DOCSLIB.ORG

Missy Rolseth 1 4-27-20 the Left Wing of the Political Spectrum: Three Different Ideologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Missy Rolseth 1 4-27-20 the Left Wing of the Political Spectrum: Three Different Ideologies Missy Rolseth 1 4-27-20 The Left Wing of the Political Spectrum: Three Different Ideologies In 1949, Albert Einstein posed the question “how should the structure of society… be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible?”1 In his book, The Political Economy of Human Happiness, Benjamin Radcliffe uses this question to define the differences among the left and right on the political spectrum. He develops his division in the context of a free market economy to better conceptualize these differences. He writes that the left-wing of the political spectrum is based on values of equity and justice, with a goal to ensure that the economy is benefiting the public’s interest.2 While these underlying principles are prevalent across the left wing, there are differences among these politicians on how to achieve this economic goal and what specific values to minimize and maximize during this process. Ultimately, there are varying ideologies within the left wing. While all liberal politicians may share, to an extent, the same verbal image of what constitutes a “good society,” they can differ greatly in how to attain this. Methodology For the purpose of this paper, I will be focusing on three major factions within the left wing: progressivism, socialism, and democratic socialism. These three groups are of significance in the current state of political affairs. Democratic socialism and socialism, although fundamentally different, are often lumped together at even equated with communism. Progressivism and democratic socialism factions are increasingly competing in politics, most notably in this current election cycle, to become the face of the Democratic Party. 1 Benjamin Radcliff, The Political Economy of Human Happiness: How Voters' Choices Determine the Quality of Life (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 1. 2 Ibid. Missy Rolseth 2 4-27-20 This paper will continue with a discussion on the basic foundation of each of the three factions, followed by an analysis on how they are different in approaching three political questions: climate change, healthcare, and the wealth tax. In lieu of drafting a policy from the basic principles of these ideologies, much of the discussion will be pulled from policy initiatives created by specific politicians who represent these ideologies. It is also important to note that the politicians used here were chosen because of their relevancy in current political affairs. There are many opinions on different ideologies among the Left, both in how many there are and who represents them. This paper will seek to present an accurate depiction based on current research, but given the variety of different policy agendas, many politicians shift on the spectrum on different issues. The categorization in this paper is done to exemplify core differences between the factions; given the continual evolution of American politics, others may identify these politicians in terms of other ideologies. Progressivism As an ideology, progressivism is likely what the average American labels as the platform of the modern Democratic Party. Progressivism is a convoluted term on the left wing of the political spectrum and has been used to describe a number of ideologies based on the idea of creating significant progress. For this paper, progressivism will refer to the moderate-left ideology intent on serving public interest, while still maintain a relatively free market, capitalist economy. Progressivism advocates for big government and economic intervention, but to a limited extent.3 This is a focus on providing assistance to the public, but in smaller measures than a robust welfare state. These public assistance programs are typically designed to help the 3 Perry Bacon, “The Six Wings Of The Democratic Party,” FiveThirtyEight, March 11, 2019, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/. Missy Rolseth 3 4-27-20 poorest Americans, leaving many others still in need. Progressives can be differentiated from the established, rank-and-file Democrats; they sought to push the Democratic Party forward in the beginning of the twenty-first century, focusing on social issues like immigration, climate change, and civil rights.4 President Barack Obama is an example of a progressive, as his win over Hillary Clinton in 2008 marked a shift in the Democratic Party away from the established party members within the DNC.5 Serving as Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden is another example of a progressive. Progressives call for reform, but by fixing the current system, not creating a new one. This is a significant difference from the other two factions. Socialism Socialism has taken on many different forms since it became popular in the 19th century.6 However, the fundamental basis of socialism is an economic form in which the state owns the means of production.7 This is designed to ensure that economy is functioning in the public’s best interest. Socialists see capitalism as the root to injustice in society and envision a society in which the market is controlled by the government. For strong adherents to capitalism, socialism is the enemy because it seeks to dismantle the free market. Furthermore, many people associate socialism with authoritarian dictatorships and thus decree that socialism will infringe on Americans’ civil rights and liberties.8 Capitalist supporters also purport that failure is inevitable 4 Perry Bacon, “The Six Wings Of The Democratic Party,” FiveThirtyEight, March 11, 2019, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/. 5 Ibid. 6 Maggie Astor, “What Is Democratic Socialism? Whose Version Are We Talking About?” The New York Times, June 12, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/politics/democratic-socialism-facts -history.html. 7 Pablo Gilabert and Martin O'Neill, “Socialism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, July 15, 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/. 8 John Haltiwanger, “Here's the Difference between a 'Socialist' and a 'Democratic Socialist'.” Business Insider, Business Insider, February 11, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/difference -between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6. Missy Rolseth 4 4-27-20 for socialism, citing cases such as Soviet Communism and the National Socialism of the Nazi Party.9 However, although some of these states used the word “socialism,” there were not inherently socialist governments. Moreover, the ruin of these states was complex and not simply derived from a socialist form of government. In the United States, there are no prominent politicians who directly advocate for pure socialism; they instead fall into the democratic socialist characterization. This paper will use the foundational definition of socialism and examples from socialist philosophers to develop the socialist response to the three policies. Democratic Socialism Democratic socialism is arguably the most complex of these three ideologies, given its place in between progressivism and socialism on the political spectrum. Democratic socialism sprung to the political forefront of the Democratic Party during the 2016 election cycle with the unexpected success of Senator Bernie Sanders.10 Many on the Right are quick to equate democratic socialism with socialism, but there are fundamental differences between the two.11 Democratic socialism is based on democratic principles that provide the foundation for a socialized welfare state within the confines of a capitalist economy.12 Note that democratic socialism does not want to completely dismantle capitalism, but instead seeks to provide 9 John Haltiwanger, “Here's the Difference between a 'Socialist' and a 'Democratic Socialist'.” Business Insider, Business Insider, February 11, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/difference -between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6. 10 Nathan J. Robinson, “Millennials Support Socialism Because They Want to Make America Great – but for Everyone,” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, February 15, 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/millennials-support-socialism-because-they-want-make-america -great-everyone-ncna1109191. 11 John Haltiwanger, “Here's the Difference between a 'Socialist' and a 'Democratic Socialist'.” Business Insider, Business Insider, February 11, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/difference -between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6. 12 Ibid. Missy Rolseth 5 4-27-20 governmental assistance in light of capitalism’s ails.13 There are two major components of an economy based on democratic socialism. The first of which is a robust welfare state intended to provide basic necessities to all citizens—like healthcare—in addition to government assistance programs. The second component is worker-owned means of production.14 Democratic socialism is intended to minimize the disparity between those who own the means of production and the working class that has grown increasingly wider in our capitalist economy. Overall, democratic socialists combine aspects of both progressivism and socialism in their ideology. It is safe to say that the left-wing of the political spectrum is concerned with unfettered capitalism and the growing income gap. However, while progressives seek to make minute reforms by helping out those affected and socialists seek to completely scrap the current system and build a new one in its place, democratic socialism seeks to create broad reforms that do dismantle inequitable institutions of capitalism, while maintaining the overall economic structure.15 To address
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Right‐Wing Populism and Climate Change Denial
    Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 00, No. 0, 2020, pp. 1--21 Right-Wing Populism and Climate Change Denial: The Roles of Exclusionary and Anti-Egalitarian Preferences, Conservative Ideology, and Antiestablishment Attitudes Kirsti M. Jylha¨ * Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden and Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden Kahl Hellmer Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden Populist right-wing politicians and voters tend to dismiss climate change. To in- vestigate possible reasons for this, we tested correlations between climate change denial and variables linked to right-wing populism (Study 1: N = 1,587; Study 2: N = 909). The strongest predictor of climate change denial was an index capturing exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences (opposition to, e.g., multicultural- ism and feminism), followed by traditional values (Study 1) and Social Dominance Orientation (Study 2). Populist antiestablishment attitudes correlated only weakly with climate change denial, and this correlation vanished when exclusionary and anti-egalitarian preferences were controlled for. Also, the effects of authoritarian- ism (Study 2) and (low) openness vanished in the full models. Climate change de- nial did not correlate with (low) agreeableness, which is a personality trait linked to populism. However, both antiestablishment attitudes and climate change denial correlated with pseudoscientific beliefs (e.g., anti-vaccination attitudes) (Study 1). To conclude, we did not find support for a notable linkage between climate change ∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kirsti M. Jylha,¨ Institute for Futures Studies, SE-101 31, Stockholm, Sweden [e-mail: [email protected]]. Acknowledgements: We are thankful for the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments on the previous draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Establishment Coalition Governments in Southern Europe: Greece and Italy
    Anti-establishment coalition governments in Southern Europe: Greece and Italy Vasiliki Georgiadou Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, 136 Syngrou Ave. 17671, Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected] Jenny Mavropoulou Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, 136 Syngrou Ave. 17671, Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected] Abstract Anti-establishment parties with either a left-wing or a right-wing ideological slant have been entering contemporary European Democracies with sizeable vote shares. During the Great Recession, the Greek and the Italian party system could be perceived as convergent case-studies for the formation and breakthrough of anti-establishment parties. Given the fact that ideologically diverging anti- establishment parties – the Coalition of the Radical Left - Social Unionist Front (SYRIZA) and the Independent Greeks (ANEL) in the Greek case, as well as the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the League in the Italian one – came to power and formed coalition governments, the primary goal of this article is to enquire into supply-side parameters, exploring potential associations along a range of programmatic stances and policy dimensions that effectuated these governing alliances. Using the Comparative Manifesto Project dataset, our findings confirm the existence of expected programmatic differences as well as a converging policymaking basis between the anti-establishment coalition partners of both governing alliances. Keywords: anti-establishment parties, SYRIZA, ANEL, M5S, League, supply-side,
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Spectrum -- a System of Classifying Different Political Positions Upon One Or More Geometric Axes Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary
    The Political Spectrum -- a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary The Traditional One-Dimensional Political Spectrum Radical LIBERAL Moderate Conservative Reactionary Favors _________________progress and _________________;reform Works for reform _________________within existing systems; looks to the _____________future for an improved society Favors government intervention in _________________________the economy (to improve treatment of people and the environment) Wants government to stay out of _______________________social matters (to allow expansion of rights) Radical Liberal Moderate CONSERVATIVE Reactionary Favors society _________________as it is or a _________________return to what society ________________________;once was opposed to abrupt change; Values ____________________tradition Wants government to stay out of _________________________the economy (to conserve freedom of action & maintain limited government) Favors government intervention in _______________________social matters (to conserve traditional values) RADICAL Liberal Moderate Conservative Reactionary Favors _________________dramatic and _________________immediate change; Change comes in the form of a new _________________________society or a ________________________________new political system Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative REACTIONARY Favors _________________dramatic and _________________immediate change; Change comes in the form of a new _________________________restoration
    [Show full text]
  • Clarifying the Structure and Nature of Left-Wing Authoritarianism
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology PREPRINT © 2021 American Psychological Association In press. Not the version of record. Final version DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000341 Clarifying the Structure and Nature of Left-wing Authoritarianism Thomas H. Costello, Shauna M. Bowes Sean T. Stevens Emory University New York University Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Irwin D. Waldman, Arber Tasimi Scott O. Lilienfeld Emory University Emory University University of Melbourne Authoritarianism has been the subject of scientific inquiry for nearly a century, yet the vast majority of authoritarianism research has focused on right-wing authoritarianism. In the present studies, we inves- tigate the nature, structure, and nomological network of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), a construct famously known as “the Loch Ness Monster” of political psychology. We iteratively construct a meas- ure and data-driven conceptualization of LWA across six samples (N = 7,258) and conduct quantitative tests of LWA’s relations with over 60 authoritarianism-related variables. We find that LWA, right- wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation reflect a shared constellation of personality traits, cognitive features, beliefs, and motivational values that might be considered the “heart” of au- thoritarianism. Still, relative to right-wing authoritarians, left-wing authoritarians were lower in dog- matism and cognitive rigidity, higher in negative emotionality, and expressed stronger support for a political system with substantial centralized state control. Our results also indicate that LWA power- fully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation in political violence. We conclude that a movement away from exclusively right-wing conceptualizations of authoritarian- ism may be required to illuminate authoritarianism’s central features, conceptual breadth, and psycho- logical appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Behind Left and Right. the Meaning of Left-Right Orientation in Europe
    Behind Left and Right. The meaning of left-right orientation in Europe Wiebke Weber TESI DOCTOR L UPF / NY 2012 DIRECTORS DE L TESI Prof. Willem E. Saris Prof. Mariano Torcal Research and E-pertise Centre for Sur.ey Methodology0 Departament de Ci1ncies Pol2ti3ues i Socials Für meine Eltern Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who have supported me in completing this dissertation. First and foremost, I owe a great debt of gratitude to my supervisors Willem Saris and ariano Torcal. Willem Saris received me with open arms in his research group, introduced me to the field of survey research, offered me a lot of chances and challenges, and guided me throughout process. ariano Torcal was always there when I needed him and thoroughly inspired and advised me. Your support will never be forgotten. What I will also always remember is the encouragement I received in the beginning at the UPF. Clara Riba welcomed me warmly, and Ignacio Lago fostered my interest in (uantitative research. I met many people who have had an important influence not only on my professional, but also on my personal life. In particular, Lorena Recabarren became a friend and inspiration. No matter how far away she is, whenever I use the terms *left+ and *right+ I gratefully remember our heated discussions. Further conversations I do not want to miss were those with ,aniel Oberski. I admire his capability of explaining and talking over most complex methods. .nother dear friend who has given me great input is .nne van Ewi0k.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Compass and Why Libertarianism Is Not Right-Wing
    The Political Compass and Why Libertarianism is not Right-Wing J C Lester Abstract The political distinction between left and right remains ideologically muddled. This was not always so, but an immediate return to the pristine usage is impractical. Putting a theory of social liberty to one side, this essay defends the interpretation of left-wing as personal-choice and right-wing as property-choice. This allows an axis that is north/choice (or state-free) and south/control (or state-ruled). This Political Compass clarifies matters without being tendentious or too complicated. It shows that what is called ‘libertarianism’ is north-wing. A quiz gives the reader’s Political Compass reading. Pristine clarity and modern confusion The modern political left/right division is too crude to accommodate many important political positions in a way that makes any sense. Libertarianism (or extreme classical liberalism) is sometimes placed, often implicitly or vaguely, somewhere on the extreme right. But can we say whether it ought to be to the right or left of other „right-wing‟ ideologies? How are we to indicate the extreme tolerance of personal choice (as regards drug use and consenting sexual practices, for instance) that libertarianism entails but which is not normally thought of as being right-wing? Samuel Brittan sees clearly the confusion in the modern left and right (though assuming a libertarian view of liberty): The dilemma of the [classical] liberal is that while Conservatives now use the language of individual freedom, they apply this only—if at all—to domestic economic questions. They are the less libertarian of the two parties—despite individual exceptions—on all matters of personal and social conduct, and are much the more hawk-like in their attitude to „foreign affairs‟.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 2 the POLITICAL SPECTRUM.2
    THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM A2. Developing Transferable Skills: apply in everyday GUIDING QUESTIONS contexts skills developed through investigations related to What has shaped my political orientation? What is the civics and citizenship education, and identify some careers relationship between my beliefs and values and my in which civics and citizenship education might be an asset position on political issues? B1. Factors Affecting Political Engagement: analyse how various factors can contribute to, and present a barrier to, SUMMARY their own and others’ political engagement There are multiple points of view on every political issue and this diversity helps sustain a democracy. B2. Issues of Political Importance: explain the political importance of some current issues and analyse various In this lesson, students use the political inquiry process perspectives associated with these issues and the concepts of political thinking when reflecting on civic issues and ways to address them. In the ‘Minds On’ CPC3O – Specific Expectations activity, students consider different perspectives on the A1.3 assess the credibility of sources relevant to their minimum wage debate. Afterwards, students investigate investigations (e.g., the reliability of the evidence presented their political leanings by answering a political spectrum in a source; the purpose, intended audience, and context of a quiz, reviewing the associated terms and applying their source; the bias, values, and expertise of the speaker/author) understanding. In the ‘Consolidation’ activity,
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Commentary on the Fifth Labour-Led Government's Third Way Approach
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Research Commons@Waikato New Zealand Sociology 32(1) 2017 Page | 51 Investigating commentary on the fifth Labour-led government’s Third Way approach Gemma Piercy, Kate Mackness, Moana Rarere and Brendan Madley Abstract After the 1999 election of a Labour-led coalition government in Aotearoa New Zealand, a raft of policy reforms adopted characteristics of the ‘Third Way’ ideology promoted by Anthony Giddens. We argue, however, that Third Way characteristics were not implemented in Aotearoa New Zealand without attracting criticism. This article reviews academic analysis and wider commentary on the Third Way in Aotearoa New Zealand, much of which particularly focused on social policy reforms made by the Labour-led coalition government (1999-2008). We have used this literature to identify the varied ways in which the Third Way was defined and the extent to which Third Way ideology was considered to have influenced policy and practice the Aotearoa New Zealand context. Our semi-systematic literature review shows that many commentators argued that New Zealand did indeed implement a policy platform consistent with Third Way ideological characteristics but these were also adapted to the unique context of Aotearoa New Zealand. We explore in detail two key examples of adaptation discussed in the literature: the Labour-led government’s early focus on reducing inequalities between Māori and non-Māori and on renewing civil society through subsidiarity and a partnership approach. Keywords Third Way; Civil society; Partnership; Giddens; Fifth Labour-led government Introduction The fifth Labour-led coalition government (1999-2008) of Aotearoa New Zealand initiated a wide range of policy reforms which reflected values consistent with ‘Third Way’ ideology.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation
    Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation By Steve McIntosh J.D. A Publication of The Institute for Cultural Evolution May, 2016 Why Centrism Fails and How We Can Better Achieve Political Cooperation By Steve McIntosh, J.D. ContentS: e Problem with Centrism e Disrupting Influence of the Progressive Postmodern Worldview transcending Postmodernism rough a More Inclusive Worldview A new Political Practice—Increasing the Scope of What We Can Value examples of Values Integration in Specific Political Issues Conclusion yper-partisan political polarization is crippling America’s democracy. Even if our next Hpresident is elected with a strong majority mandate, she or he will nevertheless find themselves severely constrained by the inevitably obstructionist opposition. As Francis Fukuyama observes in his latest book, Political Order and Political Decay, America’s government has become a ‘vetocracy’ wherein our system of checks and balances has devolved to the point where each party has an effective veto on the positive programs of the other. And within our evenly balanced, highly competitive two party system, this has produced a seemingly intractable form of gridlock that now paralyzes our government. In response to the problem of hyper-partisan polarization, mainstream political commentators and analysts usually prescribe some version of centrism. Prominent centrists contend that the straightforward solution to polarization is for politicians to ‘meet in the middle’ and compromise for the greater good. ese moderates argue that most Americans are not ideologically polarized, and that our government’s gridlock has been artificially created by structural obstacles to cooperation, such as congressional district gerrymandering and the outsized influence of hyper-partisans in primary elections and campaign finance.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberal Vs Conservative
    Are You Conservative or Liberal? Directions: Below you will find a table containing many of the nation’s biggest issues. You will also find what Conservatives and Liberals GENERALLY believe when it comes to such issues. Before you start, read below to find out about conservatives and liberals overall views… LIBERALS – Generally believe in governmental action to CONSERVATIVES – Generally believe in personal achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that responsibility, limited government, free markets, it is the duty of the government to reduce community individual liberty, traditional American values and issues and to protect civil liberties and individual and a strong national defense. Also believe the role of human rights. Also believe the role of the government government should be to provide people the should be to guarantee that no one is in need. freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the Conservative policies generally emphasize government to solve people's problems. empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Liberals are often referred to as being on the LEFT when Conservatives are often referred to as being on the put into a political spectrum. RIGHT when put into a political spectrum. Republicans are often viewed as more Democrats are often viewed as more liberal. conservative. Political Spectrum A political spectrum is a way of modeling different political positions by placing them upon a geometric axis. Left Moderate Right The Issues: Directions: As you read the views for each issue, record a “L” or “C” and the Issue Title on a separate sheet of paper so you can see whether you end up with more conservative or liberal views overall.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging the Status Quo: the Rise and Consequences Of
    CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO: THE RISE AND CONSEQUENCES OF ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT PARTIES IN WESTERN EUROPE A Dissertation by JASON MATTHEW SMITH Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2009 Major Subject: Political Science CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO: THE RISE AND CONSEQUENCES OF ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT PARTIES IN WESTERN EUROPE A Dissertation by JASON MATTHEW SMITH Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Robert Harmel Committee Members, Alexander Pacek Michael T. Koch Harland Prechel Head of Department, James Rogers May 2009 Major Subject: Political Science iii ABSTRACT Challenging the Status Quo: The Rise and Consequences of Anti-Establishment Parties in Western Europe. (May 2009) Jason Matthew Smith, B.A., University of North Texas; M.A., University of North Texas Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Robert Harmel This dissertation examines two interconnected research questions: What conditions give rise and lead to the electoral success of anti-establishment parties and what are the consequences of this electoral success? Literature concerning anti- establishment parties fails to investigate this phenomenon in its entirety by focusing disproportionately on the electoral success of these parties neglecting the consequences of this electoral success. Although the electoral success of anti-establishment parties and the subsequent consequences have different theoretical underpinnings, the effects that anti-establishment parties have on individual parties and the party system are dependent upon the electoral success of these of parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Left, Right and Beyond: the Pragmatics of Political Mapping
    A New Concept of European Federalism LSE ‘Europe in Question ’ Discussion Paper Series Left, Right and Beyond: the Pragmatics of Political Mapping Jonathan White LEQS Paper No. 24/2010 June 2010 Editori al Board Dr. Joan Costa-i-Font Dr. Vassilis Monastiriotis Dr. Jonathan White Ms. Katjana Gattermann All views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the LSE. © Jonathan White Jonathan White Left, Right and Beyond: the Pragmatics of Political Mapping Jonathan White* Abstract This paper examines the political categories of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, in particular as they are evoked and instrumentalised by political actors in the democratic process. Drawing on some of the insights of positioning theory, it shows how ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are discursive resources deployed, contested and resisted in political exchange. The paper looks in depth at some of the political uses to which Left-Right talk may be put, discussing in particular acts of partisan profiling, of legitimisation and subversion, and the evocation or rejection of political continuity. The paper argues that while these usages can be seen as strategic moves pursued for political advantage, they have a larger significance insofar as they indicate one of the ways the democratically important imagery of Left and Right may remain active in European politics. * London School of Economics Lecturer in European Politics, European Institute, Houghton St, London WC2A 2AE, UK Email: [email protected] Left, Right and Beyond Table of Contents Abstract Introduction 1 Left, Right and the Practices of Positioning 4 Left-Right Talk: Dimensions of Partisan Usage 9 1.
    [Show full text]