A False Ideological Dichotomy
A Review of Hyrum Lewis & Verlan Lewis’ The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America
One of the most damaging myths that exist in public discourse is the myth of the left/right political spectrum. As the authors describe it here, “the myth of left and right is the false belief that there is an essence behind the political spectrum” (p. 5). Basically, the problem with the left/right spectrum, as this work explains, is that it has no basis in any meaningful belief system or essential essence that connects all the ideas within either side. The book rejects the essentialist theory of ideology, which holds that the left and right have their respective views on various issues “because all political issues grow out of a single master issue (an essence)” (p. 5).
Instead of the essentialist theory the authors posit the social theory of ideology instead which “says that issues correlate because they are bound by a unifying tribe” (p. 6) this social theory “predicts that since the positions associated with left and right are not natural, but social, we should expect to see those on the left and right changing their political views depending on what their team is doing” (p. 7). The best way to understand this is that the left and right do not have core beliefs that they revolve around. Instead, they are social tribes to which people adhere, regardless of what they believe. In fact, people will change what they believe in order to better conform to the “team” they belong to.
This thesis is very important to understand. Especially because it is essential to expose a lot of the propaganda that exists on both “sides.” Lewis & Lewis do a very solid job of exposing and debunking this myth. Something that we all roughly knew was an issue, but didn’t really have a great explanation why and how. The book is short, only 100 pages if you exclude the notes and index. The book’s focus is very strong, with the most crucial material located in the first three of its seven chapters. I highly recommend this book because of how important it is to dismantle the myth of the political spectrum. It is a relatively easy read and doesn’t spend too much time outside the core issue.
In the first chapter, the authors break down the problem with the left/right spectrum, as we already discussed above. What is key to understand here is that the beliefs generally held in common for the left and the right are collected together only because of socialization and tribal adherence. We justify their being together through storytelling. Not through a meaningful, independent ideological basis. It is most important to understand that the left and the right are political tribes and alliances. Not belief systems that people adhere to.
This specific issue is covered in depth in chapters 3 and 4. With chapter 3 explaining just how nonsensical the idea of the left/right “spectrum” is. We all know what this is whenever we hear about “far-right” or “far-left” as if people can be more or less “right-wing” or “left-wing.” This is a fallacious and contradictory way of understanding political positions, though. It is just hidden by the use of equivocal language. Probably the best example is “liberal” and “conservative” which are used both as synonymous with left/right but also somehow something entirely separate when applied to Democrat/Republican even when Democrats are supposed to be on the “left” and Republicans on the “right.”
For example, the authors claim that “left and right will often be defined by whatever their associated parties stand for at a given moment” (p. 29). Which is definitely true. We see this all the time. People regularly point out the perceived hypocrisy of either liberals or conservatives for “changing” what they believe over time. Including in entirely opposite directions. This really is true, it is just framed incorrectly. The reason it is true is that the people making up the party, and the most influential groups within it, change over time. Not because people are violating some unchanging principle that exists behind either liberalism/left-wing beliefs or conservative/right-wing beliefs. No such principle exists.
A great example of how this works is found on p. 29 and reads as follows:
“When the Republican Party moved in a small-government direction under Barry Goldwater, the essentialists called it a move ‘to the right,’ but when the Republican Party moved in a big-government direction under George W. Bush and Donald Trump, they also called it a move ‘to the right.’ When the Republican Party moved to foreign interventionism under Bush, they said it was a move ‘to the right,’ but when the Republican Party moved to foreign isolationism under Trump, they also said it was a move ‘to the right.’ When the Republican Party moved in a globalist direction under Reagan, they said it was a move ‘to the right,’ but when the Republican Party moved in a protectionist direction under Trump, they also said it was a move ‘to the right.’ No matter what Republicans do—even when they pursue opposite policies—essentialists invariably tell us that it’s a move ‘to the right.’”
Such arbitrary and inconsistent explanations can be found all the time. Let’s just take the article by Kevin Drum as an example where this exact thesis is pushed. Drum claims that “Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have moved significantly to the left on most hot button social issues while Republicans have moved only slightly right.” Of course, this claim doesn’t actually make any sense when you realize what it is actually saying. Lewis & Lewis point out clearly “that ‘liberal’ is coterminous with whatever the Democratic Party is doing and ‘conservative’ is coterminous with whatever the Republican Party is doing” (p. 33). They describe this in the context of a fallacious scoring system meant to categorize congressional representatives along a supposed left/right spectrum. Which ends up showing that liberal and Democrat mean the same thing. As does conservative and Republican. This is because liberalism and conservatism are nothing more than synonyms of left and right and indicate adherence to either the left/Democrat tribe or adherence to the right/Republican tribe. They are all one and the same.
So we can translate Drum’s claim and see why it makes little sense given the emptiness of the spectrum view. “Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have [become significantly more democratic] on most hot button social issues while Republicans have [become only slightly more republican].” Obviously, this is complete nonsense. Saying that Democrats have become “more liberal” is the same thing as saying they have become more like the Democrats. A circular explanation. However, people make these claims all the time. Framing things in a false range between left and right as if it were a spectrum of belief. This spectrum simply doesn’t exist. It is a misleading way of framing things that conflates tribal adherence with ideological adherence. Drum’s claim is based on a fundamental error. He treats liberal and Democrat as if they are two separate things. With “liberalism” as some sort of belief system and Democrat as a political group. In reality, they apply to the same thing.
This is just an example of what the authors expose as a serious problem in their book. The point isn’t to pick on Kevin Drum, he just has an article that represents the issue well and showcases why the book is as important as it is. Conservative arguments against “liberalism” are often fatally undermined by the failure to recognize the real meaning of these terms. By using such arguments, we actually enable “liberals” to do the same thing in describing “conservatives.” By conflating a political party/tribe with a belief system, we misrepresent what is actually going on. If you look at Drum’s article, something is happening, but it has nothing to do with Democrats becoming liberal. We are witnessing a shift in society regarding belief systems overall. But these belief systems are not reducible to a contradictory and arbitrary “spectrum” between two sides.
One of the most important reasons this myth persists is that it allows people to hide their tribalism. The authors state, “Recent studies in psychology have found that humans are inclined not only to tribalism but also to cloaking their tribal instincts behind high-sounding, rational language… we tend to follow our tribes but fool ourselves and others (through creative storytelling) into believing that we are following principles” (pp. 67-68). This is important because it is one of the primary ways in which people justify conforming to popular opinion within their “in-group.” It is how people rationalize a lack of integrity and change their opinions in obvious ways to match whatever their team is saying or doing. That is why we see so much partisan hypocrisy and doublespeak. It is why people who have the highest need for social acceptance will believe whatever their “tribe” believes and change their beliefs because of shifting social opinion. As opposed to the examination of truth. We avoid accusations of hypocrisy, and believing what is popular versus true, by claiming that we are following some kind of principle like liberalism or conservatism instead of simply echoing whatever is widely held by the liberal or conservative tribe at the current time.
Lewis and Lewis help to expose one reason why self-identification cannot be trusted. It is also why we need new terminology to describe the religions and worldviews in our society. Specifically recognizing the difference between loyalty to a political party and the made-up ideologies or belief systems that it represents. The reason liberalism and conservatism have such contradictory, shifting, and ambiguous definitions is because they represent coalitions of loosely aligned people. People who have very different, even mutually exclusive religions and worldviews. People within a political party are allies against a common enemy. Not co-religionists or ideological partners. When you only have two choices, you simply choose the one closest to you, or the one you hate the least. When people become aligned with their party more and more, that is because they are putting tribe above the validity of truth.
In the final chapter, the authors reflect on what to do to get past this essentialist myth of left and right. There are two points in particular that are worth explaining. On pages 91-95, they describe the need to change our speech and to find healthier tribes. Both are extremely important solutions. They explain, “when we talk about ‘the left’ or ‘the right,’ we are falsely implying that there is some philosophical essence that divides these two political groups across time and place. If someone says, ‘Mary is a right-wing anti-abortion activist,” what does the ideological prefix ‘right-wing’ add? What informational value is there to calling Mary a ‘right wing anti-abortion activist’ instead of just an ‘anti-abortion activist’? Using the ideological prefix is either redundant or ant attempt to sneak an inflammatory term into the description by creating an association between the pro-life position and fascism” (pp. 91-92). Whenever we cling to the myth of the political spectrum and the false idea that left and right are philosophies, we enable this tactic of guilt by association. If we care about truth, we will avoid doing this.
This needs to be combined with recognizing that “yes, human beings are inevitably tribal—we are naturally inclined to seek out communities of meaning and belonging— but there are better and worse tribes, and ideological tribes [left and right] are among the bad ones” (p. 94). We will all have tribes we belong to but if the tribe that you identify with most is either Democrat/liberal/left or Republican/conservative/right then you will belong to a shifting tribe which lacks integrity and prioritizes social acceptance over concern for the truth. It does not mean we cannot vote for or support a political party, nor does it mean that “moderate” or “independent” actually mean anything (this is another issue not dealt with here) but it does mean that adherence to truth is key. Recognizing purely partisan tribal adherence is part of this. We can belong to an alliance without pretending we must agree with all members of the alliance. Nor do we owe allegiance to a hollow, arbitrary, and made-up belief system that this political alliance supposedly adheres to.
In that regard, the thesis presented by Hyrum Lewis and Verlan Lewis in this book is essential for understanding our society and escaping the harmful myths that pervade it. It is a quick read but direct and to the point, giving an extremely solid explanation and refutation of the essentialist viewpoint of the left and the right. Considering just how much modern discourse and propaganda relies upon this myth to inflame and mislead people in society, I can’t recommend this book highly enough. Christians need to understand this myth because political compromise and propaganda exist everywhere, and Christians are not immune to this. Language matters, the terms and concepts we use aren’t just for academics. The myth of the left and right is a great example of what that looks like.
I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link below. Consider doing so to support my work!