Redefining Left and Right

In an earlier post I suggested definitions for Fascism and Communism, the extremes of Left and Right. I suggested that Fascism was when "the Corporation ran the State" and that Communism was when "the State ran the Corporation".

I think it's time to revisit the idea and refine those terms and maybe a few others.

First, let me refine the definitions of those two positions.

Lets start with the term "Corporation" and for the sake of this discussion, lets say that represents the means of manufacture and distribution within the nation.

For the sake of this argument let us consider that Fascism, the position of the extreme Right, is when the State or Government acts in the best interest of the Corporation. At the other end of the spectrum in Communism, the opposite is the case. The State or Government "owns" the corporation or, one might say the Corporation must function in the best interest of the state.

In both cases, and in many ways, the State and the Corporation become an identity. As in the mathematical definition of an "identity", they become one and the same thing. The distinction between the State and the Corporation become more and more blurred the further one moves either to the extreme Left or to the extreme Right. At the greatest extreme, there ceases to be a functional diference between the State and the Corporation.

This suggests a slightly different functional perspective might be applied to the political spectrum.

Figure 1 (below) illustrates the common view of the political Left/Right dichotomy, outlining the extremes while Democracy ... the expressed will of the governed, occupies a middle position.



I've used the colors blue and red to denote the current Left wing liberal and the Right wing conservative approaches to American politics.

I would submit that the extreme Right wing and he extreme Left wing have more in common with each other than they do with a democratic (with a small "d") approach to government. Both are totalitarian, neither is concerned with the will or the welfare of the people.

By "folding" the diagram in the middle in order to put "likes" together we get something that looks a lot like Fig 2.



Fig 3. (below) is the final view when the totalitarian systems are superimposed on each other.



It is a little more difficult to place individuals on a political spectrum than it is to graph political philosophies. However, I've made an attempt based on my own personal perspective. Some may disagree with my assessment of the degree of extreme I've assigned to individuals and organizations in this example but it serves to illustrate a point.



I believe the point is, for the most part, those involved in the Democratic and Republican parties have more in common with each other than they have with the extremes. It is certainly true that the extremes on the Right and on the Left have more in common with each other than they have things that differentiate them from each other. From my perspective, the more extreme one's position is, the less in touch they are with the needs of the American people and, as a consequence, the less attractive they are in the up coming 2008 General Election.

The root of the overall feelings of dissatisfaction in this country stem from the fact that, post 9/11 the Bush administration has taken a position beyond the fringe of the overall Republican Party and, for a time at any rate, carried the Party along with it.

Echoing the general dissatisfaction of the public at large, significant segments of the Republican Party are now waking up to that fact and starting to express their own dissatisfaction with the course of the nation. The war in Iraq has moved their constituents to point out that they are not representing the attitudes and opinions of the people they are supposed to represent ... and the bottom line message is clear. Neglect the people and they will neglect to vote for you! They'll vote for someone who will address their needs and wants ... regardless of party affiliations. There will always be "die-hard" party members who will take the attitude "my party, right or wrong!" but the majority of voters possess that level blind party affiliation. They are much more interested in their own health care issues, food on the table, education for their kids and a world of peace and prosperity. They will support a war as long as it makes sense to them. They will swallow a party line for a while but, in the end, if their perceived self interests are not served, they'll vote the bastards out of office. That's the way it works in a democratic republic such as this, where the bottom line is that the government does not originate orders ... it follows them. In the end, in a democracy, the people set the policies. It may take some time, but the will of the people will be served ... as long as the Constitution stands.

The sooner both sides recognize, in their quest to serve "We the People" and that they have more in common than they have to differentiate them selves, the sooner we can all get back to a bipartisan government of the people, by the people and for the people.

There are good people and good ideas on both sides of the aisle. However, allowing lobbyists representing special interests other than the will of the people governed applies pressure on good people to do things that have dubious consequences. Special interests seek to create that "identity" between government and the corporate special interest.

Treating corporations as if they were individuals in a democracy is dangerous business. The corporate mandate is not to serve the people. It is to make a profit and the more entwined corporations are with government, the more government is pushed to the extremes at the right side of the scale in Fig 3 - where the corporation and the state are the same thing.

During the 1930 there was a phrase uttered mostly by capitalists on Wall Street. They said "what ever is good for GM is good for the country." That's not necessarily true.