Is the Political Left and Right a Myth?

September 25, 2024

In this episode, former Tennessee Governors Phil Bredesen and Bill Haslam are joined by Hyrum Lewis and Verlan Lewis, brothers, professors, and authors of a new book, The Myth of Left and Right.

In their book, they make the case that contrary to popular belief, there are no consistent philosophies behind the political spectrum of left-right, liberal-conservative. Instead, the left and right are social groups united by tribal loyalty, fueling partisan hostility and undermining our ability to engage in reasoned debate. How would a shift from unidimensional tribalism to a more multidimensional view of politics affect civic discourse and public policy? This episode was recorded live at the Rotary Club of Chattanooga in August 2024.

Subscribe and follow You Might be Right wherever you get your audio content – including Apple Podcasts and Spotify – to never miss an episode, or sign up for our email list to receive new episodes straight to your inbox each week here.

“There’s more than one issue in politics”

Hyrum summed up the premise of their book in three points. “One, there’s more than one issue in politics. Two, a spectrum by definition can only model one issue. Therefore, we should not be using a political spectrum. That’s our claim,” he told the audience.

To illustrate that, he noted that while many people assume that liberals and conservatives have core philosophies or beliefs on “one big issue” such as the size of the government or whether you are for or against change that serves as a dividing line, that is simply not true and there is “nothing behind” these terms.

“There’s actually no issue I can think of that at one point the liberals didn’t have one issue position and the conservatives the other, and flip back and forth,” added Verlan, pointing to examples from tax policy to foreign policy. “The meanings of liberalism and conservatism are constantly changing, and that’s one of the problems with the way that we think and talk about politics.”

“Baskets of issues”

Instead of a spectrum, which reduces everything to “you’re either on my team or the bad team,” the brothers prefer to view the parties as “baskets of issues,” they said.

“Imagine you show up at the grocery store and the doors are closed, and they just meet you out front with two carts: a red cart and a blue cart. And each cart just has a random bundle of products in the basket,” Verlan explained. “A rational person would go up to those baskets and say, ‘Okay, well this has some stuff I like and stuff I don’t. This basket has some stuff I like, and some I don’t. This has got more of the stuff I like. I’m going to choose the red basket or the blue basket because of that’… As the parties are constantly changing, it’s not that they’re moving left or right, it’s just a different bundle of goods in the baskets that are being offered.”

“The parties are nothing but baskets of issues, some of them good, some of them bad,” Hyrum added. “And when you look at it that way, then every person you approach is going to be a different bundle of issues, and you’re going to agree with everybody on this planet about at least something, which turns everybody into an ally.”

“The myth of ideological polarization”

What is contributing to the high level of polarization in our society? Verlan pointed to the rise of social media, the declining role of community-centered institutions like civic clubs, service organizations, and churches, and ultimately, to an issue that came up in the first episode of the season, the idea that there are different types of polarization and while Americans have a high level of emotional dislike for the other party, we are not as ideologically divided as we seem.

“One of the big drivers that no one else is talking about is this myth of ideological polarization, this idea that you can place every single person or group on a single line from left to right, and once you place them on that line, you know everything about that person,” he explained. “Left-right thinking really makes our society much more tribal than it would otherwise be…The kind of ideological tribes that have come to dominate and really become religions for a lot of people in our society today are really, really harmful for our civil discourse.”

Hyrum highlighted how the totalizing approach of left-right spectrum thinking can amplify extremism. “If you’re thinking in terms of one issue, and one side is correct about that issue, then of course, it’s going to drive issue position extremism…they’ve convinced themselves there’s just one big issue and you’re either in favor of social justice, and you’re on the left, or you’re an evil person, and you’re on the right. And therefore if something is considered left-wing, then the further left I go, the more righteous I am, because it means I’m more in favor of social justice. So why wouldn’t I take every issue to its logical extreme? Because the more extreme it is, the more righteous it is.”

“I wish I had a magic wand for you”

The brothers pointed out that it hasn’t always been this way – before the 20th century, “it just wasn’t part of the vocabulary” to use left and right in the way we do now, they said, noting the terminology was largely imported by academics and journalist during the Russian Revolution. Could we go back?

The brothers were clear that solving this issue would be challenging (“I wish I had a magic wand for you,” Verlan said), but pointed out a variety of steps that they think would help, from the importance of adversarial collaboration and modeling by political leaders to changing our vocabulary and speaking issue-by-issue.

“Instead of saying, ‘You’re a right-wing pro-lifer,’ just say, ‘Oh, you believe pro-life on abortion policy.’ Instead of saying ‘You’re a left-wing environmentalist,’ say, ‘Oh, you’re just in favor of environmental protection,” Verlan explained. “We don’t have to bring in these labels of left and right, that mislead, that misinform, and that make our discourse more impoverished.”