Why the Right looks right

And the Left doesn't


As we witness another political campaign in which the tawdry appeal of the Right to the basest fears and aspirations of the electorate appears to be succeeding again, we would do well to mollify our exasperation with some understanding of how and why this works.

First, we need to map the political spectrum on to what we know and understand to be the intrinsic makeup of the universe and everything in it. For the sake of this discussion we will simplify the universal makeup of all things into four layers. Our basest natures, what Freud would've called the id, is made up largely of our instincts and its primary role is to guide us when we deem ourselves to be in uncharted territory without a valid reference point. The heart layer is where we touch closest to our humanity. The intellect is the layer of mental constructs that, were it not for the heart, would have little connection to the world we live in. Above the intellect exists the netherworld of our spiritual connection, whatever we believe that to be.

Politics, which is, after all, about the relatively simple business of organizing societies, can be readily and easily mapped onto the lowest three layers of that universal model. The Right readily identifies itself in the basest layer of the universal model and extols the virtues of "gut" thinking, survival instincts and the most crudely simplistic descriptions of issues and concerns. The Left, on the other hand, readily identifies itself in the intellectual layer with appeals to the electorate's ideals and grand plans for solutions that are too complex to be easily explained to the man in the street but which settle comfortably in the halls of academia.

The people, the electorate, the man and woman in the street are not in either of these places. They live real lives in which they have come to understand and appreciate the value of heart connections above their basest instincts, and busy lives built with hard work that has not afforded them the opportunity for meandering intellectual pursuits. This is the middle ground, the middle way that leads to real progress. It is also not the home turf, nor the comfort zone, of either the Left or the Right.

So why is this middle ground, the heart layer, so difficult for both sides to occupy? It is difficult because to reach this place requires that they disengage from being right and step above themselves to connect with their own hearts. It is unfamiliar territory, without the safety of their respective bolt holes, in which they have to reach beyond their easy positions to formulate real solutions. You see, in their home territories neither the Left nor Right have to reconcile their positions with reality; while mixing with their own ilk, as they foster and develop their policies, they are not challenged with the practice of implementation nor its long-term consequences. Yet it is precisely the implementation and the consequences that concern the hearts of ordinary people.

This hurdle of stepping out of one's comfort zone to bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality is so rarely attempted, let alone cleared, that our political landscape is most often best described as attempts by both sides to reach into the middle ground without actually going there. Each stands on their own side of their fence and spins a yarn to woo what they affectionately refer to as the "middle classes". You'd think that both sides would be equally unsuccessful in this endeavor, and over the long run they are, but often it is the Right which gets the marginal advantage and seeking an explanation of this is, is the purpose of this text.

One of the primary reasons is inherent to the intrinsic nature of each side's home base: the Right aspire to and use the most simplistic definitions and explanations they can, while the Left, by the very nature of its intellectual homeground, necessarily uses more complex and "nuanced" language and communications. Furthermore, intellectual understandings are constructed on top of other understandings and assumptions and those who engage most deeply in this process understand the fragile nature and susceptibility to alternative perspectives that this entails. So, especially when subjected to cross-examination, representatives of the Left tend to waver or caveat more than those from the Right. While at first blush this might seem a relatively minor debating point, it is in fact crucial to how each side is perceived.

Referring back to the universal model; we all operate, all the time, on all levels but certain situations drive us to seat ourselves in different places along the spectrum. When we encounter situations that demand comprehension of matters we do not understand or are too complex, we can only reach a conclusion or opinion by referring back to our instincts. This is a highly successful evolutionary tool that allows us to adapt to and to cope with unknown situations and unfamiliar territory -- this is not learned behavior, this happens automatically.

So when we are confronted with a situation which requires us to make a decision and the information for which we are asked to do this is beyond our comprehension, we fall back on our instincts. One of those instincts is to be highly suspicious of things that are not constant, moving objects in our field of view need to be determined to be, rather than assumed to be, safe. Our evolutionary instincts lead us to be distrustful of moving objects and shifting positions. This innate suspicion does not rationalize or accommodate because it is already operating in territory outside of the person's comfort zone.

We hear often of the average person's distrust of "shiftiness" and their appreciation for people who "stick to their guns" and if you have ever been tempted to dismiss those attitudes, you might do well to try and understand why these are such commonly held and ubiquitous reactions. The natural tendency of the Left's communications to allow for nuance and alternative perspectives, triggers this same evolutionary response in many people, especially so, the more complex the matter at hand. On the other hand, the Right's tendency towards simplistic statements often results in more constantly unequivocal communications, that are less likely to trigger those evolutionary instincts.

Another aspect of attempts to reach into the middle ground that triggers this same evolutionary instinct is the clarity and detail of the proposal. If a proposal or policy cannot be clearly understood then it is filed in the same "shifty" category as equivocal communication. Because both sides are reaching into unfamiliar territory, neither of them is able to formulate solid and detailed policies based on principles. Again, the Right tends towards the most simplistic, sometimes even dismissive, explanations of their policy whereas the Left tends towards more long-winded explanations. The lack of clarity, detail and principle is more easily exposed, the longer the explanation.

Lastly, it is endemic to the nature of the mind and its output, intellectual discourse, that it considers itself to be superior because it is more complex. This superiority, even when not actively cultivated, is often present in the proponents of the Left and readily apparent to all observers. It is, quite properly, a distrusted attribute and triggers a mirroring disassociation.

So perhaps these factors help to explain why on the apparently level playing field of the middle ground, where both the Right and Left fail equally to deliver sound policies it is more often the Right that walks off bloodied but holding the trophy.

Once again, we must understand that it is not an imbecilic electorate that is at fault here, it is the failure to find and stand on principles that respect others. A failure that affects us all and reflects on all of us.