Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

I just want to set out that I posted a question about this concept as I thought it was interesting and has at least some degree of truth to it but I'm not entirely convinced that there's no essential essence to either the "left" or the "right". I've attempted to steel man their case to some degree but I must admit that I don't feel qualified to really argue their case to it's fullest extent.

Certainly, there is definitely a tendency for many people towards tribalism. They identify with the left or right on certain issues and then tend to adopt other issues also embraced by their "team" merely because that is what the "good" people believe, not because there is any real logical connection between any two given issues.

That said, one kind of essential difference I see between the left and the right might look something like this: The left over emphasise the importance of good intentions and under emphasise the importance of incentives. The right doing the opposite.

Having, over the course of my life, moved from a position where I was very much firmly on (what I would call) the left to a more nuanced position (although in many ways admittedly on the right), I remember very well how I used to view people on the "right" but now I feel like I've seen things from a different perspective. I used to always assume bad intentions from people on the right. Not merely that they were wrong and misguided, that they were cynically arguing from a position of self interest and really didn't actually care about how their policies would affect others. Now, more on the right I see people on the left as being naïve, wishful thinkers who's hearts are in the right place but who's ideas are wildly unrealistic. I feel like these attitudes are widely held and represent how the left and right typically view each other.

It's a weird asymmetry. At first I felt resentful of it. If we give you the benefit of the doubt, assume that you have the best of intentions, why can't you extend us the same courtesy? But the more I thought about it, the more it seems to flow from the left right distinction I stated above: The left over emphasise the importance of good intentions and under emphasise the importance of incentives.

Those on the right just don't care much about good intentions. The left care too much about it. Hence, if one has good intentions and someone else doesn't agree, they must not share your good intentions. It's something I've been thinking about anyway...

[Sy Borg]

Good post. To some extent it comes down to the old cliché: "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative when old, you have no brain".

Really, either "wing" - left or right - will flap around in circles without the other. Broadly, conservatism without progressivism results in stagnation. Progressivism without conservatism results in chaos.

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems that Fried Egg acknowledges that the concepts of Left and Right exist but that individuals and political parties promote aspects of both Left and Right depending on the specific topic. Not only do I agree, but why would anyone assume it would be any other way? Folks basically promote their self interest which will vary from Left to Right depending, just as observed.

Yes, and no too.

On the one hand, people and politicians tend to 'bend' their ideologies to suit the prevailing conditions. So those who are usually left can sometimes support a more right-leaning policy, or vice versa. And yes, a pragmatic approach has much to recommend it.

But at the extremes, where all the rules break down in politics, just as they do in physics, there is usually one person (or a very few people) who lead, and the rest are forced to follow. Extremes are all about individual Glorious Leaders trying to seize power, often successfully. I consider it reasonable to acknowledge their existence ... and then ignore them. They don't really have an ideology, unless perhaps it's "Me, Me, Me!!!", or "put all this 'public' money into my private Swiss bank account"...

But I do agree with other comments that have been made. Left vs right is just one balancing pair of complements, out of many. There are lots of other balances too. I don't think this is wrong, but I do think it can (and will) tend to confuse this particular discussion, if we aren't careful.



P.S. My Mum regularly voted directly against her own personal interest, because she thought the policies were 'good for the country'. I suspect not many did likewise, but what do I know?

[Pattern-chaser]

The left tends to favour the community, while the right tends to favour the individual. Isn't that the basic difference between the two?

I still think this is a foundational observation, as regards left and right. It's basic and simple, but it's clear, and I think it reflects the real world quite well, yes?

[Pattern-chaser]

Certainly, there is definitely a tendency for many people towards tribalism. They identify with the left or right on certain issues and then tend to adopt other issues also embraced by their "team" merely because that is what the "good" people believe, not because there is any real logical connection between any two given issues.

Yes, in any discussion about human behaviour, it would be unwise to ignore or discount our tendency for social/group behaviour. I.e. we follow the group, even when it disagrees with us personally. We still follow, because peer pressure is perhaps the most persuasive thing that exists in our world?

Parents soon learn this, when their kids go to nursery, and thereafter. Parental influence is there, of course, but peer pressure easily overwhelms it. This is an empirically-verifiable fact. ... And it doesn't change as we get older.

Those on the right just don't care much about good intentions. The left care too much about it. Hence, if one has good intentions and someone else doesn't agree, they must not share your good intentions. It's something I've been thinking about anyway...

If good intentions are so lacking in our 'real' world — and I agree that they are — then we are liars, governed by liars. And where do we go from there? There can be no trust if there is no shared or common ground, can there? My opinion is that there must be good intentions if our societies are to function at all. It won't be 'pure' good intentions, for the reasons already described. But there have to be some.

Did Trump say to Americans "vote for me, so that I can take back all the money you poor people have stolen from billionaires like me"? No, of course not. But if his potential voters thought he really had no good intentions toward them, they wouldn't vote for him, would they?

There have to be (some) good intentions in politics, if it is to work. And I think that applies regardless of left or right?

[Fried Egg]

Those on the right just don't care much about good intentions. The left care too much about it. Hence, if one has good intentions and someone else doesn't agree, they must not share your good intentions. It's something I've been thinking about anyway...

If good intentions are so lacking in our 'real' world — and I agree that they are — then we are liars, governed by liars. And where do we go from there? There can be no trust if there is no shared or common ground, can there? My opinion is that there must be good intentions if our societies are to function at all. It won't be 'pure' good intentions, for the reasons already described. But there have to be some.

Did Trump say to Americans "vote for me, so that I can take back all the money you poor people have stolen from billionaires like me"? No, of course not. But if his potential voters thought he really had no good intentions toward them, they wouldn't vote for him, would they?

There have to be (some) good intentions in politics, if it is to work. And I think that applies regardless of left or right?

My point is that the left are often all too ready to accept an idea, a policy or an organisation if they believe it is well intended, often without sufficient thought to how it might actually work in practice, nor give due consideration to the incentive structures that it would setup. Conversely, they are quick to infer poor intentions on their political opponents and once that is assumed, they rarely look any further. For those on the left, I contend, the most important thing are intentions. For the right, it is more about incentives.

[Good_Egg]

Seems that people are saying true and meaningful things about left-right differences.

Left-right is a one-dimensional model. In some respects it's quite a good model, because it has quite a lot of predictive power, given its simplicity.

A 3-dimensional model is more adequate. If instead of a left-right scale you use a combination of 3 scales, according to how strongly one is in favour of tradition, liberty and equality, then you can probably predict people's behaviour and preferences more accurately. But at the cost of greater complexity.

[Count Lucanor]

I just want to set out that I posted a question about this concept as I thought it was interesting and has at least some degree of truth to it but I'm not entirely convinced that there's no essential essence to either the "left" or the "right". I've attempted to steel man their case to some degree but I must admit that I don't feel qualified to really argue their case to it's fullest extent.

Certainly, there is definitely a tendency for many people towards tribalism. They identify with the left or right on certain issues and then tend to adopt other issues also embraced by their "team" merely because that is what the "good" people believe, not because there is any real logical connection between any two given issues.

That said, one kind of essential difference I see between the left and the right might look something like this: The left over emphasise the importance of good intentions and under emphasise the importance of incentives. The right doing the opposite.

Having, over the course of my life, moved from a position where I was very much firmly on (what I would call) the left to a more nuanced position (although in many ways admittedly on the right), I remember very well how I used to view people on the "right" but now I feel like I've seen things from a different perspective. I used to always assume bad intentions from people on the right. Not merely that they were wrong and misguided, that they were cynically arguing from a position of self interest and really didn't actually care about how their policies would affect others. Now, more on the right I see people on the left as being naïve, wishful thinkers who's hearts are in the right place but who's ideas are wildly unrealistic. I feel like these attitudes are widely held and represent how the left and right typically view each other.

It's a weird asymmetry. At first I felt resentful of it. If we give you the benefit of the doubt, assume that you have the best of intentions, why can't you extend us the same courtesy? But the more I thought about it, the more it seems to flow from the left right distinction I stated above: The left over emphasise the importance of good intentions and under emphasise the importance of incentives.

Those on the right just don't care much about good intentions. The left care too much about it. Hence, if one has good intentions and someone else doesn't agree, they must not share your good intentions. It's something I've been thinking about anyway...

I’m under the impression that the size of the sample that you’ve been using to characterize the left and the right is quite small. From the top of my mind, I could list a good bunch of people that I would put on the left or the right, but would not fit your description. It seems that your idea of a leftist fits into the kind of people that some once defined as imbued with “pathological altruism”, or simply excessively idealistic people, while a right-winger would be just someone with a pragmatic and realistic approach to issues. I wouldn’t put myself on the idealistic camp, yet I have no doubt that I sit inside the leftist quadrant. The left or the right simply cannot be reduced to one particular attitude; they are broad categories that encompass many views.

As for tribalism, it doesn’t apply to just being identified as a leftist or a right-winger, just as it doesn’t apply automatically to any other dichotomy in political or philosophical views. For tribalism to appear, there must be a strong bond and need of loyalty to a group, in a cultish sense. It is more closely related to identitarian wars, where the identity of the group is defined in terms of common attributes that are essentially in conflict with those of other groups perceived as the enemy and a permanent threat to the continuous existence of the group.

[Sy Borg]

Is it a political movement or a cult?

The test: If you changed political sides, would your friends and family reject you? If yes, then the politics are cultish. In the past, this kind of rejection was more common on the right, now it's more common on the left. Heck, in many places one dare not even own a Tesla lest they be rejected and their property vandalised, which is clearly cultish.

[Fried Egg]

I’m under the impression that the size of the sample that you’ve been using to characterize the left and the right is quite small. From the top of my mind, I could list a good bunch of people that I would put on the left or the right, but would not fit your description. It seems that your idea of a leftist fits into the kind of people that some once defined as imbued with “pathological altruism”, or simply excessively idealistic people, while a right-winger would be just someone with a pragmatic and realistic approach to issues. I wouldn’t put myself on the idealistic camp, yet I have no doubt that I sit inside the leftist quadrant. The left or the right simply cannot be reduced to one particular attitude; they are broad categories that encompass many views.

Yeah, well, very few people would accept or admit that they were idealistic, easily swayed by apparent good intentions, even if they were. Just like very few people would admit that they are motivated by selfish aims, would tend to frame their beliefs and aims in terms of being for the social good.

Yes, I admit it is a very broad generalisation and no doubt there are many people who wouldn't fit that distinction. But as a general tendency that I've observed in many people, I stand by it.

[Good_Egg]

We humans each have a view of the world, and that view - implicitly or explicitly - includes an answer to the question "why do other people hold different values from the values I hold ?"

Some people adopt the easy derogatory answers "Because they're evil" or "Because they're stupid or ignorant". And the observable fact that a higher proportion of left-leaning people choose "evil" and more right-leaning people choose "stupid/ignorant" is interesting, and calls out for explanation.

Some people dodge the question by portraying politics as driven by rational self-interest rather than values. But that doesn't explain the rich socialists and the conservative working class.

Occasionally it crosses my mind to wonder whether there's a correlation between right/left and being the eldest/younger child in a family. Growing up is about making sense of the world. Younger children have grown up wanting to have what their sibling has, and may be thus more likely to value equality and vote left ? Whilst eldest children, having had to make sense of the world for themselves rather than follow another, are more self-reliant and independent, more likely to see the status quo as something to be worked within rather than challenged, and thus tend to vote right ?

Just a theory - I've no data to support it.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is it a political movement or a cult?

The test: If you changed political sides, would your friends and family reject you? If yes, then the politics are cultish.

OK...

In the past, this kind of rejection was more common on the right, now it's more common on the left.

Not so, in the UK. The miner's strike of the early 80s was so divisive that there are still families sundered by disputes over Thatcher and her policies. This was definitely a left-wing thing at the time. Brexit was equally divisive, although the source (left or right) of the rejection(s) is less obvious.

Heck, in many places one dare not even own a Tesla lest they be rejected and their property vandalised, which is clearly cultish.

I would've said "daft", not "cultish". Not to buy your new car from Tesla is expressing your right to buy as you see fit, while damaging *someone else's* Tesla is something else entirely. Are you punishing that person for owning a Tesla, because they are showing support for Musk? Because it seems likely that they bought it before Musk's evil tendencies were so clear and obvious... Hence my suggestion of "daft".

[Fried Egg]

Not so, in the UK. The miner's strike of the early 80s was so divisive that there are still families sundered by disputes over Thatcher and her policies. This was definitely a left-wing thing at the time.

This is actually a classic example of the left and right shifting ground over time. It was the right that didn't wanted to close down coal mines in the 80's. Now it's the left.

Brexit was equally divisive, although the source (left or right) of the rejection(s) is less obvious.

Indeed it is less obvious, and again an example of a position for which the left and right have shifted ground. Back in the 70's it was the left that was more Euro skeptic. Now it is more commonly a right wing thing. That said, there are still Euro skeptics on the left, Jeremy Corbyn being a famous example. And it's hardly surprising, many EU rules prevent national governments doing left wing things like subsidising industries and taxing education (the recent tax increase on private schools wouldn't have been possible if we were still in the EU!)

[Pattern-chaser]

Not so, in the UK. The miner's strike of the early 80s was so divisive that there are still families sundered by disputes over Thatcher and her policies. This was definitely a left-wing thing at the time.

This is actually a classic example of the left and right shifting ground over time. It was the right that didn't wanted to close down coal mines in the 80's. Now it's the left.

I don't think this particular dispute had a lot to do with coal. It was more about the power of working people to participate and contribute to the governance of our country; it was to destroy the unions and the power they had. ... Which makes this detail a derail, so I'll shut up now.

[Sy Borg]

Heck, in many places one dare not even own a Tesla lest they be rejected and their property vandalised, which is clearly cultish.

I would've said "daft", not "cultish". Not to buy your new car from Tesla is expressing your right to buy as you see fit, while damaging *someone else's* Tesla is something else entirely. Are you punishing that person for owning a Tesla, because they are showing support for Musk? Because it seems likely that they bought it before Musk's evil tendencies were so clear and obvious... Hence my suggestion of "daft".

Musk is not evil. The evil ones are those who spread the blatant lies, claiming Musk to be a Nazi, falsely presenting his clumsy "my heart goes out to you" gesture as a Sieg Heil salute. That was unforgivable, and damaging innocent people's cars or encouraging people to do damage is simply evil.

Musk is a great innovator and he does not deserve the lies and ad hominems.

Meanwhile, there was a spate of videos after the election where Democrats were disowning their families and partners for supporting Republicans. That's cult behaviour.