October 16, 2009 – 9:00 am | by Friar_Zero
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right.
– H.L. Mencken
The landscape of political discourse in this country is dominated by two peculiar schools of thought. It’s not the left and the right, nor liberty and oligarchy, and not even capitalism and socialism. No the dueling duality of demagoguery is that of the Not-Left and the Not-Right. I’m not one prone to the coining of neologisms but I will make an exception here. Don’t fret, I’ll try not to make a habit of it. Now what do I mean by the Not-Left and the Not-Right?
What is the one defining characteristic of the right wing spectrum of western politics? Let’s put aside the etymology of the term and look at it’s value as a description. Is there a single agreed upon quality that makes one a member of the political right rather than the left? A sole shibboleth by which new movements can be classified? If there is one I haven’t found it. I haven’t even found a single universally agreed upon definition of a conservative much less how to define “the right” as a whole. Perhaps it’s a matter of sharing a key concept like, say, a belief in traditional values. But then what about libertarians? Could it be individualism? But what about right-communitarians like McIntyre? Resistance to authority. What about theocrats and nationalists? Belief in a small government. What about neoconservatives?
Is there a single property by which a political philosophy can be classified as being of the right or the left? It doesn’t appear so. It appears as if we define groups as being on the right if they hold to one of any of a family of concepts. It doesn’t seem as if there is any one thing in common between all the disparate factions that we consider being of “the right”, save one. The one thing they all have in common is that they are emphatically not the left. In fact they oppose the left and any ideas put forth by the left. There are whole blog networks devoted to giving voice to their derision of the left and to expounding the many ways the left is wrong. All the while they freely associate with other members of the right with whom they disagree violently in congratulating themselves that they are not left.
The exact same can be said of the left. What one defining characteristic do all factions of the left share? Positive rights? Liberaltarians and neoliberals base their ideology on negative rights and there are those who espouse positive rights on the opposite side as well. A role for the state in economics? Neoliberals seek to “liberalize” trade restrictions and regulatory agencies. While socialists find the economic middle road of modern democrats to be as intolerable as their opponents. Is the left united in a belief in technocratic oligarchy? Then where does that leave the syndicalists, the anarchists, and the left-communitarians? On top of all this are the millions who call themselves leftists, progressives, and liberals who hold a patchwork collection of economic and political ideals. No single property in common between them, rather a collection of ideas we have come to call the left. Save, of course, for the fact that they are not the right. United in their opposition to the right, the culture of the right, and the thinkers of the right wing. Whole electoral campaigns waged on the single clarion call of being Not-Right.
This is not to say that all those on the right (or left) define themselves only in contrast to this Hegelian Other. Rather that it is the one single thing that can be appealed to universally amongst the various blocs that constitute a side of the political spectrum. Yet there are those who willingly and purposefully take up the banner of Not, whether it be out of a genuine quixotic zeal for the destruction of the other or as a tool to manipulate the electorate or just a path of easy success in political circles. They abandon any positive or prescriptive political philosophy in exchange for one that would be willing to accept any system so long as it’s not from the other side of the tracks. Don’t take my word for it, look at what a Not-Left pundit like Robert Stacey McCain says, “The simplest way to define conservatism is this: The belief that liberalism is wrong. To the extent that liberalism is a coherent political philosophy, the conservative defines himself negatively, as Not A Liberal.”
So what happens when you declare that there are no enemies on the right? Just take a look at the recent drama concerning conservative blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. He is being attacked by others on the right for attacking others on the right. Johnson has written a series of posts denouncing conservative associations with neo-nazi and racist organizations and attacking poor arguments and ideas put forward by fellow right-wing bloggers. This is not to say there doesn’t exist legitimate criticisms of the man but those are not what has brought the controversy. Then there are those who rushed to the defense of the infamous World Net Daily when it was attacked by John Henke at The Next Right. Or what about RNC chairman Micheal Steele’s apology to provocateur Rush Limbaugh? And then there’s the ongoing schism concerning the birther movement. On top of Alex Jones, the John Birch Society, Tea Parties, Minutemen, etc, etc, etc.
This is not an isolated phenomena of the right but the left in this country has a history of rejecting anything left of FDR. Today all but one congressman crosses himself and spits when the “s word” is thrown at them. However the right is not only on speaking terms with their fringe but often take the stage with racists, conspiracy theorists, religious extremists, and honest to god lunatics. American liberals and progressives fall into any-democrat syndrome when it comes to election season but they also distance themselves from Code Pink, disown Marxists, and denounce the “internet left fringe“. So while the Not-Right is worrisome and vacuous the Not-Left is potentially dangerous.
Champions of Not can be distinguished from legitimate critics by their turgid sophomoric prose in their task of painting all those on the other side as dimwitted subhuman creatures deserving of pity, as long as they know their place. As illustrated in another fine example from R.S. McCain, “Any conservative who thinks that the Left is interested in a rational discussion of facts (whatever the facts may be) needs to wake the hell up“. The Not pundits leap to the criticism of their enemy and evisceration of their data using any means necessary, even using false data of their own. The political blogosphere is populated with sites devoted solely to reminding the faithful of the loathsomeness of their adversary and praise for any who do likewise. A fellow man of the left criticizes the Bush establishment while putting forth a proposal for abolishing prisons? Congratulate him and hound any who dare to criticise him. A fellow man of the right attacks a new Democrat immigration proposal and puts forth a racist eugenics tirade? Lit him up as a luminary and counter any criticisms by claiming they are simply using the race card as intimidation. Anyone but Obama, even if he’s a theocratic fascist. Anyone but Bush, even is he’s a spineless corporatist.
Many people have commented on the uselessness of the terms “left” and “right” in politics and they have a very good point. Being on the left just means you have beliefs that fall somewhere outside the right and vice-versa. If your a marxist then you have no reason to count the democratic party as an ally. If you are a libertarian then why would you stand up for theocrats? You are not on the same side, political philosophy is not a line but a polygon. It doesn’t matter that they share one of your beliefs, you have a vision for a better world and their other beliefs are standing in the way. Have at them. A nation that elects a party or politician based on their dislike of the other side isn’t going to support a positive vision for a new America, they’re going to support whoever can whip them up in the greatest frenzy. All this dueling dualism does is create a perpetual tug-of-war between two sets of demagogues as we’ve seen in the last few decades of american politics. People aren’t voting because they believe in the vision the democrats have for the future because there is no vision beyond beating the other guy. Barack Obama’s campaign was built around change, but not social change or deep political change but rather a change from the red side to the blue. A battle over colors rather than ideas.
Subscribe
his blog is officially on hiatus (as opposed to me just not updating) while I direct my quite desperation toward participating in 2009 ’s National Novel Writing Month. My normal writing routine is far from prodigious so I will not be able to both write the required thousand some odd words a day, assuming I can meet that challenge at all, and contribute half-decent posts to the blog. My co-blogger is MIA for the time being so expect only trifling tidbits until November is out. If you are interested at all in my progress then visit my profile by clicking on the image to the left.
So I just finishing watching the first episode of 
