Right and Left: Self-Interest vs. Self-Loathing
Anybody else ever get the following kind of impression:
The right tends to be motivated largely (though, of course, not entirely) by a kind of self-interest (where this can include national self-interest. The left, on the other hand, tends to be motivated largely (though, of course, not entirely) by something like self-loathing. Economically, folks on the right like to spin things in a way that gets them more money, whereas at least part of the left seems to say "take my money--I don't deserve it anyway!" In international affairs, on the right we get "foreign policy realism," the view that we don't even have any moral obligations to other countries and people. We also get constant/repeated campaigns to convince us that we should almost always undertake courses of action that will benefit the U.S., even if only minutely, and even if at great cost to others--that is, a radical skewing of the kinds of calculations we normally do when weighing our own interests against those of others. (The kind of skewing that leaves you basically friendless if you do it on an individual level.) On the left (usually, but not always, the leftier left), you get the "blame America first" crowd, which seems to be composed largely of self-loathing Americans. Though more broadly you get the "blame Western culture" first crowd, which seems to be composed largely of westerners.
This could, of course, all be BS.
But when I do think along these lines, I also wonder whether or not this could partially explain why the left is more alarming to most people than the right, even though the right has almost certainly been responsible for more badness than the left. (And weighing one's own self-interest too heavily has been responsible for an extremely high percentage of the world's badness. The harm produced by self-loathing has to pale by comparison.)
Anyway, the thought goes like this: cheating on account of self-interest--spinning the facts and the calculations in order to rationalize your own greed and disregard for others--that's something everybody knows about, and almost no one even finds surprising or worthy of comment. It's one of the first human tendencies we learn about as children (largely from our own case...). It's the most human of pathologies. Self-loathing on the other hand reeks more of sickness--though perhaps only on account of its unfamiliarity. When the greedy clash politically with the self-hating, people who have to choose up sides naturally gravitate towards the former. They know what they're getting there. It's a known quantity. Predictable. It's an ordinary, every day kind of craziness that they understand. The other kind of craziness just seems crazier, less familiar, more alien...and so, among other things, more of a political gamble, i.e. risk.
Of course the political spectrum is circular, and both phenomena show up on the other "end," too. Many on the religious right are motivated largely by self-loathing (especially loathing of human bodies), for example. And those on the left are more than capable of skewing the scales when interests are weighed.
This is obviously nothing more than a kind of hypothesis...a bit of speculation...a suggestion. That's all.
Anybody else ever get the following kind of impression:
The right tends to be motivated largely (though, of course, not entirely) by a kind of self-interest (where this can include national self-interest. The left, on the other hand, tends to be motivated largely (though, of course, not entirely) by something like self-loathing. Economically, folks on the right like to spin things in a way that gets them more money, whereas at least part of the left seems to say "take my money--I don't deserve it anyway!" In international affairs, on the right we get "foreign policy realism," the view that we don't even have any moral obligations to other countries and people. We also get constant/repeated campaigns to convince us that we should almost always undertake courses of action that will benefit the U.S., even if only minutely, and even if at great cost to others--that is, a radical skewing of the kinds of calculations we normally do when weighing our own interests against those of others. (The kind of skewing that leaves you basically friendless if you do it on an individual level.) On the left (usually, but not always, the leftier left), you get the "blame America first" crowd, which seems to be composed largely of self-loathing Americans. Though more broadly you get the "blame Western culture" first crowd, which seems to be composed largely of westerners.
This could, of course, all be BS.
But when I do think along these lines, I also wonder whether or not this could partially explain why the left is more alarming to most people than the right, even though the right has almost certainly been responsible for more badness than the left. (And weighing one's own self-interest too heavily has been responsible for an extremely high percentage of the world's badness. The harm produced by self-loathing has to pale by comparison.)
Anyway, the thought goes like this: cheating on account of self-interest--spinning the facts and the calculations in order to rationalize your own greed and disregard for others--that's something everybody knows about, and almost no one even finds surprising or worthy of comment. It's one of the first human tendencies we learn about as children (largely from our own case...). It's the most human of pathologies. Self-loathing on the other hand reeks more of sickness--though perhaps only on account of its unfamiliarity. When the greedy clash politically with the self-hating, people who have to choose up sides naturally gravitate towards the former. They know what they're getting there. It's a known quantity. Predictable. It's an ordinary, every day kind of craziness that they understand. The other kind of craziness just seems crazier, less familiar, more alien...and so, among other things, more of a political gamble, i.e. risk.
Of course the political spectrum is circular, and both phenomena show up on the other "end," too. Many on the religious right are motivated largely by self-loathing (especially loathing of human bodies), for example. And those on the left are more than capable of skewing the scales when interests are weighed.
This is obviously nothing more than a kind of hypothesis...a bit of speculation...a suggestion. That's all.
12 Comments:
The term "self loathing" seems like loaded language to me, though I don't claim to know what to replace it with. I like "solidarity" as an opposite to "self-interest" but I expect that term carries its own negative baggage as well. At the least, "solidarity" sounds less like an illness.
But I agree, that the ideals of 'the left' tend against the human natural drive of self-preservation. And so fidelity to these ideals is more challenging.
You hit some good points, WS.
A central philosophical difference between right and left [and classical and modern] is their view of human nature.
The classics see the child and the self-interest as permanent, the moderns think these can be "educated" away for some higher ideal.
And weighing one's own self-interest too heavily has been responsible for an extremely high percentage of the world's badness. The harm produced by self-loathing has to pale by comparison.
This is where "self-loathing" begins to founder unless there is some third thing yet unnamed. If that thing is the Democratic party---modern liberalism---this is a good rhetorical tactic, as it separates itself from the right and insulates itself from the evils of the [far] left. Its hands are sparkling clean.
If there is no third thing, "ideals"---more specifically ideologies---killed more people in the 20th century than in all other centuries combined.
Moreover, enlightened self-interest, properly understood {they always like to add the "properly understood" part], has been the engine that has brought at least part of the world up from the primeval [and medieval] muck.
I mean, some people use the term "self-interest" like it's a bad thing. "Self-interest" also includes working to feed and protect one's family, those little platoons that Edmund Burke believed are the essential components of a free and sustainable society.
Coincidentally [synchronistically?], David Mamet considers the same question.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full
Of course he is brilliant, and of course he touches on many of my frequent themes.
TVD-
David Mamet is a comedian; he's a very funny guy. I saw that article, and it is over-the-top. Mamet sets up every brain-dead liberal straw man and then shoots it down in flames. Sure there's some truth to it--you can make fun of moonbats just as easily as you can make fun of wingnuts.
But Mamet sets up the Constitution as a clever document in which all the factions are fighting. I agree. (Incidentally, GWB et al do not agree. They want the congress to follow executive instructions, and to pack the Court with Scalia and Thomas clones.)
Any ideology taken to extremes is going to be wrong--you end up with Gordon Gecko on the one hand, or you end up with the Berkeley town council on the other. Liberals agree that political power needs to be controlled. They just don't see why such controls can't apply to other parts of society. In a sense, conservatives apparently don't believe in the concept of 'externality' as applied to economics, only to politics.
And speaking of self-loathing what's with all these conservative women bemoaning the nature of their sex? First it was Ann Coulter, then it was that pathetic article in the WaPo last week.
Real self-loathing is maladaptive and, I think, very rare. Liberal guilt is more common but much less powerful.
I find most of the liberals I know root their politics in a few values:
* a sense of their own strength and thus the ability to help others
* a sense of their own vulnerability to happenstance and real or potential need for help
* a feeling that a shared and sharing commonweal is just as important for adults as it is for kindergarteners
* a belief that organizing society for collaboration and cooperation is far better than organizing for either alone
Or maybe I'm just projecting.
What is missing from the above rebuttals is a sense of the individual. What is suggested instead is collective power, exercised "for the good of all."
These are basic philsophical differences. Thx for reading the Mamet, anon, although I don't think he targets the extremes, "straw men," at all. Nor should his talents at humor [and drama] be held against his thesis.
Liberals agree that political power needs to be controlled. They just don't see why such controls can't apply to other parts of society.
Exactly. There's the rub. The conservative---and more accurately, classical liberal---view is that man [and thereby the greater whole] is at his best when he is most free, even chaotic. The modern liberal believes in an efficiency of scale effectuated by masterful planning.
You claim that the conservative view is when man is most free, even chaotic. Yet you do not seem to feel this applies to private life (sex should be restricted to married couples, birth control is problematic, etc.)
Further, I am very suspicious of claims of 'most free' when there are extreme imbalances of power in private life. In this I follow Gett--suspicious of the absolute good of vast amounts of inherited wealth.
But it's more than that, like I said: conservatives simply refuse to accept the inevitability of economic externalities that require regulation, at least beyond a few really obvious cases.
Even conservatives got on board with the clean water act, after the nation witnessed a river go up in flames.
May I note here on your well-observed point, anon---I moved to Los Angeles in 1981, and the air was so bad when I hit San Bernardino that I had to breathe through a hanky.
The air improved remarkably over the next few years---and now it's downright liveable---solely as a result of the efforts of liberals: conservatives, having lost the Teddy Roosevelt tradition of "conserving," would likely have never done a thing.
We need each other.
As for your statement
conservatives simply refuse to accept the inevitability of economic externalities that require regulation, at least beyond a few really obvious cases.
Well, at least classical liberals recognize the evils of centralization, whether political or economic. I'm reading PJ O'Rourke's
http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Books-Changed-World/dp/0871139499
study of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which condenses 900 pages of this and that as well as another 900 pages of Smith's earlier and greater "The Theory of Moral Sentiments."
Adam Smith, supposedly the godfather of capitalism and conservatism's self-declared godfather, is actually a wise anti-capitalist and anti-conservative, altho measured in his condemnations, as he sees a measure of good in both.
I think you'd like him, and since I'm not up to wading through 1800 pages of archaic and digressionary source material either, recommend O'Rourke's book.
In the end, we might both find ourselves on common ground as liberals, but classical liberals, not the modern kind.
Adam Smith was the wisest man of the modern age, before or since. IMHO, of course.
Cheers.
What is missing from the above rebuttals is a sense of the individual.
A fair critique since there is a very important role that I had omitted for rights-based restraints on the tyranny of the majority, even in search of the public good, but there's an answer: Liberals strongly favor expressive (e.g. 1st Amendment), legal (4th, 5th, 8th), and existential freedoms (ethnic, racial, orientation, non-conformity), and our belief in legal equality makes us skeptical of economic libertarianism, which so often runs at cross-purposes to the rest of our beliefs.
Gotta agree with montag about how loaded the term "self loathing" is. Given the choice you delineate between self destruction on the left and self righteousness on the right leaves no room for the necessarily healthy self examination to lead to self improvement. The only effort at improvement apparent in western culture is toward a bigger bottom line, fuck the drag that quality of life is to that agenda. I see the spectrum running from the establishment on the right to the heresy on the left — a natural phenomenon in all evolution, as delineated by Robert Persig's Metaphysics of Quality.
I was unfamiliar with Persig, altho I's certainly heard of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Not bad, and a very Straussian view of Plato. Excellence as man's telos.
Wiki has a good [I reckon, as it's direct quotes] Cliff's Notes version of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. [Oh yeah, and why they killed Socrates is in there.]
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig
I didn't like the politics-economics on the website much. Adam Smith got it right the first time, and was not inventing capitalism, merely remarking on an organic phenomenon. And the essay on the site gets "what money really is" a bit wrong.
But the Persig interview is good
http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/pirsig_transcript.htm
especially this bit:
"As to which is more important, Dynamic or static, both are absolutely essential, even when they are in conflict. As stated in LILA, without Dynamic Quality an organism cannot grow. But without static quality an organism cannot last. Dynamic liberals and radicals need conservatives to keep them from making a mess of the world through unneeded change. Conservatives also need liberals and radicals to keep them from making a mess of the world through unneeded stagnation."
Of course Edmund Burke, not only the "first" conservative, but quite a classical liberal in good standing, beat him there:
"A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation."
So, although I think the Persigians are structurally doomed to fail in remaking capitalism, they're certainly entitled to try, especially since in their metaphysics, "good" is an evolving thing.
Thx, gregra&gar, whichever one you are. My first take was that your comment was irrelevant, but it was very instructive.
The right likes to pretend that it's for small government and individual freedom, but, of course, it isn't. In fact, the major reason I started being sympathetic to the Dems is that liberals are--for all their faults--more committed to preserving freedom than are conservatives. Conservatives are more inclined to preserve a kind of economic freedom, whereas liberals are more concerned to preserve the kinds of freedoms that, IMHO, really matter. I don't like high taxes, but I'd rather pay high taxes and keep the government out of my bedroom than vice-versa. The two parties' respective views of the flag burning amendment are instructive here.
Liberals, however, have relatively recently become more inclined to promote a nanny state. Too much farther down that road and the choice between Dems and the GOP might become more difficult.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home