When the forces of radical change meet the forces of ancient privilege, which side is left and which side is right? The most revolutionary British prime minister of the 20th century was Margaret Thatcher, who brought sweeping changes and confronted forces of tradition, the trade unions, that had privileges going back to the Middle Ages. Who was left-wing — Thatcher or the unions?
Is it left-wing or right-wing to rebel against imperialism? Was Paul Kruger, who led the most serious armed rebellion against the British empire, a left-winger? Consider personal habits. Is it left-wing or right-wing to be a vegetarian, teetotaller and animal lover (Hitler)? To enjoy boxing and shooting animals (Nelson Mandela)? What about authority versus permissiveness? Nazis and communists love ‘discipline’. Is this an attitude of the right or the left? What about censorship versus free speech? Is it left-wing or right-wing to believe strongly in censorship; say, wanting to prevent publication of a report that suggests that certain races have higher IQs than others?
I could go on and on. The fact is that the terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ are meaningless. When people fail to define these terms, they sometimes resort to the foolish argument, ‘You cannot define an elephant but you know one when you see one.’ Of course you can define an elephant: an elephant is a mammal with a trunk and an average adult weight of over three tons. People can neither define ‘left’ and ‘right’ nor recognise left-wing or right-wing philosophies when they see them, because they never see them. They do not exist.
All that exists is a bogus division into two groups who lay aside the effort of thought for the lazy indulgence of hatred. The terms of abuse each side hurls at the other are the same, and so are the terms of affection each side reserves for itself. ‘I’m a right-wing bastard’ means exactly the same as ‘I’m a left-wing bastard’. It means, ‘I’m an adorable brute.’
There seems to be some inherent flaw in the human brain that encourages people to fissure into two groups who loathe each other. Almost any argument in politics, religion or science soon results in two warring parties accusing each other of heresy, apostasy, false belief, treachery and being rotters. This is destructive to progress and knowledge. There are practical reasons why physical organisations such as political parties might have to separate into mutually hostile groups, but there is no reason why thought and philosophy should do the same. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ must end, and I believe the agent of their demise has arrived.
He is, of course, George Bush. President Bush the Second is so magnificently paradoxical that he could smash the silly consensus of political division. He stands for limited government but has greatly increased government spending. His party favours free trade but he has introduced firm protectionist measures for American steel and agriculture. His tradition is a balanced budget and honest money but under him the American deficit has increased enormously and the dollar is sinking like a stone. Above all, his absurd war in Iraq cuts right across political philosophies.
It was clear from the start that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with September 11 and posed no direct threat to America or its treaty allies. The war was for one reason only: to do good in the world. This is an extremely dangerous and unsound reason for going to war. It belongs to thinkers such as Leon Trotsky and J.F. Kennedy, who until now were thought of as belonging to quite different camps from Bush. The war has caused ‘left’ and ‘right’ to be both for it and against it.