Who is progressive and who is conservative?
Published Feb 6, 2025
In the subheading of a recent profile piece on main opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, The Economist labeled the man it said may be Korea’s next president as “progressive.”
This makes sense to us in Korea because we also use this word to refer to Lee and his party, the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK). It distinguishes them from the ruling party, which we call “conservative.” We know what we are referring to.
For example, we can look back at this century and say that we have had three progressive presidents in Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun and Moon Jae-in, and three conservative presidents in Lee Myung-bak, Park Geun-hye and the current leader, Yoon Suk Yeol.
The problem comes when foreigners take our cue and use these words. They start making assumptions about who they should support.
To its credit, The Economist, being the best English-language newspaper in the known universe (not counting The Korea Times, of course), made an effort to dig into the label. The article itself described Lee from a policy platform point of view as a “former progressive” and now a pragmatist.
(I should point out to readers who may be confused as to why the article and subheading didn’t agree. This is common because reporters do not write the subheadings or headlines for their articles. This is done by editors).
As this distinction suggests, progressive and conservative, as terms, actually mean something. One of the key features of liberalism is the idea of constant progress. Hence, progressive. Another feature is the need to conserve what’s good, like democracy. Hence, conservative. In a healthy society, we need to keep what’s good and improve what isn’t. The two sides of the political aisle are both loyal to the state but differ over what to keep and what to improve.
That doesn’t mean the words accurately describe politicians here.
The DPK's foreign policy, for example, basically invites the country to keep fighting the Japanese occupation. Indeed, in the first draft of the impeachment motion against him in December, President Yoon Suk Yeol's efforts to improve ties with Tokyo were cited as one of his impeachable crimes.
You could be forgiven for thinking that posture is ultraconservative.
The use of these political labels gets 10 times more confusing when we start talking about “right” and “left.” We are so familiar with them. But what do they actually mean? I ask because I think these terms cloud debate more than clarify it.
Broadly speaking, to be on the left means you are a fan of government. When there are problems, the first thing a leftist does is ask what the government is or is not doing. This is natural and reasonable.
To be on the right means to prefer the market. The rightists still want government. In fact, they usually want to be the government. But they want less of it. In theory at least. They don’t like the government to interfere too much, especially in the market.
There’s a lot of talk these days about core values with people on the left being caring and fair and those on the right being respectful and loyal.
But politically minded people don’t like this conversation. That’s because right and left are biased. They often think the other side has no values. When Donald Trump was elected the first time around, there were surveys and studies going around psychoanalyzing people who voted for him and coming to negative conclusions about their mental and moral state.
This points to the second thing I want to say. That is that the terms right and left, when used about the other side, are more like slurs than proper descriptions.
The two sides go at one another like football supporters. If you consider the Chelsea chant, you’ll get the picture. It’s “We hate Tottenham (pause). Chelsea!”
The third thing I’d say is that Korea’s right and left don’t follow the global pattern. From the point of view I mentioned of the role of government being the differentiator, Korea is a leftist country and both of its main political parties are leftist.
That is because both sides believe in strong central government control. Both sides believe in “the people” and in helping farmers and giving us all welfare. They both moan about and yet believe in the chaebol. Both believe in strong ties with America and good relations with China and other nondemocratic states for the purpose of economic benefit. Both see North Korea as a massive existential problem and believe in a strong defense.
The thing that differentiates them is what to do about North Korea. The “right” wants to do an M&A at some point. The “left” wants to negotiate a new joint venture. That’s it. The rest is all “pragmatism.”
So, if we want to be accurate, we should be calling the DPK the left-left and the ruling People Power Party the right-left.
Given all this, it’s no wonder foreigners get it wrong. I saw an article in an American publication this week that called Yoon “right wing” and then, as the author warmed to his theme, he escalated to “far right” and “ultra right.”
If we were able to come up with different words, we might have more reasonable political debates.
Michael Breen (mike.breen@insightcomms.com) is the author of "The New Koreans."
The use of these political labels gets 10 times more confusing when we start talking about “right” and “left.” We are so familiar with them. But what do they actually mean? I ask because I think these terms cloud debate more than clarify it.
Broadly speaking, to be on the left means you are a fan of government. When there are problems, the first thing a leftist does is ask what the government is or is not doing. This is natural and reasonable.
To be on the right means to prefer the market. The rightists still want government. In fact, they usually want to be the government. But they want less of it. In theory at least. They don’t like the government to interfere too much, especially in the market.
There’s a lot of talk these days about core values with people on the left being caring and fair and those on the right being respectful and loyal.
But politically minded people don’t like this conversation. That’s because right and left are biased. They often think the other side has no values. When Donald Trump was elected the first time around, there were surveys and studies going around psychoanalyzing people who voted for him and coming to negative conclusions about their mental and moral state.
This points to the second thing I want to say. That is that the terms right and left, when used about the other side, are more like slurs than proper descriptions.
The two sides go at one another like football supporters. If you consider the Chelsea chant, you’ll get the picture. It’s “We hate Tottenham (pause). Chelsea!”
The third thing I’d say is that Korea’s right and left don’t follow the global pattern. From the point of view I mentioned of the role of government being the differentiator, Korea is a leftist country and both of its main political parties are leftist.
That is because both sides believe in strong central government control. Both sides believe in “the people” and in helping farmers and giving us all welfare. They both moan about and yet believe in the chaebol. Both believe in strong ties with America and good relations with China and other nondemocratic states for the purpose of economic benefit. Both see North Korea as a massive existential problem and believe in a strong defense.
The thing that differentiates them is what to do about North Korea. The “right” wants to do an M&A at some point. The “left” wants to negotiate a new joint venture. That’s it. The rest is all “pragmatism.”
So, if we want to be accurate, we should be calling the DPK the left-left and the ruling People Power Party the right-left.
Given all this, it’s no wonder foreigners get it wrong. I saw an article in an American publication this week that called Yoon “right wing” and then, as the author warmed to his theme, he escalated to “far right” and “ultra right.”
If we were able to come up with different words, we might have more reasonable political debates.
Michael Breen (mike.breen@insightcomms.com) is the author of "The New Koreans."
No comments:
Post a Comment