Robert McHenry: Political Labels ... Are You a Right-Wing &#!@% or a Left-Wing &#!@%?
[Robert McHenry is a former editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica and author of How to Know.]
As part of Britannica Blog’s continuing service to those readers who insist on declining to ignore the presidential campaign, herewith a guide to some basic political nomenclature. Use at your own risk.
Charles de Gaulle is supposed to have asked the rhetorical question “How can you govern a country that has 246 [or, in other versions, 265, or 300, or 365] kinds of cheese?” Perhaps he did. Certainly France has more kinds than most of us could manage to taste and distinguish. At the other end of the numerical scale, however, France has bequeathed to the world a system of far too few political distinctions – two, to be precise, labeled “left” and “right.”
The terms originated in the National Assembly of 1789, when the royalist members sat on the right side of the chamber and the antiroyalists sat opposite them. Within months even French politics was too complex for the simple left-v.-right analysis to be of any use (a dilemma ultimately solved by diverting everyone’s attention, and most of their bodies, to the Napoleonic wars), but the rest of us have been stuck with this folly ever since.
One admitted advantage of the system, and probably the chief reason it has persisted, is that it is so easy for the simple-minded to grasp and to use. For many people, political maturity consists in memorizing which one of those labels means “us” and which one means “stupid, corrupt, conniving, subhuman, base, vile spawn of Hades.” There are always plenty of wise persons – journalists, bloggers, academics, the politically ambitious – who are eager to help out by sticking one or the other label (or both) on every politician, policy, or idea that comes into view. We call this system a polity, and it makes for great fun when it comes time for an election or a revolution or a new technology of unconstrained self-expression.
Various other labels have been introduced into the political sphere from time to time, but they tend only to confuse. Thus, for example, the word “liberal,” which originally arose in English politics and was meant to be the same as “left.” But then the particular ideas that comprised liberalism, such things as personal liberty, free markets, and limited government, came to America and gradually became identified with “right.” Then some people in one party that liked to think of itself as right started shouting “Liberal! Boo!” at people in the other party who were generally thought to be “left.” Now nobody knows what “liberal” means but everybody is quite sure he doesn’t want to be thought one.
“Conservative” started out to be synonymous with “right,” although it was a kind of right much to the left of the original right. In America it somehow got attached to those liberal ideas originally of the left but now on the way to becoming right. But then some people started using it to mean “favoring big business,” although it was still being claimed by some who were against big business because they were agrarians. There were other agrarians, though, called Populists, who were of the left, though their racial attitudes tended to be what later leftists would call rightist.
As you will have noticed, all this arguing over epithets (what the political scientists call “badminton”) had the effect of stranding the original liberal ideas out in the cold. They were eventually claimed by some who adopted the label “libertarian,” but also by some who refused that label because it is also attached to a rather odd assortment of political nonachievers who may be right or may be left but nobody really cares.
And then there is the prefix “neo.” It’s from Latin and used to mean “new.” Now it means either “erstwhile,” as in “neoliberal,” or “even worse than,” as in “neoconservative.”
If this doesn’t clear up the confusion, at least it explains why we no longer teach history in the schools. After all, it wouldn’t do for our children to starting wondering just exactly who “us” is, would it?
Read entire article at Britannica Blog
As part of Britannica Blog’s continuing service to those readers who insist on declining to ignore the presidential campaign, herewith a guide to some basic political nomenclature. Use at your own risk.
Charles de Gaulle is supposed to have asked the rhetorical question “How can you govern a country that has 246 [or, in other versions, 265, or 300, or 365] kinds of cheese?” Perhaps he did. Certainly France has more kinds than most of us could manage to taste and distinguish. At the other end of the numerical scale, however, France has bequeathed to the world a system of far too few political distinctions – two, to be precise, labeled “left” and “right.”
The terms originated in the National Assembly of 1789, when the royalist members sat on the right side of the chamber and the antiroyalists sat opposite them. Within months even French politics was too complex for the simple left-v.-right analysis to be of any use (a dilemma ultimately solved by diverting everyone’s attention, and most of their bodies, to the Napoleonic wars), but the rest of us have been stuck with this folly ever since.
One admitted advantage of the system, and probably the chief reason it has persisted, is that it is so easy for the simple-minded to grasp and to use. For many people, political maturity consists in memorizing which one of those labels means “us” and which one means “stupid, corrupt, conniving, subhuman, base, vile spawn of Hades.” There are always plenty of wise persons – journalists, bloggers, academics, the politically ambitious – who are eager to help out by sticking one or the other label (or both) on every politician, policy, or idea that comes into view. We call this system a polity, and it makes for great fun when it comes time for an election or a revolution or a new technology of unconstrained self-expression.
Various other labels have been introduced into the political sphere from time to time, but they tend only to confuse. Thus, for example, the word “liberal,” which originally arose in English politics and was meant to be the same as “left.” But then the particular ideas that comprised liberalism, such things as personal liberty, free markets, and limited government, came to America and gradually became identified with “right.” Then some people in one party that liked to think of itself as right started shouting “Liberal! Boo!” at people in the other party who were generally thought to be “left.” Now nobody knows what “liberal” means but everybody is quite sure he doesn’t want to be thought one.
“Conservative” started out to be synonymous with “right,” although it was a kind of right much to the left of the original right. In America it somehow got attached to those liberal ideas originally of the left but now on the way to becoming right. But then some people started using it to mean “favoring big business,” although it was still being claimed by some who were against big business because they were agrarians. There were other agrarians, though, called Populists, who were of the left, though their racial attitudes tended to be what later leftists would call rightist.
As you will have noticed, all this arguing over epithets (what the political scientists call “badminton”) had the effect of stranding the original liberal ideas out in the cold. They were eventually claimed by some who adopted the label “libertarian,” but also by some who refused that label because it is also attached to a rather odd assortment of political nonachievers who may be right or may be left but nobody really cares.
And then there is the prefix “neo.” It’s from Latin and used to mean “new.” Now it means either “erstwhile,” as in “neoliberal,” or “even worse than,” as in “neoconservative.”
If this doesn’t clear up the confusion, at least it explains why we no longer teach history in the schools. After all, it wouldn’t do for our children to starting wondering just exactly who “us” is, would it?