Is the political left merging with the right? Has the increase in the middle classes caused a shift from the old socialist left to a more conservative right position? And is this the reason for Britain’s New Labour and the Democrats looking more & more like the Conservatives and Republicans? Are the two main parties only differentiated by name, not policy?
Has corporate funding of New Labour caused the undermining of the Unions? When a society moves away from the trades that once fuelled an industrial revolution to a service based economy, do those trade unions lose there worth, a bygone of the good old days? Both New Labour and the Conservatives need a strong British economy and with service industries creating the most new jobs, what does this spell for the trade unions. There’s also the emergence of the developing nations with the ability to undercut the British trade industry, it will inevitably in a capitalistic market remove all but the most specialised trade based companies from Britain?
There is also the added benefit of not having such a strong group with many votes. The unions used the former Labour party, that is Old Labour, to have a say in their country. Who will be the new voice of a still strong movement? Or will union leaders sell out and agree to keep the peace with the understanding that they will get to have positions on a government board to examine some “perceived†problem that needs reviewing? Like what has happen here in Ireland.
In life, I find there’s always a happy medium, has the left and the right finally arrived at this point in the middle?
I do think the left changing is a result of allowing more of pragmatism. Basically, if the wind turns, the left will turn left again. I don’t believe there is any ideal medium independent of times when it comes to politics. Everything’s relative. One happy medium one time in life may very well not be a happy medium at another point in life. What I do think is that the politics of today is oldfashioned and that the future won’t provide such stereotypes as left right socialism and capitalism. Today, very few politicians are honest in their appearance. Mitterand never made any secret of being a pragmatic when he was that or a socialist when he was that. And Thatcher didn’t made any secret of her onesidedness. However, nowadays there is rarely any correspondence if any at all between how politicians appear in media and how the politics they represent really are. So, there is a question of deceiving people and elections generally turn into challenges for politicians when it comes to fool people about the effects of them coming to power. It wasn’t quite like that under Mitterand and Thatcher. So there are “changing times” ahead as it always will be for those who believe in those kind of concepts and there is no linear development towards the ideal stabe social situation in the sense nation-concepts, ideology-concepts and the like will have it. However, if you realise nothing has changed really ever, then you get a sort of other perspective on things…
The third way is a con. It’s undisguised populism devoid of any ideology. Blair, Clinton etc. should realise that ultimately whatever you do someone will disagree with it, unless of course you’re a really good liar. So, the upshot of this is that all elected third way politicians are good liars…
I made a diagram, based on the ‘political compass’ website to try and show how the different idologies fit together. My categories of ‘Old Left’ and ‘New left’ are pretty much arbitary, but I had to fill the space, I guess they would be social democrats.
This doesn’t seem entirely accurate. Anarchism can be a far-right ideology as well as a far-left one, conservatism is by definition authoritarian because of it’s emphasis on moral values, neo-liberalism is simply a far-right system of economics and compatible with neo-conservatism, fascism is slightly further right than you have indicated (though not a great deal) and European centrism is perhaps more authoritarian than indicated. Debatably, libertarianism can be more authoritarian than you have indicated because of it’s strong emphasis on punishment and individual responsibility. Also, instead of new left/old left perhaps progressive liberal/social democrat would be more descriptive. Hope this helps…
“Anarchism can be a far-right ideology as well as a far-left one”
I suppose you mean Ayn Rand style anarchism. I have taken anarchism to be synonomous with libertarian socialism, so kept it as a left wing ideology. I think libertarian has come to be a better way to describe right-wing anarchists. perhaps I should let anarchism and libertarianism overlap?
“conservatism is by definition authoritarian because of it’s emphasis on moral values”
Where do you think the border between conservatism and libertarianism lies, at the econimic axis?
“neo-liberalism is simply a far-right system of economics and compatible with neo-conservatism”
I suppose I misunderstood that term. How ‘liberal’ are these neo-liberals, then, is it just a synonym of neo-conseratism. I know this definately overlaps with libertarianism and far-right anarchism. Where is the border with the neocons? Should this category exist at all?
Thanks for the feedback, any other suggestions are welcome.
I don’t think Rand was an anarchist, she just believed in a minimal state. However in practice anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism often overlap as you said. I would say that the border between conservatism and libertarianism would if anything be above the economic axis, since many “libertarians” are willing to set tight limits on personal liberty. An example of this was Rand’s claim that individual freedom should not be constrained BUT anyone who didn’t follow her philosophies was not an individual- “you are free to act in the way I want you to”. Neo-liberal means the same thing literally as libertarian, but is only ever used with reference to economics and hence can be applied to both authoritarian (neo-conservative) and libertarian ideologies. I don’t know of anyone who would identify themselves as a neo-liberal, it isn’t really a political group, just a term for far-right free market economics.
I am looking at this question from a canadian perspective. In canada no one party either left or right would win an election. Think about it. In canada, either party which is more geared for the left or right practices brokerage politics. Which ever party can attract the most people whether it be lefties or righties, will inevitably win.
