BIRDS OF A FEATHER

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell

When I was a young man I perceived myself to be of liberal persuasion. This wasn't a rationally held view, I simply identified with others in my circle of friends who called themselves liberals. Now, twenty-five years later, I now know I am not a liberal. Neither am I a conservative.

Recently I have given some effort toward seeking a clear definition of liberal and conservative. Once I thought I knew the difference, but as I grow older I become less sure. Since I am ignorant in this respect, I have asked others about the distinction, and analyzed the stated philosophies and assertions of self proclaimed liberals and conservatives.

The search for clarification by these means has been unsatisfactory. It has become more apparent that there really is no substantive difference between these political philosophies.

In this quest for clarity I have taken my search to a proponent of liberal ideology. I queried a newspaper columnist who consistently promotes liberal views and who frequently reminds his readers of his liberalism and its moral superiority.

This man suggested in an article that one should examine "the entire political spectrum," in order to determine where one's place is. He suggested that this spectrum ranges from liberalism at one end and conservatism at the other. He conceded that in politics, both democrats and republicans are probably nearer the center than not, and that their respective differences are possibly not that great.

He completed this elaboration with the observation that the spectrum actually had two extremes, where extreme left is the communist, and the extreme right is the monarchist.

After looking carefully into this question of left-right, I have concluded that actually, left and right are indeed, very much alike. The rampant confusion over this continues despite the fact that left and right are one political viewpoint. They are not essentially at odds with each other, they are merely quarreling over who shall hold the reins of power, and the style in which this power is to be exercised.

Generally speaking, in American politics, "conservatives" say they favor more economic freedom, and "liberals" claim to favor more personal liberty. The opposite side of this analysis is that both sides disapprove of certain kinds of liberty. Liberals disapprove of economic freedoms and conservatives disapprove of individual freedoms. It appears that both camps demonstrate a mutual distrust of liberty.

Defining a spectrum that encompasses both extremes is a formidable task -- but I think it can be done. If we are trying to define extremes, it is necessary to speak of the compete absence of a certain quality and the complete presence of this quality.

With this in mind, I will assert that a complete and accurately described spectrum has nearly-total political collectivism at one end, and nearly-total individualism at the other. At the collectivist end there is a continual struggle for power and supremacy over others. At the individualist end there is a distinct lack of power struggles because individuals are busy governing themselves instead of others.

If this is indeed a true depiction, then it becomes clear that near the collectivist end will be found communism, totalitarianism, despotism, fascism, marxism, monarchism, socialism, and all the other varieties of authoritarianism.

In the middle range is populism and democracy where the tyranny comes from electoral majorities rather than tyrants and dictators.

At the other extreme end of this spectrum we will find very few advocates, for liberty is misunderstood and distrusted.

The label which best suits a philosophy embracing liberty is "individualism." Some would say "libertarianism," but there is much confusion as to the exact meaning of this term. For example, the ACLU, perceived as crusaders for the rights of individuals, are often called "civil libertarian." However, the philosophy of the ACLU would not be placed anywhere near the "individualist" extreme of the spectrum. They more property belong with the other collectivists near the midrange. Their company includes liberals, conservatives, social democrats, independents and many others.

Earlier, I mentioned that a political spectrum should range from the complete absence of a certain quality to the complete presence of the same quality. In my spectrum, I have called that ingredient liberty and freedom. More clearly defined that means the absence of force and aggression against other human beings. This is how liberty is diminished -- when some people act aggressively against others.

At one end of our spectrum you will find an authoritarian despot claiming absolute power over everyone else. As one moves away from this extreme you will find "enlightened despotism," wherein criminal gangs who claim "official authority" are limited in their actions by so-called constitutions, parliaments, or democratic institutions. Their power is not absolute, but even within the constraints of their time and place, it is considerable.

My liberal columnist who placed communists at one end and monarchists at the other end of his spectrum will find them in close company on mine.

A monarchy is where there is absolute rule, usually by one person. Monarchs are kings or queens with little limitation on their powers to molest and assault anyone and their property in the realm.

Communism and monarchism have much in common -- they are both forms of statism -- where absolute power is consolidated at the top.

Louis XIV: "I am the State."
Liu Shao-Chi: "Our ethics are great precisely because they are the ethics of communism -- such ethics are not built upon the backward basis of safeguarding the rights of individuals."
Adolph Hitler: "Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or worker."

The preceding were quotes from historical proponents of collectivism, and are properly placed at that end of my spectrum. Here is a quotation from a representative of the individualist end of the spectrum.

Tom Paine (1776): "As there is but one species of man, there can be but one element of human power, and that is man himself. Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy are but creatures of imagination; and a thousand such may be contrived, as well as three."

If a spectrum is to be created, it should be designed around a quality that will demonstrate the differences of political philosophies rather than their similarities.

The best way to do this is by grading each viewpoint according to the amount of inherent aggression. When this is done, it becomes obvious that left-wing and right-wing are but two wings of the same bird of prey.