Political Terms "Left, "Right," "Far Left," "Authoritarian," and "Far Right" Have Been Stripped of Any Real Meaning

In 2024, They Mean What Politicians and Media Heads Say They Mean at the Moment They Say it

It’s normal for terms to morph over time. For example, “Neoliberalism” became popular in the 1930s (some say its origin goes back further). It was defined as an economic system based on free markets, free enterprise, and minimal state intervention. Nowadays, it has gained somewhat different meanings. It can be used to describe a “Democratic version of a Neocon.” Others use it to refer to a standard set of political beliefs that spans the West that almost all politicians hold nowadays. War, censorship, support of Israel, support of NATO, support for the banking and financial centers, economic austerity, and a significant crackdown on dissent. The highly respected economist

Steve Keen

gave some powerful insight into this phenomenon of the West:

“The Party in power runs Neoliberal policies; it loses the next election to rivals who, when they get in power, also run neoliberal policies. They then lose, and the cycle repeats.”

With the 2024 presidential campaign underway, a trend continues. We are not witnessing a natural evolution of terms. We are watching a deliberate misuse of language for political gain. Labels such as 'left,’ ‘right,’ authoritarian,” ‘far right,” and others are not applied based on actual political reality; they are intended to intimidate, manipulate, confuse, and deceive. They are floating designations that get plucked from the ether by greedy politicians seeking to suit their interests.

Before delving into specific examples of how these words have been used, it is crucial to understand what is behind this phenomenon.

The monikers described above are human constructs, not universal truths. Humans have an inherent need to categorize. Our nature is to place things into “buckets.” Cognitive scientist and linguist Georg Lakoff, in his famous book “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things” had this to say about categorization:

“Categorization is not a matter to be taken lightly. There is nothing more basic than the categorization to our thoughts, perceptions, actions, and speech. Every time we see something as a kind of thing, for example, a tree, we are categorizing. Whenever we reason about kinds of things—chairs, nations, illnesses, emotions, any kind of thing at all—we are employing categories.”

“Without the ability to categorize, we could not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives. An understanding of how we categorize is central to any understanding of how we think and how we function, and therefore central to an understanding of what makes us human.”

What if this natural human process of categorization is used against us? Well, it is. It’s not because politicians and media elites deeply understand cognitive science. It’s because elites have trained the population to be triggered by such terms. That’s why we commonly hear people compared to Hitler and other classifications like “fascism,” “communism,” or “Russian disinformation” recklessly thrown around.

Besides the journalistic malpractice of the mainstream media, the political landscape has made conditions ripe for abuse of our inner nature.

When we categorize, we form belief systems. Belief systems are difficult to shake once formed. Even though the Democratic Party has moved further to what is classically defined as “the right,” many still consider them to be on what is classically called “the left.” The shift to the classic right began during the Bill Clinton era and continues to this day to shift further to the right. All one has to do is listen to Harris’ acceptance speech as confirmation. Her call for the continuation of the wars disguised as protecting US security is telling.

There are undoubtedly people on the left in the Democratic party, but the wealthiest people in the country rule the party. Any of the competing definitions of Neoliberalism would apply to the current Democratic Party. Part of how the party defends itself from criticism is to call anything they find inconvenient “Russian disinformation,” the work of the “far right” or “authoritarianism”. Republicans are fond of calling Harris a communist, which is absurd. The showering of money on her campaign from large corporations says otherwise.

Adding to the confusion, Trump has been categorized as “Alt-right” or the “far-right,” though in 2016, he ran on an anti-war platform, an issue generally thought of as a position of the left. There is even a bit of an isolationist movement in the Republican party that pushed back against continuing to fund the Ukrainian War.

Many people get twisted up trying to categorize the current landscape. The classification process might sound roughly like this:

Democrat: Trump opposes war. Trump is on the right. Being anti-war is, therefore, a right-wing position. Therefore, Democrats (who are on the left) are pro-war, which is good. (The same can be said of the censorship issue and support of NATO).

Republican/Trump Supporter: Harris is anti-Trump. Trump is a capitalist. Therefore, Harris is a communist because Trump is good.

Despite this, the media still frames our political spectrum rigidly by “right” and “left.” It’s not a coincidence that as both parties converge into Steven Keen’s “neoliberalism” definition, the divisive labeling has increased.

People are boxed into these terms. Linguist and activist Noam Chomsky profoundly said:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

Our political language doesn’t allow for other ideas, such as “independent thinker,” “non-partisan,” “freethinker,” “humanist,” or any other terms that veer from its strict model. Restricting language will restrict thought and force people into categories too narrow for humans to fit into. Categories that are so narrow they barely scratch the surface of a complex political system.

Then there is the Mainstream media, which reinforces this type of thinking. Cable media is especially culpable since they report news strictly focused on partisan demographics. No matter what their parties do, it’s spun as if they are the God-given party, and the other party is the devil. This reinforces partisan beliefs and leads to division.

Social media has become a dump of categorical ideology. It’s a constant battleground of personal attacks based on monikers. Only a small proportion of posts on sites like Facebook and X are built on well-reasoned arguments. It’s a sign of division and the lack of tools to debate without resorting to name-calling.

Just about anyone who does not identify with either party has experienced this. I can’t count how many times I have criticized the Democratic Party to Democrats, and without listening to the actual criticism, I am immediately called a MAGA fascist. If they had listened to what I had to say, they would have heard me criticize the party for having turned into the “classic right’.”

This explains why people who spoke up against the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov were categorized as “far right” and “authoritarians.” This AP news story from my last article triggered this article:

“Free-speech advocates, far-right figures, and authoritarian governments around the world have spoken out in Durov’s defense and criticized French authorities over the case. Durov was freed on 5 million euro bail but barred from leaving France and ordered to report to a police station twice a week pending further investigation.

French prosecutors accuse Durov of complicity in allowing drug trafficking and sharing of sexual images of children on Telegram and of refusing to cooperate with authorities investigating illegal activity on the app.”

Free speech is considered a danger to the “free world.” This has been the case since the internet was formed. It is information that states couldn’t control. Dissenting opinions and unpopular information could be free for others to see. This is a frightening thought for those in power. What better way is there to create fear of the idea of freedom of speech than to associate it with the far right and authoritarianism? It’s an exploitation of our humanness to make such an accusation.

Many political issues are framed as only two sides, for and against (“pro” and “anti”), but the political stage is more nuanced than that. People who oppose Israel’s action are called antisemitic. Anyone who even questioned anything about the vaccine, such as the short testing cycle before being distributed, was immediately denounced as anti-vaxers. The Ukrainian War is also framed in such terms. You are either pro-Ukraine, or you are a “Kremlin puppet.”

This type of thinking is imposed for a reason: it keeps people from thinking critically about issues; it reduces people to a few phrases. It creates societal stagnation and an “us vs. them” dogmatism. An uninformed public is one in danger of losing democracy. In “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt wrote about how authoritarian leaders create this thinking to gain deference and obedience.