Sale At The Moral High Ground

For some reason, a lot of inner-city Lefty types work in creative professional services like advertising, marketing, and graphic design.

With all that considered, why do they suck so bad at trying to convince the right to jump ship on to their rickety communist junk?

Here’s former ABC journalist Quentin Dempster on X:

“Pauline for PM: forced divestment of houses for temporary visa holders; round-up/deport over-stayers; reject Muslim migrants on ‘national security’ grounds; uncontrol guns; revoke neg-gear CGT reforms; paywalls for ABC/SBS; more x frack/drill/open cut coal; no EVs/renewables “

As the Spider-Man meme goes – I already bought it Quentin, you don’t have to sell it to me.

I don’t think One Nation is more libertarian than the actual Libertarians, but when it comes to economics, they’re still serving up more common sense than the Coalition at the moment.

Another smug professional leftist, Cheek Media’s Hannah Ferguson, delivers another inadvertent advertisement for One Nation in a video “Have a family member who wants to vote One Nation? Send them this!” as if mere exposure will sink into them like a hypodermic needle delivering cleansing political correctness straight to their bigoted veins.

Holding her lavaliere mic for some reason (You can clip them to your clothes, doncherknow!), she says,

“She’s voted against procedural fairness, against workplace protections, against increasing housing affordability. She’s also voted against making TAFE free, against criminalising revenge porn, against increasing access to subsidised childcare, against increasing political transparency, and against increasing media diversity. So, what is she for? Well, reducing tax for high income earners. She is for that.”

The HORROR!

We already know that Hannah and Cheek have a tenuous grasp on the truth much like lions are herbivores because they eat them – so why would any dyed-in-the-wool conservative believe her? And why are we still pretending that university educated professionals are on the side of workers?

Also, how dare common-sense family values Hanson vote against criminalising revenge porn? That’s because she actually voted for it – before voting against it. That’s because an amendment from the SA Centre Alliance watered the bill down from outright criminalising revenge porn to instead hand the eKaren more powers and create a prohibition as a civil matter, not a criminal one. Yeah, I would’ve voted against that BS too (as did the Editor of this very publication.)

Why leftists just regurgitate the policies of their opposition as proof they shouldn’t vote for them could be explained, at least in part, by their moral outlook. The Moral Foundation Theory, put forward by social psychologist, freedom in academics activist, and outspoken proponent of the Under 16s social media ban Jonathan Haidt and others, ‘we can say that the moral domain in WEIRD cultures (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) is fairly narrow, comparatively speaking.’ You aren’t going to get many people agreeing to bring back trial by combat, or something equally ridiculous.

The research aimed at mapping moral foundations over five dimensions: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity (also dubbed ‘Purity’ in some literature). In the original paper, they wrote “the typical liberal scores were higher than the typical conservative scores on Care and Fairness, and the typical conservative scores were higher than the typical liberal scores on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.”

If people just cared more, the world would be fair, according to a typical liberal (in the American parlance.) What is “fair?” As fellow Liberty Itch scratcher Warren Wang says, “fair” is a moral distinction that’s often (and deliberately) conflated with mathematical concepts of “equality” or legal tenets of “justice.”

Of course, broad political care and justice inevitably flow from the barrel of a gun – not so caring or fair when you take the property or livelihood of someone who built it using the sweat of their brow, is it sweetie?

Haidt et. al. also examines how others infer other’s traits – on the care dimension, if a politician or public figure says they care, well, they can identify with that cause. Like they’re signalling… a virtue?

Although social science isn’t exact, leading with care and fairness is so innate and obvious to a leftist they tend to believe it should be apparent to everyone. Psychologist Paul Bloom described this in his 2016 book Against Empathy: A case for rational compassion.

“Empathy is the act of coming to experience the world as you think someone else does,” he wrote. Empathy can blind morality. Remember: empathy is bottomless, and empathy can also lead to violence, anger, and acts of evil. All care and no responsibility leads to shitty socialist government. When things go to pot, it leads to people looking for an escape route.

When it comes to interpersonal perception, it would seem that the typical leftist believes everyone has the same capacity for empathy and sense of fairness. Which, as humans, we absolutely do. However, their failure to realise that having the capacity does not correspond to exercising it as a rule.

Here’s a tip for both sides of politics: if you want to convince the other side of your efficacy, you need to meet them on their literal moral high ground. If you care about the rights and freedoms of your fellow man, understanding what Lenin said about “sweeping away the bourgeoisie” will either chill you to the core or inspire your lust for bloody revolution.

If you aren’t a sociopath, I’d hope it would tend towards the former.

Or you can make the same mistakes over and over. The Right will thank you for the free advertising – and right-wingers don’t even believe anything comes for free!