The left versus right political spectrum is largely derived from the French Revolution. However, it fails to define in useful terms a political system which is based on individual liberty, personal autonomy, with a free market economy versus a system based upon central planning, social engineering, and the social collectivism of the welfare state as being the two extremes of political thought. Ultimately if the state comes to control all aspects of life itself the result will be totalitarian government.
The following excerpt is taken from an article entitled “What to Know About the Origins of 'Left' and 'Right' in Politics, From the French Revolution to the 2020 Presidential Race” by Madeleine Carlisle originally published on Sept 12, 2019
https://time.com/5673239/left-right-politics-origins/?fbclid=IwAR37C-Jc79kM8DAxDi1eNJTeDT1c-phLATfEoBXLhyK5XZe2krpj25wNOrg
What are the origins of the political terms ‘left’ and ‘right’?
“The story begins in France, in the summer of 1789, explains Patrice Higonnet, a professor emeritus of French history at Harvard University. As the French Revolution gained steam, an angry mob had just stormed the Bastille. The National Assembly assembled to act as the revolution’s government.
And the assembly had a principal goal: writing a new constitution. One of the main issues the assembly debated was how much power the king should have, says David A. Bell, a professor of early modern France at Princeton University. Would he have the right to an absolute veto? As the debate continued, those who thought the king should have an absolute veto sat on the right of the president of the assembly, and those who thought he should not — the more radical view — sat on the left of the president of the assembly. In other words, those who wanted to hew closer to tradition were on the right, and those who wanted more change were on the left.
“So, these groupings became known as the left and the right, and that’s where we trace the origins,” Bell tells TIME.
The seating pattern repeated itself in subsequent legislatures and parliaments. “It entered popular vernacular quite quickly,” he says. “These terms were used in the newspapers reporting on the national assembly.”
How did ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ spread?
The whole world was watching the French Revolution, and its jargon eventually began to make its way around the world — but not overnight. According to French historian Marcel Gauchet’s essay “Right and Left,” the process of right and left becoming primary categories of political identity was “a long drawn-out process that lasted more than three quarters of a century, until the first decade of the 20th century.”
The prevalence of left and right in Bolshevik Russia and in the early years of the Soviet Union exemplifies the terms’ reach.
“The Bolsheviks were fascinated by the French Revolution. They were intensely conscious about carrying out its legacy — and raising it to a higher level,” Marci Shore, a professor of European cultural and intellectual history at Yale University, told TIME in an email. They viewed it as a necessary step in the historical process that would eventually lead to communism.
For them, left and right took on newly specific meanings. People who broke from the Communist party line were described by opponents as left-wing or right-wing deviationists, especially during the Stalinist era. Leaning toward the left generally meant embracing a radical international workers revolution, and leaning to the right generally meant adopting some sort of national sentiment. But the definitions were fluid, always shifting in relation to the ever-changing party line.” end quote.
The problem with the French model is that it places the desire to give the executive branch of government absolute power over legislation on the right of the spectrum and limited, constitutional government on the left. It should be noted that within the Anglosphere limited constitutional government translates into the opposite of this paradigm because it is the left which wishes to increase the centralized authoritarian power of the executive branch of government.
But why is this uniquely so within the Anglosphere?
"The Bloodless Revolution: What We Need to Learn from John Wesley and the Great Awakening" by David Beidel
https://tristatevoice.com/2020/08/04/the-bloodless-revolution-what-we-need-to-learn-from-john-wesley-and-the-great-awakening/
“In the 18th Century, most of Europe was on fire. Bloody civil wars and revolutions were decimating nation after nation. Unrestrained injustice, government and Church corruption, slave trade and the oppression of the poor created a powder keg for violence. Miraculously, Great Britain escaped the horrors of civil war and the brutal savagery that revolutionary anarchy engenders.
Few ancient monarchies are still in place today. The mystery of the UK’s capacity to honor the old guard, while raising up a more democratic system without a revolution, is a sociological wonder. Many credit the Great Awakening, in particular the Methodist movement, launched by John Wesley, for this extraordinary and peaceful transition.
Methodism unleashed an army of “little Christ’s” all over Europe. They cared for the poor, took in unwanted and abused children, fought unjust laws and labor conditions, visited prisoners, and battled against slavery; They joined hands with the Apostles and “turned the world upside down.” Eventually compassion became fashionable.
The very concept of having concern for suffering people outside the basic family structure, never mind other countries, was unheard of before Methodism brought to Europe this attitude of benevolence. Over two centuries later, there is still a powerful sense that to be compassionate is an American virtue. The virtue is not American, it is purely Christian, and we have the Great Evangelical Revival of the 18th Century to thank for it.
In these troubling days, there is much we can learn from John Wesley and the Methodists. He positively impacted England and most of the Western world mainly because of these three things:
He persistently and passionately preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Although his ministry may have brought about more positive social reform than any in his millennium, he never strayed from preaching the glorious story of salvation in Jesus’ name. He travelled over 250,000 miles, mostly on horseback throughout the United Kingdom, sharing the good news to the poorest of the poor in fields and outside coal mines. He did not plan to launch a social reform movement but years later realized that these transformed souls forged a transformed world.
He gave his converts dignity by teaching them the truth; that they were a chosen people and a royal priesthood. The poor of England were spiralling out of control. Gin, prostitution, violence, slave trade and appalling corruption in the church and government, created one of the worst urban environments Europe had ever seen. Nevertheless, Wesley gave the lowest class in England dignity, honoring them as the children of God. He quickly conferred leadership over the rapidly forming small groups of new converts. They were unified in their desire to: “avoid evil, do good, and grow spiritually by the grace of God.” Soon this movement became known as ”Methodism” because as quickly as it grew, Wesley began organizing and inspiring his followers to be spiritually self-disciplined and to perform charitable good works.
He taught that faith without works – of compassion and justice – were dead. He never fell into the trap of separating preaching the Gospel and doing good for society. The cumulative effect of this grass roots movement accomplished peaceable reform by providing a vehicle for nonviolent change through the multiplication of humanitarian services to the old, the poor, children and the disabled.
The biblical teaching of Wesley flourished, launching a compassion revolution that pushed a nation—that should have erupted in flames—off the cliff of revolution and onto a robust course of meaningful reformation. Mercy and social justice became popular. “Kindness became the new cool.” Between the passionate work of the people of God and the good will of the populace, the government was forced to enact vital reforms that eventually set the standard for all civil and just nations.
His peers and protégés abolished slave trade, passed labor laws for children and adults, and radically served the desperately poor, helping them to transition into a healthy, noble middle class with political influence that accelerated proper reform.
Thus, the only horrific bloodshed of this revolution was the blood of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, who, with His blood, reconciled ALL.”, end quote.
In Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” published in 1835 de Tocqueville cited that the chief reason for America’s democratic successes were due to the radical faith of its citizens. The French had murdered its protestants with impunity. The French Revolution ultimately replaced the authority of the Catholic Church and the King for an autocratic authoritarian centrally controlled government which culminated under the tyranny of that emperor and tyrant Napoleon. We can see a similar story being repeated in Quebec where the authoritarian control of the Catholic Church has been replaced by a secular authority which exercises enormous influence over the Quebecois with them being utterly dependant on handouts from the State.
And so, we find this problem manifested federally under the government of Justin Trudeau who sees himself as a little Napoleon believing he has the authority to govern without parliamentary oversight while granting himself the power of vetoing legislation put forth by anyone but himself even suspending parliament when it suits him. He is the one who today metaphorically sits to the right of the “President of the Assembly” believing himself to have absolute authority. The man throws a tantrum if he doesn’t get his way and has demonstrated this often by storming off the floor of parliament while uttering obscenities. History may not repeat itself, but it does regurgitate the same themes over and over again.
I hope this has provided a more realistic understanding of the left versus right political spectrum since the French model does little to explain it with clarity. What we need to recognize is the difference between those who seek to establish the moral, spiritual, and philosophical framework which can support limited, constitutional government under the rule of law where our Divine rights are recognized and protected versus those who favour absolutism and centralised, authoritarian government where the executive branch of government has become a law unto itself.
The Postmodern left has an inherent loathing of mankind's desire to live freely. They despise the human capacity to strive against life's vicissitudes because these social collectivist types reject their own humanity by ignoring their spiritual life. Today we see radicals literally seeking to create a government which will insulate people from reality itself! Of course, their incessant promises of creating equity invariably result in ensuring an equal sharing of nihilism since they reduce every issue to a material problem. Yet the authors of the materialistic system they hope to create never themselves do without. Simply look at the ostentation and opulence of the Besserwissers attending Davos who demand that we forgo life’s small pleasures, like our automobiles, while they continue to live in obscene wealth driven about in chauffeured limousines. Whatever we are to call them and wherever we are to place them on the political divide, their goal is to use their secular power to control the distribution and production of material goods and services because they reject the need to undergo the moral, spiritual and philosophical transformation that would allow them to permit others to be free from their arbitrary overlordship.
This is an invitation to all of us to become an army of little Christs preaching freedom to those who exist under such authoritarian bondage. I find it interesting that I am descended from radical dissenters and Methodists who had no use whatsoever for High Church mummery and religious superstition. My ancestors' churches were expressions of the people themselves where the people governed the church and not the church the people. Let us return to the inheritance they left us of limited, constitutional government under the Rule of Law where our Divinely given rights are not granted to us by our government but rather respected by it!
