When I went bed‑wards, Noah was musing. When I awoke, he was still musing. Now he’s at it again. It’s an awful lot of musing. Occasionally he flatters me by calling me his Muse — though never when I’m being catty.
Seth Allot, our dear friend and very clever professor, has dropped by. It is he, not I, who must endure Noah’s latest intellectual thunderstorm. The long‑suffering sage is being asked to explain why All the People on the Left perform a Wap‑Bam‑Boogie on anyone who disagrees with them. Their victims — All the People on the Right — supposedly do not retaliate. They smile benignly and dispatch bad ideas with the conceptual equivalent of a “Boogaloo”. I prefer this approach, but as Mandy Rice‑Davies would say, I would, wouldn’t I?
To Noah’s credit, he doesn’t use this language with the Prof. If he did, the poor man would be lost. [Nor do I — Ed.] Instead, Noah puts it plainly: “Why is it always the Lefties — and only the Lefties — who make theoretical debates so personal?”
I glance at the old man. I’m never sure he expects to be ambushed like this when he visits. But he is unruffled — indeed, delighted — and launches in.
“The Right,” he begins, “starts with the individual. Picture Robinson Crusoe: alone, self‑reliant, subject only to the limits he sets for himself.
“Then Man Friday arrives. Now each must decide how to coexist. If both recognise the other’s equal claim to self‑regard, they agree to leave each other alone. Any cooperation is voluntary — and only if it benefits both. They may subordinate their individuality to the partnership, but only by consent, and only if it enhances their freedom.”
Not his point
I think: the Right uses force too, but of course that’s not his point. He’s describing the ideal, not the practice.
“The Left’s world,” he continues, “is the opposite. Here the collective is the organising principle. Call it Socialism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism — the root is the same. The group matters; the individual matters only as part of it. The entity’s goal is its own well‑being, so it can look after its members. Because members differ in wealth and circumstance, the better off must subsidise the worse off. That is Marx’s ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’
“Redistribution requires compulsion. Sometimes force, more often taxation. Charity may be voluntary; redistribution is not.
“One of the most effective means of compulsion is social pressure. Shame, shunning, cancellation. Personal attacks are simply an extension of this: ‘I dislike your views, therefore I dislike you.’
“Attacking the person’s character is an easy way to avoid justifying coercion. No one wants to explain that force is the basis of their ideology. Much better suggest that concern and compassion is where it’s at, and then, when you demur, condemn you for being selfish, self-absorbed, and self-interested.
“That,” he concludes, “is why Lefties personalise political disagreement. Righties have no systemic need for such tactics. When they use force, it’s an aberration. For Lefties, it’s structural.”
Hence the vitriol
Thank you, Prof. I think I’ve got it. Christians are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. Socialists, who are not Christian, are taught to hate the sinner as much as the sin. Hence the vitriol.
From now on, I promise myself, I shall stop taking their abuse seriously. I shall continue to like Noah, even though he is seldom right. I shall continue to like you, Prof, even though you are seldom wrong. And I shall continue to like myself, even though I’m frequently left to right‑wing it.
I promise that I shall try to keep my promise.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend