Challenging the Paradigm of Left/Right Labels
In today's political landscape, the labels of "left" and "right" are deeply ingrained in our vocabulary. We use these labels to categorize ourselves, our friends, and even strangers. But are these labels truly representative of our beliefs, or are they oversimplified boxes that force complex individuals into a linear system? In this thought-provoking discussion with Hyrum Lewis, a professor of history at BYU Idaho, we explore the inherent flaws in the left versus right thinking and how it hinders productive political discourse.
The Illusion of Essentialism
The concept of left versus right assumes that there is an essential characteristic or philosophy that binds together all the positions associated with each side. However, as Hyrum Lewis points out, this is a false assumption. He gives the example of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who claims to agree with a dozen or so positions that are currently popular in the Democratic Party. According to Lewis, Senator Warren believes in the myth of left and right, where all these positions are connected by a progressive worldview. But in reality, these positions are not inherently related. They are simply a collection of policies that align with the Democratic Party's current platform.
Lewis argues that the belief in an essence behind ideology is widespread among politically active individuals. This belief is perpetuated by the use of a political spectrum, which assumes that there is one issue that connects all the other issues. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption. People's political beliefs are often inconsistent and can change based on their party affiliation. Lewis suggests that we need to challenge this false paradigm and start talking about individual issues rather than using the flawed left versus right framework.
The Power of Tribalism
One of the reasons the left versus right paradigm persists is because it serves the interests of political parties. By perpetuating the illusion of a unified ideology, parties can mobilize their supporters and create a sense of urgency and threat. This tribalism is deeply ingrained in our psychology, and it can be challenging to overcome. However, Lewis argues that we can start by being aware of our tribal instincts and admitting that our political commitments are driven by social conformity rather than philosophical consistency.
Lewis suggests a shift in our language as a way to challenge the left versus right paradigm. Instead of sticking labels like "left-wing" or "right-wing" on things that already have a name, like schools or policies, we should focus on giving clearer names to groups of people based on their actual interests. For example, instead of saying "right-wing anti-abortion activist," we should simply say "anti-abortion." This helps to puncture the illusion that all positions associated with the right or left are connected by a common philosophy. By using more granular language, we can foster a more nuanced and constructive political discourse.
Embracing Healthy Tribes
While political tribalism can be detrimental to civil discourse, not all tribes are inherently bad. Lewis emphasizes the importance of finding healthier tribes that promote positive values and actions. These tribes can include service organizations, religious communities, sports teams, and even families. By identifying with these tribes, we can foster a sense of belonging and cooperation without resorting to the divisive and hostile nature of political tribalism.
In conclusion, the left versus right paradigm is a flawed model that hinders productive political discourse. By recognizing the tribal nature of our political commitments and using more granular language, we can move towards a more nuanced understanding of different perspectives. Embracing healthier tribes and focusing on individual issues can help us foster a more civil and constructive political environment. It's time to challenge the myth of left and right and embrace a more nuanced and inclusive approach to politics.
New This Week in Outrage Episode!
It’s everything the Outrage Overload podcast is not. It’s not edited. It’s not scripted. It’s lightly researched. It’s David and Lisa talking about this week in outrage, what was in the news, in the memes, and maybe finding some backstory with a humorous (at least to us) twist.