Thread on politics
The origins of Left vs Right divide stem back to the last days of Roman republic when you had the Populares vs Optimates
The conservative aristocrats who upheld Senate power (Cato, Cicero)
The populist strongmen who wanted to undermine elites (Julius Caesar) https://twitter.com/doubtinggaurav/status/1306094107828187144">https://twitter.com/doubtingg...
The origins of Left vs Right divide stem back to the last days of Roman republic when you had the Populares vs Optimates
The conservative aristocrats who upheld Senate power (Cato, Cicero)
The populist strongmen who wanted to undermine elites (Julius Caesar) https://twitter.com/doubtinggaurav/status/1306094107828187144">https://twitter.com/doubtingg...
So in the Roman Republic -
The Right was represented by the senate aristocrats. The elites. For whom the Republic was sacred. Who feared concentration of power in an individual. Who feared populism
The Left was represented by Caesar - the populist strongman
The Right was represented by the senate aristocrats. The elites. For whom the Republic was sacred. Who feared concentration of power in an individual. Who feared populism
The Left was represented by Caesar - the populist strongman
So the Right vs Left divide was one of "Elites vs masses"
You could say it was something v similar even 1800 years later during French revolution
You had the old world conservatives who were skeptical of the Revolution (Edmund Burke)
And the radicals who favored it (Tom Paine)
You could say it was something v similar even 1800 years later during French revolution
You had the old world conservatives who were skeptical of the Revolution (Edmund Burke)
And the radicals who favored it (Tom Paine)
In 19th century England, it took on a slightly different dimension
The Left / Liberals was now represented by bourgeoisie advocates. Those who favored "new money" (businessmen, industrialists)
The "conservatives" were the ones who favored "old money" (agricultural landlords)
The Left / Liberals was now represented by bourgeoisie advocates. Those who favored "new money" (businessmen, industrialists)
The "conservatives" were the ones who favored "old money" (agricultural landlords)
In fact the "conservative" Tories of the 19th century sought an alliance of "old elites" (nobles, landlords) and masses - giving rise to Tory Radicalism (as represented by Lord Derby, Disraeli)
We call its modern avatar "compassionate conservatism" today.
We call its modern avatar "compassionate conservatism" today.
These Tories were not that big on "Free market". They were ok with tariffs.
They also pushed for electoral reform, widening of franchise. As they felt patronizing the working class will help counter the liberal constituency as represented by te "middle classes"
They also pushed for electoral reform, widening of franchise. As they felt patronizing the working class will help counter the liberal constituency as represented by te "middle classes"
Sure there were some Tories who chose to be v "pro free market" like Peel. But Peelites petered out, merged with Liberals
So in 19th century England, the Libs was "pro market", "pro middle class"
The conservatives were paternalists. Pro old elite, progenitors of welfare state
So in 19th century England, the Libs was "pro market", "pro middle class"
The conservatives were paternalists. Pro old elite, progenitors of welfare state
In the US, the evolution was slightly different...
Over there at the genesis of the American Republic, the Right was represented by the Hamiltonian Federalists.
Who were pro business, though not necessarily pro-free market. Aggressive modernizers. Strong state advocates
Over there at the genesis of the American Republic, the Right was represented by the Hamiltonian Federalists.
Who were pro business, though not necessarily pro-free market. Aggressive modernizers. Strong state advocates
In contrast, the Left was represented by Democratic populists led by Thomas Jefferson. Who called themselves the "Democratic Republicans"
The Jeffersonians interestingly were more aggressively for laissez faire than Hamiltonians
But their sympathies were with the old elites. The agriculturalists, landlords. Not so much pro-business
But their sympathies were with the old elites. The agriculturalists, landlords. Not so much pro-business
So the 19th cen US model was
Left (Democratic Republicans later Democratic Party) -> Populist, pro slavery, weak state advocates
Right (Federalists -> Whigs -> Republican Party) :
Pro urban elite. Big business. Anti-slavery. Strong state. Modernizers
Left (Democratic Republicans later Democratic Party) -> Populist, pro slavery, weak state advocates
Right (Federalists -> Whigs -> Republican Party) :
Pro urban elite. Big business. Anti-slavery. Strong state. Modernizers
Now this is interesting because depending on what you want to call "Right vs Left", you could easily term the Jeffersonian tradition to be "right wing" and the Hamiltonian tradition to be "left wing"
Though conventionally we think of Jefferson as representing the Left.
Though conventionally we think of Jefferson as representing the Left.
This state of affairs sort of continued till the Great Depression. When tables turned...
In UK, we now had a new force - the Labor party (non existent in 19th cen)
And in the US, the Democratic Party became the party of the working classes
In UK, we now had a new force - the Labor party (non existent in 19th cen)
And in the US, the Democratic Party became the party of the working classes
So by the time we reach the 1960s-70s we had a different configuration...
Conservatives (both in UK and US) were now the "pro-market", "pro-business" party
The Democratic party / Labor party was now pro working classes, pro ethnic minorities
Conservatives (both in UK and US) were now the "pro-market", "pro-business" party
The Democratic party / Labor party was now pro working classes, pro ethnic minorities
But also the rural white vote was now shifting from Democratic to Republican party
So by 1980s, the Republican party was beginning to look v much like the Jeffersonian "Left"
Pro market, states rights, pro farmers....but also curiously big business (unlike Jeffersonians)
So by 1980s, the Republican party was beginning to look v much like the Jeffersonian "Left"
Pro market, states rights, pro farmers....but also curiously big business (unlike Jeffersonians)
What we have seen over the past 20 years is yet another reconfiguration
Even the "working class" urban vote has now moved to the Republican party
The Democratic party now interestingly has a significant chunk of the urban elite vote (largely because of the rise of culture wars)
Even the "working class" urban vote has now moved to the Republican party
The Democratic party now interestingly has a significant chunk of the urban elite vote (largely because of the rise of culture wars)
So we now have lots of big businesses supporting Democratic party (Silicon valley types)
The divides in politics are more around "cultural" issues and attitudes towards religion, immigration, gender. Than the old economic divides
The divides in politics are more around "cultural" issues and attitudes towards religion, immigration, gender. Than the old economic divides
In India, Modi is a bit like Disraeli conservative wing of the 19th century
Welfare orientation.. welding an alliance of "trad" support base (hindu conservatives) and masses (through intelligent welfare schemes)
He is a conservative "radical" so to speak
Welfare orientation.. welding an alliance of "trad" support base (hindu conservatives) and masses (through intelligent welfare schemes)
He is a conservative "radical" so to speak
The other side is all confused at the moment...
To my mind if it needs a future, the Left in India should position itself as pro middle class, pro free market, socially liberal yet not hostile to religion
Something akin to the Whigs of 19th century England
To my mind if it needs a future, the Left in India should position itself as pro middle class, pro free market, socially liberal yet not hostile to religion
Something akin to the Whigs of 19th century England