First, the Right tolerates inequalities that the Left hates. …some people have it very easy in our society, others far too hard. The goal of policy should be to correct these inequalities in power. …
Second, I believe that governments succeed more often than they fail. People on the Right are more sceptical of government’s effectiveness. …
Third… People on the Left tend to have a vision of what society could be like, and believe it’s the role of democracy to try to make that a reality. People on the Right are more likely to value the status quo, believing it represents the tested wisdom of previous generations.
But these three may all originate in the same phenomenon: that the right is more inclined to see people’s circumstances as the results of their own choices, and the left is more inclined to see people’s circumstances as the results of factors beyond their own control. (You can see this view in, for instance, Chris Dillow's comment about Open Left.)
From this, it follows that the left desires to reduce the unfair effects of bad luck on people’s lives, whereas the right sees the natural order of things as fairer, and that change would likely be for the worse. The primary candidate to promote such change (by any number of direct or indirect means) is the state, and judgements of the state’s effectiveness tend to be in proportion to judgements of the merits of its aims.
Hence also the differences on the value of the status quo versus change (the Thatcherite revolution was an exception that proves the rule: it was mostly about changing a situation that previous governments had created).
So, is the left-right split just a difference in opinion on the roles of choice and luck? Almost certainly not. But I think there’s something in this.
(And, as I argue in another post today, the arbitrary and unequal role of bad luck is a good reason for the left to be wary of pure meritocracy.)
5 comments:
You say "the right is more inclined to see people’s circumstances as the results of their own choices, and the left is more inclined to see people’s circumstances as the results of factors beyond their own control."
If this were all there were, the Left would win the debate every time. Only sub-humanly moronic dickheads think they are purely "self-made men".
Instead, the right have two stronger points.
1. They can deny that there's any obligation upon the lucky to compensate the unlucky; this is the Nozickean strategy.
2. They can argue that such compensation mechanisms dampen incentives and so result in lower average incomes. And the right tend to worry more about averages whereas the left take a more Rawlsian position and give more weight to the worst-off.
It's these two arguments - not drivel about people making their own circumstances - that give the right intellectual weight.
Only sub-humanly moronic dickheads think they are purely "self-made men".
Agreed. Which is why I phrased what I said to imply a continuum rather than an all-or-nothing straw man.
Sorry Tom, but the continuum doesn't stretch far enough for any intelligent person to seriously tolerate inequality, except out of self-interest.
In support of 'bloggerscircle' I've posted my lengthy reply here.
It would have tempting to say that lefties are caring and righties are selfish, but I wanted something more neutrally descriptive (plus I know some utterly lovely lifelong Tories and I’ve also met a fair few real bastards on the left).
In the spirit of ‘not just sounding off like I usually do’, I’ve had a look at the British Social Attitudes surveys. Over the last few rounds of the survey (from 2000 on) the answers to “Why do you think there are people who live in need?” have been in the following ranges:
Unlucky 10-16%
Laziness 21-28%
Social injustice 16-21%
Inevitable 32-38%
There were a couple of more general questions in the 1998 survey. With the statement “We each make our own fate”, 57% agreed and 15% disagreed. With the statement “There is little that people can do to change the course of their lives”, 17% agreed and 63% disagreed.
The options on offer aren’t subtle enough to tell us how far people judge luck (and other extraneous factors) and choice (and other personal qualities) to influence how well one does in life, but there’s clearly a good range of opinion on where people put the causal emphasis.
Liam, I’ll take a look and get back to you.
Post a Comment