Better to Side with People a Mile to One’s Left

 

Gary Saul Morson has written an absolutely brilliant article in “First Things” that I have read twice, and intend to read again. He uses Russian history explain the “Suicide of the Liberals.” It is littered with brilliant quotes, one of which is: “Better to side with people a mile to one’s left than be associated with anyone an inch to one’s right.” This was a means of self-preservation in Russia in the early 1900s. As it is on a university faculty today. Or really, in much of modern American society.

Margaret Thatcher wrote of the “ratchet effect” of liberalism. Always moving toward the left, never to the right. When Democrats seek to demonstrate their compassion, they identify with whoever is to their left — AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. When Republicans seek to demonstrate their virtue, they identify with someone to their left as well — John McCain and George W. Bush sought to gain prestige by aligning themselves with someone, anyone, to their left. When is it a good idea politically for anyone to move to the right? My best guess is never, and that’s a problem.

Why is this? What can be done to correct it? How did we end up here?

This is not new. The Russian Revolution was over 100 years ago.

Perhaps Marx was right. The inevitable arc of history bends to the left. Democracy is simply a tool to achieve socialism and then communism, as surely as night follows day.

But if God granted people certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then Marx is wrong.

Which is it? And what can we do to bend this arc toward human liberty?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Dude think through this logically. It will take at least a ten years to safely improve human DNA if we are lucky.

    I won’t be around when they’ve modified the human species. I was kidding. Now if the AI can come up with a way to replace humans in a year or two, then I’d be pissed. Because I just renewed my subscription to Science News.

    That’s why I distrust AI even though I advocate for robots. Who is your favorite writer at Science News?

    Sorry, I don’t pay attention to authors.  But I like reading about the end of the universe and things like that.  I’m always interested in the universe’s heat death.  I don’t specifically believe it, but it’s interesting.

    • #31
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Maybe you didn’t notice it was an epistemology question. (Maybe it’s best not to answer if you don’t want to talk epistemology.)

    Yeah, recreational epistemology is not a single-player game.

    • #32
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Maybe you didn’t notice it was an epistemology question. (Maybe it’s best not to answer if you don’t want to talk epistemology.)

    Yeah, recreational epistemology is not a single-player game.

    Are you kidding?  I can play three positions at the same time!

    • #33
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Once DNA tampering gets fairly safe (which it might not in ten years) every single generation will be slightly more advanced than the last generation.

    Genetic “advances” often have tradeoffs.  For example, an advanced bacterium that has developed a resistance to an antibiotic often does so at the cost of some trait that would be advantageous in environments where the antibiotic doesn’t exist. 

    • #34
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Maybe you didn’t notice it was an epistemology question. (Maybe it’s best not to answer if you don’t want to talk epistemology.)

    Yeah, recreational epistemology is not a single-player game.

    Are you kidding? I can play three positions at the same time!

    When I was young I used to do that while mowing the lawn. Now that there are audiobooks and bluetooth, I listen to them instead.

    • #35
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.