Kumbaya, or Something Like That
Why Are Leftists Unified, While Conservatives Are Not?
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
I’ve often heard conservatives — Christian and non-Christian alike — complain that while the left seemingly presents a united front against their common enemy, those on the right “tend to eat their own.” After asking for an explanation for this phenomenon, the conservatives will then urge all conservatives to think about perhaps becoming more unified in their endeavors in order to accomplish our common goal. The problem in this view is thought to be a lack of uniformity in thought and action. As for the proposed solution, it is thought to be the ordering and evaluation of our thinking and activity around, and in light of, “the common good”.
If you have been following my writing here at Logia, then you are likely aware of the fact that the belief that “the common good” must delimit the boundaries of human freedom is something we find in the philosophy of communitarianism. It is the guiding system of philosophy embraced by the World Economic Forum,1 promoted by Carl R. Trueman2 and The Gospel Coalition,3 and which has been making inroads into American politics through its popularization by influential political thinkers like Amitai Etzioni.4 Given that it is a form of collectivism and, therefore, is foundationally opposed to Scripture’s ontology, anthropology, and axiology5 it should be evident to Christians that it is not compatible with our faith.
Supposing that this supposed problem with the right is truly a problem, and supposing that the proposed communitarian-esque solution would produce the kind of result we supposedly should be striving to attain (e.g. creating a unified front against the Left), would this somehow make it good? The obvious answer here is “NO.” For in addition to contradicting the Scripture’s clearly revealed ethical teaching, ethical consequentialism is fundamentally irrational, as it undermines the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle by positing that the ethical value of a particular action is determined only by the consequences it yields.
In this way of thinking, what is good today may be bad tomorrow. Thus, it is a form of ethical relativism that cannot be reconciled with the Christian teaching of God as the Sovereign Creator and moral Law Giver. While we can evaluate whether or not an acceptable action is more or less useful in a given context in order for us to achieve a particular good end, we cannot determine what is good or evil by an appeal to the consequences it will yield. God has already shown us what is good and what is evil; it is our responsibility to do what is allowable within those divinely prescribed boundaries.
The “Problem” is Not a Problem
Before moving on to explaining why the Left seems to be united in their thinking and action, we must first look at the main assumption made by the conservatives I’ve mentioned. Their claim is that there is a problem on the Right, namely a lack of unity that makes fighting against the Left more difficult. Yet this assumes that a kind of social unity akin to that of collectivism is the ideal toward which we ought to strive. That is to say — the criticism raised by conservatives against the apparent lack of unity among conservatives rests upon the assumption of the very thing which it is opposing, namely collectivism.
If conservativism is not collectivistic, then does it not follow that differences of opinion are not only going to exist but also result, in some cases, in groups of conservatives dividing from one another? If we are individualists, then does it not follow that we will daily, and necessarily, have to choose between good and evil?
If the concern is whether or not we can work together toward a certain goal, is it not the case that we can do so by voluntarily forming binding contracts that don’t compromise individualism? Why not promote this as a solution to the supposed problems of splintering, division, lack of unity, etc?
Mandatory Uniformity
Individualism allows for the kind of non-morally-compromising strategic unity which stands in contradiction to the forced uniformity of collectivism. Whereas Christian conservatives have an individual duty to God but are free to enter into contracts with one another to accomplish a single goal, under collectivism commitment to the group’s goal is viewed as an ethical, as well as an ontological, necessity.
My deviation from the group’s strategy to achieve some goal is, consequently, viewed as ethically wrong because I am asserting my individual autonomy to reason and act in accordance with right reason (as opposed to “group think,” traditionalism, ideology, etc) which necessarily implies that consequentialism is false and ethically wrong. Moreover, my deviation from the group’s strategy is viewed as an ontological threat, given that the organic whole’s existence, health, and prosperity is inseparably linked to me functioning as a cog in the social machine. If I deviate from my role in the machine, then I am literally a threat to the lives of my comrades — in their minds, at least.
And that, friends, accounts for the unity that we see on the Left. It is not a unity birthed from reason and, therefore, a commitment to the truth and achieving what is good. Rather, it is a unity birthed from a commitment to achieve an ideologically concocted goal through “whatever means necessary,” so long as those means do not compromise the existence, health, and prosperity of the group. “Cancel culture” is an outworking of the collectivist’s hatred of all who do not play their part in the social machine as it presses onward toward its goal.
Is this the kind of unity that conservatives want to see?
If mandatory uniformity is not what conservatives want, then we must be willing to divide with those who refuse to act in accordance with sound reason and, thus, in an ethically upright manner. And this, friends, is the primary reason why we divide with those who claim to be our allies — because they have shown themselves to act in a manner that is unethical according to the revealed ethical Law to which we are held accountable as individuals.
—h.
See “America’s Communitarian-in-Chief,” UTNE Reader, Jan 1, 1995, https://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/amitai-etzioni-communitarian-movement/.