In its most simplified version, the one-dimensional political spectrum spans from individualism on the right to collectivism on the left. For now, let’s ignore the and various two- and three-dimensional models that add much-needed nuance to real-world ideologies. Let us also certainly ignore party labels, because those are largely irrelevant to the current discussion; we will, however, refer to right-wing ideology as conservative and left-wing ideology as progressive, and the reasons for maintaining this distinction will hopefully become clear.
Right-wing ideology champions the individual above all else. In its lofty rhetoric, “the individual” represents each and every person; conservatives proclaim to want liberty for everyone. However, this is achieved by each person prioritizing their own liberty above all others’; this then ostensibly results in everyone being “free.”
Of course, everyone being free also means that weaker people– for whatever definition of weakness– are free to be subjugated, since they are “free” to accumulate strength (physical, monetary, socially) in order to defend or retaliate, but if they then they are freely choosing their subjugation. Hierarchy is liberty.
This is not a misrepresentation of the ideology, although it is a simplification. In its purest form, conservatism is about preservation and ascension of the self. The individual is the ultimate subject, and the “me” is the ultimate ultimate subject. This is Neitzsche’s will to power, and Rand’s objectivism, and modern Libertarianism, and virtually every other right-wing philosophy.
This is why right-wing ideologies view compassion and cooperation as weakness. It is why they choose to represent nature only as inherently savage– which it is, but that’s not all that it is.
This, of course, creates tremendous contradictions in the proclaimed ideologies of “religious” conservatives,. Despite its overt patriarchal and hierarchical structures, Christianity preaches compassion and unity and love of one’s fellow men. But right-wing sociopolitical ideology demands ruthlessness and selfishness, not only as necessities but as virtues. Christianity– as all Abrahamic religions– is inherently a “slave” ideology, where humans are meant to be servants of god. Conservative ideologies extol “master” ideologies, with oneself at the top of the pyramid. But this contradiction is never acknowledged, and conservatives resolve their cognitive dissonance by simply tokenizing their religion and ignoring its actual beliefs.
Through this lens, conservatism makes sense, at least for those at (or near) the top of the hierarchy. Wealthy men percieve themselves as “alphas” or, at the least, prospective alphas. Insofar as it exists, “community” is transactional; interpersonal relationships are structured to maximize one’s own benefit, and any act of generosity or compassion is typically . Women are objects of conquest, a testament to the man’s supremacy in securing a desireable mate; they are also servants, kept safe and provided for by the man in exchange for their submissiveness. Racism, ethnocentrism, and nationalism are largely just convenient tools for manipulating weaker individuals to consolidate power under the alpha.
Why these ideologies appeal to those who are not wealthy men near the upper strata is a complicated mix of indoctrination and self-delusion.
Empathy is often associated with mirror neurons, which are specific cortical brain cells that are thought to be responsible for processing the emotions and behaviors exhibited by other people into feelings and concepts to which we can relate. Since conservatism generally discourages empathy, it seems plausible that these neurons remain underutilized, which might explain why conservatives are generally more susceptible to lies, misinformation, conmen, and grifters, because they physiologically cannot determine the trustworthiness of the source. This could also explain why the most successful right-wing grifters are media personalities rather than authors, since audio-visual emotional manipulation is far easier and more effective than the written word, and since the targets are unable to recognize what others would consider blatantly obvious disingenuousness on the part of the con. These are merely hypotheses; I can offer no scientific evidence to support it.
It should be noted that this is not a blanket indictment of everyone that may identify as conservative. This is an analysis of fundamental right-wing ideology, which is generally labeled “far-right” or “right-wing extremism.” As with everything, there are gradients and nuances, as well as misrepresentations and co-optation that conflates all religiousness or patriotism with conservatism in order to make right-wing ideology seem more mainstream; similarly, there is misrepresentation from the left that paints any degree of right-wing alignment with far-right extremism, and vice-versa on the right.
As one drifts further left on the spectrum, this belief in “self above all” becomes increasingly diluted as more and more consideration is given to others. Center-right and center-left ideologies may disagree on the balance of individualism and collectivism, but they generally agree that some level of both is needed. But left-wing ideology ultimately reflects that the good of the collective– whether that’s a community, a society, mankind, or all living creatures– is more important than any one individual, even the self.
This is the crux of the label of progressivism in contrast to conservatism. Right-wing ideology champions the individual human as the peak of “evolution” (or divine creation); any attempt to suppress unbridled individualism is against the natural order (or divine law, even though as we discussed, this is a glaring contradiction). Thus, the aim is to conserve traditional ways of life, which are percieved as more natural or more aligned with divine ordinance; this means rejecting modern globalism, multiculturalism, “manmade” equality through protection and assistance of the oppressed and underprivileged, and the tyranny of government that attempts to perform these actions by regulating our increasingly-complex world.
Left-wing ideology aims to impel our species beyond the natural order, towards a post-individual future where human intellect has conquered the savagery of nature and we can choose compassion for our fellow beings. This is the choice to supress our more base instincts and the selfish aspects of human nature in order to work together as part of a larger organism, to sacrifice some degree of ourselves– our liberties, our labor– for the well-being of others, with the understanding that they will do the same for us. By choosing cooperation and love over competition and selfishness, we reduce conflict and struggle and radiate a positive energy into the universe.
Choosing compassion is not weakness; it is a deliberate action that overcomes our nature and takes far greater strength than succumbing to fear or anger.
