A curious trend is taking root among left-leaning factions across the Americas: labeling their opponents as ‘cruel.’ In the United States, New York Magazine recently featured a cover titled ‘The Cruel Kids’ Table,’ which depicted a group of jubilant conservatives who, according to the magazine’s insinuation, would have thrived as bullies in high school. It’s worth noting that the image was manipulated to erase the presence of nonwhite individuals, thus perpetuating a narrative of racism. The underlying message is straightforward: diverging from leftist ideology equates to embodying ‘cruelty.’
This phenomenon isn’t confined to the U.S.; Argentina has seen a similar pattern emerge over the past few years. Various journalists, commentators, and politicians have branded President Javier Milei as ‘cruel’ and even a ‘villain.’ This rhetoric suggests that Milei is a harbinger of destruction for Argentine society, allegedly intent on dismantling it.
The denunciation of ‘cruelty’ has become a fashionable tool for left-wing élites to display their perceived moral superiority. But what is it about a political party that can be deemed cruel? Why does a politician with opposing views automatically become a villain? In an ironic twist, the left-leaning Argentine magazine Anfibia recently revealed its funding is dwindling due to the cessation of USAID support. ‘We are a refuge from cruelty,’ they lamented. Yet, one must wonder: how could Trump possibly justify cutting off their funds?
The left’s self-proclaimed moral high ground is often undermined by its historical track record. Typically, the policies championed by leftists—higher public spending, elevated taxes, and increased regulations—tend to stifle growth, repel investors, and fuel inflation. While some of these economic troubles may stem from a lack of understanding, others seem almost by design. (It’s curious that many in the left advocate for degrowth.) The inevitable result? A deteriorating economy that diminishes the quality of life for the majority. Now, isn’t that a form of cruelty?
In addition to funding cuts, the left often emphasizes layoffs in the public sector as evidence of their opponents’ alleged cruelty. Yet, it is typically leftist policies that artificially inflate government roles and bestow privileges upon certain groups, a burden ultimately borne by taxpayers. From a classical liberal standpoint, this scenario is both unjust and cruel. The plight of a minority benefiting at the expense of the many may be less visible than a public sector layoff, but it is no less real.
Of course, the right is not exempt from endorsing policies that lead to widespread poverty; the recent trend toward protectionism in the U.S. serves as a prime example. Yet, current efforts to deregulate the economy reflect classical liberal principles, as evidenced by the Trump administration’s establishment of a department (DOGE) dedicated solely to deregulating and unleashing private sector potential. In this light, classical liberals must reject claims of cruelty associated with curtailing government interference in fundamental economic liberties. Rather, they should scrutinize the left’s purported moral superiority.
Ultimately, classical liberals would benefit from countering the left’s trending narrative by asserting that it is the very policies of those who decry ‘cruelty’ that spawn injustice and economic turmoil through privileges, taxes, regulations, and unchecked spending. Therefore, any attempt at reforming these policies cannot be deemed 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.
