Skip to main content

The Left and the Right

The political spectrum is oversimplified and inadequate as most people recognise. The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/) is better, but still has its faults.

The dichotomy assumes symmetry between Left and Right, which is an assumption few people ever considered.

There is no symmetry. If you are looking to confirm an a priori symmetry you are wrong.
Yes, you can find some similarities, but 'some similarities' is not symmetry at all. Even 'many similarities' would not imply symmetry. The Right does have ideologues (Libertarians), but they are far fewer in number than the Left. Aside form Libertarians, the Left projects and invents ideologues on the Right so that they don't need to deal in reality and pretend only a power struggle exists.

The biggest difference between Left and Right is their attitude to the world generally:
  • The Left is ideological, resents their life and the current state of the world, and seek to socially engineer society to achieve some Utopia.
  • The Right is realistic, appreciates the good things of the past and present, is practical, seeks gradual, careful reform -- or for some, a more significant wind back of the Left's social engineering and return to traditional dynamics that worked.

Positives of the Left

  • Goal-oriented, not 'principled'
  • Hegemonic, not interested in 'balance'
  • Appeal to emotions
  • Willing to lie to achieve their goals
  • Good at propaganda. e.g. able to spiritualise their politics as a fight between good and evil, oppressor and oppressed

Positives of the Right

  • Naturalistic, scientific
  • Pragmatic
  • Doesn't need to lie to win arguments

Negatives of the Left

  • Dishonesty / low trust
  • Eats itself through identity politics. e.g. attacks potential male allies through Feminist attacks
  • Over-reliance on strawman, ad hominem and smear
  • Intellectual inconsistency and dishonesty
  • Driven by envy and resentment.
  • Life-denying / Other-wordly
  • Unscientific
  • Emotions and fantasy over facts
  • Shames others unfairly all the time
  • Group think
  • Hypocrisy, disconnect between words and actions
  • projection
  • Self-deceiving
  • Gullibility
  • Pathetic, ugly adherents (Cat ladies, soyboys)
  • Grievance mongering
  • utopian ends justifies the means
  • sneering
  • selfish 

Leftist tactics

  • Deny reality, probably its biggest tactic
  • faux outrage
  • grandstanding / virtue signalling
  • strawman and smear
  • cultural hegemony: media, academia, education, government, NGOs

Weakness of the Right in the cultural/political war

  • far too often accepts the Left's frame, rather than re-framing
  • reticent to invoke moral outrage like the Left
  • reticent to do ad hominem, unlike the Left that does it in spades
  • reticent to do logical fallacies generally, especially strawmans, unlike the Left
  • assumes their opponents have good intentions (because they don't understand their drives)
  • Doesn't know how, or to disinclined to isolate big end of town (rather than small business) and criticise them
  • Doesnt know how to deal with unions, except as adversaries
  • Does not support non-approved (White) identitarians
  • Doesnt understand itself fully. If it did, it would have far more naturalistic explanations, rather than adopting Leftist frames
  • Thinks they are on the same plane as the Left, whereas the Right is naturalistic and the Left ideological
  • Scared of the 'racist' boogeyman. After decades, still not come up with effective defence
  • An actual lack of self-interest, doing themselves no favours, largely because a lack of direction
  • Does not pursue the Left's weak points. e.g. should be hammering over Venezeula, but barely rates a mention

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Multiculturalism is responsible for every war in history (almost)

people informally segregate all the time. You will find various ethnic enclaves in Melbourne and Sydney. Ethnocentric in-group preference is also seen in choice of friends and communication levels among work colleagues of different ethnic backgrounds. While there may be enough tolerance to allow semi-deracinated individuals to participate in capitalism and consumerism, the reality is that in-group preference is innate and Multiculturalism/diversity should be avoided a much as possible, because it breaks down social cohesion and trust. Diversity is our greatest weakness - an observable, scientific reality (footnote: Robert Putnam). Remember that forced integration has lead to many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century. WWI and Hitler would not have happened if various ethnic groups had sovereignty rather than being under the thumb of oppressive empires. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are two current examples of Multicultural conflicts. There is widespread revolt against forced integrati...

How Liberalism enslaves

Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient Greco-Roman moralists posit a very different idea of 'freedom' that involves combating the tendencies that divert us from human flourishing and contributing to our community as social animals. It is naturalistic, albeit pre-Darwinist, but it is not dogmatic like Liberalism, Leftism, etc. This ancient teach us what freedom really is, and Stoic practices in particular can inculcate an honest sense of autonomy. Liberalism claims to grant people autonomy but it only gives them a false sense of it. It effectively enslaves people to denial of their biology, hedonistic consumerism, keeping up with the Jones', seeking celebrity, lower quality social and family relations, workplace and other forms of alienation, pursuit of happiness in all the wrong places: career, travel, shiny things, sleeping around, taking drugs, etc. Liberalism won't necessarily lead to all these things, but it makes people vulnerable to their marketing, and being h...

Equality, Liberalism and the Big State

Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately). Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another. New indiv...