The Outdated Dichotomy of Left vs Right: Why It Fails to Provide Relevant Political Classification Now
In the political landscape of the 21st century, a significant shift is underway, with a historical philosophical divide between two visions of the state gaining prominence. This divide, first diagnosed by British philosopher Michael Oakeshott a century ago, has now proven to be a central element in world politics.
Oakeshott's theory posits that English society uniquely developed a nomocratic structure, characterized by the absence of overwhelming concentrations of power. Contrastingly, the concept of the state in national conservatism is teleocratic, focusing on advancing specific ends, such as economic regulation, industrial policy, or moral and cultural policies.
This divide is not about nationalism versus non-nationalism, but about teleocratic and nomocratic visions of the state. A similar civil war is brewing on the left between progressives and old-style Democrats, including the donor class, who prioritize sub-national identity groups or supra-national organizations, and those who advocate for the nation.
The global political realignment around identity has been apparent for over a decade, with events like Brexit, the rise of identity-focused parties in Europe, and Donald Trump's presidency in the U.S. In Europe, the rise of national identity-focused parties on the right and Green parties on the left has largely swept away the old parties on both sides.
The divide between national conservatives and freedom conservatives is not a new development in world politics, but has become a major factor. National conservatives generally believe that the state has a unifying purpose, such as promoting the interests of the American worker, preserving communities through immigration restrictions, or promoting the "common good" in morals and the economy.
Meanwhile, the new conservatives have shown a sudden interest in collectivist economic policy, while climate activists have started talking the language of the market. This shift is reflected in the growing hostility between national conservatives and what they deride as "Conservatism, Inc.", a network of think tanks and organizations.
The philosopher Carl Schmitt explained in his work that the development of the concept of the individual in the late Middle Ages redefined the role of state authority by distinguishing between two different visions of the state—nomocracy and teleocracy. The German concept of Cameralism, focusing on managing the state as an enterprise, involving various boards and agencies to implement the rulers' decisions, exemplifies this teleocratic approach.
The UK is somewhere in between, but recent polling suggests both the Labour and Conservative parties are under existential threat. The rise of the new conservative and new leftist factions has disrupted the traditional political landscape, challenging the status quo and forcing established parties to adapt or face extinction.
In conclusion, the historical philosophical divide between English nomocracy and continental European teleocracy has become a significant factor in world politics. As the political landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to understand these two visions of the state and their implications for society and governance.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
