Reader’s Comment: The Left has a monopoly on hate

In response to Paul T Horgan: Calling Diane Abbott fat and ugly is not sexist, J M wrote:

Mr Horgan, you fail to appreciate the essential rule of what passes for intelligent conversation in Hampstead: one rule for the "nice" Left and another for the "nasty" Right. Left people can be singularly horrid and abusive to those on the Right. The Right, however, must never say anything vaguely disparaging about someone on the Left. This is OK because by definition the Left are "nice" and the right are "nasty".

The reason for this is simple. To be Left you have either to be very stupid or very believing because all the evidence shows that the political principles of the Left do not work in practice. Left is therefore a creed. The Left thinks that having a creed entitles them to a sense or moral superiority. The Right, on the other hand, pursues pragmatic, grubby policies that actually work. They are therefore beneath contempt because in the eyes of the Left they do not believe in anything.

It is a peculiar truth that the Left actively hates its opponents - how else can one explain the horrors committed in the name of socialism the world over? The Right on the other hand does not hate its opponents. It might treat them with weary contempt or in a patronising fashion, but hatred is not the way of the Right. That is the sole preserve of the Left.


  • simonstephenson

    “Left is therefore a creed. The Left thinks that having a creed entitles them to a sense or moral superiority. The Right, on the other hand, pursues pragmatic, grubby policies that actually work. They are therefore beneath contempt because in the eyes of the Left they do not believe in anything”

    I’m no expert, but I think that in Transactional Analysis terms, this aspect of Leftism would be the outcome of child/adult contamination.

  • Reborn

    “in the eyes of the Left they do not believe in anything”
    Certainly, the UK/US non left/conservatives are pragmatic & generally
    logical.
    A good example is the (now nearly dead) Church of England, in the
    US Episcopal Church.
    Avoiding the bloodshed & tribalism that characterised until very recently both Catholic & protestant Europe, including Ireland, such churches served those who supported them in a way that we would regard as reactionary, but by pre WW2 standards was moderate.
    The contemporary “left” is driven by hate & miseducation, from
    “uni” or the BBC, & be it Labour or Unite Against Fascism etc, the repellent supporters have no positive demands.
    Just hatred for the country that gave them the right to protest so often &
    so aggressively.

  • ReefKnot

    With the exception of the BBC I pity rather than hate those on the left.

    • North Angle

      Oh, I dunno… I think the more militant unions could well be equally hateable. But I agree, the BBC has a special place in my dungeon.

  • Owen_Morgan

    I’m not sure that the Left even amounts to a “creed”, these days. After all, Lenin obliterated the Mensheviks and Stalin sent plenty of Bolsheviks down to bits of subterranean Moscow. The Left wants power – and that’s it.

    • Reborn

      Exactly.
      As a withdrawn posting of mine suggests, today’s Left closely
      resembles the Right of the 1930s.
      Though without the trains running on time.

      • simonstephenson

        “today’s Left closely resembles the Right of the 1930s.”

        Mmmm. That’s because the “Right” of the 1930s was actually a breakaway faction of the Left, and was recognised in this way until it became tactically advantageous to Uncle Joe Stalin to re-describe his close ideological relatives, with whom he had a great deal in common, as being from the other side of the political spectrum entirely.

        In the subsequent 80 years or so, there have been plenty of useful idiots around to perpetuate the holding of this myth as a generally acknowledged piece of wisdom.

        • North Angle

          Spot on Simon. Fascists are not right-wing and never have been – but somehow the left (aka Communism) redefined it as such after the war.

  • PJM

    Before leftists debase themselves they usually declare their moral superiority or their high moral intent. Then they can behave as cruelly as they desire since they are ‘good’.

  • weirdvisions

    That’s as good a summing up of leftism as I’ve seen.

    Whenever I see a lefty in full-on, post-logic hate mode, which is every time I switch on the news, I just cringe. Adults throwing a humungous, eff off toddler tantrum before an audience of millions is an afront to civility and common sense.

    • lordlindley

      I think ‘the left’ support all things globalist, as they see the World as one big happy place, where all will get on and love each other? We all call it Cloud 9 of course!

      • weirdvisions

        We exist to disapoint the socialist dystopian Cloud Niners. 😀

  • Groan

    In fact the “left’s” optimistic view that humanity can be perfected and the be measure of all things inevitably leads to perverse results because they constantly but against the imperfect. Of course this means that any level of oppression is justified to achieve perfected humanity, and those that get in the way have to be got rid of. So we see that the chief proponents of Eugenics were on the “left” as with; forced labour, of re-education in camps, of the “gulag”, walls (remember that iron curtain) , and eventually mass starvations of “peasants” and killing fields of “intellectuals” . Though often placed on the right National Socialism displayed all the left’s intolerance of “imperfection” and similar ruthlessness with a twist of Teutonic efficiency .
    In one tiny way we can see it in the growing prison population swelled by people whose words are interpreted as “hate” (and of course its not that hate is proven just that more perfected being believe it was the emotion motivating an act).
    A pessimistic view tends to presume we’re all imperfect and liable to fail, so fewer “absolutes” . as the old quote goes: Democracy is the worst form of government due to all its all too evident mess, apart from all the other forms the more neat and tidy the less tolerant of humanity.

    • simonstephenson

      Yes, this is in essence Sowell’s unconstrained vision vs contrained vision argument in “A Conflict of Visions”. I don’t think you are quite neutral to the unconstrained/Left side of the case. The Wiki page on the book outlines the unconstrained vision as:-

      “Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as “the self anointed.” Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.”

      which is fairer, I think. To argue that the Left is inferior because it’s not achieving measurable gradual improvement is to judge it by the standards of those who think that measurable gradual improvement, as opposed to an insistence on constantly moving towards the ideal, is the “correct” way for mankind to make decisions.

      • Under-the-weather

        To argue that the Left is inferior because it’s not achieving measurable gradual improvement is to judge it by the standards of those who think that measurable gradual improvement, …as opposed to an insistence on constantly moving towards the ideal, is the “correct” way for mankind to make decisions.

        If the difference between left and right was only philosophical there might be a point, but only in terms of the math of continuous vs irregular advance, however the larger issue is whether or not any advance made by leftist policies, would have happened anyway, with rising productivity, or even faster had they left well alone.

        An example was made here some weeks back that had the cash that had been given to the UK by the US following WW2 been spent on building business and infrastructure in the way that WGermany did, the UK would never have entered the ‘poor man of Europe’ phase, and been a powerhouse decades ago, but instead that (huge) amount of cash was spent on nationalisation which was eventually found not to work,

        • simonstephenson

          What is an “advance” though, and is there a universally applicable way of measuring it? The Left, I am sure, would argue that piecemeal material improvements are not necessarily positive for mankind if they are achieved with the necessary abandonment of the quest for the ideal. And I suppose that such a position is justified in cost/benefit terms if one accepts that there is an opportunity cost in such an abandonment.

          This is not to say that I favour the Left’s position – I don’t – but I believe we will continue to be at a dangerous impasse with them unless we can between us find some common ground. I’m not saying that we should go all Kantian and surrender ground as a gesture of goodwill, without prior agreement of reciprocity, but I think we should accept that it may be better in overall terms to adopt an approach which is tolerable to both sides and which can therefore be supported and worked on positively and constructively by both sides of the political divide.

          Perhaps this is being naive – I don’t know.

          • Groan

            Thank you for your response. just for myself I wasn’t really thinking that there was “advance” . More to do with the notion of perfection of human beings. Of course the left is also saddled with an essentially judeo Christian notion of a point of arrival “the eternal classless society” or new Jerusalem. If only people who are perfect create and sustain the perfect society then it really is “the end of history”. Various horrors of the last century, forced collectivisation, new economic order, great leap forward, cultural revolution and “year zero” all being examples of explicit attempts to hasten the achievement of this perfect society full of perfect people. Lots and lots of collateral damage. The parallels with similarly concerned religious ideologies is pretty clear, though the left is quite blind to this in general.
            For myself I’m not presuming a more humble and “piecemeal” approach is about “advancing” so much as less likely to cause such huge collateral damage.

          • Under-the-weather

            What is an ‘advance’ and a universally applicable measure?, well there’s GDP per capita, but if you include in your measure state debt, GDP alone isn’t an adequate measure. It doesn’t include ‘contentment’, and might but how wide and over what issues is contentment measured?
            There’s the World Happiness Report’ but if the basis for the happiness isn’t economically sustainable, that’s another problem. The most challenged in life are always going to have a problem with those who’ve worked harder, been lucky, whatever, but freedom is a major aspect of everyones lives and contributes to the happiness of the majority. The downside to loss of Liberty doesn’t bear thinking about . The 2016 report covers secular ethics, which has arisen as a loss of support for religion worldwide. There’s a summary which says people are looking for ‘sustainably happier lives’. Interesting is this piece:
            Chapter 4: The Geography of Parenthood and
            Well-Being: Do Children Make Us Happy,
            Where, and Why? (Luca Stanca)
            The author digs deeper into a frequent finding
            that having children does not add to the happiness
            of their parents. The paper confirms a
            negative relationship between parenthood and
            life satisfaction that is stronger for females than
            males, and turns positive only for older age
            groups and for widowers. Looking across the
            world, a negative relationship between parenthood
            and life satisfaction is found in two-thirds
            of the countries studied. The negative effect of
            parenthood on life satisfaction is found to be
            significantly stronger in countries with higher
            GDP per capita or higher unemployment rates
            http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf

          • Under-the-weather

            I think in terms of two sides working together for the good of the people..when has it ever happened before, so why should it occur now?
            “The Left, I am sure, would argue that piecemeal material improvements are not necessarily positive for mankind if they are achieved with the necessary abandonment of the quest for the ideal. And I suppose that such a position is justified in cost/benefit terms if one accepts that there is an opportunity cost in such an abandonment.”
            I don’t think spending vast precious resources in the hope of attaining an ideal which is already proven unworkable numerous times over elsewhere is an acceptable proposition. Abandoning a spurious ideal?, it’s a problem for social scientists with a career to forge with an end result of creating more problems for others. Sweden for example is becoming less socialist not more. There’s a clear historical outcome for state bankruptcy even if the result is a financial restructure, because it’s reliant on external funding sources, or the kindness of strangers . The cost of borrowing would still be high, and a lot of people would unfortunately be caught up in it. Every crash takes thousands of personal bankrupcies with it.