Much of modern political discussion is focused on the battle between the “Right” and the “Left,” or “Liberals” and “Conservatives,” as well as the compatibility of democracy, nationalism, and sovereignty.  Both the scholarly and political literature is effectively divided into two camps – those that were critical of so-called “far right” nationalism of majority groups, and those that uphold “others” that find nationalism (especially sub-nationalist groups) effective in finding a voice in their community or nation.  I am often reticent to comment or engage in these discussions, as I disagree with the basic structure that is being used to illustrate points. 

Specifically at odds with reality is the perpetual use of the “left-right” political spectrum, and its use to label and denigrate everything and everyone that does not support Marxist ideologies. In modern thought, there is a tendency to venerate all things Marxist, although many dishonest or ignorant commentators will deny or deflect from that connection. Further, the use of “democracy” as a paragon for political virtue ignores that democracy is a broad term that implies a massive popular vote and mob rule, not the republican and parliamentary style democracies that tend to dominate the governments of the modern Western world.  Those power structures are specifically designed to protect the rights and liberties of the minority, without allowing for a tyranny of the same.  A pure democracy would of course squash all dissent – and is often used as a tool to do just that, especially in the unofficial courts of public opinion that so often have a huge impact on the decisions of actual courts, politicians, and private businesses. Which is interesting in and of itself, as many campaigns to effect change via social media are spearheaded by a strident minority that does not represent the majority.  

The use of “left-right” as well as “liberal-conservative” to label those ends of the spectrum is a holdover from the age of enlightenment, and very often modern “liberals” have no love at all for personal liberty, while modern “conservatives” have nothing to do with the preservation of monarchical power structures.  While these terms fit neatly into a specific narrative, and allow for quick and easy categorization of political groups, the fact is that the left-right spectrum is inadequate, outmoded, disingenuous, and misleading.  The continued use of these terms may be convenient or comfortable, but I think that it is beneath the dignity of honest commentors, academia, the media, and especially politicians do so. 

These groups should be the model for the rest of the world, yet they use regressive political models to make simplistic comparisons. Indeed, it is often amusing to see the differentiations made between a range of socialist beliefs (like “democratic” socialism), while anyone who dares to even question that narrative are labeled as “far” right or literal NAZIs (interestingly – “national” socialists).  Of course, this is a political maneuver to denigrate and demonize political opponents – I think that we should make more of an effort to stay away of that sort of petty and misleading language.