Concerns, left and right
Reason is not automatic
My little sister is an unending source of inspiration for me. A few months back, when she was still talking to me, we were talking about her daughter. My niece was born at the tail-end of the millennials and like many of her generation, she has no plans to have children. When I questioned the wisdom of her position, my sister started to defend my niece’s decision with a litany about climate change, nuclear energy, pandemics, racism and inequality, etc., ending with a question: why would any sensible person want to bring a child into this world?
As I was listening, I realized that I could take over any time, continuing the list of the issues concerning her. They are that predictable. If I ask any of my conservative or libertarian friends, they could give me the full list as well.
When she finished, I told her that I can understand her concerns completely. I may not agree but I know them and understand how she feels about them. However, I said, I would be curios to know, what she thinks about my concerns. What are the concerns, as she understands, of conservatives and libertarians? What are the concerns of the people who vote FIDESZ? (The governing party of Orbán). Then I was waiting for the answer…….
……..
Crickets
…….
more crickets
……
EXACTLY as Dr. Price pointed out in his book “Give speech a chance”: for my liberal socialist sister, there is no other side. She could not think of a single concern, valid, real, fake or imaginary……….. any.
And she is not alone. This mental vacuity is an essential part of being a leftist. It is this void that makes communication impossible. Questioning the beliefs of the left is equated with questioning the essence of their very existence. Acknowledging an alternative set of concerns would make the comparison with their own concerns inevitable. That would lead to an existential crisis, so they must be blocked out, ignored and dismissed without consideration.
In our conversation, I named at least half a dozen, but if I would ask her today, I suspect that I would hear just the crickets again. It’s not simply that she would not remember, it’s more like the blocking out the memory of a traumatic event from your life.
Still, concerns, attitudes and strategies exist on both sides. Let’s see what they may be:
The concerns of the left are:
Climate change
Unfettered free market competition
Use of nuclear energy
Use of fossil fuels
Gender rights
Unconditional acceptance of any kind of deviance
Economic inequality
Individualism (selfishness, greed, etc.)
Racism
Overpopulation
Running out of resources
Not enough government (and governmental power)
The inability of the deplorables to understand and sympathize with their concerns
Etc., etc……..
The concerns of the right:
The degradation of law and order
Protection of property rights
The right to self ownership and self protection
Freedom of conscience and the right to free speech,
Equal treatment before the law
The unfettered rights in the pursuit of happiness
The fear of societal breakdown and a dystopian future
The fear of losing our cultural and civilizational heritage
The relentless attacks on science, truth and reality itself
The corruption of the media, education and the medical profession
Distrust of dysfunctional government institutions
Distrust of politics and democracy
The fear of economic collapse
Depopulation
Too much government (and governmental power)
The unwillingness of those impetuous children to consider, or at least acknowledge the validity of their concerns
Etc., etc……..
… in other words:
The left advocates for what make them feel good, while the right feels good when they can contribute to what they reason to be good
Morals for the left mean demonstrating their alignment with the collective will (as they understand it); for the right, they mean an expression of moral principles through individual action
The left demands compliance with the goal, the right argues for compliance with the principle.
When the left says ‘democracy’, they mean a manifestation of the collective will, while the right understands it as a compromise of competing interests
When the left speaks of human rights, they mean entitlement to specific goods; while the right means individual rights to acquire those specific goods
The point of leftist policies is the exclusion (or crowding out) of alternatives, for the right, the essence of policies is to offer more choice
The left sees the right as uncaring and stupid; the right sees the left as naïve and irresponsible
The left is fearful, the right is alarmed
The left is afraid of things happening to them, the right is worried about things done to them.
The left is triggered, the right is irritated
The left expects compassion, the right expects reason
The left forms mobs, the right creates gangs
The left values conformity, obedience and compliance, the right values structure, hierarchy and competition
The problem of the left is selfish narcissism, the problem of the right is paranoia
The left is yearning for the safety of the herd, the right is fiercely protective of the pack
The right fights, the left stampedes
Etc., etc………
The problem of the right is the belief, that reason should govern the world and they, like myself, have a problem accepting a world view that will have none of it. A world view that is built entirely on emotions.
The right sees the left as unreasonable, while the left sees the right as heartless or ‘unfeeling’.
But, of course, it is not that simple.
The left has some reason and the right has feelings too. The question is primacy.
The left uses reasoning to rationalize their emotions while the right uses emotions to motivate their reason.
A few years ago, I read a book titled “The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics” and even wrote two posts about it, linked below. The book applies r/K selection theory to explain the basic differences of reproductive strategies and their implications to political attitudes with a clear preference for ‘K’.
But this post is not about that book. Although I agree with most of its content, I consider comparing strategies of the left vs the right with the herd vs the pack as a metaphor, not an analogy. As an illustration, not as an explanation.
Having said that, for me, the two examples that best illustrate the left’s behaviour are the huddle of the emperor penguins and the pronking of the springboks.
Watch the videos! They are short and fascinating.
The first illustrates the woke drive of the leftists, the virtue signaling drive to belong. To move as close to the (ideological) centre for safety as possible.
While David Attenborough may not understand the reason for the second, Richard Dawkins explains it clearly in “The Selfish Gene”. The pronking is a signal to the predators lurking around saying:
“Look at me! Look how healthy I am! Look how high I can jump! Imagine how hard it will be for you to get me! Go after the loser next to me!”
The herd has far less consideration for its individual members than the pack.
Ever since I left communist Hungary, one of my greatest difficulties was explaining to people who never experienced it how hopelessly selfish and alienated socialist existence is.
Few things are more antisocial than the existence in actual socialism is.
The subheading of this post is the beginning of a quote from Ayn Rand:
Leave them alone? … but then, the question is: what to do when THEY do not leave YOU alone? The problem is that the liberals, socialist and communists do not stop at being incredulous and delusional.
Not only do they actively dismiss, malign, ridicule, suppress, censor and penalize any and every concern conservatives and libertarians may have, but they also refuse to discuss their own dangerously stupid and harmful ideas. When I talk to my sister and just about any other of our leftist friends, they perceive the rational questioning of their ideas as an assault. As if my questions were designed to hurt their feelings.
Why? Because reason DOES hurt their feelings.
Ayn Rand is not helping. I wish we could leave each other alone, but we have to learn to live with each other. We cannot find a way to avoid civilizational collapse without figuring out how to talk to each other.
Is there any leftist out there who can understand that? Is there any leftist out there willing to compromise?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
When I chose the Ayn Rand quote, I wanted to insert a little aside into this post. Thinking about that aside, my attempt to explain the dangers of the leftist strategy grew into something that I cannot just live to be an aside. It is far more important than that. I will have to make it into a separate post. My next.
I also fully understand my limitations and therefore the limitations of this post. I am a conservative leaning libertarian and I cannot be free from my biases, but I am open for corrections. If I missed anything important from my lists, let me know. If you think I am wrong, let me know. If you have similar experiences, share them here.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Further reading (more from me)
Worthwhile reading (more from Others)
If you see the conversation with your sister as indicative of “leftists,” I understand your post. And, certainly, there are many on the left who would respond similarly (crickets) to your question to her.
I consider myself a progressive liberal, but not exactly a Democrat. So take that for whatever you think it’s worth. And while I do see many far-left positions as patently absurd, it seems to me that at least some of your statements about “the left” tend to show that position in its most extreme. What troubled me the most about these lists is that you appear to see the “right” as leaning toward compromise, and the “left”—well, not so much. I agree that the extreme left position seems not open to compromise. But so does the extreme right. If I were to describe the extreme right, I would describe that position as “I care about me and mine and not about anyone else.” Is this accurate? No; at least, no more so than an extreme left example is accurate.
I hope the question at the end of your post (Is there any leftist out there willing to compromise?) is answered in the affirmative. I know they are out there.
Excellent post. I too have problems with Ayn's statement: a) conquered is the wrong word I think, guided would be better b) agree with you that if we 'leave them alone' then you have the outcome of Chamberlain 'leaving Hitler alone'.
"The left sees the right as uncaring and stupid; the right sees the left as naïve and irresponsible" ... or both (especially the left) see the other as evil, which justifies eliminating them (thus 'doxxing' or violent threats)
"The problem of the left is selfish narcissism, the problem of the right is paranoia" ... well, paranoia on the right can be justified because they know history and see what's going to happen "that we repeat because we don't know history"-the left ignores history because in their minds they have a better solution than what was tried before (they don't, eventually sin nature takes over and history repeats)
FYI I am a conservative Christian Constitutional conservative (which includes true liberalism and most libertarianism beliefs, ha!) The USA was founded on personal liberty and rule of law; however as John Adams observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The current Left-vs-Right fight is evidence of that statement.