The battle is not between Liberals and Conservatives — it’s human insecurity

The problem is not liberals or conservatives. The problem, as always, is human insecurity.

Most people do not know what liberalism or conservatism formally mean. The ones who do, make it so complicated that it does not make practical sense any more(“I am a liberal leaning towards 14 inches left of center”). In my opinion, what it boils down to is two basic values: Freedom and Greatness.

Liberals value freedom. Conservatives value greatness.

Freedom and greatness in themselves are perfectly nice values. If I ask you “Should I teach my child about freedom or about greatness?” — then an immediate and secure answer would be “It always depends. Sometimes freedom is more important. At other times, structure and discipline is important to achieve greatness”

If we ask the same question about the nation, the answer should still be the same? But as insecure humans, we need to depend and identify with an ideology. So no matter what the question, the answer stays the same. And that is where the problem begins.

No matter what the question, the answer stays the same. And that is where the problem begins.

Liberals want to say “India<insert any nation> is the land of freedom” even if it means going slow on progress, for progress without freedom is meaningless to them.

Conservatives want to say “India is great” even if it means sacrificing a little freedom. For what will you do with all the freedom if it cannot be used to become greater as a nation?

Secure mindsets understand the need for balance. That the success of liberalism and conservatism does not depend on blindly surrendering to one of them, but on knowing when to choose what keeping the consequences in mind.

But insecure mindsets are more focused on perception rather than reality. They ask “Does it make my ideology look better?” rather than “Will this ideology work better in this situation?” Not applying their ideology implies inferiority. And inferiority is unacceptable — regardless of the consequences.

Insecure minds ask “Does it make my ideology look better?” rather than “Will this ideology work better in this situation?”

An insecure conservative’s greatest fear is being accused of “You were not right after all”. So insecure conservatives will do anything to prove they are right: crush dissent(call it “curbing negativity”), deny negative consequences, distort reporting, coerce and scare people into submission, discredit people who have opposing viewpoints. Everything is justified since “It is all for the greater good. Greatness demands some sacrifices”

In their fear, they fail to realize how they have imposed suffering on people — which is surely not a hallmark of greatness.

In personal lives, they will often be accused many times of being too stubborn, never admitting they are wrong, not being able to empathize and respect others feelings. They will often be the ones who torture their own kids for the ‘family honour’ and stay stuck in the ‘glory of their past’ even if the present is shameful, never leaving any chance to ‘feel pride by association’ (“Yeah, that lady who won that award is from my community”).

These accusations are all brushed aside because people who don’t understand them are “impractical idiots who do not understand how the real world works.”

Now a liberal understands that there is no absolute right and wrong. He has been exposed to too many perspectives in his life — all of them right in their own way. An insecure liberal’s greatest fear is being accused of “You did not respect my freedom to express my perspective”. So insecure liberals want freedom at all costs — even if it means giving people the license to behave irresponsibly. Even if freedom deteriorates to chaos. Or indecisiveness: where everybody expresses their opinions but is unable to commit to any one of the — because committing to one opinion implies it is superior to others.

They fail to grasp that expression, debate and discussion are important. But by themselves they are insufficient in achieving anything meaningful — unless accompanied by committed action. And a commitment to one perspective by definition means disregarding all other perspectives.

The insecure liberal is now caught in his own trap of “What do I do without disrespecting other perspectives? And not seeming like a dictator?” and is rendered paralyzed.

In personal lives, they will often be told they are indecisive, get into analysis paralysis, can identify all problems but cannot come up with a solution(since solution implies making a choice), being too ‘bookish’ to succeed in the real world. The intelligent ones will be blamed for “Nobody can win an argument against you. But that doesn’t mean you are right!”

They might often fail to provide structure and boundaries to their kids and teams. They themselves might have boundary issues(Saying “Yes” even if they want to say “No”. Then being hurt and saying “No” to everything)

But if pointed out, they too have their defence mechanisms in the form of verbose arguments which make them look right in their own mind — without taking them anywhere.

But reality demands that we be ready to accept the inherent contradiction in between the two values.

Greatness demands focused action. Focus demands alignment. Alignment implies committing to a particular direction — whether we like it or not. And that means sacrificing some freedom. Done willingly — it becomes ‘cooperation’. Done unwillingly it becomes ‘autocracy’ Insecure liberals will always see it as an autocracy.

In the same way, freedom demands giving people the right to choose their own paths within legal (not ideological, religious) boundaries and making room for the multiple possibilities it can lead to. This demands losing control instead of choosing and focussing on one right way.

And this is anathema to the insecure conservative. For if he knows the ‘right’ way already — doing anything else is a waste of energy towards the noble cause. An impediment to greatness.

And this is the insecure human’s dilemma. One keeps walking on his path no matter how many people he crushes on his path, while the other is afraid to move lest he scratch somebody in his path.

One keeps walking on his path no matter how many people he crushes on his path, while the other is afraid to move lest he scratch somebody in his path.

Both end up prioritizing their ideologies over the very people the ideologies are meant to serve. And unable to accept the inherent and often painful subjectivity of these choices.

The solution lies in firstly recognizing the fact of human insecurity, and that each and every one of us can succumb to it.

Secondly, in understanding that there is no one right way — but only actions and consequences.

If there was ever a right way, it would be to admit, accept and take responsibility for all possible consequences. The moment we choose to be selective — we give rise to the possibility of cowardly indecisiveness or monstrous autocracy. And all the while, it will seem like “we are doing it in the best interests of the nation”. The road to hell is paved with great intentions.

A good way of noticing these blind spots is to be open to the opposite party’s viewpoints without needing to be afraid of them. Or feeling pressured to agree to them.

Note that anger is also a form of fear — which we experience when our viewpoint is threatened.

If we can be open to all viewpoints without feeling threatened or pressured to agree — this will automatically lead to being inclusive towards each other, regardless of what our viewpoints are.

Hence this openness to viewpoints is far more important than the viewpoints themselves. This might seem like a ‘liberal only’ value but it is not. It is just a fact.

A lot of us are very far from doing this(“Everybody ELSE…except me” of course :) ) and doing it can feel extremely uncomfortable. The ones who need it the most are the ones who are the most sure about being right.

A good way is to ask ourselves the question: “What if anything will convince me that my perspective is WRONG?”. This forces us to shift gears and look at our own biases. Again very difficult. But we can always hope.

“What if anything will convince me that my perspective is WRONG?”.

A question that can jolt insecure liberals into pausing and thinking is “Yes, I understand what should not have been done. Do you have a better alternative on what should have been done?” They usually feel awkwards that their intellect suddenly fails them when it comes to action.

For insecure conservatives, such a question can be “What is the probability of you being wrong?” asked very coolly and curiously. Some soul searching becomes inevitable when the answer is always “0%”

The greatest hope however is in realizing that we are together in this drama of human insecurity. Not pitted against each other- though it surely seems like it. Fighting on the same side of the line might be our best chance to stop fighting.