Ideological labels insufficient when it comes to explaining politics
A group of 50 self-described “centrists” recently met in Red Deer. They were there to ponder forming yet another Alberta political party, this in addition to the merger now being considered by the Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties.
I place “centrist” in quotation marks because it has no permanent meaning on its own, and not because “right” or “left” are necessarily any more clear.
Some history: The left-right description used by academics and others to describe political parties, people and movements, is often attributed to developments near the French Revolution, in 1789. Those who supported the king sat on his right; those who opposed him were on his left. Ever since, “right wing” is shorthand for those cautious about change; “left-wing” references those inclined to overthrow convention.
The labels evolved in the last century because of economic arguments. Until 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, left-wing meant someone who believed in substantial state intervention — “socialist” if democratic or communist if one skipped elections and wanted even more state action. “Right wing” often still meant those who preferred evolutionary change over revolution but it also assumed views more sympathetic to free enterprise.
In the midst of all this, in the last half of the twentieth century, “liberals” — a 19th-century label applied to those who preferred more economic and social liberties than conservatives — mostly abandoned liberalism. That was Pierre Trudeau, for example, whose interventionist policies aped socialism.
Thus, notice how labels can be tricky: right-wing conservatives actually became liberals, as in free market liberals.
To complicate matters further, after the 1970s, it was the “right wing” that smashed up the post-1930s reflexive preference by many politicians for state intervention.
Margaret Thatcher is a good example. When Thatcher, prime minister of Great Britain from 1979 to 1990, stopped taxpayer subsidies for money-losing coal mines and privatized swaths of British industry (airlines, utility companies and railways), she was accused of being radical, of overturning the status quo.
So she did and so she was. That radical label fit even if one argues, as I would, that Thatcher’s reforms were necessary. (It was never sensible for governments to own mines, airlines and factories: State-run companies were inefficient, money-losing, customer-unfriendly failures.)
More confusing for those who overly rely on labels: Add social and cultural issues and the tags are even less illuminating.
Example: In Alberta, some self-described “progressives” assume that term means legal endorsement of self-chosen “gender identities” — except of course, that policy is radical: akin to French revolutionaries who thought human nature was endlessly bendable, the underlying assumption is again flawed. That’s because sex chromosomes are pre-existing realities.
Full circle and back to “centrist.” That term is useless because political issues are not fixed nor public opinion: To be a centrist in the 1990s was to oppose gay marriage and favour privatization (Jean Chretien, for example). Today, that’s not what people mean when they use the label.
The “centrist” tag also suffers from this flaw. It’s a lazy political equation that helps one avoid thinking about ideas and correct policy answers. It’s the politi- cal equivalent of observing two opposed mathematical assertions — someone claims twoplus-two equals four; another answers “six”. The self-described centrist chooses “five” to avoid the ostensible extremes. Of course, that last response skips the relevant question: What’s the correct answer?
In political descriptions, most of us use ideological labels as shorthand but they are insufficient.
Advice for those who over-rely on labels: Cut to the core. Politicians who wish to govern should be pressed to more fully explain their ideas and policies.
When using self-flattering labels for themselves or negative ones for others, they should instead be pressed to explain their thinking.
The next time a politician proposes something, ask for the “why.” That will tell you much more about their grey matter and also their intentions.