With the development of the welfare state, many demands to protect and care for the less favoured could be fulfilled, if not all of them.

In modern, developed societies, education and training is provided at various levels, workers are protected, working hours and vacations are regulated, unemployment compensation is provided, health care is accessible to all, and retired people have never enjoyed better living conditions. Of course, many aspects may still need improvement; and some systemic problems, as for example youth unemployment, must find a solution.

In that context one can think that, since its objectives have been broadly achieved the “left” movement has no more reasons to exist. And indeed socialist or social-democratic parties in Western countries have difficulties to develop programs that would gather a wide support among their constituencies.

On the moderate “right” side of the scene, no one is asking for the dismantling existing social institutions. Rather, the preoccupation is more oriented to the problem of being able to sustain a high service level in an affordable financial way.

So, in modern times and post-industrial societies, left and right are debating more on how to proceed than on what society should be built.

The what question is left to the extremes that are calling for drastic changes but never explain how they would proceed: the far left calls for a rupture with capitalism, the far right would curb all immigration, both are preaching economic isolationism and protection from unfair global competition. But none describes the institutions and the structures of power that would enable a society to function according to their claims. As, by definition, extremes are not the mainstream, they remain in the opposition, play a [sometimes useful] jester role, and bear no responsibility.

So, aside of the extremes, one could think that no large differences exist anymore between the right and the left.

But one should not forget the basic instincts of the people who situate themselves on one or the other side of the political arena. In a schematic way, following fundamental differences can be outlined:

This table may be seen as an oversimplification; but it helps understand that:  Yes, there are fundamental differences!

And these differences are of ideological nature and are almost irreconcilable.  This is why it is so difficult to live in democracy, to accept power structures and opinions that are not one’s first choice, and to be satisfied by the subtle equilibrium provided by carefully negotiated political compromises.