Theory of Left vs Right?

Post Reply New Topic

If you had to choose a single deciding factor for what makes people lean left or right politically, what would it be? I used to be obsessed with this topic but never found a satisfying answer.

The two most common factors I always hear about are "change vs tradition" and "more government vs less government".

The "change vs tradition" paradigm makes sense at first, but obviously no one supports change for the sake of change. You can want to change a law so that the law fits more with a conservative opinion, and conservatives want to change things all the time if it fits with their views. Liberals are trying to preserve things all the time ("don't cut/abolish this social program", etc).

I hear "more government vs less government" rhetoric more and more from the right these days, or that they believe more in freedom, but there are many kinds of freedom. You may want freedom from taxes or the freedom to own guns but what about the freedom to marry who you love? I think the left and right define freedom differently (what kind of freedom do you have if you can't afford to eat or choose your services when there is a monopoly? etc). Sometimes the right wants more government (military budget, tougher crime laws, etc) so this one doesn't make sense to me.

The one that makes the most sense to me is equality. It seems like just about everything people on the left advocate for is in the interest of making things more equal. The right will oppose these policy proposals for a variety of reasons whether cynical or moral ("it's impractical, however well intentioned it will make things worse, you can't force people to be equal, some people deserve more because they work harder," etc) which makes me think right-wing politics is ultimately a reaction to left-wing politics. This doesn't work very well in all cases, such as the environment, unless you try to get philosophical about it like man is not above nature, etc.

I think maybe there is also an attitude about in ingroups vs outgroups, people on the left have a more expansive ingroup (we are all citizens of the world, etc) than conservatives who are more likely to put the interests of American citizens over foreigners. There has been research that right-wing politics is based on fear and I think it's fear of the other, fear of the outgroup, hence why the left is more pro immigration and has a more multilateral foreign policy.

I know this may seem biased towards the left but I don't think any right-wing motives I mentioned are irrational. Sometimes it makes sense to fear the outgroup, sometimes a social policy in the interest of making things more equal IS a bad idea, etc.

Also I'm fully aware of all the graphs out there that put politics on multiple dimensions, and I'm sure it's multi-dimensional (my personal favorite is Moral foundations theory) but in my opinion when trying to figure out left vs right adding more dimensions does less to help explain the difference. In the United States at least there are only two viable parties, no matter how complicated or unique an individual's beliefs and motives are there is SOMETHING makes people choose one or the other at the end of the day. Even in countries that have multi-party systems, there are usually two big major parties, one moderately left leaning and one moderately right leaning. Something is causing this phenomenon.

Simplicity, but ultimately:

BEST Scenario
RIGHT = preserving individual liberty
LEFT = striving for fairness and equality

WORST Scenario
RIGHT = war and removing safety nets
LEFT = jeopardizing individual liberty and freedom to accommodate groups

You must ask yourself what you believe in and where the RIGHT and LEFT are in regards to your beliefs before deciding where you stand in the current political climate (wherever you live).

I would say most people have elements of "both sides," rather than absolutely believing in one "side."

The problem, these days, is that politicians in the US today are not following the people's will. They seek to enforce comeuppance on one or the other "group." "Owning the Libs," etc.

Would you say that both sides believe in equality and liberty but maybe there is a tension between the two (you can't always have both) and each side prioritizes one over the other?

What about something like Marriage Equality (used to be called same-sex marriage, and gay marriage before that) I think that can be framed in terms of both liberty and equality. What liberty do conservatives think is being harmed there? Religious freedom? I know I'm repeating my post but what about the freedom to marry who you love?

EDIT: How would preserving individual liberty resolve into war?

Yes, left and right wing are umbrella terms for a whole box of social preferences that aren't necessarily all held by any particular individual. There's some value in using the terms to make it easier to think about politics as long as we stay mindful that we're making an approximation to the truth. I suppose the strongest and most overarching preference they represent is that of equality (left wing) or inequality (right wing), though not everybody identifying with the right wing would admit to actually preferring inequality, it's more often a case of "I like equality but.....," and that would also be true of a left-wing authoritarian.

That is my suspicion, that it all comes down to the left being an alliance of people and interest groups who are focused on equality, whatever the individual cause may be, and the right is a loose alliance of people who oppose those policies or movements for a variety of possibly unrelated reasons. It could be tradition, it could be economic views, etc.

I would argue the RIGHT tends to advocate individual liberty at the expense of mobility. Those who have KEEP, those who don't have to struggle.

But the LEFT is willing to sacrifice individual liberty for a group dynamic, which can be problematic to individual liberty.




This is a whole other can of worms. Here's my take: I don't care who marries who, but, first, what defines marriage? is it one man:one woman? Is it two people of any gender? But, in fairness, why does marriage have to be limited to two people? Why can't a man have multiple wives or a group of people all be communal spouses? The whole gay marriage thing wanted to redefine marriage, while still keeping it defined.

In truth, the reason for heterosexual marriage had nothing to do with love, or soul mates. It had everything to do with legitimacy. This man and woman are married. If the woman has a kid, the husband is the legal father (for centuries DNA testing didn't exist). It was state-mandated not for LOVE or GOD or whatever, but for procreation and legal legitimacy of children.

Yes, there will always be married couples who don't have kids. And, yes, unmarried couples who procreate. But I think the whole gay marriage thing (and the religious fanatics) missed the mark as to why the state sanctioned monogamous heterosexual marriage in the first place.


I was talking in extremes. The RIGHT, in peacetime, does seem more concerned with the rights of the individual over the rights of GROUPS. But the RIGHT is more prone to see territories outside its jurisdiction as "not applicable," as it guarantees liberties to those within its sphere, not without...extraterritorial areas become a source of resources. Often, the guise of spreading such individual liberty to a new land is used as a guise for invasion.

At an intellectual level its much much harder to support or justify the right....however, although I am unambiguously sympathetic to left-wing causes such as the environment and social justice in relation to social equality, I don't self-identify as a leftie in the real world.

With people I meet or workmates I am very much "apolitical", When I vote I tend to be motivated to keep right wingers out of political office rather than support working class left-leaning parties. I support the green political parties platform but I am a realist and know that buying their entire package wholesale means making personal sacrifices that are unrealistic.