When Rules of Thumb Misfire

In general, acts of oppression are done by the majority against the minority. In general, tolerance (if not respect) for other religions is a good idea. In general, the rich exploit the poor. In general, rule by the majority creates the risk of marginalizing the minority.

The key point, however, is that these are just rules of thumb, they are not immutable laws of physics. So it makes sense to periodically check if they still hold true. Or, as with anything in the social world, check if something that started off with the best of intentions is now getting exploited by politicians and common man alike.

The left leaners must have started with many such rules of thumb which were perfectly valid when they were formulated. Unfortunately, they stopped doing the periodic checks for continuing validity, and instead started treating the rules of thumb as if they were written in stone.

At least that’s what I believe has happened. How else can one explain the stance of the left leaners today? There is enough real world data across the ages that violates each of those generalizations:

1)      Yes, the minority can oppress: In Iraq, the Shias are the majority. Yet Iraq has been ruled by the minority Sunnis all the way until Saddam fell. Did they not persecute the majority Shias? Did not the minority Muslims during Aurangzeb’s rule oppress the majority Hindus?

2)     Yes, religions can be evil: Take the caste system in Hinduism. Or Islamic terrorism. Or the witch hunts of Christianity. So why should respect for others’ religion be unconditional?

3)     Yes, the poor can exploit: Do labour unions not refuse to allow even the most incompetent, even absent, worker to be fired? Do poor people not exploit even poorer people?

Since the rules of thumb sound like good principles (they are in general, but not always), the left has convinced itself that its stance is morally right and superior. And like religion, once the left truly believes in what it believes, it is hard for them to objectively debate any aspect of their beliefs.

On the Internet, the term “echo chamber” is well known. You’d think that the left, which considers itself intellectual, would have known that they have their echo chamber in traditional media since they own most of the news media across the democratic world. But they don’t: the left sincerely believes that the news media is only mildly biased, if at all. But if that were true, why would the right be so very vocal on social media, a format where anyone can speak, whereas the left is almost invisible on it? Why does the right not trust traditional media whereas the left does?

If only the left would ask itself a few hard questions, stopped hiding behind the “Our beliefs and values are superior” mask, and stopped dismissing anyone who doesn’t agree with them as a fanatic, we might truly start moving to the center. Otherwise, we are going to continue to see the (over)reaction of the right for more time to come.

We in India might have dodged the “right wing” bullet because Modi has done very few things since 2014 that are what one associates with the right. Instead, he works for growth, jobs and prosperity; and he aims to reduce corruption by demonetization, encouraging digital transactions, and electronic credits of subsidies.

If the left doesn’t overcome their rigid stances based on rules of thumb that have been misfiring for a long time now, the next right wing leader might not be like Modi; he may turn out to be a truly right wing guy. And that is not a very attractive proposition.

We have a chance here as a nation to move more to the center, even if it is slightly right of center, if only the left would revisit the validity of their rules of thumb…