Seduced by Simplicity: The Dangers of Either/Or
Written by Hash Rifai
In the theatre of modern politics, we are always offered the same production: two main parties, two sets of costumes and two well-rehearsed scripts. The liberals and conservatives acting as though their ideologies were carved in marble somewhere near Sinai. In truth, they are chalk marks on a pavement, easily rubbed out, easily redrawn, and mostly meaningless outside their ideological clubhouses.
Binary thinking, the sport of sorting all human thought into two piles, has the attractive charm of simplicity. It saves one the trouble of thinking for oneself. If your side is “for” something, you too are for it. If they are against, you are against. And if you dare question the tribe on whether a given policy might actually work, you are quickly reminded that effectiveness is irrelevant; loyalty is the coin of the realm.
History has a way of exposing the ridiculousness of these labels. What passes for liberal daring in one century becomes common sense in the next. The vote for women was once the lunatic cry of suffragettes chaining themselves to railings. Now even the most thunderous conservative would admit that it would be ridiculous to return to the good old days of male only ballots.
And, of course, the “left” in one country may be the “right” in another. In America, the idea of national healthcare is denounced as socialism’s camel nosing under the tent. In Britain, the National Health Service is so firmly embedded in the national identity that even the most unyielding Tory feels obliged to praise it before setting about underfunding it. Context is everything.
The reality, and what the binary-minded cannot understand, is that most of us are ideological mongrels. One may cheerfully embrace free markets while also advocating for environmental protections; or favour traditional family structures while demanding an end to the senseless wars in the Middle East. This is not hypocrisy. It is called being a thinking person, capable of examining issues individually rather than devouring the full party line like a cheap Chinese buffet.
Sadly binary politics punishes nuance. You are expected to wear the uniform, speak the slogans, and keep your apprehensions private. From this, arises bad faith, where the point is not to solve problems but to win the next round of applause from one’s own side.
Perhaps the better question is not whether a policy is liberal or conservative but whether it is good. Good in the sense of working, of solving something, of enlarging human dignity rather than shrinking it. Truth and justice are not properties of one camp or the other; they are universal or they are nothing.