My 9-year old son asked me yesterday what the difference between the “right” and “left” is. He knew that fascism and Nazism were way on the right and communism was way on the left. But then he overheard something on NPR talking about the “right” and “left” in America and asked if there were people in America who lean toward communism or fascism. I explained to him that in America the spectrum is actually very narrow – hovering around the center – and that the difference between right and left in America is nothing like that between communism and fascism. He wasn’t appeased, however, as he figured that the right in America at least inched toward fascism and the left toward communism. And then I was flummoxed myself – do American notions of “right” and “left” even track with the generally understood international spectrum of right and left?
And so I leave that question open to commenters. The terms “left” and “right” originally referred to the seating position in the Revolutionary French National Convention of 1793, where the arch-radical Jacobins sat to the left of the speaker and the relatively conservative Girondins sat to the right. Since then we’ve taken advocates for radical change – usually toward universal equality – as the left, and defenders of the traditional order as the right.
But does that explain enough? Is it simply a matter of traditional hierarchical order vs. egalitarianism?
Perhaps it is simply the mechanism of politics that is so different between, say, European understanding of left and right and America. On the surface there is virtually nothing similar between self-described “right wingers” in America who favor a very small government approach to economic matters (though a somewhat larger role in social affairs) and members of the early 20th century European right, which advocated a vigorous state apparatus to marginalize ethnic and political minorities in the name of an aggressive nationalism. On the left the similarities are a little easier to gauge: socialists in Europe really do advance a far more robust state designed to redistribute resources equally than do American liberals, but the direction is at least consistent. Communism violates American liberal values of free speech and democracy, but at least it can be said to advocate in the extreme egalitarian principles among the left in America.
So it’s the old European right v. the modern American right that requires explanation. My understanding of the “right” is that it generally supports maintaining the traditional socio-economic and cultural order. In democratic, capitalist America that end is achieved primarily by keeping the government off the backs of wealthy business owners so that they can continue to exercise the control over American life they have enjoyed since the earliest days of the Republic. As for social matters, they believe that majoritarian impulses usually suffice to remind cultural and religious minorities of the dominant cultural order – an often overlooked reason why so many Jews are liberal. Jews, more than just about anybody else, fear the tyranny of the majority. That’s why American conservatives hate “judicial activism” so much, because it prevents the cultural majority from using the democratic process to exercise its rightful dominance over society (though usually with a modicum of rights for the minority).
So, in America, the right wants less government in economic affairs and more government in social affairs – especially in defense of traditional values.
But why is that so different than early 20th century Europe? The answer may be that after World War I, the capitalist order was too weak to inspire confidence among traditionalists in free market solutions. Added to this were ethnic crises that arose out of the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires, which encouraged competing strands of nationalism. Fascism stepped in to answer both problems facing traditionalist supporters of the old order. It bundled business and the state together in a orporatist arrangement that buttressed the old economic order. And it encouraged a militant state apparatus – often with paramilitary support, vigorous propaganda, and a charismatic leader – to forcibly “solve” questions of national identity according to often fictional notions of national destiny and character. The goal, in the end, is a more extreme by degree version of the American right: to preserve the traditional (or relatively traditional) economic and social order. In early 20th century Europe that meant heavy handed government in all facets of life. In late 20th/early 21st century America, it means a mildly vigorous, and usually locally (or state) driven enforcement of social order combined with a libertarian approach to economic matters.
But that’s just my theory. I’d love to hear what others think of this. Do “right” and “left” really mean the same thing here as they do elsewhere?