Ben Naparstek vs John van Tiggelen and lefty stoushes in general

Conservatives are gleefully yucking up a storm over a falling out between the editors of two prominent lefty publications. In it, editor of The Monthly John van Tiggelen has sent a very snarky email to wunderkind Ben Naparstek of Good Weeked accusing him of poaching writers, among other things. If van Tiggelen's claims are true then Naparstek's behaviour has been disgraceful -- not to mention deeply sexist.

I recall a vaguely similar situation occurring a coupla years back involving The Drum and Crikey -- though I don't think the enmity was nearly as intense.

In any case, this conflict got me thinking about how much white-anting and bitchery goes on within lefty strongholds as opposed to conservative ones. While internecine battles do occur in Toryland, they're generally not nearly as vicious or protracted as the ones that rage in joints like Labor and the unions. Look at the deep level of personal enmity between Rudd and Gillard, for example. It's nasty as all get out.

It's also pretty funny, given lefties' constant claims of compassion, solidarity, and community. Obviously hypocrsiy has a lot to do with it. There's the fact that conservatives tend to be more restrained characters as well. They may feel just as much envy of or hatred for a competitor but because they're more likely to take responsibility for their actions, they usually manage to stop themselves from doing things that they know they'll probably regret later on. Then there's the fact that lefties are more driven by emotion than anything else ...

I think it's got something to do with their ideological mindset, too. And it kinda gets back to that whole "zero sum game" mentality they have. They think of work and wealth as being finite commodities. They're not entrepreneurial by definition. To them, big organizations like the public service, the ABC and Fairfax are the "only game in town". They zone in on a desired position with total, relentless focus.

Now if two or more ambitious lefties are competing for such a gig they will often stop at nothing to get it, keep it and use it to assert dominance over, or get revenge on, their closest competitors. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, will tend to seek elsewhere if it's all getting too full-on. That's not to say they're lazy or unambitious. Far from it. They just realize that there's a world beyond the established organization. There are many smaller businesses in the private sector to work in, or they can even start from scratch and create their own.

What do you think? Is this the reason or is it something else? 

Zero sum games and growing pies

Some general thoughts about lefties and their belief system: One key ingredient in their daft world view is that of the zero sum game. They think there's a set amount of everything in society -- particularly money. So if you have a substantial amount of it you must have stolen it from another person or group.

They see the economy as a pie of finite size. Their job, then, is to make sure the slices are redistributed fairly. (Well, that's what they tell themselves and others but they're usually trying to grab and guzzle as many pieces as possible on the sly.) 

Conservatives say that while fairness is desirable it's more important to grow the pie. And individuals can have bigger slices if they work hard, are entrepreneurial, etc. Of course lefties hate that because they can't get their tiny minds around the idea of creating wealth. They interpret the exhortation to grow the pie as encouraging the haves to grab pie slices from the hands of the have-nots. 

But anyone who has done any real observation and thinking can see how retarded this concept is. Yes, capitalism is destructive. But it's also amazingly creative. And it's the latter force which keeps winning out. It's like a big ugly machine that keeps chugging along.

It's business that funds government through tax, after all. It's not the other way around. 

Speaking of government. There actually is a zero sum game in this sector. Money is handed out to recipients from a set yearly amount in the form of departmental funding, grants, welfare, etc. As we all know, government is what lefties are most attracted to. And they sure do demand more than their equal share of that particular pie. They are nicking it from more deserving people.

Take the arts, for instance. Anyone in that field knows damn well that if you want to "succeed" (get paid for your work) you have to suck up to the Left. Doesn't matter how crap you are at what you do. You just have to strike the politically correct pose and the money is sure to come. (There'll be much more of it if you have some well placed mates, too.)

Conservatives, on the other hand, are considered the enemy by the bureaucratic powers that be. So if you are one of these eeevil people and you have some insightful, original arty idea that you've worked your clacker off developing, you'll almost certainly get diddly squat from the relevant funding bodies. (Er, unless you lie to them about its nature when applying, of course. But you can only do that once or twice. And Tories are less likely to do that anyway. Unlike so many lefties, they believe that the truth exists and should be respected.)

Sure, conservatives rarely ask for money in the first place. They're more likely to try and turn a buck with their projects, or at least work on their own dime. Still, some are on the bones of their arses and have arty projects with little market value. But what are the odds that such plans will get any funding? Very close to nil.

Imagine a play based on the life of Tony Abbott, in which he's shown to be a decent bloke who respects women. Think that'd get any support from the Australia Council? 

So, there's a huge irony here. The Left sees a zero sum game where it doesn't exist, and accuses its ideological enemies of theft. Yet in a field where it does actually exist, they shamelessly grab their unfair share.

Just goes to show that lefties are not just inconsistent with the application of their ideology. They're often grotesquely hypocritical as well. 

Selfish conservatives, altruistic liberals and EO Wilson's new book

Every now and then there'll be a story in the media about how scientists are finding the underlying physiological (or even genetic) reasons for differing political belief systems. It'll usually be about how the brains of liberals and conservatives are different somehow.

You know, conservatives are inherently fearful and power hungry, only capable of linear thinking. Liberals are just kinder, gentler beings who have brains that show a much greater level of intellectual flexibility, thereby allowing them to see other points of view ... That sort of stuff. 

Here's another one along these lines: In a new book titled The Social Conquest of Earth eminent biologist EO Wilson proposes a theory of political evolution. It says that humans are doomed to an ongoing struggle between individuals and groups as well as inner competition between selfishness and altruism.

He seems to see human civilization a bit like a constantly evolving ecosystem:

In other words, Democrats and Republicans are not two sides of the same coin, but rather different parts of the same genome. One cannot dominate the other, nor can either live without the other. Like it or not, the two parties are condemned to coexist with one another. 

It sounds interesting but I think he's made a big error in associating the left-liberal side of politics with altrusim. Sure, they've got the altruistic talk down pat. But they certainly don't walk that talk. Hell, they don't even crawl it most of the time.

I've watched liberals (we call 'em lefties here in Oz) close up for years on end and I have no doubt whatsoever that they're every bit as selfish as conservatives, probably more so. They demand responsibility from others but rarely practise it themselves. And morally, they're often all over the shop.

I believe that we're all selfish. Sure, we're capable of self-sacrifice but self-interest tends to trump it most of the time, let's face it. And we all seek power.

It's not pretty but it's the way we are. We heartless conservatives are just more honest and realistic about these potentially destructive aspects of human nature and seek to sublimate them with a worldview that rewards aspiration, self-reliance and self-possession. Basically, conservatives prefer a society in which we all have power over ourselves and ultimately freedom with responsibility. 

Lefties, on the other hand, are basically spoiled brats who haven't grown up. And they will do anything to avoid looking honestly into their own hearts and minds, assuming themselves to be unquestionably virtuous and always motivated by the noblest of intentions. They bang on about compassion, tolerance, and fairness because this tactic gets them what they really want: power over others. No wonder they seek freedom from responsibility so much of the time.

These are some of the key characteristics of conservatives as opposed to liberals. Unlike so many boffins who reckon that such political differences arise from competing genes, I'll be a leftie this time and say:

No way! It's a question of culture, see. Society's to blame.