A commonly heard criticism of leftists is that they are prone to be driven by emotion rather than reasoned arguments. The easy solution of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, for example, is emotionally appealing but fails under the reasoned scrutiny of considering how a dynamic market economy works to everyone’s benefit. The rights problem, according to this line of thought, is that our solutions are complicated but rational (relying on “that which is seen and that which is not seen,” as Frederic Bastiat put it) while the left’s are easy but guided by nothing by feelings. But while the accusation of being driven by emotion is generally valid for the uninformed, philosophically ignorant garden-variety leftist, and therefore holds in the public square where arguments need to be simple and intuitively appealing to garner electoral support from people who do not subject political ideas to significant scrutiny, it does not hold at all for much of the intellectual leftist elite. Their problem, in fact, is the reverse: they are too committed to the power of reason.
Ever since Karl Marx who, despite his intent to destroy the crowning achievements of modernity—individualism and capitalism, was firmly grounded in the enlightenment’s commitment to reason, the progressive left has believed they can analyse and steer society based on reasoned investigation and analysis. Inspired by the scientific revolution of his age, Marx wanted to develop a scientific theory of history which could both explain the past and predict the future, which was to ultimately conclude in the communist utopia. But while the classical Marxist theory was found severely wanting in accounting for the events of the 20th century, the progressives, including the modern centre-left, did not abandon the core historicist tenet of Marxism. They still believe in the arch of history pointing towards utopia and not just the ability but the historical inevitability of reasoned political action driving the process. Their economic gospel is Keynesianism, and we would do well to remember how Keynes wanted to tame the animal spirits of the market by state control. Reason trumps instinct.
Opposing this view is where the right should be positioned: we should emphasise reasoned analysis and enlightened conclusions, of course, but we should also be on the side of the individual’s right to follow his instinct and against political control. Not only is this innately human behaviour an equal part of what drives progress alongside science and reason, it is simply anti-human to stand in the way of sovereign individuals following their instinct and emotions—their most basic desires. In fact, the real right has sensed this for a while, even if they mostly fail to articulate it. Perhaps a good example is our commitment to free speech, specifically as it manifests in opposition to hate speech laws: ostensibly a simple matter of opposing state control of what we say, there is a deeper issue at hand of whether it is right to force us to be increasingly “civilised” in our behaviour towards each other.
The history of western political and philosophical ideas is, in fact, full of examples of post-enlightenment thinkers who believed setting such limitations on our behaviour is bad for us. Friedrich Nietzsche talked about the morality of custom: the boundaries set for us which prevents us from following our instincts such that human interaction and society can be made predictable by moulding us into obedience. He believed we turn the emotions inwards, towards ourselves, when prevented from acting them out on others. Similar ideas form a major part of both Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysis. Coming at it from a slightly different angle, the German Carl Schmitt thought that our basic animalistic and tribal nature means we need enemies to establish a feeling of unity which is the bedrock of a stable society. That he developed his thinking into a support of Nazism does not negate the basic validity of the argument that we cannot build our societies on values such as compassion and tolerance forced upon us by political decree: look at the resurgence of nationalism that has accompanied multiculturalism. And of course the entire free-market school of economics, not least the Austrians, developed as a counter to the leftist idea of centralised state control which was born out of optimism about human ability to understand and direct the economy in the same way as they did the natural world through science. “The curious task of economics,” wrote F.A. Hayek, “is to demonstrate to men how little they actually know about what they imagine the can design.”
The progressive project relies on humans being predictable. The rejection of the idea that we are is what formed the basis of Karl Popper’s criticism of the historical method at the heart of progressivism. And he was right. We are not pawns available to be moulded into obedient citizens that allow society’s direction to be centrally steered by governments, no matter if they think their intentions are noble. Human beings are not just characterised by our ability to reason. That may be what ultimately sets us apart from the animals, but it obviously does not alone describe the human condition. So, while there is clearly a compromise needed to balance individualistic instinct and an ordered society, we should reject the left’s insistence that we must follow the imposition of their reason upon our lives. We are individuals: passionate, instinctive, emotional. And we should be awake to the downsides when we suppress those very human qualities.