The Differences Between Left and Conservatives Part II
The 2024 presidential election saw Donald Trump receive a record-breaking number of votes among Black, Latino, and Asian Americans for a Republican candidate. Around the world, many are also voting for conservative leaders in countries that have traditionally supported left-wing politicians. Increasingly, these voters no longer view the right or Conservative parties as groups that only support business interests; instead, they are recognizing that their own values-keeping society safe, financially stable, family-oriented, and supportive of religious freedom-align with conservative ideals.
The dichotomy between left and conservative is not one-size-fits-all. In a free society, most people exist along a spectrum, and election outcomes are shaped as much by current events and the issues candidates campaign on. Yet, how citizens respond to these parties or events often comes down to their affiliated tribe and/or the values they hold.
A tribe can override someone's values if the pressure to conform contradicts their individual ideals. But values can also give extraordinary citizens the backbone to stand up to the group if the tribe’s party line conflicts with their own convictions. What convictions or values have led tribes and individuals to identify as left or right, conservative or communist, liberal or fascist, and libertarian or socialist? And which principles are worth battling for-on the grounds of ideas or even on the soils of war? In a democracy, ideals are up for debate; in a totalitarian system, even conversation can be dangerous. But which ideals are truly worthy of discussion?
God and Society.
For the left, religion is viewed as a private matter that should not influence public life. This perspective became especially visible during the Covid lockdowns, when church gatherings were restricted while sports events, in-person government meetings, and large protests-whether against Donald Trump during the Black Lives Matter movement or in support of Biden’s election-were permitted. It’s also notable that movements such as LGBTQ+ advocacy and other political causes are welcomed in classrooms, yet the Bible is often treated as a forbidden text. While these movements are not religions in the traditional sense, their belief systems and sense of community can be just as dogmatic.
Conservatives, by contrast, generally advocate for a secular government but desire a religious society. For them, a society rooted in faith is a moral one, where people regulate their behavior out of reverence for God or a well-formed conscience-going beyond mere compliance with the law. They argue that this moral foundation discourages people from exploiting loopholes or committing crimes simply because they can get away with it. While some religious fundamentalists do seek to infuse government with religious doctrine, most conservatives prefer a relationship with God through church, community, family, and self.
It’s worth noting that James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” argued for a strict separation of church and state-not to protect government from religion, but to protect religion from the corrupting influence of government. As Madison wrote, “Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
Even though the United States was founded on the principle of separating church and state, its founding documents and national symbols are deeply Christian. “In God We Trust” is the national motto. The Great Seal of the United States depicts the Israelites leaving Egypt. The main inscription on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia comes from Leviticus 25:10: “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.” And as the Declaration of Independence puts it, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Historically, the Bible was the foundation for parents to teach values to their children. Science, by contrast, is a tool for understanding the world, but it does not prescribe how we ought to act within it. In recent years, even biological sciences have faced criticism if their findings conflict with prevailing social narratives within the woke movement. Science itself cannot respond to this-as it is a method for gathering data, not a source of values or a belief system.
The Worth of the Human Fetus.
For those on the political left, the human fetus is generally not considered to have intrinsic or inherent value; its life can be ended up to whatever point state law allows, and it isn’t regarded as a person. In extreme cases, such as in Communist China, abortion is permitted at any stage of pregnancy. By contrast, conservatives believe that a fetus is a human being from the instant of conception—life itself, sparked by the divine.
This leads to a striking contradiction in the law: If a pregnant woman who wants her baby is attacked, and the fetus dies as a result, the attacker can be charged with homicide. But if the mother chooses abortion, that same life is treated as disposable—unless you count its value to the abortion industry. And that industry is substantial: In the US alone, family planning and abortion clinics generated an estimated $4.3 billion in revenue in 2024. Planned Parenthood, the largest provider, reported nearly $2.1 billion in income last year, with taxpayer funding making up about $699 million—almost $2 million a day. Ultimately, the value of life seems to depend less on its heartbeat, and more on the bottom line.
American Exceptionalism.
For those on the left, American exceptionalism is seen as, at best, boastful and, at worst, toxic. In their view, every proud moment in American history is overshadowed by past sins—no matter how much the nation improves the human condition, its achievements are always eclipsed by old transgressions. On the far left, some even argue that waving the American flag is no different than waving a Nazi banner.
For conservatives, the United States is truly exceptional—a nation that fought a civil war to end slavery, revitalized democracy on the world stage, and saved Europe from both Nazi tyranny and communist expansion. They believe America’s virtues are why people across the globe dream of coming here: to escape oppression, war, or poverty and to claim the rights and opportunities that only America promises. For them, it is the unique system and freedoms found in America that allow individuals to climb the ladder of success in ways that are often impossible elsewhere.
Today, it’s common among younger Americans to express disappointment in their country, sometimes projecting that national critique as a form of self-loathing. During COVID and the BLM protests, some voices even called for the entire system to be dismantled, with groups like Antifa advocating for radical change or outright anarchy.
Greatest Threat to the World.
For leftist ideology, climate change is seen as the greatest existential threat. Since the 1960s, each decade has brought urgent warnings about environmental catastrophe: in the 1960s, predictions of oil running out; in the 1970s, fears of a coming ice age; in the 1980s, dire warnings about acid rain destroying crops; in the 1990s, the ozone hole; in the 2000s, melting ice caps; and in the 2010s, projections of coastal cities underwater due to rising sea levels. Many of these predictions were alarmist and did not materialize as forecasted, though some, like ozone recovery and acid rain reduction, were addressed through policy and technological advances. The most visible, lasting changes have often been economic: higher energy costs and, in some regions, less reliable power grids, with blackouts in places like California and parts of Europe.
For conservatives, the greatest threat to society is human evil—corruption, violence, and the erosion of moral values. While most conservatives acknowledge that climate change is real and agree on the importance of environmental stewardship—such as reducing pollution, protecting natural resources, and addressing issues like overfished oceans or deforestation—they reject policies that could devastate the economy based on existential threats. Many conservatives are open to nuclear energy as a carbon-free solution, but point out that the left often opposes it due to concerns about nuclear waste, without offering clear regulations or alternatives for managing that waste. At the same time, renewable energy sources like wind and solar also produce waste at the end of their life cycles, raising questions about how this waste will be managed differently from that of nuclear or other energy sources.
Middle East Conflict.
For the left, Israel is seen as an expansionist or even colonial state that must either pursue a two-state solution or be removed from the geographical debate altogether. Most protests in the United States not only denounce Israel but also support Palestinian statehood, sometimes even backing groups like Hamas—though not all left-leaning activists go that far. Many of these protests take place on ideological left-wing campuses, where the rhetoric often includes calls "from the river to the sea," a phrase understood by many to mean the complete removal of Israel. The climate has become so charged that Jewish students often feel unsafe or unwelcome at certain universities, especially during times of heightened tension. In some tragic instances, this hostility has escalated to violence, such as the case of Elias Rodriguez, who did not know his victims but deliberately chose them based on their Jewish and Israeli identities. Rodriguez shot and killed Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., reportedly proclaiming "Free, free Palestine" and stating he acted "for Palestine" and "for Gaza" during his arrest.
For many conservatives, there is a clear recognition that several Middle Eastern states and groups have historically sought Israel’s destruction. Since the modern establishment of Israel, the country has had to stop invasions by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, while also facing ongoing attacks from terrorist organizations funded by Iran and Qatar. Conservatives believe that if the states surrounding Israel accepted peace, the conflict would end. However, if Israel gave up its arms, it would be destroyed.
The reality for Jews is that, outside of Israel, living openly as a Jew in most Middle Eastern countries carries significant risk. For Palestinians, the unfortunate situation is that Gaza is run by Hamas—a group designated as a terrorist organization by the US and EU—which refuses a two-state solution and rejects Israel’s right to exist. From a conservative perspective, Jews have a historic and moral right to Israel and would prefer a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians, but they do not support a Palestinian state governed by Hamas or controlled by groups hostile to Israel.
Guns.
For the left, only the police, military, and, in some cases, licensed sportsmen or hunters should own guns. This means arms are primarily in the hands of the government and regulated authorities. For conservatives, the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right, enshrined in the Second Amendment, which protects the ability of citizens to defend themselves—including, if necessary, against a corrupt or tyrannical government.
There’s a catch-22 dilemma: if too many people have guns, public safety can be threatened; but if only the government and criminals have guns, citizens may be left defenseless against both tyranny and crime. It is a stark trade-off, yet it’s no coincidence that the right to bear arms is the Second Amendment, placed immediately after freedom of speech, reflecting just how foundational this right is in the American system.
History shows that states which disarm their populations and concentrate power in the hands of the government—whether fascist, communist, or totalitarian—rarely remain benevolent or free from crime. There has yet to exist a state where people can’t defend themselves and the government remains benevolent or criminals aren’t terrorizing citizens. The only real exceptions are unique cases, such as post-WWII countries in Europe and Southeast Asia where U.S. military bases are present. Nations that enjoy peace without a citizenry capable of defending themselves are rare, and such peace generally lasts only until a tyrannical faction comes to power.
From the conservative perspective, allowing citizens to bear arms carries risks, but the risk of disarmament—leaving people defenseless against unchecked government power or criminal predation—is seen as a far greater danger.
Race.
For the left, race is viewed as a central and significant factor in people’s lives and identities. They argue that race shapes experiences, opportunities, and the ways individuals are treated by society. Leftist ideology often emphasizes that race is a key component of one’s identity. In contrast, conservatives consider race to be largely insignificant. They believe that it does not determine personality, intelligence, or opinion; instead, conservatives prioritize character and individual choices. Colorblind liberals generally share this perspective, advocating for transcending race as a primary lens for judging people.
It often surprises those on the left when minority groups like Black and Latino voters support Republican candidates. Many on the left assume, based on identity politics, that these groups will vote Democratic because of their racial identity. What is often overlooked is that many Latinos come to the United States from countries where left-wing or socialist governments have led to corruption or economic hardship. As a result, many Latinos seek a conservative society in the U.S.—one that values fiscal responsibility and offers opportunities based on character and skill, not race.
Racial, Ethnic, Gender and Diversity Universities.
The left views race, ethnicity, gender, and diversity as essential components of a university environment, aiming to ensure representation and inclusion of historically marginalized groups. They believe this focus leads to a richer educational experience and greater social equity. In contrast, conservatives argue that intellectual and ideological diversity are more important. They believe universities should prioritize a wide range of viewpoints, merit, critical thinking, and open debate over DEI quotas.
The left often emphasizes non-ideological diversity at universities, but this can lead to controversy when speakers or professors with differing views face protests. Even tenured professors have had their classes disrupted by students, sometimes with encouragement from far-left administrators, for expressing opinions seen as a threat to campus orthodoxy. A notable example is Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College. In 2017, the college’s annual Day of Absence shifted from inviting non-white staff and students to voluntarily stay off campus, to “asking” white people to stay away for the day. Weinstein objected to this change in a campus email, arguing there is a crucial difference between allowing people to step away because of their race and telling people they must stay away. His objection led to widespread student protests and confrontations, including students entering his class and demanding his resignation.
Conservatives argue that to be competitive in the workforce, students should be judged on their ideas, ethics, and abilities—not their race or gender. They believe universities best prepare students for real-world challenges by fostering independent thought, open debate, and engagement with enduring wisdom, rather than focusing primarily on identity politics.
The Primary Problems Facing Black Americans.
For the left, the main problems facing Black Americans today are white and systemic racism. Leftist ideology holds that both individual and institutional racism remain the main barriers to Black advancement in America. They believe racism shapes outcomes in education, employment, criminal justice, and wealth.
For conservatives, the primary problem is the breakdown of the Black family. Writers like Thomas Sowell point out that before the 1960s Civil Rights Act, Black communities had higher rates of marriage and two-parent households. They were also making steady economic progress. After the civil rights movement and the expansion of welfare programs, the rate of children born to unmarried mothers rose dramatically. In recent decades, this rate has reached over 70%. Conservatives argue that this shift led to increased poverty, dependency, and social challenges within Black communities.
“What we’ve done is, we’ve incentivized women to marry the government and we’ve incentivized men to abandon their financial and moral responsibilities.” — Larry Elder
Conservatives also point to the success of Asian Americans. Despite facing discrimination, Asian Americans have become economically successful and excel in education. Conservatives see this as evidence that racism alone cannot explain disparities. They also note that African immigrants to the U.S. often outperform native-born Black Americans in education and income. This, they argue, suggests that culture and family structure play a significant role.
Conservatives acknowledge that racism exists in America. However, they argue it is not the primary problem facing Black Americans today. Instead, they stress the importance of family stability, personal responsibility, and cultural factors in achieving success.
The Purpose of Art.
For the left, the purpose of art is often to challenge the status quo, push boundaries, and provoke thought by breaking new frontiers or simply being different for its own sake. Artworks such as the banana taped to a wall or installations made from everyday trash have become prominent symbols of postmodern art—pieces that much of the public finds confusing or inaccessible. However, these works are frequently accompanied by political statements or ideas intended to disrupt modern conventions and spark dialogue about societal norms. Postmodern art, often reflective of left-wing ideology, has even included the sale of art that does not physically exist, such as the case of "Io Sono" by Italian artist Salvatore Garau—an immaterial sculpture that sold for $18,300.
For conservatives, the purpose of art is to elevate, inspire, and strive for beauty or transcendence. They reject the idea that novelty alone makes something art. Instead conservatives value works rooted in tradition—such as religious Renaissance pieces or masterpieces created to endure and speak to universal human experiences.
The Greatest English Playwright.
For the left, there is no single “greatest” English playwright. Greatness is seen as subjective and open to interpretation. In academic and literary circles influenced by leftist ideas, the criteria for recognition is often based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. As a result, literature departments in places like the University of Pennsylvania have replaced images of Shakespeare with those of LGBTQ+ writers or racial minorities. The goal is to broaden the canon and highlight diverse voices and marginalized groups.
For conservatives in the English speaking world, artistic greatness is measured by the quality and lasting impact of the work itself. They often regard William Shakespeare as the greatest playwright because of his poetic mastery, influential plays, and his profound impact on the English language and the arts. For conservatives, Shakespeare’s legacy stands as a pinnacle of human achievement, regardless of his personal background. This perspective values artistic merit, historical influence, and universal themes over the identity of the artist.
Cultures.
For the left, all cultures are viewed as fundamentally equal. Claiming that one culture is superior to another is often seen as promoting racism, and when Europe is referenced, it can be labeled as white supremacy. This perspective emphasizes cultural relativism, arguing that each culture should be understood and respected on its own terms.
For conservatives, not all civilizations are considered equal, especially when measured by standards such as human rights, free elections, and the dignity of women. They argue that it is reasonable to evaluate societies based on their achievements in these areas and to recognize that some cultures have made greater progress toward individual freedom and prosperity.
All cultures have unique qualities shaped by geography, agriculture, and tradition, but migration patterns show that people tend to move voluntarily toward societies offering greater rights and opportunities. This indicates that some cultures hold a kind of monopoly on attracting newcomers, largely because of the freedoms and chances for advancement they provide. While every culture has norms that may seem unusual to outsiders, the pursuit of happiness—especially the desire to improve one’s life and rise out of poverty—often motivates people to seek out cultures where these values are prioritized.
America’s Founders.
For the left, America’s founders are judged primarily as white, wealthy slaveowners, and any advancements they contributed to the American experiment are viewed through the lens of their involvement in slavery. Some on the left argue that these contradictions should nullify the founders’ achievements.
For conservatives, the founders are seen as some of the greatest figures in history—visionaries who launched the greatest experiment in human liberty. They acknowledge the contradictions, especially regarding slavery, but emphasize the founders’ achievements in establishing a nation based on principles of liberty and self-government.
Among the most prominent founders, George Washington, the first President and Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, owned many slaves but expressed growing discomfort with the institution later in life. In his will, he arranged for his slaves to be freed after his wife’s death—a rare act among Southern slaveowners. Thomas Jefferson, the third President and principal author of the Declaration of Independence, owned hundreds of slaves, yet famously wrote that “all men are created equal” and condemned slavery as an “assemblage of horrors” in his original draft of the Declaration, a passage that was ultimately removed. Benjamin Franklin who was a celebrated diplomat, scientist, and President of Pennsylvania, owned slaves earlier in life but became an abolitionist, helping to found the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and advocating for gradual, legal abolition.
It should be noted that not all founders were slaveholders. John Adams, the second President and a leading revolutionary, never owned slaves and opposed slavery throughout his life. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury and co-author of The Federalist Papers, did not own slaves and was an outspoken critic of the institution. Alongside John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Governor of New York, Hamilton co-founded the New York Manumission Society, which fought to end the slave trade and protect the rights of free Blacks. Samuel Adams, Governor of Massachusetts and a key revolutionary leader, also did not own slaves and was a vocal critic of slavery. Thomas Paine, the influential writer and author of “Common Sense,” was a passionate advocate for liberty and human rights and did not own slaves.
It’s crucial to remember that slavery was not unique to America—slavery existed as far back as ancient Egypt and was a global institution for thousands of years. Even many founders who opposed slavery believed it could not be immediately abolished without risking the fragile new union.
This historical lens can help us reflect on our own era. Today, we benefit from technological advancements—like smartphones—that are often produced under ethically troubling conditions. The minerals used in our devices are sometimes mined in war-torn regions of Africa, where people are forced to work in dangerous conditions under armed supervision. In China, factory workers assembling smartphones have faced such grueling conditions that some have resorted to suicide. Just as the founders grappled with the moral contradictions of their time, we too face ethical dilemmas that are difficult to resolve but important to confront.
The Purpose of Judges.
When referring to the left—not liberals—the purpose of judges is often framed as pursuing social justice through the lens of group identity and historical oppression. In this view, if two people are in court and one is poor while the other is rich, or one belongs to a majority group and the other to a marginalized group, the left may argue that the disadvantaged party deserves special consideration to address systemic injustices. This perspective tends to prioritize group identity over individual circumstances, suggesting that outcomes should help correct broader social imbalances. It’s important to note that not everyone on the left advocates ignoring the facts of a case entirely. Rather, there is an emphasis on the context of power and privilege. However, history has shown that when this ideology becomes the standard, social justice rather than judicial impartiality can dominate the administration of justice.
A radical application of this ideology was seen in communist revolutions, particularly in the Soviet Union. There, the legal system was not designed to be impartial. Instead, it served the goals of the Communist Party and enforced a strict class-based ideology. Soviet legal philosophy openly declared that the law was a tool for the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Justice meant favoring those considered part of the working class while punishing or excluding so-called "class enemies." For example, during collectivization, "kulaks"—often middle-class farmers—were targeted for dispossession, exile, or execution, not because of specific crimes but because of their class status. In periods of upheaval, some criminals were also released from prisons, not as a matter of justice, but as a political tactic to disrupt the old social order.
In contrast, conservatives typically see the purpose of judges as the impartial pursuit of justice. In this philosophy, the facts of the case and the law should determine the outcome, regardless of whether one party is rich or poor, or from a majority or marginalized group. Justice, in this view, means that the decision goes to the party who is correct under the law, not based on their social or economic status.
To clarify the differences between the left and liberals and to avoid confusion regarding their views on justice: liberals tend to support individual rights, due process, and incremental reform within the existing legal framework. While they may advocate for social safety nets and civil rights, their approach generally emphasizes equality before the law and the protection of individual liberties, rather than prioritizing group identity or systemic overhaul.
National Borders.
For the left, national borders are seen as relics of the past. Many believe in globalization or even a future where people live under a world government. Institutions like the United Nations and the European Union are examples of this push to remove borders and create systems where unelected officials can have authority over entire continents or even the globe. In recent years, African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries have faced pressure to change their policies from these outside governing bodies, which has sometimes pushed them to seek new alliances—often with nations like China—rather than be dictated to by the UN or by American policies influenced by far-left ideologies.
For conservatives, national borders are indispensable for the survival of a nation. Just as Americans have the right to protect their homes from uninvited guests, a country has the right to control who enters. Conservatives point to Europe and Canada, where unfiltered acceptance of immigration has, in their view, led some areas to reflect more of the culture people came from than the culture of the host nation. In some cities and towns in the UK, there have been reported cases of rape, domestic abuse, and restrictions on religious freedoms within certain immigrant communities originating from countries with limited rights for women or minorities—issues that often go unreported or are overlooked by law enforcement and the media.
The debate between global governance and national sovereignty is ongoing. Proponents of global governance argue that international cooperation is necessary to solve big problems like climate change, financial crises, and human rights abuses. However, critics warn that surrendering too much control to international bodies can undermine democracy and erode the ability of nations to make decisions that reflect the will of their own people. For conservatives, the right to self-determination and the preservation of national identity remain non-negotiable.
Illegal Immigration.
For the left, the preferred term is “undocumented migrants” rather than “illegal immigrants,” reflecting a belief that the issue lies in documentation status rather than legality. Many on the left advocate for policies that reduce or eliminate distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, supporting expanded rights and access for immigrants regardless of their legal status. For example, some left-leaning activists and policymakers have supported measures such as providing government-funded hotel stays and access to free health care for undocumented migrants. Liberals, however, tend to support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, rather than unconditional or immediate equal status with citizens.
Conservatives, generally view immigration as positive when it is conducted legally. They emphasize the importance of border security and the rule of law, supporting legal immigration pathways while opposing illegal entry. Historically, America’s growth and culture have been shaped by immigrants who sought to adopt the American Dream, often integrating American values while also contributing elements of their own cultures. Conservatives tend to highlight that these contributions came through legal channels and stress the importance of maintaining that distinction.
The left typically seeks to expand rights and access for undocumented immigrants and prefers non-criminalizing language, while conservatives support legal immigration and stress the importance of upholding immigration laws. Both sides recognize the historical role of immigrants in shaping America, but differ sharply on the terms and conditions of immigration policy.
Hate.
For the left, the ideal of a utopian society often hinges on the elimination of hate. The belief is that in order to create an inclusive and harmonious world, hate must be eradicated from social and political life. For conservatives, on the other hand, hate is seen as a powerful emotion that, while dangerous if misdirected, can serve a purpose when channeled appropriately—such as toward evil acts like rape, murder, and torture. While hate is often considered a cardinal sin, conservatives may argue that if human nature inevitably wrestles with hate, it is better to direct it against genuine wrongdoing rather than allow it to fester or be misapplied.
Carl Jung, the renowned psychoanalyst, offered a nuanced perspective on emotions like hate and anger. Jung believed that anger, like all psychological phenomena, serves a purpose and should not be ignored or repressed. He warned that suppressing anger can lead to it being "turned inward," manifesting as depression, physical illness, or displaced rage that erupts inappropriately.
Jung emphasized the importance of recognizing and understanding our anger, advocating for self-reflection rather than projecting it onto others. He encouraged transforming anger into effective action—using its energy constructively and proportionally, rather than letting it fester or explode destructively. In Jungian thought, integrating anger and the shadow aspects of the psyche it often represents is essential for psychological health.
Jung did not support suppressing anger. Instead, he encouraged conscious acknowledgment and an appropriate constructive expression of anger. It must be put in its proper place within the psyche and one’s actions.
The Death Penalty.
For the left, no one should be put to death regardless of the crime or motivation; opposition to the death penalty is rooted in ethical and humanitarian principles. Although the left generally opposes capital punishment, the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione was celebrated by some on the left. Mangione, driven by anger toward the health insurance industry, was seen by some as a hero fighting against a system widely perceived as greedy and unjust—especially in a country where millions lack access to basic healthcare.
Conservatives, by contrast, view the death penalty as a just and necessary punishment for crimes of extreme severity—such as mass murder, the killing of children, and other horrific atrocities. However, many cherish Christian values, including the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” which at first glance appears to conflict with support for the death penalty. But, Hebrew scholars clarify that the original commandment is more accurately translated as “thou shalt not murder,” a distinction some conservatives use to justify capital punishment for certain crimes. Though the left generally opposes this stance—calling it hypocritical—and argues that no crime justifies state-sanctioned killing, it too faces tension when far-left rhetoric leans toward glorifying revolutionary violence as a means to achieve social change.
This complex interplay of religious, ethical, and political principles underscores the ongoing struggle to define justice in a divided society.
World Citizen.
For the left, a person’s primary identity is often seen as that of a world citizen. Ironically, left-wing movements like the French Revolution were instrumental in shifting people’s allegiance from their monarch to their nation, helping to establish the idea of national identity. In contrast, many on the modern left now advocate for removing borders, supporting mass migration, and even promoting concepts like a world passport, allowing people to move freely across nations without adhering to individual countries’ visa laws. This push for global citizenship can sometimes challenge traditional national loyalties. For example, it has become increasingly acceptable in some circles to criticize or even disrespect national symbols like the American flag. Some media discussions, including those on networks like ABC, have debated whether historical symbols such as Betsy Ross’s flag are racist or represent white supremacy. Such trends can lead people to identify less with their country of birth or the country that gave them a home, and more with broader movements that seek identity beyond national borders. Marxism, for instance, called for a worldwide workers’ movement, echoing the idea of a citizenry united by global rather than local or national identity.
For conservatives, identity is primarily national, religious, or both. The idea of being a “world citizen” carries little weight for them. Conservatives believe that people naturally connect first to their family, then to their community, their country, and only then to the world at large. They view the concept of global citizenship as a potential threat to national sovereignty, fearing it could lead to excessive power for a centralized world government.
The International Ideal.
On the political left, there is often support for international authorities that impose global standards or regulations. Institutions such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the European Union (EU) can pressure national governments to comply with their decisions—sometimes regardless of citizens’ wishes. This dynamic has been evident in recent years, as seen in Brexit, where the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU over sovereignty concerns. Similarly, countries like Poland have criticized EU policies for undermining local autonomy and threatening Europe’s cohesion. Prominent figures such as J.D. Vance have accused European leaders of stifling free speech and mismanaging immigration, which they attribute to EU leadership.
Javier Milei has also criticized continental and global bodies, framing them as part of a collectivist agenda that undermines liberty and private property. He has singled out the WEF for advancing what he calls “wokeism,” feminism, and other progressive policies, which he argues justify expanding state power.
These policies and agendas have prompted major powers such as the United States to withdraw from certain international agreements or organizations, and have led countries like China to sometimes express support for these initiatives without fully implementing them.
For conservatives, skepticism of centralized power is foundational. They believe that concentrating power—whether in the UN, the federal government, or any large institution—increases the risk of misuse or overreach. In the United States, significant authority is reserved for states rather than the federal government. The Founding Fathers intentionally divided power among local, state, and federal levels to prevent any single entity from becoming too powerful. For conservatives, liberty is the guiding principle, and preserving local control and individual freedoms is paramount.
Closing.
For clarity, when I refer to ‘the left,’ ‘the right,’ ‘liberals,’ or ‘conservatives,’ I am discussing the general principles and dominant perspectives of these ideologies—not the full range of beliefs held by every individual. People’s views are often complex and don’t always fit neatly into one category, but these ideological frameworks shape much of the public debate and policy positions in the US and elsewhere.