Left-Right Evaporation
A guest column by Cynthia W.
The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America by Verlan Lewis and Hyrum Lewis [2023. Oxford University Press. 168pp.; Unabridged audio book published by Kalorama. 4h 23m.]
Thesis of the book: The perception of American politics as a spectrum from left (liberal, progressive) to right (conservative) is erroneous and pernicious.
The authors discuss the phenomenon of political polarization, in which groups identified as left/progressive/liberal/Democrat and right/conservative/Republican are presented as holding opposing views on every public issue. They observe that interpersonal hostility based on these divisions is increasingly affecting every area of life, from dating to sports fandom to employment.
Messrs. Lewis (brothers) are my kind of nerds: the “A or not-A” kind. They analyze this situation using the premise that the divisions between so-called left and right are based either on an essential reality about people and about politics or on social affiliation. They conclude that the latter is true: the two sides are social groups that tap into the tribal instinct, with the specifics of either side’s views’ being either historically based, oppositional, or simply random.
They support their conclusion by disproving the essentialist explanation. One way they do this is by showing that individuals often hold views associated with both sides at the same time. For example, Milton Friedman was both a free-market economist (presently coded right) and a pacifist (coded left). Adolf Hitler was a militarist (right), a socialist (left), and a vegetarian (left). Susan B. Anthony was a women’s rights advocate (left) and anti-abortion (right). This phenomenon demonstrates that there is nothing intrinsic to a person that causes him or her to choose all right positions or all left positions.
Another way the Lewises approach the issue is to review the history of the usage of left and right. Originating in seating in the French revolutionary assembly, left referred to anti-monarchists advocating radical societal change, while those on the right were pro-reform, but more open to retaining the monarchy and other traditional government structures. When first used in the United States, the terms both referred to socialists: left-wing socialists were pro-Soviet, while right-wing socialists were not.
During the 1930s, left and right referred to opinions on the New Deal and its massive expansion of the government’s size and impact on daily life. The left was pro-New Deal and big government; the right opposed the New Deal. These basic alignments held through World War II and into the 1950s, until the Cold War really got going in the 1960s. At that point, the right began to support a more interventionist government in the service of fighting Communism, while the left wanted more government intervention in domestic matters but less foreign involvement.
To further complicate the narrative, these positions were not consistently associated with the Republican and Democratic parties. Republicans provided most of the support for national civil rights legislation, while many Democrats were opposed. There are many more examples of this nature.
Finally, the Lewises consider various theories regarding the essence, the One Big Thing, that divides left from right. Some examples include risk tolerance/aversion, compassion/selfishness, authority/liberty, and idealism/realism. In each case, they find that the values claimed can be rationalized as supporting either left or right policies, and that both sides have, at different times, supported what the opposite party now supports. At this point, they conclude that the essentialist theory has been proved false.
Having eliminated the essentialist possibility, the authors discuss the social theory of political division. Their explanation for the left/right split is that a person will feel an attraction toward one or the other group because of an issue position currently associated with that group—free markets with Republicans, for example—or because of history, locale, or ethnicity. Examples of the latter are that union membership is associated with Democrats, rural residents are more Republican, etc. The authors emphasize that these correlations exist today, but, in the past, policies and traits often had the opposite association. They also point out that left and right may agree on a principle, such as helping poor people, but disagree on the best way to do this.
Once a person has affiliated with either tribe because of one point—with the Democrats because one is pro-legal abortion, for example—social contagion causes the person to commit to the whole package of currently left issues and positions, even if the positions are in conflict with the original issue. Pro-legal abortion or women’s rights more generally is in conflict with pro-Islam, but these are both left-coded positions right now.
The Lewises believe that the tribal nature of left/right affiliation explains the growing inter-group hatred. If your political side is your identity, and your side is right about everything, then the other group must be wrong about everything and a threat to your identity. This tendency to blame all bad things on the Badness of the Bad Other Group can be observed all over the place. I saw an example just yesterday: an acquaintance was explaining the difficulties he’s having with the taxes of his elderly and infirm mother, how hard it is to get any response from the IRS and the SSA, etc. And then he vented his frustration at the Democrats, not because they’re the party currently responsible for the executive branch’s incompetence but because of … illegal immigrants.
In summary, the Lewises found that the labels of left/liberal/progressive/Democrat and right/conservative/Republican indicate no specific content, and often no difference. Both left and right favor trade protectionism. Both oppose addressing the coming insolvency of entitlement programs. Both favor increasing executive power, especially when their guy is the president.
This is where they ran afoul of Jonah Goldberg (in his podcast episode of The Remnant, “The Name Game”, Feb. 14, 2024), who feels that conservative means something: specifically, it means what he means by conservative. I sympathize with this. Being of a similar age and intellectual background, my personal definition of conservative is similar to Jonah’s: basically Reaganite. However, saying, “It means what I mean when I say it,” is arbitrary and does not lead to greater understanding or a productive approach to problems.
Rather than “defining your terms,” as Jonah put it, explaining what the label means to you personally, the Lewises recommend skipping the labels and discussing individual positions. “Congressman Jones favors higher import tariffs,” for example. “Senator Smith opposes Medicaid expansion.” “Candidate Garza supports the authorization of more charter schools.” They also propose that people should invest their affiliative urge in areas other than politics: religion, local organizations, even sportball.
I highly recommend this book. It is not very long—about 4-1/2 hours in the audio version, read monotonously by one of the authors. It is detail and evidence-based, to the point that, on the occasions when the authors essay a metaphor or an aphorism, it sounds out of place, as if the editor said, “Your readers are not robots like you.” (Except me: I am like the authors.)
I would say that the weakest part of their argument is in the historical analysis, where they explain how liberal and conservative in the United States went from indicating political approaches that could be found in both major parties to being baskets of mutually exclusive positions, each firmly affiliated with only one party. However, because I listened to the book instead of reading it, it’s possible that they gave a good explanation while a child was talking to me.
Hi all. I'm writing this on March 14, after finally reading Cynthia's book report as promised. I'm posting my reactions before I read what everyone else had to say. I hope you will indulge the length, as I don't have time to edit it down much. It was all I could do to semi-organize my thoughts. I will make mention of this on the March 14 thread, though I won't post the whole thing there.
I don't think I'll have time to read or listen to the book--I have a long queue already--so I appreciate Cynthia's well-written and well-organized summary. After hearing the authors on Jonah's podcast, and after listening to or reading Jonah's and others' reactions, (along the lines of "I agreed with them more than I expected to") I had decided the Lewii (sorry, I like the nickname) have a point and I should keep my mind open.
Meanwhile, daily and weekly developments in the election cycle and the current status of the political parties have been drawing me toward the conclusion that the labels many of us have been reluctant to part with have now lost most of their practical use and now generate mostly confusion, like some variation on the classic "who's on first" comedy bit. Of course a lot of that is due to journalistic laziness if not malpractice, but how can I expect them to make any sense of it, when it truly has almost stopped making sense?
Some of my reactions will be based on where the shift may leave me personally, and some will be based on implications for the country and political system.
The dismissal of essentialism is a "well, duh" thing to me. But any "intrinsic" positions could hardly be inbom anyway, unless someone's been able to prove a genetic basis.
As for the history--well, I'm not old enough to remember the French Revolution or the New Deal. But apparently the era in which I really discovered politics and defined my own positions--the 1980s--is now history and a lot has changed since then. Maybe more than I realized. But I can't just forget the history and what it meant to me.
As for policies--I am accustomed to defining my policies independently of tribal considerations, so I can go on doing so without missing a beat. Now that it's gotten to the point where both left and right are embracing the same bad policies simultaneously and often out of unworthy motives, this is another step in freeing us up to just state our policy positions. That also means everyone will be expected to know and explain what they mean by their policy position, or be quiet--a nice bonus.
The "One Big Thing" idea is not something that ever made much sense to me, even in the olden days. When I look at those pairs of values, I tend to think "isn't the point to try to balance them?" And so if you take away the possibility of being accused as a complete squish or a shill for some other tribe if I say I like some risk with my safety or there is such a thing as legitimate authority that is the other side of the coin of liberty--then let's run One Big Thing through the shredder. I think the founders of the country understood balance.
I never personally experienced the "social contagion" they refer to. It may have something to do with my age, or the very hybrid and mixed nature of the communities I live and work in. So I can't confirm it's real. I never noticed the mutual exclusivity of the baskets as it was developing. I didn't know I couldn't make my own selections, so I kept right on doing it.
I never embraced tribal politics such as they are today. Even though formerly I could consider myself more or less on the right and more or less Republican, I also knew I was a sort of political misfit drawing from two camps (conservative and libertarian) that couldn't quite fuse in the world, even if they could in my thinking. What has been playing out more recently has helped me understand better why fusion didn't work. Now I'm embracing the split, because it may be that the sense and the nonsense are finally breaking apart. And it seems all of the "sides"--the right and the left, the D's and the R's--are for stuff I'm against.
But may I consider that my tribe is the remnant? What does it stand for? If one says "tolerance, having a moral compass, being a nucleus for regeneration, gratitude for Western civilization and constitutional democracy" then that works for me. This could be my version of the One Big Thing. But I hasten to add--I have other affiliative irons in the fire. Belonging to this gang isn't the only arrow in my quiver.
So, even if some things the Lewii address don't play out in my own experience, this summary of the book has confirmed for me that the constructs of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, etc. were already pretty much falling apart, and should now be considered deconstructed even for practical use. I may still use the terms specifically and advisedly, but I will have to be careful to accompany them with definitions or examples, and to try to make a habit of looking past all that to try to view new developments without too much prejudice.
If these labels are about to be abandoned, as now seems both likely and a good thing, what comes next? Periods of transition can be unsettling. But it appears to me that much of the unsettlement has already been priced in, especially for those of us who were growing restive [look it up] with the standard spectrum. I don't know whether I want it to be settled soon, or take some time working itself out. Maybe it'll be some of each.
Nicely done, Cynthia. I cannot consider you a robot. Artificial intelligence could not have produced this essay.
Well done, and thanks.