No Third Way?

Reviewed by Louis Andrews
pinc, Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1997.

Will Kymlicka, Contemporary political philosophy, 1990

This book created quite a stir in Italy when published in 1994, selling 200,000 copies - the top seller of all books in Italy that year. Quite a feat for a little non-fiction (5"X7.5" - 124 pages) book on politics. Part of the interest has to be contributed to the rise of the Italian Right, from Bossi's Northern League to Berlusconi's big, though short lived, win for the Forza Italia. Certainly part must also be contributed to the catchy title as well - the philosophical nature of the work could not have had much to do with it as a popular seller. The translator thinks that the Italian buyers may have been looking for specific political guidance in the election, but if so, they were surely disappointed.

Bobbio uses a dual axis approach to political definition: equality/inequality and liberty/authority, though only the equality/inequality axis is intrinsic to the left/right distinction. With these twin axes he divides political groups into five groups: extreme left, moderate left, center, moderate right, and extreme right. Of these, the center is possibly the most dangerous to the public welfare since it is most liable to be opportunistic in the extreme, adopting left policies in one geographical area and right policies in another. One prediction of Bobbio's political dichotomy is that all third way approaches to politics will eventually fail, including that of New Labour in England and the New Democrats in the USA. This type of third way approach, or "inclusive middle" as opposed to the "included middle," is really a "doctrine in search of a practical politics, and as soon as this is achieved, it reveals itself as centrist."

Bobbio argues that those who claim left/right distinctions no longer hold are normally members of groups whose political fortunes have grown weak or non-existent and are seeking a means of regaining some power. He certainly agrees that left and right can change over time and place, but that the basic distinction based on the attitude toward equality will always remain at some level. There is a right because there is a left, and visa-versa.

In his discussions of moderates and extremes, Bobbio is clear that these have nothing to do with the nature of the political belief, but the level of their radicalization. For example, revolutionary and counter-revolutionary writers are both members of the extremes on the liberty/authority axis, though they differ completely on the equality/inequality axis. He contrasts Sorel on the left (though he was also an admirer of Mussolini) and Pareto on the right as such figures. Interestingly, James Burnham, a former communist turned counter-revolutionary conservative, in his book, The Machiavellians, considers both Sorel and Pareto as "realists" and foes of political "romantics." Unfortunately, Bobbio doesn't address such issues at all. He is clear, however, that the common enemy of both revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries is the moderate of whatever strip. In fact, the revolutionary left often considers the moderate left as the bigger obstacle to power, and the same is true on the right as well.

Bobbio notes that religion often is seen as right, while atheism is seen as left. As he points out, this view is wrong. Indeed, many of the better known secular humanists are creatures of the left, but the best known atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, is a longtime member of the anti-egalitarian and libertarian right. Much of the nouvelle droite of Europe since WWII is non-religious and some even pagan (is that a form of religion itself?). In fact, the power of egalitarianism in revolutionary movements is a often a product of Christian thought, such as in the contemporary "liberation theology" movement in South America. To further complicate issues, here in the US, many so-called conservative or right-wing evangelical movements are strongly egalitarian on racial matters.

In politics, equality is really about redistribution at some basic level. Bobbio argues that few (he calls them egalitarianists) really believe in true equality and "[t]o everyone the same amount." In fact, "this would not only be a utopian vision, to which, admittedly, the left is more inclined than the right, or perhaps to which only the left is inclined. But, what is worse, it would be a proposal which could not possibly have any rational meaning." He believes that the basic left/right difference is really a form of moral orientation toward equality where the left feels outrage at the existence of social inequalities, while the right sees them as rather natural and cannot understand the rage felt by the left at normalcy.

Bobbio takes an interesting look at the differing impacts of state enforced equality on loss of freedom. For example, if the state mandates public transport to reduce traffic, then the rich lose a freedom they could actually enjoy, while the poor merely lose a hypothetical or potential freedom. Equality doesn't always reduce the liberty of one to benefit another, but that is its most often result. Liberty is a personal issue, while equality always requires another to measure it against.

Bobbio believes that no real long-term alliance can be had between the left and right because of their attitudes toward equality. He dismisses such things as the Nazi-Soviet Pact as mere strategic, and thus temporary, alliances.

While not completely satisfying, this little book does offer a generally objective look at the basic philosophic differences between the competing left/right world views. The short final chapter (A Reply to the Critics) is particularly interesting, unfortunately most of the notes and references are to items only available in Italian. The paperback edition is recommended because of the exorbitant price asked by the publisher for the tiny hardback version.

For a thorough philosophical review of the varies theories of equality, see Louis Pojman's essay "Theories of Equality: A Critical Analysis.