Thursday 16 September 2021

State Expectations: contrasting left and right

At their extremes, what ‘left’ and ‘right’ designate can border on the indistinguishable. The authoritarians who want to rule without constraint in the name of the people, and the authoritarians who want absolute control for the sake of the nation, are as oppressive and unaccountable as each other.  On the other hand, the anarchist left and libertarian right both want to do away with being monitored and regulated by government.  Neither want to be told what to do by others – whatever the consequence.

So, are the labels of left and right redundant?  Well, for the majority of people who don’t subscribe to extreme views, what they generally think their government should do (or not) – their ‘State Expectations’, if you like, goes some way to characterise their political dispositions as Left or Right.

Let us look at five sets of issues and consider how those on the Left and Right are likely to respond to them in terms of the role they feel government institutions should play: 

 

People disadvantaged by particular conditions

The issues: people are disadvantaged by poverty, their isolated location, their disability or fragile health, or the discrimination they face as a result of their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, customs, or religion.

Left: The government should protect people from the consequences of being so disadvantaged, and help them secure equal respect and adequate support in overcoming the disadvantages in question as much as possible.

Right: The government should leave these people to sort out their own problem. It is down to them to make a living for themselves, and to fit in with how others are inclined to interact with them.

 

Threats posed by corporate practices

The issues: many corporations enhance our social and economic wellbeing, but some pose a threat in the way they mistreat employees and suppliers, promote and sell unsafe products, or harm the environment.

Left: The government should support the business sector to develop responsibly and bring in appropriate regulation to deal with those which might otherwise hurt others for their own gain.

Right: The government should leave businesses to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences themselves.  Government intervention will more often than not end up damaging the business sector.

 

Foreign relations

The issues: concerns are raised when the governments of other countries engage in activities that may be at odds with our country’s own interests; any increase in the number of immigrants and refugees may lead to tension in some areas; and foreign religious ideas may clash with our prevailing culture.

Left: The government should differentiate between what ought to be welcome and what needs to be guarded against, and act accordingly.  It should tackle real threats but also ensure that what are harmless or indeed beneficial should not be opposed.

Right: The government should be wary of foreign influences – be these commercial or military problems posed by those in another country, or instability fuelled by immigrants and refugees, and their alien customs and beliefs. The government should take a tough stance in curtailing any form of foreign intrusion into our way of life.

 

Standards in quality of life

The issues: People want access to decent health service, housing, transport, dependable utilities, protection from crime and pollution, and good education for their children. But these are not always readily available.

Left: The government should ensure sufficient resources are invested in providing and improving vital services so that everyone can have a minimally acceptable quality of life.

Right: The government should cut taxes so that businesses and individuals can thrive and look after themselves.  The less the government is involved in public services, the better it is for everyone.

 

Control over individual behaviour

The issues: No one can have the absolute freedom to behave irrespective of the impact on others.  From taking others’ property, injuring them physically, to causing emotional distress, or driving recklessly, there must be limits to individual behaviour.

Left: The government should identify unacceptable behaviour – based on the likely harm it would cause – and introduce policies that will be strictly enforced to minimise its occurrence.  The measures to be deployed – fines, incarceration, restitution, rehabilitation, treatment – are to be guided by what-works evidence.

Right: The government should do as little as possible about people smoking, drinking, spreading a dangerous virus (through not wearing a mask), speaking as they wish about minorities, or [in the US] buying guns. But the government should use as much force as possible to tackle thieves or drug users, do more to stop abortions, and [in the US] be prepared to sentence people with mental disability to death.

 

In conclusion

On the whole, people’s State Expectations point to their Left/Right orientation.  Those who would like to have a responsible government that will support people in attaining a better quality of life – especially those who are disadvantaged by factors beyond their personal control – lean left.  Those who would prefer to have a tough government that will on the one hand be inclined to use force in dealing with foreign powers and resort to severe punishment for criminals, and on the other, be resolute in not interfering with inequalities, business practices, or individual behaviour that is ‘traditional’ – lean right.


Wednesday 1 September 2021

Abusivism: the politization of nastiness

In politics, ‘isms’ used to consist of doctrines setting out why and how society should be steered towards a better future.  People backed or opposed particular political parties because they broadly subscribed to those doctrines.  Sometimes, when circumstances change, people might come to lose confidence in a given doctrine (e.g., when it turns out that lowering taxes repeatedly do not lead to the creation of well-paid jobs; or extending prison sentences in general does not reduce crime rates).  But the clash of isms was on the whole based on disputes over ideas, which were subject to challenges from reasoned analysis and objective evidence.

One of the most disturbing development at the dawn of the 21stcentury was the displacement of political ideas by the politization of nastiness.  Abusivist (to coin a term) politicians began to present their wild rants as ‘plain speaking’.  They style themselves as ‘ordinary folk’ who dare to talk back to ‘the establishment’. They despise reason, experts, evidence, compassion, empathy – for all they care about is what they ‘know’ to be the ‘truth’, and that ‘truth’ amounts to nothing but abusive attacks on any vulnerable group they feel like picking on.  

 

The targets of their groundless vitriol share one core characteristic – their plight stokes a twisted sense of self-righteous validation in people who, unsurprisingly, admire the ‘no nonsense’ aggressiveness of abusivist politicians. In general, anyone with a modicum of empathy wants to see help given to victims of domestic violence, immigrants desperate for a better life; refugees escaping from wars and chaos; people disadvantaged by their disability or poverty (or both); or individuals harassed and discriminated against as a result of their religion, race, gender or sexuality.  By contrast, followers of abusivist politicians get angry when they learn of these people getting help, and they want to retaliate – which their leaders promise to deliver for them in the form of laws and policies that not only cut any help provided, but would make vulnerable people’s lives even harder, especially through propaganda that misrepresents them as liars and threats.

 

Abusivism does not pretend to operate through reason, and it does not attempt to be civil. It labels as enemies those least able to defend themselves and proceed to attack them – both by promoting distrust and hatred against them, and by using the power of the state wherever possible to hurt them.  It dismisses people who care as ‘do-gooders’, ‘politically correct’, and despairingly ‘woke’. It rallies its supporters to obstruct and intimidate them in the name of some ‘culture war’.   

 

Theresa May once warned about the Conservatives becoming the Nasty Party, but when she had the power to chart a new course, she introduced the ‘Hostile Environment’ policy to drive immigrants away. In the end, she merely paved the way for Boris Johnson, whose casual abusivism has been a defining feature of his career.  In the US, Donald Trump has dedicated himself to reducing the Republican Party to nothing but the Nasty Party.  Not all conservative politicians go along with abusivist politics.  But if they want to save their party’s soul, they had better take action soon to pull it back from the brink.