AIBU politically - want to understand the left but unable to

[Linguistmum]

I know a lot of people whose view of the world is politically more left than right and I have always come along with them very well. Personally I cannot define myself as "left-wing" even though so many friends of mine are like that. I'm sure I have badly misunderstood something about what being a left-wing/liberal means. I seem to think that being liberal is about acting like that, not about honestly caring of everyone but of yourself. For me, political right is easier to understand: you basically want to succeed and everything that you do is based on optimizing the best outcome for you and your family - it can include helping others, but the goal is still to benefit from it. The political left, in turn, is confusing. Why do you want good for others, why to care about human rights, why care about minorities? And --- do you really care?
Some examples I am confused with:
-Most parents want their children to succeed. If you are politically left and liberal politically, how is it possible at the same time to 1) promote diversity and equality and 2) help yout own child succeed?

-Let's think you are a white, middle- or upper class woman and you have two lovely children. You support human rights and want more diversity in the workplace and elsewhere. You don't like social hiearches. Does that change your own actions - if your own child is applying for a job and there is another applicant of a poor background, do you think that other applicant should get the job and your child should wait for another chance?

-If competition is seen as negative, why do left-wing liberals still engage in sports where competition is the whole idea? Does it feel bad that your football team wins and the other one loses?

I know these examples might sound completely strange and out of this world. But I've been thinking of these from time to time.

If you are politically left and liberal, please explain how you see the world in these cases! Thank you in advance.

Bloody hell OP you can't understand why you'd care about others? Not at all? So if you were late for dinner reservations and someone collapsed in front of you in the street you wouldn't stop to call an ambulance?

It's also a bit naive to think that the economy and world in general is all a zero-sum game. It's not. If we have massive social inequality we all suffer because we have a poorer economy, more crime, less educated population which is in general less pleasant to bea part of.

@Linguistmum the principles you choose to live by and the principles you would like to see in your government don't have to be exactly the same thing.

We make so many decisions as individuals every day and they don't have to 100 percent have to reflect what we expect from our government.

Are you in charge of billions and billions of pounds? Are you in charge of making decisions for the entire nation? No right? I believe it is acceptable to hold the government to higher standards than you would yourself because they have so much more power and responsibility than you do.

You gave an example of not helping someone with Alzheimer's in the street. Well you could still make that choice but then vote for a government that will:
Provide better care for the elderly
Provide more support for carers of the elderly
Invest more in police on the streets who are actually there to help people
Invest more in the NHS so that people who need assessment for dementia or mh services get it quicker

In that example you make a selfish choice. It doesn't make it right by going on to make another selfish choice - voting for a government that will just allow for more confused people on the streets - just to avoid being a hypocrite.

Voting left doesn't mean being 100 percent left in everything you do. Voting right doesn't mean being 100 percent right wing in everything you do. You vote for the world you wish to see. You act based on the world you are in. They are two different things.

@IMNOTSHOUTING

Bloody hell OP you can't understand why you'd care about others? Not at all? So if you were late for dinner reservations and someone collapsed in front of you in the street you wouldn't stop to call an ambulance?

It's also a bit naive to think that the economy and world in general is all a zero-sum game. It's not. If we have massive social inequality we all suffer because we have a poorer economy, more crime, less educated population which is in general less pleasant to bea part of.

Thank you for your reply. I do understand and feel the need to care about others, which I clarified later in the thread.

However my question is the dilemma of helping and caring about others when that would be against your own interest or benefit.

The political left tends to demand better healthcare for all, redistribution of resources and, say, more black CEOs, preferably females. But what I don't understand is how you can aim for these goals and simultaneously make personal decisions that "slower" this political vision to become reality. If you wish to see more physicians of color, why would you apply to medical school yourself? If you wish to see more ceo's of poorer backgrounds, why do you dream of that position yourself? Why not to withdraw from potential positions in the society which have too little diversity by now?

For me it seems like it is because on an individual level we don't want to withdraw. We want a nice house, a financially rewarding career - and even if it might bother us that people around us are worse-off, is won't bother enough to lower of our standards of living. We hope someone else will do that instead.

Some respondents in this thread pointed out that if their DC were to apply for a great job they would of course let their DC do that, because the best applicant will be chosen. Ethical problem, they said, would arise if they knew the company would discriminate against certain groups of people based on colour etc. In that case the application process would not seem fair.
For me, coming from a poorer background, it is unfair even without discrimination. An applicant with a supporting family is better-off in the first place. She/he's had parents who read them books, grandparents who teach social skills and good manners. That all enables your child to become the best applicant. Your child will became a CEO because you raised her and gave her the most.

Maybe the best word to describe my feeling is distrust in the system. Like I said in the beginning, the political right to me seems easier to understand: aim for the best for your family. I don't like that either - constant competition is quite overwhelming and social inequality raises many problems, also suffering. But I don't seem to be able to trust the left-wing alternative either. It seems like in the end, you still choose yourself - no matter how much you have campaigned in favor of some group that gets your empathy.

@Linguistmum you’re conflating the difference between ideals and reality.
Ideally I’d want a fairer government,good education for all etc etc.
I’d vote for someone that gives me these things.
But what I actually do depends on the reality that I CURRENTLY live in.
Will extra tuition give my child a leg up at the expense of poorer people? Yes - so I do it.
In a fair world it shouldn’t .
While I don’t live in the fair world I can still push for it.
This isn’t a logical contradiction at all.
Also in an ideal world life wouldn’t be zero sum and there should be no conception of ‘taking away opportunities’ because there’s be enough for all.

@Linguistmum
I want to live in a world where the are both black and white, male and female CEOs.

If my daughter decides when she is older and wants to be a CEO I want her to get that job as a white woman.
If she is up against a black woman I still want her to get the job because she's my daughter.
BUT
I want the election process to be a fair one. I want her to get the job because she is the best candidate. I don't want a man to swoon in and neither the black or white woman to get the job because the man was a man, not because he was the best candidate.
I don't want my daughter to become CEO of a company that discriminates against others.
I want my daughter to marry who she falls in love with. And if it is a black man or woman then I want them to have equal opportunities in life. And for their children to have those opportunities too.
So yes, I would want my daughter to become a CEO if that's what she wanted. But I still want to see a world with more black CEOs.
Both wishes don't cancel each other out.

Will extra tuition give my child a leg up at the expense of poorer people? Yes - so I do it.
In a fair world it shouldn’t .
While I don’t live in the fair world I can still push for it.

If I understand OP correctly and using what you wrote, the question is why would you do something that will give you a leg up at the expense of poorer people yet claim to want fairness and equality with poorer people?

Who will bring about that fairer world you say you want if not you (and each person who has the opportunity)? And how does that fairer world start if not by these little actions where you allow those poorer people a chance to either have a leg up at your expense or meet up where you are?

If everyone who says they want a fairer world still gives their children a leg up for their own benefit, at the expense of poorer people, when will that fairer world begin? Who are you pushing to start or implement it? Isn't it what the right wing is doing? The difference is they don't claim to be doing differently (as OP's saying).

I think this is what OP's trying to say based on the last post. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong OP.

I think if I understand correctly, OP may be talking about double affirmative action or extra positive discrimination, where it's not enough for people to want others who're less fortunate than them to win, it's also about not getting in the ring with them if you already have more or other options. That way, you ensure whoever wins is someone who was less fortunate, and you're a step closer to a fairer world.

If you can't get yourself or your loved ones out of the ring to give enough chance for the less fortunate (in whatever area) to compete and win, you're not giving enough chance for a fairer world - at least not quick enough.

The right wing will not do it and the left wing won't do it either.

Again, OP I stand corrected if it isn't what you're saying.

I'm Tory, fairly of the right, not sure I recognise your characterisation there either. I don't like big government, I think huge expensive programmes often miss the mark and are terrible value for money. I want the government to do less, people to keep more cash and make their own decisions on how to spend it. Capitalism has brought huge numbers of people out of poverty worldwide. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we have. Yes, there is a need to correct it to stop the worst excesses. There are some utter arses on the right, but there are also awful people on the left.

What helps me neighbour helps me. I believe in fraternity/the group over individualism/ the self. Neither new Labour or the conservatives represent my views at all. My biggest fears political around divisiveness and dichotomous thinking, and I feel there are people who represent that kind of hateful violent othering on both ends of the left to right spectrum. I am a peace maker and peace seeker in my own life, and that spills over into my political views. Although there are issues I would fight for, especially regarding freedom of speech and freedom from oppression. I have a strong social conscience and am more concerned about helping people up if they fall than blaming them if they do. I have met people who are left and right wing, and many many centrists who agree with most of my views politically, but I never agree with extremists of any kind (on more than an occasional issue anyway). I'm not a fence sitter, I do have strong views on some things but I am of the "peaceful protest/ protest art/ petition signing" variety not the "breaking statues and throwing Molotov cocktails" variety of activist and always will be. I can see why some people get angry and violent in some situations and why riots occur but I also think generally it weakens the argument of those protesting

@workwoes123 not quite true. Asians are very family oriented and if someone’s in trouble they would likely receive family help - or directly from community institutions (such as the Chinese clan associations in Malaysia). There are very few people floating around with no support network which seems to be the norm here.
The majority of governments in Asia are alsocorrupt so there’s a lack of institutional trust.
This doesn’t mean that there’s no belief in equity - just that they don’t trust the government to share the wealth.
Bearing in mind that almost every government is SEA+China is either un democratic or has racism enshrined in law (e.g in Malaysia the majority race gets special rights and privileges) you can see why.

Not directly a comment on this, but it makes me think - I think this kind of situation is one way of explaining why some people are hesitant about elements of the social state.

Their worry, and it's not crazy, is that by placing responsibility for the elderly, childcare etc, on the state, this will ultimately over time weaken the sense of direct personal responsibility people feel towards those they have a connection to - family for example. The sort of very strong sense we see in some asian cultures for example.

And it's not a huge leap from there for individuals to see those needing care as more and more of an abstraction, to not want to pay enough taxes for example to really support that work, or take an out of sight out of mind approach.

Or to put it another way, there is a significant psychological difference between someone who gives money for someone to take care of a social problem that is an abstraction for them, and someone who actually is doing the work. The way it touches them is different. For most of us our family and neighbours are the ones we have the most immediate contact with.

Asians are very family oriented

There are 4.5 billion asians living just in Asia, let alone else where. It's stupid and offensive to suggest all of them are family oriented (or anything else).

"If everyone who says they want a fairer world still gives their children a leg up for their own benefit, at the expense of poorer people, when will that fairer world begin? Who are you pushing to start or implement it? Isn't it what the right wing is doing? The difference is they don't claim to be doing differently (as OP's saying).

I think this is what OP's trying to say based on the last post. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong OP."

This is exactly what I was trying to say, you phrased that much better than I did.

I'm Tory, fairly of the right, not sure I recognise your characterisation there either. I don't like big government, I think huge expensive programmes often miss the mark and are terrible value for money. I want the government to do less, people to keep more cash and make their own decisions on how to spend it

I've heard this argument before, i do not understand it....

So if i understand you correctly, i pay less tax and then spend the money how i wish? so i need an operation, due to spending cuts and CV, i'll have to pay for it.... but who has trained the nurses doctors etc etc in the private hospital? if things go wrong, i'll be rushed to an NHS hospital, staffed by nhs staff... part of these programes that offer crap value for money - done well rolling out vaccines though haven't they?

My local council has had its budgets cut... so do i now go out and buy some tarmac and fill the pot holes?

Tax cuts means less money spent on womens refuge's, so should women go and build their own ones now?

The other problem your argument has is that it creates a postcode lottery of services, wealthy areas, collecting a lot of council tax, have better services than poorer ones, wealthy areas tend to be healthier, so more money can be spent on the non emergency NHS care.

Capitalism also leaves people behind, the so called under class, whilst making billionaires out of the most business capable but society needs nurses, carers and shop workers far more than it needs Warren Buffet

I'm Tory, fairly of the right, not sure I recognise your characterisation there either. I don't like big government, I think huge expensive programmes often miss the mark and are terrible value for money. I want the government to do less, people to keep more cash and make their own decisions on how to spend it

I'm not a Tory, but agree with this statement to a large extent. I no longer vote for Labour either, however.

I do agree with @jasjas1973 about this sort of set up potentially leaving behind the brightest and best for the betterment of country.

A happy medium has to be met and I'm not sure the Conservatives and Labour can deliver, unfortunately.

If it's not a sum zero game, why does the Left seem to be currently so concerned about overpopulation? Resources are unlimited and can be generated indefinitely, right?

You vote for the world you wish to see. You act based on the world you are in. They are two different things

Mmm, this doesn't cut it and sounds like a rather convenient get out clause.

Voting is not the only mechanism to drive change. You could start by taking some personal responsibility and actively disadvantage yourself to increase equality (i.e. what you wish to see)

Can anyone provide examples of having actively disadvantaged yourselves IRL? Such as in the OP's example of not even applying for a job so as to make that opportunity available to someone else?

@IbrahimaRedTwo

Asians are very family oriented

There are 4.5 billion asians living just in Asia, let alone else where. It's stupid and offensive to suggest all of them are family oriented (or anything else).

What the poster meant, which I think is obvious if you read the whole comment, is that they have a culture that puts a lot of emphasis on family obligations, compared to British or maybe western culture. Consequently many individuals also think that way.

Given that it's a pretty common comment from Asian who visit or come to live in the west, I think maybe it's not actually offensive.

Reducing inequality raises the standard of living of all people in that society, including those in the highest income brackets. It's called the Marmot effect, after the researcher Michael Marmot.

@Linguistmum

I understand your question, I think. Social research suggests people vote out of self-interest. Britain is also a right-wing country and this is evident in the election results: Tory and Conservative.

Tory governments have a reputation for being better with the public purse because they spend less on community welfare. However, Covid has perhaps shown how short-sighted a decade worth of austerity has actually been and now the Tory government are paying the price.

Your point about ethnic minorities and equality etc. was interesting. Journalist Sathnam Sanghera suggests it's an outcome of the World Wars. Britain wanted to differentiate itself from the Nazis; Britain wanted to be seen as being anti-racist, tolerant and respectful of others. Makes sense. Britain won the war against fascism and part of that winning was to show they were anti-fascist themselves.

Also, for a long time Britain prided itself on Christian morality. That included charity, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you etc. The foundations of Christian society was built on a general idea about "judgement" and being "saved" that just doesn't really exist now. There is no sense of "consequences" for being selfish anymore, on the contrary, there are consequences for being unselfish because you get left behind the fast-paced rat race.

I know the votes here suggest you're being unreasonable, but I get what you mean because I've wondered it myself as well. Empathy only goes so far. Self-preservation and self-interest tends to trump altruism and empathy. But, if you look at the bigger picture, most people can see that community welfare is the mark of civilised society. As another poster said: "the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members". And vulnerability can happen to any one of us or anyone we might care about.

Britain is also a right-wing country and this is evident in the election results: Tory and Conservative

No, this is an optical illusion caused by our utterly ridiculous FPTP voting system whereby you can be an SNP MP with 25,000 votes but for one green MP you need nearly 800,000 votes.

@KeflavikAirport

Britain is also a right-wing country and this is evident in the election results: Tory and Conservative

No, this is an optical illusion caused by our utterly ridiculous FPTP voting system whereby you can be an SNP MP with 25,000 votes but for one green MP you need nearly 800,000 votes.

If you look at the number of votes cast for left of centre parties (Labour, Green, Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid Cymru ) and the number of votes cast for right of centre parties (Conservative, UKIP), then left of centre parties win the largest share of the popular vote. The number of MPs elected to Parliament through the FPTP system doesn't reflect this.

Yes, that was my point

As usual right wingers call anyone on the left hypocritical if they dont choose a life of penury, sack cloth and ashes, most of them seem more than happy to call on the help of socialist institutions like the police, fire or health services

Nye Bevan said everything that needed to be said about Tory voters, and as for a PP's earlier assertion that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty, its plunged more people into destitution than its ever saved they just might not be on your doorstep so youre insulated from it.

@IRelateToViewpointsNotPeople

Will extra tuition give my child a leg up at the expense of poorer people? Yes - so I do it. In a fair world it shouldn’t . While I don’t live in the fair world I can still push for it.

If I understand OP correctly and using what you wrote, the question is why would you do something that will give you a leg up at the expense of poorer people yet claim to want fairness and equality with poorer people?

Who will bring about that fairer world you say you want if not you (and each person who has the opportunity)? And how does that fairer world start if not by these little actions where you allow those poorer people a chance to either have a leg up at your expense or meet up where you are?

If everyone who says they want a fairer world still gives their children a leg up for their own benefit, at the expense of poorer people, when will that fairer world begin? Who are you pushing to start or implement it? Isn't it what the right wing is doing? The difference is they don't claim to be doing differently (as OP's saying).

I think this is what OP's trying to say based on the last post. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong OP.

I think if I understand correctly, OP may be talking about double affirmative action or extra positive discrimination, where it's not enough for people to want others who're less fortunate than them to win, it's also about not getting in the ring with them if you already have more or other options. That way, you ensure whoever wins is someone who was less fortunate, and you're a step closer to a fairer world.

If you can't get yourself or your loved ones out of the ring to give enough chance for the less fortunate (in whatever area) to compete and win, you're not giving enough chance for a fairer world - at least not quick enough.

The right wing will not do it and the left wing won't do it either.

Again, OP I stand corrected if it isn't what you're saying.

@IRelateToViewpointsNotPeople I think you've got the correct understanding on what the OP is saying - I interpreted it the same way. The nuance is this - 'fairness and equality' means giving everyone a fair chance to compete. Meaning that students get a good education regardless of whom they are /where they live. Access to good career guidance and resources. Inclusive corporate cultures where people are mainly judged by their work (and not how many after work drinks they attend).

The issue is that a lot of good stuff isn't available to poorer people.
Class size 30 - kid with rich parents has tutor which explains to them exactly what they don't understand. Poorer kid doesn't, falls by the wayside. Some poorer kids of course may have the innate ability and grasp it just by reading the textbooks, and these are the ones who 'succeed despite the odds'.

People with supportive parents/connections give their kids career advice - if not a degree things like apprenticehips, trades. Poorer kids aren't really advised, if they don't get to uni don't see any other way.

By the time we become adults we wonder - where are all the people from 'less privileged backgrounds'??
We should have caught them along the way but we didn't!

Trying to hire 'diverse' candidates in a field where MOST people in it are the children of professionals in similar fields or require a high level of education in courses which do not have matching diversity profiles are doomed to fail.

Of course I personally could 'move out of the way and give someone less fortunate a leg up' - but that's not going to make it any easier for them if there aren't enough of them with the ABILITY to do the job in the first place, because they've had 11 years of substandard schooling.

This doesn't cover cases where there are equally competent people but there's bias against one person because of race etc etc but that related to inclusive corporate cultures as mentioned above and I've made this essay long enough.

Btw I'm a minority female in a male-dominated field - tech.In a very technical role Most of the people I work with are lots better than me because they've had computers since they were 5, A-level computing etc etc.

I got my first computer at 16, did an unrelated degree and thought I was shit at STEM related skills until I got a very nice uni mate who explained it and it all clicked. Turns out that I'm not dumb but needed things explained in a certain way, and I'm fairly quick now.

Wanna bet that there's loads of people like me out there?

@IbrahimaRedTwo

Asians are very family oriented

There are 4.5 billion asians living just in Asia, let alone else where. It's stupid and offensive to suggest all of them are family oriented (or anything else).

@IbrahimaRedTwo was a cultural observation - I'm mixed various Asian (among other things) - you've just offended me by insinuating that I can't comment on my own culture