What Are “Left Wing” and “Right Wing?”
Politics is usually portrayed as a contest or battle between politicians. This is ironic because what the word “politics” really should mean is a sense of community.
The word “politics” comes from the ancient Greek word “polis,” which simply means “the city.” Ancient Greek society was based on the city-state, so politics, the affairs of the city, relates to all things political and applies to all things about the city or society. From the word “polis” we get the idea of politics, the idea of police, and the idea of the suffix of a city in words like “metropolis.”
Politics is the discussion or debate about how government and society should be structured, how decisions for society should be made, and how social institutions should function and to what ends. There are multiple forms of government and many ideas about how society should work, but all are subject to decision-making, and decision-making is subject to those who have the power and status to influence decisions and the social institutions that enact decisions.
At its core, all politics is about power—the power to make and manifest decisions. That includes political power, certainly, but power is an issue in all dimensions of social life. The discussions about government and society revolve around questions about who has power, how power can be exercised, and how it can be abused.
Discussions about the nature of political power have been going on for a very long time. Plato warned against the abuses of political power 2,300 years ago. He condemned the unrestrained power of a tyrant—an absolute ruler. Plato’s opposition to tyranny included opposing democracy as a form of government and decision-making because he thought it was too prone to abuses of power. Plato reasoned that humans in a democracy seek personal advantage over others. Opposing factions emerge and struggle for power, and democracy can “promote [to leadership] anyone who merely call[s] himself the people’s friend.”[1] Plato feared that someone with enough charisma and guile would grab power by securing the loyalty of enough voters. Once in power, the politician could become a tyrant and suppress those who might challenge the tyrant’s power.
Plato’s alternative, outlined in his book, Republic, was to grant political power to a small class of people he called “guardians,” who would be highly trained to make rational decisions for the benefit of society as a whole. Concentrating power in the hands of a talented elite few would, he reasoned, ensure an ideal ordered society. History has shown that the political formula of a concentration of power has been enacted many times, though most often lacking Plato’s concern to train those in power to make decisions that benefit society. Key questions pertinent to any society are who has power, how they are using their power, and for whose benefit that power is used.
Left/Liberal and Right/Conservative
Politics is complex, befitting the complex issues faced by every society and the myriad complex solutions people offer to address those issues. To simplify politics, political parties, politicians, and people in general reach for terminological shorthands. It is common practice to describe parties, people, and political positions as being Left or Right—liberal or conservative. But is this practice of labeling accurate? Or even useful?
The words “liberal” and “conservative” each have a broad set of meanings outside of political contexts. One can be “too liberal” or “too conservative” with one’s estimates or application of ingredients. To be “liberal” or “conservative” is acting positively or negatively relative to the situation, and most of the meanings of those actions are not related to politics.
Uses of “liberal” and “conservative” in political contexts are fairly recent developments. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the English words “liberal” and “conservative” were first used as nouns in a political sense in 1814 and 1831, respectively.[2] The Merriam-Webster basic definition of being politically conservative is to adhere to traditional, established forms or ways, and its basic definition of being politically liberal is to be willing to depart from those forms or ways. These are incomplete definitions, but they are good starting points.
Edmund Burke, a philosopher and politician in the late 1700s in England, predated the term “conservative” but with good reason is considered the founder of political conservatism. Writing in 1790, Burke argued, in essence, that established, traditional values, forms, and ways have withstood the test of time.[3] They therefore should be respected and not allowed to be undermined by speculative innovation or passions. He didn’t mean that we should never question or change established forms or ways but that we should not do so lightly. We’ll explore Burke’s conservative political philosophy in Chapter 3.
The political use of the term “liberal” is more complicated. One general use means to be more open-minded to new ideas in contradistinction to conservatives, but the other usage, ironically, is quite the opposite. We’ll discuss this contradiction in depth later in Chapter 4.
Commonly associated with the political use of “liberal” is the term “left wing,” which first appeared in English in 1844.[4] Complementarily, the political use of “conservative” is associated with the term “right wing,” first appearing in English in 1856.[5] “Left” and “Right,” unlike “liberal” and “conservative,” are words specifically related to politics, having originated as descriptions of political action.
The earliest uses of “left wing” and “right wing” in politics did not reflect political philosophies or ideologies. Instead, they indicated support for or opposition to a particular government. “Left wing” and “right wing” as relative terms came from their first uses in the midst of the French Revolution.
Beginning in 1789 in the National Constituent Assembly, supporters of the king chose to group themselves sitting to the right of the assembly speaker, and opponents of the king sat opposite them on the left. The French newspapers of the time used the terms “the Left” and “the Right” to describe the opposing sides, and this use spread throughout Europe.[6]
Political groups in the 1790s used “Left” and “Right” to express common ground with one or the other side during the French Revolution. Before long, political movements opposed to a sitting government were called “the Left,” with “the Right” referring to those who supported that government.
Burke was an influential voice in opposition to the French Revolution. Burke’s argument against the Revolution was not blind reactionism to change but a well-considered philosophical critique. Fundamentally, he accused the revolutionaries of failing to appreciate and understand the historical development of ideas about social conduct and relations of power that had supported government. Burke argued that the revolutionaries’ passion for the idea of freedom for all failed to grasp that freedom was only one power among many necessary for a civilized society. Freedom is a power, and giving power to the masses would sweep away the refinement of ideas that had developed through many years and created institutions like the monarchy that benefited society.
Mary Wollstonecraft, a contemporary of Burke in England, was of exactly the opposite opinion from him about the French Revolution. Also writing in 1790, Wollstonecraft saw the French Revolution as a necessary rational response to the corruption of the French absolutist monarchy.[7] She embraced the new ideals of progress and social reform, in particular the idea that women should be equal to men. Wollstonecraft took the view that all humans, regardless of their social class, have natural, God-given rights. She therefore condemned the tradition of hereditary privilege and the inequalities of the class system and social structure that kept power in the hands of the upper class. Social institutions that denied natural rights needed to be swept away, she argued. Government should extend freedom and the other God-given rights to all people regardless of sex or class.
Burke’s and Wollstonecraft’s contrasting positions on the French Revolution exemplified the basic perspectives on politics and power that we now call “Left” and “Right.” These basic perspectives predate Burke and Wollstonecraft, though these two thinkers sharpened the focus on what is at stake in political conflict. Two centuries later, we are still debating the same basic perspectives in the arguments sparked by the French Revolution, of which Burke and Wollstonecraft were only a part.
But what realities are behind the labels “Left” and “Right?” When we refer to, for example, the right wing or right-wingers, to what are we referring? What does it mean for someone to be a left-winger or a right-winger? We use these labels to signify political positions and actions, but what do these political positions mean?
Adequate examination is lacking for what “left wing” and “right wing” mean. We are all so used to these terms that we hear and use them without a second thought as to their meaning. Many political conflicts have considerable effects on our lives. We deserve and need a deeper understanding of politics and political action, and we can help accomplish this by having clearer understandings of terms and that to which they refer. In this book, I want to clarify the meaning of the terms “left wing” and “right wing” in ways that helps us better understand political and social conflicts.
What “Left Wing” and “Right Wing” Don’t Mean
For a start, politics is not “red team” versus “blue team.” The corporate news media, whose bread and butter are stories about conflict, portray politics as a sports contest. The media talking heads opine on who they think is currently winning the messaging battle between the Left and the Right, who is scoring more points against the other side. The media engages in little analysis of actual political issues or how those issues affect people. The portrayal of politics as a spectator sport, exacerbated by social media shout fests, has reduced the idea of the political left wing and right wing to a simplistic oppositional binary.
We see this dynamic in the squabbling between supposedly left-wing Democratic Party and supposedly right-wing Republican Party in the United States. The policy differences between the two parties are much smaller than their rhetoric would have us believe. What differences they have cannot be reduced to the caricatures of big-government liberals versus small-government conservatives, especially because both of those labels are deeply ambiguous, and neither party consistently fits into them. Substantial discussions of political issues are all but forgotten as both parties seem more interested in scoring points against each other, and the corporate media is more interested in keeping score.
Today, “left wing” and “right wing” have become such generic terms that they are empty of meaning beyond a vague sense that they are opposites. The unthinking use of these terms mischaracterizes most political parties and movements. Some of that mischaracterization is by design, with “left wing” and “right-wing” being used pejoratively. The Left and Right caricature each other. Political rhetoric at times crosses into political propaganda attempting to demonize the other side as being too extreme Left or too extreme Right.
The right wing casts left-wingers as irrational, uncivil rabble-rousers or worse—antisocial miscreants. Left-wing political parties are at best chastised as being against common sense but usually are castigated as dangerous subversives out to dismantle social institutions.
The left wing denounces right-wingers as ignorant hotheads who are either openly or tacitly bigoted. Right-wing political parties are at best chastised as being against civil liberties but are often condemned as fascists out to demolish social institutions.
There are also the less caustic stereotypes of the bleeding-heart liberal and cold-hearted conservative. Stories are told that the Left is too soft to get anything done and the Right is too harsh to be allowed in government. These stereotypes are less incendiary than the outright insults, but they still are caricatures that serve only to demean and demonize opponents.
The drive to define left wing and right wing in terms of mutual opposition extends to how people define themselves. The terms “left wing” and “leftist” are used by many as shorthand for their opposition to the rich and powerful. Many of those who take on the label “leftist” use it as an expression of hostility to the right wing rather than as an indicator of the ideas they support. Does being a leftist mean anything more than hostility toward those who have more power than you?
The words “right wing” and “conservative” are adopted by many to express the desire to conserve the status quo, meaning opposition to reforms. That is what the term “conservative” meant to Edmund Burke, but what the status quo is in any given time and place is relative to circumstances. Do “conservative values” mean something beyond resistance to change? Those who identify as being from the Right use the term more as a synonym for their feelings of moral superiority over the miscreants on the Left than as an indicator of the ideas they support. A recent example is the right wing’s adamant “antiwoke” posture, although they have difficulty defining “antiwoke” beyond it being a synonym for “anti-Left.”
Do “left wing” and “right wing” mean anything other than “not Right” and “not Left?” Yes, and no, as we will explore in this book. The rhetoric from political parties and the media doesn’t tell us what left-wingers and right-wingers actually believe other than that both sides feel their side is correct and the other side is wrong. But correct at what? What is the motive for all of the opposition in politics? Are there core meanings to being left wing or right wing?
For a term to be useful, it needs to reflect a tangible concept. To call anything “Left,” “left wing,” or “liberal” has meaning only when and if we know what “left wing” means. The same goes for the terms “Right,” “right wing,” and “conservative.” Rather than mindlessly reuse the same terms over and over, let’s analyze the left–right divide and try to understand what’s going on.
Again, politics is not “red team” versus “blue team.” True, part of politics is opposition, and political action is agonistic. Political parties stress their distinctions from other parties. But political actions have goals beyond simply attacking one’s political opponents, though you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. People and parties get involved in politics to accomplish political goals. By exploring what those goals are, we can identify the real points of contention between two different visions for society. We can then come to a clearer understanding of “left wing” and “right wing.”
[1] Plato, Republic, trans. Desmond Lee (Penguin, 2007), VIII.558.
[2] Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “liberal,” accessed February 2, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “conservative,” accessed February 2, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative.
[3] Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Oxford University Press, 2009).
[4] Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “left wing,” accessed February 2, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left-wing.
[5] Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “right wing,” accessed February 2, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right-wing.
[6] Jeremy D. Popkin, A Short History of the French Revolution, 7th ed. (Routledge, 2019), 92.
[7] Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and A Vindication of the Rights of Men (Oxford University Press, 2009).