Left or Right; Same Coin

James Madison argued for a broad-scope of representation in Federalist Paper # 10. With a broad spectrum of representation from far left to far right and everything in between, every variant of political worldview has the potential for a representative platform. This is a check on majority tyranny. It also focuses minority views into coalitions that provide a check to truly radical and dangerous worldviews. And though political parties were not anticipated by Madison, they did develop, but the spectrum of variability remained, at least until recently.

Present day polemics has the tendency to lob pejoratives between political opposites. The Right or Republicans are labelled as fascists, racists, ant-_______, and so forth, while the Left or Democrats are demeaned as communists, socialists, liberals, and progressives. Some of those latter monikers aren't necessarily insults to some Dems, but many Republicans still use the terms divisively. And while there are serious differences between the two poles, they nonetheless represent the same coin, but in two sides. Or as a meme I once saw declared, "Left wing or right wing, it's still the same bird."

Two of the terms that bug me are "socialist" and "liberal." Socialism, as a utopian political philosophy, is younger than our nation, so it is really just another faction anticipated in the broad spectrum of political worldviews that Madison and the Founders anticipated. This means that it doesn't need to be so feared as wholly un-American by conservative-minded folks. While caution is necessary to maintaining a republic of checks and balances, social responsibility or democratic socialism is not the threat the Right makes it out to be. It is not the same as communism, which utterly obliterates liberty for the sake of egalitarianism. Democratic socialism retains representation, but desires that government address social needs for the betterment of society. Most Dems would not see themselves as communistic, but would like to see "progressive" shifts in our nation toward the needs of its people over the laissez-faire or hands-off approach to unchecked liberty.

My caution to socialism within American government is its compulsory nature. In order to meet the needs or perceived needs of society fully, a democratic-socialist approach really has no choice but to place compulsory pathways on top of the people in order to tap resources. It may not be communism, but it is a challenge to property rights, especially in the form of money. History and economics show that property rights are endemic to national and personal prosperity and innovation, so encroaching on such liberties is seen as a violation of a sacrosanct right to many conservatives. Yet, the chiefest inalienable right we possess according to Enlightenment philosophy is not property, but our consciences. From this, all other rights -- positive or negative -- flow. Socialism, as a concept of conscience can have a place then in our system, but as with all factions, it must be checked.With that in mind, laissez-fair libertarianism is also deserving of a check, wouldn't you think?

This brings me to my least favorite of political titles -- LIBERAL.

Our republic was founded to preserve liberty, a word from which the word liberal is derived. A liberal is someone who expounds the concepts of liberty. It is my opinion that the word is grossly misused today as a synonym for progressive and socialist, when its root has more in common with the libertarian ideas of individual autonomy and preservation of personal and inalienable rights (ie. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Most conservatives would count themselves as classically liberal in this Enlightenment sense. So how did liberal become a descriptor of socialists who want to use compulsion to redistribute wealth, thereby attacking property rights (an obvious abstraction)?  It seems that liberal is not the best fit for the Left if we use the word properly.

The 18th Century Scottish Whig writer and publisher Thomas Gordon defined liberty as that power which every man posses over  his own actions and the rights to enjoy the "Fruit of his Labour, Art, and Industry." From the conservative and libertarian side of things, this would currently be read through a capitalist lens, so that the fruits of a person's labor and industry would be the right to run a business and make money, with the subsequent right to keep his or her property or money. And with this, government's role is to preserve such liberty, including property rights.

The end goal of government is indeed to preserve rights and liberties, but there is an alternative lens that qualifies even the socially-minded progressive as classically liberal, with equal weight to the conservative or libertarian. If our inalienable rights includes the pursuit of happiness and the securing of property, it would demand not provision of these things by government, but the equal opportunity to actuate oneself toward them. We know however that equal opportunity has been marred by circumstances, including slavery, the marginalization of women and Native Americans, and income disparity.

With regard to income disparity, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, corporations became so dominant and top-heavy, their monopolies demanded anti-trust litigation to increase competition. It is competition that helps to make for equal opportunity. Despite this, industrialists often built their fortunes on the backs of workers, increasing the income gap between themselves and the average worker, and so even without monopolies, the possibility for people to become competitors in an industrializing economy became null.

What of the definition of liberty? Yes, the property and wealth of the capitalist and industrialist mattered as property to be rightfully preserved. But the fruits were not cultivated through the industrialist's labor alone, but largely via the labor of his employees, whose income was paltry and insufficient for opportunity. Equal opportunity became less and less a reality and so the American Dream was made a farce. There were exceptions to the rule, but by and large, people either worked for the "man" or they came to wealth -- more and more -- through the inheritance from their aristocratic-industrialist ancestors.

So then, as the progressives entered the fray in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they saw the near impossibility to rise out of disparity and sought to alleviate many stresses that kept people down. From seeking fair treatment of workers through unions, to anti-trust platforms, to labor, safety, and other reforms, the progressive aim was to create opportunity, not necessarily provide everything. This is how socially-minded movements and progressives became typed as liberals. They saw the lack of an even playing field and that the fruits that the rich consumed came from the backs of the proletariat, at the expense of peoples' well being and potential to compete for wealth. Progressivism simply sought to address the rightful right to the fruits of one's labor and the right to pursue dreams. Industrialism was in many ways tantamount to slavery or indentured servitude.

So who is right? They both are. Whether Left or Right in this equation, the protection of property is not just for the owner, but also for the worker. It may be argued that workers do get a competitive share of wages, yet the industrialists still and often profit an unfair share of the productivity given by labor. The Left has simply wanted to rectify this imbalance and that fits perfectly within the realm of liberty, in the same way a businessman can have their business. Government steps in then to ensure that none are taken advantage of. This does not mean that workers are entitled to equal splits of profits, but that they are not marginalized as fodder.

In the end, there are conservative and progressive liberals, not conservatives and liberals. And this means that despite re-distributive wealth and social concerns, the Left can be as fully American and liberty-loving as the Right. We need to understand this if we are to ever overcome the polemical impasse of modern politics. While there are extreme outliers on both sides, including deep libertarians who want very reduced governments and complete autonomy in industry, and progressives who want to provide for every need and whim to the detriment of some peoples' personal wealth and property; in most cases, a compromise or amiable give and take is possible, and I believe that most people actually want this more than the partisanship we often see.

Left + Right = Liberal within the context of liberty. 'Nuff said.