A new trend is emerging in left-wing circles in the Americas- denouncing rivals as ‘cruel.’ In the US, the New York Magazine (NYMag) recently ran a cover titled ‘The Cruel Kids’ Table,’ which featured a picture of partying conservatives who apparently would have been, according to the implied message, bullies in high school. Never mind that the photo was altered to remove nonwhites and thus make it seem racist, the implication was clear: Not aligning with the left equaled being ‘cruel.’
Interestingly, the same phenomenon has also been taking place for a few years in Argentina. Various writers, political commentators, and politicians have called President Javier Milei ‘cruel’ and even a ‘villain.’ Again, the implication is that Milei embodies cruelty and is thus a danger to the Argentine society, because he has come to destroy it.
Denouncing ‘cruelty’ has become the new way in which left-wing élites showcase their moral superiority. But why? What exactly is cruel about a party? Why would a politician with whom one disagrees be a villain? Astonishingly, left-wing Argentine magazine Anfibia recently announced that its funding was close to running out due to the end of USAID cooperation. ‘We are a shelter against cruelty,’ they said. So, how could Trump dare cut their funding?
The problem with moral superiority on the part of the left is that the track record of cruelty denouncers is usually terrible. This is a direct consequence of the policies that the left supports, which include higher public spending, higher taxes, and higher regulation: All of these reduce growth, drive out investors, and cause inflation. In some cases, these are problems whose root causes the left does not understand, but in others, they seem to be the product of human design. (Many left-wingers call for degrowth, after all.) A worse economy results in a worse quality of life for most people. How is that not cruel?
Besides funding cuts, the left usually focuses on layoffs in the public sector when describing their opponents’ alleged cruelty. However, it is generally left-wing policies that artificially inflate government and grant privileges to those who are part of it, the cost of which falls on taxpayers. That is, from a classical liberal perspective, unjust and cruel. Just because a minority living off of others is less visible than a layoff does not mean that the former is any less real.
To be sure, the right sometimes also embraces policies that make everyone poor, and the latest push for protectionism in the US is a prime example of that. But recent efforts to deregulate, on the contrary, do have a clear classical liberal root, which is why the Trump administration has followed Milei’s in creating a department (DOGE) whose sole purpose is to deregulate the economy and unleash the potential of the private sector. Classical liberals, then, must deny that there is any cruelty in trying to stop the government from interfering with basic economic liberties. On the contrary, they must question the left’s alleged moral superiority.
All in all, classical liberals would do well to counter the new trend among the left by insisting that it is the policies of those who denounce ‘cruelty’ that cause injustice and economic chaos through privileges, taxes, regulations, and unstoppable spending. Trying to fix them cannot possibly be cruel.
Marcos Falcone is the Project Manager of Fundación Libertad and a regular contributor to Forbes Argentina. His writing has also appeared in The Washington Post, National Review, and Reason, among others. He is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
