What is it about right wing politics that seems to attract such
abrasive, self-righteous, know-it-all personalities? I’m not saying that
everyone on the right of politics fits this description. Nor am I claiming that
you won’t find this type of personality on the left of politics. Nevertheless,
there seems to be a disproportionate number of prominent people with this personality
type on the right of politics, at least in Australia.
This observation is brought on by the episode of Q&A on the ABC last
night. On the panel last night there was a particularly obnoxious man,
professor of something, somewhere or other. He happened to be Canadian,
although an Australian citizen as far as I could tell. Arrogant, loud,
opinionated and humourless—all the characteristics to which I am referring.
Naturally, he represented the right wing of the political spectrum.
The type to which I am referring includes, in Australia, the ‘shock
jocks’, such as Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt, whom I have no hesitation in
naming, as well of a bunch of others, slightly less well known, but who aspire
to similar ‘importance’ and notoriety. Are there any such prominent media
personalities with this same abrasive personality on the left of the spectrum
in Australia? Possibly there are, but I struggle to name them. Most of the more
obviously left-leaning people I can think of tend to have one thing that is
sorely lacking in these abrasive people: a sense of humour.
Any claim or generalisation of the kind I am making here is, of course,
open to dispute. I want to re-iterate that I am by no means suggesting that all
people on the right of politics exhibit this personality trait, or that these
traits are absent among people on the left of politics. Nevertheless, at least
anecdotally, many of the noisiest, best known and more popular right wing
spokespersons do fit the profile. And, conversely, many of the most abrasive
personalities among political commentators are found on the right of politics.
I am wondering if this has its origins in the Social Darwinism in which
right wing politics has its roots. Social Darwinism transfers (inappropriately
some would argue) biological Darwinism’s notion of the survival of the fittest
in the natural world to the human social world. Can we not hear this in recent
right wing rhetoric in Australia: talk about the ‘leaners’ and ‘lifters’, about
pulling one’s weight and sharing the burden; in popular talk about lazy
dole-bludgers; is it not present in the ‘American Dream’ that anyone can rise
to the top? The right wing of politics is all about competition (both economic
and social), about victory and ‘the cream’ rising to the top; all of which (in
some unexplained way) is supposed to benefit society. The left wing of
politics, it seems to me, is more about fairness, about helping those who are
down, and not apportioning blame to
those who are struggling. Whereas the right wing of politics is about the
effort of the individual, who seems
to be omnipotent in this model, the left wing recognises that we are social
animals, in this together; that circumstances can, and often do, stand in the
way of the American (or Australian) dream; that not everyone has the same
opportunities; and, perhaps most importantly, that this is not their fault. It is not because of weakness or lack of effort on
their part; and if there is weakness and lack of effort, this is in part, at
least, due to circumstances that are beyond the purview of the individual.
Perhaps the arrogance and aggression that I see on the right wing of
politics arises out of this. Perhaps it is because the right wing of politics
sees life in society as a competition, if not a war. A war requires soldiers,
it demands aggression, it abhors weakness. A war also requires an authoritative
hierarchy that ‘knows best’, that sees the ‘big picture’. A war divides people
into leaders and (blind) followers. Leaders in this war are proud of their
boldness in making the ‘tough decisions’; they are willing to accept collateral
damage. Perhaps it is also because some of these abrasive, arrogant and
aggressive personalities already see themselves as the victors, and as the
fittest, in evolutionary terms. They are the cream.
People like Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Professor something-or-other on
Q&A last night represent the logical extreme of right wing thinking. What,
I wonder, would be the logical extreme of left-wing thinking? Would it be a
bunch of stoned hippies, hugging trees and living in communes? Which of these
extremes, do you suppose, is capable of the most harm? I know which I would
prefer to know (and to be).
No comments:
Post a Comment