By John J. Ray, University of New South Wales, Australia, 

The defining characteristic of the political left, liberals in contemporary North American parlance, is their attitude to social change.  They advocate change, not to improve society, but to fulfil their need for self-advertisement and self-promotion.

Unlike ordinary people who mostly hold to a mix of conventionally leftist and rightist ideas, professional politicians and academics tend to be polarized to either right or left.  In this paper I ask what makes them so?

Old definitions seem outmoded.  The demise of the Soviet Union made the leftist banner proposal of state ownership of the means of production no longer seem reasonable to all but a handful of diehards.   Similarly the rubric "conservative" long fastened on rightists seems obsolete. "Conservative" generally means "opposed to change" or "favouring the status quo" but from Reagan/Thatcher onward, rightists have been the main advocates and practitioners of change. They have been almost revolutionary in tearing down the proud edifices of the left; with privatisation, deregulation, welfare cutbacks, tax reductions etc. Judging by the politics of the last 20 years, rightists love change! Certainly, they have clearly and energetically changed the status quo.  So what is going on? What really is left/liberalism and why do people support it?

I contend that attitude to the status quo defines the left.  Rightists are indifferent to it and may favour or oppose it according to circumstances. They favour progress but are cautious because of their realism about the selfishness and folly of many of their fellow humans. Leftists, on the other hand, are always against the status quo, no matter what.  The bedrock of leftism is a strong desire for political change, the umbrella under which all leftists meet. Even at the height of British socialism British leftists still wanted more. Permanent dissatisfaction with the world they live in is all the left has in common.

However, fractious and murderous as they are to each other (e.g. Stalin and Trotsky), leftists are never allowed to be racist.  They can be Nationalists, Gough Whitlam, hero of the Australian left, certainly was, but they cannot admit any significance for race. If they do, they are immediately relabelled as right wing.    In the left lexicon racism makes you right wing regardless of what else you believe or advocate.  They ignore Hitler’s socialism, income levelling, worker advocacy, and government control of industry, and call him rightist.  Pim Fortuyn, the homosexual Dutch political leader assassinated by a Green activist in May, 2002 is similarly rightist by arbitrary definition. His advocacy of gay marriage, gender equality, liberal drug laws and his criticism of a religion, which he saw as intolerant and homophobic, sounds leftist, but he also wanted to stop further immigration into his already densely populated country.   Since left-wing racism does not exist, he became, "Hey presto!" a "right-wing extremist"!   Similarly much of the rhetoric of the French anti-immigrant politician Jean-Marie Le Pen would get him described as a leftist were it not for his racial views.

There is one exception.   The left can be anti-American because Americans sit at the pinnacle of the existing world power structure and opposition to this is what the left is all about

So why are leftists not allowed to be racist?  The reason is that their best slogans "All men are equal" and "The government should fix it" are so pathetic that more is needed. Blind Freddy can see that all men are not equal, and anybody who thinks that governments are good at doing things can only be pitied.

The leftist makes up for the slogans’ emptiness by advocating them blindly and vigorously. If all men are equal, then all races must be equal too.  To allow any form of race awareness would mean giving up one of the slender straws that he clutches at to give him something to say.

And why has the Leftist chosen those two vacuous slogans? Because he is not really interested in solving problems, he is only interested in stirring up change. Solving social and economic problems in our complex society requires thought, detailed enquiry and creative thinking and the leftist is simply not interested in that.   All he wants is change, but not spontaneous change, government-mandated change. "Get the government to pass a law" is his simplistic "solution".  We all know it won’t work because there are too many examples of failure.  

Argentina’s Juan Peron proposed to deal with rising prices by threatening to shoot any shopkeeper who put up prices. This left shopkeepers with no option but to shut their doors and turn Argentina into one big high priced black market.  Communist coercion was equally counterproductive. Besides anything else, governments remove large slices of the workforce out of productive activity and into paper shuffling and so impoverish their communities. 

The worldwide trend towards privatisation and deregulation shows that even the "Communists" of China and the Hindu nationalists of India have got this message and as a result experienced great success.  The continuing left/liberal infatuation with government exposes them as the dinosaurs in the world of ideas.

"All men are equal" is a good lever for change since almost our entire social arrangements are predicated on people being unequal. Criminals and honest people, men and women, the sane and the mentally ill, kind and unkind people, all differ.  Attractive and unattractive, clever and dumb, athletic and flabby, businessmen and manual workers, we treat them all differently.  If all men are really equal, everything in our society is wrong and needs change. It is a way for the leftist to say, "You are all wrong and I am better, wiser and kinder than you".

Although the maxim arose out of Christian idealism and a form of it is enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence it is risible today.  Attempts to justify it for the non-religious by adding "before the law" are also counterfactual. Our treatment before the law is unequal and seems destined to remain so. Most of us cannot afford the law at all, while the rich and poor (who get legal aid in most advanced countries) are at an advantage. Equality before the law is a worthy ideal and governments should fair and impartial in dealing with their citizens, but the imperative need not come from a quasi-religious myth.

Leftists are often irreligious if not anti-religious (except insofar as leftism itself is a secular religion) so they often reject the notion that all men are created equal.  Instead they justify their advocacy of equality by saying that they really mean that all men are of equal value or some such. Of equal value to whom? And how do we know? Without resorting to religion again, the slogan quickly reduces to a recommendation that all individuals be treated equally, something that no human society has ever done or seems likely to do.

The competing conservative doctrine that each person should be treated fairly, i.e. according to their desserts, remains anathema to most leftists.  It requires more complex judgments and so is less suitable for propaganda purposes.

Leftist advocacy in the West suffered a body blow from the collapse of the Soviet Union and most leftists have had to find new directions for agitation in recent years. Criticizing capitalism is less plausible now that it is the only show in town.

A new focus for discontent is the "political correctness" movement, an attempt to move the target of agitation from economic to social reform.  It works both to change the way we think about the less fortunate by altering the words we use to describe them, and to suppress knowledge of any facts that explain why some groups are less fortunate, and likely to remain so.   For instance, Edinburgh psychologist Chris Brand’s own publisher (Wiley) recently pulped his scholarly book on IQ because of the politically unacceptable implications of his inheritance data for such questions as the generally lower recorded IQ of negroes.   And even in 1972 Ray had pointed out how not even the most overwhelming evidence on any question is ever deemed sufficient if it contradicts leftist preconceptions.   And a British company recently wanted to advertise for a "friendly person" for a catering job but the local Job Centre rejected it because it "may discriminate against certain applicants" (Bolton Evening News June 7th, 2002)

Other leftists have turned their ire on such unlikely targets as globalisation and the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Since the WTO aims to increase co-operation between nations and reduce barriers to the free movement of goods and people, one might expect advocates of equality to approve of it. That they generally do not is an index of the shortage of things to protest about in the post-Soviet world. Globalisation is another surprising target, given that the United Nations was once a great icon of the left.  Globalisation started spreading prosperity throughout the world at least since Britain’s repeal of the corn laws.  Albert, Queen Victoria’s consort, was an early advocate, but leftists seem to have discovered it only recently.

Unfortunately opposition to globalisation is too readily identified as a lunatic fringe activity, and political correctness is insufficiently dramatic.  This is why many on the left have latched on to the environmentalist movement instead, albeit as late converts.  No-one ever set aside a greater area for nature conservation than US Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and that was roughly a century ago.  While some of the things that environmentalists advocate are sensible improvements to our quality of life, many are fanciful, extreme and ill-founded (Lomborg, 2001).  Nevertheless, greens advocate change to our existing arrangements, which suits change-hungry leftists, and Greenpeace provides opportunity for drama and self-advertisement aplenty. 

So why are leftists so keen on advocating change, no matter how irrational or counter-productive?  Of course not all people who vote left believe the leftist ideology. Some simply think that leftists offer a better deal for them personally. The left’s enthusiasm for equality, implies to some that the poor will get a bigger slice of the national cake.  Lipset (1959) pointed out that many working class people are strongly conservative despite their self-interested vote for a leftist political party. This tendency has been noted at least since the mid 19th century (McKenzie & Silver, 1968) and forms a vital electoral support for conservative political parties.  About a quarter of working class people resist the left’s blandishments and vote conservative against what would initially seem to be their class interest (McKenzie & Silver, 1968; Ray, 1972c). 

Others may simply be born into a leftist outlook. Being born into the Northern English or Scottish working-class, for instance, almost guarantees that one will favour a leftist stance on many issues. Leftist views are simply traditional in those populations.  

Finally the predominantly liberal academic environment of US humanities and social science schools radicalise US college students in a similar way. To be liberal in such an environment is almost a survival need.  

The present paper is not concerned with any of these groups, but with "real" leftists, those who subscribe to and promote a leftist ideology.   What makes someone voluntarily choose to be a leftist without pressure from an accident of birth or social position?

One reason is to feed a need for self-inflation and ego boosting. They need public attention, to demonstrate outrage, to feel wiser, kinder and more righteous than their fellow man. They fancy the heroic role of David versus Goliath; to be in a small club of the virtuous and wise instructing their less wise fellow-citizens. This need for self-promotion generally exists in the absence of any real claims to exceptional ability.  It would seem that unimportant people who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power, whose mothers didn’t turn when they said, "Mummy, look at me", become leftists to compensate.   This is why facts, which threaten to disturb this warm inner glow, are determinedly ignored (Warby 2002) and why Lomborg’s findings were greeted by abuse rather than by any serious attempt at refutation (Ridley 2002).  

Importance is partly a matter of individual perception. Many famous sports stars are unimportant to me while Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, my personal hero, is unknown to many others even in academe. This may explain why some left activists become college professors -- a generally high status occupation.  Unfortunately for many even this provides too little power or opportunity for self-display.   Fortunately in most people the need for self-display declines as they mature; one reason why graduates tend to be less radical than students and older people more conservative than the young (Ray, 1985).

Of course pressing ego, and self-righteousness are not confined to leftists. It is just that leftism is the principal political expression of such needs. The needs can also be met by religion, and its critics often described communism as a religion. Why people choose politics is unclear.  Presumably the broad exposure that politics provides attracts people with the highest ego needs.  That would both explain the generally greater political activism of the political left compared to the somnolent right, and why leftists so often have a "spare me the details" or "Don’t worry about the facts" orientation.  For them it is the activism itself rather than what is advocated that is the point of the exercise. As long as the cause is both generally praiseworthy and disruptive it will suffice. The insincerity of the leftist is an abiding theme in the many writings of Ayn Rand (e.g. Rand, 1957) who sees the hunger for power as their real motivation.

In addition some leftists just think themselves clever for being able to criticize.  Things that they do not understand genuinely outrage some.  Some simply seek advantage for their own social class.  Some, particularly the young, are idealists.  Others are cynical opportunists, who cloak their hatred of their fellow man in a cloak of good intentions.  Some know themselves to be weird and preach tolerance for all weirdness out of sheer self-interest.   It seems probable that some Leftists simply lust to smash things; the revolutionary and Trotskyite left often use the word "smash" in their slogans, e.g. smash racism, smash capitalism.  They presumably are responsible for the violence and destruction that often accompanies leftist street and campus demonstrations. In other circumstances many would have joined Hitler’s brown-shirts.

Another reason comes from biology. Martin & Jardine (1986) and Eaves, Heath, Martin, Meyer & Corey (1999) have reported strong genetic heritability for political orientation. An evolutionary explanation would be that leftism is a remnant of primitive hunter-gatherer thinking. A liking for change might have been adaptive by causing hunter-gatherers to wander more, exposing them to a greater diversity of food-sources.   Even today Australian Aborigines (a purely hunter-gatherer people before the coming of the white man) want to "go walkabout" from time to time.  Against this, hunter-gatherer societies generally seem to be characterized more by changelessness. Perhaps a changeless environment prevents change in practice regardless of any desire for change.  The corollary is that a conservative orientation has been selected for by the requirements of civilization.  Civilisation needs people who are psychologically settled.

A final possibility locates the appeal of the left in its stress on equality. The French leftist Todd (1985) suggests that leftism has strong appeal only in countries where child-rearing practices stress equality of treatment between siblings. Russia showed easy acceptance of communism because Russian parents normally go to great length to treat all their children equally, particularly by dividing up inheritances equally.  Britain has only ever had a tiny communist party because of the traditional practice of primogeniture, where the eldest son gets almost all of the inherited property. English child-rearing practices never treated siblings equally so the English neither expect nor hope for equality in later life.  Attraction to the dream of equality reflects a childhood where parents imposed a rule of equality.  It seems emotionally "right", regardless of its practicality.

NEO-LIBERALISM - The Past Revived

What North Americans now call "liberal" is a long way from what was called "liberal" in the 19th century and earlier. Liberal ideas once sought to elevate individual rights above the claims of state and community.  They hark back at least as far as the writings of Adam Smith (1776) and J.S. Mill (1859).  Such classical liberalism had considerable influence in the 19th century, particularly in Britain but was eclipsed in the early 20th century by the rise of Marxist, Fabian and Fascist ideas. Late in the 20th century under the influence Hayek (1944), Ayn Rand (1977) and many others, they were revived and extended, and came to be known as "neo-liberalism" or "Libertarianism" or more popularly as "Reaganomics" or "Thatcherism" from their most successful political proponents.

Surprisingly, modern-day North American "liberals" generally view neo-liberalism as anathema, so much so that it has found its home entirely on the political right in recent times.

The reason why "liberals" hate neo-liberalism is not obvious. Neo-Liberalism is pro-change, particularly in the economic sphere, and aims to break down government-imposed restrictions on what people can do. Its application has led to all sorts of economic reorganization, some of which has been very disruptive to many people. Globalisation is one of its manifestations. So how did such a revolutionary doctrine find its home on the right rather than among the normally pro-change Leftists?

The answer is that Leftists really have no concern about human advancement and their concern" for the poor is a sham. What they really want is power, and simple causes that will win them praise, and drama in which they can star as the good guys. Neo-liberalism meets none of those needs. Although neo-liberal policies lead to slow but steady human economic advancement and undreamt of prosperity, they also diffuse power, are far from simple and are undramatic. It is hard work just to understand neo-liberalism and there are no immediate rewards inbuilt. One could try going onto the streets and demonstrating in favour of "comparative advantage" (one of the essential ideas underpinning advocacy of free trade) but that would almost certainly lead to total incomprehension rather than win kudos.

So neo-liberalism suffers from the huge handicap that it is a highly intellectual body of ideas that requires considerable study and knowledge of economics -- something that Leftists normally seem to avoid like the plague -- in order to understand it fully. It originated with an economist (Smith), it could even be seen as the practical application of modern economics and some of its most prominent proponents have won Nobel prizes for economics (Friedman, Hayek etc.). It is certainly much harder to explain and communicate to laymen than are such simple ideas as "all men are equal" or "get the government to pass a law". And the heroes and villains of neo-liberalism do not suit the Leftist either. The neo-liberal hero (the business entrepreneur) normally has to work long and hard to achieve his status. Storming the Winter Palace (as the Bolsheviks did in October, 1917) or vandalizing Seattle (as the anti-globalisation protestors did in December, 1999) are quicker, simpler and easier. And the neo-liberal villain is government! The source of leftist power and their solitary proposal that Leftists have for solving social ills is snatched away from under them! No wonder leftists do not like neo-liberalism!

As a result neo-liberalism was for a long time largely deprived of a home in politics. Globalisation made some headway (e.g. through GATT -- the predecessor of the WTO) but without the energy of Leftists to push it, neo-liberalism languished for most of the 20th century as a purely academic theory. It was asking a lot for the cautious right with no intrinsic interest in change to take it up.

But neo-liberalism is perfectly practical (tax cuts, deregulation, privatisation etc.) and rightists have always been interested in practical proposals for human advancement and betterment.  For example Prince Otto von Bismarck, Prussia’s "Iron Chancellor" of the late 19th century and the man who unified Germany under the Prussian crown by way of successful wars on Austria and France, also gave Germany an extensive welfare system (workers compensation, old-age pensions etc.).  Also, at the beginning of the 20th century, the war-glorifying, big game hunting, patrician Republican US President Theodore Roosevelt -- who got on his horse and personally led the war to take over the remnants of the Spanish Empire for the USA -- also initiated and got through Congress extensive and ground-breaking consumer protection and worker protection measures. Looking after the welfare of ordinary people is a venerable tradition on the right.

The failure of leftist economic ideas was so obvious by the final decades of the 20th century and levels of education had risen such that that some limited forms of economic rationality could be made to have popular appeal.   At this point some rightists had the vision to embrace "neo-liberal" ideas and turn them into reality -- a reality that soon spread throughout the world.

That is why roughly the same set of ideas is also sometimes called  "neo-conservatism" although in the US the term more usually describes a group of mainly New York intellectuals (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz etc.) who started out as idealistic "left/liberals" but who were honest enough to allow themselves eventually to be at least partly overwhelmed by reality.  Their principal journals are "Commentary" and "The Public Interest" and their original focus was primarily anti-Soviet rather than neo-liberal.

REFERENCES

Brand, C. (1996) The g Factor. Chichester: Wiley. Also available on the web at:
http://www.douance.org/qi/brandtgf.htm

Brown, R.(1986) Social psychology. (2nd. Ed.) N.Y.: Free Press

Eaves, L.J., Martin, N.G., Meyer, J.M. & Corey, L.A. (1999) Biological and cultural inheritance of stature and attitudes. In: Cloninger, C.R., Personality and psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Hayek, F.A. (1944) The road to serfdom. London: Routledge

Lake, I.E., Eaves, L.J., Maes, H.H.M., Heath, A.C. & Martin, N.G. (2000) Further evidence against the environmental transmission of individual differences in neuroticism from a collaborative study of 45,850 twins and relatives on two continents. Behavior Genetics 30 (3), 223-233.

Lipset, S.M. (1959) Democracy and working class authoritarianism. American Sociological Review 24, 482-502.

Lomborg, B. (2001) The skeptical environmentalist. Cambridge: University Press.

Martin, N. & Jardine, R. (1986) Eysenck's contribution to behaviour genetics. In: S & C. Modgil (Eds.) Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy. Lewes, E. Sussex: Falmer

McKenzie, R. & Silver, A. (1968) Angels in Marble. London: Heinemann
Mill, J.S. (1859) On Liberty. Many editions.
Rand, A. (1957) Atlas Shrugged. N.Y.: Random House
Rand, A. (1977) Capitalism: The unknown ideal. N.Y.: New American Library
Ray, J.J. (1972a) Are all races equally intelligent? Or: When is knowledge knowledge? J. Human Relations, 20, 71-75.
Ray, J.J. (1972b) Acceptance of aggression and Australian voting preference.  Australian Quarterly, 44, 64-70
Ray, J.J. (1972c) The measurement of political deference: Some Australian data.  British J. Political Science 2, 244-251.

Ray, J.J. (1973) Conservatism, authoritarianism and related variables: A review and an empirical study. Ch. 2 in: G.D. Wilson (Ed.) The psychology of conservatism. London: Academic Press
Ray, J.J. (1974) Conservatism as heresy. Sydney: ANZ Book Co.
Ray, J.J. (1979) Does authoritarianism of personality go with conservatism? Australian J. Psychology, 31, 9-14.
Ray, J.J. (1981) Conservatism and misanthropy. Political Psychology, 3(1/2), 158-172.
Ray, J.J. (1985) What old people believe: Age, sex and conservatism.

Political Psychology 6, 525-528.

Ridley, M. (2002) The Borking of Bjorn Lomborg. The American Spectator, 35 (2), 52-53.
Smith, A. (1776) The Wealth of Nations. Many editions.
Todd, E. (1985) The explanation of ideology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Warby, M. (2002) The labelling game. Policy, 18(1), 35-38

This paper is an edited version of one already available on the web. Click here for the earlier version.

Copyright 25 May 2002

It may be circulated freely as long as it is unmodified, and other postings are welcome.

Email the author here

visit his website here 

Comment.