Intolerant of Intolerance

Ever since I can remember I have been staunch lefty. From early childhood’s more simplistic view of “why can’t we just be nice to each other?” to now, in my early thirties where the disparity between certain groups of people and the discrimination of others is more apparent. Despite often being labelled a ‘hippy’ by various friends and family (not helped these days by my lavish hair) I have now found myself, while still very much a socialist, beginning to disagree with a section of the left leaning community.

Wherever you lie on the political spectrum, if you’re honest with yourself there are some key fundamental beliefs of the left that you can’t disagree with, even if the way they are implemented or the weighting of importance you place on them, might be different. In the same way, as a left winger (in football too coincidentally), I can’t disagree that there is a requirement to maintain and nurture a strong economy – a trait more traditionally associated with the right-wing. Due to the hierarchy I place on the care the most vulnerable people in our society over money and tax breaks, I wouldn’t consider myself centralist. For me, people will always come first, and business is there to supplement and compliment us, not the other way around.

Personally, I embrace this difference of political opinion between all of society – it is paramount to a balanced and progressive move toward a more wholesome, all-inclusive and understanding population. There are a multitude of reasons why we each individually come to the political and social beliefs we do; age, gender, sexuality, upbringing, education, wealth, religion, exposure to different people, location and more. Even to the left, their outlook is more ‘virtuous’ it doesn’t make it inherently right. What may be good for me (and I don’t mean financially, I’m referring to a political action in lines with my world view) may not be for others – it could potentially harm them or their beliefs if not considered from all angles.

Finding myself distanced from the left

It alarms me therefore, that more recently I’ve begun to find myself in an unexpected situation – one of the political views I find myself having real issue with is a section of the left. For the purposes of this article I’m going to refer to them as the “Woke Left” – if you use this term for yourself please don’t take offence, it is merely to distinguish a proportion of the community who I personally have come to associate with this word. I am talking about the intolerant left, the group of people who have become so zealous in their drive for an equal society that they have become intolerant of others’ intolerance. They look to shut it down, prematurely make accusations of prejudice and by doing so have become hypocrites by completely disregarding opposing viewpoints.

There are two main dangers to this approach in my view. By trying to shut down far right organisations and opinions, for example by attempting to get them banned from broadcast and social media, is in fact a huge blow against freedom of speech. It has a certain 1984 vibe that polices thoughts, or at least the verbalisation of them. This is potentially very damaging – keeping unfavourable opinions underground allows them to fester and grow, unbeknownst to the wider population who now believe they barely exist. They will lay dormant until a tipping point, raising their engorged monstrous head on a scale unforeseen by anyone who believed it was eradicated. An open discussion however, provides a space to debate such opinions, perhaps persuading some away from them (or indeed change our own view) or giving the opportunity to get to the root of the bias and address the real, not perceived, cause.

The second is slightly more subtle – it prevents the left from achieving its goals because they become blindsided by their own top line opinion, unable to approach issues with an open mind. The Woke Left can become so hooked onto the main headline that they are unwilling to and can’t see the context behind it. It makes them less malleable and actually tread on their own toes, unable to reach the outcome they desire. This isn’t solely the left, but as a collective that preaches equality, support and empathy, it undermines itself and weakens its own position.

Do more than just virtue signal

One example of what I mean is the gender pay gap. It can’t be denied that women on average are paid less than men. However, there are many nuances and circumstances that need to be taken into account to truly understand why and to what level this happens – it isn’t as simple as businesses just deciding to pay women less. An action that has long been illegal in the UK. To truly understand the reasons, and to put any injustice right, we need to consider all factors and their importance in the pay gap, in order to take positive action. Things like maternity care and support, work-life balance, industry, agreeableness, occupation choice are some of many. Additionally, using the correct methods of calculation of money earnt is another consideration – many media outlets use the average pay over a person’s lifetime which will normally end up less for women due to having children, retiring earlier (i.e. less years in full-time paid work) or being in part-time work which is paid worse than full-time (more women are part-time than men). This isn’t to say the gap doesn’t exist, on the contrary, but how much, why and therefore how best to tackle it, is the most efficient way to address the issue.

It is in countries that have had this more open-minded approach to the bigger picture that have had greater success in reducing the pay gap itself. Scandinavian countries head the leader board, with Iceland having the coveted top spot. They have been tougher on the “top line” in terms of the simple comparison of men and women, but what these countries have also supplemented this with the additional factors that contribute to the pay gap. Fairer maternity care such as equal or sharable maternity and paternity leave (so both parents can take equal time out of work and spend equal time with the children) has begun to remove the financial penalty of having a family. Support for women to aide them in their careers and both aspire to and obtain managerial positions has also had an effect. Executive manager of the Icelandic Women’s’ Rights Association, Brynhildur Heiðar-og Ómarsdóttir, explained, “The point is not to have everybody paid exactly the same, but to look at any discrepancies and ask, ‘Why is this happening, and what can be done about it?’”.

Listen, don't shout

I think is the crux for me. Not to take things on face value and have a ‘who can shout the loudest?’ competition as soon as someone offers a differing perspective. To avoid dismissing someone because the first sentence they say isn’t verbatim of the one-line summary of your own belief. But this is too often the Woke Left’s approach, even against its own or those who may share similar goals. A Channel 4 interview with Professor Jordan B Peterson is a prime example of this. While I don’t necessarily agree with all his opinions, I do admire his willingness to challenge popular consensus and to pick his words very carefully. Throughout the 30 minute interview, Cathy Newman continually tried to put words into Jordan’s mouth and paint his views as an anti-equality, anti-equal pay and anti-women. Time and again he had to clarify that what she stated wasn’t what he said, and he frequently acknowledged women were intelligent, deserving of the same treatment as men, could obtain a fair society and so forth. He was calling for us to look further into the problem and ascertain all the potential factors in order to address the issue. Not to ignore the pay gap entirely or promote continuing an unfair payment system. Jordan was heard, not listened to, and as a result a reflection of the intolerant left was presented – you’ve said something that slightly differs from my slogan core belief and therefore you are wrong.

It is something that comedians have also started pointing out in their work, such as faux-reporter Jonathan Pie’s “interview” with fictional author Melissia Stephens about her non-existent book The Sex Delusion. He finds himself in an uncomfortable and unfamiliar situation where the female “author” is arguing the pay gap isn’t just as easy as women are paid less, and he can’t come to terms with how it fits in his rigid belief system. Even if he thinks those things with the best of intentions and a view toward equality. And it isn’t just left-wing comedians either (although the majority of stand ups are by nature of the craft). Right-wing Geoff Norcott also provides an excellent commentary from another perspective, into how the left has become ironically intolerant. Displayed, for example, in the opening to his stand-up show Traditionalism, where he greets the lefties in the audience, stating “thank you for coming to my show, and showing the open-mindedness that your wing of politics used to be famed for”. Such is the degree of the poignancy in the messages woven into his comedy, they have seen him on “left-wing” comedy shows like The Daily Mash and Mock The Week.

Polarised popularity is dangerous

You may be thinking, ‘ok, so a small proportion of the left have more extreme views, it can’t be that harmful’ – but it is. In the world of social media where click bait and “fake news” is becoming ever more prevalent, this view becomes associated with the entire left. In turn, the news broadcast outlets that are fighting the digital space for audience, then represent the more extreme views rather than the majority because it gets better ratings. It is more “entertaining”. Obviously this is no means exclusive to the left side either, it happens for right too, resulting in a portrayal of ever diverging, and not widely collective, opinions. While at the start this may not be the real-world actuality, as we are fed this perception it then evolves to fulfil its own prophecy – people become more divided and distance themselves from opposing views more readily, deeming them too different from their own.

Such is the strength of this societal dissection, we have seen bizarre incidents like Jeremy Corbyn (for this purpose it doesn’t matter if you love or hate him) getting laughed at by an entire Question Time audience during the Prime Ministerial Election Run, for suggesting he’d like to move to a 4-day working week. Take a moment to think about that. He isn’t suggesting more divisive ideas like higher taxes or legalising weed. If you were speaking to your pal down the pub and they suggested a 3-day weekend, or how they’d like to work less, the vast majority would be on their side. Not just on their side, enthusiastically behind the idea.

However, this “crack-pot” lefty socialist proposes the idea and he is mocked by both sides. Ignoring the fact that there are plenty of reliable and convincing examples of countries that are more productive when working less (and additionally how Jeremy floundered and failed to give any concrete counter argument), it isn’t hard to understand why a more economically driven right-wing person may have an instant derisive reaction, but why the left?

Forge a future of acceptance through love and empathy

For me, and I will point out at this point that naturally a lot of this post is speculative subjective opinion, I see the Woke Left having a damaging effect here. On the specific subject, they themselves are more likely to be younger and therefore concerned over finances and career in comparison to more traditional old school left. In some ways rightly so when you consider things like house prices, degrees not guaranteed jobs the way they used to and so on (a discussion for another time). I can see why they could potentially have a conflict of interest here.

The harmful effect here is how the Woke Left’s effect on the public perception of the left itself, has meant the very people who support that political standpoint have come to believe Corbyn to be “out there”. Whether you think he is good or bad as a leader or orator, his policy isn’t amazingly left wing. More so that the central position Blair took Labour without a doubt, but pretty much in line with the history books of Labour as a whole. And by no means as extreme as the BNP is to the right – but somehow painted in that fashion to the opposition and supporters alike.

I appreciate there are so many more factors at play to a lot of what I’ve written, but without writing a thesis (and having the hard knowledge to do so) I wanted to pick up on this idea in a hope we can use it to unite. Most significantly to unite the left first, because if they are fractured, they stand no chance against the opposition (as seen when Labour couldn’t oust one of the weakest Tory leaders during an ongoing farcical handling of Brexit).

Secondly, WE NEED TO WAKE UP. If we can start to really listen to each other and not be sat on the slogan defensive, we can appreciate everyone’s point of view, even if it’s conflicting. We can get to the root of the cause, not the perception of the problem. We can create a society by embracing both left and right ideals that is inclusive, equal, economically sound, progressive, entrepreneurial, supportive and understanding.

We need each other – no matter how much we disagree – to grow.