Does Liberalism Matter to Leftism?
A psychological understanding of a greater ideological stance
F or liberal leftists and leftist liberals, both aspects of their ideological identity are understood as equally important and mutually supportive. Liberalism and leftism, however, are distinct and can function separately. But for reasons of hegemonic rhetoric established during the Cold War, there has been a weird history of the two being conflated one moment and treated as enemies the next.
In clarifying this old confusion, let’s consider what each brings to the table and how they might relate. First off, the difference between them is explained in social science research.
Liberalism is about the dual personality trait of and intellect (), the latter corresponding to , , , and . Whereas leftism correlates to high (), low (SDO), and low dark personality or (, , & ; plus ).
There is much research exploring these distinctions (Kibeom Lee, et al, ; Marta Desimoni & Luigi Leone, ; Marika Rullo, et al, ; Jie Liu, et al, ; etc).
But the essence of each is simple.
Ideological mentalities as separate and combined
Each of these two groupings of social science constructs measure independently. They have no direct association and so they can mix freely in any combination.
Consider SDO, which corresponds to . A leftist is low SDO pretty much by definition, since egalitarianism is a driving impulse of all things left-wing. But a liberal, in either measuring high or low SDO, could be inegalitarian (i.e., rightist) as easily as egalitarian (i.e., leftist). Likewise, depending on their level of openness/intellect, a leftist can be either liberal or illiberal, open-minded or closed-minded, non-authoritarian or authoritarian.
This is probably the source of the argument that the political spectrum bends around with the two extreme end points of ‘left’ and ‘right’ pointing in the same direction (). It’s based on the assumption that anything other than the status quo within the Establishment is ‘extreme’ and hence immoderate, radical, dangerous, violent, and authoritarian, that is to say generally wrongheaded (JREG, ).
This is a misunderstanding, though, as it’s conflating two separate factors.
Of course, left-wing authoritarians have much in common with right-wing authoritarians. That misses the point, however, that not all left-wingers are authoritarians (e.g., democratic socialists). In some ways, non-authoritarian (i.e., liberal) leftists can be far more radical, as the liberal component potentially ratchets up the leftism toward a humanitarian worldview. What is an egalitarianism that is inhumane, that equalizes us by erasing our unique humanity?
In that sense, one might argue that the liberal component likewise moderates leftism, in keeping it from descending into the darkness of authoritarianism. Low ‘openness’ is a feature of both authoritarianism and conservatism. This is why there is often a conservative-mindedness about left-wing authoritarianism that particularly opposes liberal-mindedness. It reminds one of certain more egalitarian strains of communalist conservatism, with a strong focus on the group.
Low ‘openness’ is a feature of both authoritarianism and conservatism. This is why there is often a conservative-mindedness about left-wing authoritarianism that particularly opposes liberal-mindedness.
Problems of authoritarianism from a liberal view
What authoritarian neo-Stalinists and tankies, for instance, most intensely hate about liberals isn’t necessarily or merely their politics but their very psychology. Liberals and the liberal-minded likewise feel repelled by the authoritarian mentality, be it of a leftist or rightist persuasion. It’s a mutual incomprehension and lack of respect at the most basic level of experience and motivation.
The low ‘openness’ mindset is about ingroup bias, groupthink, conformity, exclusion, etc. As such, there is a mistrust of anyone perceived as an outsider, stranger, foreigner, dissident, or non-conformist. That exclusion and antagonism obviously would also be directed toward anyone who is high ‘openness’, especially as the liberal-minded despise ingroup conformity and would buck against it.
Sure, the leftist authoritarian implements this group mentality in service of egalitarianism, solidarity, and communalism. And so the leftist non-authoritarian would resonate with their values, at least on an abstract level. But to achieve this goal, low ‘openness’ can draw the leftist authoritarian toward oppressive and coercive methods in eliminating all opposition and silencing all differing opinion, as happened with the Russian Bolshevik Revolution.
But to achieve this goal, low ‘openness’ can draw them toward dark authoritarian methods in violently eliminating all opposition and differing opinion…
Supposed unity as conformity with one elite group to rule them all, in effect, destroys any possibility of genuine solidarity and group consciousness. It’s merely demanding the majority to submit. This is how illiberal leftism undermines itself, which illiberal leftists can’t admit.
Recently, we engaged with such an illiberal left-winger who wished to glorify the wholesale demise of the American Empire, Pax Americana, and the Western global order. They said they’re a black American and, upon that basis, they claimed moral high ground over us as a white American. Obviously, they had a vendetta against the dominant American social order and identified us with it. But we aren’t their enemy. On that level, we don’t disagree with the problem.
Besides, it’s not hard for us to imagine the bigotry, chronic stress, and trauma that likely underlies their sense of righteous judgment, outrage, anger, and vindictiveness. Those are the kinds of conditions known to shut down ‘openness to experience’, not bringing out the kindest side of human nature. That is the sad state of so many in this oppressive and overbearing society, and so such an emotional reaction makes perfect sense.
They hate the system and they likely have good reasons. We get it. But the attitude of seeking understanding was not mutual.
…we the author were accused of not being a leftist because we expressed moral and empathic concerns about the likely vast casualties of innocents that could result from the present immolation of the American Empire.
Liberal leftist and illiberal leftist
In interacting with this illiberal leftist, we the author were accused of not being a leftist because we expressed moral, compassionate, and sympathetic concern about the likely vast casualties of innocents that could result from the present immolation of American geopolitical rule. The consequence could be global collapse or world war where billions could experience some combination of terror, violence, starvation, disease, dislocation, desperation, suffering, and death. Not a good outcome, to our mind.
Though anti-imperialistic in our leftism, we can’t cheer on mass harm merely for the sake of some dark fantasy of redemptive violence and ideological schadenfreude directed toward a self-destructive ruling elite, even if they deserve it. We have no interest in seeing it all burn down, as part of an apocalyptic narrative.
Our liberalism leads us to prefer pacifism, when possible, and so we’d rather have a soft landing than an explosive crash. Certainly, we see no advantage of left-wing accelerationism to counteract the right-wing accelerationism already in process (Paddy Murphy, The Butterfly Revolution — America Is Being Stolen), with both sides seeking destruction. When one destructive force meets another, it simply causes greater destruction and no guarantee that anything will emerge from the ashes.
Threatening annihilation is not how we envision the pathway to leftist utopia. If that is someone’s goal, we might offer John Lennon’s response: “But when you talk about destruction. Don’t you know that you can count me out?” (). If violence is to come, so be it. And we’ll gladly join the revolution. But we won’t seek violence for the sake of violence.
The illiberal leftist in question thought large-scale misery was a worthy price to pay so as to punish their right-wing enemies with the hope of eliminating them from power or eliminating the very structure of their power. But from the perspective of a liberal leftist, the advocacy of a vanguard elite willing to sacrifice the rest of the population, as pawns in a power game, is outright reprehensible. This is opposed to every liberal and leftist value we hold.
Even simply celebrating mass disruption and violence is cruel. An illiberal leftist, of this variety, doesn’t necessarily disagree with Donald Trump and Elon Musk in their embracing atrocities toward their preferred end, as built on a philosophy of ‘no pain, no gain’ — usually, the pain of others. The only disagreement between illiberal leftists and illiberal rightists is the end they seek, which to be fair is no minor point of disagreement.
But from the perspective of a liberal leftist or leftist liberal, one could argue the means and the end are of one piece. We’ll get more of whatever we put out into the world.
But from the perspective of a liberal leftist or leftist liberal, one could argue the means and the end are of one piece. We’ll get more of whatever we put out into the world.
Liberal empathy and leftist honesty-humility
About those who are to be used as sacrificial lambs in service to callous and cavalier realpolitik, maybe they should have a say in their own fate, right? That is where openness/intellect comes in, specifically as relating to , perspective shifting, , , mind-reading, , , , inclusivity, and larger circle of moral concern.
The problem with low ‘openness to experience’ is that one is less open to others, less able to imagine their experience, and hence it makes others seem less psychologically real (Erin C. R. Lawn, et al, ; Yang Song & Meng Shi, ).
In that case, their distress is less salient and compelling. This is how millions killed becomes a mere statistic (Joseph Stalin).
It relates to why so many liberals fear the rigid dogmatism and totalizing absolutism that can be found on both the Right and the Left. On this level, liberals might be less prone to becoming ideologues, in how they emphasize and prioritize the human quality, but also in how ‘openness’ involves cognitive flexibility.
It’s on this basis that many leftists, at least the illiberal, perceive liberals as impotent and ineffective in their soft-heartedness with their pliant sympathies shifting in the wind. And it relates to why many leftists can be dismissive of the social sciences, preferring to understand everything in the objective terms of systems, structures, and social orders (e.g., dialectical materialism). All things liberal-minded can appear false, irrelevant, or threatening to the illiberal-minded.
Dismissiveness aside, there is an element of truth to the leftist judgment.
Leftists do bring something of unique value to the table and liberals would be wise to learn from it. Also, liberals should not be dismissive of the moral righteous edge that left-wingers so often express, as this indicates their greater impulse of ‘honesty-humility’ (sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, & modesty). Inegalitarian liberals, what might be called right-liberals or right-wing liberals, lack this powerful moral sense, the urgent driving force of leftism.
Yes. Liberalism without egalitarianism can be weak, problematic, and misguided. This fits the accusation about a certain kind of waffling liberal that lacks a backbone (e.g., Democratic politicians who say the right thing but seemingly stand for nothing). That is a fair point to be made.
As Phil Ochs put it, in his introduction to ““:
“In every American community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects, ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. Here, then, is a lesson in safe logic.”
Even so, liberalism has undeniable value. Leftism without liberal-minded empathy, compassion, and moral concern for the actual lives of others is heartless, cruel, and dangerous. It’s the same basic failure as right-wingers who malign liberal-mindedness (Liberal Empathy, the Weapon of Satan).
Seeking balance, broader vision, and new direction
So, though we can agree with illiberal leftists in their complaint about and pushback against inegalitarian liberals, we’d offer a third option. Between leftism and liberalism, it isn’t a forced choice — one or the other and nothing in between. They aren’t opposing ideological worldviews, but potentially compatible and reinforcing. We can have both.
It’s the yang of leftism in relation to the yin of liberalism. The solid bank of earth gives form and force to the flow of water, in contrast to a puddle that dries out in the sun. But a bank of earth, no matter how solid, does not make a stream or river without the substance of water that, in its softness, can erode rock, move boulders, and reshape the landscape.
Anti-leftist liberals are well known for their failures to challenge unjust systems and their failure to transform oppressive systems because they often won’t even acknowledge the system itself or else simply lack the capacity to recognize its significance. But it can be equally frustrating to deal with anti-liberal left-wingers who have more concern for organizing ‘workers’ or overthrowing the system than caring for actual humans.
We need to find a balance, where both combined is greater than either separate. Anything less is to cripple the hope for a free society.
But when liberals and leftists turn against each other, we all lose.
We can aspire to leftist ends of egalitarian mutuality and collective betterment through liberal means of the least harm principle, of basic human kindness. Just as we can aspire to liberal ends of tolerant and inclusive democratic self-governance through leftist means of strong collective organizing and potent moral demands. But when liberals and leftists turn against each other, we all lose.
Two legs are needed to get anywhere. And upon the combined force of these ideological mentalities, we could bound forward in shared progress and gain the foothold from which to leap toward new possibilities.
