Right and ?

Some words in our language naturally seem to go together: in and out, on and off, up and down, front and back. But right and question mark… why? Is there a likely counterpart to follow right? Think of what your initial thought was when you first read the title. Many would say “left” as the probable response, indicating a direction such as a left turn or left hand. Or right and left can be a description of quick multiple actions, such as the police are stopping cars right and left. Platoons march in step chanting right-left-right-left or a drummer’s RLRR sticking of basic rudiments. There are many context-specific definitions of the term.

Right and left have become the common portrayal of one’s political persuasion.

But in recent years, right and left have become the common portrayal of one’s political persuasion. However, is this reference as clear-cut as the above examples, or is it more subjectively interpreted with broad generalizations? In the political context, have those terms changed over time, blurring any concrete understanding? Does this either/or identification erroneously reflect the American electorate and muddle any objective understanding? I suggest this context of “right and left” is a transitional phrase that begs for proper clarification.

The Transition Begins

Throughout the post-war boomer generation, Republicans and Democrats were championed as America’s two-party system, where most of the populace could offer opposing views of our constitutional republic. Party affiliation may have been determined by geography, religion, ethnicity, gender or simply by family tradition. Increased university attendance “educated” many about alternate ideologies, prompting questions about their earlier background. Unfortunately, predominant, postmodern thought shifted the emphasis from the proven fundamentals of physics, chemistry, biology, and other physical sciences to the fluid interpretations of the social sciences, confusing any rational method to understand political governance. Pedigrees and subjective consensus have replaced rational, objective analysis.

Students examined our European ancestry and discovered past feudal and caste systems. These master/slave social structures inspired the basic description of conservative or liberal, reflecting the status quo or enlightened thought. But, our universities improperly co-opted these terms and applied them to our uniquely American system. Republicans morphed into conservatives with a touch of religion, while Democrats suggested liberal broadminded freedom with a dash of social engineering. Then, in an Orwellian manner, the Progressive Left began distorting the language eventually to be normalized, transforming this individual, liberal freedom into statist collectivism.

Over recent generations, personalities and ideologies have intensely divided our country with a pick-a-side mentality that oversimplified this partisan distinction as either right or left. We’ve devolved into a dichotomy of warring tribalism, having to choose between these false alternatives. Unfortunately, with both sides, it’s become universal to accept the totality of their positions, but the Progressive Left has doubled down with their indoctrinated Kool-Aid. They persist in inculcating a naïve populace, programming them that the Right epitomizes Fascist Nazis while the Left represents “true” democracy. The utter deceit of this obfuscation is denigrating and has poked the proverbial sleeping bear to rediscover our lost and needed common sense.

The “Right” wants to be in your bedroom, and the “Left” in the boardroom.

It is generally thought that these political opposites are the alternating labels of some swinging pendulum, thinking that as each extreme is approached, there will be a natural tendency to swing the other way, with the middle being the proper balance. But I disagree. The Right and Left have a commonality, with neither properly supporting any moral foundation of individual rights. As the saying goes, the “Right” wants to be in your bedroom, and the “Left” in the boardroom. This lack of concise, proper meaning confuses any correct assessment. Every position on that swinging arc abrogates individual rights to some extent and represents an unprincipled compromise.

As Ayn Rand noted in her 1965 speech, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus”:

There can be no meeting ground, no middle, no compromise between opposite principles.      There can be no such thing as “moderation” in the realm of reason and of morality. But reason and morality are precisely the two concepts abrogated by the notion of “Government by Consensus.”

As an alternative to the pendulum, I prefer the metaphorical image of a tug-of-war, with individual freedom and collective totalitarianism as the opposing goalposts.

Right and Left or Right and Wrong

There is a straightforward, binary position of each fundamental issue.

Every section of our life has fallen to unprincipled chaos as the soul of our nation has been hollowed with an inverted morality. When the noise is stripped away, there is a straightforward, binary position of each fundamental issue, based either on Western Enlightenment thought of individualism, freedom, and reason or an irrational, ideological, collectivist authoritarianism. With this, I return to my thought that the political “right and left” idiom is a transitional expression that will transform into the more meaningful “right and wrong.” View the following topics without preconceived political biases and realize this cultural, intellectual, and philosophical revolution has already begun.

Purpose of Government: Protector or Provider

Scope of Government: Limited and federalism or Centralized with top-down rule

Politics: Individualism and freedom or Collectivism and totalitarianism

Economy: Laissez-Faire Capitalism or Socialism, Marxism and Fascism

Foreign Policy: Rational self-interest of America or Political globalism

Military: Defense from foreign attacks, transparency or Military-industrial complex, secrecy

Police: Protection of citizen’s individual rights or Centrally controlled police state

Justice: Bill of Rights with a blind judiciary or Living constitution and a two-tiered system

Street Violence: Rule of law and nonaggression principle or Rule of men and biggest gun

Racial Hegemony: Individual accountability or Group tribal identity and entitlement

Family: Core parental values or Required allegiance to the State

Gender Identity: Biological reality or Emotional feelings

Education: Teaching one to think and scientific method or Indoctrination and social justice

Speech: Freedom of speech per the First Amendment or Censorship and political correctness

Language: Clarity with concretes and concepts or Subjective linguistic definitions

History: Context and perspective on the past or Revisionism consonant with a narrative

Spirit of the Nation: Acceptance and independence or Intolerance and tyranny

Psychological Sense: Confidence and self-esteem or Anxiety and despondency

Border Policy: Rational systematic immigration or Unregulated open borders

Cancel Culture: Freedom to express ideas or Forced repression of disfavored views

Businesses: Separation of State and the economy or Fascism and crony capitalism

Health & Medicine: Individual choice regarding one’s body or Mandates and lockdowns

Media: Distinction of news and opinion or No accountability for what’s reported as “facts”

Entertainment: Good guys win and positive message or Good guys lose and nihilism

Religion: Freedom of belief or Any religion promoting violence or theocracy

Slogans: Live and let live or From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Philosophers: Aristotle, Locke, Smith, Rand or Plato, Kant, Marx, Marcuse

Yes, these contrary positions can take the political partisan perspective of “right and left.” Still, the correct moral underpinnings of “right and wrong” would more appropriately identify and constitute proper analyses. There must be principled clarity, not moral agnosticism, on all of the above issues, and any mixed moral code or pragmatic beliefs will dispense with some, if not all, of our individual rights. As Rand concluded in her speech:

The philosophy which holds there is no objective reality or permanent truth, that there are no absolute principles, no valid abstractions, no firm concepts, that anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb, that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism, that whatever people wish to be true, is true, whatever people wish to exist, does exist provided a consensus says so. If you want to avert the final disaster, it is this type of thinking every one of those propositions and all of them that you must face, grasp, and reject. Then you will have grasped the connection of philosophy to politics and to the daily events of your life. Then you will have learned that no society is better than its philosophical foundation.

The Return of Americanism

The postmodern linguistic revision, from Republican and Democrat to conservative and liberal, and then the transitory “right and left,” is beginning to be viewed by our general population as “right and wrong.” This needed identification advances freedom and the human condition, demonstrating the necessity of an objective morality. My basic understanding led me to live my life by a simple motto. It combines a Mark Twain adage with a Toby Keith lyric: it’s never right to do wrong, and it’s never wrong to do right.

This transition is continually evolving. A growing number of predominant public figures traditionally perceived as Democrat/liberal/left have realized our freedoms have gradually eroded and replaced with repressive dictates. From the former presidential candidates of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard to journalists Taibbi, Shellenberger, Greenwald, and Weiss to tech titans Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk to the influential Rogan and Maher, many have recognized, adjusted, and grasped this fundamental shifting paradigm. Their newfound opinions will optimistically encourage others to view their assessments not through the political lens of right and left but by the proper evaluation of right and wrong. As famed nineteenth-century biologist Thomas Henry Huxley noted, “It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance.”

On a broader level there is a logical progression after right and wrong. The more expansive “good and evil” is the recognition that humankind needs morality. Continued human existence mandates life as the requisite standard of value, and the all-encompassing “life and death” is the definitive philosophical contrast. As Rand further noted, “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice.”

Each of the listed issues reflects either a pro-American or anti-American perspective.

This is not about Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal, or right/left, but right and wrong, which constitutes the DNA of our country. Each of the listed issues reflects either a pro-American or anti-American perspective. Our cherished Western thought is exemplified by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, together with private property. The necessary and essential fundamental right to life is the source from which all other rights emanate. Rational patriotism is embodied with “Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” which freedom has fostered innovation, productiveness, and flourishing, unmatched in the annals of history.

Now, rethink that original question mark; knowing “right and wrong” is the more profound sequence. This expression should be valued and appreciated to guide us through all social interactions. The correct choice will encourage a more prosperous and joyful life.

Related Posts:

1. Yes to a Two-State Solution. No More NIMBYs for Europe
2. Things They Don’t Teach in Music School
3. Now You See It, Now You Don’t

   

About the Author: Edward Pozzuoli

Edward Pozzuoli is a retired mortgage banker and businessman, music aficionado/promoter, restaurateur, casual real estate developer, and armchair Objectivist. He graduated from Brooklyn College with an economics degree and a doctorate in the "street smarts" of his Brooklyn Italian neighborhood. He worked at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in the late 1960s while attending college. He currently resides in South Florida. He bills himself as a seeker of truth in a "happy bubble."