La Droite and the Right in France and Britain
When the National Assembly was convened during the French Revolution, a seating pattern was established whereby the adherents of the king and the old established order sat to the right of the assembly chamber, whereas the most radical opponents of the ancien regime sat to the left (Nugent and King, 1977, p. 3). From this seating practice arise the convention of using Right and Left as general expressions of political ideology, a convention now in worldwide use.
This convention can be criticized as simplistic, and as confusing or concealing vast differences in ideology and program. Thatcherite liberals and totalitarian fascists are thrown together on the Right, while social democrats and totalitarian Maoists are thrown together on the Left. Nevertheless, the very fact that the distinction between Right and Left has come into such general worldwide use suggest that it have some intuitive resonance. As an American judge once said of pornography, we may not be able to define it, but we know it when we see it.
Definitions have nevertheless been attempted. One such definition characterizes the Right in the following ways, with the Left representing the contrary position (Nugent and King, 1977, p. 3).
1) The Right identifies the nation, rather than socio-economic class, as being the primary element in social identity.
2) The Right is elitist rather than egalitarian.
3) The Right is doubtful of rationalism in human affairs.
Of these the first, nationalism, is fairly self-explanatory, but has a crucial implication that will be dealt with below. The second, elitism, has perhaps shifted in meaning over time. In the early nineteenth century, classical liberalism was a Left position, in rejecting a traditional social hierarchy based on divine right or immemorial custom; today liberalism is at least in part a Right position, in resisting egalitarian restraints on t...