For Whom the Bell Tolls

A Guest Political Descriptor Concept

In what I hope will be the first of many contributions by subscribers to The Point, I am happy to post this piece by Frank Bottema.  Inspired, if I may use that lofty term, by the recent “Neither Right nor Left” item, it is a new take on the issue of proper political descriptors now that the old flat linear concept no longer seems even vaguely accurate.

And I would remind every subscriber that I am happy to consider posting your pieces as well; they can be in relation to one of my items or about pretty much anything else, though I will draw the line at 14,367 word screeds about how horrible that waiter was last night.

If you are interested, please feel to email me directly at planbuckley@gmail.com .

As part of this cooperative spirit, the “comments” section is open to everyone for this piece.

Thanks Frank and I hope everyone else enjoys!

The traditional linear political spectrum we were all taught and is still taken for granted does not reflect reality.   “Progressives” occupy the left side of this line, while “Conservatives'' live on the right.  Taken to the extremes at both ends, we see ideological dictatorships that are inimical to the traditional American values both motivating our “left” and “right”.  That is self-contradictory.  

A model based on degree of centralized power would be more realistic is describing the essential distinctions.

In reality, the ideological extremes of totalitarian Nazism and Communism are but different hues of Socialism, more alike than opposed.  Both claim to champion equality and the working class while being rooted in a deep, visceral hatred of the middle class and its “bourgeois” values of religion, entrepreneurial capitalism, inherited wealth, and private ownership of the means of production. 

The main economic difference becomes irrelevant in practical terms:  whereas Communist regimes own those means outright, Fascists are content to let chosen private owners keep their profits while controlling operations according to their own priorities.  In effect, the central power calls the shots either way. 

Ultimately all such systems, despite their pretensions of equality, become top-down, oppressive regimes which force adherence to ideology.  Totalitarian regimes, be they theocratic or socialist, not only control behavior, but also insist on conformity, denying independent thought with a false claim to virtue while seeking to “improve” human nature.

Mussolini was a lifelong socialist, but early on he saw that the “workers of the world” would not unite.  Average Italians felt most connected to “la patria” – their families, clans, villages, regions, and country – not their hypothetical class peers elsewhere.  He believed a socialism based on Italian patriotism would gain the emotional support that the sterile abstractions of international socialism did not.  Thus he named his movement the National Fascist Party – in Italian, “fascio” means bundle (from the Latin “fasces”), and it was a common word to describe workers groups and other politically active organizations.

Hitler thought that was such a keen insight he emulated it, more forthrightly calling his faction “National Socialists”, or Nazi for short.  He extended Mussolini’s nationalism to incorporate the evil of ethnic tribalism and hatred, a feature eventually adopted by most extreme socialist dictatorships since then.  Both these dictators hated Communism;  likewise other dictatorial socialist regimes saw as enemies those who promoted other variations - one of Lenin’s first acts after grabbing power was to liquidate other socialist factions.

The political designations “left” and “right” originated in the years right before the French Revolution, when the Monarchists sat on the right side in the Estates-General, while the republicans, small r, sat on the left.  Those terms are now anachronistic, as we have no monarchists to speak of in the US, and it is ironic that those supporting the forms of our traditional republic are deemed to be on the right, while the left includes those more inclined to a utopian, top-down socialism.  (This is verbal appropriation!)

A political spectrum in the shape of a “bell curve” would correct that anomaly:

The horizontal axis would indicate degree of central control, ranging from 0 – anarchy, to 1 –  totalitarianism.  The vertical axis shows the corresponding degrees of freedom enjoyed by citizens in such various regimes, from virtually no freedom at the extremes, to a maximum, but never total, freedom in the center.  This center political organization consists of a constitutionally structured, representative form of elected government subject to approval of its citizens, based on law, not personal whim, with divided powers balanced so that no one faction can easily control society. 

No such order is perfect, of course, because neither is freedom.  To make the latter more than an abstraction, like equality or justice, it behooves us to define it concretely, as control over our own lives, and to recognize that in a diverse society, individual freedoms are limited not only by those of others, but also by the rights of communities, however defined. 

Collectively, members of any community must be free to reach consensus on how to adjust as situations and perceptions change over time.  Societies may evolve;  what once seemed desirable for a community may no longer be, so its constituents must have the freedom to replace or revise priorities.  The whole purpose of a free government is to balance these competing freedoms, requiring the flexibility to change with the times.  That is at the heart of democratic governance.  It is the ultimate “liberal” order, and it is diametrically opposed to the imposition of any ideology.

The US Constitution created one of the most liberal governing structures ever devised.  Its beauty is that it is not a pure democracy, but rather an indirect one, so as to temper passions of the moment.  Power is not concentrated, but divided both horizontally, among the different branches of government assigned different, often competing responsibilities, and vertically, among the national, state, and local levels, each of which in turn likewise is set up with distributed powers divided among several governing responsibilities.  A key feature of such a system is that it protects minority interests from a majority that might overwhelm them.  

Traveling to the left of this freedom zenith, we first encounter parliamentary systems, which are more directly democratic because the executive is dependent on a current majority, not separate from the legislative, and could be dismissed anytime that majority consensus is lost.  This more majoritarian structure may subordinate minority representation, making it more democratic, but a shade less free. 

Sliding farther down the left slope we encounter voluntary libertarian cooperatives, and eventually get to pure democracy, then ochlocracy (mob rule), which provides almost no protection for dissent, and ultimately anarchy, where individual freedom is relentlessly under threat from aggressive bullies.  

Few anarchies survive for long, for its key feature is that nobody imposed it as a system;  it is the result of a breakdown of previously established order.  Human evolutionary social inclinations soon inspire people to coordinate efforts for mutual protection, and try to establish a new order out of the chaos.  Thus laws and governments arise from the grass roots.

Off to the right we get quasi-socialist democracies, then administrative or technocratic regimes, oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, and ideologically utopian absolutists. 

Note that all ideologies are essentially authoritarian:  they are based on the premise that some body of expert elites, be they priests, kings, professors or visionaries, are the most capable of running society and making decisions, while the rest have merely to accept those visions of utopia and obey their betters.  Both the socialists and the fascists willfully use power to impose their visions.  The farther right we go, the more those regimes dictate rules from above and demand submission. 

On both sides, many shades and variations can be found, but none are quite so free as the center.  

As for economic organization, capitalism is a natural evolution, an outgrowth of conditions in a free society.  Unlike socialism or mercantilism, it is not imposed by a cabal, but the product of individuals forming associations to produce goods or services desired by consumers, rooted in a primitive unregulated barter system still active in some places today.  From that evolved division of labor, and finally the coordination of efforts to create things of benefit to the entire community.  

Freedom creates the opportunity for satisfying needs and wants beyond the basic, thus inspiring capital investment in ventures in exchange for a share of any profits.  Thus capitalism is a win-win economy – those who meet consumer demands enrich not only themselves, but also their societies, by providing desired products.  No socialist regime, no monarchy or theocracy, has ever achieved the rising standards of living that free capitalist societies have. 

But here again, pure anarchy leads to abuse;  even Adam Smith called for a regulated capitalism, to prevent the least scrupulous from taking advantage of the least protected. 

Laws promote freedom, as long as those are created by the people themselves, or through their representatives. Laws should be clear, universally understandable, and consistently enforced without bias.  Poverty results both from a lack of a protective, reliable, consistent legal structure, and a repressive control over our ventures, robbing us of certainty in the security of our property and the fruits of our labors.

Our current state of affairs suggests we for some time have been slipping down that bell’s slope, away from its zenith of constitutional freedoms and its promise of personal and communal independence.

It’s time to ring that bell again.

Frank Bottema is a retired teacher enjoying the serene beauty of his remote off-the-gird desert location.

Image credits are as follows:

Liberty Bell - Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) - Creative Commons via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Bell curve graph - Public Domain via NIST