OPINION:Left-wing politics has the monopoly on shouty protests because of a lack of intellectual rigour
SOME TIME ago I wrote something supportive of Israel and critical about the behaviour of Arabs towards Palestinians. This elicited some threatening if anonymous responses from people who were clearly left-leaning. This has me thinking.
What is the common thread when you see, in the West, demonstrations, marches, violence, threats concerning this or that? With the exception of football hooligans and a few neo-Nazi groups, they always seem to come from the left.
Those “Not in Our Name” thousands who demonstrated against the Iraq war formed the centrepoint of the left’s campaign. Yet was it not odd that right-leaning supporters of the war did not also stage demonstrations under banners such as “Free the Iraqi People”?
The demonstrations during the UN climate conference were all in favour of anti-global-warming action. Yet where were the counter-protests to “Stop wasting taxpayers’ money on a scam”?
People who object to multinationals such as McDonald’s or Shell under the rubric of anti-capitalism are the ones who see fit to smash up their premises or physically obstruct their projects. Why don’t rightists smash up icons of leftism such as trade union offices?
Individual threats of physical harm are invariably directed against right-leaning individuals. Think, for example, of the movie or video game depicting the assassination of George Bush. By contrast, rarely do you hear that, for example, raging lefties like George Galloway need bodyguards, except for perhaps intrusion by the press. Left-wingers know they can express their views without fear of intimidation from their opponents, which cannot be said for the pro-capitalism camp.
The fascistic dictators Franco, Mussolini and Hitler were responsible for perhaps 10 million non-combat deaths. Yet they are vilified far more than the Soviet communist despots whose tally was around 36 million, or Mao Tse Tung, responsible for a further 50-70 million.
It is utterly wrong to suggest that modern righties or lefties should be compared with those evil, blood-drenched tyrants, other than in aspects of ideology. But on a street level, the left does seem more inclined to direct action than the right.
Is it just that lefties are more sure of themselves, more courageous, more outspoken, more correct, and thus prepared to be more physically assertive? While righties can do no more than cower in the corner, in a fog of shame? Or is there something deeper at work? Some would maintain that the atheistic left lacks the constraints of a more Christian right. But I believe there is a more prosaic explanation. Logic is overwhelmingly on the side of the right, or as Margaret Thatcher once pithily observed, “the facts of life are conservative”.
For example, it is logical that if you give people the freedom to improve themselves, that is what they will generally do. With freedom to chose their own leaders, it’s logical that they’ll try to select ones who have their constituents’ best interests in mind. If everyone has such freedoms, then society as a whole will improve. If you enforce people’s property rights and contracts, and protect them from crime, they will be even better able to improve themselves. If you provide rewards for particular behaviour, you will get more of it, whether it is benign (think of hard work fostered by low taxes), or less desirable (such as long-term unemployment encouraged by generous welfare). If you provide services or benefits completely free of charge and without regard to their costs (eg medical, schooling, subsidies) we have seen how you get unlimited demand and unlimited complaint.
Thus it is very difficult for the left to develop a coherent basis for countering policies that are guided by such flights of reason. That is why it must resort to waffly arguments such as what is “fair”, what is “compassionate”, what is “hurtful”, the implication being that everything on the right is heartless. Such terms are intrinsically emotional while presenting no logic. Therefore to push them you have to put your own emotion into play. This in turn leads to the shouting.
Pitting right-wing logic against left-wing passion is a contest that no side can really win, because neither can comprehend the other, nor wants to. But on a brighter note, left-wing passion goes a long way towards explaining the undoubted superiority of the left when it comes to the modern arts. This may be because the right use the left-side of the brain, which is the part that is strong on reason, whereas the left use the right-side, where artistry lies. Left, right, it’s all very confusing. But at least when the left are singing they’re not doing damage.
Tony Allwright is an engineering and industrial safety consultant; www.tallrite.com/blog.htm