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.

I mean technically, from a purely rational perspective, it doesnt make sense to vote at all if you are purely looking at it from the perspective of self-interest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

Yet people, from the right and the left do vote. So there is clearly something else going on - for people on the right and the left.

Of course there is scarcity. It's a sum zero game. Always.

Of course it isn't.

“Of course there is scarcity. It's a sum zero game. Always. Those who think otherwise need to educate themselves.”

Why the scarcity? Because the very richest have grabbed more than they need.

If a large number of people are struggling even to survive, working long hours or 2 or 3 jobs just to pay rent, then they’re not going to be spending money on luxuries, they won’t be able to help the economy or shop in small shops. This constructed scarcity brings us all down.

I am a leftie because capitalism is destroying the planet.

You're a sad creature OP. I hope that events don't cause you to need to ask anyone for help at any time in your life. But someone as self sufficient as you will never need to do this of course.

I don't classify myself as either left or right wing. I'd like to think I'm a caring person - I help people and am happy to share my resources among friends, family, people in need in the community, I give to charity, I want everyone to have an equal chance in life, to end discrimination etc.

But, in my experience, the people I know who are very vocal about being left wing/liberals are massively hypocritical. They say all the right things but their actions don't align with that, so it very much feels like paying lip service.
A personal example: A left wing friend who is very much against grammar schools as she sees that system as divisive and elitist. Yet when I pressed her on it she admitted if she could afford it she would send her child to private school, and she was privately educated herself. Her reasoning is that although she wants all schools to be equal, they're not and she would want the best education for her child.
Right, so you would buy your child an advantage in life (not very left wing!) but you're in favour of taking away a free system that gave kids like me, (child of immigrant single mum) a chance to excel academically and get into a typically "middle class" profession.

Then all the silly diversity forms we have to fill out. For a graduate scheme in the civil service they wanted to know my entire life story...where I was born, what my parents' education is and what they work as, their dates of birth/death, what ethnicity/nationality I am etc. I had quite a traumatic early childhood in my home country. My dad died when I was young, I don't know what exactly he worked as (I had to ring my mum to ask), he didn't even work much of the time as he was an alcoholic. I'd been doing my best to put my past behind me and now I had to drag it all up in this form, without which I couldn't progress my application.
All this "diversity monitoring" was thought up by well meaning but clueless liberal types...nobody I know who is of a minority or disadvantaged background wants this. Many of us have overcome trauma and just want to get on with our lives without being "monitored" by someone in some office.
The "gender/trans" obsession is also utterly perplexing to the average working class person.

In general I feel the left no longer represents the people it's supposed to. It's become a hub for well meaning privileged people and hipster types to feel good about themselves. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but the votes speak for themselves.
I don't vote Tory however... my vote is now a protest vote.

Most of the welfare advances and social reform this country saw in the last 100 years, happened under Labour, with the tories opposing them.

The greatest increase in NHS funding happened in the 2000s under Labour, after almost 2 decades of tory under funding.
We now face 5m on waiting lists, the Govt's response is a less than 1% one off funding increase... as my tory friends say to me "why don't they go private? we do"

Labour don't get everything right, far from it but they start with, at least the intention of trying to improving every ones lives.

OP, really astonished that you have no understanding of empathy, it is a normal human emotion and should be an integral part of a successful society. Without empathy and concern for our fellow human beings we get anarchic chaos with everyone fighting for themselves. Everyone loses out in that scenario.

The sad thing is that you think that caring about the people around you is only a left wing value. It used to be called civic responsibility and was a value upheld by all political parties until Thatcherism came along and smashed that up in the Tory party. We are all the poorer for it.

@THisbackwithavengeance That's exactly how I feel. I can't stand hypocrisy. At least the right is upfront about who they are.

Great Post @TheRuralLife89

@sadpapercourtesan

My father told me when I was little that Tories were people whose mothers never taught them to share. I'm starting to wonder whether he was right

Another oldie was If you're not a socialist before you're 21 you're soft in the heart, if you're a socialist after 21 you're soft on the head.

A bon mot for every occasion.

@TheRuralLife89
Sorry you had to dredge up past trauma to apply for the civil service graduate scheme, but the civil service, above s as lmoat anything else, needs to be as diverse as possible.

It’s like if you have only childless, able-bodied men designing facilities in a town centre. If they’re not pushing buggies about or navigating in a wheelchair or with sticks, they might not think to have lowered kerbs in the right places, they may think toilet/changing facilities are unnecessary because they’ve not got a toddler, or a weak bladder or IBS.

They might not realise that a particular design is scary to walk down for women or vulnerable minorities because it’s an alley with no way to run sideways (this happened near me - they put up unclimbable hoardings around roadworks, which made a stretch of pavement into an alley, and only when a woman got cornered there did they realise it was a problem.

Fit people might not put in enough rest areas. Someone not in a minority might put facilities for them too close, for example, to a pub where bigots hang out.
Even if you’re trying to be thoughtful, it’s so easy to miss things that just don’t affect your life. So a good mix of people make the best plans for society.

@Linguistmum

Thank you for everyone, I still haven't read all of your replies but comment on this point.

Let's start by saying that it comes naturally to me to help others. To give up my seat if a flight is oversold, to donate money to charity before Christmas. I actually enjoy having a chat with old people spending time in a local mall - I know they are lonely and I feel like a little chat delights their day. I love helping tourists to find their way.

But deep inside I still know that this is what I do when things are ok. When I have a surplus of resources. The wind changes very quickly: let's say I have to hurry to a job interview. On the way I see an old lady with Alzheimer's wandering around. Within a few seconds I have to decide which is more important: my job interview or helping that old lady. I want to help the old lady, but I want the job more. I rush further and feel bad, but this is what I do.

This is my problem with left-wing. It seems to me like the idea is to really change the structures of the society and lift the impoverished and those worse-off. But how do you do that if your own benefit always, in the end, really comes first? It does not mean that you don't care, but I believe every one of us cares a tiny bit of more of ourselves and our own family - and we end up in a world where everyone convinces they have a good will but the actions speak louder than words.

In short, I seem to think that a left-wing society would require that we should be able to make decisions in favor of others in even the most painful situations. Let the job interview go and stop helping the lady. Let our child end up in an erratic public school because we really believe in our ideals.

This is actually quite a good, illustrative example of why I think left-wing politics work where right wing politics doesn’t.

My view of right-wing politics is that it puts the onus for caring on the individual. Right wingers consider the role of the state in supporting people to be much smaller. So, in your example, it’s not the state’s responsibility to look after the old lady with Alzheimer’s. Instead, the burden is placed on private organisations or individuals; charities / family members / benign passers by. Therefore I consider that in your example, right wing politics places a greater burden on the individual to intervene because there is no social safety net protecting the woman.

In an ideal left wing society, the government would provide safe and effective care for vulnerable people. The burden of care isn’t placed on one individual doing the right thing. It’s shared among us all and provides protection and support for us all.

If your view is that the state doesn’t have a responsibility to provide for people and simultaneously you don’t see yourself as having a personal duty to help others, then you’re essentially saying some people just have to suffer and that’s tough.

I'm not sure the left and right wing labels are particularly helpful these days. In fact I see many similarities between the extremes at both ends, and this is supported by history and a quick look at other countries.

There are lots of nuances. I think both extremes can be very divisive and bad for society. Both tend to be very authoritarian. The extreme right is riddled with callousness and prejudice and the extreme left with some nonsensical notions and excessive state intervention.

My personal view is ethical rather than political. I believe in equality of opportunity, and human decency. Nobody should have their human rights violated or be forced to live in poverty. Everyone should have a fair shot at success. But I also believe in a lot if personal freedom provided it us balanced against not impinging on the rights of others. I think Aristotle had it right: temperance, moderation, the golden mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency, selfishness and selflessness is the most beneficial (and most difficult) approach to morality, structuring society, and living a happy life. I would class myself as a centrist if pushed to put a label on it. I think policy decisions should be evidence-based, not tribal. Politics functions better through considered discussion, not aggressive point scoring.

It is not surprising that the happiness of populations, safety and the general stability of countries improves when the standard of living improves for all citizens. So there is also a selfish motive to caring about the welfare of other people.

I have to say though OP I am baffled by your take on it. It seems very strange to say you don't care about other people, and also rather illogical. Your own family does not exist in a vacuum unaffected by the externalities of the society you live in. Also to not understand that many people care about competing objectives at once and therefore make trade-offs in their moral decision-making. I don't think you've grasped the philosophical roots of the different political ideologies if you think it is as simplistic as the way you've described it. If you're interested in the subject there are many books to read!

@duffeldaisy So just hire a good mix of people. You can usually tell if someone is a woman or an ethnic minority by looking at them, or working class by listening to them (accent is a good giveaway) so why does it need to be on a form. Or make it optional to answer these questions, which are really quite intrusive and personal.
Or, when designing something, have a public consultation and genuinely take on board what the public says...then the issues you mention can be ironed out.

Could have written your post but you said it so much better @Rahri

For your last paragraph, I think going by the OP's last post, I'd say the point s/he's trying to make in the OP may have been lost in communication and the last post does expand a bit on what s/he was saying. The OP does come across rather unbelievable or harsh or unempathetic but the last post doesn't exactly say that anymore.

I'd put the example OP gave in her last post as a question to people - What would you do in that situation? Help the old lady and miss the interview? Regretfully carry on so as not to miss the interview? Regretfully carry on but alert the relevant authorities on your way?

Also a pp mentioned finding a tree full of fruits while being shipwrecked with many people. What would you do if the tree had only one fruit instead and you had your starving children with you? Would you still go back and share it with everyone?

It may sound simplistic but sometimes, situations can be as simple as deciding - case by case - what the best action will be.

You can usually tell if someone is a woman or an ethnic minority by looking at them, or working class by listening to them (accent is a good giveaway) so why does it need to be on a form

I don't think this is a good idea though. Best to ask than assume you know just by looking or listening to people. I agree to make it optional and I think it is on most forms.

People and politics are complicated by ideology, lived experience, moral grey areas. It is possible to be a mixture of left and right and probably most people are even if they think right wingers are all racists or left wingers are all fantasists.
I’d say my feet are planted right of centre and the rest of me leans left. I think think some conservative policies are hideous and many labour policies are stupid. There’s only one main stream party I have not voted for at least once and that’s the SNP.

@IRelateToViewpointsNotPeople

Could have written your post but you said it so much better *@Rahri*

For your last paragraph, I think going by the OP's last post, I'd say the point s/he's trying to make in the OP may have been lost in communication and the last post does expand a bit on what s/he was saying. The OP does come across rather unbelievable or harsh or unempathetic but the last post doesn't exactly say that anymore.

I'd put the example OP gave in her last post as a question to people - What would you do in that situation? Help the old lady and miss the interview? Regretfully carry on so as not to miss the interview? Regretfully carry on but alert the relevant authorities on your way?

Also a pp mentioned finding a tree full of fruits while being shipwrecked with many people. What would you do if the tree had only one fruit instead and you had your starving children with you? Would you still go back and share it with everyone?

It may sound simplistic but sometimes, situations can be as simple as deciding - case by case - what the best action will be.

I hadn't read that. It's very interesting. But I think with these examples we are moving away from political philosophy to (personal) moral philosophy. Like the old classic of the "trolley problem".

I'd like to think I'd help the old lady and just explain to the potential employer and reschedule the interview. I know if I was interviewing, I would not penalise someone for this. However, that comes from a position of privilege where my employer is very decent and I'd not move jobs to one that wasn't anyway. If I had no job, was aware the potential employer might refuse to reschedule, and was struggling for money to feed my children, I might on balance prioritise that but try to alert another member of the public and get them to help her.

There will always be some conflict between our responsibilities to our own families and wider society. Moral choices are not easy and it's very difficult to identify how competing moral imperatives should be prioritised. Personally I think it's right that sometimes we can put ourselves/ our children first; the issue is always identifying where the line lies.

A PP mentioned "survival mentality" that comes from scarcity of resources - particularly if people have been in a warzone etc - and that this naturally leads to people becoming more selfish. With the fruit on the island, if my children were starving I'd prioritise them and not feel guilty.

This is largely a struggle between natural instincts and our rationality. So we always want to provide for ourselves and our family and feel safe. This instinct can be misused to create fear and othering and hatred and division. Like the whole argument about immigrants taking jobs as if there are a finite number of jobs; a manipulation of the scarcity mentality with factual falsehoods.

However, we are also rational and can take a step back and realise that in most situations, when we work collaboratively life improves for everyone. We are safer and better off and happier, and this then reduces the difficulty of moral decisions that have to be made at a personal level. So for example I'd be less likely to be worrying about how to feed my children and feel unable to stop to help the sick lady in the OP's example as the stakes for me would not be so high.

When we extrapolate out to the societal level, our self-interest is bound up with the collective interest, and if everyone behaves selfishly then everyone loses, overall. Fundamentally it's easier to see the alignment of the collective interest with the individual interest in smaller communities, e.g. the ancient Greek city states. In modern societies of millions of strangers, or as a global community, it's much more of a rational exercise than an instinct so it has to be a conscious decision to override (to some extent) our evolutionary impulses to be selfish with resources for everyone's benefit. But I do believe humanity is capable of it (I am an optimist). But absolutely agree that it's the "extent" part that is the problem, and as you say that means that different cases require different amounts of consideration. And is why moral "rules" and ideologies are damaging as they fail to grasp all of the complexities.

@IRelateToViewpointsNotPeople I think also the best thing is to hire based solely on qualifications and experience rather than all these "diversity" factors. I think positive discrimination highlights differences and pits people against each other. It encourages the "diverse" people to see themselves as victims and the majority to feel resentful of them...it creates a perception that they only got the job to fill a diversity quota. As an ethnic minority person, I don't want my colleagues to view me that way. Not one person I know who positive discrimination aims to help actually wants positive discrimination. They just want people to not discriminate AGAINST them.

@TempsPerdu

Politically I’m left of centre and very liberal. But for me OP your question isn’t a political one but rather a human one. Essentially it’s about empathy. I’m no saint, and my altruism isn’t infinite - like most people I care about my own well-being and that of my loved ones before a random stranger’s needs. But I also care deeply about human rights, and wherever I can I want to try to make the world a better place for others.

This is partly out of empathy for those less fortunate than myself - I’m very alert to my own privilege and through past work with families and young people have become increasingly aware that my comfortable middle-class life is not the norm. I’m also pretty good at thinking about the bigger picture where it comes to small issues that are not obviously political - for example, Covid has made our local library very difficult to access, and I got quite angry today while trying to navigate their convoluted appointment booking system because I could immediately see that it would lead to many less advantaged kids being completely shut out from their services. My DD will get her slot because I persevered, but many children needier than her will not.

But I also think there’s such a thing as ‘selfish altruism’, and some of my politics is informed by that too. Unless you are pretty reclusive or wealthy enough to be able to insulate yourself entirely from wiser society, the things that adversely impact on the most vulnerable groups will also impact you somewhere along the line. For example, my DD will soon be attending a state primary school - a fairly ‘naice’ middle class one, but one that, like most in London, still has its fair share of children from more challenging backgrounds. I want DD to be able to enjoy school, make nice friends and get on with her learning with minimal disruption - something which is less likely to happen if schools are underfunded and the children in them are increasingly needy and difficult as a result of growing societal deprivation. So I vote for any party that pledges to support vulnerable families and properly fund public services. Similarly it makes me unhappy to walk around my local town centre and see creeping signs of deprivation, anti-social behaviour, people with obvious drug issues, homeless people sitting in shop doorways etc - both out of empathy for those people who are themselves suffering, and out of selfishness because witnessing those things affects my own well-being too.

I’m sure some people must live entirely in their own bubbles and are genuinely impervious to other people’s differing experiences - the genuine inability of many to recognise the myriad harms done by repeated lockdowns is evidence enough for that - but I personally couldn't ever comprehend such a mindset.

What an absolutely fantastic post!

[quote TheRuralLife89]@IRelateToViewpointsNotPeople I think also the best thing is to hire based solely on qualifications and experience rather than all these "diversity" factors. I think positive discrimination highlights differences and pits people against each other. It encourages the "diverse" people to see themselves as victims and the majority to feel resentful of them...it creates a perception that they only got the job to fill a diversity quota. As an ethnic minority person, I don't want my colleagues to view me that way. Not one person I know who positive discrimination aims to help actually wants positive discrimination. They just want people to not discriminate AGAINST them. [/quote]
It is a crude way of addressing structural inequalities, so is really a patch to cover the real problem. A competent Government would instead do the much harder and long-term work of creating equality of opportunity at a societal level in the first place so that merit-based decisions at the individual level would give everyone a reasonably fair chance of success. It is another example of what my previous post was describing about the interplay between societal structure and individual moral choices, and how if we get the former right the latter becomes far less tortuous.

Equality of opportunity

And caring, realising that we are all born equal and it’s the circumstances that people are born in to that determine most things.

The left care about society as a whole, the right only care about themselves and their success.
The right should be about using positions of privilege to help those less fortunate, but I think largely they just see themselves as better.

Op I think I understand exactly what you are saying but it is coming out all wrong and probably getting two issues mixed up. Moral issues (the greater good) vs doing what benefits you.

OP, the reason I am left wing is because I think that old lady with Alzheimer’s in the situation you describe shouldn’t just be left wandering around in confusion until she has the good fortune to happen across someone who isn’t rushing to an interview. The most vulnerable in our community should be cared for and we should all contribute to that.

I do not think all conservatives are uncaring, but we definitely approach the question from a different angle. The current Conservative government is terrifying corrupt and lacking in any sense of empathy. I am also extremely wary of the authoritarian woke politics and cancel culture currently being peddled by some on the left. We have lost all nuance from political discussion.