This is a piece I circulated in July 2020. I’m posting it here because I will be referencing its Left/Right model in a Jurassic Locke post.
The Puzzle
What is it about something that makes us categorize it as "left" or "right" politically?
Some say the distinguishing principle is "bigger government": the L wants bigger government, the R smaller. That seems to work for positions like higher taxes (L), and more welfare spending (L), and more government policing of vices like racism and sexual harassment (L). Yet it seems not to work for positions like more military spending (R), and more government policing of vices like porn or narcotics (R). Those also entail bigger government.
Please don't get hung up on individual positions. People have heterodox opinions and I'm not trying to trap anyone into L/R consistencies. Some conservatives may object that they've favored drug legalization for years. Yes! People are all over the map. All I'm saying is if we hold up banning narcotics as a position, isn't there something about it that feels more R?
The question I'm trying to answer is what makes these positions feel more L or R? What is the the grand unified theory of L and R that explains what's going on in our heads to give these L/R results?
Some say the R wants more "individual liberty." That seems to work for positions like a more free market economy (R), and more private gun ownership (R), and perhaps Brexit (R). But it fits less well for positions like a compulsory military draft (R) and morals legislation (porn, drugs, etc.).
Some say the L wants greater "equality". That seems to fit for positions like progressive taxation (L), a universal basic income (L), and gay marriage (L). It becomes murkier as partisans blur the meaning of "equality": e.g., equality of opportunity or equality of result? And in any event, "equality" gives little guidance on classic L/R divides like abortion, gun control, global warming, and military spending—so a unified theory would need something beyond "equality" as distinguishing principle.
Some conservatives say the distinguishing L principle is something like the "untrammeled pursuit of individual impulses, unhindered by any traditional restraints." Sohrab Ahmari channeled this in his provocative essay "Against David French-ism" (2019): e.g., "The movement we are up against prizes autonomy above all, too; indeed, its ultimate aim is to secure for the individual will the widest possible berth to define what is true and good and beautiful, against the authority of tradition." That seems to fit a gay couple's autonomous impulse to get married (L), but not the baker's impulse to refrain from baking a cake for them (R). Untrammeled impulses leading to sexual harassment also seem disfavored from a L perspective. Impulse control and autonomy do not not seem to be the distinguishing principle: we need to a way to discriminate kinds of impulses into L and R.
A unified theory would also have to untangle problems of opposition. For instance, being warier of Islam feels more R while defending Muslims from Islamophobia feels more L. That seems to imply Islam would be L, but at least some of its religious distinctives seem to feel more R: e.g., women can’t have up to 4 husbands and men don't have to wear hijabs, which violate L-style equality.
A unified theory would also need to account for the canonical view that Fascism is extreme R, and Communism extreme L. You'd think having two extremes like that should make our task easy: just put them side by side and the distinguishing principle should just jump off the page. Yet the two seem more alike than different: big government, high military spending, high welfare spending, suppression of civil liberties, secret police, prison camps. Another puzzle.
Word Game
To try to figure out what's going on here, I sought help from a number of thoughtful people including a couple political science professors. My interviews of them began by simply asking if they had a theory to explain our L/R intuitions. Is there already a unified theory? Has this question been answered? They suggested a number of theories including those mentioned above, but none seemed to cover all the positions.
In a sort of desperation to tease out what's going on here psychologically, I started playing a word game at the end of each interview. Either of us could throw out a term or an opposition of terms, and the other would have respond with their gut reaction: L, R, or can't decide. Some of the most interesting or consistent answers I got were:
Arts vs Engineering. Except for one neutral, every single person said Arts (L), Engineering (R). The categorization seems obvious somehow, but why? Whatever's going on here, a theory should be able to explain remarkable consistencies of response like this.
Cats vs Dogs. Another overwhelming categorization: Cats (L), Dogs (R).
Free Speech: This was the toughest single question I posed, and it perplexed almost everyone. Several said it used to feel more L, now more R.
Veganism: Everyone said L.
Family: Everyone said R or neutral.
Burning Man: L.
United Nations: L.
Apple vs IBM: One person asked me this, and we agreed Apple (L), IBM (R).
Ballet: Many were unsure. Relative to something like engineering it seems L; to something like hip hop it seems R.
You might think adding extraneous concepts like "cats and dogs" would only complicate the task of finding a unified theory: not only will the theory have to explain our political categorizations, now it also has to explain concepts that have nothing to do with politics! But I think the extraneous concepts actually make the task easier, by teasing out our intuitions in a way that's unclouded by partisan tension and prejudice. Abortion is fraught in a way cats and dogs are not.
“Chirality” Term
If I've persuaded you there may be a somewhat interesting puzzle here, then perhaps you'll indulge me in proposing a name for the topic: Chirality, from the Greek cheir (hand). It's a chemistry term that means "handedness".
Certain molecules are atom-for-atom identical except for one being a mirror image of the other.
The simple flipping of a molecule's handedness can lead to surprisingly different properties. The chiral L form of aspartame is sweet, its opposite is tasteless.
So I'd suggest "chirality" as a natural term for the topic here. Why do some political positions have a chiral L flavor, and others a chiral R?
Proposed Theory: CUDDPO
Here is the nutshell version of my best guess at a model. It attempts to explain both the political positions and the word game results.
Your chirality on an issue is relative to the power you perceive as controlling over your jurisdiction for that issue. The controlling power polices external threats to the jurisdiction and internal deviancy within it. It polices outward (PO) and disciplines downward (DD). Internal opposition to that power complains upward (CU), since by definition it is not in control on that issue. Support for the controlling power on the issue is R (DD or PO), opposition to it is L (CU).
Because this exercise of DD/PO power is corrective, it seems generally tough: tough (outward), tough love (downward). In terms of traditional roles, its character is more Father (discipline, rules) than indulgent Mother (comfort, softening up Father).
As a mnemonic, the L function (CU) is appropriately on the left side of the acronym, and the two R functions (DD, PO) are on the right.
When someone asks us if a position feels L or R, I believe we intuitively try to fit the position into something like this CUDDPO model. Often it fits but if it doesn't, the position will feel neutral: neither L nor R.
This dual DD-PO function of a power that both (1) enforces internal rules (DD) and (2) polices external threats (PO) may have some evolutionary biology roots. The alpha male chimpanzee and his high-ranking male supporters patrol the borders of their territory against invasion from other chimp packs (PO). They also enforce various rules within, like who gets to have sex with whom (DD). But their power is not unchecked. Chimps have evolved chiral L ways to demonstrate and push back against abusive power. Female chimps can band together to check an abusive male; powerless chimps supplicate dominant chimps or throw tantrums over perceived unfairness (CU). See, e.g., Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes (1982), by Frans de Waal. While this book doesn't propose this CUDDPO model, its anecdotes and themes seem consistent with it, and the link to human politics is suggested in the title.
Such evobio speculation aside, the simple fact we grow up in families may explain why we seem to have some built-in mental grooves for these two postures toward power.
For a concentrated human image of L vs R chirality, imagine a family living in a harsh wilderness surrounded by wolves. Father and eldest son patrol the borders at night, protecting the livestock. Internally, there are rules to be followed for the family to simply survive: do your chores, always cook the food through, always blow out the candles so the cabin doesn't burn down.
Chiral R stories about the family support the Father's regime, and therefore portray the wolves or the internal deviancy as the primary problem: "His bravery in battling the wolves! Jane's carelessness in almost burning the place down! His rules make sense; his regime is sensible and fair."
Chiral L stories about the family portray the Father himself as the primary problem: "The wolves are basically friendly but he keeps antagonizing them! His rules are irrationally picayune and tyrannical! He unfairly favors the eldest who flatters him!"
Macro Political Issues (as explained by CUDDPO)
As we pan out from wilderness cabin to larger issues, the model seems to explain various political positions.
For military and foreign policy, the R framing stresses external threat (PO), and therefore positions like more military spending and compulsory conscription feel more R. The L framing tends to see a perceived nationalist power as itself the problem (CU): if it wasn't so bellicose and paranoid we wouldn't need such a big military. Hence favoring diplomacy and the UN feel more L.
For domestic policy, policing on issues that seem like internal "deviancy" feels more R (DD): failures of self-discipline or morality like narcotics or porn. The L also polices moral failures (like racism and sexual harassment), but I believe these have a chiral L flavor because they're perceived as expressions of an abusive power above: institutional racism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc. (CU).
The R seeks justice and fights crime (disciplines downward)
The L seeks social justice and fights hate crime (complains upward)
Welfare feels more L, since expecting people to have a job and carry their weight feels more R (DD), while tracing unemployment to systemic problems above feels more L. Since the controlling power could fix the system but has not, this is again a form of complaining up (CU).
Abortion restrictions feel more R since the R tends to see them through a lens of crime/deviancy (murder/sexual carelessness), while the L tends to see them as abuses of a patriarchal/misogynistic power above.
Gun control feels more R since the R tends to see the gun owner as a power legitimately policing external threats (like home invaders), while the L tends to see that power as irrationally bellicose and paranoid (more likely to kill themselves or a family member). This closely tracks the foreign policy split.
Climate measures feel more L because they are perceived as checking abuse by powerful elites above: large corporations and/or rich/prosperous/polluting Westerners.
Free speech was tough for my focus group to categorize because it's simply a neutral procedure. A chiral L/R flavor emerges only when the speech substance is considered: e.g., from a L framing, is it "speaking truth to power" (upward and allowed), or is it merely expressing hate/patriarchy/supremacy (downward and disallowed)?
I won't belabor this by analyzing every possible issue here, but CUDDPO seems to give reasonably satisfying explanations for at least the issues I've thought about. Remember all we're trying to do is explain our intuitions of L/R—and I think this theory is capturing at least some of what's going on in our heads when we have these intuitions. If there's more to it or if an entirely different theory is needed, I welcome your suggestions.
Word Intuitions (as explained by CUDDPO)
The whimsical word intuitions also seem explainable by CUDDPO.
Dogs are social pack animals much like ourselves, so they slot easily into their owners’ R view of the world. They think naturally in terms of discipline and external threat. (Again, this dual linkage of DD/PO seems somewhat built-in?) In comparison, cats seem natural dissidents in their owner disregard.
Being social pack animals, dogs also have chiral L postures in their repertoire. They complain up at their owner with whines and howls of displeasure: expressions of dissent. But when you line up dogs against cats overall, the integration of dogs into their owners’ power structure epitomizes a R view of the world. Cats seem more the reverse.
Arts vs Engineering seems similarly explainable. Engineering child is perceived as doing something much closer to Wilderness Family "chores": as a discipline it's tough and somewhat dreary, requires self-discipline, and it's of more immediate practical value to the family. By comparison Arts child seems more unyoked, subversive, frivolous, playful.
Again I won't belabor this by analyzing every word game result, but CUDDPO seems to generally account for the L/R intuitions of my focus group. I find it especially encouraging that it even tracks their indecisions. For example, Ballet seems more L to the extent you juxtapose it against something like Engineering:
Yet it seems more R to the extent you oppose it to, say hip hop dance: ballet then becomes the more stuffy, proper, disciplined thing the controlling power would prefer you to do (DD)—like Tiger Moms requiring piano or violin.
Remember we're not trying to determine what these things are in some metaphysical sense—as if there were a correct answer to whether Ballet is L or R as a Platonic form. We're simply trying to explain our intuitions, so a theory that tracks our indecision (as here) is just what we're after.
The Perfectibility of Human Nature
Several of my interviewees said they believed Left and Right were distinguished by different views of human nature: the L has the more optimistic view that humanity can be perfected over time, the R the more tragic view that this is impossible.
This seems consistent with CUDDPO. In fact, you might say the perfectibility or imperfectibility of human nature is a position you back into, based on your chiral L or R position toward power. From the R point of view, the core functions of power are policing internal deviancy and external threats. Period. If you play whack-a-mole at that with a good conscience forever, always new threats appearing no matter how many you defeat, you are sort of implicitly buying into a tragic view of human nature. Otherwise, you are faced with embarrassing questions from the L like: "Why haven't you changed the system so the moles get enough food without their digging up your garden?" or "Why haven't you organized a sort of UN that will partition the garden with some for everyone?" So the imperfectibility of human nature may be something R power backs into, as a premise of policing being a constant and legitimate function of power indefinitely.
Likewise the L backs into perfectibility. By definition it opposes R power. Opposes it in what? In its policing of deviancy and threats. Instead of the deviancy or the threat, the L traces the problem to the power itself. Which implies that power could do something to stop the deviancy or threat. Cure poverty so there's no crime. Civilize international relations so there's no war. That you think this possible implies a view that humanity is perfectible.
Given that power itself may be imperfect, now and in future, perhaps a slightly more complex statement of the Perfectibility issue is needed, viz: The R ultimately believes power is perfectible enough to competently police, yet neither rulers nor ruled will ever be sufficiently perfectible to end the need for policing. The L believes power is ultimately perfectible enough to perform policing in the medium term and to end the need for policing in the long term, even as it criticizes power in the short term as being the primary problem.
In any event, the Perfectibility issue does seem lurking as a backdrop to CUDDPO. Perhaps CUDDPO backs into the Perfectibility split, or perhaps starting from the Perfectibility split we back into CUDDPO. Yet I would not say Perfectibility and CUDDPO are interchangeable, exactly. While CUDDPO may imply the Perfectibility split, I'm not sure a Perfectibility split on its own is sufficient on to tackle L vs R chirality for all the various issues. It seems too vague and unwieldy: e.g., there seem to be imperfect humans on all sides of abortion, gun control, etc. So I will stick with CUDDPO for explanatory purposes, while being aware of some theoretical overlap with Perfectibility in background.
Aptness of Hand Assignments?
Historically, the chiral "Left" and "Right" labels trace back to the French Revolution. A national assembly was convened to decide what powers the deposed King Louis should have under a new constitution. Conservatives more supportive of the King's power were seated to the right of the assembly President, while radicals more critical of the King's power were seated to his left: i.e., relative to the seated President looking forward.
The French assignments were perhaps purely accidental, but they seem to accord with CUDDPO. Traditionally in weddings, the bride's guests are seated on the L and the groom's on the R, thereby mirroring the positions of bride and groom as they look forward facing the altar. Bride L, Groom R. Why? Supposedly, this was so the groom could easily draw his sword to protect against any threats. About 90% of people are R-handed, so swords are wielded to the R. The chiral R controlling power wields the sword. The chiral L restrains and tempers its use, though its criticism and dissent.
Perhaps the French assignments were random but caught on as they did because they resonate with this CUDDPO intuition: e.g., a king's "right hand" will support and not oppose him.
Chirality is Relative to Perceived Controlling Power
I include this relativity point in the nutshell version of the theory because it seems so important; without it, the theory gets tangled in various puzzles.
Your chirality on an issue is relative to the power you perceive as controlling over your jurisdiction for that issue. The controlling power polices external threats to the jurisdiction and internal deviancy within it. It battles outward and disciplines downward. Internal opposition to that power complains upward, since by definition it is not in control on that issue. Support for the controlling power on the issue is R, opposition to it is L.
I was tempted to phrase this as the power controlling "your own group", but I was worried some would object the power they perceive as controlling on an issue (e.g., white supremacy controlling immigration restrictions) is very much not a part of their own group (e.g., Latino immigrants). So I used the somewhat stilted "jurisdiction" term to try to capture this nuance: that the power we perceive as controlling on an issue may sit outside (and by definition above) our perceived group.
The power provides the heavy orienting anchor for an issue; the chiral L and R postures are merely responses to that anchor and always relative to it.
This is easy to show by example. The Spanish conquistador Cortez toppled Montezuma's Aztec empire in 1521. For Western observers today, siding with the Aztecs against Cortez has a very distinct L energy. Does that mean the Aztec mobilization against Cortez was therefore chiral L in posture as well?
Not at all. Aztecs of 1520 perceived their controlling power as Montezuma. Cortez was a pressing external threat, so their support for Montezuma against Cortez would have an intensely R chirality.
Western L observers in 2020 perceive an utterly different controlling power on this issue: an institutional racism and colonialism controlling over their own society in 2020 that they oppose. Since they see Cortez as in continuity with this power—another expression of it—their posture on Cortez has a L chirality.
Though they take the same side in this fight (pro-Aztec/contra-Cortez), Aztec 1520 and Western 2020 responses are chiral opposites since they perceive different controlling powers.
Chiral L and R are simply two postures toward one's controlling power: two mental grooves that subjects can adopt toward that power over time. Sometimes they agree with the power on an issue (chiral R posture), sometimes they dissent (chiral L). Individual Aztec support for Montezuma would surely ebb and flow over time. If Montezuma was conscripting your sons to fight against a neighboring tribe you liked, you might at least privately take a chiral L posture toward Montezuma on that issue: "Why is he attacking this friendly tribe? He is too aggressive/greedy/paranoid."
But faced with Cortez, chiral R energy among loyal Aztecs would surely be at a peak. Cortez was a compelling external threat on steroids. Spaniards on horseback were described as beasts with two arms and six legs. And these beasts were desecrating their temples, killing their families, plundering their treasure. Internal Aztec discipline would also be at a peak: "Now is the time for Aztecs to do their utmost duty for their leaders and their people!" Now is not the time for a chiral L airing of grievances about Montezuma's past cruelties. If Montezuma had won and pushed the Spanish into the sea, his victory would have provided fodder for generations of chiral R stories glorifying the Aztec regime.
Chiral L stories too, if revisionist Aztec history became a thing. Imagine the Aztec empire continued into the 20th century, and that its own L historians oppose the current Aztec regime and its supporting religion, despite its modernization and abandonment of human sacrifice. Their academic left-wing history of Cortez might read:
Montezuma's parochial overreaction in 1520 to the first visitors from Europe set the stage for another 200 years of isolation from the larger world economy. Montezuma's glorious 'victory' over a handful of Spaniards also gave renewed life to his regime’s barbaric practice of mass human sacrifice, which his priesthood celebrated as essential to defeating the invaders.
—from A People's History of the Aztec Empire; Tenochtitlan University Press (1975)
L and R postures are universal and applicable to any power.
Western observers who oppose Cortez in 2020 do so with a L chirality because Cortez is perceived as in continuity with a racist/colonialist power controlling their own society—which they oppose. The phrase "We stole the land" puts this shared identity in neon.
Without a "live" perceived power like this to function as anchor, no L/R chiral energy can be generated. The same Western observers appalled by Cortez may feel nothing as they consider wave upon wave of atrocities in the ancient Near East: Hittites, Sumerians, Egyptians, mass mutilation, mass enslavement, genocide. It's all appalling, of course, but without some shared identity with any of the warring parties to anchor us in their fight, it's impossible for us to "take sides" in a chiral manner.
But wait: is that an Old Testament atrocity committed by the Israelites in name of their Jehovah? Chiral energy now flares on both sides. A chiral L flame, for an atheist who sees Judeo-Christian supremacy as an oppressive backward force he opposes. And a defensive chiral R flame, for Judeo-Christians who will want to side with the Israelites or at least excuse them from charges of genocide.
Chirality is always relative to perceived power: no perceived power, no chirality.
For clarity, the exact configuration of chirality on an issue could be captured in functional notation like this:
Observer (Issue, Power) = chiral response
For a loyal Aztec:
Aztec (Cortez, Montezuma) = R
For Western L observer Wes:
Wes (Cortez, Cortez -> Western colonialism/supremacy) = L
For a dog defending the Smith household:
Spot (Mailman, Household-> Mr. Smith) = R
Armed with this principle of chiral relativity, we can disentangle any "puzzles of opposition"—like the one we mentioned at the beginning regarding Islam. To Western observers, wariness about Muslims feels more R (external threat), while defense of Muslims against Islamophobia feels more L (opposing a xenophobic controlling power). That much tracks CUDDPO, so far so good. What's puzzling is this seems to imply Islam itself is somehow more L—which seems odd since some of its distinctives feel more R.
So is Islam itself L or R? What does that even mean: Islam floating in space as a disembodied concept, without reference to any controlling power on any particular issue? The question is meaningless. It's like asking:
All Observers (Islam, All Perceived Powers) = ?
Individual observers both inside Islam and outside it will have many L/R answers about Islam, depending on the issue and the power perceived as controlling on that issue. A Saudi named Sayyid thinks Saudi women should have the right to drive, and he opposes the Saudi Islamic hierarchy's position on that as backward:
Sayyid (women driving, Saudi Islamic hierarchy) = L
But he agrees with them that alcohol is haram and rightly forbidden:
Sayyid (alcohol, Saudi Islamic hierarchy) = R
Just as his L/R responses may vary by issue, what Sayyid sees as the controlling power may also vary by issue. For doctrinal issues like alcohol and driving, he may naturally focus on the local Saudi leadership. But on "culture clash" issues between Islam and the West, he may see his pertinent controlling power as Islam as a whole, or Sunni Islam as a whole. And he may have L or R views on these larger issues as well: R (the West is primarily at fault), L (Islam is primarily at fault).
No one is "intrinsically" L or R in general. Chirality is always specific to particular issues. Individuals will be L on some, R on others. And positions on issues are never intrinsically L or R either. Their chirality is always relative to a controlling power. The same position of opposing Cortez may be L or R. Islam may be L or R. Chirality is always relative.
Usurpation is Chiral R
Montezuma is also a good segue to a minor refinement to the theory. Not all opposition to a controlling power is chiral L.
Alpha male chimps make big displays. They bang things. They're aggressive. Sometimes a challenger comes along who makes even bigger displays, is even more aggressive. He takes over. The king is dead, long live the king. The new alpha resumes right where the old alpha left off: having sex with more females, accepting more signs of submission from the pack, etc.
From start to finish, it's hard to see anything in that transition that seems chiral L. It's just one alpha replacing another. The old alpha frames the rebellion as an internal deviancy and attempts to quash it. The new alpha frames himself as the rightful controlling power. To the winner belongs the framing.
Montezuma was replaced by his generals during the conflict with Cortez. They were disgusted by his weakness and passivity toward the Spanish, and they enthroned his younger brother Cuitlahuac instead. Like an alpha chimp replacement, everything about this transition seems chiral R. The generals were unwavering in their opposition to the external threat. Montezuma was too soft for that and needed to be replaced by another king. If anything the generals feel the more R: tougher and disciplining down at a soft and wayward Montezuma.
ASIDE: Some scholars think the brother was enthroned only after Montezuma's death. The historical details are obviously irrelevant since this is just a clarifying example. It's enough to imagine this is what happened: if it did, would it seem chiral L or R?
Neither Posture is Intrinsically Invalid
If you've followed the discussion this far, it's hopefully clear to you there's nothing wrong with either a L or R posture in general. We don't need to embark on a massive societal campaign to purge one or the other stance from our psychological repertoire.
They are simply two stances toward power that can be adopted at different times on different issues. Sometimes power is in the right and should be supported. Sometimes it's in the wrong and should be opposed.
These stances occur at all levels: it's not just national politics. Chiral L and R postures are taken within families, within corporations, and even within the planet as a whole. If you agree with your new CEO's turnaround plan, you are chiral R in that sense:
You (turnaround plan, CEO) = R.
If Earth is ever invaded by hostile space aliens, there will be an intensely chiral R response at the planetary level. Nations will combine their forces and most of humanity will pull behind their joint leadership: "DEATH TO THE ALIEN SCUM".
Humans (Aliens, Human leadership) = R. Not that two chiral postures aren't possible even here: e.g., some environmentalists might opine Earth would be better off if the aliens removed humanity while keeping the plants and animals. This would be correctly perceived as a chiral L position: i.e., finding primary fault with the perceived controlling human power. Also conceivable are humans who support the aliens from the R: e.g., Nietzscheans or Hegelians might embrace the aliens as a more developed form of the Universe and hence a more legitimate controlling power. Relative to that power, humans would be a deviancy to be corrected or replaced. Nietzschean (humans, Aliens -> Most Advanced Life Form) = R.
The point of these examples is that L or R in general cannot be intrinsically wrong. If from your L perspective you hate Cortez and want Montezuma to win, you effectively side with the Aztec R.
Opposing L or R in principle, and in general, therefore smacks of a certain insanity—like opposing a basic human emotion. Can fear or anger be wrong in general? They are sometimes justified, sometimes not. We're social creatures and these emotions and chiral stances are ultimately communicative. We oppose here, we support there. We process these conflicting signals and ultimately stay coordinated as a pack.
Chiral L and R responses developed because we need them; they’re useful.
We have certain L expressive grooves for checking authority (like whining), and certain R expressive grooves for checking internal laxity and external aggression. These grooves may be shared to some extent with other pack animals like chimps and dogs.
Unless human nature becomes perfectible, we will continue to need both stances indefinitely.