How the metaphor of the Left-Right Political Spectrum creates fatal misconceptions for centrism.
Metaphor plays an important and prominent role in both our language and our wider processes of cognition. We speak using metaphors because we think using metaphors. They are pervasive and are deployed in many areas, not least in politics.
But first, what does a metaphor do? A metaphor takes a one concept and, by substituting it in for the word/concept being described, creates an analogy. The result is that, by highlighting a feature of this new concept, the user of the metaphor is able to define or focus on a specific aspect of the concept they are speaking about.
An example of this, in everyday parlance, is the “Roller-coaster” metaphor. When someday exclaims “Wow, today has been a roller-coaster”, what they are doing is offering a metaphor. This particular metaphor works by drawing an analogy between a series of events and the ups and downs of a roller-coaster. The speaker uses this concept, a roller-coaster, to highlight varying successive moments of highs and lows and a journey full of thrills, to focus in on the idea that their day has been varied and thrilling with moments of positivity and negativity. It’s neat. It works.
When metaphors become very widely used and embedded in our language, they can begin to take on a functional role of reshaping our understanding of the concept that they refer to. Because metaphors are used to highlight a salient feature of a topical concept by analogy, they can also, either intentionally or unintentionally, mislead. When pro-austerity politicians speak about a “household budget” to explain the need for deficit reduction, they are deploying a metaphor. They are speaking about a national economy, but through the metaphoric lens of a household budget, are implying by analogy that the national deficit, much like individual household spending, must be balanced. This enables them to make more compelling arguments for budget cuts and welfare reduction under the guise of financial prudence, all in the context of a sensible household budget, when their argument fundamentally misunderstands the nature of a national economy.
The vast majority of economists will tell you that the household budget metaphor is flawed in reality, however, this metaphor is so pervasive and culturally embedded that it imposes itself onto popular understanding of national economics, and leads people to believe falsehoods regarding the importance of deficit reduction.
A metaphor that I wish to focus on is that of the Left-Right Political Spectrum. Obviously, no such spectrum exists in the real world — the spectrum is purely descriptive. What does exist in reality, is a range of different political views and ideologies. Very simply, all that the Left-Right Political Spectrum serves to do is, by way of a tidy and simple metaphor, provide us with a framework within which to conceptualise differing political ideologies in a neat and accessible way. Everyone understands the concept of a spectrum, so it is (sometimes) incredibly helpful to have a metaphor which allows us to consistently draw an analogy between political views, and the idea of distribution from one extreme to the other across a spectral range.
Similarly to the Household Budget metaphor, the Left-Right Political Spectrum metaphor is extensively deployed, to the extent where most people don’t even consider it to be a metaphor at all, but an objective and true depiction of the distribution of political views.
This is where the problems begin. By allowing the metaphor of a spectrum to play too prominent a role in shaping our understanding of voter behaviour and policy, politicians (and centrists in particular) succumb to fatal mistakes.
This becomes apparent when politicians attempt to opt for what is percieved as most “electable” by pursuing a centrist approach based on the grounds that it will appeal to both the left and the right of the political spectrum. The notion is that, obviously, the two groups on the left of the political spectrum and the right of the political spectrum are the furthest apart, with the least in common, so the only way to appeal to both is to strike a compromise down the middle. This makes perfect sense, or rather would make perfect sense, if the political spectrum existed as a real entity, rather than being the useful metaphor that it is.
As should now be clear, the Left-Right political spectrum is a tool for conceptualising the range of political views and ideologies. BUT, it doesn’t always offer a faithful depiction of politics, voter behaviour, and voter nature, because it doesn’t actually exist. By pitting the far right and far left at opposing polls, it leads centrists to make the worst possible decisions.
Widely popular policies are disregarded because they are associated with one end of the political spectrum, a decision underpinned by the assumption that they therefore cannot be electorally viable. Yet repeatedly, certain measures perceived as explicitly left wing, such as raising the minimum wage, score highly across the entire population. Moreover, many voters drawn to Obama’s promise of “change” later voted for Trump when no change ever materialised. Similarly, many who would have voted for Bernie Sanders ended up voting for Trump instead of a centre option.
How can those who rely upon the Left-Right Political Spectrum to inform their understanding of electoral politics account for this? Plainly stated, they can’t. The Left-Right Political Spectrum metaphor is terrible at facilitating an understanding of these kinds of political behaviours. In reality, the truth is that all voters have a set number of pressing concerns, and a certain number of basic needs that they would like to see addressed.
Often, it is irrelevant whether a group of voters traditionally favour the “left wing” or “right wing” options, if certain policies resonate, they gain support. Therefore, when a centrist decides to shy away from bold policies and rhetoric, on the misguided assumption that they will capture voters from both side of the spectrum instead of just one, they allow the Left-Right Political Spectrum metaphor to lead them astray. More often than not, politically polarised voter bases desire specific and tangible offerings. When a centrist confines themselves to the centre, they capture no support while aiming for all of it.
Ultimately, when you do away with the notion of a Left-Right Political Spectrum (which is admittedly not at all easy to do), you reveal just how baseless and misguided many of the assumptions of centrism are. When it comes to what is electorally viable, it is far more instructive to disregard the metaphor-inspired question of “how do I remain closest to both the left and the right of the political spectrum?” Cast aside altogether, and free from the shackles of metaphoric constraints, we are able to ask informative questions such as: “what policies benefit the greatest number of people?”, “which issues affect the general population most urgently?” “how do we address these in measurable and meaningful ways?” The answers to such questions would point towards real policy, and inspire real support among real people. Understood thus, the Left-Right Political Spectrum is nothing but a ball and chain restricting what is perceived to be possible in electoral politics.
This phenomenon, particularly evident in the repeat failures of centrism across The West in recent years, is in part due to the role of metaphor in popular discourse. When a metaphor becomes so pervasive that it is taken for objective truth, any inaccuracies in the analogy begin to exert negative consequences. Just as the inaccuracies in the Household Budget metaphor legitimise harmful spending cut proposals, the Left-Right Political Spectrum metaphor’s inaccuracies and inadequacies foment harmful misconceptions of electoral pragmatism and popular policy.
