The Myth of Left and Right

How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America (Studies in Postwar American Political Series)

De: Hyrum Lewis, Verlan Lewis

Narrado por: Hyrum Lewis

A groundbreaking argument that the political spectrum today is inadequate to twenty-first-century America and a major source of the confusion and hostility that characterize contemporary political discourse.

As American politics descends into a battle of anger and hostility between two groups called "left" and "right," people increasingly ask: What is the essential difference between these two ideological groups? In The Myth of Left and Right, Hyrum Lewis and Verlan Lewis provide the surprising answer: nothing. As the authors argue, there is no enduring philosophy, disposition, or essence uniting the various positions associated with the liberal and conservative ideologies of today. Far from being an eternal dividing line of American politics, the political spectrum came to the United States in the 1920s and, since then, left and right have evolved in so many unpredictable and even contradictory ways that there is currently nothing other than tribal loyalty holding together the many disparate positions that fly under the banners of "liberal" and "conservative." Cutting against the grain of most scholarship on polarization in America, this book shows why the idea that the political spectrum measures deeply held worldviews is the central political myth of our time and a major cause of the confusion and vitriol that characterize public discourse.

©2023 Oxford University Press (P)2023 Kalorama

Absorb this reality

This book is simply powerful, convincing erudition into the nature of our current political dilemma.

TIL thymos and thymotic

Your phone is going to tell you that those words are fugazis, but they’re not. They’re the desire for recognition, status and superiority. They’re both in this book.

What people are chasing is thymos within their political tribes, and it’s a substitute for a sense of adventure or agape.

There isn’t a word I’m aware of for the intoxicating precarity of when affective polarization (hating people on other tribe) will manifest and self-righteous estrangement of friend and family members, but I see it all the time. Sometimes that makes me wonder if we believe in myths like left and right forFreudian reasons. Do we have an unconscious chaophillic part of us that wants to see the crash so bad we nudge it in to existence using whatever framework we can to justify our actions?

Let’s all tell that part of ourselves that we’ve had enough chaos for awhile, it’s time to let the peace and prosperity chilliphillic part take the driver seat in our culture again. Let’s not use myths to hate each other when what we want is life and love.

Obvious and elegant

The authors’ argument is one of those arguments that’s so obvious once you hear it that you begin to wonder why the argument needed to be made.

Very convincing, clarifying, and needed.

My biggest critique is that they take a naive approach to parties and over apply the essentialist model.

For example, it’s probably not the essentialist model that’s blocking new party formation, but the myriad election rules that favor the parties built up over the last century and the money needed to win elections.

Essentially it’s structural barriers to entry, not the myth they knock down.

Regardless, the authors convinced me the myth exists and that it creates lots of problems for our democracy.

Thought provoking

Really enjoyed the historical perspective. After listening to this book, I feel like I understand myself and the political environment better.

A must read for our society

The world would be a better place if everyone would listen to this book. It gives a thoughtful and persuasive way that we can actually bring civility back to politics and human interactions. The way the authors present their case show how wrong we have all been and yet so informative. A message of hope for the world if we will listen.

Makes determinations on unproven claims.

Extremely disappointed with this book. Conclusions around the political binary are poorly expressed by using subjective determinations based on general claims that are objectively untrue and can be proven as such. While on the right track in some regards, the authors completely derail the topic because of shoddy foundations.
It is a shame that I was required to purchase this for a class, because it will receive much more attention than it deserves.