Is the right or is the left following the correct path?

Let me first define extreme right and left. In my books it is quite different from what our favorite distorters, big media, are trying to sell you. Both fascism and communism are socialist ideologies with one emphasizing nationalism and the superiority of a race while the other favors a worldwide system with a centralized government. Both are totalitarian with centralized governments. One is often supported by big industrialists who love to become even richer, while in the other all is owned by the ‘state’. These are the ideologies that increasingly interfere in the lives of individuals and are contolled by an elitist political class that mostly worries about concentrating its own power.

The other side, the right side of this T-shaped political spectrum is extreme individualism with minimal or no government interference, we call them anarchists and maybe on this side there is also a vertical axis that goes from communist to fascist. In my books, though the latter is an oxymoron. Socialists are on the communist/fascist side, but more central on the long axis of the T-spectrum. While libertarians are towards the center of the anarchist side.

Being a libertarian, I always fear for drifting too far to the communist/fascist extreme, while many socialists fear drifting toward extreme anarchism (often confusing it with fascism). I guess many libertarians are against ‘carbon taxes’ because it is seen as an attempt by Canada’s Federal Government to grab more centralized power. Over time, libertarians and socialists have engaged in more polarized language. And of course, those who own some assets are typically libertarians and those who do not are typically socialist. No wonder, so many millennials vote socialist (until they own the assets). Another odd aspect of this story is that liberals in my country of birth are more to the libertarian side of the long T-axis, while in Canada (these days) they are clearly on the socialist side. 

Then there is this phrase (frightening to me who considers himself a ‘scientist with a purpose’): ’We follow the science’. Science is about observing and deducting possible objective explanations. It is supposed to be free of ideology, but just look at Covid-19 or climate change, and you see how science is abused by the various political ideologies. Really, the scariest example of: ‘We follow the science’ was when we got into genetics at the beginning of the 20th century. Wealthy families from Rothchild, Carnegie, to Ford (and many others) thought they understood that science not realizing it was just in its infancy. They felt that like we breed cattle, we could select people or races with the most desirable genetics. This led to the Eugenic movement and apart from chauvinism for one’s own culture, this elitism led to residential schools, antisemitism and the believe in a superior Arian race. Chauvinism in one’s city (Edmonton Oilers versus Calgary Flames) is often benign. But it can go homophobic and turn evil when we become excessively fearful of different cultures and races. Overtime, when dealing more frequently with those ‘outsiders’, we learn that they are in most important ways not really that different from ourselves and once they integrate into ‘our culture’, their thinking, regardless of race, is similar to ‘everybody else’.

I guess, in this age where our planet is becoming ‘smaller and smaller’, dealing with these differences and the power structures associated with them is becoming increasingly important for having a chance to lead a prosperous life.

I consider somebody conservative if they are cautious in adopting change. Not all change is good. Progressive is the other side of the coin and, here again, there is a conservative-progressive spectrum with on each side extremes. For me, opposing pipelines and forcing oil transport by railway, is an expression of extreme conservatism sometimes called reactionary. So is being against abortion. Extreme conservatism about genetically modified food is another example or being against all forms of vaccination. Remember those who opposed the steam engine, declaring them tools of the devil: ‘Brazen Calfs of middleclass worship’!

Extremism is an expression of reactionary attitudes and they can be found in every ideology or religion today. Another extreme is the wealth gap. I think, just like monopolies, extreme wealth is not necessarily benign to society. There is no need for charitable foundations run by the extremely wealthy nor for being woke and despising wealth by the many who feel left out of the current prosperity. 

That is why the current wealth gap is so dangerous for society today. But who defines what constitutes a monopoly and what is extremely rich? What is an acceptable level of privacy invasion when so many of today’s monopolies are influencing today’s politicians? And of course, the extremely wealthy often are very strongly associated with the political pork barrel while being major owners and founders of today’s monopolies. They often also control the media including social media. Not surprising, many extremely rich have access to enormous troves of data which they use to shape political opinion and for marketing of their products.

Today it seems, matters are coming to a head. Some call it the ‘fourth turning’ where the old guard of the establishment is being dismissed along with old power structures that served us so well in the past but now are tools for the establishments or elites who use them to cling to power.

Are we becoming a police state or is there a ‘reset’ not such as defined by the Davos Crowd representing the pinnacle of establishment but by all of us, in particular the younger people of our planetary society who must live in this future? But here warns the conservative in me that not all change is good. Yet, there is no doubt that the coming decade is one of historical change and turmoil. I hope that we stay open to each other’s arguments and opinions and that we find a peaceful solution for the future.

Maybe there is a time for Keynesian economics or MMT and for Austrian Economics. Maybe we can find a middle ground between Climate Emergency and Climate Change Denier (both reactionary) and build a sustainable economic middle ground where nobody preaches to the other how to live. There must be room to live a free life wherein we can all build our dreams (with some compromise). If we cannot work like this, violence and dogmatism will lead to a bad end.