I think your news coverage is using terms such as "left" or
"right wing" in a misleading way.
Briefly, when you represent politics as a straight line, to the left is
socialism and to the right is fascism.
So when you describe a political effort as coming from the left, for example,
you're really using a euphemism for some degree of socialist-style governance.
Socialism is an avowed arch enemy of the American Dream.
The American Dream -- freedom -- stands precisely between the total state-control
models of the far left and right. To the extent we sway either left or
right, we weaken the very thing that makes us good. This is lost in reporting
that broad brushes things as being simply left or right.
Our central ideals of rule by the people, limited government, delegated
powers, ownership of property and the fruits of your labors, these make
America great, a shining beacon still drawing immigrants. They are also
liberties detested and lost as you stray left or right from the American
Now, "leftist" for example, does accurately portray many political
entities you cover, like the welfare state, socialized medicine, government
schools and such. "Right" however, is often incorrectly attached
to things in the middle, for an interesting reason. An example illustrates.
Owning guns and lots of ammunition is typically characterized as right
wing. But if you think about it, in this country, owning guns, ammo and
knowing how to use them is precisely the baseline, the American way, practiced
nationwide since that right appeared in our charter in 1791. This right
to arms is something you do not and cannot have under left-wing socialism
or right-wing fascism. It helps define those autocracies -- a powerless
To the extent any socialist- or fascist-leaning forces are active, they
eat away at American principles balanced between them, in this example,
the (some would say wild) freedom to keep and bear arms.
If the American left had its way, no one would have guns but the police,
a classically socialist position. But heres the rub: why doesn't
the so-called right-wing also seek to disarm the populace, as fascism
dictates? How can the strongest support for gun ownership actually come
from the "radical right"?
Because those people aren't the right wing. Defending gun rights is centrist,
not fascist. It gives people power, not government. The right to arms,
like firm religious belief, a strong moral sense, reducing taxation, love
of country -- things often portrayed as "right" are the classic
American model, right in the middle. The media are getting it wrong. Here's
From the left, where most of America's anti-gun-rights sentiment resides,
the American Dream is indeed to their right, but that doesn't make it
The moderate, God-fearing, gun-toting, compassionate citizens with a set
of moral values are central, the What-America-Is-All-About component,
not right wing.
You see, it's not about the left against the right. The left is fighting
the middle. America faces a battle between its core values, and socialism.
And now we've come full circle -- because the arch enemy of socialism
Walking the dynamic road between the left and the right, our American
way is jeopardized every time a news outlet sugar coats a socialist-leaning
(or less common but equally dangerous fascist-leaning) piece of politics
by calling it merely left or right.
And characterizing fundamental elements of the American Dream as right
wing, because they are to the right of the left, is simply inaccurate,
not a proper policy for good journalism or reasoned debate, and should
Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
The Uninvited Ombudsman
P.S. There's a fairly obvious need for a freedom-tyranny scale too, in
addition to the L-R style-of-governance model I focused on for reporters
and editors who use that image non-stop. I'm actually working on The American
Yardstick, a 36-point scale of relative freedom, that will be a followup.
Think of the line as a circle where the ends don't quite meet -- socialism
and fascism are right next door but a world apart, with freedom as far
from each as it can get on the line. In socialism, no mansions (in theory
at least), but in fascism, as ostentatious as you can get your mansion
to be; under both, they can shoot you, take all, no recourse. Too much
else to exposit here.