Left Wing, Right Wing, Buffalo Wing

Posted in Politics
Wed, Nov 5 - 9:00 am EDT | 4 years ago by
Comments: 12
Be Sociable, Share!
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

The Wright Perspective - Left Wing, Right Wing, Buffalo Wing

Our current system of political labels is bunk.

The traditional Left-to-Right spectrum goes from violent Marxists on the Far Left, to Fabians and Euro-socialists on the Near Left.

In the middle, called Moderate, are moderate socialists and ‘mixed economy’ types who believe in a moderate amount of tyranny and rather moderate liberty. They believe arbitrary despotism can coexist with limited government. They believe that charismatic dictators using the laws to play favorites and grant exemption to political allies can coexist and cooperate with the rule of law. The Moderates believe in freedom and the free market except when it does not suit them, whereupon they call for Caesar to intervene. Wage and price controls, Keynesian bullshit, rationing and shortages, and minute regulation via unelected and anonymous bureaucrats are the hallmarks of the Moderate.

Next, on the Near Right, allegedly live that tribe of chimera, so often talked about in left-wing circles but rarely seen (until, ironically, Leftists gain power) who attempt to use government power to make sweetheart deals with big business, to indulge in corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and so on. This is a welfare state run for the benefit of the rich. Let me coin the term Plutocratic Socialist to describe this.

I realize that the term Plutocratic Socialist sounds like a paradox, but it is not. Technically speaking, welfare for the rich is rightly called socialism, since it holds all property to be available for looting by the state, that is, all property is common property, and it is a plutocracy since the state is run by and for the benefit of the big-government-big-money elite.

Whether the businessmen are corrupting the politicians by bribing them or the politicians are extorting loot from the businessmen is a moot point: the group enjoys a homogeny of outlook and a mutuality of interest.

The only real world example of a state run this way, before Obama’s America, before the nationalization of motor car industry, the school loan industry, the mortgage industry, and the medical insurance industry, was, it should come as no surprise, Mussolini’s Italy. Technically, this form of government is called fascism, but that word has long since be etiolated of any real meaning, so I use it cautiously. One thing it is not, is a free market system.

To the far Right resides a violent form of fascism. This breed of fascist are all in favor of socialism, from public insurance to public education to wage and price controls to the subjugation of all trade and industry to military discipline, but who want to use these alleged benefits of socialist control for the nation, rather than for the proletarian. They are known at National Socialist, or Nazis.

Got that? The political spectrum left to right is: Stalinist socialist, Fabian socialist, halfhearted-socialist, fascist socialist and national socialist.

The thing this spectrum measures is the degree of loyalty to Leftism, or, to be specific, the impatience with which one is willing to tolerate the evolutionary steps leading to the promised Utopia of the Socialist mockery of the New Jerusalem. The Moderates are willing to let the promised Utopia be born in small and gradual steps, whereas the Stalinists wish for a bloodbath today as a caesarian section forcing immediate birth. The Plutocrat Socialists resist the Utopia, and the National Socialists resist violently, since private wealth and national identity are things to be sponged away by the Utopia.

But what does this spectrum not measure?

The general thing left off the Left-Right spectrum is the imperialist, the monarchist, the classical liberal republican, and the believer in limited government, the rugged individualist, even the anarchist. In other words, the general thing left off the so-called political spectrum is the entire political spectrum of ideals that formed the character of Western Civilization from the Roman Empire to the Middle Ages to the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to modern times.

The specific thing left off the Left-Right spectrum is the one thing, the only thing, that opposes totalitarian socialism: the concept of a limited government protecting private property rights.

Limited government is the concept that the state legitimately exercises only those powers granted by the consent of the governed, who in turn can legitimately grant only the powers needed for protect the rights of liberty and property. State powers are illegitimate if extended into any area beyond.

A limited government, whether it is a constitutional monarchy or constitutional republic, is designed with a separation of powers, checks and balances, and a deep respect for the Rights of Man, and must be continually vigilant against the twin dangers of an untrammeled democracy as well as untrammeled despotism.

The foremost of the natural Rights of Man is the right to bear arms, which means, the right to overthrow the state by force when (not if) the corruption of power makes that necessarily. Without this right, the other rights are merely words on paper. This right is also the touchstone for any legitimate political taxonomy: any labeling scheme that lumps Nazis and Monarchists and other gun-grabbers in with Republicans and Libertarians, and pastes the same one label on them, paints them with the same broad brush, blackens them with the policies directly opposite their own, such a scheme violates the honesty we expect. It breaks the labeling laws.

There is a second taxonomic scheme that uses the same spectrum: it places Progressives on the Left and Conservatives on the Right. Radical Progressives are on the Far Left, and Conservative Reactionaries are on the Far Right.

This spectrum is even more confusing and dishonest than the last.

More confusing because, by this nomenclature, we had the absurd spectacle of free market reformers in China being labeled the progressives, despite that they were moving toward a more American form of government, and the hardline communists in China being call the conservatives, even though they represent the mortal foe of everything what is called conservatism in America.

A conservative in Europe is defined as one who seeks a return to the Reformation-Era ideas of a sacred throne and Established national Church, a society divided into aristocratic and common classes, and slavery; whereas a progressive is one who seeks the style of constitutional and limited government we once had here in America. Whereas in American, the main danger to the limited government comes from populist and democrat and socialist reformers who long to destroy (and largely have) our ancient liberties and rights, and expanded the government into all areas of private life.

And then again, those in the day of Henry VIII who wished for an international Church not under control of the local Monarchs would be the conservative party because they were harkening back to an older system; and during the day of Charlemagne or Clovis those who supported the rights of the local Monarchs and warlords against the troubled and fading power of Byzantium would be the conservatives; and in the day of Constantine, the conservatives were pagans, and the progressives were Christians. How much sense does that make of that label? In the day of Caesar, the conservatives were republicans and the progressives were imperialists. In the days of Tarquin the Proud, the conservatives were monarchists, and the progressive were republicans.

This nomenclature is more dishonest because it is based on the lie that the divine finger of history always points in one direction: toward the coming property-free utopia. By this metric, anything moving toward the communist utopia of gender-free race-free atheist cloudcuckooland is progress and any movement away is regress.

‘Conservative’ is the term our enemies call us in order to make us sound like the old fashioned folk who like the old because it is old, and, of course, whatever was old when we were young was new, meaning that the world ‘conservative’ has no meaning at all. This is the game of the deconstruction artists.

What we stand for, and what we are trying to conserve, is not the old for the sake of the old, but the Anglo-American Common Law, which is the most sane and decent and fair-minded in history, the US Constitution and its philosophy of limited government, free men and equal all possessing natural rights, and the Christian moral code, with its emphasis on all men being the divine image of God, and every life, even those of black slaves or unborn children, being infinitely precious.

In nations and at time when these ideas are alien to the current society, we who believe in them are radicals, and favor violent revolution to put them in place; in time when these ideas are known but have not yet been tried, we are the progressives, and the goal toward which we progress is these ideals; in times and place, SUCH AS NOW, where the lying-ass termites of political correctness are seeking to undermine these ideals and we to defend, protest, and restore them, we are conservatives because we act to conserve.

The ideas themselves are eternal: English law, American limited government, Christian decency. When our ideals are in the future, we head toward the future. When they are in the past, we turn back the clock. When they are in the present, we resist change to keep them. When they are absent, we unsheathe the sword of rebellion and cut our way into the future where they are ours.

Their only way to gain power over free men (or retain power over slaves) is through a series of lies, deceptions, omissions, and through pretending to be like us, to favor liberty and progress, the two things they hate most, to call themselves liberal and progressive, the two things they are directly opposed to, and to call us by names their either mean nothing or which deliberately mislead.

It is, in fact, the entire purpose, the sole purpose of the Left-Right spectrum to put across these two falsehoods: the first is to abolish the distinction between plutocratic socialism and the free market protected by a limited government, and the second is to paste the shiny label of NEW and FUTURE on the tired, old, worn-out and mentally ill daydreams of that Victorian Era fraud, Marx.

Progressive? The Modern Progressive is still in rebellion against the working conditions of Dickensian England and the race policies of the Confederate States of America and the sexual norms of Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The Progressives are lost in the labyrinth of a long dead past. We would need Doc Brown’s time machine, followed by H.G. Wells’ time machine, just to reach back far enough to find an era when their concerns still had some relation to reality, if they ever did.

Instead of this bogus spectrum, we should employ a taxonomy that reflects the reality of what is being discussed, not the Madison Avenue deceptions of slick advertising. What labels should we use? Ah, but that answer will have to wait for our next episode.

Don’t miss last week’s column: The Unreality Principle: Loyalty to Lunacy.

John C. Wright is a retired attorney and newspaperman who was only once hunted by the police. He is a graduate of St. John College (home of Mortimer Adler’s “Great Books Program). In 2004 he foreswore his lifelong atheism and joined the Roman Catholic Church. He has published over 10 SF novels, including one nominated for a Nebula award, and was described by Publisher’s Weekly as “this fledgling century’s most important new SF talent.” He currently lives in fairytale-like happiness with his wife, the authoress L. Jagi Lamplighter, and their four children.

Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts

  • Shawn Smith

    So by your taxonomy, it is correct to call fascism right wing, but utterly irrelevant to American politics. Interesting. Still Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism was a fascinating revelation.

    • Tom Kratman

      I think Goldberg missed a couple of important factors there, Shawn. One is that he didn’t seem to recognize the possibility of false advertising. National Socialist? Well, clearly socialist, right? Everything is in the name, right? Never mind that the Nazi government didn’t take comtrol of their economy until 1943, and perhaps never exercised as much control at the goverment of very non-socialist Winston Churchill did in the UK. To call Hitler’s government socialist prior to that time is like admitting that the USSR was “peace and freedom loving.” Or that “Pravda” didn’t just mean truth but actually contained truth. (I’m not sure that ever happened, actually, even in passing.)

      The other thing he missed is that any number of movements and instincts that we place on the left may not belong there at all. Just arguendo, if there is a left right spectrum as based on an ultimate _articulable_ article of faith, nature v nuture, then there IS a way, if not to place Nazis on the left, to place a number of movements we’d think of as leftist on the right.

      Example: the difference between my fellow Boston Latin alum, Calypso Louis, and Julius Streicher is…??? Essentially nil, from a principled point of view. They’re both rabid racists, and only the race to be preferred differs. Or how about Susan – “The white race is the cancer of human history” – Sontag? She’s clearly a Nazi, just an anti-white Nazi. And then there are “Sun people?” Oh, please; fucking _Sun_people_? That meme is Nazi! So it’s not, I don’t think, that Nazism is a movement of the left. It’s that many seen to be on the left are not there at all; they’re over in their own little dark Nuremberg, way on he right, awaiting the arrival of their own – Dark – Fuehrer to perfect and lead their own race into some glosious future.

    • John C Wright

      I am wondering why you typed the words ‘So by your taxonomy..’ and then said the exact and precise opposite of what my taxonomy described. Are you being ironic?

    • Shawn Smith

      Perhaps I misunderstood, and after I finish this, I’ll go and re-read that part, but I thought you said that in the original sense, fascism is right wing, but that that spectrum from left to right completely ignores a lot of political thought including virtually everything that in America is commonly called conservative. Thus, it would technically be accurate to say that fascism is right wing, but not very useful.

    • John C Wright

      Fascism is leftwing if by leftwing we mean a socialist government running the economy on a military footing over a people who have no innate rights. The normal left-to-right spectrum is dishonest, because it puts fascist socialists on the right, marxist socialists on the left, and a variety of lukewarm socialists between. The political spectrum is a propaganda trick that frames the debate in terms of old socialism versus new socialism.

      It does not recognize that people like me, who believe in the Rights of Man, exist.

  • Guest McCowardson

    Can’t I just be gay married to my pot farmer trans-boyfriend and defend the farm with a suppressed full auto AK 47 without having to have my marriage licensed and recognized by the state? Is it too much to ask for that my tax dollars not be wasted on broken welfare families popping out abnormally high numbers of children despite their poverty? Is it really so bad to want a thorium plant without having a bunch of environmentalists call you an earth killing monster? Jebus Christie, I just want the government to have the minimum impact possible on my life.

    • Kirsten Edwards

      Can’t I just be gay married to my pot farmer trans-boyfriend … without having to have my marriage licensed and recognized by the state.

      Yes and no. Are you and your wossname cross-fertile? If yes, than your marriage risks producing progeny and both the state and your fellow citizens have a stake in your stable union not creating young wolves to prey upon the rest of us because you’re sexually irresponsible wankers. If no, than no. It’s none of our business what you get up to so long as you do it in private and don’t scare the horses. We have no need or business to get up in yours, since you’re basically sterile parasites.

      For the rest: we have a democratic republic with constitutionally protected rights. You can spot the rights by the corresponding responsibilities, but even bogus rights aren’t too problematic if you can get the entire fricking nation to agree on them via constitutional amendment. You want the feddle gummint to have the least impact on you and yours, while the local government – your community – has the most. It’s a scale that runs from city to county to state to nation, with ideally, the people making the most restrictive laws and regulations being the ones having to live with the consequences. And having the best likelihood of changing rules that don’t work for them (and the easiest opportunity to find a community that does work for you: vote with your feet!). Good luck convincing the City of Potlandia to grant you that Thorium license.

      Because having a tiny group of people at the top (the Feds) with the MOST power to micromanage millions of folks 3,000+ miles away, that’s not a recipe for disaster? And empowering the locals to make the rules they have to live under is somehow repressive and wrong?

      Good golly, what do they teach you kids in school these days? Don’t you learn civics anymore?

  • http://www.simplesurvival.us/ Cincinnatus

    The label is easy, Freedom Lover.

  • http://www.brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

    “The thing this spectrum measures is the degree of loyalty to Leftism.”
    I never thought of that before.

  • johnmc

    What are your comments on Plato’s “spectrum” in the Republic (aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny)?

    STTJOHMC

    • John Pryce

      Since all of those are some form of oligarchy or another, I’m unsure how that constitutes a spectrum, except a spectrum of types of oligarchies.

  • upfrigger

    Finally someone says what I’ve been saying for a quarter century. The banks are rigged, politics are rigged, academia is rigged. Mr. Wright is correct to assert that this left-right spectrum of things is (and has always been) a propaganda trick, forced on us by the dwellers of ivory towers. It’s why so many have retired to a “let it burn” mentality, for surely no one of any stature or standing speaks for us. We can only speak for ourselves, but we are too few, (at the moment). Mr.Wright nails it, Goldberg and Moldbug misfire.

Be Sociable, Share!