The current practice of categorizing political groups or ideologies people belong to needs a complete overhaul. We have the Right-Wing versus the Left-Wing, we have Conservatives versus Liberals, and we even have Liberals versus Progressives. Then we debate between those who support capitalism and those who support socialism. Of course, this debate centers around the Shangri-La versions of each ideology. No, capitalism is not self-governing. It needs to be regulated, and no, socialism is not the cure to all our social ills and problems.
Calling a politician and their policies Conservative lends credibility and legitimacy to some of our country’s most heinous policy decisions. They cloak the immoral and criminal as somehow acceptable and legitimate ways to govern. The news media promotes a narrative that somehow makes denying people affordable health care, facilitating the death of over 600,000 Americans due to a pandemic, and committing a reverse Robin Hood (stealing from the poor to give to the rich) not only acceptable but desirable.
Then there are meaningless classifications of the Extreme or Far-Left and the Extreme or Far-Right. There are fundamental flaws in how these classifications are employed. When does a Republican politician that supports an insurrection against the very pillars of our democracy stop being identified as a Conservative and instead identified as a member of the Extreme or Far-Right? As far as I can see, never. Why are Democratic politicians that support social insurance or social support programs automatically identified as the Extreme or Far Left? What is the basis or foundation of these disjointed groupings?
Isn’t it problematic to use these terms in a parochial context and not explain that they have very little to do with global definitions of these terms? The imprecision of these terms has a damaging impact on our body politic in the United States. There isn’t even a consensus about what constitutes a Conservative between the two major political parties. We don’t have to worry about this problem when identifying Liberals or Progressives between the two parties. Republicans make it easy for us. None exist in the Republican Party.
I prefer to view political and ideological categorizations as a continuum. The two endpoints of this continuum would be determined by a United States-centric analysis of political positions. The continuum would be anchored on the left by the term Regressive. On the far right, it would be anchored by Progressive. A change like that will probably make quite a few heads explode. The far-left of the continuum would include political positions and policies that undermine our democracy. In contrast, the far-right end of the continuum would consist of policies and positions strengthening and improving our democracy.
Theoretically, where you land on this continuum has less to do with what team you are on but the impact of your positions and policies on our democracy and citizens. An example would be people that support violent insurrections to overturn democratic processes. That would place you to the far-left of the continuum. At the far-right end of the continuum, you would have policies and positions that strengthen our democracy and where political power is used on behalf of all Americans to improve their lives. An example of that would be enabling access to vote for all eligible American citizens.
The identification of political positions on this continuum would be more evaluative. It would make necessary value judgments about political beliefs and opinions. It would also make people more accountable for the positions they support and those that they don’t. Effective policies and governance that promote equity would significantly determine where you are on the continuum. The acknowledgment, willingness, and ability to address systemic problems and inequities in our society should also be critical. We should no longer accept the politicians’ quest for power that will primarily help the powerful as a norm.
I hope that the reframing of this paradigm will help minimize the practice of false equivalencies that drive much of our political discourse. A democracy needs to be forward-looking, using the past as guidance to improve and strengthen our democracy. The past should not be an anchor dragging us back to some over-romanticized version of our imperfect union.
Traditionalism is a regressive and cynical interpretation of what is defined as inalienable rights. Politicians that tie themselves to it should be held accountable. I should also add that their belief in traditionalism is only situational and very selective. Political analysis centers entirely on which team is winning, which team is losing rather than is our democracy winning, is our citizenry winning.
Another reason for reframing this paradigm is that the previous classifications such as Conservative and Liberal have moved considerably toward regressive policies over the past fifty years. The acceptance of harmful and draconian policy decisions has confused and numbed the American electorate to the point that they will support policies that inflict pain and hardship on themselves. Exhibit number one is the reaction to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Skip the Life part; just give me Liberty.
Some may think that my suggestions favor Democratic politicians and groups. There is some chance that it may, but that is based primarily on the criteria of whether policies and positions strengthen our democracy and improve our citizens’ lives. I would make the counterargument that this is not necessarily true.
Let’s use gun control as an example. For full disclosure, I am a strong proponent of the regulation of firearms, and I disagree with the interpretation used by many to justify bearing arms. But let’s say we had a Republican politician that believes the Second Amendment grants Americans the right to bear arms, but not an unfettered right. He believes in thorough background checks and banning assault weapons. I would propose that it places that politician to the right of the median in my continuum on that issue. Of course, where that politician ultimately lands would depend on other policy positions.
On the other hand, we have a Democratic politician that believes strongly in what is known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). Most people probably view that as a progressive policy idea, yet very few countries have implemented this policy, even those viewed as progressive. In my opinion, this policy position alone may not register as favorably on the continuum as you’d think. It raises an essential question about whether we have addressed the root causes of inequity in our society or just put a band-aid on it.
My proposal’s goal is to differentiate between those politicians and policies that protect and improve the lives of Americans, all American citizens. We need a system of political evaluation that incentivizes problem-solving approaches, not problem-creating policies. We must also recognize that for our democracy, to survive or thrive, we must be prepared to fight for it. Our democracy must evolve and not devolve.
Views: 104