Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) John Locke (1632 - 1704)
For lack of an argument many antagonistic partisans prefer
simply to label their opponents as right-wing or left-wing in the hope it will
relieve their audience of the necessity for any further thought. This is
particularly irksome for a lucid adversary when the debated activity is
misaligned on the political grid. But, what is this grid and is there a test
that will reliably place one’s ideas in its proper place?
I realize that this would be detrimental to anyone obfuscating
their message deliberately, but I believe the time has come to agree on a
universal political spectrum.
In 1789 the political divide was loosely defined by the
seating in the French National Assembly. The spectrum consisted of a Jacobin
elite on the left-wing of the house supporting what they called a republic and
a Legitimist elite on the right-wing defending various implementations of the
Monarchy. The overriding theme of the time was which elite would exercise
absolute power over the unfortunate citizens of France. In hind-sight we know
that the Jacobins would self-destruct by implementing an unprecedented orgy of
political genocide known as the Terror - While the right-wing elites would implode
by escalating destruction into the monumental catastrophe known as the
Napoleonic Wars.
The French were unwilling or unable it seems to appreciate
the evolutionary road to enlightenment that was unfolding in Britain and her
empire. The dominant theme in Britain was the long road leading to the rejection
of absolutism in all its forms. This began to unfold after the signing at
Runnymede in 1215 of the immortal Magna Charta. Evolving with time half the British political spectrum
could be defined by the classical liberal John Locke who advocated freedom through his
justification of property rights and by proposing the separation of church &
state. He became a major inspiration for the rebellion in 13 of Britain’s
colonies in North America. The other half, perhaps best embodied by Edmund
Burke have taken the view that tradition and religion were the best bulwarks against
tyranny. The idea was that existing institutions could be modified, not
replaced, to protect the rights of individuals. The consequences of these two
roads have produced the “Constitutional Republic” and the “Constitutional Monarchy”.
Both of these systems are designed to overcome the impulse toward absolutism –
one overt and the other subtle.
Through the 19th and 20th centuries absolutists
experimented with many different implementations of their trade. The Pragmatism
of William James and John Dewy became the justification for all manner of
tyranny under the rubric; “the end justifies the means”. Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Islamism and Socialism
are the resulting abominations. The dominant theme for modern day absolutists
is the demand for group rights that are identified as the “collective”, the “people”
or the “class”. By advocating for a group with a uniform message this structure
is by its nature elitist. In response to the elitist experiments proponents of
individualism began to question the legitimacy of the right to govern. The
logical conclusion of this thinking is an ideal state of anarchy where no man
is governed by another.
Today the political spectrum is inherently coloured by the
clash of the elite forces of absolutism and the individual’s rational desire to
be free. Boiled down to its bare essentials this is collectivism on the left of
the grid and Individualism on the right.
Now you should know where you stand. If you advocate
policies that require or justify the use of force against other people such as;
government social programs or other wealth redistribution schemes, State monopolies
like education or the post office and restrictions on free speech then you
reside on the left-wing of the Political spectrum. If you advocate volunteerism,
believe in free enterprise and freedom of thought & conscience then you
reside on the right-wing of the grid.
Now that that is cleared up; are you a
collectivist or an individualist, an elitist or an individualist, an initiator
of force or an individualist – If you think about it you may change your mind.
