The Divide

avatar

Political discourse often revolves around the left-right divide; I use these terms a lot myself. But it's prudent to keep in mind that this black and white division actually is an over-simplification of political reality. Therefore I'll briefly discuss the origin of this polarizing split in the middle of a complicated political spectrum.


arrows_small.jpg

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images - source: Pixabay

For me the easiest and most obvious separation between the political left and right is to say that conservatives are on the right, and progressives are on the left. I also think that this explains a lot of the social and economical principles found on the opposing sides; on the left we find a focus on ideas like liberty, equality and progress, while on the right there's more focus on authority, hierarchy and tradition. If we define "progress" as a tendency to move away from existing power structures towards more egalitarian structures, it's easy to see how this opposes "tradition" and the tendency to keep intact existing power structures (hierarchies). And when we realize that these power structures are economically defined, we see how the political left is much more skeptical about capitalism, and more willing to give credence to alternative economical structures.

The left versus right paradigm originated in France where during the first stages of the French revolution the "National Constituent Assembly" was formed. It represented the common people of France and demanded that the king make economic reforms to insure that the people had food to eat. In these days, a large portion of the French population still supported the king. The main task of this National Constituent Assembly was to create the constitution. On November 11, 1789, the assembly had to vote on whether the constitution would grant the king an absolute veto, or just a partial veto. Those who were in favor of granting the king an absolute veto were asked to sit on the right of the president of the assembly, and those who only wanted the king to have a partial veto, which was the more progressive position, were asked to sit on his left. This was done, simply to make the counting easier (there were 1500 members total in the assembly), and had no symbolic significance at all. That was the start of this idea of change versus tradition.

I found a short video that explains all this; it's linked below. In the following months the assembly held on to this practice of sitting to the left or right, and I like the quote used in the video to illustrate this:

"We began to recognize each other; those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair, so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free reign in the opposing camp"

There you have it: progressives are, and always have been the ones to denounce and fight against the status quo. That's why I don't completely agree with the conclusion drawn in the video, namely that the left versus right division is useless, and why I will keep using these terms in the knowledge that most people will understand how this basic difference shows in all kinds of social, economical and ethical fields on both sides. Even if it's a gross simplification and it's possible for one person to hold opinions that align to both sides of the political spectrum.


Political Spectrums Explained — Why is there a left wing and right wing?


Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep safe, keep healthy!


wave-13 divider odrau steem

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>Systemic Racism
State Of ConfusionMaking A Killing
Counting HeartbeatsEndgame
Bitcoin InitiationFalling Empire

wave-13 divider odrau steem

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.



0
0
0.000
5 comments
avatar

on the left we find a focus on ideas like liberty, equality and progress, while on the right there's more focus on authority, hierarchy

It's authoritarianism versus liberty.
Always.

The left or right cannot have liberty to function. ...Same BS, different labels.
(the leftist mindset is more authoritarian - it has to be to maintain the collectivist mindset idiocy - history tells us so)

snap (5) - Copy - Copy - Copy.jpg

0
0
0.000
avatar

"left wing- right wing, same bird". -Some "indian".

Just so long as one can respect the natural rights and not use rule by force to impose whatever perverted opinion that was formed under the perverted culture you had no control over, or use any other type of Vio-lence (meaning more than one way to be violent) I am fine.

( We are however "Victims of circumstances" - Jacque Fresco)

Have you seen a video on "What anarchy is not"?

Maybe once people really start to "get to know thyself" ye will discover anarchy as something more natural inclined than any "poli-tick" solution.

Also please be sure to read up on "The world's most dangerous superstition by Larken 🌹"

Cheers sweet heart.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Your post is reblogged and upvoted by me. It is a good post. Thank you @zyx066

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes, I see it also as an over-simplification and I like to explain why.

The so-called representatives in politics and their directions cannot hide the fact that they represent nothing more than themselves and their personal interests. As long as people at the centre of power believe that a few representatives can represent millions of individual people, nothing will change in the fact that these people remain convinced that they are capable of doing so. Which they are not.

No human being is capable of speaking and deciding on behalf of so many people. Governments, by their very nature, probably only came into existence because of monetary sovereignty, trade and border agreements. For example, to settle conflicts with neighbouring countries and to resolve armed conflicts diplomatically.

A government that has succeeded in settling border conflicts, regulating the inflow and outflow of goods and services at the borders and passing on the results of the negotiations has then completed its temporary task and ceases to govern.

Think of it as between two families who are at loggerheads and since the dispute cannot be settled, one sends the people chosen for that situation at a time to negotiate with the neighbours. Once the negotiations have been successful, the content has been decided in consultation with the family members and the dispute has been settled, the representatives return to their real work and are no longer representatives. From now on, they take care of their own local (family) concerns. Until the moment when a new situation arises and either conflicts are settled or wars break out. One way or another, every dispute ends at some point. The disputants seize to be disputants and go back being farmers, laborers, merchants, crafts men, doctors and so on and so forth.

But what has happened instead - on a grand scale - is that a so-called elected government has simply stuck to governing. Representation has been conceived as a permanent institution in which new representatives have always lined up and from this, politics has been established. Since there was basically nothing to do in a time of peace, people thought about what else there was to do. That's crucial, if you ask me.
"For the country and the people" and so on.

The representatives simply enjoyed representing too much and since they would otherwise have run out of work, they invented more and more issues and problems that, from their point of view, could only be solved by them and them alone. The myth of a representative democracy was born. But there is no such thing. No federal government, and certainly no central European government, has ever been in a position to know what would be good for the people. Because they are not with the people and no longer belong to these people. No matter who makes themselves heard and attaches importance to themselves on the political chairs of the right or the left, nothing will change the fact that it is not understood that governing is always a finite matter and must not be permanently established centrally.

Re-elections and limitation to a few years should not hide the fact that such permanent governance is unnecessary and even harmful, because over the duration of such fixed houses of representation, a huge structure is formed around them, more and more sectors work for the houses and are sworn to an ideology in which people stick to the labels and are forced to consider the resistances arising in them - the confluence of all conceivable positions - as non-existent and therefore disregard them.

Where power is concentrated in this way, it does not matter how it is labelled, is my point of view.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'd tend to disagree with this take with regard to what the idealized version of american conservatism is. I see conservatives as more representing individuality by prioritizing individuals first over groups or identities. It focuses on laws and even handed application of law - it believes this included doing this consistently, over decades, even centuries. It holds tradition in high regard and moves on from them only grudgingly- it looks askance at what it sees as degraded falls from tradition into chaos. It is skeptical of the ability of government to help through meddling schemes that claim progress. It also tries to avoid either rule of the mob or rule of a king- representatives preferred. It can have the fault of tending to preserve old mistakes or outdated ideas even when the rationale for them has ended- but in it's best form it upholds truth and liberty as high values.

I dont think we see it in this ideal form today. Much as progressive politics is often limp wristed centrism and platitudes with no relief for the oppressed in sight- but at it's best it is a tech forward egalitarian ideology that looks to move the needle in a positive way for those who are struggling. What you termed the "status quo".It is more understanding of difference and quicker to embrace new positive things even when untested. This can be both good and bad at times. It's good when it is based on reason, logic, evidence, carefully considered. It can be cone bad and reinforce dogmatism however when it becomes based entirely on emotion driven factors as is often the case.

I actually believe the old left right dichotomy is crumbling and being g replaces by an authoritarian vs libertarian split in today's politics.

0
0
0.000