The American left is getting a bit dazed and confused too if you ask me.
You got that right. The communists and anarchists won't vote for anyone who isn't one, which limits them to carping at the viable candidates. The atheists want to make politics a holy war that will wipe out philosophies that differ from theirs, just like the evangelicals do. And then there's the moonbat conspiracy theorists, who can't talk about anything but why the aliens will be beaming us up tomorrow, so what does it matter?

The Republicans should be on shakey ground but looking at the Democrat politicians and, even more, at the bitter, impractical, divided idealogues who oppose them, a Republican is in again in 2008, and God help us all.

To Frank :You are right on Ron Paul . He is sooo... European in some respects and so boot-strap-puller-upper in healthcare,pentions and other social services.

I definitely , as a socialist Canadian prefer Kucinich proposals and I might have quit too.

William Wilberforce , Abraham Lincoln , Florence Nightingale ,Susan B. Anthony (in that order) didnèt quit though

left and right=all dazed and confused,appalled and horrified,pre and post traumatic-stressed.deafed,dumbed and blindsided.

If Johan Hari's quasi-prediction of an old fashioned brokered Republican nominating convention comes true, I put my money on a dark horse compromise candidate: General Petraeus, perhaps with Jeb Bush filling the VP slot.

Bill from Saginaw

"There is no right, and there is no left. Just big money, cronyism, incompetence, and the various mechanisms they employ to sustain that deal, and the illusion of choice."

There is a lot of truth in what you say Paul. The power of the wealthy is in cooked public relations. I do believe that their overt over confidence will cut them off at the knees this time around unless we get Diebolded. Then who knows...

Here's a simple definition of "Left" and "Right" from history:

Leftist:
One who beleives the ideal society consists of people working collectively and in solidarity as needed to promote the well-being of everyone, (and, from the mid-20th century on, the physical and ecological environment and other life forms); and, believe human behavior particularly the power and wealth of individuals should be constrained as needed pursuant to these goals. They believe individuals are obligated to be concerned for others.

Rightist:
One who believes that an individual's behavior should never be constrained for any reason whatsoever, aside from prohibiting the most clear-cut forms of murder, theft, and breach of contract (often questioning the existence of something called "society" at all). iIn particular they believe no limits should ever be placed on the wealth and power any individual can acquire - indeed, they believe that competetion in the acquisition of individual wealth and power is the highest expression of being human and any concern for others must be purely an individual decision.

Or shorter yet - if you beleive you are your borther's keeper, you are "Left", if you believe humans are better off leaving their brothers in the gutter, they are the "Right".

Of course, there are all shades of accomodation between these perspectives. But the conflict between these viewpoints that have driven politics in the global west since the mid 1700's and the globe as a whole since the late 19th century. If someone wants to make up new words for thee concept fine, but the concepts sure aren't obsolete.

The American left is getting a bit dazed and confused too if you ask me.

I agree. The Republican candidate doesn't matter, because Hillary is the chosen one.

I live in Illinois. In 2004, the Republicans ran Alan Keyes against Barack Obama. Obama won with about 90% of the vote. (As I recall).

"He (Congressman Dr. Ron Paul) would abolish..."

Last time we checked, the President does not have the power to "abolish" laws and programs at will. On the other hand, his solid Libertarian philosophy would force our so-called Reps to uphold their fiscal responsibility to the country and not their porkers and pet earmarks and corporate paymasters. Ending the "wars" on drugs and terror would save us billions, as would his vow to end the corporate rape of America. He has also vowed to restore our Constitution to it's full power, close Gitmo, disband the CIA, give States back their rights, and stop all illegal spying and info storing on innocent until proven guilty citizens.

Near anarchist?

"...a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government (the state) and support its elimination, often due to a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority. "

Not quite.

The delineations between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, autocrat and democrat are much clearer.

The authoritarian left and right share several common interests and ultimately blend into unrecognizable similarity.

Hillary Clinton is the heir apparent...that's why the republican field is split. She is the chosen one.... It's also why even though Edwards is going to win Iowa (he's hands down on second choice and tied for first) the media is barely even now giving him airtime or headlines...Hillary will win in subsequent states if the fix is still in???How many electronic voting machines have been removed?

Hari writes:"In Huckabee's hokey breast, the old-style evangelical populism of William Jennings Bryan -the perennial Democratic candidate for President at the turn of the last century - has been reborn. And, like Bryan, he is a barking theocrat."

Progressives made a HUGE mistake early in the 20th century when they made fun of their evangelical Christian allies like William Jennings Bryant. Bryant was politically progressive and he was tremendously popular with rural Americans.

The Scopes "monkey" trial was a public relations event, in which Bryant and the evangelicals were humiliated. There was nothing significant at stake in the trial - but the net result was that the progressive movement was split, with religious people alienated and ready prey for the Right.

Bashing religious and rural people is self-indulgence and political suicide. Let's not do it again.

Remember, political movements only win by making allies, and allies (by definition) are not exactly like yourself.

I Agree, Hillary Clinton would be the best possible Republican choice. I can't see that she is much of a Democrat, unless you are only comparing her to the crop of do-nothings we have in Congress. She is certainly capable of doing nothing.

Veteran, '66-68

Because of his strong religious and populist beliefs, Bryant resigned as Woodrow Wilson's vice president because W.W. entered the US into WWI.

Bryant's actual disdain for Darwinian evolutionary theory was partially in reaction to the growing popularity of Social Darwinist ideas in the U.S.

He knew Social Darwinism was an ideology produced and mass-circulated by Big Business and the Rich. It was the doctrine used by the plutocrats (and their middle-class hangers on) to rationalize neglect of the poor, the factory worker, the small farmer, craftman, and small shop owner and the US's aggressive intervention in the affairs of other nations.

The debate over Evolution is pointless. While it seems that Evangelicals hate the idea that humans are a part of nature and not "special," secular humanist also interpret Darwin's work as meaning humans are "special" hence the word "evolution."

The issue should be pride--which according to the Evangelicals is the great sin. Which it is--but they fudge it by saying humans are sinners, but still the best there is. Which is exactly what renaissance humanism preached.

Both secular humanists and spiritual humanists drink from the same koolaid. Delusional stuff. Leads to things like GMOs and global warming.

Both "left" and "right" are meaningless terms today, if not since the get-go. They are metaphorical terms whose frames of reference have long been shot to smithereens.

Government is largely a function of corporate lobbying, well-connected vendors, the m.i.c. Corporations are now international (and some have been in the past well), and have no allegiance/identity to single countries, except as sheets of paper or technicalities. Socialism for the wealthy, capitalism on the poor.

Bush's borrow and spend mentality, assaults on the first and fourth amendments particularly, assaults on the environment and science, failure to come to the decisive aid of a city in stress (New Orleans), etc. makes him neither a fiscal conservative, a patriot in the Jeffersonian sense, a conservationist in the Teddy Roosevelt sense, or an inspiring statesman.

There is no right, and there is no left. Just big money, cronyism, incompetence, and the various mechanisms they employ to sustain that deal, and the illusion of choice.

Regarding evolution: humans are apes, get over it Mike Huckabee!

William Jennings Bryant was never Woodrow Wilson's vice president.

Sorry guys!

Bryan quit his Sec. of State position in reactions to Wilson's provocative responses to the sinking of the Lusitania.

Bryan knew that Wilson was using the incident to drive the US into WWI.

"Bashing religious and rural people is self-indulgence and political suicide. Let's not do it again." Appeasing the dark agers and their bigotries surrenders the Enlightenment and betrays the young. If progress means anything, it means digging our way out of this labyrinth of superstition and finding the light as rational and humane beings.

Hi Paul.

Within the US, there has never been a large authoritarian Leftist movement or party.

The largest popular leftish or leftist movements were the Populist and IWW. Neither was authoritarian.

Huey Long's "Every Man a King" movement was a mixed Left/Right, authoritarian/non-authoritarian bag.

However, the U.S has had (and does have) large authoritarian Right-wing parties.

Authoritarian Leftist political movements usually are developmentalist or utopian agrarian (Khmer Rouge and Sendero Luminoso).
In other words, they tend to arise in impoverished Third or Second World nations during periods of war and economic depression.

Even if Leftist movements were democratic in aspiration, usually the brutal response of Western powers (i.e., the US) to a Leftist take-over of state power causes the new regime to close ranks and militarize the revolution.

When a meaningful leftist or liberal nationalist movement successfully takes power through democratic means, the consequent economic sabotage, destabilization programs and eventual intervention initiated by U.S. covert and/or military forces, usually destroys the democratic Leftist government.

Right-wing regimes usually emerge in already industrialized and developed nations. In turn, they tend to support or impose right-wing regimes on dependent Third- or Second-World nations deemed important to the First-World plutocrats.

If a Right-wing authoritarian regime dominates an underdeveloped or developing nation, it usually wasn't placed there by internal national mass movements.

Excellent analysis, especially about Romney. I read something similar on the Washington Post site about the death of Reagan Republicanism.

To Kelmer above: the term "evolution" predates Darwin, who preferred the term "natural selection."

To Opinionated: anarchists, by definition, don't vote.

Id like to think of myself as a progressive republican, an independent and agree with Paul Bramscher and frank1569, and would certainly NOT consider Ron Paul an anarchist, nor an isolationist, and think the original article is way off in those assessments (WTF?)... And the more I read the more pissed off i get... have we certainly just abandoned being human beings... Johann Hari must be kidding... and PJD

"if you beleive you are your borther's keeper, you are 'Left', if you believe humans are better off leaving their brothers in the gutter, they are the 'Right'."

- thats quite a cynical and elitist position... have we certainly just abandoned being human beings and opted for extremism in American politics?

I was going to say If there is one candidate that is worth noting its Ron Paul, but now im just upset with all this negativity, and religious non-sense. True we do need a 'jesus' (lowercase intended) party to get all the nut-jobs out of the election process so we can discuss and debate real issues facing this country like the economy, the weak dollar, our horrendous failures in the areas of foreign policy, the incessant corruption of politics by corporations/lobbyists, and above all the violation of the American taxpayer, who has almost zero representation. Until we can find a person to uphold the laws, and original intent of the founders of this once great country - we will continue to be slaves to a system that doesn't give a crap about the people (regardless of party or political inclination).

Trying this, this site for Gravel and Kucinich to be allowed in NH debates by ABC news:here

still cannot link the here although the site is there for it, CD instructions

What is all this nonsense about the very creepy Ron Paul? You want to get rid of public schools, infrastructure maintainence, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Vote for Ron Paul.

...and if you want to end of all environmental and food safety protections - vote for Ron Paul. But, please none of the derogatory adjectives - Ron Paul is just a garden-variety Ayn-Rand libertarian, a political peculiar to teh US and nowhere else.

And as far as "leaving your bother in the gutter", while I was certainly delving into a bit of hyperbole, the fate of the US poor and homeless ARE being ignored in our current economic regime. Many people DO believe that ignoring the homeless - literally stepping over them - is the correct solution to the problem. And, I can recall very clearly the supporters of Reagan, and later many of the libertarian-right, who say "The only altruist is a doormat".

And thank you Bakliriev. The "authoritarian left" label is just a red herring and a not-so subtle personal attack.

We know what kind or political economic model empowers the powerless and poor, and reigns in the rich and autocrats - it is "left" one. Only the left provides a minimum social wage in the form of public services and public spaces and security which are required for democracy to fluorish.

Mr. Bramscher, I have refrained from personal attacks until now, but you really need to get away from your fantasy-world of computer programming, park your car in suburbia, get on a bus, and join ACORN or other activist organization supporting the poor in your community.

The rabid religious right won in Iowa last night, but hopefully it will stop there. If not, we're all screwed. I and many many others are sick of the frothing at the mouth religious zealots who would have this country descend into the darkness of religious radicalism. If that's what they want, every last one of them should go to some secluded cornor of north america and thrive on their own intolerance and fanaticism and leave thinking Americans the hell alone. Let them stew on their own xenophobia and fear in their compounds while they await the rapture.

We don't want theocracy! We want democracy back, and Huckabee would take us further down the path Bush has set before us. The religious right is a dangerous cult that would like nothing more than to burn the constitution and send out the church police to patrol every street corner and round up the infidels. They do not in any way believe in religious freedom. What they believe, and don't let any of them tell you differently, is their perceived right to force their brand of religious extremism on the rest of America. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The radical right got us where we are now, do they think more of the same is going make things better? If your objective is a fascist theocracy, I suppose the answer is yes.

PJD - great posts! The difference between left and right is the difference between "we are all in this together" and "everyone for himself." And I say "himself" because the right also mostly sees white, male, conservative power-types as the norm. Anyone else is not part of "everyone" and is the "other."

This, of course, is a generalization and does not apply across the board to all rightwing ideologues. However, in attempting to describe the difference between right and left, it does present a pretty accurate picture.

On the subject of Atheism - it's amazing how many times Atheism is viewed as a religion when it's no such thing. Science is often put in the category of religion, which is just as absurd. Atheism is a lack of religion, just as a lack of belief in Santa Clause, Zeus, or Thor is a lack of religion. If anything, it's a belief that says "if there is no evidence that something exists, it makes sense to believe that this thing does not exist."

Science is a method, not a belief system, and the word "evolution" does not mean "special." It means essentially "growth and change." All things evolve. This does not imply anything special; it simply implies adaptation to changing conditions.

In any case, the American Right really is in a strange quandry. I have a friend who thinks of himself as a "conservative." At one time he was a campaigner for McGovern, but along the way, he moved further and further right. His views are the most convoluted I've ever encountered. Among his beliefs (as he has related them to me) are:

1. The American government system is broken, and there's no use in voting.
2. All politicians are corrupt. Period.
3. Big business is bad, and insurance companies are the worst.
4. The only entities in history to have offered their lives for humanity are Jesus Christ and the American soldier.
5. The government almost never gets anything right. (He loves the old Reagan quote, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" followed by gales of sarcastic laughter.)
6. How can anyone think it's not OK to do whatever it takes to get information from terrorists including torture and spying on any possible suspects.
7. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.
8. (I LOVE this one!) Medicare works, so why not extend it to all Americans instead of getting socialized medicine. (I know, I know, this does not make sense!)
9. Hillary Clinton is a European style socialist.
10. Fred Thompson is a breath of fresh air among the candidates. (This was before Huckabee joined the crowd. Now he's a Huckabee fan, even though he doesn't vote, so it's a moot point.)
11. America first. (Whatever that means.)
12. Christianity is good, but all churches are corruptions of religion and there are no good preachers. (That's a new one even for the religious right!)
13. Liberals don't know anything about history and if they did, they would become conservatives.

And here is the most hypocritical of all my friend's hypocritical, loopy background: he is a back-to-the-lander who married a woman with 9 kids. He was a teacher, but he hated teaching, so he quit his job and raised goats, which did not really support the family. So he GOT FOODSTAMPS the whole time his kids were growing up! He now lives on disability! I have no problem with either food stamps or disability, and he truly needed both - I just have a problem with a government-hating, self-proclaimed "conservative" taking advantage of the system he says can't get anything right.

The reason this guy is my friend is that, at heart, he is good, kind, loving, and generous. (Also he plays poker rather badly, so I'm willing to take his money on a regular basis.) As a liberal, I am willing to be friends with people who don't agree with me, and I am not the thought police. However, my husband and I are both nearing the end of our tolerance and will not listen to the nonsense any more.

The point of all of this is that my friend somehow seems to be the epitome of the confusion, contradictions, hypocrisy, and lack of cohesion that characterizes the Republican party and the American right. These people are most definitely not "conservative." They are radicals with a bunch of loopy notions that don't even fit together.

In my attempt to find any kind of rationality for my friend's belief system, I've finally come up with one defining factor. He believes in some nebulous American Spirit (kind of like his Christianity that believes in Christ but not organized religion) but not the manifestations of it in government. This American spirit and the accompanying Christianity are somehow embodied in the fight to overthrow Islamofascism.

Talk about weird!

PJD,

You don't know me, and so your personal attack is not only an ad hominem in general, but an inaccurate one in particular.

This is from the guy who supports nuclear (the government and m.i.c. say it's good, and anyone who opposes it is straw-manned as nimby), and won't answer the question whether he also favors a unified army-police in the name of certain "efficiencies". National socialist?

balakirev,

I agree that there's been no authoritarian left that's gained traction in the US. There has been an authoritarian center-right (Democrats) which is passed off by its detractors and the MSM as "left".

(Because of this very confusion and lack of a real spectrum in the American body politic, I submit again that it remains more sensible to analyze the current situation in terms of up/down rather than left/right.)

@ PJD

Excellent definitions:

"Leftist:
One who believes the ideal society consists of people working collectively and in solidarity as needed to promote the well-being of everyone, (and, from the mid-20th century on, the physical and ecological environment and other life forms); and, believe human behavior particularly the power and wealth of individuals should be constrained as needed pursuant to these goals. They believe individuals are obligated to be concerned for others.

Rightist:
One who believes that an individual's behavior should never be constrained for any reason whatsoever, aside from prohibiting the most clear-cut forms of murder, theft, and breach of contract (often questioning the existence of something called "society" at all). In particular they believe no limits should ever be placed on the wealth and power any individual can acquire - indeed, they believe that competition in the acquisition of individual wealth and power is the highest expression of being human and any concern for others must be purely an individual decision."

This can easily be viewed as "Socialism vs. Capitalism" definitions. Unfortunately, many people will declare themselves proudly Capitalist or Rightist oblivious to the fact that they are losers in the system they support.

@ balakirev

"Even if Leftist movements were democratic in aspiration, usually the brutal response of Western powers (i.e., the US) to a Leftist take-over of state power causes the new regime to close ranks and militarize the revolution.

When a meaningful leftist or liberal nationalist movement successfully takes power through democratic means, the consequent economic sabotage, destabilization programs and eventual intervention initiated by U.S. covert and/or military forces, usually destroys the democratic Leftist government."

Well put. Many do not know this fact and succumb to the idea that Socialism or Communism have some kind of "genetic" Authoritarian of Totalitarian defect. I always wondered how would US react to some foreign power bankrolling the opposition parties and arming, training and equipping rebel factions of it's own military.

Dom11,

Well, here's another example of how utterly useless those terms are today.

Capitalist:
One who relies on communist labor (China).

Communist:
One who relies on capitalist consumers, businesses -- even their debt is profitable.

Those old labels are demonstrably reducing themselves to mere bullshit today. Yet there remains a very clear dualism of powerful and powerless, rich and poor, top and down.

yee haw, mike huckabass rides again!

mike huckabass is adumbass

would you elect a prez who thinks chuck norris is an intellectual?

chuch norris will be sleeping in lincoln's bedroom if huckabass is elected

maybe we should call him huckabastard?

but seriously, folks, does anyone want an american president called, huckabee? and a hucka-wanna-bee who says gays are like necrophiliacs, yikes!

Ever since the Democratic Party cut off its overt support of US unions (and stopped fighting for legislation to make unionization easier and more protected against management attacks), it has gotten redefined by identity politics.

Because most Democrats now ignore unions (except when they need a few bucks during election time, it has lead to the Party being defined by the Right in cultural terms: pro-gay, pro-bussing,anti-handgun, pro-feminist, pro-minorities, anti-Christian, pro-evolutionary theory, etc.

However, the most profound issues that effect the average American's everyday life are directly related to both the overwhelming power of corporations in American society and the ever increasing inequality this overwhelming power causes.

Whether we are gay, feminist, pro-choice, and so on, this yawning inequality crushes most of us on a daily basis and it threatens to become worse in the long-term.

While we are taught by the Right (and non-union Democrats) to squabble and hate each other over various selected cultural issues, Big Business is laughing its way to the bank...and investing in euros.

When reading anything by Johann Hari, please remember that he was an overt cheerleader and apologist for the Iraq war in its early history.

I'm still a little unclear how homophobia, sexism, etc. came to be seen as "right". The left/right metaphor arose from the French parliament's layout in the late 18th century. I doubt they took stances on racism or sexism, etc.

Dial forward a century and a half. The Dixiecrats among the Democratic Party were racist segregationists (Reagan himself was once a democrat). And we've just got done saying that "right" ideals favor less government and more individual responsibility. It would seem that the the "right" hand side of the spectrum would be the side in favor of such freedoms of conduct.

I attribute this possible contradiction, among several others, to the authoritarian aspect imbedded in what passes for left and right today. Arguably the authoritarian and monied tendencies on the so-called left and right have eclipses any other ideological obligations. They're mainly reduced to offering two different means of controlling people -- as they pick their wallets. Autocrats for the plutocrats.