left, right, redwood

One of the few half-positive things to come from the recent London riots were they at least triggered some discussion about the nature of a society where such things can happen, and how best to react to it.
From both sides of the supposed left-right divide there have been constructive comments and analysis, but unfortunately all too often these are overshadowed by indirect and subtle evocations of underlying value systems, which are just as rigid as ever.

The conservative MP John Redwood, provided in this article I think a revealing example of what i think is a classic 'rightwing' view - that the poor are some how to blame for their situation, the rich are deserving of theirs, and that the only way to help the former is to make things easier for the latter.

What I think is interesting in this piece is how the language he used reveals a true position completely contrary to the claims stated. The expressions are so contradictory I would almost assume it was self-parody, but I think it is completely unintentional. So although he seems to be really trying to convince us of his (at least what he thinks counts as) 'liberal' and charitable nature, the underlying tone of his piece is the opposite.

For example, he says "Like all members of the main political parties I support taxing the rich more to help pay for the lifestyles of the worse off."

Simply read, this represents him as a committed member of the political mainstream, committed to re-distribution of wealth, but this is belied by the use of the word 'lifestyle', which implies superfluous if not outright luxurious non-necessities. It's unbelievable that someone could refer to support which help keep some people's heads above the financial water as 'lifestyle' elements - or maybe Redwood considers being able to send your kids to school, or even feed and house them, as part of a certain kind of 'lifestyle'. Maybe that consumerist 'living in a house lifestyle' which so many people gubbily grasp for. And of course 'lifestyle' implies choice, it is the way you choose to live life, bringing out the chosen-and-therefore-deserved notion. It's hard to believe Redwood is really just so far removed from reality that he doesn't realise the reality of living the life you have to live, so it more probable that it is just his ingrained assumptions about the moral relation of the poor to their position coming through.

But even if he thinks the poor choose their 'lifestyle', surely even he can't think the same about the handicapped? He continues with "I am a softy when it comes to more public money and facilities for the disabled." While he might be trying to convey the idea that he is more liberal than most when it comes to supporting the disabled, the term 'softy' indicates this in a shockingly derogatory manner. Softy when it comes to helping the disabled? He might as well say he's a softy when it comes to helping someone fallen on the road out of the way of an oncoming car - a soft squishy irrational teddy bear of a man out of place in the brutal world. Public money to help part of the public that needs it most to be part of the public? How soft.

He then goes on to claim that along with his awe enspiring charity in wanting to fund poor lifestyles, and not keep disabled people effectively locked out of society, that he also wishes the poor to prosper and their living standards to improve, and that the only disagreement with the left is about the means. This might be true, since he probably doesn't actively want to keep down the poor, but the means he mentions again I think highlight how it is not these aims which are at issue in this whole debate, but his beliefs about why people are rich and poor, and which I think are the real problem, since they are in my view wrong headed and nasty. He may not want to keep them down, but in refusing to help in an effective way, the result is the same.

The crux of his argument comes when he says "I do not believe you can make the poor rich by making the rich poor. The problem is the rich do not have to hang around if you seek to make them too poor." There are so many buried assumptions and falsehoods tied into this statement that I find it hard to know where to start.

This 'make the poor rich by making the rich poor' is a famous right wing motto, and it is I think highly revealing. Firstly it again implies the riches of the rich are deserved, achieved unaided, and only hindered and never helped by the state, which can only make them poor, and never helped made them rich. But of course this ignores not only the luck involved in being at the top of society (place of birth, inheritance, connections) but also the fact that wealth accumulates exponentially, and that the set-up of society does a lot to make the rich rich, and then richer. Apart from the fact that people with some initial wealth are best positioned to make more out of it from the tangible infrastructures and institutions of society (from roads to colleges to banking systems to development), there are also the intangible conventions that mean there is no linear correlation between ability and earnings, and hence removes any real notion of deserved rewards. Otherwise, excepting some genetically modified CEO tribe, from a generation of prodigies who could work tens of times faster and smarter, there is no reason why the average executive to worker pay ratio saw an increase from 40:1 to 500:1 since 1980.

Secondly, it is a perfect strawman argument, since no credible politician has ever suggested making the rich 'poor', rather simply limiting , or actually just slowing down, how rich they can get. But it makes a great soundbite, and its notion of dashing and punishing those who (again deservedly) have succeeded, appeals to what I think is one of the best ways to describe the difference between leftwing and rightwing views. It is not about a difference in moral values overall, but a major difference in priority and focus. In my view, a plausible simplification in many areas is that rightwingers are worried most about the undeserving getting what they shouldn't, whereas the left are worried about the deserving not getting what they should. It's a bit like that famous dilemma as to whether it is better one innocent man goes to jail or 9 guilty go free. This plays out in many seemingly unrelated areas, for example in the welfare debate,whether it is more important that no one gets benefits they shouldn't, and the most important thing is to stop the cheating, or should the primary concern be to ensure no deserving claimant loses out, even if 9 cheats 'go free'.

Of course it is a grey area, with shades and degrees of emotion on both sides. Indeed probably no one, even the most ardent leftwinger, really would be ok with someone completely undeserving getting something for nothing. This can be illustrated by the case I read about recently regarding a homeless drunk in an American city. The costs involved every time he fell down drunk in the street - the police time and effort, the medical attention at an A&E ward were staggering, and since his condition wasn't improving, it all kept on happening again and again, and the burden to society just kept on rising. It was worked out that compared to this expense, it would actually be much cheaper overall for the state to just give him a free flat and provide him with therapy. But of course there's hardly anyone who would feel comfortable with this - why should a drunk get a free flat


when many non-drunks are just as in need of one. So indignation at undeserving gain is always present especially in the particular case, but I think the difference between right and left is how much they care about it, how much it dominates their thinking at the general level. It reminds me a bit of the description of a puritan as someone who is worried that someone, somewhere is having fun, what worries the right is someone is having fun they shouldn't, and what worries the left is someone is missing out on the fun they should.

There seems even to be some psychological evidence for this. This Scientific American article reports on a study that indicated "political right showed more of a “bad is stronger than good” bias than those on the left." which would fit well with this notion of the right being driven more by reaction against, and the left by action for.

And the problem is, as the Redwood article I think shows, without paying attention to and resolving these conflicting attitudes in, it's hard to make progress in the debate. It is not the ends that are the problem, or even fundamentally the means, it is the priorities and the relative valuations, and unless some progress can be made in reconciliation and compromise in this area, then all the good intentions in the world or only all so many more paving stones to hell, and balast for a handcart to head there in.

it was a riot

There were some pretty shocking scenes from the London rnd of course the sheer feral criminality on display in the looting which seemed to be the main driving force. While sparked by what could probably only tenuously be called a racial incident , it is probably true that it triggered some real and perhaps even valid racial grievances, but what followed had little to do with this in justification. To avoid misunderstanding, there is no doubt that most of the violence and all of the looting was just criminal opportunism, and completely inexcusable. But that doesn't mean that the people involved were just criminals (although they of course are now) and that it is completely inexplainable. In my view what we saw was an deprived and discarded underclass, with no hopes for or from society, taking advantage of a break down in law and order to help themselves. And of course the looting of televisions and trainers showed it wasn't a fight for survival, but enrichment. It was wrong behaviour, and of course should not be tolerated.

But, that said, while it is worrying that a 'rich' and developed country such as the UK might have such a simmering class ready to rip off what they can, what's more worrying to me is how people in the UK, and especially abroad, responded to it. I can understand outraged calls for vengeance from those directly, or even indirectly, affected, but what shocked me was the level of moral indignation, and venom, from people who had absolutely nothing to do, and importantly to lose, from the situation. Lock them up and throw away the key, teach them a lesson, were the standard responses. Why did people care so much about a few vagabeonds stealing things? Especially as in the current scheme of things, there are people a lot more deserving of our ire - for example the corrupt and incompetent politicians and bankers and developers who have brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse. In terms of impact (billions), excusability (rich already) and consequentialism (most likely to affect us again if we don't do something) surely people should be getting and staying a lot more het up about this international cadre than a few localized yobs? How come a co-worker here in Austria might rant to me about how the rioters are 'getting away with it' and not ever mention the catastrophe unfolding in famine hit Africa, or the ongoing collapse of our economies?

It points again to what I believe is necessary, but unpredictable element of our moral systems. Morality in a society is about the community as a whole, and this requires it to be more than simply a network of reciprocal tit-for-tat calculations. If individuals just took umbrage at what affected them or their kin directly, then it would not count as a moral system. What is needed is a sense of outrage and indignation at general 'wrongs' - even if they don't affect us. Only if every node of the system is disposed to react, can any violations be suppressed, and violators clamped down upon, before they and their methods spread. This is why I think moral indignation, the emotional drive to blame and see punished, evolved. A rational cost-benefit analysis would always be superseded when push came to shove, which is why group selection I think caused the reactions to be evolved in the gut.

But, just as we have natural drives which we rationally keep in check to maintain society, so these drives must be consciously and rationally channelled. It is I think insightful that contrary to its modern connotation of animal revenge, the rule of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was actually in its origin an exhortation to limit revenge to the scope of the original offence, and avoid excessive reactions.

So if he urge to react to the 'bad' is so basic, why do these distance rioters provoke such a disproportionate response? Apart from the very important and serious investigation needed into why the rioters acted as they did, and what can be done to stop such phenomenon in the future, just as important is to understand why they achieved such disproportionate relevance in the news and public discourse, and what can be done to temper and better direct the anger of people such as my co-worker. Because although moral indignation against perceived violators is needed, it is a slippery slope from there into vilification and dehumanizing segments of society. if someone is 'just' a criminal, then they are nothing else. And such prophecies have a tendency to become self fulfilling