Jon D Thornton
Jul 20, 2017 · 4 min read

I suggest you take a moment to ponder. Really think about your values and principles, how they differ from other values and principles and WHY. The “why” is the important step. Then analyze your labels and see if the system works. Your list of menu A, menu B, and “none of the above” options makes no sense to me. Ask yourself if it makes sense to you.

I spend a lot of time and effort helping writers who, in authoring political commentary, expose significant misunderstanding of political science. Please consider a different perspective.

This image has been floating around recently and is the source of considerable confusion. I imagine it was concocted by some high school textbook author in the hopes of reinforcing the erroneous depiction of “left” / “right” as being two brands of socialism. On the left we are told is Communism (Commies) and on the Right is Nationalism (Nazis)

Now if you think about this as a Political Scientist this makes no sense; both philosophies are used as justification to organize societies under Socialism.

But if that doesn’t convince you, consider the issue logically. This description of political leanings as either Marxist or Fascist is a logical fallacy known as false choice. We are not caught between two oppressors whom we must submit to in order to live. Our values and motivations don’t lead to the same outcome.

So if this definition of left and right is incorrect, then what do the labels mean? Certainly they mean something, it is such a ubiquitous part of of political discourse. It also has to fit the common usage of left applied to Democrats and right applied to Republicans generally.

Most of the Political Science community has adopted the freedom versus security concept. Put simply: government provides security, but only at the expense of freedom. Another is communalism versus individualism. Same concept really we enjoy the benefits of society through cooperation but lose our uniqueness as individuals.

As you can imagine, the more you value security and community the more “leftist” you are. The more you value your independence and individualism the more “rightie.”

Which takes me back to the graphic above. In order to trap you between fascism and Marxism the graph adds a new dimension running up and down the Y axis. It sets Authoritarians at polar opposites from “Libertarians” (though I’ve also seen “Anarchists”) which are well defined and clearly antithetical. It does this to preserve the ill-defined “left” and “right.” Can you explain what a left wing libertarian is? Or better still a fascist libertarian? No you can’t because it makes no sense.

Using the safety vs security model it’s clear that at the extreme left end of communal security would be authoritarian government. Likewise at the extreme right end of individual freedom would be libertarian government and beyond that… anarchy.

Now I’m not suggesting that “progressives” are really just Authoritarians by some other name. Nobody really wants to live in authoritarian or anarchist societies. These are extremes. I just want to point out that given this simple yet logical continuum, left vs right makes more sense and you might find that you aren’t the label you think you are.

So what? Do the labels really matter? Only if you’re uneducated. When I walk in the voting booth I vote for the candidates that best support my particular blend of progressive, libertarian and conservative values. This is why there are so many NRA members who are registered Democrat, or Pro-Choice Republicans. I study the issues, learn how my politicians actually vote, and make an educated decision. I avoid watching too much MSNBC or Fox News since many of their offerings are pure tripe meant to foment hate between you and I. The uninformed treat elections like sporting events, cheering on their team regardless where the goal is. And the news media panders to the lowest common denominator, we even assigned team colors.

As for bipartisanship, one should never compromise your principles. Evolve, based on new information and experience, but never compromise. That said, it should be possible to draft win-win legislation. When Congress passes laws on straight partisan votes, those laws are doomed. The only lasting laws are those with bipartisan support. Probably, if we put aside our pride, we’d realize that the only good laws had bipartisan support.

Finally, though I question the logic of your argument, I still agree with your conclusion.

The path forward for the Democratic Party is not to run to the right. The solution is to fight unabashedly for truly progressive values,

Amen. That’s why we have a Democrat party. Likewise Republicans need to STOP promoting progressive values. If both parties were motivated more by principles and less by money we’d have better choices and a more vibrant and effective democracy.

)

Jon D Thornton

Written by

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade