Our polarized world is often categorized into hard-nosed conservatives and soft, caring lefties. This binary view makes people think of liberals as less competent than conservatives because liberals are more lefty. Right-wingers, in contrast, can be called uncaring or even cruel.
Conservatives hate being called heartless; many of them do have hearts and some actually care deeply about helping the poor. But as I’ve discussed elsewhere, people will always choose a reason to explain why you’re wrong and they are right, and if you’ve ruled out incompetence and ignorance, due to your reputation for competence, then malice is their only answer.
Lefties similarly object to being regarded as incompetent. Governments of all types have made fantastic blunders, and lefty policies are no more likely to fail than right-wing ones. In fact, of late they are less likely to fail. But if you’ve ruled out lack of interest in good as an explanation for doing bad, then incompetence has to be people’s explanation.
This dichotomy has expanded to govern people’s perception of politics in other ways, too. The Right is regarded as more ‘head’ whilst the Left is ‘heart’. The dominant Right is assumed to be dominant because of the economic stability and good stewardship it brings. This is why the remain side in the EU referendum campaigned so hard on economic prosperity versus economic doom. Common belief is that people care about economics and social issues are just a sideshow. This neatly fits economists’ old ideas of ‘homo economicus’, who is perfectly informed, perfectly rational and makes rational profit-maximizing decisions.
However, the referendum was lost, and with good reason. Commentators are now realizing that it was lost due to irrationality; the Leave campaign lied and appealed to biases. There were no facts in sight, let alone rational analysis. This was not ‘head’, yet it was right-wing. The cold, hard facts were all on the remain side, which is clearly the more ‘Left’ of the two.
For those of us who care about being right (not Right-wing), this is no surprise. It has long been recognized that reality has a liberal bias. But this truism is more than a running joke amongst liberals. It is an important insight that explains the political shifts we are seeing. Brexit was achieved by appealing to people’s emotions: their fear and distrust of strangers, their feelings of powerlessness, their resentment towards political elites and the status quo…
Facts would say that strangers are no worse than other people. This is why the areas with the most immigrants weren’t very scared of them. This is why most rapes are still committed by people known to the victim. These things answer the fear of strangers with hard logic. Instead Brexit answered the fear by offering to try to change the outside world. Lefty identity politics came full-circle, and the Right claimed that opinions based on lies and misunderstandings were as valid as any expert’s opinion.
Despite this, we see the Left still acting on its understanding of itself as the ‘heart’ of politics. When the Right wants to negotiate, it stamps its foot and refuses to move, and the consensus-seeking, wimpy lefties fall in line. Even when Obama had power in the USA, he ended up behaving like a Republican because they kicked up such a fuss: ‘our precious principles are under threat from economically damaging lefties! We mustn’t change anything’. We saw the same in the UK in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Lib Dems got an awful coalition deal from the Tories, who then blamed all nastiness on them whilst taking the credit for good Lib Dem policies. The Left cannot negotiate because it seeks consensus with people for whom consensus is a dirty word; who believe that democracy matters less than their own opinions, and that the Left, even if in power, must be fought in any way. Their politics has become the die-hard equivalent of guerilla warfare or terrorism.
And that’s why the Left needs to realize that it is not the ‘heart’ of politics. The Right is the biased, irrational side of politics, and liberals have all the facts and evidence. You cannot seek consensus with the terrorist who just wants you to die. Our government has a policy of not giving in to terrorist demands, yet Obama caved in when Republicans held up the national budget, and our government is right now attempting to negotiate with the EU using the blackmail of economic doom for all. What is this negotiating position except a national equivalent of a suicide bomber? The Right imagines that its opponents will once again cave in to its demands, as they have done so many times before.
We need to realize that liberalism is the doctrine of facts, principles and competence. The Conservatives and UKIP are the ‘heart’ of the country, but they are the black, twisted emotions of fear, distrust and resentment. The Greens are mainly ‘heart’ too, hoping for utopia whilst advocating alternative (i.e. not) medicine. That’s the wacky, well-meaning ‘heart’ that we’re accustomed to considering.
Liberalism is different. It is a cold, hard doctrine of principles. Sometimes it will enrage the well-meaning who wish we could just do something really nice, even though it’s impractical and probably ineffective. Often it will enrage the new ‘heartlands’ who don’t want to engage with detail and prefer comforting lies.
But, as a liberal, I want to be clear that my rage at seeing my country ruled by lies and stupidity is bigger than any impotent fury others feel at being exposed to facts and principles. I’m not a wishy-washy, woolly Leftie with a well-meaning attitude who will roll over in submission when others start to kick up a storm. I am someone with a devotion to truth and justice, and if you are too, then you need to make it clear, because we need a new narrative and stereotype for this country. We need to stop caving in; to stop ‘acknowledging their opinion’; to stop hedging and seeking consensus and trying to be all things to all men.
I understand that being outspoken can create conflict. I understand that can feel nasty. I understand that disagreeing strongly with someone often won’t persuade that person as well as gently nudging them. However, others can refuse to be nudged, and can deliberately create conflict to silence us. We have abandoned our principles and accepted opinions that should never have been countenanced in the hope of meeting someone half-way who has no intention of ever moving.
There are no alternative facts. There can be no more compromise.
