The herd and the pack

Although today's political left and right are equally hostile to freedom, they're bitter enemies of one another. In part, this is a matter of two gangs fighting over the same territory, but there are differences in thinking which make each group genuinely believe in its own worthiness and the other's depravity. To understand this, it's helpful to look at two cultural archetypes of collectivist organization: the herd and the pack.

Herd animals travel together in relative peace, instinctively migrating to the grounds that will satisfy their needs. They have no powerful leaders; the top animals may have prestige, but not much decision-making power. It survives enemies by avoiding them, or when necessary by standing up to them with sheer numbers. Packs, on the other hand, are predatory groups. They have strong leaders who prove their worth in battle. They defeat enemies through superior strength, or they fail when they are too weak.

This isn't necessarily zoological reality; it's the archetypes which count, since they're really a reflection on people as much as animals. They apply to many forms of social organization before the present day: the herd is found in the loyal subjects of the wise king, while the pack is the conquering empire.

Each image has its well-known negative side, which each group sees in the other. The right sees the passive, undifferentiated herd animal in the left, while the left sees the cruel predator on the right. Both are correct.

These two outlooks lead to different views of individual choice, both hostile. In a herd, individual initiative is just nonsensical. A cow doesn't strike out on its own. If it strays from the pack, it's because it's confused or sick. In a pack, individuals may challenge the pack leader, but their challenges must be settled quickly, with the challenger either losing and accepting the leader's power or being cast out, or with the challenger becoming the new leader.

To the political left, personal choice lacks reality. The claim to being "pro-choice" is an accident of the history of slogans, and those who use it seldom even think of extending it beyond the one issue to which it sticks. People need to be led, guided, directed, like sheep. We should be treated kindly, but mustn't be permitted to stray.

To the right, choice is real but dangerous. It's the source of Original Sin. Moral decisions must be constrained by commandments rather than principles. Obedience is a prime virtue.

This picture doesn't explain everything, and it's easy to point out anomalies. Various historical influences have gone into both sides; the left holds some respect for freedoms in the personal sphere and the right in the economic sphere, though both of these characteristics are waning dangerously. But these archetypes provide a good amount of insight into the thinking of the respective camps.