House of Eratosthenes

For those who are presenting themselves as newcomers to politics and desiring a simple, one-line explanation of “right” vs. “left”; you could do far worse than this.

The Left sees things in terms of “Thunderdome” competition; two go in but only one comes out again. A good day for the lion is a lousy day for the gazelle. If the fly lives, the spider starves. If the economy is good, you can count on them to weep and mope about “The Forgotten Man.” Their big thing is not forgetting people who would ordinarily be forgotten. Remember perspective; the sinking of the Titanic was a miracle for the lobsters in the kitchen.

With the emergence of the environmental movement, they reached an apex with their “what about” attitude and became particularly vexatious: A dam that helps everybody! Well, what about the snail darters? Logging that helps everybody! But what about the spotted owls?

They think this makes them positive, and broad-minded. In reality, it makes them scary. As they acknowledge, or invent, these situations in which one side must lose so another one wins, their method of resolving the conflict is to vote. Democracy, as the old saying goes, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch.

This creates a difference, and it’s probably the most important difference. The Right believes in running a society — right. A rising tide can, and should, lift all boats. There’s a right way to control traffic at this intersection, or to collect garbage weekly, and if you do that then we win. We do. All of us.

You’ll notice a lot of the time when The Right is provoked into offense, or action, or a combination of those two things — the issue is very often one of incentives. The Left doesn’t seem to understand this. They might say “What about someone who needs the thing and doesn’t have the means to pay for it?” and so the thing has to be provided. Then The Right will say “If it’s free, then people will consume the thing who otherwise would not.” If you want more of something, subsidize it, and if you want less of it you tax it. The Left doesn’t engage this. They miss out on the whole subtopic, or they pretend not to understand it, or they change the subject. The Right thinks big and The Left thinks small. The Right is more concerned with making society work.

For any of this to happen, you have to have law and order. This distinguishes humans from animals. We have figured out how to make advanced societies, and the whole point to having these is that everyone can win. Everyone, everywhere, all at once.

The Left, confronted with this, puts on their “what about” hat and creates conflict where there is none. “Law and order? But what about the persons and groups historically oppressed by police?” So they talk of defunding the police. They may as well be discussing the dismantling of civilization itself. Look, they say; we cooked up a situation in which your law-and-order costs somebody something. So get rid of it.

Well — if what you’re trying to do is break the law, then yes. Law and order would get in the way of that. It’s supposed to do that. That’s the only way we can get to the “public good” the way The Right sees it, where everyone benefits, and you don’t need to hold a vote so that 51 can enjoy the omelet while 49 fill the role of the eggs. Far from The Left being broad-minded, they’re actually the narrow-minded ones, who can’t see this. They’re the ones who only see omelet-diners, omelet-chefs, and eggs. But when the governed provide their consent to the government, we’re actually supposed to be trying for something more benign than that, more sophisticated and grander than that.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

If the Fly Lives, the Spider StarvesSaturday, March 30th, 2024

If the Fly Lives, the Spider Starves
Saturday, March 30th, 2024