberties of individuals and place oppressive power in the hands of the state. As a result, it can be logically deduced that they are on the same end of the political spectrum.

This intellectual consistency ought to be the goal of every professor, student, or any other individual involved in the subject of politics and government, as the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of every individual.  

 

Copyright © 2010 by RationalLiberty.com

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without written permission by the author. 

_________________________________________________________________________________