Do "Left" and "Right" Tell the Whole Story? Ft. Verlan and Hyrum Lewis

As American politics descends into a battle of anger and hostility between two groups called "left" and "right," people increasingly ask: What is the essential difference between these two ideological groups? Co-authors Verlan and Hyrum Lewis joined American Purpose to discuss their new book, The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America, and why the notion of a political spectrum is the central political myth of our time. Moderated by Jeffrey Gedmin.
Verlan Lewis is the Stirling Professor of Constitutional Studies at Utah Valley University and a Visiting Scholar in the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University. His research, teaching, and writing focuse on how political ideas and institutions interact over time. Aside from The Myth of Left and Right, he is the author of Ideas in Power. Professor Lewis is a Jack Miller Center fellow.
Hyrum Lewis is an Associate Professor of History at Brigham Young University-Idaho. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Southern California and was previously a visiting scholar at Stanford University. Professor Lewis is a Jack Miller Center fellow.

[@CraigTalbert]

Man the autocorrects when I type ‘Hyrum’ are crazy.

[@CraigTalbert]

Re: 19:10 have heard Hyrum says this twice now-that the two parties is the best way to vote (though left and right are myths). Curious that he never explains this in detail.

[@eemoogee160]

Makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[@CraigTalbert]

@@eemoogee160 yeah, would love to hear them talk about quadratic voting or IRV. In his book he says something like first-past-the-post winner-take-all systems usually produce two parties, which is true. But we don't need to stay that way.

[@eemoogee160]

@CraigTalbert I mean, even the common parliamentarian system is clearly more "democratic".

[@CraigTalbert]

@@eemoogee160 I think about that often. It would be a much bigger change. I would settle for IRV/QV and then, say, running Greens and Libertarians aggressively in D+20ish and R+20ish areas, respectively. Could have four parties, and four "baskets." For me, it's mostly social. It's too Jedi and Sith now. If you start criticizing the Jedi, people say you sound like a Sith. if you start criticizing the Sith, people say you sound like a Jedi. Leaves you in a space where you can't be politically honest without risking being outgrouped. With four parties, this will still be possible, but won't be as automatic.

[@murderparker7968]

He seems to say this in every interview but I’ve never heard his argument for preferring a two party system.

[@stephensipe5405]

When you are an older person, you gain perspective of time. I am from the US. This perspective is often lacking in a younger person’s analysis. I believe this is true in this case. In the 1970’s, the Left/Right characterization was a news media short hand. Political Scientists never considered it valid. We broke it down: Government Control=Left Individual Control=Right Democracy=Top Authoritarianism=Bottom This would put a Sweden in the Upper Left. A Soviet Union and Communist China in the Bottom Left. The US would be near Top and Center Right. No governments but many cults would be Bottom towards the Right. It’s hard for me to imagine average people, if given the choice, would choose anything other than democracy in a fair election.

[@CraigTalbert]

What if you choose fair elections, but that the candidate you believed was the only person who could stop the cannibal pedos lost?

[@eemoogee160]

Replace individual control with oligarchy and you have the US's version of "democracy".

[@stephensipe5405]

@@eemoogee160 A comical response by someone lacking a timeline. Persons, families, and elites in the US change over 20, 50, and 100 year periods. Even within those time periods, the degree of leverage in democracy is limited by competition, divorce, inheritance squabbles, changing relative value of power/control, government regulation, and unionism. Changing tastes can also have an impact. In non-democratic societies, personalities, families, and elites rarely change. They perpetuate the same groups for stability. The ability of average people to challenge or circumvent central authority, even over time, is limited.

[@CraigTalbert]

@@stephensipe5405 you might be confusing democracy with capitalism here.

[@stephensipe5405]

@@CraigTalbert There is no capitalism as defined by Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Olsen without democracy. In fact, I could make a case that only in the US has actual Socialism/Communism been achieved if the core definition of such is a classless society. America has largely created but 1 class, the Middle Class. You have to bend reality to find permanent poverty not self induced. Every society will have some form of leadership. Only in democracies can average people determine how the pie gets cut. In Russia, in the 1970s, a loyal Communist intellectual tried to start a Communist Party 2. He did not want to change policies other than to end corruption. It took the government several weeks to figure out a way to say no to challenging their monopoly on leadership. Overtime, absolute power corrupts absolutely.