what political society finds important; it allows us to see how political forces line up, or come together in the public domain to confront each other over what political course of action should be followed. Against those such as Daniel...
morewhat political society finds important; it allows us to see how political forces line up, or come together in the public domain to confront each other over what political course of action should be followed. Against those such as Daniel Bell (1960) who argued famously that we have reached "the end of ideology," or more recently Francis Fukuyama (1992) "the end of history" or Anthony Giddens (1994), that it is time to go "beyond left and right," this paper argues that substantive differences over economic issues matters greatly in politics, and divisions result naturally from conflicts over the best way to organize a society. So long as the question how shall we live remains open, and subject to serious differences, a left seeking outright change, or trying to protect past gains, and a right looking to return to the status quo ante, or simply battling on to maintain a position of strength, and leadership, will exist in opposition to each other on basic issues of politics such as who gets what (Rawls). This paper suggests that economic issues underlie important aspects of political debate (Hausman, 1994)). Though there is no agreed account of the economic foundations of politics, the links between the two have been explored since Aristotle first described politics as the struggle between the rich and the poor (Findlay). As will be seen, both left and right take economic issues as central to political preoccupations , and they will therefore be the main focus here. Cultural and religious factors play an important role as well (Kymlicka), but cannot be accorded adequate attention in a short account, and for the same reason international security questions will also be left out. Conflict over social questions such as feminism, sexual orientation, identity, immigration, and minorities, sometimes called the culture wars, is often portrayed as left/right confrontation, rightly or wrongly, but discussion of these important questions is not addressed here either. Instead the economic questions of inflation, wealth, and income will be examined, as these take a central place in Canadian life, though as maintained here, they arise in a wider international context. This paper argues that differences between left and right in contemporary Canada turn on different ideas about "rights 1 ." Divergent economic preoccupations lead to co-responding differences on what sort of rights need to be a priority. Property rights of ownership are the preoccupation of wealth holders, broadly speaking the investor interest. In contrast, citizens are preoccupied to a greater or lesser extent with economic and social rights which arise from basic human needs for security and dignity: a safe environment, food, water, shelter, transport, education, healthcare, recreation, cultural products, and protection from want (Sen). Those with a social wage, salaried employees, and wage earners, rely on political and civic rights to protect and advance their interest as citizens, consumers, and taxpayers to receive protection, services and to participate in shaping the future through political action. In other words, wealth, basic needs, and income correspond to three families of rights: property rights, economic and social rights, and democratic and civic rights. The position argued here is that the three families co-exist within society, with the first set of rights serving to rally the right, the second set
