Not Left, Not Right

Beware of politicians who declare themselves to be neither left nor right. The idea may sound appealing, but usually "neither left nor right" just amounts to right-wing ideals and politics.

We all know the term "the truth lies somewhere in the middle." Belief in the truth of that term, a strong wish for pragmatic leadership in tumultuous times or a strongly felt need for opposing parties to reach a compromise all contribute to the appeal of political leaders who claim to stand above the traditional ideological divides. The problem is that the truth never lies somewhere in the middle; truth is singular, there's no "your truth and my truth," there's just "the truth." There's no way to reach a compromise when it comes to determining factual reality. Here's an example; say you read an outrageous opinion-piece that makes the case that the Holocaust didn't happen. You don't believe that story of course. Then you read a story about the 6 million Jews that were killed in the Second World War. Would that lead you to reach the conclusion that probably 3 million Jews were killed? Didn't think so.

The problem with politicians who claim to rise above the great ideological divide is that they are usually authoritarian leaders who themselves become the power above the divide. Alternatively, and this is usually the case in modern democracies, they defer decision-making to the higher power of the markets. Not left nor right is therefore usually a rhetorical weapon used mostly by politicians who have an authoritarian slant or want to serve the capitalists who they believe are best suited to safeguard the health of the nation's economy. When the politician then also adds the appeal to "the nation" as an overarching structure to unite the entire political spectrum, we have the beginnings of fascism. "Whether you're left or right, you're all ..." fill in the nationality of your choice.

The below linked video gives as an example Andrew Yang, who ran as a Democrat in the last American Presidential Primaries. His slogan was literally "Not Left, Not Right, but Forward!" But his politics, or his proposed politics were decidedly right-wing, with the addition of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). I've written posts about this in the past; this UBI is nothing more than passing crumbs to the population so that the capitalists are left alone to rule as they please. Another great example could be Bill Clinton's presidency, who equally appealed to the higher forces of the markets, replacing "welfare" with "workfare," thereby dressing right-wing politics in left-wing rhetoric.

Appealing to a higher power, be it a supposedly enlightened leader, the markets or a religion, is in fact the opposite of democracy. There will always ideological differences, in capitalism there will always be class-division, and democracy is the tool that distributes power equally among all citizens through which we all can reach a compromise by discussing, free association and voting. Democracy is therefore an elaborate process, it's slow and demands our active participation. No one ever said it's going to be easy, but it's the only tool we have to serve the needs of all involved. Trying to escape that work, to delegate that work to a higher power, for example to speed up decision-making in tumultuous times, is anti-democratic and will usually result in an anti-democratic form of leadership.

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!