How Right and Left Differ in America, Europe and Israel Norman Berdichevsky The European democracies are much older than the United States whose constitution was adopted in 1789, its principles of representative government and indirect election of the President (through the electoral college) and federal Senators (elected by members of the state legislatures) were all considered examples of conservative thought but were often referred to in Europe as “Liberal”. For Europeans, “liberal” meant the freedom from arbitrary or authoritarian abuses of the “old guard” of kings, centralized rule, aristocratic privilege, the tyranny of a state church, the restrictive nature of hereditary guilds and onerous import or export duties controlling foreign trade (and even among different regions of the same country). Some old European political parties, for example ‘Venstre’ in Denmark (the word Venstre means Left in Danish), still signify what in the United States would be called “moderate-right” views - free trade and strong protection of individual rights and liberties. At the time Venstre was established in 1870, the ruling party was called Højre (Right) and generally spoke for conservative and rural interests (large land owners). And later became known as the Conservative Party. ‘Venstre’ is currently the largest party in Denmark and was founded on the basis of free market liberalism and is regarded by observers as the traditional classic right of center model in favor of lower taxes, less government intervention in corporate and individual. Since the 1920s in the United States, at least, “Liberal’ has generally meant the opposite. This confuses many Americans who find it incredible that even the Conservatives in Denmark supported the legalization of pornography – something wholly identified with the “Left” in the United States. Both Venstre and the Conservatives are social and economic “liberals” in the older sense of the word, oppose all censorship and are in favor of the free market. This means they permit all activities that do not cause injury to others. On the “Right” opposing pornography was the party identified with Christian values (the Conservative Kristeligt Folkeparti, which is nevertheless “liberal” on many issues argues for increased welfare benefits for the poor). Israel and Canada In Israel, the terms Left and Right are frequently used by observers who make the mistake of assuming that right means automatic support of the religious establishment and Left signifies a secular world outlook. Many American journalists were thus at a loss to explain the victory of Menahem Begin and the Likud in the historic elections of 1977 or to understand the nature of Israeli multi-party and coalition politics. Many American journalists were thus at a loss to explain the victory of Menahem Begin and the Likud in the historic elections of 1977 or to understand the nature of Israeli multi-party and coalition politics. Begin was regarded as a hero by many from among the poorest elements of the Jews of Oriental (Afro-Asian) origin. Several political parties often described as right and “far right” are as secular in outlook as those on the far left. A particular interest of the party representing many Russian immigrants, Yisrael Beiteinu (the party of foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman) is to ensure that immigrants are not forced to follow orthodox practice regarding conversions or kosher food. The party maintains an anti-clerical mantle and encourages socio-economic opportunities for new immigrants. The same anti-clericalism was apparent in the nationalist parties Tzomet and Moledet. The so called “Right-wing” religious parties in Israel all press for increased social welfare benefits typical of Left wing parties elsewhere. The Progressive Conservative Party (until a name change in 2003; they are now simply known as the Conservative Party) would be an oxymoron in American politics. The Progressive Conservative Party was generally center-right in its political ideology and appealed to diverse groups within Canadian society both Protestant and, in Quebec, Roman Catholic social values, British Imperialism, Canadian nationalism, and constitutional centralism. Canadian conservatism has historically opposed rolling back government intervention in social and economic matters advocated by Canadian “liberals”. To many Americans, this is a reversal of the familiar terms of conservative and liberal. The Canadian progressive conservatives accepted the importance of a social safety net to deal with poverty, support of limited redistribution of wealth along with government regulation to regulate markets in the interests of both consumers and producers Marxism’s Definitions Don’t Fit Politicians on the Left over the past one hundred and fifty years have striven to inculcate the associations between their political views and the lexicon of politics that identifies the interests of the upper or dominant classes as “Right”, the “Left” as the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the “Center” with that of the middle classes. These associations are however often blatantly out of touch with the reality of voting behavior in many countries (notably the United States), diverse ethnic regions in countries like Spain or Canada where countless other factors such as religion, ethnicity, historical memories, national interests, ethnic solidarity, and moral and philosophical values provide countervailing weights. It is true today that in the U.S. a majority of white native-born working class Americans (without any investments or huge savings in the bank) who derive all their income from wages and do not belong to powerful public service unions vote for the Republicans (confusing for most Europeans). The Terms Left and Right Today Today, not just economic policy but the entire range of major political issues is often is debated under the rubric of ‘Right’ and ‘Left’. “Free” Health Care, gun control, guaranteed abortion (euphemistically called Freedom of Choice), euthanasia, a more ‘equitable’ distribution of income (sharing the wealth), generous subsidies to special interest groups, credits and welfare benefits for the ‘needy’, the growth of trade union power to enforce membership as a condition of employment, a limit on military expenditures, a hostile attitude towards established religion, and a general withdrawal from international commitments are automatically assumed today as falling within the ‘liberal’ scheme of things in the United States. Resistance to the Nazis and Fascists in World War II International affairs, religious and moral convictions, and social policies cannot be pigeon-holed into a pre-ordained Right-Left axis but demand a much more sensitive, multi-dimensional and complex model. The lack of appreciation of the importance of geography and religious values is responsible for many miscalculations in the area of alliances and strategic interests that have often been more important than the economic and social policies of leaders who were cast as ‘Authoritarian Right’ in Austria, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Poland, but were much more determined to aggressively resist German and Italian aggression in World War II than the democratic and fragmented liberal-left coalition governments and strongly pacifist views in traditional democracies as France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The most determined ideological opposition to the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy in the late 1930s was led by arch-conservatives such as Churchill in Britain and de Gaulle in France and by monarchists and conservative Christians elsewhere. This contradicts the usual representation in Hollywood films showing heroic resistance to the Nazis as generated exclusively from the Left. Stale clichés Today In my book, “The Left is Seldom Right” (New English Review Press, 2011), I explain how these terms in politics originated and have become stale clichés that no longer reveal the true intentions of parties, platforms, politicians and policies. They are used by those politicians for whom Left and Right are synonymous with the “good guys” and “bad guys”. We should judge issues on the basis of what is right and wrong and not what falls into the preordained mold of Right and Left and should also be aware that they may mean something else in Europe. Norman Berdichevsky is a native New Yorker who lives in Orlando, Florida. He holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1974) and is the author of five and more than 200 articles and book reviews that have appeared in a variety of American, British, Danish, Israeli and Spanish periodicals such as World Affairs, Journal of Cultural Geography, Ecumene, Ariel, Ethnicity, The World & I, Contemporary Review, German Life, Israel Affairs, and Midstream. He is also a professional translator from Hebrew and Danish to English and currently teaches Hebrew at The University of Central Florida. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
