Anyone to the left of Attila the Hun

Sometimes I think that our political dialog has lost all nuance. Or accuracy.

And it’s not just the Trumpian characterization of anyone to left of Attila the Hun as being a Communist, although that’s among the most egregious. It’s also the characterization of all political candidates as existing on a single dimension of left vs right.

It’s complicated.

One could certainly imagine a line with Communist on the extreme left, followed by Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Progressive Democrat, Moderate Democrat, “Middle”, Moderate Republican, Conservative Republican, Right Wing Republican, MAGA, Fascist. Or something like that.

But given the complexity of human interests and goals, is any of that really helpful?

We can go down that list and attempt definitions, but it’s hard. For instance, the communism imagined by Marx in his 1848 Manifesto^[1] is quite different from anything that was implemented in the Soviet Union or China. In the first half of the 20^th century, multiple American parties (Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Labor Party) called themselves socialist, and had quite different policy ideals. The Democratic Party under FDR saw itself as pro-capitalism (working to preserve the system by reforming it) but accomplished a lot with legislation that gave us Social Security and much more that improved people’s lives, while being called “socialist” by its political adversaries.

What about “progressive” vs “moderate?”

Trump uses hyperbole^[2] every time he opens his mouth, so it is not a stretch to say that his name-calling will not be taken literally by many (one hopes). But the media still will often label candidates primarily with the “moderate”, “progressive” or “conservative” labels; similarly for “left” vs “right^[3].” These simplifications often lead to questionable conclusions.

For instance, if conservative thinking refers to preserving structures and processes from the past, Trump and his accolytes are anything but conservative. In fact, they are moving towards obtaining (partial) government ownership of major corporations, something we would associate with Socialist regimes. Although in Trump’s case personal benefit is deeply bound to his actions – probably a kleptocracy is the best description for his administration.

Currently, when someone emphasizes their opposition to destruction in Gaza, or on their support for gay or trans rights, they seem to be labeled as more on the left; and when they focus more on expanding the economy for everyone (rich and poor alike), they are seen as moderate. But politicians can be successful with many different foci, depending on their audience. And many voters are “conservative” in some respects and “progressive” in others – they aren’t in the “middle”, they are in a normal combination of belief groups (a category George Lakoff refers to as “biconceptuals”). For instance, in Arizona, a voter might favor gun rights while wanting expansion of SNAP benefits.

Alternatively

What about other descriptions of candidates, such as whether they are seen as being part of the “establishment?” Such candidates might receive more funding from the usual suspects (large donors) and tend to have more independent spending for advertising, especially attacking their opponents. On the other hand, particularly in a year when the electorate is unhappy with the status quo (as is often true in a midterm election), it can be an advantage for a good grassroots campaign to run against the “establishment.” This might dominate a voter’s perspective, rather than left or right.

There are many other factors that define a candidate and a campaign. Maybe we can pay less attention to the usual labels and focus on the basics: does a campaign address the things voters actually care about, and does the candidate have the qualifications to do the job?

---

---

^[1] That document includes goals that we would find completely centrist now, along with ones that are extreme. For instance, he opposed child labor, while supporting free public (K-12) education. On the other hand, he proposed the abolition of privately owned land, which would be particularly unpopular.

^[2] A kind word for what comes out of that orifice.

^[3] This metaphor originated in the French Revolution: the “left” wanted to end the monarchy, while the “right” wanted to preserve it.