Friday, July 30, 2004
Explaining my apostasy to the Lefties – Part 2
A large section* of the self-proclaimed left is hypocritical, selfish, intolerant and conservative - clinging onto a politics built on empty and mindless sloganeering. Claiming the “left” epithet they play at being caring, intellectual and even revolutionary, but this is a pose: a way of defining themselves as radical whilst pursuing an agenda promoting their own interests. A few crumbs may be thrown to the poor, but actually things are alright, thanks very much, no major changes if you don’t mind.
Dan defines the left as being against “privilege, inequality and oppression”. Who is for oppression? Who protests that people aren’t oppressed enough? We can all of us be against it, Dan, moral outrage does not belong to the Left wing (sorry, if it’s from “the right” then it’s “scare-mongering” or “reactionary”. I forgot). Privilege I’ve touched on before. What do we mean here? Neoclassical economics zealots would aim to destroy privilege as a distorter of the free market. Privilege is inefficient, and can be attacked from many angles. Next: “equality”. Easy to state a belief in this one. All men were created equal and so on… But what do you mean?! Equality of opportunity? Who seriously argues against that? It’s just the flipside of attacking privilege. Or are you talking about equality of outcome? The nation’s spoils shared equally amongst us all? I think this is morally consistent, actually. I’m not sure why one person *deserves* a better lifestyle than another just because they were born cleverer, had more encouragement, had some internal drive to "success". Haven’t got too far with that one when talking to soi-dissant socialists… Real equality terrifies many on the Left. It’s easy to airily mouth a few words about it, but push the average university-educated leftist and they do think they are more worthy than the “chavs”.
For all their apparent love of the people, (many on) the Left actually have contempt for them. There is a suspicion that the polis simply cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, but we know what’s best for them, don’t we? We can form a nice left-wing elite which will shepherd the flock with a benevolent hand. (And look at the language here – it tells a story. Thatcher was an “elected dictatorship”. Had she been of the left, her government would have been “progressive and inspired.”) There is a sinister willingness to impose a moral viewpoint on others rather than to persuade and engage with opposing arguments. A case in point is the anti-fox hunting movement. I don’t agree with fox hunting, I would rather people didn’t do it, but let’s be honest here, this movement is not about the poor little foxie. It is motivated by a loathing for those who live in the country, vote Tory and have ruddy, red faces. We *will* impose our (metropolitan, “liberal”) viewpoint on them, and if they don’t like it, we will arrest them. Think for a second about police cuffing and leading away red-jacketed, helmeted men. Is it really worth all that?
Cast a glance over the welfare state… The Middle Class is married to it. Why should this be? From where comes this previously absent altruism? I'll say it slowly for you: The… Middle… Classes… Are… The… Biggest… Beneficiaries… That's it. Education and healthcare are big deals to them. But but but, are you saying that working class people don't want to be educated and that they should be abandoned and work in the mills? Is that what you want? Oh, do be quiet. State education and healthcare are important to the bourgeoisie because they would pay privately if they were not available. The poor would not, to such an extent, as they have to spend more of their incomes on food, on shelter, on staying alive. And let's forget this idea of "free", by the way. Nothing is free. It is being paid for somewhere. Free healthcare is fine, sure, but what you're actually saying is we all buy a job lot wholesale and split it between us, thus reaping the benefits of no money wasted on advertising, monopsony employment of doctors etc. The NHS is an insurance policy where everyone’s premiums are lower. But if it is free on consumption then people will have as much as they can, until it's not worth them turning up to the hospital for anymore. At some point there has to be a rationing. Do you pay for glasses? Braces? Tampons? Dental floss? And education: free education for all, you say, on your placards as you march against tuition fees. Why exactly? What does that mean? Again, it's empty sloganeering. Education is not free, someone needs to pay for it, nor has the principle of no cost to the student ever been employed. If I were to take an evening class it wouldn't be free, I couldn't keep doing degree after degree - at some point you have to draw a line. Also, it's easy to support tuition fees from "the left": if everyone pays for it, but only some people go to university, then those who have not had the benefits (the poor) are paying for those who have (the rich). It should be available to all who want it, but let's stop pretending that students are doing society a favour by sacrificing themselves to learn Celtic for the good of us all.
By self-identifying as in opposition to powerful forces and vested interest, many on the Left absolve themselves of thinking issues through and of recognizing the logical conclusions to their rhetoric. It is too often a pose, a positioning of oneself on the side of the angels, a “hip” hat which enables other unthinking, cowardly reactionaries to recognise you and accept you in their limited, self-satisfied debates.
* Not “all”. OK?
|
A large section* of the self-proclaimed left is hypocritical, selfish, intolerant and conservative - clinging onto a politics built on empty and mindless sloganeering. Claiming the “left” epithet they play at being caring, intellectual and even revolutionary, but this is a pose: a way of defining themselves as radical whilst pursuing an agenda promoting their own interests. A few crumbs may be thrown to the poor, but actually things are alright, thanks very much, no major changes if you don’t mind.
Dan defines the left as being against “privilege, inequality and oppression”. Who is for oppression? Who protests that people aren’t oppressed enough? We can all of us be against it, Dan, moral outrage does not belong to the Left wing (sorry, if it’s from “the right” then it’s “scare-mongering” or “reactionary”. I forgot). Privilege I’ve touched on before. What do we mean here? Neoclassical economics zealots would aim to destroy privilege as a distorter of the free market. Privilege is inefficient, and can be attacked from many angles. Next: “equality”. Easy to state a belief in this one. All men were created equal and so on… But what do you mean?! Equality of opportunity? Who seriously argues against that? It’s just the flipside of attacking privilege. Or are you talking about equality of outcome? The nation’s spoils shared equally amongst us all? I think this is morally consistent, actually. I’m not sure why one person *deserves* a better lifestyle than another just because they were born cleverer, had more encouragement, had some internal drive to "success". Haven’t got too far with that one when talking to soi-dissant socialists… Real equality terrifies many on the Left. It’s easy to airily mouth a few words about it, but push the average university-educated leftist and they do think they are more worthy than the “chavs”.
For all their apparent love of the people, (many on) the Left actually have contempt for them. There is a suspicion that the polis simply cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, but we know what’s best for them, don’t we? We can form a nice left-wing elite which will shepherd the flock with a benevolent hand. (And look at the language here – it tells a story. Thatcher was an “elected dictatorship”. Had she been of the left, her government would have been “progressive and inspired.”) There is a sinister willingness to impose a moral viewpoint on others rather than to persuade and engage with opposing arguments. A case in point is the anti-fox hunting movement. I don’t agree with fox hunting, I would rather people didn’t do it, but let’s be honest here, this movement is not about the poor little foxie. It is motivated by a loathing for those who live in the country, vote Tory and have ruddy, red faces. We *will* impose our (metropolitan, “liberal”) viewpoint on them, and if they don’t like it, we will arrest them. Think for a second about police cuffing and leading away red-jacketed, helmeted men. Is it really worth all that?
Cast a glance over the welfare state… The Middle Class is married to it. Why should this be? From where comes this previously absent altruism? I'll say it slowly for you: The… Middle… Classes… Are… The… Biggest… Beneficiaries… That's it. Education and healthcare are big deals to them. But but but, are you saying that working class people don't want to be educated and that they should be abandoned and work in the mills? Is that what you want? Oh, do be quiet. State education and healthcare are important to the bourgeoisie because they would pay privately if they were not available. The poor would not, to such an extent, as they have to spend more of their incomes on food, on shelter, on staying alive. And let's forget this idea of "free", by the way. Nothing is free. It is being paid for somewhere. Free healthcare is fine, sure, but what you're actually saying is we all buy a job lot wholesale and split it between us, thus reaping the benefits of no money wasted on advertising, monopsony employment of doctors etc. The NHS is an insurance policy where everyone’s premiums are lower. But if it is free on consumption then people will have as much as they can, until it's not worth them turning up to the hospital for anymore. At some point there has to be a rationing. Do you pay for glasses? Braces? Tampons? Dental floss? And education: free education for all, you say, on your placards as you march against tuition fees. Why exactly? What does that mean? Again, it's empty sloganeering. Education is not free, someone needs to pay for it, nor has the principle of no cost to the student ever been employed. If I were to take an evening class it wouldn't be free, I couldn't keep doing degree after degree - at some point you have to draw a line. Also, it's easy to support tuition fees from "the left": if everyone pays for it, but only some people go to university, then those who have not had the benefits (the poor) are paying for those who have (the rich). It should be available to all who want it, but let's stop pretending that students are doing society a favour by sacrificing themselves to learn Celtic for the good of us all.
By self-identifying as in opposition to powerful forces and vested interest, many on the Left absolve themselves of thinking issues through and of recognizing the logical conclusions to their rhetoric. It is too often a pose, a positioning of oneself on the side of the angels, a “hip” hat which enables other unthinking, cowardly reactionaries to recognise you and accept you in their limited, self-satisfied debates.
* Not “all”. OK?
|
