(It’s a long one!)
Selfishism vs altruism
There are two standpoints (and a continuum between them), call them left vs right, liberal vs conservative, republican vs democrat etc
But what do they actually represent?
The right promotes free market capitalism, individual freedoms (or at least the illusion of such) and conservatism (keeping things the same, letting people stay where they are for better or for worse)
The left (and I do mean the actual left, not what the democratic party and many ‘left’ parties have become) promotes redistributive capitalism (ideally, in my view, it would be anti- and post-capitalist, but that seems a long way off) and emphasises the rights of disadvantaged collectives (the economically poor, minorities, lgbtq+, disabled folks) which in their view need protecting and elevating.
From this description it’s pretty clear that a selfish view fits best with the right (wealth stays where it lands, and under capitalism that will inevitably be an unequal distribution), whilst an altruistic view (redistribute wealth) fits best with the left.
So the two political standpoints represent two basic aspects of human nature. Selfishness and survival of the fittest is to an extent baked into human nature. But so too is altruism and empathy. Which one comes more to the fore largely depends on the environment in which people are living (for example, are things already unequal? Because an unequal environment is what makes it easier for the privileged to obtain even more privilege - i.e. selfishness is facilitated and rewarded).
Above, I used the phrase ‘in my view’. Because this is all my view. But I also believe it’s the case that there is a correct side and that there is an incorrect side, and that the left is correct. However this can only be the case if you accept that a) the right is more aligned with selfishism, and the left with altruism, and that b) selfishness is a worse quality to propagate in society than altruism. If you accept both of these then the left has to be the right way to go.
So which is the better quality?
Studying the social sciences will offer answers. So too does looking at real world evidence and outcomes.
But all this depends on what we’re trying to achieve. Better for what? For a world where the more privileged can most easily further elevate themselves above others, whilst it is the least privileged who have the most trouble elevating themselves (i.e. systemic inequality)? Or a world of equality where those who would been the most privileged have less and those who would have been less privileged have more?
There can be no denying that the latter is the morally correct choice. Because it means the most number of people would obtain the most amount of benefit.
The right’s argument that trickle-down economics will result in a better, more equal society is a complete myth. It’s right there in the name: nothing more than a trickle can be expected to come down the echelons from the top earners. And this makes perfect sense - it’s a part of human nature not only to want to keep most if not all of what you have but to continually try to improve on it. It’s also an intrinsic part of how capitalism works - the capitalists need to keep their surplus capital to fuel the perpetual growth that capitalism requires. We need a wave change to improve things, not trickles.
The equal choice also makes scientific and survivalist sense in that it would create a balanced and harmonious world that is less likely to result in a whole host of problems such as violence or to ultimately self-destruct, and that is simply a more pleasant place to live in for the most number of people.
The choice might depend on where you fall on the privilege scale. If you are privileged and you opt for the right that could automatically be seen as suspect (though see important discussion below) because the right with its neoliberal economics and conservatism is designed to perpetuate privilege. Hence it is the choice of selfishism. According to this logic we could argue that a less privileged person opting for the left is also a selfish choice as they are voting to elevate themselves and people like them. However of course the key difference is that the left would elevate a lot more people than the right, including the people most in need of elevation, making it far more altruistic.
A thought experiment: Imagine you are about to be born into the world and can pick between going into either the unequal society we have today, or into a hypothetical equal one where a moderate (middle-class level) amount of wealth is evenly distributed amongst all. You do not know where you will be born on the privilege scale. The odds of having a more privileged life are far higher in the hypothetical world, so it is the logical pick. This simple experiment proves that the equal society is the right choice and that the sort of unequal society exacerbated by the right is only correct as a selfish option to propagate privilege.
The working class is a missing group in identity politics
But how do we explain the phenomenon that has brought Trump into office and that is propagating a lot of far right movements around the world? Namely that the working class is a core base for this type of movement. Many who vote for the right are not among the most privileged, far from it. Two factors jump out to me: identity politics and education.
First, identity politics. Within the working class, it is especially male white voters who are opting for Trump. Sure, bipoc people vote for him, as do plenty of women. But the difference is still significant to warrant exploration. Misogyny plays a role in it, as does racism and xenophobia. But it’s neither fair nor correct to say that this many people are misogynistic, racist, and xenophobic. It’s more subtle than this, and speaks to the selfishism I’ve been discussing. If you are a cishet white male you are understandably more likely to resonate and empathise with other cishet white males, whether that’s a political candidate or other voters like you. That’s human nature. We all do it. It works the other way too, women are more likely to have a certain empathy towards other women, as do bipoc people, lgbtq people, disabled people.
But the real problem is created when a political candidate’s rhetoric demonises ‘wokeness’ and liberals and is borderline or even outright sexist, racist, transphobic etc. And the key difference on the left of course is that the groups being pinpointed do actually require protection and elevation if we want to achieve a better more equal world for all.
The right tends to react against identity politics. Partly because a lot of identity groups constitute underprivileged groups, and as we’ve discussed the right is not about redistributive economics to elevate those at the bottom. In addition ‘white cishet male’ is seen as a default to deviate from; it is not so automatically registered as an identity group involved in identity politics. The right does not say we are reaching out to elevate working class white males, as much as the left says we are reaching out to elevate women or black people.
A key factor here is the working class, and hence capitalism. The right highlights this factor only in so far that it appeals to the working class, as it simultaneously diverts attention from the actual mechanism of their discontent (neoliberal capitalism) and instead scapegoats various underprivileged identity groups. As discussed, white cishet male voters are prone to the same biases we all are - to empathise most with those similar to them, and so are more vulnerable to believing messages that target groups most easily cast as ‘other’ (like immigrants, like trans people) as well as to overlooking the importance of protecting and elevating rights for a diverse range of people.
Meanwhile, the left, being as it is not much less enmeshed and reliant upon capitalist forces than is the right, is also unable to highlight the true cause of the mess. It is likely to appeal to individual often less privileged groupings of people (which is necessary and noble, but in the current climate does a lot to fuel the right’s anti-liberal rhetoric), but also to ‘all people’ in it’s message for equal rights and freedoms for all, which is again necessary and noble, but can serve to dilute messaging and come across vague. Above all, the actual intrinsic problems of capitalism are never mentioned. Furthermore, it may be that policies of redistribution in the form of government help are actually viewed negatively by some of the working class, especially white males, because of beliefs in free market economics and values such as meritocracy and self-sufficiency and resultant pride. This leads us to the next factor of education.
The solution: (a capitalist and anti-capitalist) education?
So, to varying degrees, groups of people other than the white, male, cishet, able-bodied person are in a position of less privilege (which is not taken seriously or seriously enough by those on the right, nor even the left). But so too is the white, male, cishet, able-bodied working class person disadvantaged as far as economic position goes. This should bring our focus onto the working class. And more specifically perhaps onto education, as this is the most certain (and perhaps easiest) route towards socio-economic elevation.
The most prominent dividing factor between democratic and republican voters in this election was not gender or race or any other intrinsic identity factor, it was in fact college education. So according to what I’ve said so far, those who are more educated are more likely to pick the left (the right option), whereas those who are less educated are more likely to pick the right (the wrong option). This should tell us something about the importance of education (and perhaps why trump has talked about wanting to shutdown the department of education??).
Like the left, the right think that they are right. And because selfishness obviously has a bad image many will not admit to others nor to themselves that they are picking a selfish option. Moreover it is likely to not even be understood as a selfish option. This is partly due to the extreme complexity of our globalised technological world (it can be hard to trace the impact of actions), and partly due to miseducation and misinformation (e.g. belief in trickle-down economics, or about the true effects of immigration, or ignoring the effects of neoliberal capitalism).
This seems hard to talk about, to label a whole group of voters as less educated and to blame them for contributing to this unfortunate political outcome because of their lack of education. We need to be careful not to target and demonise individuals. People are where they are and this needs to be understood and respected. Remember, any of us could have been born anywhere on the map (as per the earlier thought experiment).
I do not see the people, the voters, as really to blame. And especially within our current structures and environment which encourage propensity towards selfishism. Add to this that many - through little fault of their own - are not well enough informed about the workings of our capitalist world let alone about the possibilities for viable alternatives. It becomes easy to see how a vote for the right might seem to many like a vote for a better world not only for oneself but for all. There are also of course people (perhaps more likely to be privileged conservatives) who are fully aware and simply indulging in selfishism. How many of each in each camp we do not know, but it may be an important question.
Outro - I’m thinking the next paragraph ought to be about the causes and possible solutions for the education problem. But I feel my thoughts on this whole topic and resultantly this post have started to become a bit messy. A good reflection of the mess I am trying to talk about perhaps. I am losing momentum and running out of energy for it all so will leave it here.
-
Notes:
Is selfishism a word? I’m not sure, but I use it. I realise it's a potentially incendiary word and concept to evoke, but I can't think of another to oppose to altruism.
I could be far more educated on these topics than I am. I guess my interest (and spoons) extend only so far. Still I have a moderate amount of knowledge, interest and energy about this at least at this current time that I felt like sharing. Whilst I think that I am right, I’m also open to realising that I may not be right.