The Bending Spectrum
Reconsidering Burke and the Meaning of Political Classification
As an experiment, I was curious to see how artificial intelligence, specifically Google’s Gemini, would classify two of history’s most notorious dictators. I asked it to place Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on the conventional left-right political spectrum. It reported:
“Hitler is widely classified as a far-right extremist.” Does that mean he was simply a radically conservative politician? Of course not.
“Stalin, on the other hand, is considered a far-left liberal.” But was it liberal to concentrate all power in himself, distribute economic benefits only to those he favored, control culture to ensure everything from music to education conformed to doctrine, and kill millions of people as though they were nothing more than rubble in a field?
Gemini’s contorted efforts to place the two dictators at opposite ends of the political spectrum do not work. Hitler and Stalin were opposites according to their doctrinal theories, but in practice those opposing doctrines amounted to little more than a distinction without a difference. They shared the same values, morality, and goals of empire that would place them “on top of the world.” How, then, can they be placed at opposite ends of the spectrum, especially when it is invoked so glibly?
The rhetorical contortions exercised by Gemini in its attempt to distinguish Hitler’s fascism from Stalin’s communism are revealing in another way. They reflect the widespread assumption in public discourse that the Republican Party belongs on the right wing of the political spectrum because it is conservative.
On reflection, however, this assumption is clearly incorrect and deceptive. To the objective observer, the GOP actually lands on the left side of the spectrum because it has made the clear choice to be the party of radical change. Although it continues to self-identify as conservative, its transformation has culminated in a presidential leader, Donald Trump, who maintains tight-fisted control over the party and regularly bends, folds, and twists political concepts to accuse Democrats of being “communists,” by which he means something closer to “liberals.”
Throughout Democracy or Empire, I have been uncomfortable with using the political spectrum to categorize politicians and systems of government. In an earlier article, The Shoe Seemed to Fit, I described how Hitler and Stalin have historically been placed at opposite ends of the political spectrum -- as radical liberal and radical conservative. Yet the immense weight of their historical similarity caused the two ends of the spectrum to bend downward and back toward one another. Eventually, they curved so far that they met at the bottom, touched, merged, and became, for all practical purposes, the same phenomenon.
I have been especially uncomfortable with the way the Republican Party enjoys broad public acceptance of its claim to be “the” conservative political party. There is a natural advantage in being seen as conservative, in the sense of preferring stability and caution, even when change may be desirable. However, in this case, it cannot be overlooked or dismissed that this party chose to begin building the path that led to Trumpism, has remained fully committed to him, and has cooperated with his effort in becoming the last President of the United States. Can any of us imagine him crowned and establishing a “royal” line?
It is worth recalling that, after Republicans captured the Southern vote and raised its flag as the conservative party, Democrats resisted being cast as the liberal counterpart. They refused to accept the role imposed on them in that binary framework, maintaining instead a tradition of ideological inclusivity. For a time, they even refused to use the term “liberal,” preferring “progressive” in reference to certain programs and political attitudes. They continued to maintain that, rather than being a radical party of change, they were the party that had led a broadly based nation through some of its best years.
Definitions can be helpful; they can also be used to manipulate. The classic distinction between “liberal” and “conservative” is often framed in two terms: the disagreement of the attitudes to turn toward change and the pace of that change. This classical standard is frequently associated with the British political thinker Edmund Burke. He was a prominent Whig, serving in the House of Commons from 1765 to 1794. Americans were grateful for his defense of the American colonies against certain abuses of the British imperial authority.
Burke’s philosophy regarding conservatism has endured, even though it rested on the assumptions of eighteenth-century Great Britain -- namely, that a governing class drawn from inherited privilege would provide each rising generation with the education and experience necessary to inherit the reins of rule.
The changes from 1932 to 1980, made in response to the Great Depression and later World War II, satisfied Burke’s standards. Led by what is often called “the Greatest Generation,” the decision and pace of change unfolded over a span of more than five decades.
The Republican program of change that began in 1980 announced, as one of its aims, the reversal of many of the economic and institutional achievements of the New Deal over the previous fifty years by elevating the economic realm to a position of dominance over the political and cultural realms. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, grounded by Buckley v. Valeo, the party became increasingly committed to this radical direction of change.
The transformation unfolded rapidly, especially given the prodigious size and nature of the shift it accomplished. The revolution skipped quickly from the Reagan and two Bush administrations through to the disaster of Trump’s first term. From this perspective, the pace and scope of change did not meet Burke’s standards, either in its oversized nature or in its rapid acceleration, as it gave rise to Trumpism.
Before following Trump’s lead, the Republican Party was generally understood to adhere to a set of broadly accepted principles of conservative governance. These included faithfulness to tradition, freedom from excessive government intervention, individual self-reliance, personal responsibility, respect for the rule of law, and the preservation of established institutions such as traditional family structures and religious values.
The abandonment of these aims to the standards of Trumpism needs no analysis. The comparison has simply become an embarrassment. There are, however, two that remain: deregulation and free markets. Each of these has been, and remains, successfully employed.
I do not endorse deregulation to the extent it has occurred, although it has indeed been accomplished and maintained. On the maintenance of free markets, however, I personally applaud them. Capitalism has proven to be an effective wealth-generating system, though its benefits would ideally be directed not toward oligarchs but rather toward public needs and the broader requirements of American culture.
The current trajectory, however, risks concentrating economic power in ways that move the system to inherited oligarchy as the great French economist Thomas Piketty predicts, while leaving significant social needs unmet.
The political spectrum, when carefully used and properly understood, Burke’s insights regarding change and its pace, and each party’s commitment to articulating both conservative and liberal values, can all be helpful to the functioning of democracy. My plea is for recognition of the grand need to maintain the balance among the three realms of society. Democracy remains the only system known to human society that can consistently, adequately, and constructively maintain that balance.