Hyrum and Verlan Lewis: Stop Buying the 'Left v. Right' Myth

Political scientists Hyrum and Verlan Lewis discuss the 2024 election and the power of self-narratives in American politics.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Hyrum and Verlan Lewis: Stop Buying the 'Left v. Right' Myth

HD Video Download

In the wake of massive victories by Donald Trump and Republicans, here's a question worth asking: What does today's GOP really stand for? Longstanding support for free trade and overseas wars seems to have been replaced with tariffs and non-interventionism.

Hyrum Lewis and Verlan Lewis are the authors of The Myth of Left and Right. They argue that the way we talk about the political spectrum misleads and confuses us because it reduces complex special-interest coalitions to one or two issues that really aren't representative of what the parties actually stand for. As a result, they say that the next four years will be as fractious within the GOP (and the Democratic Party too) as the last four.

Today's Sponsor:

• ZBiotics. ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by Ph.D. scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Make ZBiotics your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Get 15 percent off by going to ZBiotics/TRI and using the code TRI at checkout.

• Video Editor: Ian Keyser

Comments

[Chumby]

Which sock puppet account is Nick’s? We have seen these words before.

[Social Justice is neither]

Probably not. I'm assuming the staff socks are all contained in little grey boxes.

[Rob Misek]

We don’t need buggy whips or politics either.

You’ll never find a government that “stands for” everything you want. Neither will anyone else.

The best we can hope for is a government that serves and manages the civilization democratically, is intelligent and honest.

We have the technology to converse with and solicit democratic choices on all issues from all people online. We don’t need politicians or political parties.

I wrote a paper on it, technological democracy, over 40 years ago when the internet was first emerging.

Connect the dots already.

[MWAocdoc]

I don't want a simple majority of the moment to decide what the majority can impose on me. I want unbreakable rules to LIMIT what anyone else can impose on me. The only thing I care about once the limitations on what people can impose on me are carved in stone is whether I have the right and the means to defend myself when someone tries to violate those limitations.

[Don't look at me!]

BINARY!

[MoreFreedom]

Nyrum and Verlan have a point: the left vs. right focus, deflects the focus from authoritarian vs. libertarian, in a good cop and bad cop approach to dealing with citizens. But they miss the cause, which is reflected in Duverger's Law, which says having election winners by plurality (with single-member districts, or similarly with the presidential race) leads to a two party system.

The solution is going to IRV, RCV or Approval voting: voting systems which achieve a winner by majority with many candidates and voters only making one trip to the voting location. With these systems, we don't need parties or party primaries. And the political class is doing its best to disparage such voting systems, by putting in poison pills such as "Top 4 RCV" where the party still picks the candidates via the "Top 4" voting round, and voters have to go to the polls twice. Without political parties choosing their candidates, there's no need or value from them. And they'll have no control over their members in Congress.

[Don't look at me!]

That is not a solution.

[CE]

People just game the ranked choice voting to make sure the second place party gets down-voted. And states with "top two" primaries effectively crush third party chances to even be noticed.

[Roberta]

“Top two” primaries? I’ve never heard of those. All I know is, IRV is supposed to eliminate the “wasted vote” and “spoiler” problems minor candidates have, especially if primaries are taken out of the election apparatus entirely.

[Rick James]

“Top two” primaries? I’ve never heard of those.

How does ranked choice voting work with Washington's Top Two Primary System?

After going through rounds of tabulation and eliminating those with the fewest votes, the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes will move onto the November General Election.

There you go.

[Roberta]

This municipality's election scheme is just ridiculous. How does each party get to put two candidates on the general election ballot, instead of nominating one? So this doesn't reflect badly on any sort of ranked voting, it's just that they're using it as a goofy way to let parties have double the nominees for an office.

[Chumby]

The RCV here is in error mode since the vote is so close they now need to check the ballots that had a blank first entry for congressman and the ballots that had a write-in for congressman to see if they later picked one of the two that barely fell below 50%.
A runoff would have been cleaner.

[MWAocdoc]

"This is not a solution," because it does not lead to proportional representation in legislatures at any level of government. Although there is nothing wrong per se with ranked choice voting, it will only break up the two-party system if it occurs in the context of at-large, statewide balloting with ALL candidates of ALL parties and independents competing equally for the first-ranked votes. This would almost inevitably lead to multi-party state legislatures and Congress with something approaching proportional representation.

[Azathoth!!]

Nyrum and Verlan have a point:

They don't.

the left vs. right focus, deflects the focus from authoritarian vs. libertarian,

The left v right focus IS the authoritarian v libertarian focus.
It is the collectivist v individualist focus
The communal economics v the free market focus

Because that is the focus, and it's binary in this-- we value the structure or the individual minds that create, maintain, and use the structure.

The answer is simple and obvious --but we fight endlessly over it because those who seek to venerate the structure-- to venerate things over people-- always guise what they want in the language of people because being honest would have the populace coming for them with torches and pitchforks.

And those who moan about the pitfalls of the two-party system venerate the structure over the people.

[MWAocdoc]

The only thing simple here is your position. The right-left axis is about what the end-state is that the authoritarians want the authority to impose on us – usually a fascist socioeconomic system versus a state owned and operated socioeconomic system. The authoritarian axis is about how limited the authority of the left or the right is in trying to inflict their rules on us.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

SImply unworkable and silly. None of my neighbors would accept such trash as you propose. You cannot subject innate rights to some complex ranked-voting nonsense.
And a basic history lesson for you
1) The Founders had not just one majority but many eg To overturn a presidential veto takes 2/3
2)Mojoritarian rule was in existence BEFORE parties were. You will recall that Edmund Burke contradicts you. Parties are good because they moderat the Strong Man-Ideolog approach that dominates otherwise.
3) the Founders DID oppose Tyranny of the Majority, which is kept in check by the Principles of the Founding : " He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. " [Lincoln to Douglas in the 7th Debate ]

[mtrueman]

"What does today's GOP really stand for? "

There's no widely accepted word for it yet. The Democrats stood for Liberalism. That's how they got the support of the Cheneys and dozens of other notable Republicans. The Republicans ran on an anti-Liberal platform. Maybe call it nativism, nationalism, juche (emphasis on self-reliance, national sovereignty, and loyalty to the leader), or neo fascism. The new dynamic is not so much left vs right for the moment anyway.

[Don't look at me!]

Does it matter? They won.

[mtrueman]

"Does it matter?"

Only if you are concerned with preserving the Western/Liberal hegemony that's been in place since WWII. Putin, Hamas, Netanyahu and Trump can't be slotted easily into a left/right framework and all share this rejection of the Liberal order.

[Don't look at me!]

Nothing stays the same forever.

[mtrueman]

This doesn't stop conservatives and reactionaries from attempting to recapture the past. MAGA is a good example.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

You sound like Patrick Deneen on a bad trip 🙂

You are the one rejecting the true hegemony !!!

From Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 8 May 1825
" this was the object of the Declaration of Independance. not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject; [. . .] terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independant stand we [. . .] compelled to take. neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the american mind"

[Marshal]

The Democrats stood for Liberalism, for example, opposing free speech.

Hmmm, this assertion doesn't match reality particularly well when we ignore the branding and focus on specifics. In reality Dems haven't supported liberalism in decades.

Democrats stand for complete government control and petty authoritarianism by busybodies well funded with our own money.

[mtrueman]

"The Democrats stood for Liberalism, for example, opposing free speech."

It was Trump who railed against the press at every chance he got, calling them the enemy of the people. Democrats never made attacks on the press part of their campaign. Democrats also were supportive of immigrants and free trade, as one would expect of a Liberal party.

[Marshal]

It was Trump who railed against the press at every chance he got,

If you think criticizing the press is opposing free speech it's no wonder you think Democrats support liberalism since you have no clue what it is.

Democrats never made attacks on the press part of their campaign.

This is a lie. Democrats attack Fox not just on a right or wrong basis but to delegitimize them and have done so for decades. This is just another left winger who believes Trump adopting the left's tactics is wrong but fully supports the Dems doing it in the first place.

In reality Democrats imposed censorship directly and indirectly through business proxies.

[mtrueman]

"If you think criticizing the press is opposing free speech it’s no wonder you think Democrats support liberalism since you have no clue what it is."

Branding the press as enemies of the people goes far beyond criticism. Democrat support of Liberalism is not complete and not without its blind spots. It was, however, enough to lose them the election.

[mtrueman]

"Democrats attack Fox not just on a right or wrong basis but to delegitimize them and have done so for decades."

The only consequential attack on FOX I remember was the court (not Democrat) case that cost them billions of dollars for defaming a private company. Slander and liable are not typically considered 'free speech.'

[Ronsch]

Your concern is selective. Roberts who chaired the development of Project 2025 this afternoon kicked a Guardian reporter out of a press conference telling him to "go to hell". In his campaign, Trump is threatening to put reporters in jail. That would be more than just complaining.

[KaDaSha]

EXACTLY, projection and hypocrisy as usual from Trump. He is not the answer to our issues and the ONLY way some things will get done is for Republicans to work with the Democrats. There is simply no way around it in some instances. In order to improve immigration so that it is a net benefit, they have to work together to shore up what they already have! Plugging up or remaining in Mexico ain't fixing shit. Also, kicking out law abiding, working people is a waste of money. They are here...force or let them out of the shadows. I see Fux Entertainment as, well, not news. I think cable news has destroyed the brains of 2 generations.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

All false...
Unless you assume (and you must ) that drug dealers, criminals, and foreign terrorists never come in amongst the good folks, there is support of immigrants by just letting everybody in.

Wrong too about 'against the press"....do you live in the jungle?
Zuckerberg regrets bowing to Biden 'pressure' over Covid
That means actual deaths due to pressuring the press

[Super Scary]

"That’s how they got the support of the Cheneys and dozens of other notable Republicans. "

And that worked out so well for them.

[mtrueman]

"And that worked out so well for them."

It didn't work out for them. Americans rejected Liberalism. Not all that different from the Russians, Israelis, or Palestinians.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

“The Democrats stood for Liberalism. That’s how they got the support of the Cheneys and dozens of other notable Republicans.”

Oh look, it’s fucking opposite day at the misconstrueman household again.

“The Cheney’s are liBeRaL but watch out for Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
Sure we performed mass censorship, political prosecutions of dissidents, kangaroo courts, illegally spied on political opponents and tried to disenfranchise them using crooked judges, but they’re the real fascists”

Absolutely retarded.

[mtrueman]

"The Cheney’s are liBeRaL"

The Cheneys are neo Liberal as is a large section of the Republicans (the never Trumpers), most Democrats, and Libertarians. Trump and his followers are anti-Liberal or opportunists.

[MWAocdoc]

Classic liberalism is long gone. The Democrats now stand for socialism (state owned and operated means of production, with or without minor low level private property) and the Republicans now stand for a fascist xenophobic religious social structure and a protectionist big beautiful wall economy.

[mtrueman]

"The Democrats now stand for socialism"

Some of them are. The rest, like Harris, Biden or Obama are corporate stooges with no interest in confronting corporate America. Did Harris campaign on bringing socialized health insurance to America? No, but we like to pretend she did out of partisanship, just as we like to pretend that Biden and Harris hate Jews and are busy seeing to it that Hamas wins.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

NO pretending , my clueless writer-without-facts :

JERUSALEM POST
On fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel, Trump beats Harris by a mile - opinion
With fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel, Trump was the best president in history while Harris, if elected, undoubtedly would be the worst. The difference is that stark.
By DAVID FRIEDMAN
OCTOBER 27, 2024 17:07

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

You sound like Patrick Deneen on a bad trip 🙂

You are the one rejecting the true hegemony !!!

From Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 8 May 1825
" this was the object of the Declaration of Independance. not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject; [. . .] terms so plain and firm, as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independant stand we [. . .] compelled to take. neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the american mind"

[TJJ2000]

Or maybe Republicans are still for Free-Trade but so long as Democrats KEEP SPENDING $ there has to be Taxes on both Importers and Domestic Manufacturers not some BS Libertarian (favoritism) idea that Importers don't need to pay any tax and domestic needs to pick up the entire bill.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Yet at base it is totally binary as Lincoln said often

" He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong"

I know folks that LOATHE Trump, Democrats, but that is their entire approach
Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising
Democrats for Life

Go back to slavery and bigamy. PURE BINARY.
Is it a self-evident truth that all men are created equal ?
Anyway, in my lifetime THIS rarely happens but it did :
"Democrats for Life wins 97% of endorsed elections in rebuke to party’s abortion stance"

Even as a child one notices arguments that end in 'just because"
FIrst Principles are entirely binary.
Are you taking the life of a human in an abortion? Yes or No

[TJJ2000]

"Are you taking the life of a human in an abortion? Yes or No"

Pre-Viable: No. There is no ‘life’ there. Life rights are *inherent*.

Post-Viable: You don’t have to if anyone cared to actually address the statement of concern and legislate the stab out-of the procedure.

[LIBtranslator]

Totalitarianizing is also applied to buzzes. When China boycotted US goods in 1905 to demand laws against poppy dope, Republicans seen their chance to declare cocaine a narcotic like beer, opium or morphine--but not coffee or tobacco. Europeans seen their chance to declare hemp a "narcotic" so they could charge more for opium and derive excise revenue from that and gin. The fact that someone has to kill people to collect these taxes and put fangs into those sumptuary laws is blanked out entirely by "pro-life" mystics.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Pure stupidity, that is.
That you put poppy dope on a par with coffee and tobacco makes you the contempt of every neighbor I know and all my co-workers.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

IN logic you are taught to analyse something at the appropriate level. So in a moral argument though it is true that you should "Do good and avoid evil" that isn't helpful at all as the answer to most questions.
Now what these 2 are discussing was rightly analyzed by Salena Zito, who said

“The Great Revolt Survey found that the one demographic group among Rust Belt Trump voters most likely to agree with the notion that “every American has a fundamental right to self-defense and a right to choose the home defense firearm that is best for them” is women under age forty-five.”

“The motivation for the nationalism of today’s populists is a lot closer to the so-called locavore impulse of the shoppers at Whole Foods, the upscale chain of organic grocery stores, than to the dictators of the Second and Third Worlds.”

“ABC News calculated that Clinton made just seven visits to Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan combined, while Trump came to those three states eighteen times—becoming the first Republican to carry all three of the Midwestern battlegrounds in the same election since 1984.”

“As coverage of Trump has become more hyperbolic and more antagonistic, it only stands to reason that voters—even mild-mannered Methodist matrons like Tedrow—could pass lasting judgment on the news networks, just as they checked out on the Republican Party establishment and then Hillary Clinton. If the Trump coalition broke two large institutions in American life, it’s not a stretch to imagine it breaking another.”