In chapter 1 of Political Visions and Illusions, I call into question the use of left and right as labels for identifying people's political leanings for three principal reasons: First, the issues covered by these labels are constantly changing and are thus relative to these issues from one age to the next. Second, the notion of a left-right spectrum is one dimensional and thus unable to cover the full diversity of issues by which people measure their political convictions. Third, it does not adequately account for the religious differences underpinning these convictions. I hint at a fourth reason in the book: "Often these terms are used in a derisive fashion as a way of discrediting those with whom we disagree" (19). People caught up in this bipolar categorization are typically unable to see the moments of truth in the convictions of those on the opposite side. Moreover, they tend to engage in a strategy of assigning guilt by association. If Stalin is a leftist, then even moderate socialists are deemed guilty of his crimes against the Russian people. If Hitler is a rightist, then even classical liberals and tradtionalists must bear the burden of his guilt.
Given my general discomfort with using these labels, I find myself resonating with Andres Acevedo's argument in this video. Take 15 minutes to watch it in full.
According to his website, Andres Acevedo is a "Stockholm-based video essayist, motion designer and freelance content creator" who once worked as a lawyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment