The difference between the Left and the Right
When I talk about left vs. right I am not talking about economic systems. The free market, when applied with the rule of law, is unbeatable as an economic system.
I am talking about the ideology for implementing social change. The 'left', as I am using the term (and as most conservatives do), profess a vision of social change, implemented by the wisdom of the few (i.e. them).
The left typically believes that what is lacking in the implentation of social change is will and power, not knowledge. The right typically believe that there is an inherent nature of things, which if it can be altered, humans don't have the knowledge or the wisdom to do so yet.
To touch on a few of the ideological differences:
The left believe that policies don't fail because of a faulty pretense for the policy, but instead because the plan was not implemented properly. You can see this when looking back over the failures of the war on poverty and the criminal justice reforms of the 1960's. The policies put in place failed miserably by any objective standard, and yet they are defended by saying that the measurements aren't fair because the policies weren't executed according to the vision. The right typically believe that common sense and systemic change are more effective for creating lasting social policy, and that the 'unfairness' that might result from those policies are unfortunate but unavoidable.
The left believe that there are 'solutions' to problems, such as crime, poverty, the environment, etc. These solutions are waiting to be put into place, and all that is lacking is the political power. The right recognizes that problems will never go to zero, and that any fix is inevitably a trade-off that might cause problems in another area. It boils down to which answer is the least distasteful.
The left believe that social correlations are proof of social causation; for example, loan rejection discrepencies for minorities are directly indicative of racism. The right believe that incentive structures within a system provide the basis / remedy for observed social phenomena. To use the previous example, if minority loan rejection is systemically occuring, there would be a lower level of profitability for banks who are rejecting otherwise qualified applicants. Similarly, this creates opportunities for banks to address this (underserved) niche because of the oppty for super-normal profits.
The left typically believe that economic costs in implementing policy is incidental. Ends justify the means especially when economic costs are concerned (e.g. "save the environment" = eliminate DDT, eliminate asbestos, etc.). The right believe those economic costs are crucial to the decision making process. The cost of "changing over" to a new system is critical in determining the value of the new system. (e.g. before DDT was eliminated, malaria had almost been eradicated. Within two years of the elimination of DDT, countries where malaria was endemic saw malaria cases rise back to or exceed previous levels. All of this when there was and is no conclusive proof that DDT was dangerous)
To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, the left vs. right discussion boils down to 'good intentions' vs. 'results, in the face of imperfect knowledge'
I am talking about the ideology for implementing social change. The 'left', as I am using the term (and as most conservatives do), profess a vision of social change, implemented by the wisdom of the few (i.e. them).
The left typically believes that what is lacking in the implentation of social change is will and power, not knowledge. The right typically believe that there is an inherent nature of things, which if it can be altered, humans don't have the knowledge or the wisdom to do so yet.
To touch on a few of the ideological differences:
The left believe that policies don't fail because of a faulty pretense for the policy, but instead because the plan was not implemented properly. You can see this when looking back over the failures of the war on poverty and the criminal justice reforms of the 1960's. The policies put in place failed miserably by any objective standard, and yet they are defended by saying that the measurements aren't fair because the policies weren't executed according to the vision. The right typically believe that common sense and systemic change are more effective for creating lasting social policy, and that the 'unfairness' that might result from those policies are unfortunate but unavoidable.
The left believe that there are 'solutions' to problems, such as crime, poverty, the environment, etc. These solutions are waiting to be put into place, and all that is lacking is the political power. The right recognizes that problems will never go to zero, and that any fix is inevitably a trade-off that might cause problems in another area. It boils down to which answer is the least distasteful.
The left believe that social correlations are proof of social causation; for example, loan rejection discrepencies for minorities are directly indicative of racism. The right believe that incentive structures within a system provide the basis / remedy for observed social phenomena. To use the previous example, if minority loan rejection is systemically occuring, there would be a lower level of profitability for banks who are rejecting otherwise qualified applicants. Similarly, this creates opportunities for banks to address this (underserved) niche because of the oppty for super-normal profits.
The left typically believe that economic costs in implementing policy is incidental. Ends justify the means especially when economic costs are concerned (e.g. "save the environment" = eliminate DDT, eliminate asbestos, etc.). The right believe those economic costs are crucial to the decision making process. The cost of "changing over" to a new system is critical in determining the value of the new system. (e.g. before DDT was eliminated, malaria had almost been eradicated. Within two years of the elimination of DDT, countries where malaria was endemic saw malaria cases rise back to or exceed previous levels. All of this when there was and is no conclusive proof that DDT was dangerous)
To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, the left vs. right discussion boils down to 'good intentions' vs. 'results, in the face of imperfect knowledge'
posted by Rob at
11:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home