Progress pill
Introduction

The right-left divide trap

What's your Political Leaning?

The right-left divide trap

  • The trap of the left-right divide
  • The case of Frédéric Bastiat
  • The case of Bitcoin
  • A false division
  • Governors and governed
  • Controllers and non-controllers
Welcome to this course on the great political families. We begin with the figure of Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, who taught us to doubt and to question our own opinions. One of the most deeply rooted opinions in our modern thinking is the left-right divide. This course invites us to re-evaluate our political classifications and to focus on a distinction more fundamental than left versus right: the distinction between freedom and coercion.

The trap of the left-right divide

Many believe that the most striking divide in the West today is between the political left and the political right. The media devote much of their coverage to this confrontation, which is presented as decisive for the future of civilization. To identify an individual's political leanings, we plot them on a simple horizontal line: far left, left, centre, right, far right.
This divide dates back to 1789. During the French Revolution, in the debates of August and September 1789, deputies who favored maintaining the king's power sat to the right of the Assembly president, while those who wanted to limit his powers sat to the left. The problem is that this categorization has become largely inoperative in our time.
Traditionally, the left is seen as reformist and the right as conservative. But this has become questionable, since the social-democratic left now fights to preserve acquired advantages, which effectively makes it, from that point of view, conservative. Most individuals who fall between the two extremes are called centrists, but this label also simplifies their position.
Have you ever felt that left or right, socialist or conservative, doesn't accurately describe your opinions? A person's position on the political spectrum is not static, and often depends on the issue at hand. If someone is for economic freedom but also for the right to immigrate, where would you place them on a simple left-right line?
The fundamental problem with this axis is that it leaves no room for classical liberal thinking, which cannot be lumped in with either the egalitarianism of the left or the nationalism of the right. Where do we place figures like Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, Frédéric Bastiat, Ron Paul, or Javier Milei? Classical liberals and libertarians are sometimes falsely equated with the right, or even the far right. But more often than not, they simply do not exist in this frame of reference.

The case of Frédéric Bastiat

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), the emblematic figure of the French liberal school, was a deputy in the National Assembly. He had an entirely singular approach: he said he voted sometimes with the left, sometimes with the right, depending on the bill under discussion.
This did not indicate centrist opportunism. Bastiat could not sit with the royalists on the right, because he was himself a republican; nor did he want to sit with the socialists on the left. His votes were guided by a fundamental principle: the promotion of individual and economic freedoms and the reduction of government interference. He was convinced that social order and prosperity could emerge through private initiative and individual responsibility, with a minimum of laws.
For Bastiat, the real line of demarcation was not between left and right, but between those who believed in the coercive power of the state and those who trusted in freedom and voluntary association. He would vote with the left when its proposals aimed to abolish privileges, guarantee civil liberties, or oppose war; and with the right when its proposals protected private property or reduced taxes.

The case of Bitcoin

Bitcoin is a fascinating current example of an innovation that transcends the traditional divide. It is undeniably a political project that breaks with current monetary policy, but it is impossible to place on a simple linear axis running from far left to far right.
We find supporters of Bitcoin across the entire political spectrum:
  • For the liberal right, Bitcoin represents a tool of protection against state interference, guaranteeing private property and monetary freedom.
  • For some on the left, Bitcoin represents a critique of the traditional banking system and a means of democratizing finance outside established institutions.
  • Independently of any political ideology, many technophiles and investors are attracted by its decentralized nature and its disruptive potential.
In reality, the traditional dichotomy between left and right is inadequate and ill-suited to properly situate Bitcoin. A simple linear axis does not work well, since ideologies like fascism and communism share totalitarian characteristics that are not apparent on such an axis.

A false division

Although left and right seem completely opposed, they share a number of fundamental common points. Both camps regularly criticize the free market: as a source of inequality (the left) or as a threat to sovereignty (the right). Both share a preference for state intervention, whether through the "strategic state" or the "emancipating state." Despite their apparent differences, all political parties, whether left, right, or centre, defend the right of the state to govern people's lives and intervene on all subjects through regulations and taxes.
This is precisely why the left-right opposition is ultimately an illusion. To illustrate this point, consider the following questions:
Social issues
  • Should the government own or control newspapers, radio, or television?
  • Should the government regulate sexual activity between consenting adults, including prostitution?
  • Should drugs like marijuana, cocaine, and heroin be legalized?
  • Should it be legal for people to travel or enter and leave a country without limitation?
  • Should the government send troops to intervene in the affairs of other countries?
  • Should children be legally obliged to go to school?
  • Should parents be allowed to teach their children at home?
  • Should gun ownership be restricted by law?
  • What should the government's environmental policy be?
  • Do we need a public institution to ensure that medicines are safe and effective?
Economic issues
  • Should the government subsidize farmers and regulate what they grow?
  • Should the government impose tariffs, quotas, embargoes, or other restrictions on international trade?
  • Should the government introduce a mandatory minimum wage?
  • Is taxation the only way to pay for necessary public services?
  • Should the government help companies in difficult economic times with low-interest loans or subsidies?
  • What is the best way to manage today's massive budget deficits?
  • How can we solve the problem of the social security system's deficit?
  • Should the government send financial aid to other countries?
  • What should the government do about rising healthcare costs?
  • What should the government's nuclear energy policy be?
In all these questions, one central issue emerges: what degree of government control are you willing to tolerate? And are you more or less forced to participate in financing that control? The fundamental political question is: who should decide? Do you make the important decisions about your personal and social life, or does someone else make them for you?

Governors and governed

This partisan polarization masks a far deeper and more ancient divide: the one that has separated those who govern from those who are governed for centuries. On one side, the people, who endure inflation, fiscal pressure, and financial surveillance; on the other, the technocratic and political elite, who spend with other people's money, and very often with the printing press, that is, with fiat currency, supposedly for the good of the people.
The fiat money system benefits the wealthiest individuals and the most powerful financial entities, especially governments, which are the biggest borrowers. By borrowing, they push banks to print new money. The resulting inflation insidiously devalues money, destroying people's savings. Fiat currency is the cornerstone of this expansion of state power: it allows governments to finance unlimited spending, eliminating the budgetary constraints that existed under a gold standard.
As Frédéric Bastiat observed in the nineteenth century:
"In all revolutions, there have always been only two opposing parties: that of the people who want to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others."
In other words: those who produce wealth and those who seize it to redistribute it to their supporters.

Controllers and non-controllers

To conclude this introduction, let us turn to a science-fiction novel from the 1960s. In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966), Robert Heinlein brilliantly synthesized what constitutes the true political fault line:
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
The "controllers" include all those who, regardless of their stated ideology, from the far left to the far right, believe that the state or a higher entity must regulate, direct, and impose behaviors for the good of society. They favor top-down solutions, planning, and coercion.
The "non-controllers," by contrast, are those who do not wish to exercise power over others and who advocate for maximum individual freedom. They value personal responsibility, voluntary association, and the spontaneity of social order, minimizing government interference. It is here that we find figures like Frédéric Bastiat, or the principles of decentralization embodied by Bitcoin.
In this course, we will see that the political landscape is far richer and more complex than left and right, thanks to a visual model that will help us better understand the different political families and where we each stand.
Quiz
Quiz1/5
Why is the left-right axis considered inadequate for placing classical liberal thinkers like Bastiat or Ron Paul?