| Part of thepolitics series |
| Party politics |
|---|
 Politics portal |
Theleft–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions,ideologies andparties, with emphasis placed upon issues ofsocial equality andsocial hierarchy. In addition to positions on the left and on the right, there are centrist and moderate positions, which are not strongly aligned with either end of the spectrum. It originated during theFrench Revolution based on the seating in the FrenchNational Assembly.
On this type ofpolitical spectrum,left-wing politics andright-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another; and some stances may overlap and be considered either left-wing or right-wing depending on the ideology.[1] In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" orliberal, and the right "the party of order" orconservative.[2][3][4][5]
The terms "left" and "right" first appeared during theFrench Revolution of 1789 when members of theNational Assembly divided into supporters of theAncien Régime to the president's right side and supporters of the revolution to his left side.[6][7][8] One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "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 rein in the opposing camp".[9][10]
When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by aLegislative Assembly composed of entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered.[clarification needed] When the succeedingNational Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following thecoup d'état of 2 June 1793 and the arrest of theGirondins, the right side of the assembly was deserted and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. Following theThermidorian Reaction of 1794, the members of the far left were excluded and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups".[11] Following theRestoration in 1814–1815, political clubs were again formed. The majorityultra-royalists chose to sit on the right. The "constitutionals" sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left, as well as centre-right and centre-left, came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.[12]
Thomas Jefferson'sDemocratic-Republican Party supported the French Revolution in the 1790s when he opposed theFederalist Party that supported Britain. His friendMarquis de LaFayette had been a leader in France. Jefferson wrote LaFayette on November 4, 1823, where "Côté droit" means "right side" and "côté gauche" means "left side.":[13][14]
for in truth the parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. they exist in all countries, whether called by these names, or by those of Aristocrats and democrats, coté droite or coté gauche, Ultras or Radicals, Serviles or Liberals.
After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation.[15] With the establishment of theThird Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871), the Extreme Left (1876) and the Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.[16]
Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". The words left and right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", which at the time meant favoring a republic over a monarchy, while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives".[15] By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Right" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs.[17]
There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction.Émile Chartier said in 1931, "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left."[18] In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over theSpanish Civil War.[19] SociologistRobert M. MacIver said inThe Web of Government (1947):
The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.[20]
Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such asfreedom,equality,fraternity, rights,progress, reform andinternationalism" while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such asauthority,hierarchy,order,duty, tradition,reaction andnationalism".[21][22][23]
Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as includinganarchists,[24][a]communists,[26]socialists,[27]democratic socialists,social democrats,[28]left-libertarians,progressives, andsocial liberals.[29][30] Movements forracial equality,[31] as well astrade unionism, have also been associated with the left.[32][33]
Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the right as includingconservatives (among whom there are many strains, includingtraditionalist conservatism,libertarian conservatism,[34]neoconservatism,[35][36] andultraconservatism[37]);right-libertarians,[38]anarcho-capitalists,[39][40]monarchists,[41]fascists,[42] andreactionaries.[43][33]
Various political ideologies, such asChristian democracy,[44] some forms of liberalism, andradical centrism, can be classified ascentrist.[45][33]
A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left–right spectrum, includingChristian democracy,[46] andregionalism.[47][48][49] Though nationalism is generally regarded as a right-wing doctrine, some nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are alsocivic nationalists,[50] as well asleft-wing nationalists.[51]Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form ofleft-wing populism andright-wing populism, respectively.[52]Green politics is generally regarded as a movement of the left, although there are alsogreen conservatives. Andrew Dobson suggests that green politics contains an inherent conservatism as it is "adverse to anything but the most timid engineering of the social and natural world by human beings".[53][54]
Political scientists have made models in which the ideologies of political parties are mapped along a single left–right axis.[55]Klaus von Beyme categorized European parties into nine families, which described most parties. Beyme arranged seven of them from left to right:communist,socialist,green,liberal,Christian democratic,conservative andright-wing extremist. The position of agrarian and regional/ethnic parties varied.[56] A study conducted in the late 1980s on two bases, positions on ownership of the means of production and positions on social issues, confirmed[how?] this arrangement.[57]
There has been a tendency for party ideologies to persist and values and views that were present at a party's founding have survived. However, they have also adapted forpragmatic reasons, making them appear more similar.[58]Seymour Martin Lipset andStein Rokkan observed that modern party systems are the product of social conflicts played out in the last few centuries.[59] They said that lines of cleavage had become "frozen".[60]
The first modern political parties were liberals, organized by the middle class in the 19th century to protect them against thearistocracy. They were major political parties in that century, but declined in the twentieth century as first the working class came to support socialist parties and economic andsocial change eroded their middle class base.[61] Conservative parties arose in opposition to liberals to defend aristocratic privilege, but to attract voters they became less doctrinaire than liberals. However, they were unsuccessful in most countries and generally have been able to achieve power only through cooperation with other parties.[62]
Socialist parties were organized to achievepolitical rights for workers and were originally allied with liberals. However, they broke with the liberals when they soughtworker control of themeans of production.[63] Christian democratic parties were organized by Catholics who saw liberalism as a threat to traditional values. Although established in the 19th century, they became a major political force following theSecond World War.[64] Communist parties emerged following a division within socialism first on support of theFirst World War and then support of theBolshevik Revolution.[65] Right-wing extremist parties are harder to define other than being more right-wing than other parties, but includefascists and some extreme conservative and nationalist parties.[66] Green parties were the most recent of the major party groups to develop. They have mostly rejected socialism and are very liberal on social issues.[67]
These categories can be applied to many parties outside of Europe.[68] Ware (1996) asserted that in the United States both major parties wereliberal, even though there are left–right policy differences between them.[69]
The left-right political spectrum can change over time in a process that affects the views on politicians from more than one country. In most countries,classical liberalism is thought of as a right-wing ideology, but when classical liberal ideas made their debut, they were thought of as leftist.[70][22]
"Left-wing" and "right-wing" in non-Western political contexts may vary significantly from their meaning in Western political contexts.[71]: 42 China, for example, is governed by theChinese Communist Party (CCP).[71]: 42 Like communist parties traditionally do, the CCP deems itself as a progressive force on the left-wing.[71]: 42 In this context, "left-wing" groups present themselves as supporters of the CCP and its political system, while those supportingliberal democracy are construed as "right-wing".[71]: 42 Summarizing research in the Chinese political context, academic Chenyang Song writes that the left-wing/right-wing dichotomy is not an essential criterion for differentiating Chinese ideological stances.[71]: 45
In the 2001 bookThe Government and Politics of France, Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright say that the main factor dividing the left and right wings in Western Europe is class. The left seekssocial justice throughredistributive social and economic policies, while the right defendsprivate property andcapitalism. The nature of the conflict depends on existing social and political cleavages and on the level of economic development.[72]
Left-wing values include the belief in the power ofhuman reason to achieveprogress for the benefit of the human race,secularism,sovereignty exercised through the legislature and social justice and mistrust of strong personal political leadership. To the right, this is regularly seen asanti-clericalism, unrealisticsocial reform, doctrinairesocialism andclass hatred.
The right wing believes in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and they believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions. To the left, this is seen as a selfish and reactionary opposition to social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on the population and a tendency to authoritarianism andrepression.[73][74]
The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of theFrench Revolution was between supporters ofabsolute monarchy (the right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the left). During the 19th century, the cleavage was betweenmonarchists andrepublicans. Following the establishment of theThird Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the left.[75]
A 2005Harris Poll of American adults showed that the termsleft wing andright wing were less familiar to Americans than the termsliberal orconservative.[76]Peter Berkowitz writes that in the U.S., the termliberal "commonly denotes the left wing of the Democratic Party" and has become synonymous with the wordprogressive,[77] a fact that is usefully contextualized for non-Americans by Ware's observation that at the turn of the 21st century, both mainstream political parties in the United States, generally speaking, were liberal in the classical sense of the word.[69]
Michael Kazin writes that the left is traditionally defined as the social movement or movements "that are dedicated to a radicallyegalitarian transformation of society" and suggests that many in theleft in the United States who met that definition called themselves by various other terms.[78] Kazin writes that American leftists "married the ideal of social equality to the principle of personal freedom" and that contributed to the development of important features of modern American society, including "the advocacy ofequal opportunity and equal treatment for women, ethnic and racial minorities, and homosexuals; the celebration of sexual pleasure unconnected to reproduction; a media and educational system sensitive to racial and gender oppression and which celebrates what we now callmulticulturalism; and the popularity of novels and films with a strongly altruistic andanti-authoritarian point of view."[79] A variety of distinct left-wing movements existed in American history, includinglabor movements, theFarmer-Labor movement, variousdemocratic socialist andsocialist movements, pacifist movements, and theNew Left.[80]
Political scientists have frequently argued that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and include other axes to compensate for this problem.[81][82][71]: 43
Americanlibertarian writerDavid Boaz argued that the political termsleft andright are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the left typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class; and those on the right usually emphasizing their support forindividualism and accusing the left of supportingcollectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way these terms should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[83]
In 2006, British Prime MinisterTony Blair described the main cleavage in politics as not left versus right, butopen versus closed.[84] According to Blair, attitudes towards social issues andglobalisation are more important than the conventional economic left–right issues. In this model, "open" voters tend to beculturally liberal, multicultural and in favour of globalisation while "closed" voters areculturally conservative,opposed to immigration and in favour ofprotectionism. The open–closed political spectrum has seen increased support following the rise ofpopulist andcentrist parties in the 2010s.[85][86]
Norberto Bobbio saw the polarization of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in the 1990s as evidence that the linear left–right axis remained valid. Bobbio thought that the argument that the spectrum had disappeared occurred when either the left or right were weak. The dominant side would claim that its ideology was the only possible one, while the weaker side would minimize its differences. He saw the left and right not in absolute terms, but as relative concepts that would vary over time. In his view, the left–right axis could be applied to any time period.[87]
A survey of Canadian legislative caucuses conducted between 1983 and 1994 byBob Altemeyer showed an 82% correlation between party affiliation and score on a scale forright-wing authoritarianism when comparing right-wing andsocial democratic caucuses. There was a wide gap between the scores of the two groups, which was filled by liberal caucuses. His survey of American legislative caucuses showed scores by American Republicans and Democrats were similar to the Canadian right and liberals, with a 44% correlation between party affiliation and score.[88]
While in many Western European democracies, traditionally the left is associated with socially liberal and economically left values, while the right is traditionally associated with socially conservative and economically right values, Eastern European, post-communist parties are frequently juxtaposed, with economically left parties holding nationalist positions more frequently and economically right parties being liberal and internationalist.[89]
TheNolan Chart is apolitical spectrum diagram created byAmericanlibertarian activistDavid Nolan in 1969, chartingpolitical views along two axes, representingeconomic freedom andpersonal freedom. It expands political view analysis beyond the traditional one-dimensionalleft–right/progressive-conservative divide, positioning libertarianism outside the traditional spectrum.
Usually considered to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism ...
Libertarianism and conservatism are frequently classified together as right-wing political philosophies, which is understandable given the content and history of these views.
The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper.
Whom to include under the rubric of the New Right remains puzzling. It is usually seen as an amalgam of traditional liberal conservatism, Austrian liberal economic theory Ludwing von Mises and Hayek), extreme libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism), and crude populism.
In many continental European countries, for example, 'conservatism' suggests the political influence of Catholicism. (p. 22) [...] American conservatism, in some of its major forms at least, has almost from its beginnings been aggressively pro-capitalist in ways that its European counterparts have not. [...] (However) the basic dilemmas now faced by conservative and socialist thought are everywhere similar. (p. 23) [...] Conservatism, it is often said, opposes rationalism. (p. 24)
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
