Originally appeared May 15, 2002, in the Chicago Free Press.
THE AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA did a poor job of covering the assassination of openly gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. They unthinkingly repeated the Progressive propaganda claim that he was a right-wing extremist despite the evidence of their own eyes.
Time Magazine called him a member of the "far right." The Associated Press called him a "far right leader" but later admitted he "never fit conveniently into the image of 'extreme right-winger.'" Not that that made them stop and think about what they were writing.
The New York Times referred to him as "maverick right wing populist" - as if that conveyed any meaning - and only later admitted that he "defended an eclectic mix of ideas of both the left and the right."
Perhaps the most incompetent labeling was by the Chicago Tribune which headlined, "Far-right leader killed" with a first paragraph that began "Maverick Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, rising star of the far right in Europe, ... "
Not until the 18th paragraph (if anyone bothered to read that far) did the Tribune's witless reporter deign to mention that "Fortuyn was not a traditional far-right politician ... With his bohemian attitudes, Fortuyn always seemed more in tune with the spirit of a modern, progressive Holland than many of the establishment politician...."
The Tribune continued: "Holland was the first country in Europe to legalize homosexual marriages, regulate prostitution, and permit the sale of marijuana in its famous 'cannabis cafes,' all of which Fortuyn supported."
So it turned out that the sort of "far right politician" Fortuyn was - was, well, "modern" and "progressive." But we mustn't let facts about his actual positions keep us from using stigmatizing labels, must we!
Fortuyn not only supported legal marijuana and prostitution and gay marriage, but right-to-die, reproductive choice and a host of other issues favored by the left. And, as Fortuyn repeatedly emphasized, even his controversial proposal to ban immigration was designed to protect Dutch liberal tolerance from being undermined by authoritarian Muslim immigrants with sexist and homophobic religious views.
So how useful are these labels "left" and "right," "progressive" and conservative"?
For instance: Is gay marriage progressive or conservative? Maybe it is progressive if you advocate it where it doesn't exist, but right-wing if you want to keep it where it does exist. So Dutch Muslims who oppose gay equality are Progressive since they advocate change? Or, if preserving gay marriage is conservative, what is the Dutch left-wing position on gay marriage? The same as the conservative? You see the problems.
- What positions count as "left" or "right"? Are we talking in temporal terms (change versus stasis) in which left and right depend on the political context, or are some issues inherently or necessarily left or right? E.g., is legal abortion always the progressive position?
- How can we accurately label someone who draws positions from both the left and right - e.g., gay marriage, legalized drugs and right-to-die, as well as lower taxes, reduced welfare and privatization of government functions? Which issues should be used for labeling purposes?
Either we have to rank the issues' importance according to some criterion or other and chose the most significant one(s) - or else we have to count up which side most of a person's positions are and use that. Neither seems satisfactory. What if they contradict?
- So: if "left" and "right" are not a very useful way to divide up policy positions, are there better conceptual models available? Are there some, unchanging root philosophical views that can give us a better insight into policy positions? I think there are.
Although Fortuyn was not quite a libertarian, his positions do seem rooted in a neo-liberal ethic of personal liberty, autonomy and accountability, opposing the right of the government to interfere in people's lives, or play favorites on "lifestyle" matters (like sexuality).
That suggests a consistency behind favoring legalized drugs, right to die and gay marriage as well as lower taxes and a reduced welfare state. Certainly governments reduce personal liberty if they take a lot of the money you spent time and effort to earn and give it to someone else to spend.
Someone like Fortuyn then functions as a sort of Rorschach inkblot. Most people looked at the aspect of personal liberty that is most threatening to their ideology to determine the label they applied to him.
Dutch evangelical Christian and Muslim fundamentalists - who opposed his positions on social issues - would presumably think of him as "left-wing." People who labeled him "right-wing," were "progressives" angered by Fortuyn's desire to cut back the extensive welfare state (including endless welfare for new immigrants).
In the end, Progressives seem more interested in redistributing income (called "economic democracy") and enlarging the government than in preserving personal and civil liberties. Conservatives are more interested in imposing restrictive social policies than in preserving economic liberties. When forced to choose, neither side's first agenda is liberty, but expanding control over people's lives.