Political theory is a rich and sprawling subject. The amount of tomes dedicated to its study is frankly disgusting. Philosophers and politicians across the spectrum are forever contributing to the miscellany of information. The ideas in these texts are often complex, if not exhaustive in detail. From Aristotle, Hume, Locke, Hobbes, to living theorists like Judith Butler or Slavoj Zizek - there’s a hell of a lot to get through. I myself am intimidated by the sheer volume of literature, which makes me question how anyone could possibly know what ‘they are’ in terms of political identity. I’m ambivalent, confused, convinced and suspicious of it all. In short, my politics is complicated because human beings, society, and, well, politics is complicated.
An individual's political outlook is deeply intertwined with their worldview, which means every new experience has the potential to facilitate an evolution of political opinion. This fluidity is valuable, so why confine oneself to a rigid label that necessitates contortions when societal and political dynamics inevitably change? Categorical politics proves ineffective when trying to reconcile personal beliefs with the ever-shifting fabric of society. Both individuals and societies are subject to transformation, rendering any static political position susceptible to obsolescence. My model of the world is forever in a state of renovation - being built, destroyed and rebuilt.
I’ve come to think of politics in terms of the philosophical, cultural and social principles behind certain schools of thought. I think like this because it’s a lot less alienating than thinking about the modern political establishment, which is generally shit. As a British individual, contemplating the progress made by our two main political parties in the past decade has me googling how to apply for an ancestry visa. I have sympathy for the tendency to react to the political establishment rather than the philosophy. We don't have the time to interpret a substantial amount of political literature, it's difficult and boring. Have you ever read Locke or Nietzsche? It’s as dull as a dry weekend. Party politics is easier to interpret, and far easier to hate, so rather than understand the philosophy, we react to the politicians and their rhetoric. We align ourselves to the most inferable and culturally relevant form of political ideology, which unfortunately, tends to be crude and divisive. But the rich history of the liberal and conservative movement (as dry as the academia can be) is worth thinking about, and it is in this regard, that I’ve begun to define my politics.
Perhaps I should have just opened with “I’m a moderate. Moderate good.” Or, “I’m centrist. People should be more like me”, but that just isn’t accurate. I mean really, what the fuck is a ‘moderate’? Centrist is perhaps a little more on the money, but that presupposes a largely static political position. If you’re attempting to understand the world with an open mind, your political outlook will likely undergo significant transformation. Most people who quickly label themselves with a political ideology often haven't explored a broad range of political ideas and thoughtfully considered which ones align with their core principles. The irony is, it’s difficult to know what you really believe until you’ve exposed yourself to the unknown, both empirically and intellectually. Many of the most politically vociferous lack this very experience. What they’re engaging in is recreational outrage with politics and social justice as their disguise. In essence, they might as well be a-political. Though I don’t get too vexed with the activist class, (there’s plenty of genuine and thoughtful people mixed in with the crazy fist waving iconoclasts) I don’t think ‘equality good, left good, right bad’ is substantive enough for your political principles.
I’ve spoken to many people who, when drawn into a political discussion, preface their contribution with something like “I haven't got a right wing bone in my body”. What they are really saying is, “I’m a good person, not a racist.” I’ve found that their opinions are dull and superficial due to their lack of genuine interest, and that’s perfectly okay. However, they do grasp the social dynamics at play, and they perceive right wing and left wing as codes for bastard people who despise foreigners, and hero’s who seek justice, respectively. Again, I’m not condemning disinterest in politics, I just wish people had the intellectual humility to be honest - “I don’t care much about politics, it bores me, but I do want you to like me”. Refreshing. Even the politically literate are influenced by this manichean impulse. It is morally convenient but lacks nuance, and in politics, it takes courage to observe and comprehend the small and bothersome details. I know a highly educated few who can turn a phrase and pull quotes out of thin air, and in the abstract, these people might agree with a perfectly reasonable conservative argument, but as soon as these ideas become relevant to current issues, they show their bellies and proclaim their allegiances. This, in my mind, is the result of both cowardice, and a lack of imagination.
When I think of right-wing politics, I think of religion, family, tradition, hierarchy, convention, nationalism and free markets (I also think of more than a few incompetent politicians who lack integrity). Each of these elements has had profound impacts on human life, both positive and negative. As I have grown older, I have developed a greater appreciation for religion. I believe that stable two-parent families generally provide a better environment for children. Tradition is something I long for, as I feel its absence in my life. Identifying with a national identity, despite being a second-generation immigrant, has given me a sense of belonging. I am British, and while I may not be proud of my country per se, I am certainly not ashamed of it, and I will defend it against slander if I must. I believe free markets are highly beneficial and have greatly improved the lives of the majority of people worldwide. Does that make me “Tory scum”? All this to say, I probably do have a right wing bone in my body, and yet I don’t have the impulse to take peoples benefits away. I support the welfare state and appreciate the robust social safety net we have in this country. I value immigrants and champion free speech (although the latter is quickly becoming coded as right wing), and I advocate for reforms within the judicial system. While I recognize the usefulness of markets, I acknowledge that certain social structures, such as housing and healthcare, can suffer from overreliance on market forces. Who am I? A classic liberal? I’m not sure if that captures my world view either, because big picture, I reckon there’s probably 5 or 6 ways you can make a better society without relying on outright authoritarianism. The more society and humanity changes, the more I will need to make renovations to my worldview.
I resist the idea of placing guardrails on my thoughts. While many would agree with this in principle, the mind seeks comfort in simplicity, and without an understanding of our metacognition, we will slip into the comfortable habit of using simple categories to order the world - good and bad, left and right, conservative and liberal. It’s becoming tired and ineffective, and most importantly, these terms are often applied disingenuously. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those people who obfuscate language because it’s edgy, we need a shared vocabulary so we can talk to each other, but perhaps we shouldn’t rely on these labels as a moral signifier or a definitive expression of our truest beliefs. If we are to engage in self-reflection and honest introspection, then we should be in a state of near constant evolution. To educate oneself, is a continuous battle with self doubt. It might just be me. My political literacy came late, and so it continues to develop. This piece could just be me exposing myself as politically and intellectually naïve. But whether my education is in its infancy or not, I’m open and honest, and therefore lack the certitude and anger needed to be drafted for the culture war, thank the Lord.
I wrote an article a while back but it was never published, it was about the nature ‘ideological autofill’. It was a term I came up with for the dogma of lazy thinking. We are creatures of pattern, and this is doubly so for our ideological impulses. Without the scrupulous gaze of a suspicious inner critic, our opinions on important matters risk becoming pre-populated ideas that follow a lazy set of ideological rules. Like cells in a Excel spreadsheet being populated by a formula characterised entirely by binary directives. Left or right, this dictates the nature of all of your opinions related to the fabric of society, try to think independently and feel the wrath of cognitive dissonance. When I first felt this in myself, I was frankly horrified. Turns out I wasn’t in control. As highly selective and biased beings desperate for survival in a world without natural predators, we construct psychological defences to simplify the dizzying complexity of modern life. What better way to reduce the world into manageable bite sized chunks than with labels and categories that accord our team with a righteous cause and our enemies with an evil one. This may be a little derisive, but interesting people with insightful minds have incongruences, they have observed the many paradoxes of life and usually have unpredictable politics riddled with nuance. This is a goal we must strive for, because it is in pursuit of this that we learn the courage to dissent, and the empathy to understand the many people who make up our frustrating and diverse society.
I think a huge factor is in how people define politics in relation to themselves. A lot of people in America have adopted the tendency to view politics as an essential identity, instead of as a transient verb. Perhaps this is due in part to the underlying philosophical nature of political ideology like you said, but there’s an inherent difference between political ideology and engaging in politics.
I’m suspicious and skeptical of any political ideology, because it’s really just a front to push for that person’s philosophical interests and agenda. I don’t think it’s impossible to scale philosophical principles to be adaptable to larger social or cultural structures, and by that extension a political position, but I find that approaching politics from a method of scientific and theoretical analysis helps to buffer the cognitive dissonance that arises out of essentializing politics as an identity.
Adaptability to context will always be valuable and indispensable, but to position oneself as too ambivalent, a position of centrism can have the unintended consequence of coming across as being indecisive or apathetic to some people. It takes discipline to challenge your convictions with multivariate perspectives while also maintaining intellectual consistency and humility, but that also seems to be lacking in many.