The axis that unites left and right: wanting to live well

The axis that unites left and right: wanting to live well

There is a thesis making the rounds these days in economic circles that makes both camps uncomfortable: the left-right divide would be an artifact, a smokescreen hiding the only real fracture, the one pitting those at the top against those at the bottom. The idea is not new, but it comes back with vigor every time the polls tighten and the parties dig in. The underlying notion is simple: housing, food, education, security and healthcare are cross-cutting interests that pay no heed to party labels, and whoever manages them should be accountable to that majority, not to their own flock.

The proposal goes beyond the diagnosis. Those who make it call for a horizontal government that safeguards those shared minimums, and they pull issues like immigration out of the ideological trench, arguing it should be decided on technical and economic grounds: how many people can come in each year so that the economy and general welfare improve. Zero, one million, whatever the numbers say. Euthanasia, on the other hand, would be decided at the ballot box. It is the old aspiration of governing common affairs, applied to a country that has spent years with the feeling that those at the top take turns in power while those at the bottom are being drained of their wealth.

Does the left and right really exist?

The answer from the opposite flank is blunt: of course it exists. Choose who governs you: your own or outsiders, sums up one of the most repeated comebacks. For this camp, denying the ideological axis is a well-known maneuver, almost a classic: when the polls give the right an overwhelming majority, the messages that equate the parties, urge people not to vote or to back marginal options reappear. The argument that it makes no difference who governs because they are all the same is, from this viewpoint, the best ally of whoever is already entrenched.

The counterattack does not stop at name-calling. It unfolds across specific sectors. On education, it is claimed that part of the left does not want to demand effort or results; on security, that it would not deport repeat offenders; on healthcare, that migratory pressure is wrecking it and yet it is supported without reservation. These are claims circulating forcefully in the public debate, though it is worth remembering that they are just that, claims, and each one admits nuances and counterexamples.

Living well as a zero-sum trap

There is a subtler objection, and perhaps a more uncomfortable one for the original premise. For many people, living well does not miccionan having a decent home and a healthcare system that works, but living better than the neighbor. In that mental scale, it is easier to drag the person next to you down than to improve yourself, because the result shows sooner and feels better. Envy as an economic engine is a classic that no textbook covers, but it explains behaviors the data cannot capture.

From there stems a recurring accusation against part of the left: that its priority is not living well, but making sure those above do not live well. A red would always rather go blind in one eye if the one above goes blind in both, goes one of the most acid interventions. It is a caricature, no doubt, but a caricature that some wield as a portrait and others reject as an insult. In between lies an uncomfortable question: if the goal were truly to live well, why is it so hard to agree on the basics?

Top and bottom: the divide that is genuinely shared

Where there does seem to be consensus is on the existence of an extractive elite. Some point to institutions and groups that look after their own pockets rather than the general welfare, and that suspicion cuts across ideological sympathies. The parties, it is said, do not represent the citizen interest; those at the top take turns and entrench themselves while those at the bottom, the vast majority, get worse off. The proposed solution is a revolution, or at least a government that avoids divisions and attends to what is cross-cutting.

The problem is that this majority at the bottom does not vote the same way. And there the mirage breaks. The real divide is not only vertical; it is also horizontal, and it runs through families, neighborhoods and Christmas dinner tables. While some call for voting on euthanasia and deciding immigration with experts, others reply that the enemy is not at the top, but in the neighbor who thinks differently. With those materials, is living well a meeting point or the perfect excuse to avoid discussing what truly divides?