The end of the cleavage left – right ?
We had already discussed this topic in a previous article but, given its great relevance (application Macron, books of Guillaume Bernard and Alain de Benoist, the last issue of the magazine Elements), it is perhaps not unnecessary to supplement what we had written.
The cleavage left – right has existed since 1789 under various names and under this name since the Dreyfus affair. It has weakened since 1989, that is to say, since the disappearance of the soviet bloc, which had led to the polarization of political life in France and in many countries. The right was then, between 1920 and 1989) anti-communist, while the left was either a communist or philo-communist.The right had been favorable to the monarchy of the ancien regime or the constitutional monarchy of 1789 to 1875, while his opponents were republicans and loyal to the ideology of the French Revolution. Between 1875 and 1914, the cleavage left/right was the one that separated the supporters of the catholic Church of their enemies “laïcards” or even the dreyfusards from anti-dreyfusards.
Since 1989, the left and the right of government to have slipped simultaneously into positions liberal, while some of their voters are sympathetic to the “populists” who emphasize the importance of nations and cultures are rooted and do not want their destruction by the clerk, of the right and left of the oligarchy globalist.
There is no essence of the right, and this name was used to designate political movements, and very different who do not share a single ideological element that would be common to all. Since the French Revolution, “a movement sinistrogyre” stood to the right of the political currents of the most ancient to each appearance of a new political current situated more to the left than the previous ones. Guillaume Bernard explains in his latest book that this movement came to an end in 1989 and that now it is a movement dextrorotary who succeeded him.The emergence of a powerful movement said “populist” (we can say that it is populist because it meets the needs of a significant portion of the French who cannot find what they are looking for in the programs of political parties in the so called government) which is in fact nationalist (Taguieff), which is comprised between a quarter and a third of the French, has generated a movement of “dextrorotary” that repels the liberals to the left, where they came from, and that will cause a crisis of identity that emerges within a right thought, in the absence of reflection,that being right necessarily means to be liberal.
The liberals are again on the left (Bayrou, who had called to vote for the left in 2012, was ahead of Valls and Macron, who want to develop a current social-liberal they think he is the future of the left) and the new cleavage in the course of training separates more clearly the camp of the globalists, for whom humanity is merely a collection of individuals who are disengaged in relation to the nations, and driven only by their desires and whims,one of the patriots who think the world in terms of national communities, rooted (one can also say that separates it from the heirs of the ideology that is essentially liberal of the French Revolution of those who disagree and this is not the philosopher’s “liberal jacobin” Gaspard Koenig contradict me on this point).
The cleavage left – right
The cleavage left-right exists under this name since the Dreyfus affair, but it existed, under other names, since 1789, that Napoleon Bonaparte had expressed during a conversation with general Bertrand, on the 18th of June, 1819, during his exile at St. Helena : ‘Il there was in France only two things : the Revolution and Counter-Revolution, the Old and the New regime, the privileges and the People […]. Thus, in the final analysis, there are only two parties. On the one hand, the ultras, some name that we don ; the other the men of the Revolution. The White and the Blue’. The cleavage ‘right-left’ is, therefore, under the designations, ranging from 1789. Note that Bonaparte did not hesitate to rank himself among what we call since 1900 the men of the left, which is not surprising since it was close to the Jacobins in 1793.
As we will see below, there is no essence of the right, and, in addition, there is a real diversity to the ideological left, although all currents of the political left have in common that the contractualisme revolutionary, and the anthropology individualistic liberals of 1789. In 2017, for the people of the left, whether social-democrats or liberals (the socialists, faithful to the thoughts of Pierre Leroux, or Karl Marx are rare), the companies are aggregates of random individuals ;it is true that the liberals of the right are more clearly in line with this view which, as we will see below, causes them to move to the left of the political spectrum.
The cleavage left/right is blurred since the disappearance of the soviet bloc, which had led to the crystallization of a right-wing coalition, which only owes its existence to the communist threat. The collapse of the soviet bloc and the revelations that followed about its criminal nature and its economic inefficiency created a disillusionment to deep left, and allowed the reactivation of disagreements, to the right, between conservatives and liberals. The deep disillusionment of the people on the left led to a massive return of the left in its origins, liberal.This process, which continues today with the phenomenon Macron, leads to the formation of a left-wing liberal (which is not surprising since, as was explained to Jacques Julliard, the software of the left first, it was the liberalism) that competes with other liberals who self-designate as ‘the right’ from Sarkozy.During this time, the National Front is increased in power and refuses, rightly, sharing the appellation ‘right’ with a right-led by the liberals who not only do not want to deal with him, but who are trying to demonize them constantly to preserve their electoral positions. So we are left, temporarily, of the political configuration binary to enter a configuration ternary but, for all that, the opposition right-to-left she permanently gone ? Probably not.
We are going to see a recomposition of the political landscape and the return of a new opposition right-to-left which will not be based on the attitude of each other in relation to the deceased bolshevism, but on the opposition of contemporary between those who dream of a unified world, and those who, on the contrary, want to preserve the specificities of national, cultural, civilizational….This opposition is one of liberal individualism, and conservatism ” nationiste “.The left will continue to self-designate as such, and to designate his opponents by the word ‘right’, we cannot help it. The left is already the party of globalism and it is the opposite of now basically the ‘nationistes’, the supporters of the rooting ethnocultural. As explained by Guillaume Bernard, liberalism, which had been pushed to the right during the onset of socialism and then of communism is moving back to the left. Because of this, the current liberal right is under tension because the liberalism is no longer an element of its own ;Fillon is certainly liberal, but Valls and Macron are all the same ! In addition, the electorate of Fillon very broadly shared the ideas of the ‘populist’ ; the liberal right will eventually burst because political liberalism (philosophical) is not compatible with the ‘nationisme’.
There is no essence of the right
There is no essence of the right ;the right is, as rightly wrote Jacques Julliard, a non-left, and there has been, since 1789, a series of lines, sometimes very different from each other (monarchians, legitimists, ultra-royalists, traditionalists, orléanistes, a bonapartists, conservatives, conservative republicans, gaullists, christian democrats…..) and some are born to the left before being pushed to the right at the onset of the movement socialists, and communists (in particular the bonapartism and liberalism, the two currents from the French Revolution).What we are seeing is the formation of a new right, which affirms the necessity of the diversity of peoples, cultures and nations in the face of the left internationalists (the liberal left, and the remnants of the left-collectivist), but also in the face of a party of the liberal right. This new right, which rejects the appellation ‘right-wing’ because she doesn’t want to be confused with the liberal right is not designated as a right by the left.This new right, which self-defines as a ‘patriot’ calls for a strong dose of direct democracy (referendum, popular initiative) and less representation. It is a right of solidarity, faithful to republicanism and hyper-democratic party (referendum, popular initiative) that nothing is shared with the fascist right of the 1930’s (whose numbers were very limited in France ;the PSF, which was the most important of all the French political parties since 1789 and which included up to 1.2 million members in 1939, has never been fascist contrary to what people said of the left. Recent studies relating to it have highlighted the fact that the party was sincerely republican ; he was a conservative catholic party earnestly supported the republicanism and whose leader has been deported by the occupants).
The cleavage left – right is a political divide, circumstantial
The cleavage left-right is not a cleavage philosophical but a political divide, circumstantial. It is not necessary to search for an origin of the cleavage left-right in the field of philosophy because it only has meaning in the policy. Therefore, we cannot conclude that its non-existence philosophical implies a non-existent policy. This cleavage has structured the political life since 1789, under different names, and despite phases of weakening prior to the discoveries related to the occurrence of new problems.There was, first of all the problem of the political system : monarchy or republic ? Until 1875. Then the problem religious : what place should occupy catholicism in the company ? Until 1914. Finally, the problematic ideological : for or against communism ? From 1920 to 1989.Since 1989, we are in a space between the two, in a period of renewal of the political issues which has caused a blurring of ideological and a weakening of the cleavage left/right bound to the slide simultaneously to the left and to the right of the government to liberalism.We come to the end of the period and a cleavage new is being formed, one which opposes the supporters of an open world and unified, become a large global market to those who prefer a world between open and various in which the national communities, preserve their cultures deeply rooted and their solidarities internal.
The right and left are political coalitions that last only the duration of the coalitions. Some may blame them to be binary but is it reasonable to think that on the political level it could be otherwise ? All the conflicts, or almost, are binary and the last world war was itself the binary despite the very great heterogeneity in the ideology of each of the two camps.
For the left, anyone who is not left is right
People on the left are attached to the word ‘left’ (cf Jacques Julliard, Les gauches françaises) that they associate closely to the ideological legacy of the French Revolution. According to Jacques Julliard, the Republic itself, it is the left and the left is the Republic (in the very particular meaning of this word in France). Anyone who does not subscribe to the creed is revolutionary (individualism, ideology of human rights, progressivism and rationalism) is to the right. A lot of people, embarrassed by the label infâmante ‘right’ have tried to get rid of it, always in vain. Thus the New Right of Alain de Benoist, which claims to be ” right and left “and the Front national of Marine Le Pen, who wants to be a” neither of the right nor of left “, refuse to be labelled as right-wing that does not change anything to the fact that the left regard them as such. And this will not change, as long as there are heirs of the French Revolution, which is likely to persist for some time…
The deletion of the cleavage left-right ?
That some populist movements have ideas of right, while others have left ideas or that there is, currently, liberals, right-wing and left-wing liberals, or even that some ideas are passed from right to left or the reverse, does not justify the conclusion that the notions of left and right are obsolete as the think Alain de Benoist.
Populism is not an ideology, it is, therefore, intrinsically neither right nor left wing, but it may depending on the circumstances display elements ideological considered to be of the right or the left. As wrote Pierre-André Taguieff, who is based on an analysis of the political scientist rennes Yves Mény, in his book entitled ‘The revenge of nationalism’ (published in 2015), the populist movements appear when political parties do not respond to a strong demand for a substantial part of the people. Therefore, there may be simultaneously a populist movement of the left and another to the right, in the same country and at the same time, which do not meet the same expectations and which do not concern the same parties of the people (this is the case currently in France : Front National vs Front de gauche). These movements did not necessarily merge them, nor even to unite. One can even assert safely, that the mélenchonistes and lepénistes only contribute ever so much what separates them is insurmountable (the ‘nationisme’ of the FN and its rejection of immigration are cost-prohibitive for the mélenchonistes globalists).
The fact that there are still liberal right, while the left social-democrat, becomes very quickly a liberal, does not prove that there are deletion of the cleavage left/right because a large redial policy is in progress and that at the end of the latter, the liberals will be left again as was seen Guillaume Bernard.As to the argument that advance Alain de Benoist on the theme of identity that would be both a theme of the left, and a theme of straight, because there would be ‘identity’ of the right and of the multi-culturalistes to the left, it seems to me biased.In effect, the “identity” plead in favour of the maintenance of national identities, while on the left the western use multiculturalism to destroy these identities in émiettant cultural communities, national and requiring of the native that they adapt to the cultures imported, as are the liberals to canadians denounced by Mathieu Bock-Côté.Not only the multiculturalism of the left and contemporary “identitarisme” have nothing in common, but they oppose frontally, and their opposition is a key element of the new political divide in the course of training.
Liberalism returns to where it came : to the left
In his book on The left the French, Jacques Julliard has written : ‘What this long journey of two and a half centuries has shown us, it is that the left, the party of the individual in the face of the primacy of the collective, which was the prerogative of the right, the left made the Revolution French in the name of individual rights, political rights, economic, social, this left has become a collectivist in the middle of the Nineteenth century because of the imperative of the defence of the social rights of the working classes in the face of selfishness ferocious of the owners of capital, is now returned, without always say it or even knowing it, to his origins :it is now the party of the individual’’. And he adds : ‘The question that occurs to us, at the end of this course, is to know if the chiasm anthropological the middle of the Nineteenth century is not coming to an end ;if the right, scared of progress, arrogant of modern individualism, is not in the process of converting to the primacy of collective values, while the left, led by the movement’s tumultuous society, is not doing the opposite movement, and to substitute the socialist program of the 1890s, became obsolete, a new step towards the liberation of the individual from the constraints of legal and sociological, which weighed on him’. What is happening at this time around the nomination of Macron -Valls is on the same line of social-liberal than the last – seems to indicate that the left become largely liberal seeks to overcome the socialist heritage (which is no longer worn by only rare intellectuals) by returning to the fundamentals of 1789 : individualism, the cult of progress and of reason, ideology of human rights, economic liberalism. Guillaume Bernard did the same analysis in his recent book The war on the right will take place, in which he wrote that, contrary to what think Alain de Benoist, socialism (one of the first thinkers socialists) can only be one recourse in the face of liberalism : ‘All the ambiguity of socialism, lies there : he intends to build a society in opposition to liberalism, while relying on the same principles (the rights attributes which all men have equally because of their identity of nature, and that they could put together to build the social order and the public power)… therefore, basing the political debate on an opposition between socialism and liberalism is false. Between them, the difference is more of degree than of nature.Both are based on the same assumption that modern social contract : there is no social body that by adding individuals. The first considers that the company should prevail over the latter, since the whole is greater than each of the parties ; the second affirms the priority of individuals because, without their agreement, there would be no society’.