Progressive, Regressive, Or Stagnant - Our Political Choices

Watching the unfolding oligarch takeover, we are forgiven for questioning the utility in the divisions of political views - the right and left wings. Indeed, the more one picks at these divisions the more the distinction loses its meaning.

History reminds us what we may have forgotten when ‘picking sides’.

The terms right-wing and left-wing were first coined in 1789, during the French Revolution. The question that led to its conception is as profound today as it ever was: should the King still get a veto on all decisions made in parliament?

Those who thought he should (i.e. the status quo should be conserved) sat on the right of the speaker, and those who thought the King should have no veto power over the decisions made in parliament sat on the left.

The terms right-wing and left-wing were born.

Here we are again, slowly wakening up (like in France in the 1780s) to the reality that our entire economic world is ruled by a small group of elite aristocrats. Our lives have, through some strange subconscious diffusion, led us to spend most of our time and effort and health solely to make a few wealthy folks even wealthier. And, again, we are asking the question: should our leaders have ultimate rule? Should they be above the law? Is it time to change the order?

It is also inescapable to ask why any sound-minded person would support the right wing. Unless you are exceptionally wealthy and have no civil consciousness left, why would any ordinary person choose to have less say in how their country is run? Surely, to support giving more authority to monarchs or oligarchs or even broligarchs seems a bit….self-defeating.

Adapting political camps to our views versus adapting our views to political camps

We coin the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, and now, ‘libertarian’ and ‘socialist’. But do any of them really fit? Or are we still trying to fit our beliefs into a division that stems from the simple question: should we, the majority, serve a minority?

No doubt, the aristocrats have managed to hold on to much of their wealth and have, at times, cashed this in for power. It is what we are seeing now: the resurgence in power over the commoner. Perhaps this is the issue. Perhaps, our failure to imagine a political system not still tied to a question that has been asked and answered, a question that is intended to maintain inequality and the ruling class, is allowing history to keep repeating itself.

Is it OK that we live our lives serving our overlords? Surely, apart from the overlords themselves (and a few ordinary folks with serious self-esteem issues), that question has been put to bed - we chose democracy. We decided that the people were the right ones to determine what we will do with our shared wealth. In this regard, all who believe in democracy, would, if given a choice today, sit to the left of the French National Assembly’s speaker, and are, therefore, progressives.

We are all progressives

The only issue is that we don’t fully agree on what that progression should look like. Some believe that religious values should dominate. Others believe that individual freedom is more important. Others believe that we should have clear laws and a strong judiciary. The differences are important, but what we can say (and have said repeatedly) is that no one really believes we should regress back to a time when Kings (or leaders) have the final say and we all must be subservient to one person.

It was, in 1789, those with wealth and power who sat on the right. They were desperately trying to cling to their opulent lifestyles. So, then, those who sat on the right - the original right-wingers - were greedy, anti-democratic, class-driven elitists. And, crucially, they were wrong. In every country that has chosen democracy, they were spectacularly wrong.

So why do we keep hearkening back to the left and right-wing divisions? Are the rich elitists still trying to claw themselves back to dominance, absolute dominance? It kind of looks that way.

But there is another complication. Unfettered change is also not good. Yes, those who sat on the left in the Fench National Assembly in 1789 were, by definition, progressives. And yes, for that specific vote, they were unequivocally right - morally, practically, and as proven by history. But there are things worth conserving. Family unity. Human rights. The rule of law. Some of the unifying qualities that religion brings. The diversification of labour - specialism. It is then, useful to have different political viewpoints.

I keep coming back to it: the vast majority of people are decent and want a civil and cooperative society. As such, most of us are progressives. Some of us wish to conserve various aspects of our shared history. So be it. But what almost none of us want is to regress backwards to a time when a few individuals held absolute power over absolutely everyone. None of us want that.

Our choice: look to conserve that which you find valuable, but ultimately the human race progresses. It progresses to a place where life is good for us all. That is the essence of democracy. It is the essence of the civilised mind. It is the choice we have made time and time again. We cannot keep letting a small group of regressives stand in the way of our shared human ambition for progress.