Though I thought it had died, I see that the absurd theory that Nazism and fascism are "on the right" has reared its ugly head once more. In some ways it is an easy theory to refute, one need only look at the political composition of the Nazi party, or the name itself ("German Worker's National Socialist Party"). On the other hand, it can be troublesome, as the whole notion of a "political spectrum" is so fluid that it provides evidence for event he most absurd claims.

The problem is that "right" and "left" were developed to describe French politics of the early Revolution, was adopted by a British government whose philosophical debates could fit it only by analogy, was then imported to a US, where the parties were an even worse fit, and then survived two dramatic changes of political philosophy which left the terms not only reversed, but nonsensically so, at least after the changes of the FDR administration.And to make matters worse, the same terminology continued to be used by European governments, but int heir original sense, which left an apparent affinity between the completely unrelated European "right" and the American "right". In recent years European usage has come to more closely mirror that of the US, but for quite some time, especially the mid-20th century, the "right" in Europe had little to do with the "right" in America, especially not the new definition of "right" that was just then emerging in the US.

The one consistent factor is that the right is defined as "conservative", while the left is "liberal". But there one can see the problem in a nutshell. In 19th century Europe and America, "liberal" was what one would today call "libertarian", a position in favor of free and unfettered markets, small, local government, and rigid restrictions on political power.Granted, even at the time of the French Revolution some proto-socialists would blur the lines between political and economic power and argue that their philosophy was "liberal", but by and large those advocating such positions were not seen as liberal. Liberalism was the philosophy of Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, the Jacksonians, and the Democrat Party before the merger with Bryan's Populists.

On the other hand, "conservative" was not so well defined, at least in the US. The European conservatives at least were fighting to keep something, the privileges of the aristocracy and nobility. They were "conserving" the state as it existed prior to the democratic revolutions of the ages of enlightenment and reason. They were also the natural home of nationalists, as the arguments for aristocratic government fit well with nationalist theories. Similarly, as nationalism tended to advocate some variety of mercantilism, they ended up the home of protectionists as well.

In the US there was no aristocratic tradition to maintain, sot eh term "conservative" made little sense. What traditions the US had were entirely liberal, so there was nothing to "conserve".Likewise, there was no home for nationalists in the conservative parties, as support for slavery, and later Jim Crow, was in the Democrat party*. So we were left in the US with a "conservative" position which had only the most tenuous connection to "conservatives" in Europe, that being an attachment to protectionism and inflationary "soft money" policies. Later, once the non-southern Democrats began to embrace immigrants they did develop a nationalist, anti-immigrant policy, and an elitist philosophy arguing the need to control the impulses fo working men through prohibition and other public morals laws, but, by and large, our conservatives had little to do, philosophically, with the European version.

Between 1890 and the 1930's this became even more obvious, as the Democrat party merged with the Populist Party and the definition of "liberal" imperceptibly changed from meaning one favoring small government to one favoring socially active government. As the Republicans of the same time were captured by the "reform" wing, and launched their own campaign against monopolies, "big business" and similar targets, there was little to distinguish left and right at the time. We need only look at the responses of Hoover and FDR to the depression to see this, as both tried the same things, differing only in scope. In fact, for this period the only real distinction was that the conservative largely supported prohibition and disliked immigrants, while only southern Democrats did among the liberals.

It was with FDR's redesign of the American political system that the modern meaning of liberal and conservative began to arise, though it would not really begin to take shape for another 20 years. Unlike past definitions, "conservatives" do not wish to retain the existing government, but rather to return tot he older state, in other words, the conservatives now fight for what was once "liberal", smaller government and free markets. Liberals, on the other hand, are the group now supporting the status quo, or, when they deviate from it, fighting for even more government and markets with less freedom. In other words, the right and left of today have nothing to do with the right and left as they were originally created.

To make matters worse, the term "right" is not used consistently. Besides the libertarian and federalist proponents of free markets and small government, the term "right" has been attached to many other groups, with definitions which are often incompatible. For example, some remnants of the old Republican party, the "paleo-cons" who fight for protectionism, coercive moral laws, and other positions that would seem familiar to a 19th century Republican, are often called "right" as well, as are the "social conservatives" who do not want protectionism, but often argue for intrusive government, at least in terms of public morals. This is confused even more by the existence of almost identical beliefs "on the left" in the form of calls for "Politically Correct" censorship, restrictions on "globalization", union protectionist policies, and many other duplications of positions some claim are "right wing".
 
Not even traditional "conservative" positions, in the European sense are obviously divided. If one includes the paleo-cons in the right, the right does have some nationalists and an elitist interest in reining in "the common man's worst impulses", which were common to both 19th century conservatives here and 20th century conservatives in Europe. But he same philosophy exists "on the left", home of black and Hispanic nationalist, as well as many "nanny state" regulations, which seek to rein in all manner of "destructive impulses". If anything, elitism is more pronounced on the left, which often argues that we can't care for ourselves and need the state to do so.

And so you can see the problem. Were we to retain the 19th century definition, yes, it would be clear Nazis and Fascist were "on the right", but most Republicans of today would be on the left, and most liberals would be on a different branch of the right. Or, in the alternative, if we define the right as the small government, free market philosophy to which most of us subscribe, then it is obvious Fascism and Nazism have more to do with the left than the right. But as people insist on putting authoritarian philosophies such as that of the paleo-cons "on the right", we have a spectrum which is effectively meaningless. As I argued**, Pat Buchanan and Barack Obama's platform when he ran have almost no differences, yet one is left and one right. How can a spectrum which produces that result be meaningful in any sense?

I suppose we could try to salvage the political spectrum by redefining it, but what would be the point? Any redefinition would result in some who think themselves "right wing" being classed otherwise, so they would not recognize it. Similarly, as it would remove a confusion useful to many political arguments (when you can tar free market proponents by association with Pat Buchanan, why would you surrender such a tool?), many others would reject it as well. So any effort is doomed to failure.

Better we just forget all about the "spectrum". It is meaningless, and was always less useful than we imagined, and it is not getting any better. Just as the libertarian/Objectivist effort to restore the original definition of "liberal" has been a laughable failure, any efforts at restructuring the spectrum will fail, and without restructuring it is pointless, so best we just forget the spectrum, forget "right" and "left" and just define ourselves as "federalists" or "libertarians", or maybe "constitutionalists", and forget even the rather meaningless "conservative" tag.

In the long run, it will save us a lot of confusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Partly this is due to the states' rights position of the liberals, which argued in favor of allowing local decisions regarding race and slavery, but more it had to do with the dangers protectionism posed to southern agriculture, which relied on foreign commerce. Thus, economic accident more than strict philosophy kept the south Democrat and prevented nationalism form becoming the philosophy of conservative parties prior to the 20th century.

** I don't go into this point in great detail, but some of it can be read in "A Question for "Paelo-Conservatives"", "Deja Vu", "STOP BIG PORCELAIN NOW!" and "Right On One Issue Is Not Enough". I made the same argument in more detail in comments on various articles by the professional pundits, but I can't find those arguments at the moment. You can also see how much he has in common with many on the left by how often his position tracks with those denouncing the "neocons", many of who (though not all) are on the left. See "A Question to Defenders of Russia" and "Pat Buchanan Becomes Putin's Lord Haw Haw?" for examples.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

There have been proposals that we use a set of political spectra, each addressing one aspect of  politics (freedom, militarism, economics, etc.). This was even incorporated into the World War II strategy game Hearts of Iron II, where one's philosophy is shown as points on 8 different spectra. However I think this Minnesota Multiphasic approach to political science would in the end prove too confusing. The right/left division is popular because it is simple, anything more complex will just not be popular. And if it is not used popularly, then there is no point. The only reason to simplify political questions is to allow one more easily to identify politically sympathetic individuals. If people do not use this new set of spectra that way, then it is pointless, as why simplify in contexts where one could provide a more thorough description of one's political philosophy. So, the multiple spectrum approach just won't work. It is too complex for popular use, but too simplistic for formal use, which means it has no setting it can call home, making it pointless.

Well, except for strategic war simulations, where it does quite well.

POSTSCRIPT II

I made some of this argument before, notably in "Those Darn Jews" and "Amusing "Truths"", where I argued against the "Nazism is right wing" belief. Some of the historical bit also appeared in "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play".

POSTSCRIPT III

I am sure some social conservatives and paleo-cons will take exception to my description of them, but I have to ask, if you argue for protectionism and bigger government, what exactly is "conservatism"? If it is not fighting for smaller government within strict limits, then what distinguishes conservatives from liberals? That we would control X while they would control Y? Then who argues for freedom? I am sorry, I know it will upset some who read this, but in their belief in protectionism, censorship, prohibitions of "immoral" acts, many nominally conservative groups show themselves as allies of the left, not enemies. Once you admit government has the power to restrict our choices "for our own good", you have given the left all it needs. And once you admit the left's arguments you have given the stamp of approval to any government program at all, effectively opening the door to omnipotent government. See "The Citizen Dichotomy", "Man's Nature and Government", "Inescapable Logic", "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases" and "In A Nutshell".