How can the right (and centre) have better (or any) conversations with the left?

[Debater Slayer]

John Quiggin, Aussie economist on his blog:


It’s a movie we’ve seen over and over again in US politics. Centrists engage in respectful discussion with a thoughtful conservative[1], only to discover they are actually talking to a dishonest troll. Yet, just like Charlie Brown lining up to kick Lucy’s football, they keep coming back for another try...

...Why do centrists keep falling for this? The answer, to paraphrase Voltaire is that, since no-one like the imagined intelligent, honest conservative exists, they have to be invented. In reality, intelligent honest conservatives, are either ex-Republicans (for example, David French and the Bulwark group) or open enemies of democracy (Adrian Vermeule).

But once they recognise that there is no serious thought to their political right, centrists would have to recognise that they themselves are the conservatives. That would entail an intellectual obligation to engage with the left, which is the last thing they want....


The typical discourse about the left is centred around identity politics. Cultural appropriation and trigger warnings, political correctness and the trans agenda etc etc. But being on the left you typically meet people with political agendas that only tangentially interact with this stuff if at all. Left wing economists, political theorists, activists, organisers and mobilisers are concerned with solving problems that dominate our lives. Like our rights at work, exploding wealth inequality and the concentration of political power, the failure of liberal democratic process and institutions to address our needs, fixing the housing market, getting money out of politics, stopping capital from destroying the biosphere, providing care to those who need it, addressing hunger and generational poverty, creating functional communities.

How can the right (and centre) move past treating twitter threads as political reality and seriously engage with the left?

Is it the case that the right (and centre) are bound by the need to ignore solutions (and even the existence of problems) that would necessitate a more even distribution of wealth, incomes, power and political access?

The excerpt has too much overgeneralization for my liking. For one thing, it talks about conservatives and centrists as if they were one group. For another thing, it states that an intelligent and honest person can't be a conservative, which is a highly tribalistic statement that overlooks the various factors shaping people's worldviews and tries to reduce them to whether someone is "intelligent and honest."

Just like the "left," "conservatives" and "centrists" are diverse, vast groups with a lot of different opinions and values. Talking about any of these groups in generalized absolutes doesn't seem to me productive or accurate.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Just like the "left," "conservatives" and "centrists" are diverse, vast groups with a lot of different opinions and values. Talking about any of them in generalized absolutes doesn't seem to me productive or accurate.

This thread, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be an alternative to my thread in which I asked "Can the Left have better conversations with the Right?"

However in my thread, I was talking about specific conversations I was seeing at that point in time - about 2 or 3 other threads - and then someone revived that thread of mine, and it may have caused a bit of confusion because that thread was now 1.5 months old and referred to threads that were no longer active.

That being said, I did say that I'd be fine with someone else creating a spinoff of my thread where it's "Right / Left", after the subject came up.

 

[anna.]

The typical discourse about the left is centred around identity politics.

The term identity politics was coined in the 70s, and for good reason at the time. Like anything else, there are gradations of it, but it's not inherently wrong.

Cultural appropriation and trigger warnings, political correctness and the trans agenda etc etc. But being on the left you typically meet people with political agendas that only tangentially interact with this stuff if at all. Left wing economists, political theorists, activists, organisers and mobilisers are concerned with solving problems that dominate our lives. Like our rights at work, exploding wealth inequality and the concentration of political power, the failure of liberal democratic process and institutions to address our needs, fixing the housing market, getting money out of politics, stopping capital from destroying the biosphere, providing care to those who need it, addressing hunger and generational poverty, creating functional communities.

How can the right (and centre) move past treating twitter threads as political reality and seriously engage with the left?

Is it the case that the right (and centre) are bound by the need to ignore solutions (and even the existence of problems) that would necessitate a more even distribution of wealth, incomes, power and political access?

As someone center-left, I don't want to be grouped in with the right at all. Why should I be? (I used to be on the right, so I know whereof I speak.)

 

[exchemist]

I'm curious about the part I highlighted in red because, as worded, I'm not sure why that would necessarily be a negative thing per se. I can see the problem if the pieces rely on inaccuracies, hyperbole, overgeneralizations, etc., but do they? The Guardian is rated by more than one source as highly reliable (for example), so I approach their news articles differently from their opinion pieces.

I agree that trying to guilt-trip people based on group identity alone is pretty toxic, though.

Occasional articles on these topics would be fair enough. It is the relentless barrage of them, almost every day, that is the problem. The relevance of that, in this particular discussion, is that it shows a left wing preoccupation with such issues. People like me, who are not on the left, get bored and annoyed by it and people on the right react against it, sometimes quite aggressively. All this creates more heat than light and gets in the way of discussion of the really important points that people on the left should be trying to get across.

So I think the writer quoted in the OP has not got it quite right: the left is itself partly to blame for the distraction he complains of.

P.S. There is in fact a bigger danger, namely that the left becomes associated with all this identity politics stuff and NOT with the major socio-economic issues of the day. That leaves those issues open to be appropriated by a populist right. Which is exactly what is happening in the USA and could happen in the UK too.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Occasional articles on these topics would be fair enough. It is the relentless barrage of them, almost every day, that is the problem. The relevance of that, in this particular discussion, is that it shows a left wing preoccupation with such issues. People like me, who are not on the left, get bored and annoyed by it and people on the right react against it, sometimes quite aggressively. All this creates more heat than light and gets in the way of discussion of the really important points that people on the left should be trying to get across.

So I think the writer quoted in the OP has not got it quite right: the left is itself partly to blame for the distraction he complains of.

Ah, I see your point. Thanks for clarifying!

I have grown rather weary of American politics, myself. I find that the "left wings" of some other countries better represent my views in many ways, although political discourse in other countries still sometimes picks up tropes and clichés from its American counterpart even when those are barely relevant to the domestic politics of other countries. I suspect you might have also encountered this in British politics.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

John Quiggin, Aussie economist on his blog:


It’s a movie we’ve seen over and over again in US politics. Centrists engage in respectful discussion with a thoughtful conservative[1], only to discover they are actually talking to a dishonest troll. Yet, just like Charlie Brown lining up to kick Lucy’s football, they keep coming back for another try...

...Why do centrists keep falling for this? The answer, to paraphrase Voltaire is that, since no-one like the imagined intelligent, honest conservative exists, they have to be invented. In reality, intelligent honest conservatives, are either ex-Republicans (for example, David French and the Bulwark group) or open enemies of democracy (Adrian Vermeule).

But once they recognise that there is no serious thought to their political right, centrists would have to recognise that they themselves are the conservatives. That would entail an intellectual obligation to engage with the left, which is the last thing they want....


The typical discourse about the left is centred around identity politics. Cultural appropriation and trigger warnings, political correctness and the trans agenda etc etc. But being on the left you typically meet people with political agendas that only tangentially interact with this stuff if at all. Left wing economists, political theorists, activists, organisers and mobilisers are concerned with solving problems that dominate our lives. Like our rights at work, exploding wealth inequality and the concentration of political power, the failure of liberal democratic process and institutions to address our needs, fixing the housing market, getting money out of politics, stopping capital from destroying the biosphere, providing care to those who need it, addressing hunger and generational poverty, creating functional communities.

How can the right (and centre) move past treating twitter threads as political reality and seriously engage with the left?

Is it the case that the right (and centre) are bound by the need to ignore solutions (and even the existence of problems) that would necessitate a more even distribution of wealth, incomes, power and political access?

So the best advice I've received on such a matter, applies generally, and was something @Stevicus once suggested:

"Treat differences in debate/argument as worldview differences with the other side, without making judgements of character, etc on the other side based on their views"

I may have stated this a bit in my own words, but I tried not to insert my own interpretation as much as possible.

 

[exchemist]

Ah, I see your point. Thanks for clarifying!

I have grown rather weary of American politics, myself. I find that the "left wings" of some other countries better represent my views in many ways, although political discourse in other countries still sometimes picks up tropes and clichés from its American counterpart even when those are barely relevant to the domestic politics of other countries. I suspect you might have also encountered this in British politics.

Sure. But what is worrying at present in Britain is that the right of centre party (Conservative party) is moving towards far-right rabble-rousing, the conjuring up of "woke" bogeymen and the knowing promotion of mad conspiracy theories, just like the US Republican party. It is partly driven by their desperation, as they are unpopular and we have an election coming up in a year from now. But partly too it is the bad influence of ideas and tactics from across the Atlantic.

It is highly unsavoury, very un-British and the damage to our democracy may be hard to undo, once people start to believe this rubbish and take sides accordingly.

 

[icehorse]

P.S. There is in fact a bigger danger, namely that the left becomes associated with all this identity politics stuff and NOT with the major socio-economic issues of the day. That leaves those issues open to be appropriated by a populist right. Which is exactly what is happening in the USA and could happen in the UK too.

yes !!!!

 

[exchemist]

The term identity politics was coined in the 70s, and for good reason at the time. Like anything else, there are gradations of it, but it's not inherently wrong.



As someone center-left, I don't want to be grouped in with the right at all. Why should I be? (I used to be on the right, so I know whereof I speak.)

Perhaps like me you were centre-right until about a decade ago, but then found all the sensible people in right of centre politics were becoming marginalised or expelled from their political parties, as their parties drifted further right. In the UK the Tory party Brexiters, and especially Bozo, once he decided to throw in his lot with them, have managed to get rid of almost all the people I once respected in the party. (This purge has also got rid of most of the talent, when it comes to government, which is why we are in such a mess.)

But the effect on me is to make me now seen as centre-left, instead of centre-right, which is odd, as people generally move right as they age. That’s one reason I know it’s not my views that have changed: it is the political spectrum itself that has shifted.

 

[metis]

I am an independent, but the Pubs have gone completely bat-shirt nuts, so there's no way I could support them.

 

[anna.]

Perhaps like me you were centre-right until about a decade ago, but then found all the sensible people in right of centre politics were becoming marginalised or expelled from their political parties, as their parties drifted further right. In the UK the Tory party Brexiters, and especially Bozo, once he decided to throw in his lot with them, have managed to get rid of almost all the people I once respected in the party. (This purge has also got rid of most of the talent, when it comes to government, which is why we are in such a mess.)

I'm no expert, you probably know a lot more about American politics than I know about UK politics but I do follow things over there, and have a good British friend who would probably quite agree with you. Having said that, without going into the whole origin story, I used to be quite far to the right (right-wing veering into Obama birth certificate conspiracy territory) from Reagan up to but not including Mitt Romney. I left the GOP in 2012, well before the Trump/MAGA devolution, so that wasn't the catalyst for me, but I didn't join the Democratic Party, I registered as an NPP (no political party, as it's called in California; in effect I'm an independent, small i). I've voted Democratic ever since though, in my personal fight against Trump/MAGA. I'm fiscally liberal, socially moderate/liberal, pro-equality *and* equity under the law and Constitution, pro-CRT, anti-militarized/immune police, and so on.

But the effect on me is to make me now seen as centre-left, instead of centre-right, which is odd, as people generally move right as they age. That’s one reason I know it’s not my views that have changed: it is the political spectrum itself that has shifted.

Absolutely understand about being seen as center-left, it's because the right is so far to the right they can see the far left on the horizon.

I've bucked the trend of becoming more conservative as I got older. I'm SO grateull that thanks to the internet and to the discussions I've had with people who took the time and made the effort to engage with me on a website that allowed for opposing points of view that - sometimes bit by bit and sometimes in a mad gallop - I found a whole new world outside my conservative bubble. It's been life-changing, quite literally. And it almost didn't happen. The first forum I was very active on was hard right-wing, and they'd ban anyone who wasn't. I was there for years, and I shudder to think where I'd be if I hadn't left it. I landed at a right-wing site that allowed left and left-leaning posters to be there but banned them much more harshly and frequently than those who weren't. It wasn't a level playing field when it came to moderation, but the left-leaning knew it and walked a little more carefully so they could stick around and do battle over all the usual subjects. It was there that I was exposed to views that I quite literally had never been exposed to. My family and friends circle is still overwhelmingly conservative. Trump voters, Dem bashers, AR 15 owners, and a lot more, and as I've moved to the left I've had to keep much of it closeted, which is why when I'm online, like here, I'm able to freely express myself in a way that I can't in real life.

Whew. Too much origin story there, it just kinda got away from me, sorry about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm fiscally liberal,

That's odd. I am fiscally conservative. I can make a very good fiscally conservative argument for socialized health care. Perhaps we are using different terminology to mean the same thing.

By the way, I will also argue that even though it does not appear to be the case when one takes a simplistic look at economics, I will argue that running at a slight deficit is also the fiscally conservative thing to do.

 

[exchemist]

I'm no expert, you probably know a lot more about American politics than I know about UK politics but I do follow things over there, and have a good British friend who would probably quite agree with you. Having said that, without going into the whole origin story, I used to be quite far to the right (right-wing veering into Obama birth certificate conspiracy territory) from Reagan up to but not including Mitt Romney. I left the GOP in 2012, well before the Trump/MAGA devolution, so that wasn't the catalyst for me, but I didn't join the Democratic Party, I registered as an NPP (no political party, as it's called in California; in effect I'm an independent, small i). I've voted Democratic ever since though, in my personal fight against Trump/MAGA. I'm fiscally liberal, socially moderate/liberal, pro-equality *and* equity under the law and Constitution, pro-CRT, anti-militarized/immune police, and so on.



Absolutely understand about being seen as center-left, it's because the right is so far to the right they can see the far left on the horizon.

I've bucked the trend of becoming more conservative as I got older. I'm SO grateull that thanks to the internet and to the discussions I've had with people who took the time and made the effort to engage with me on a website that allowed for opposing points of view that - sometimes bit by bit and sometimes in a mad gallop - I found a whole new world outside my conservative bubble. It's been life-changing, quite literally. And it almost didn't happen. The first forum I was very active on was hard right-wing, and they'd ban anyone who wasn't. I was there for years, and I shudder to think where I'd be if I hadn't left it. I landed at a right-wing site that allowed left and left-leaning posters to be there but banned them much more harshly and frequently than those who weren't. It wasn't a level playing field when it came to moderation, but the left-leaning knew it and walked a little more carefully so they could stick around and do battle over all the usual subjects. It was there that I was exposed to views that I quite literally had never been exposed to. My family and friends circle is still overwhelmingly conservative. Trump voters, Dem bashers, AR 15 owners, and a lot more, and as I've moved to the left I've had to keep much of it closeted, which is why when I'm online, like here, I'm able to freely express myself in a way that I can't in real life.

Whew. Too much origin story there, it just kinda got away from me, sorry about that.

It's an interesting story - and quite different from mine.

People in Britain tend not to sign up to political parties. It's mainly nerds and nutters that do that. So I've never had a party affiliation. With a background like mine (degree in chemistry, 32 yr technocratic career in the oil industry) I am a supporter in general of free market capitalism. I'm also a supporter of traditional institutions: the monarchy, the church, the House of Lords, etc. I think they work well and see no compelling reason to replace them. So I'm tending towards conservatism. But I'm also aware that wealth inequality has grown to an unhealthy degree and I support taxation and social programmes to help redress the imbalance. I do not believe in shrinking the state. And, having worked overseas and having married a Frenchwoman, I am an internationalist in outlook. I do not believe Britain is special and I can see - from direct experience - that the way other countries run their affairs can have a lot to commend it. So, as free market, state-shrinking, low tax fundamentalism and Brexitry has taken hold, I have found myself increasingly out of sympathy with the Conservative party.

Today's Conservative party is not for people like me any more. It is now a kind of tabloid party, with facile, mendacious slogans and a willingness to indulge people's worst instincts and play on their fears. It's a conscious choice the party has made. So rather to my surprise at 69 yrs old, I find myself a Labour voter.

 

[anna.]

That's odd. I am fiscally conservative. I can make a very good fiscally conservative argument for socialized health care. Perhaps we are using different terminology to mean the same thing.

By the way, I will also argue that even though it does not appear to be the case when one takes a simplistic look at economics, I will argue that running at a slight deficit is also the fiscally conservative thing to do.

I'm sure you can make a very good argument - on just about anything. I'd see socialized health care (which I'm all for) as fiscally liberal, at least via the American mindset. I'm no economist, I'd have to leave that heavy lifting to those who can, but I'm there for the good argument.

 

[anna.]

It's an interesting story - and quite different from mine.

People in Britain tend not to sign up to political parties. It's mainly nerds and nutters that do that. So I've never had a party affiliation. With a background like mine (degree in chemistry, 32 yr technocratic career in the oil industry) I am a supporter in general of free market capitalism. I'm also a supporter of traditional institutions: the monarchy, the church, the House of Lords, etc. I think they work well and see no compelling reason to replace them. So I'm tending towards conservatism. But I'm also aware that wealth inequality has grown to an unhealthy degree and I support taxation and social programmes to help redress the imbalance. I do not believe in shrinking the state. And, having worked overseas and having married a Frenchwoman, I am an internationalist in outlook. I do not believe Britain is special and I can see - from direct experience - that the way other countries run their affairs can have a lot to commend it. So, as free market, state-shrinking, low tax fundamentalism and Brexitry has taken hold, I have found myself increasingly out of sympathy with the Conservative party.

Today's Conservative party is not for people like me any more. It is now a kind of tabloid party, with facile, mendacious slogans and a willingness to indulge people's worst instincts and play on their fears. It's a conscious choice the party has made. So rather to my surprise at 69 yrs old, I find myself a Labour voter.

I have to attend to a family obligation in a few minutes, just wanted to tell you I appreciated reading your post and will be back in a few hours (hopefully) to reply when I have the time to do it right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure you can make a very good argument - on just about anything. I'd see socialized health care (which I'm all for) as fiscally liberal, at least via the American mindset. I'm no economist, I'd have to leave that heavy lifting to those who can, but I'm there for the good argument.

Since we seem to agree on principle I do not see a big argument. We are only arguing about labeling and for me that really doesn't matter that much. Our goals appear to be the same and that is what matters to me.

 

[Bthoth]

John Quiggin, Aussie economist on his blog:


How can the right (and centre) move past treating twitter threads as political reality and seriously engage with the left?

The orange MAGA man, the right (wingnuts) leader has shown them how make fights by creating a perception.

Is it the case that the right (and centre) are bound by the need to ignore solutions (and even the existence of problems) that would necessitate a more even distribution of wealth, incomes, power and political access?

Just to use the term "Distribution of Wealth' will bend most every American (US) wrong. Please find another set of terms, before using any socialist monologue.

 

[Unfettered]

John Quiggin, Aussie economist on his blog:


It’s a movie we’ve seen over and over again in US politics. Centrists engage in respectful discussion with a thoughtful conservative[1], only to discover they are actually talking to a dishonest troll. Yet, just like Charlie Brown lining up to kick Lucy’s football, they keep coming back for another try...

...Why do centrists keep falling for this? The answer, to paraphrase Voltaire is that, since no-one like the imagined intelligent, honest conservative exists, they have to be invented. In reality, intelligent honest conservatives, are either ex-Republicans (for example, David French and the Bulwark group) or open enemies of democracy (Adrian Vermeule).

But once they recognise that there is no serious thought to their political right, centrists would have to recognise that they themselves are the conservatives. That would entail an intellectual obligation to engage with the left, which is the last thing they want....


The typical discourse about the left is centred around identity politics. Cultural appropriation and trigger warnings, political correctness and the trans agenda etc etc. But being on the left you typically meet people with political agendas that only tangentially interact with this stuff if at all. Left wing economists, political theorists, activists, organisers and mobilisers are concerned with solving problems that dominate our lives. Like our rights at work, exploding wealth inequality and the concentration of political power, the failure of liberal democratic process and institutions to address our needs, fixing the housing market, getting money out of politics, stopping capital from destroying the biosphere, providing care to those who need it, addressing hunger and generational poverty, creating functional communities.

How can the right (and centre) move past treating twitter threads as political reality and seriously engage with the left?

Is it the case that the right (and centre) are bound by the need to ignore solutions (and even the existence of problems) that would necessitate a more even distribution of wealth, incomes, power and political access?

All failed left/right political discussions can be distilled down to one thing: the factions don't agree on the purpose and bounds of government.

 

[Yerda]

Just to use the term "Distribution of Wealth' will bend most every American (US) wrong. Please find another set of terms, before using any socialist monologue.

People can get bent if they like; I prefer to use the words that express the truth.

All failed left/right political discussions can be distilled down to one thing: the factions don't agree on the purpose and bounds of government.

Maybe. Why is it people expect the left to build bridges with the rest of the spectrum when left wing ideas and the people who express them are generally treated as out of bounds?

 

[Unfettered]

Maybe. Why is it people expect the left to build bridges with the rest of the spectrum when left wing ideas and the people who express them are generally treated as out of bounds?

What do you mean "out of bounds"?