I’ve become convinced that the contending “analyses” of MAGA/Christian Nationalist extremism and its far-left antagonists really misses the real nature of our current political and social distress. The root of our dysfunctions isn’t really policy differences or political orientations. It’s fundamentalism versus broad-mindedness.
A recent article from The American Prospect about the death of the right-wing crank David Horowitz reminded me of a conclusion I’d reached several years ago, when I became reacquainted with a distant cousin who had moved back to Indianapolis after many years on the West Coast. I hadn’t seen him since college, when I was one of the very few family members who defended his very unpopular left-wing political activism. (Despite being pretty conservative myself at the time, I was appalled when Bloomington’s then-prosecutor brought charges against my cousin and a few others for their “socialist” activities.)
Fast forward some thirty-plus years, and–lo and behold–he’d “evolved” into a Right-wing true believer. Just as doctrinaire, but from the opposite political pole.
The article about Horowitz made the point that such changes aren’t uncommon. (Remember the intellectuals who defended their move from Left to Right as a response to being “mugged by reality”?) Horowitz was a communist in early life who transitioned into a rabid Right-winger.
Decades before “woke” became a term of derogation, Horowitz began raging at the academic community: not just the far left, but even social democrats who criticized the far left, like Todd Gitlin, who figured prominently on a Horowitz-devised list of 100 dangerous academics who would be fired if Horowitz ruled the world. Even conservative leaders who declined to drink the Trump Kool-Aid were traitors to the cause: Writing in Breitbart, Horowitz labeled neocon Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew” for the sin of supporting a different presidential candidate in the 2016 Republican primaries. Fellow former lefties who’d repudiated the far left for mainstream conservatism, like the Manhattan Institute’s Sol Stern, also ran afoul of Horowitz’s diktats for their failure to join the far-right Visigoths taking arms in the culture wars. In 2021, Stern co-authored a New Republic piece with Ron Radosh (both of whom had known Horowitz since his far-left days) in which they documented Horowitz’s career-long commitment to violent extremism. “In that earlier era,” they wrote, “he celebrated the burning of a bank by a student mob. Today he’s an intellectual pyromaniac who honors the MAGA mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6.”
Horowitz’ new certainties influenced some of the worst MAGA ideologues, including the odious Stephen Miller.
The problem with individuals who go from hard-Left to hard-Right–or from hard-Right to hard-Left–really has little to do with the “epiphanies” that trigger their philosophical changes. The real issue is their obvious need for doctrinal certainty in a very complicated and uncertain world. These are people who simply cannot tolerate the ambiguities of modern life–who are desperate for a world rendered in black and white, a world without any shades of gray.
Let’s think about that.
The noted jurist Learned Hand famously said that “the spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” My youngest son has similarly distinguished “good religions”–which help people wrestle with moral dilemmas– from dangerous ones that tell people what they must believe and how they (and others) must act.
Neither of these insights are meant to suggest an apathetic approach to important values. They are, however, recognition of the importance of intellectual humility, what we might think of as a scientific approach to our understanding of the world we inhabit. (One of the reasons some religions reject science is because scientific hypotheses are always open to falsification. Absolute certainty is unavailable.)
Reasonable people can mediate or surmount most differences in policy preferences and political philosophy. (Granted, not all.) Fundamentalism, however, abhors and rejects compromises. It leaves no room for “agreeing to disagree.” The philosophy of “live and let live” that permeates America’s Bill of Rights is anathema to True Believers.
Unfortunately, rigid adherence to any worldview– scriptural, dogmatic or ideological–inevitably leads to the drawing of distinctions between the ingroup of “righteous” folks and everyone else, and justifies all manner of inhumane behaviors.
I don’t know what psychological issues lead people to these rigid and dogmatic places. But I am convinced that the need for certainty, intolerance of difference, and the rejection of ambiguity and intellectual humility are far more damaging to the American Idea than the particulars of philosophy at either end of the political spectrum.
Based on my anecdotal experiences over the past decade, your first paragraph touched on my belief that our political spectrum is contrived to illustrate open-minded and closed-minded people.
However, I’ve also noticed many people on the left with closed minds. To me, the closed mind has “contempt prior to investigation” of new ideas and attitudes. They have been enculturated into a belief system that they defend, but it’s not their beliefs. They were imposed on a person but not authentically their own, based on experience and knowledge.
Based on my upbringing in a conservative rural community of 98% white people, the “other people” or “those people” were less than. We all looked down on them and felt superior. We hung together and were Republican-minded. Most of us would have fit into the Tea Party crowd with ease.
However, I moved to a big city—Orlando—and then to cosmopolitan Miami. “Those people” were much more prevalent, and I became accustomed to working with them and realized they were no different from me. My mind became more open, but I was still conservative, shaped by my upbringing, but much brighter than before.
What changed my “thinking” had more to do with spiritual growth rather than intellectual growth. My spiritual growth led me to seek further education from a Jesuit school out west, which brought my intellectual growth in line with my spiritual growth, which has continued to grow.
Then I returned to the same community where I grew up, and guess what? Almost without exception, those people I grew up with who stayed and didn’t pursue further education didn’t change one bit. There was no evolution intellectually or spiritually. They went to the same churches, if they went at all. They were all racists and congregated in the same community. They also protected each other as a clan. They were as closed-minded as they were in high school.
I would consider myself a social democrat if not a socialist today—the opposite of what is happening in the White House. I believe Marx said once capitalism fails the masses, which it eventually will due to the greed of the oligarchs, there are two ways we can go: authoritarian fascism or socialism. Sadly, our Democratic Party is just fascist-lite. 😉
I went from voting nearly 100% for republicans/rightward leaning indy to voting for democrats/left leaning indies when I realized the fascist wing of the GOP was now the GOP main stream and would rationalize nominating & supporting racist, xenophobic tools like trump, Gaetz, & Gosar. I recognize the Democratic party is often a circular firing squad and has too many “old school” types who refuse to recognize they are up against a party that has little interest in bi-partisanship. I have come around to support Bernie and AOC, in part because I see they are, compared to European “liberals”, pretty centrist and unlike republicans and too many old dems working for the average citizen. Regarding left vs right? I believe you have said this before. it is not left vs right, it is moral vs immoral. American style democracy vs white centered theocratic autocracy.
Well said, Sheila. I have looked at things this way since encountering the two Erics in college. Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” and Eric Fromm’s “Escape from Freedom”. I think they explain a lot about the rigidity on both polls of our political spectrum, although I will continue to point out that the rigid left constitute a few percent of the people and the rigid right elected a President.
As for Horowitz and Miller, I borrow a term from a long time friend and political consultant – they are simply “abominations against god”. If only the earth still opened and swallowed such people.
HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY!
My ex-lawyer wife educated me on the meaning of habeas corpus (including its spelling) yesterday and it made my stomach churn. The “odious Stephen Miller” is pushing for the suspension of that Constitutional rite based on the Alien Enemies Act or some other imagined emergency. That “idea” is pure NAZI. How far right is that? Is it, in Todd’s view, so far right, it’s left?
Disappearing people without any concern for their being is beyond odious. It’s criminal beyond anything we’ve ever experienced before. Even the nauseating internment of Japanese-Americans at the start of WW II didn’t actually suspend habeas corpus and that was during wartime when there WERE emergencies and fear of the “other” was rampant.
Yes, the question remains: Have our politics actually descended into the fetid pit of unregulated hate, racism and bigotry? The people perpetrating these crimes and trying to explain away idiotic economic policy are not stupid. But they ARE intellectually lazy. And that applies even more to the voters who approve of them. We remain, as we did in the 1930s, 25% – 35% racist. Oh, and the 39% of voters who stay home from important elections seem to not know what they are or where their philosophy directs them.
What Peggy said!
Although I spent 51 years in the mental health field, as a psychotherapist, I also, have no handle on what sets someone up to be all about black or white in his/her thinking. Though, when I pointed that trait out to one particular client, he essentially said “Of course!”
I’m quite progressive politically, and was thinking, maybe 20 minutes ago, about what I see as a shame that Folorididia is about to end water fluoridation. You know, that old Commie plot to help EVERYONE to be healthier? Sure, it takes away one’s personal choice, and so would be anathema to Ayn Rand, and the Libertarians, and We the People will be making dentists somewhat richer, but , hey, do remember that it’s a plot! PLOT! The boogeyman word of those on the right, who know, in their genes, that any effort by anyone else is, with their absolute certainty, a plot.
I moved here in 1991 from the D.C. area where I lived for almost 5 years and before that NE Ohio where I grew up. I was appalled by the entrenched views about race, politics, etc. I told friends I felt as if I had moved back to 1955. It seemed that the friends we made had not grown up in Indiana. Hoosier hospitality. not. The friends who had moved here opened their homes but others you could not get past the “stoop” to talk. Shortly after we moved here I attended a meeting about development and planning in our neighborhood. After I stated my objections and observations, a man stood up and yelled at me that I was not a Hoosier. Ok then. It seemed to confirm the resistance to outsiders. It made me more circumspect in my job interviews after that. Without pointing fingers just to Hoosiers, let me say that Ohio is not the Ohio I grew up in. I think the zeitgeist changed in Ohio but I believe this entrenched “my daddy voted Republican and his daddy before him” has been a staple in Indiana. I am not making this phrase up. So what keeps one’s mind and heart closed to someone not exactly like them? Hoosier hospitality exists but the word hospitality derives from opening the door to strangers/travelers/guests. It does not mean you let folks stay on the stoop. And now we have a mini-Donnie for governor. Plus ca change; c’est la meme chose.
That’s a very good point Sheila, ambiguity and never really being able to find an assured and rock solid path.
They are also always searching but never really finding! So you would have to wonder why? Is there an actual truth out there? Or is it all a bunch of misconstrued lies.
I would say there is a lot of truth out there but it’s been sabotaged, and camouflaged. Purposefully hidden to prevent discovery and also peace of mind.
It’s been proven throughout history, but mankind cannot direct his own steps. It might seem plausible at the moment, but after enough time passes you realize it’s a fool’s errand!
When the churches were pulling children away from what day considered heathens, in many cases those children were abused sexually, psychologically to the point of death.
What did this prove or what does this prove to the native populations? It proves that these interlopers who claim to be emissaries from God, are nothing more than evil reprobates looking for their own insatiable desires! They don’t look for God’s approval, they look for their own satisfaction, their own power lust.
On the other hand, morality and politics may be based on one’s view of different people.
Some are brought up to respect other people, all other people. That is the foundation of woke. Others are brought up to see others as marks, sources of something to be taken.
Everything else stems from rationalizing the lifestyle that evolves from that simple world-view.
Mothers are naturally generous and give life at the expense of their own, and we all have one, so Happy Mother’s Day.
Linda Robb: I grew up in Lake County in NE Ohio. I left in 1968 and traveled to California for over 25 years. BUT on occasions to bury my parents I too discovered that the locals there hadn’t changed a bit and were embracing the backwardness we’ve all seen from Republicans everywhere. They must fear progress, or something being taken from them in the advancement of the species and the nation.
So, Mr. ORANGE says that PBS, funded by CPB, does nothing to attract conservatives, so he wants to defund them, which is a vacuous (no surprise) point of view. What is there about a PBS program like this- “Secrets of the Forest,” (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/secrets-of-the-forest/) that would be unattractive to conservatives?
Is it that the idea that the world is complex, not black and white? That it is not there for the simple sake of extracting money?
Nice sentiment Pete. I suppose it reminds us that women are much more compassionate than men. And I suppose it also goes to show why it’s so hard for a woman especially in this particular country to be the one in charge, the boss with the sauce! And I guess it isn’t fair to paint everyone with that broad brush, and it seems patriarchal sucession is much more brutal and less caring than matriarchal, in almost all examples.
Personally Mitch, I find Sesame Street extremely problematic. You know that Jim Henson was a terrible subversive He misled generations! ~s
When I was teaching science to junior high children, I tried many ways to introduce them to being open minded and questioning. They had been taught that science class was for learning facts, period. That was the way it had been presented to them in elementary school and the way the parents of most of them viewed it. My efforts were an uphill battle but some of my fondest memories are of seeing a closed mind crack open and allow doubt to enter.
As children, we were first taught primary colors and the basics of right and wrong. As we grew, our box of crayons expanded to many more colors, and in school rooms, playgrounds, and families, we learned life’s complications beyond the basics. While we weren’t supposed to lie, neither were we to hurt feelings and we became acquainted with white lies., euphemisms, compliments, distractions, and changing the subject.
Absolutists want the certainty of seeing everything in black or white with no shades of gray or other colors. How sad for them. I’ve often felt absolutism is akin to intellectual immaturity – arrested development if you will in those primary colors. And some folks CHOOSE to live in that intellectual cocoon. While we all have some degree of confirmation bias, many of us love to learn what makes the rest of the world ‘tick’. There is no fear of learning about and trying to understand those people and views different from ourselves.
My very most favorite college prof taught constitutional law. He would argue one side of a court decision and have us all in agreement. Then he would switch sides so persuasively that we all changed our opinions. After putting us in that quandary, he then would charge us to to decide and write or argue and defend the constitutional rationale for our decision. He made us intensively test our ability to reason and argue agreeably and, not incidentally, our values.
A artfully stitched quilt of all white or black COULD be interesting and beautiful, but give me the variations, the shades, the contrasts, and comparisons. Better yet, liven it up with God’s rainbow of colors.
Sometimes it’s best not to believe what we think and it’s ok to hold opposing/different viewpoints for consideration. It can be settling to come to a conclusion, but experience can cause a need for revisiting that position. That’s maturing and basically the scientific method. It’s allowed in Democracy.
Authoritarian method is to herd and control from the top. Watch out when the reason for that structure is corrupted, as is today in trump’s regime to avoid consequences and grift plus tear down the government.
Prejudice is the hardest thing to crack when it’s upheld by community: it gives people a sense of belonging and safety, although It’s a nightmare for the victims.
That’s why it’s imperative to protect US Bill of Rights and let those stand as the authority.
Happy Mother’s Day.
The categorical label we’re looking for here is “dualism” vs. “emergence”. DUALISM is a way of thinking that expects a right way vs. a wrong way; and of course I am always right while you who disagree with me are of course wrong. It’s seed universe that I believe can be completely captured by pure thinking, in which all questions have clear answers that can be grasped and articulated by human minds and human language. However…
EMERGENCE is a way of thinking that is open to the mysterious. It sees the human mind as a part of an intelligent creation that will always be bigger that we are, and thus will not be available for mere humans to fully grasp. It’s a mind that’s open to ambiguity.
In religion, politics, & philosophy, dualism will always frame closed questions that have yes-&-no simple answers, while emergence thinking will always suspect simplistic answers and the people who use simplistic answers. “Fundamentalism” is a desciptive word for the dualism we find on both the right and the left. So yes, your dualistic cousin is more likely to move from one extreme to the other, rather than find a home at the center.
Christian and Jewish spirituality and Islamic Sufism and Buddhism and Indigenous Wisdom generally are all found at the center; fundamentalism on all those scales is found at both dualistic extremes.