What Are The Left And Right Wings?
An Exploration of an Exhausted Framework
Coinciding with the emergence of postliberalism as a political concept or series of political movements, much writing has been done recently on the topic of liberalism, as seen in books such as Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed” and articles such as D.C. Schindler’s “What is Liberalism?” The academic right has quite thoroughly examined liberalism’s inherent tensions and contradictions, intellectually eviscerating liberalism as a viable political position, punctuated by the fact that liberalism is failing in application across the globe. Indeed, liberalism is facing increasing scrutiny from all sides of the political spectrum.
What has not been explored as thoroughly are the left and right wings that form part of the background of modern politics. Today, people use the term “left wing” to describe many things: liberalism, progressivism, socialism, authoritarianism, and so on. Similarly, the term “right wing” is often used to describe conservatism, populism, libertarianism, nationalism, and so forth. While it’s impossible to definitively and exhaustively nail down the meaning of politically-charged words, in this article I am hoping to explore the left and right wings not only as they existed historically, but primarily as they can be understood today, in a modern context.
In this exploration of the wings, I wish to offer an understanding of the left and right that can be used to situate political movements, including liberalism and varying strains of postliberalism, while simultaneously moving the discussion beyond criticisms of our current and failing liberal order.1 I also hope to challenge the view that leftism is a uniquely evil denial of truth, while right-wing ideologies are simply those that are closer to a just and right ordering. Ultimately, I wish to show that rather than being right wing, a political order worth defending, and indeed any rightly ordered society, will be neither left nor right wing strictly speaking, but something closer to a middle position between the extremes.
The Left and Right Wings
It is widely known that left- and right-wing discourse arose due to where proponents of two differing ideologies sat in the French National Assembly during the French Revolution of 1789. Those who were of the left wing favored revolution in furtherance of egalitarian and democratic values, while those of the right wing favored the Ancien Régime, the “old rule” of the nobility and monarchs. Thus, in the particulars of the French Assembly, the left wing stood for a dramatic social reordering in favor of democracy and equality, while the right wing stood for a preservation of the traditional hierarchical rule of France. 2
The particularity of this “left-right” language, arising at such a specific place and time, should caution us that this is not the end-all-be-all way to discuss politics. But even though politics is always manifesting in the concrete particularity of historical circumstances, it is always being ordered around timeless and universal principles of human nature and the role of society. Therefore, if we think about what the left and right wings of the French Assembly stood for more generally, we can perhaps extract enduring political principles from an overused framework.
Today, many think of the left wing as liberal, the right wing as conservative, and end the analysis there. But for our purposes, it will be useful to take the analysis further. If we allow ourselves to abstract from the concrete situation of the French Assembly, we can make the following two claims:
The left wing can be more broadly understood as that which emphasizes equality, global fraternity, and liberty in ordering society.3
The right wing can be more broadly understood as that which emphasizes hierarchy, blood and soil, and subjection to law in ordering society.
Note that under this view, the left and the right wings emphasize exactly contrary elements:
Equality versus hierarchy,
Global human brotherhood versus blood relationships and national boundaries, and
Freedom versus subjection to the ordering of law (be it divine, natural, or positive law).
The following sections will analyze each wing with this broad understanding of their values in mind.
I will take it as historical happenstance, and not a fundamental rule, that in the context of the French Revolution, the revolutionary party was left wing, while the preserving party was right wing.4
The Left
Left wing sympathizers see in the left wing a politics that challenges authoritarianism, hatred of outsiders and “the other,” and the dominating force of arbitrary or capricious law. They see the dangers of power that is increasingly centralized, as it can be turned tyrannical. They despise legal systems that are used as a means of control for the benefit of a select few. And they are skeptical of boundaries that are put around people, states, or nations, as they create out-groups who can quickly become the subject of suspicion, scorn, and even brutality.
But taken to its extreme, a left-wing regime with nothing to temper it would be classless, genderless, nationless, and altogether boundaryless. Any unchosen constraint would be villainized as an affront to liberty, be it the bonds of family, nation, or gender. Law, to the extent it existed, would only be employed in furtherance of protecting equality or freedom in the form of personal preferences. There would be an emphasis on the global brotherhood of man to the exclusion of blood relationships and nation.
The left wing in its purest form tends toward a sort of secularization of certain spiritual truths of Christianity.5 Christianity teaches that all have equal dignity and value, as all share the same divine image. Christianity teaches that all are connected in global fraternity, made complete through baptismal adoption by the Father through the Son. And Christianity teaches that all are free from subjection to law, to live the higher law of love.
But when separated from right-wing values, left-wing ideology becomes an untenable rebellion against nature, justice, and order. A recognition of equality without any recognition of hierarchy imbues a sort of sameness to all human endeavors, achievements, and virtues. The very idea of great leaders, great men, indeed greatness itself becomes viewed with skepticism and impossibility. A recognition of global fraternity without regard for family bloodlines and national boundaries leads to a sort of patricide, whereby one learns not to love his own family or country, and indeed may become apathetic or even hostile to that which he should have the strongest bonds.6 And a recognition of liberty without regard for subjection to law leads to a sort of disordered lawlessness or anarchy.
In a twist of irony, equality without hierarchy doesn’t make all men great, it makes them all equally degraded. Global fraternity without bloodlines and nations doesn’t strengthen the bonds between men, it atomizes them by separating all men equally from one another. And liberty without law doesn’t set men free, it makes them all equally slaves to their base passions and whims.
The Right
Conversely, right wing sympathizers see in the right a politics that will protect that which is natural to man. They know that man cannot be separated from bonds to family and nation without leaving him uprooted and homeless, doing severe damage to his spirit. They are willing to utilize the force of law to preserve society from an anarchic lawlessness that arises when law and order is weakened or breaks down entirely. And they see a natural right of leadership for those who are strongest and most capable.
But taken to its extreme, a right-wing regime with nothing to temper it would be an extremely hierarchical and brutal order that neither tolerates weakness nor values freedom. Boundaries between persons, classes, lineages, ethnicities, and nations would be near-impervious. Justice would be swift and merciless. The lesser would serve the greater, and those who could not provide for themselves or the state would be in the way.
The right wing in its purest form tends toward a sort of divinization of the natural ordering of the universe. The right wing accepts the fact that natural hierarchies exist between people and nations. It recognizes the unchosen bonds of family and nation, and demands loyalty to them. It acknowledges law as that which binds us and is not to be violated. It accepts that greatness is not measured out equally among all, and praises that which is great.
However, when separated from left-wing values, this ideology becomes a dominating neo-paganism that forgets mercy, care for the weak or outsider, and the inherent dignity of all men. Hierarchy without equality leads the greater to see the lesser as subjects meant to serve their interests rather than as their equals whom they are meant to serve. Recognition of kin and nationality without recognition of human fraternity leads to isolationism on the global sphere, and a reluctance to help other nations or offer care to the migrant. And a recognition of subjection to law without freedom leads to law as not a means to achieving personal liberty, but as a tool of oppression and domination which, even if enacted justly, has no room for mercy.
In a twist of irony, hierarchy without equality lessens the dignity of man, making him out to be a mere beast with no shared intrinsic worth. Blood and soil without human fraternity cheapens the bonds between family and nation, as all other relations are held suspect; no longer does family and nation take a priority over other relations as a sort of bond among bonds, it takes insular exclusivity. And subjection to law without freedom does not lead to a just and right ordering, but instead to a perversion of order itself by disregarding the proper end of law, which is freedom for its subjects to pursue that which is good.
A Political Order Worth Upholding
Strictly speaking, of course, it would be impossible to take either the left wing or the right wing to its extreme with a complete negation of all values of the other wing. This is precisely because both sides correctly hold claim to elements of the truth, and the truth can never be completely eradicated from our societal orderings. As discussed above, a pure left wing and a pure right wing both begin running into contradictions and paradoxes that undermine the very values that they purport to uphold. It is for these reasons that no existing regime has been, or ever can be, a pure extreme on this understanding of the left-right spectrum.
That is not to say that we cannot broadly classify regimes as predominately left wing or right wing. Where then would the just and rightly ordered society sit on this left/right spectrum? In true Aristotelian fashion, it would sit exactly in the middle, between the extremes of the two wings. The left and the right wings split a just and right political order down the middle, each taking part of the truth with it. So it is only through a recombination of these values that a proper social order can arise.
A state that both recognizes hierarchy and equality will produce leaders that realize their greatness is meant to serve their state and those within it who, though largely incapable of such leadership themselves, are nonetheless equal in dignity with the leaders. It will respect all human life, even life that seems unable to add value to the state or perhaps even costs the state, as it will understand the equal value of all people. The weak, far from being oppressed, will be served by the great, even as the great are in turn served by the weak.
A state that recognizes both blood and soil and global fraternity will respect the bonds of family and nation, and appropriately prioritize the good of its citizens over others. At the same time, such a state will not act unjustly toward other nations. It will neither be isolated to the world, nor close its aid and borders to those on the outside. It will help other nations as it is able. It will accept refugees as it can. It will even, assuming it is in a position to do so, allow a certain amount of immigration, integrating outsiders to eventual participation in the civic life and goods that it has to offer.
A state that recognizes both subjection to law and liberty will realize that the purpose of law is to guide men to that ordered liberty by which they are able to overcome slavery to base passions and freely seek that which is good.7 Its citizens will be able to enjoy that liberality of spirit which allows them to be magnanimous, noble, and generous. Law, far from being an oppressor, will function as a teacher, enlightening and enlivening all who dwell there.
It is in this Aristotelian balance between the extremes that a just and right society arises. Any proper society, while it may skew at this moment slightly left, and at that moment slightly right, will find its home near the center, whereby all aspects of truth are harmonized. For the integralist, it is easy to see that the Church houses this harmonization in its fullest expression. The best natural societies perhaps only prefigured or approximated this ideal state, as the spiritual truths echoed by leftism would not be fully revealed aside from Christ.8 But whether one is an integralist or not, or a Christian or not, reason can still perceive that there is something desirable to this middle position.
Conclusion
While left-right politics is inherently bound up with a very specific time in French history, hopefully this discussion is able to recontextualize these terms in a way that is useful today and into the future. There are many ways to divide up discussions of politics, and no single way is exhaustive. One framework can bring out truths missed by another, since politics is as complex as humans, and every political order has its own idiosyncrasies that keep it from a perfect characterization. This article is surely not the final word on what is meant by the left or right wings, or where a properly ordered society should sit therein, but perhaps will be able to help further the discussion.
See Alexis De Tocqueville, The Ancien Régime and the Revolution. (Penguin Classics, 2008), 258 – 267 n. 40 (discussing the Cahiers de doléances of the Second Estate, the list of grievances of the nobility and their wish to preserve hierarchical rule). It is worth noting that even the French nobility had largely adopted enlightenment values today most associated with the left wing: “On reading the cahiers of the nobility, the most striking feature … is the degree to which these nobles belonged to their age. They display its prevailing ethos and fluently used its language. They speak of the inalienable rights of man and the principles central to the social contract.” Ibid., 266.
Indeed, the slogan “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” arose as a motto of the left wing during the French Revolution.
Much more could be said about this, as some take a defining characteristic of the left wing to be progressivism, while a defining character of the right wing is conservatism. While this may be a general trend, perhaps due to the very nature of the wings, we can imagine situations in which there is a revolution in the rightward direction (as defined above), while a left-wing status quo (again, as defined above) tries to conserve their existing order. This becomes a bit muddied, as in popular usage, a “revolutionary” is always pushing leftward, while a “reactionary” is always pushing rightward. However, the Italian Fascists saw themselves as right-wing revolutionaries. See Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. (1932).
“Consequently man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one's parents and one's country.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, q. 101, a. 1.
Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America. (Penguin, 2003), 54–55 (“There is a liberty of corrupt nature, which is affected by both men and beasts, to do what they list … and all the ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty … it is a liberty only for that which is just and good; ....”) (quoting Magnalia Cristi Americana).
Indeed, it is worth asking whether before Christ, or at least outside the Abrahamic tradition, there could have been such a thing as leftism. See Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality. 1887. Translated by Carol Diethe, (Cambridge University Press, 2007), First Essay, Chapter 16, 33 “In an even more decisive and profound sense than [the Reformation], Judea once again triumphed over the classical ideal with the French Revolution: the last political nobility in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, collapsed under the ressentiment-instincts of the rabble…”