What are the fundamental differences between the political left and the political right?
The world over, people cluster into sets of political positions. For example, a position in favor of legalized gay marriage is predictive of a position against capital punishment. A position in favor of universal health care is predictive of a position in favor of (legal or illegal) immigration. When new issues come to the fore, positions on those issues are similarly able to predict positions on other issues.
Numerous scholars have attempted to delineate these clusters that are called the political “left” and “right.” Noted attempts include those by Feather, Altemeyer, Sidanius and Pratto, Jost et al., Haidt, and Alexander. However, no consensus has been reached. I have discussed some issues with some of these attempts.
In various writings for over a decade (e.g., Walford; Intelligence), I have offered my own representation for the fundamental differences between left and right. (I also wrote a book relating to the subject that was published in 2008 and 2009, to which I will not direct you.) However, my views have changed slightly over the years.
In this essay, I take a bottom-up approach by:
first offering patterns of left-wing positions relative to right-wing positions;
then the underlying tendencies that account for these political positions;
and, lastly, the personal characteristics that explain these tendencies.
Left-wing positions relative to right-wing positions
Pattern one: On any given issue, left-wing individuals are more likely to support bestowing rights and/or benefits to the less represented demographic at the focus of the issue.
For example, this occurs on gay marriage (homosexuals); abortion (the pregnant woman); capital punishment (convicted criminals); universal health care (low-income individuals); minimum wage (low-income individuals); graduated taxes (low-income individuals); affirmative action (women and blacks); dovish but interventionist foreign policies (citizens of other countries); torture (citizens of other countries); and immigration (immigrants).
To elaborate on the classification of abortion: It may seem that abortion focuses on the unborn. However, a majority of pro-life individuals favor legalized abortion when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. In these cases, the unborn is as viable as it is when the pregnancy was caused consensually. The difference is the pregnant woman’s apparent culpability. Thus, for a majority of Americans, a position on abortion hinges on the degree to which the pregnant woman can be blamed for the pregnancy.
Pattern two: Right-wing individuals adhere more to that which is established.
That is, right-wing individuals adhere more to the previously-established religion, social norms, and demographic order.
Religion can influence issues like contraception, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.
Social norms involve an issue like legalized marijuana.
Demographic order relates to immigration (legal and illegal).
I have suggested that the tendencies that characterize pattern two depend on, and can be superseded by, pattern one. For example, right-wingers are willing to change a decades-old law (Roe v. Wade) in order to prevent legalized abortion. And religious people are more likely to be averse to immigration and accepting of torture, even though, if anything, scriptures would orient against these positions. Additionally, surveys conducted by Haidt produced results that can be interpreted the same way.
Pattern three: Left-wingers are more likely to support laws that protect people from negligence.
For example, they are more likely to support legislation on gun control, global warming, seatbelt laws, and trans fats.
The tendencies that underlie these political positions
What is it about certain (“left-wing”) individuals that lead them to be more likely than other (“right-wing”) individuals to:
a) confer rights and benefits to less represented demographics,
b) be willing to go against the established,
and c) support laws that protect people from negligence?
I have identified four tendencies.
1) Left-wing individuals are more likely to identify reasons why individuals belong in a less represented demographic that are outside of the control of those individuals (i.e., external control ideology). It causes left-wing individuals to place less blame on individuals for being in the demographic. This contributes to patterns #1 and #2 above. For example, left-wing individuals are less likely to blame homosexuals for being homosexual; pregnant women for being pregnant; convicted criminals for having been convicted of a crime; the poor for being poor; and immigrants for being immigrants.
2) Left-wing individuals are more empathetic toward individuals they do not know personally. This also contributes to patterns #1 and #2 above. For example, left-wing individuals are more empathetic to the plight of homosexuals; having an unwanted pregnancy; the poor; females; blacks; citizens of countries in a foreign policy dispute with the U.S.; being tortured; and having to be immigrants.
3) Left-wing individuals are more trusting of the intentions of individuals they do not know personally. This also contributes to patterns #1 and #2 above.
4) Left-wing individuals are less trusting of the capabilities of individuals they do not know personally. This means they are more likely to be concerned with possible negligence by unknown others: pattern #3 above.
It may seem puzzling that left-wingers are concerned about guns but not marijuana, and vice versa. This may occur because left-wingers are more familiar with marijuana, while right-wingers are more familiar with guns. Left-wingers are probably more likely to use marijuana due to their higher openness to experience. This is consistent with their tending to be smarter (see below). Right-wingers are probably more likely to use guns because they are more pessimistic about the intentions of, and less empathetic toward, unknown others, so they invest more in protecting themselves.
The right-wing position on global warming (relative to the left) fits well with right-wingers’ more laissez-faire approach to economic activities. They do not value prosociality toward unknown others as much as the left because they do not identify causes to their stations that are outside of their control and they are also not as empathetic toward unknown others. They, therefore, place a higher value on strictly monetary pursuits sometimes found in business rather than ones that add social value. Consequently, they hold business leaders in higher regard than left-wing individuals do. And they are less willing to believe business leaders could adversely influence the world out of negligence. This is coupled with a greater right-wing skepticism toward academia, in which global warming is studied, due to left-wing prevalence among college professors. This left-wing prevalence among faculty occurs because highly intelligent people in general tend to orient toward the left (see below).
The personal characteristics that explain these tendencies
So then, what leads an individual to fall into a left-wing cluster, as opposed to a right-wing one? That is, what allows a person to be more likely to perceive causes that are external to the control of other individuals; to be empathetic toward them; to be trusting toward their intentions; and to be distrusting of their capabilities?
1) Personal experience with the demographic at the focus of the issue.
This can include membership in the demographic; former membership in the demographic; or relations with a member or former member of the demographic.
Demographics are more likely than the general public to support rights and benefits to be conferred to themselves. This is typically assumed to be due to self-interest, but I argue that it is attributable more to personal experience.
2) Intelligence.
Intelligence leads a person to identify causes outside of the control of the people in a particular demographic. Intelligence also leads a person to be more empathetic toward, and trusting of the intentions of, unknown others.
Additionally, intelligent people are less religious. And more intelligent people are less likely to be impressed with the capabilities of others, so they are more likely to be concerned with the possibility that others will be negligent.
An individual who is less intelligent but has personal experience with a less represented demographic may be left-wing on issues involving that demographic but right-wing on other issues. This individual may identify as a Democrat (in the U.S.) but would not be considered left-wing or liberal (in the U.S. usage).
However, highly intelligent people tend to be left-wing across political issues and would be considered left-wing or liberal (in the U.S. usage).
In sum:
Two characteristics orient a person toward the left on a particular political issue:
- Personal experience with the demographic for which rights are at issue.
- Intelligence, which leads to a left-wing orientation in general.
Both intelligence and personal experience with a demographic lead a person to a) identify causes of the demographic’s station that are outside the control of that demographic, and b) be more empathetic toward that demographic.
Consequently, intelligence and personal experience with a demographic are both more likely to lead a person to orient toward conferring rights to that demographic.
More intelligent people are also more likely to be trusting of the intentions of people they do not know personally, but distrusting of those people’s capabilities. This causes them to be more likely to pass laws protecting against negligence — a left-wing tendency.
Intelligent people are also less likely to be religious. And they are more likely to have a high degree of openness. These factors cause them to cluster on the left-wing on issues that involve an established order, such as immigration; marijuana legalization; and issues influenced by religion.
