CONSERVATIVE

Defining Right & Left
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
There’s a great deal of semantic rubble in the
vocabulary commonly used in the Western World. But
we come to a very necessary, not universally accepted
definition—the definition of the terms “right” and
“left”.
If a workable definition existed, our task would
be superfluous. This would also be the case if we could
dispense altogether with these two magic words. They
can, however, be put to very good use and often—as
handy labels—truly simplify matters.
Right and left have been used in Western
civilization from times immemorial with certain
meanings; right (German: rechts) had a positive, left
a negative connotation. In all European languages
(including the Slavic idioms and Hungarian) right
is connected with “right” (ius), rightly, rightful, in
German gerecht (just), the Russian pravo (law), pravda
(truth), whereas in French gauche also means “awkward,
clumsy”, (in Bulgar: levitsharstvo). The Italian sinistro
can mean left, unfortunate, or calamitous. The English
sinister can mean left or dark. The Hungarian word
for “right” is jobb which also means “better”, while bal
(left) is used in composite nouns in a negative sense:
balsors is misfortune.
In Biblical language the just on the Day of
Judgment are to be on the right and the damned on
the left. Christ sits ad dexteram Patris (on the right hand
of the Father) as the Nicene Creed asserts. In Britain it
became the custom to allocate seats to the supporters
of the government on the right and to the opposition
on the left side. And when a vote is taken in the House
of Commons the “ayes” pass into the right lobby
behind the Speaker’s chair while the “noes” go to the
left lobby. They are counted by four members who
then inform the Speaker of the outcome. Thus in the
Mother of Parliaments right and left imply affirmation
or negation.
On the Continent, beginning in France, where
most parliaments have a horseshoe shape (and not rows
of benches facing each other) the most conservative
parties have been seated to the right, usually flanked
by liberals; then came the parties of the center (who
frequently held key positions in the formation of
government coalitions); then the “radicals” and finally
the Socialists, Independent Socialists, and Communists.
In Germany after World War I, unfortunately,
the National Socialists were seated on the extreme right
because to simple-minded people nationalists were
rightists, if not conservatives—a grotesque idea when
one remembers how anti-nationalistic Metternich, the
monarchical families, and Europe’s ultraconservatives
had been in the past. Nationalism, indeed, has been
a by-product of the French Revolution (no less so
than militarism). After all, nationalism (as the term
is understood in Europe, though not in America) is
identitarian, whereas patriotism is not.
In Central Europe nationalism has a purely
ethnic connotation and implies an exaggerated
enthusiasm about culture, language, folklore, ways of
life. Patriotism, on the other hand, puts emphasis on
the country. A patriot will be happy if there are many
nationalities living in his Fatherland, whose keynote
ought to be variety, not uniformity. The nationalist is
hostile toward all those who do not ethnically conform.
Thus nationalism (as understood on the Continent) is
the blood brother of racialism.
The misplacing of the Nazis in the Reichstag
has thus hardened a confusion in semantics and
logical thinking that had started some time earlier.
The Communists, the Socialists, and the Anarchists
were identified with the left, and the Fascists and the
National Socialists with the right. At the same time
one discovered a number of similarities between the
Nazis on the one side and the Communists on the
other. Thus the famous and perfectly idiotic formula
arose: “We are opposed to all extremism, be it from
the left or the right. And, anyhow, Red and Brown are
practically the same: extremes always meet”.
All this is the result of very sloppy thinking,
because extremes never meet. Extreme cold and
extreme heat, extreme distance and extreme nearness,
extreme strength and extreme weakness, extreme speed
and extreme slowness, none of them ever “meet”. They
do not become identical or even alike.
The moment one counterattacks and inquires
from the good man who just pontificated about the
meeting of extremes what precisely he understands by
right and left, he proves unable to give any coherent
analysis of these terms. Lamely he will hint that on the
extreme are the reactionaries—the Fascists, for instance.
Asked whether Mussolini’s Repubblica Sociale Italiana
was a reactionary or a leftist establishment, he will again
mumble something about those paradoxical extremes.
Certainly the left is collectivist and progressive; the
Communists are “extreme progressivists”. If he sticks
to this piece of nonsense, one should point out to him
that certain primitive African societies with a tribal
collectivism are not really so “extremely progressive”.
This is usually the moment when the conversation
expires.
The first fault with this loose reasoning lies in
the aforementioned belief that “extremes meet”; the
second in the almost total absence of clear definitions
of left and right. In other words, there is a deficiency
of logic as well as an absence of semantic clarity. Logic
stands independent of our whims, but we can provide
clear definitions.
Let us then agree that right is what is truly right
for man, above all his freedom. Because man has a
personality, because he is a riddle, a “puzzle”, a piece
of a puzzle which never completely fits into any preestablished
social or political picture, he needs “elbow-
50
Summer 2015