The further left you are, the more your concern for the underdog crowds out everything else, leading you to overlook inconsistencies. You might, for example, argue for immigration and multiculturalism in the UK, but not in the Amazon. You might demand equality before the law and, at the same time, gender quotas.

Daniel Hannan’s remark, “The further left you are, the more your concern for the underdog crowds out everything else, leading you to overlook inconsistencies,” points to his critique of progressive politics. By focusing on the underdog, Hannan suggests that left-leaning ideologies sometimes elevate sympathy above coherence. In his view, this can create inconsistencies, where policies clash with one another because the emotional pull of defending the disadvantaged overrides logical balance.

He illustrates this by contrasting immigration and multiculturalism in the UK with the protection of indigenous cultures in the Amazon. To him, supporting open borders in one context while defending cultural preservation in another reveals a selective application of principles. Likewise, he notes the paradox of calling for equality before the law while also endorsing gender quotas—policies that, in his eyes, treat groups differently in order to enforce fairness.

The origin of this quote lies in Hannan’s role as a British Conservative politician and writer, best known for his Eurosceptic stance and critiques of left-wing politics. As a columnist and public speaker, he often emphasizes what he sees as contradictions within progressive thought. This remark is consistent with his broader arguments that political ideals must be applied consistently to avoid hypocrisy or unintended consequences.

At its heart, the quote underscores the tension between ideals and practical application. Hannan challenges the left’s moral emphasis on the underdog, arguing that it can lead to selective reasoning. Whether one agrees or not, his words invite debate on how principles like equality, multiculturalism, and fairness are defined—and whether they can coexist without contradiction.

Would you like me to also set this against the backdrop of classical liberal thought, where consistency of principle is often valued above situational exceptions?