Talk:Left–right political spectrum

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020
"PLEASE CHANGE,"Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". TO "Those on the Left often called themselves "Leftist", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives"." 173.94.253.2 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please read the section again. This concerns historical usage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And the article concerns itself with global usage, not solely American political application.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact the "left" in the U.S. originally called themselves Republicans c. 1793. They did not call themselves leftists because that term would not come into use until the 20th century. TFD (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Liberals as leftists? Really?
Apparently social liberals fall on the left side of the spectrum in this article, yet nowadays certainly they do not. This should be amended — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.73.98 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources to support your contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the left-right political spectrum has lost all meaning, when the president of the United States can describe meek, mild-mannered Joe Biden as an "extreme leftist". Today, those on the right describe anyone who is not 100% loyal personally to Donald Trump as an "extreme leftist". When politics becomes a personality cult, ideas are essentially off the table for discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If the terms were entirely meaningless you wouldn't refer to "those on the right." In the two party system, Americans have always described their opponents in extreme terms: Jefferson was called a Jacobin; Hamilton, a royalist, as if the U.S. was revolutionary France. In reality their difference bore more similarities to the whig/radical division in Great Britain. Trump's attempt to portray Biden as a leftist failed because it didn't persuade anyone outside his most fanatical followers. TFD (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Republican vs conservative
changed the word republicans to progressives in the following sentence: "Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives"." The sentence is sourced to Gauchet's article, "Right and Left," p. 257, where he discusses the origin of the terms. The sentence is describing the use of terminology in France at the beginning of the 20th century. The main left-right division at the time was between conservatives who wanted to return to monarchy and republicans who did not. The republicans literally sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

I had reverted this originally noting, "The term progressive was only used in the U.S. at the time and referred to people on the left and right." Beyond My Ken reverted me with "Nor true."

In fact List of presidents of France shows that may of them called themselves republicans and none called themselves progressives. If there are sources that say they did not call themselves republicans, but called themselves progressives, then it should be provided before the text is changed.

TFD (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in that I did not change the word, another editor did. I simply restored it after you reverted.  More recently, I removed the sentence completely, as it was too confusing, and too specific to the time period, which is not the primary focus of the article.  It is much too easy for the reader to think that terms like "Republican" refer to the current time, and not to the French revolution. It should be possible to elucidate the history of the terminology without confusing the reader with old terms which mean something completely different in the current world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that they called themselves by the same word as used now does not at all mean that they called themselves the same thing, which is the errant meaning that the sentence communicates.  It would have to be significantly re-written to be accurate and not confusing, and there's not point in that, as it's simply a passing statement in a section about the history of the "left/right" concept, and not at all relevant to the overall topic.  The article is better without it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is part of the history of the left-right distinction that the initial division in France (and other countries) was between monarchists and republicans. This division lasted throughout the nineteenth century after which socialism replaced republicanism on the left. The term republican means someone who supports a republic even today. Hence there is Republicanism in the United Kingdom, Republicanism in Australia, etc. If you don't like the way it is worded then suggest a different term.
 * Incidentally, you didn't just restore after I reverted, you restored a revert by an IP. The wording I reverted to has been in the article for years.
 * See the Merriam-Webster definition of republican: "one that favors or supports a republican form of government." They define republic as "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president." "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." What do you think it means?
 * TFD (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The word “wing”
The article seems to missing sources for the expression “left wing” or “right wing”. After the February 1917 revolution in Russia, the Duma met in the right wing of the Tauride Palace in Petrograd and the Soviet met in the left wing. Anyone know of the use of ‘wing’ before 1917? Oliver Low (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any sources for "wing," but Carlyle in his 1837 book used the terms left and right sides to describe seating in the National Assembly. You would need a source that the term wing came from somewhere else, although it would be interesting to know when that happened. It could well have come from Lenin's "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920), although he got the terms left and right from France. TFD (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification of sitting positions
Upon consulting source number 6, Bobbio, Norberto (2016). Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. John Wiley & Sons. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-5095-1412-0 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#cite_note-Bobbio2016-6), I could not find any reference to sitting positions. This is, however, a well known fact, so if someone has a proper source there would be no need to remove that piece of information.

I do however have the following French sources, from the Larousse French dictionary's website, https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/droite/44839 and https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/gauche/54713, but it would be nicer to have an English source.

Shine Couture (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated the link(s). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Updates to the concept of Liberalism
You might consider decoupling the terms "freedom", "anti-authoritarian", and "egalitarian" from the terms "left wing" and "liberal". Increasingly, left politics embraces limiting freedoms (such as the freedom of speech), assigning rights and privileges based on ethnic groupings (increasing or decreasing the value of individuals based on skin color), and allocating strong authority to their notions of intellectually superior classes (educators, social scientists, lawyers, atheists). 2600:1700:BA0:3730:1CFA:94D2:13C5:CB3F (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Liberalism has always posted limits on freedoms including slavery and segregation in your state. TFD (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggested source
— V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 05:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article. While your source cites Gauchet, he is already used as a source. TFD (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ambrose Bierce's characterization
I have restored Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary's characterization of the left-right contrast. User Dronebogus reverted it on the grounds of being neither notable nor neutral. I hold that it is notable because it is one of the most famous entries in Bierce's famous Dictionary. More importantly, it is both neutral and relevant to the immediately preceding apt and neutral characterization (party of movement vs party of order) because it expresses in a neutral fashion each side's fundamental critique of the other. Leftists argue that existing institutions need reform because they are seriously harmful and unjust, and rightists argue that the reforms proposed by the leftists, if implemented, would have side effects worse than than the disease they are attempting to cure. Because these positions concern the result of an unperformed experiment (implementing the reforms) neither side can convince the other.

As the article notes in other places, the term liberal (more so than conservative) has diverse meanings, but it is clear that Bierce is using it in the 20'th century North American sense of left (i.e. reformist, progressive) rather than, say, economically libertarian.

Let's continue the discussion here, rather than reverting again, and if we can't agree seek additional opinions. CharlesHBennett (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Charles Bennett. The Bierce quote is both notable and neutral. I can't how anybody could think it wasn't neutral, and I find it notable. 12:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Bierce is one of the most succinct and accurate commentators of the 20th century, and his writings are about as notable as they come. As long as it's presented as Bierce's sardonic take, I think it's an admirable summary. Pithy as it is, I'm not convinced it needs a home in the lede, it is perhaps better off farther down, preferably with a reference from a discussion of Bierce's writings.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not neutral because it just says “both sides are stupid”. Saying it’s meant to refer to both sides’ opinions is WP:OR. I’m not sure if Bierce is really a political scholar either. I’m not denying he’s notable, but that doesn’t make his take on literally anything notable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought of that too, but decided to put in the lede because it was so concise (therefore not unduly bloating the lede), and because it extended the previous sentence on movement (i.e. change) vs order. Together they cast the left-right duality in an NPOV, "presume good faith" light as complementary and not completely reconcilable visions of how to achieve a good society, rather than, as typically happens in political campaigns, rather than a way of accusing the other side of selfishly attempting to grab power so as to abuse public trust. Thus I think the Bierce characterization is better where I put it. CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed though it's clearly satiric, it's less cynical than some of the Dictionary's other entries, e.g. for Marriage or Cannon. It accurately states what the Left believes is wrong with the Right and vice versa. CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * to say 'It’s not neutral because it just says “both sides are stupid”' is not helpful. First of all Bierce does not take sides. Secondly he does not suggest stupidity, but rather different intellectual ways of judging. And "original research" means there is no published source. Rjensen (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Since Bierce did not use the terms left and right, which were not used in English at the time, it's OR to interpret them that way. We don't even know what he was referring to as "Liberal" and "Conservative." Presumably it was the British parties. Of course there is a parallel between the Tory-Liberal debates of 1906 and the modern U.S. conservative liberal ones, but we need a secondary source that makes that observation. TFD (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bierce was American, so he was probably using the terms conservative and liberal in a sense familiar to his early 20'th century American audience, as opposed to a British or Continental audience. CharlesHBennett (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Except in the early 20th century, the only sense familiar to an American audience was how the terms were used in Great Britain and the continent. The terms would not come to be applied to U.S. politics until the 1930s. TFD (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not agree. The word liberal was widely used, and Americans thought of America as a liberal country. Note that Bierce characterizes liberals as forward looking, favoring change, though with his usual cynical twist. The word conservative was also common at the time, though not with reference to any particular party. And, as Bierce notes, conservatives opposed change. Nothing particularly British about either attitude. It is true that left and right were not commonly used, though they existed. But the quote resonates with the way the words are used today. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Synthesis of published material says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." In this case, we are combining Bierce's quote with our understanding that liberal/conservative = left/right. Whether or not that is a correct interpretation is beside the point.
 * Bierce was probably referring to the parties of the UK. Note that he capitalized Liberal. A google book search for 1906-1911 shows that was its primary meaning and I could find no use of the term in describing U.S. politics, except in the sense that the U.S. constitution politics in the U.S. was liberal.
 * Bierce was actually more critical of the Left: “That there are honest, clean-minded patriotic socialists goes without saying. They are theorists and dreamers with a knowledge of life and affairs a little profounder than that of a horse but not quite so profound as that of a cow. But the "movement" as a social and political force is, in this country, born of envy, the true purpose of its activities, revenge. In the shadow of our national prosperity it whets its knife for the throats of the prosperous. It unleashes the hounds of hate upon the track of success—the only kind of success that it covets and derides.” ("The Socialist - what he is, and why," 1910, p. 46)
 * While you could say the Socialist Party of America was "far left," their sister parties have formed governments in most Western democracies and several members of their successor group, the Democratic Socialists of America are members of Congress.
 * Even if Bierce was not referring specifically to the Liberal and Conservative parties, he was referring to their ideologies, rather than the left-right distinction. Conservatives supported hereditary privilege and the established church, while liberals supported their curtailment. This incidentally came to a head the year he published the Dictionary (1911) as the Liberals stripped the power of the Lords to veto legislation and reduced the King to a figurehead.
 * You could say that what Bierce said applies to liberals also applies to socialists. They too want to replace existing evils with others. But I don't think that is what he meant.
 * Similarly, what he says about conservatives could be applied to the U.S., where the Right opposes formal royalty and aristocracy, but, like Bierce, do not want the liberal order changed. But again, that is not what he meant.
 * TFD (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)