The limits of an amoral politics

Striving to abstract politics from morality and to "rationally" debate different positions fails to recognize the fundamentally opposed moralism at the heart of Left and Right political ideologies

Jacques-Louis David’s painting of the June 1789 Oath of the Tennis Court

Ten days ago Natalia Albert restacked a post and commented

I so wish we understood the Left and Right a bit better. It’s become such a cause for frustration and division. Left=love government, want government to do it all. Right=low trust in government, smaller government, wants government to do less.

This note got a few comments from people, most disagreed with Albert’s definition of Left and Right politics. She used her responses to make the case that politics had nothing to do with morality. Here’s a sampling

I went back and forth with her for a bit about the difference between Left and Right politics, but it was clear that she was not going to be dissuaded from her position that politics is, fundamentally, simply about how people think the state should govern. People bring their ideologies and morals to the political table, but there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about a specific political position.

Then last week she mentioned she was going to write a post on this idea of taking morals out of politics. I commented that I would probably write a response to her post. So here it is.

Albert’s post was published a few days ago

Morality as Politics is Problematic

It’s a short post and comes across as fairly innocuous. Most who read it will not see a problem with it. And honestly, it’s mostly okay. The basic idea is that for the people we interact with on a daily basis, our fellow voters (she leaves politicians out of it), we need to be a bit more forgiving and a bit less suspicious of people just because of their political opinions. And Albert situates herself as someone who can do this because she’s studied politics for many years, and developed the skill of taking morals out of her political discussions. In her words, she’s learned to

hold views without letting them swallow my whole identity. That’s not because I’m neutral, priviliged or detached or some kind of special operator. It’s a skill. It comes from treating politics as something to be studied, dissected, and understood—not just something to fight about.

So here she positions herself as having arrived at a place of maturity that we can all aspire to. A place where political debates can take place without being burdened by morality. She continues

Because here’s my starting point: we need to stop turning political identity into moral identity. We need to stop assigning character to ideology. There’s a big difference between acknowledging the moral consequences of political decisions—and deciding that entire ideologies are either virtuous or evil by design. That difference matters. A lot.

Once we do that, we lose the ability to critique our own side and to hear the other side without shutting down. We turn politics into a test of virtue instead of a space for negotiation. And we lose the people in the middle—those who want to engage, but don’t want to be judged for asking the wrong question, voting for the wrong party, or holding mixed views.

This all seems reasonable right? Who could argue with this?

Well, for the most part I agree. I agree that we should be able to talk to people with different political opinions than us and not write off their humanity because they have different opinions. I also agree that virtue-testing people for their political beliefs is a fool’s game and damaging to attempts at solidarity. The nominal Left has driven many people to the Right by doing this.

So what’s the problem?

There are a few points that start to raise my eyebrows. Albert says we need to “stop assigning character to ideology.” She says there is a big difference between “acknowledging the moral consequences of political decisions—and deciding that entire ideologies are either virtuous or evil by design.” And that this difference matters a lot.

I’m a bit unsure of what she means here. Because it seems to me that acknowledging moral consequences of political decisions will tell you something about the morality of the politics that you are aligning with. That’s not the same thing as deciding that an ideology is virtuous or evil by design but really it doesn’t matter if something is evil by design if it produces harms then it’s probably not good and vice versa. I’m unsure if this is what she is talking about, but that’s my take on it.

Things get problematic in her next section

At its core, Left and Right aren’t moral frameworks.

They’re governing frameworks—different ideas about who should be responsible for what. Broadly speaking, the Left sees a larger role for government in redistribution and protection. The Right tends to place more trust in markets, individuals, and limited state intervention.

That’s it.

Here’s where I think Albert is wrong and why I think it’s a big problem.

I suppose on some abstract level you could think of Left and Right as amoral governing frameworks, but this is to remove them from their historical and social contexts. When I pointed out to her that modern notions of Left and Right politics were formed in response to the rise of capitalism and people’s attempts to fight its abuses, she dismissed this historical characterization and instead referred to the spatial origin of Left and Right politics during the French Revolution. The terms originally came from the locations of members of the French assembly during debates about the drafting of a new French constitution. Specifically, those on the Left of the chamber (revolutionary republicans) thought that the king should not have an absolute veto, while those on the Right of the assembly (pro-monarchist conservatives) thought that the king should have an absolute veto.

So the Left and Right have come to be characterized by more radical and conservative positions, respectively. And as Albert says, the Left supports a larger government role in taxation and redistribution (not sure what she means by protection, although the Left does see a role for government in protecting people from the harms of the free market, not sure that’s what she meant), while the Right supports markets, small government, and individuals.

But it’s not as if these positions have evolved outside of any moral frameworks. Even the spatial origins of Left and Right betray the moral and ideological leanings of their proponents. Those who wanted the king to have a veto were from the aristocracy and did not want any democratic interference in their lives or wealth, while those on the Left who did not want the king to have a veto thought that the laws should be decided by and for the people rather than by and for the aristocracy.

These positions don’t merely indicate different opinions about how the state should govern. Rather, they indicate fundamentally different worldviews and moralities. To abstract Left and Right from their moral foundations is a fundamentally dishonest and incomplete characterization of these political positions.

Even Albert’s definitions of Left and Right betray the moral views of their proponents. And when you look at the history and modern day views of the Left and Right it’s easy to see the differences in worldview and morality. The Right favor markets and limited state intervention. This wasn’t just decided out of the blue one day. The Right take this position because historically, the state has interfered in unregulated capitalism to tax wealth and redistribute it. Those who benefit from capitalist systems—property holders and the wealthy—do not want the state to interfere in their wealth accumulation or force them to redistribute their wealth. They may think they deserve it or those who are poor deserve their poverty. At the heart of this position is a belief that wealthy people are inherently better than others. In fact, this is a fundamental tenet of modern right-wing politics. It is far from an amoral position.

Similarly, modern Left politics has been a direct response to the inequality and exploitation of capitalism. The Left didn’t just decide one day they thought the government should have a larger role in society. They realized that the state was the only thing that could protect them from the unregulated abuses of capital and fought for legislative protections for workers, women, and minorities. Again, this is not just a simple disagreement about politics. It indicates a fundamental difference of belief about who is worthy of basic rights and humanity.

Furthermore, modern-day right-wing politics have been co-opted by a libertarian ideology, and this ideology was specifically developed by US business interests beginning in the 1920s as a way to enhance their financial and political interests. So depending on how you feel about an ideology that was specifically designed to protect corporate interests and profits, this could very well fit Albert’s “evil by design” criteria.

Albert seems uninterested in these easily traceable moralities associated with different political positions. As I’ve discussed, she dismisses documented ties between specific political parties or politicians and corporate interests, claiming that this is a simplistic explanation for their policies. She is highly critical of Left policies and politicians, and very supportive of the Right here in Aotearoa.

While I agree with her that we should not demonize people for their political views, neither should we shy away from explaining why right-wing political parties and positions are highly damaging to society, favor the wealthy, and use the language of equality, individual responsibility, and freedom to mask an agenda that seeks to govern for the wealthy and corporate interests. Left politics seeks to transform society into a place where we can all flourish and it recognizes that capitalism is the foremost issue standing in the way of this transformation.

These are not merely differences of political opinion but fundamentally different worldviews. We cannot abstract morality out of politics. Our congenial “agree to disagree” merely papers over the historical and material reality of the human toll of the differences in political and ideological positions. We owe it to one another to understand the moral and historical foundations of the politics we sign on to. Only then can we understand how they are wielded by political parties and used in support of various special interests. Those who would like to “agree to disagree” or strive above all for rationality and civility in political discourse are those who discount the historical and ongoing material and economic facts of opposing political positions.