Life is struggle.
Overcoming adversary, whether it be internal or external, is growth and maturity; and to become who we are intended to be is beautiful. There is beauty in the nature of humanity—in the perfect qualities of the body, mind, and spirit; there is beauty in strength; and there is beauty in a sanctified life. Truth corrects lies; the moral restrains the perverse; and beauty ever outshines ugliness. Political discourse often, rightly, centers around the mechanics and morality of an issue. However, the underlying philosophy often grows out of a heart that is either bent towards the beautiful or towards the ugly. This is the distinction between the Left and Right wings of politics, and I am sure the reader is able to discern which direction the heart of either is inclined.
Life is conquest.
We were made to baptize the nations and conquer the earth for the glory of the Kingdom. In this way, we also embody the character of God.
Life is beauty.
Defining the Paradigms
To begin, Right and Left converge to say that politics is an engagement with the physical world, but quickly depart as the former believes that one must consider the spiritual in addition to the material. In the same way that mankind is equal parts body and soul—equally inseparable and of equal importance—, politics is the internal spirit influencing the external world, or as I have heard it said, “power in action.” It is no wonder, then, that appreciation and emphasis on aesthetics is largely exclusive to the Right and that Leftists care only about practicality—even going as far as to find beauty oppressive. For them, a thing is valuable only insofar as it is useful. The most obvious example of this is architecture. Leftists abhor structures that are, what they would call, excessive and unnecessary. As a result, those on the Right are more likely to find meaning in life and express joy towards things that are beautiful and have immaterial value, while those on the Left tend to subscribe to nihilism and materialism. This may be one reason why depression, anxiety, and mental illness are so prevalent on the Left. The soul naturally desires truth and beauty. To intentionally strangle the connection between oneself and these virtues will have consequences. Of course, these diseases of the mind and body are not exclusive to Leftists, but the approach and response are uniquely different between the victims found there and those who are on the Right. For the former, there is often a glorification and desire to find empathy with the emotional distress, while those on the Right who struggle often do so because they find themselves falling short of a desired standard. In the words of Pythagoras: “Concern should drive us into action and not into a depression.”
Perpetual warfare between the Right’s love of creation and the Left’s proclivity towards destruction is both cause and consequence of these fundamental paradigms. One need only look at the Authoritarian versions of both sides to see the truth of this. The philosophy of Fascism is to enforce a positive expression of national will, while the philosophy of Communism is that of negation: abolition of property, abolition of inheritance, abolition of religion, etc. One creates while the other destroys. This is not limited to the two great enemies, but also exists among political peers. I am aware that the following comparison is overused (no less by me), but take, for instance, the American and French revolutions. 1789 and the corresponding philosophy of the Enlightenment are universally held as the birth of Liberalism. Entire collections can – and have – been written on the topic, but suffice it here to say that the French Revolution was a revolution against hierarchy and ultimately against God. Their bitterness towards the status quo resulted in a motivation that ends in complete destruction. Incidentally, an aristocratic monarchy is representative of heavenly order on earth. It is no wonder, then, that the war waged by the French peasantry was directed towards nobility and Christ together.
1776, on the other hand, while there were always caveats and inherent risks, was a different story altogether. The American founders were British colonists. They were, almost exclusively, Englishmen; proud Englishmen until they were betrayed by the crown. When they rebelled, they did not seek the destruction of England or to overthrow Aristocracies and Monarchies. The Continental Congress declared independence and separated to create something new, something in service to their own personality and particular interests.
Right-wing American heroes since then have been pioneers and men who contributed to the building of something good. The heroes propped up by the Left are largely agitators and tyrants whose contribution and change is based on the destruction of that good which was created.
One of the great ironies about this impulse to destroy is their hatred of Truth. The political Right famously seeks to pursue and uphold truth, while the political Left famously denies its existence. Leftist ideology can be summarized simply as “every opinion is valid—unless the opinion is absolute.” To suggest that a rule applies to all people is anathema. For the Left, it isn’t enough for them to say that there is no Universal Truth; they must violently oppose those who claim its existence. Their ideology upholds globalism as a universal truth while simultaneously claiming that humanity can have no universal truth. In other words they affirm their own absolute rule that no absolute rule is permitted. It is a negative religion; they punish sins without a catechism of their own. What dogma they do possess is the inverse of the good, the true, and the beautiful—the dogma of moral liberation. Consider a garden. If weeds were to overtake and consume the flowerbeds or vegetables, that is a sign of a poorly kept garden. In order to maintain its beauty, the gardener must uproot the invasive species. It is the same with politics. The role of the state is to provide the conditions that allow its citizens to flourish both spiritually and physically. Allowing ugliness to publicly exist is a failure of the state.
A Closer Examination of the Issues
One could make a distinction between the Right and the Left in their approach to human existence as a love of life versus a fear of death. The Right wing politic is fundamentally Pro-Life. The implication of this goes beyond the initial image of abortion (the brutal murder of children via dismemberment), which, of course, is rightly a fundamental issue, and encompasses the entirety of the mindset born of the will to live. The transcendental nature of this will covers issues of health, nutrition, self-improvement of body, mind, and spirit, and a generally active lifestyle. Recognizing the importance of these things and being intentional in their pursuits currently finds a voice, exclusively, with the political Right, while the Left (and even some who are in other ways Right-leaning) exists as an intensely vocal adversary. Any desire to become stronger or healthier is met with indifference and apathy at best and derision at worst. “Big and Beautiful” is the motto of the Left—of death. In practice, this boils down to discipline versus impulse. To give in to our impulse is ugly, and the consequence is vice. Lust, gluttony, wrath, envy, sloth, greed, and pride are base human instincts. To be impulsive, then, is to fundamentally give in to these desires. It is only with discipline that we can grow in the corresponding virtues, which are necessarily beautiful.
Regarding the resulting issues of race and sex, the Left claims that they were wrongly made and bemoans the fact that they were made different, which is a rejection of nature and the beauty that God created.
Once you see the difference in how they view life, their respective understanding of “ownership” falls into place. Ownership, in this context, takes on two forms: ownership of property and ownership of self. The second can also be understood as “self-determination.” This can be broken down, further still, into the individual and the collective.
“No one is free who has not obtained the empire of himself. No man is free who cannot command himself.”
― Pythagoras
This vision of beauty and of ownership extends beyond that of mankind, himself, and can be found in nature. Environmentalism is a Leftist vision, but environmental care belongs to the Right. This can be plainly seen by simply applying the same rules here. Environmentalism, a perverted sense of stewarding the earth, is nothing more than letting nature run wild.
Final Thoughts
At first examination, especially when looking at Right and Left abstractly, it can be difficult to define them plainly. Once you take a closer look and dissect each issue and separate them, the common denominators make themselves known. The right-wing take on each issue is often obvious. But when you start asking the why—”why is it the right-wing perspective?”—the framework begins to develop. The Right is the moral. It is moral because it is good. It is good because it is consistent. It is consistent because it is Christian. It is Christian because all things are from God. Practically, then, what does the Right represent? It is dominion, order, and hierarchy. What does the Left represent? Limitless freedom, chaos, anarchy. Every issue wants to go in one of these two ways. Whether it be health, race, sex, economics, or environmental, the outcome of every decision will tilt towards one of two ways: disjointedness or beauty. And we, the Right, represent the politics of beauty.
