I have an article in this term’s Berry:
When people think ‘BNP’, they think ‘right-wing’. Whenever the BNP is heard on the television or written in a newspaper, it is inevitably accompanied by the words ‘the far-right party’. Why is this a problem? Of course the BNP is right-wing. Nationalism is right-wing, and so the BNP is right-wing. This is, however, illogical. The term ‘right-wing’ is loaded with so many contradictory political positions and ideas that it is wrong to characterise the BNP as a right-wing party. Rather, the example of the BNP should demonstrate to us that it is time to move on from the old left-/right-wing dichotomy in favour of a new means of political division.
If we look at the political division along economic lines, we all know that free markets are right, and protectionism is left. By this definition, the BNP is avowedly left. It adheres to a socialist economic policy to nationalise state industries, gain full employment for British citizens, and significantly redistribute wealth. These are all positions commonly believed to be on the left. And, more interestingly, they are all nationalistic in skew. Indeed, the nature of free market economics is such that, logically, this economic system is most compatible with internationalism, a political ideology monopolised by the left.
This is designed to illustrate the huge problems we encounter when we define political parties solely in terms of left and right. The privilege we give to labels rather than to definitions means that we misclassify certain positions. Ultimately, we use the terms left- or right-wing inaccurately, and therefore make them redundant. Because the BNP calls itself the British Nationalist Party, the media have automatically defined the party as right-wing, even when, on closer inspection, there are significant exceptions to be made with regards to this label. Instead of looking into the substance of BNP policy, the mere use of the term ‘nationalist’ is enough to make it right-wing.
Indeed, it is interesting to speculate on the extent to which the BNP is actually right-wing socially. The intellectual foundations of free market economics is liberty, and liberty in the (albeit simplistic) sense that one should be able to do anything as long as it does not cause harm to another person. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that someone who is truly right-wing will be as against social conservatism as anyone who, on such social issues, defines themselves as left-wing.
It is undeniable that the BNP wishes to introduce legislation to discriminate against non-Britons, homosexuals, and, to a lesser extent, women. But, in the same way, it is those who define themselves as left-wing who wish to introduce similar discriminatory laws, even though these are affixed with the term ‘positive’. Regardless of motive, the respective results of such legislation are the same: discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. As such, on social issues, by this principle, it is more accurate to describe the BNP as a party of the left.
Of course, some may argue that the motive behind policy is a significant factor in placing a party along the political spectrum. But, if this were true, and the BNP were placed firmly on the right, it would mean that anyone with political motives non-racist, non-chauvinistic, and non-prudish would have to be left-wing, regardless of policy political views. This would mean that something like libertarianism would have to be put dead centre. This will obviously not do.
This is not an attempt to demonstrate that the BNP is actually left-wing rather than right-wing. Rather it is to demonstrate the problem of using such labels. Ultimately, the ideology of the BNP is so exceptional that it has no place on the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the spectrum still deals with a range of rational political positions, as well as those developed thanks solely to bigotry. This is highly problematic.
After all, why do we include fascism and communism on the same spectrum? They were both collectivist and totalitarian, and yet are labelled as polar opposites. The description of such ideologies as left or right does not tell us anything about the substance of fascism and communism; it merely seeks to discredit alternative legitimate political positions like socialism and libertarianism that are described using the same language.
Unfortunately, the left-/right-wing dichotomy has such a hold over our political discourse that it is almost impossible to abandon it. But abandon it we must. Otherwise, we shall remain enslaved to the emptiness of the language employed in the political spectrum. People have forgotten the definition of words like ‘oblivious’. Most now seem to think it means unaware, but ‘oblivious’ actually means that you once knew someone, and now you do not. In the same way, people now use the term ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ often to define anything other than what they actually mean in terms of rational political choices. It is time for definitions rather than words to reassert themselves.
Peter Lilley and Edward Leigh did a great job of standing up for Mrs Thatcher. Our own James Winfield Arthur Edward Sharpe III was in the chair, quite beautifully.
ifficulties, writing notes to them at times of trouble and showing great courtesy. She would always ask what could the UK do to help whenever she heard of a tragedy anywhere in the world. She was the best boss I ever worked for.
