The difference in understanding between leftists and rightists can only be elucidated with great difficulty, and by reference to ultimate things. On the practical level, rightists see leftists implementing futile social policies bound to cause irreparable damage to social frameworks. Leftists see a good faith effort to make the world better, and are completely deaf to the vast costs involved at least until they’re directly responsible for those costs. Rightists see imperfect but adequate social arrangements which mitigate social friction as much as can be hoped for in this world of uncertainty and inefficiency. Leftists see vast systems of injustice foisted upon hapless victims by a privileged, and always white, majority. The rightist compares the present to a possible world composed of elements that have actually worked and existed in the past. The leftist compares the present to a state of heavenly perfection, where there is no suffering or difference or want. These are great differences, and it seems the only way to explain the resistance of the other side to common sense is prejudice.

What are the underlying differences of these vastly different approaches to politics? The leftist is utopian, and conceives of the purpose of politics is to bring about their image of an egalitarian world order. The rightist is practical, and conceives of the purpose of politics is to implement solutions that have shown their effectiveness in the past in the present. The leftist has a teleological conception, and compares social orders to this standard of perfection. Naturally, the leftist always finds more that must be done. The rightist has a formal conception, and compares social orders to the known past. When the rightist looks at the world, he can only bemoan the social degradation taking place and wait, for he knows that reversing entropy is a futile effort.

The leftist has no reason to know history. His principles of social order, known by a priori rationalist enquiry, inform him of everything he needs to know about the past. He has nothing to learn from the past, and if he engages it is only to admonish dead ancestors who can neither hear nor care. The rightist has every reason to know history, for history is the very source of political knowledge. He is empirical, and knows more about what works by observing those forms that have repeated themselves in the past than by a priori rationalist enquiry. A rightist defends his advocated social order by history, and also defends history from the post mortem insults of the vulgar leftist.

Clearly most people are not really leftists or rightists. In our modern times, most people have leftist ideological associations by default, because that is all they have been exposed to and is all they could learn. They defend leftism, even if they might otherwise imagine themselves to be “conservative,” not because they really believe it so much as they are unable to believe anything else. The tools and opportunity to explore, objectively and without subjective moral restraint, have been denied these. True believers of leftism may be more committed, but they are equally ignorant of other political possibilities. Not only were they never exposed to anything different, they have carefully laid traps to prevent themselves stepping out of bounds of leftist  thought.

A true believer of rightism is a formidable force. His worldview did not come by default, but was hard won. He needed to first remove himself from the prison of leftist indoctrination and then drink deep from sources that aren’t forbidden, but more forebodingly forgotten. It is not easy to be a rightist in this world. He can expect to be varyingly misunderstood and demonized. His beliefs will be caricatured in attack, and the very caricaturization will be defended since he is “only a racist.” The irony is clearly beyond the leftist, who will unremittingly repeat this justification for his lack of respectful, intellectual engagement. He will be treated like a piñata, easy to strike and gain the goodies of social status to show off to all your friends. Yet he is always underestimated, for the leftist avoids understanding. The rightist already understands the leftist, because he was born and raised in the same system of education. The leftist does not have this and doesn’t realize their disadvantage.

How to bridge this gap? I only have some practical advice. State your belief clearly and without shame. Do not apologize. If they are appalled, that is their problem, not yours. You will frequently be better beginning with your conclusion, which if from prior conversation you have established your reasonableness, will in a reasonable person put it within consideration. If argument is desired, argue dispassionately and straightforwardly; if they are unable to maintain emotional composure, it may be preferred to break off the conversation by acknowledging their excitability with tact and recommending the discussion move forward. Great conversions will not occur. Rooting out deeply held beliefs that motivate the surface political beliefs will not occur in a single conversation and not without deep, motivated enquiry which you cannot coerce anyone into. An entertaining and interesting discussion should be the goal above the persuasion of your opponent. Your inability to persuade is not due to lacking a silver tongue, but the universal fallibility of humans which your own beliefs already confirm. Take comfort in your beliefs, they affirm you.

The gap in perspective between leftist and rightist is like the difference between religions. Each are motivated by contrary principles and understanding of salvation. It is usually easier for each to think the other is simply stupid or evil, than that they are real people with real thoughts and feelings. Overcoming the difference between the two is a laborious task, and few are up for it.