IDEOLOGY

He who makes the first accusation of evil loses the argument. Evil is a rather elusive concept for how often the term is bandied about. It’s easy enough to judge individual criminals as evil, but when rival political movements abuse the term there can be trouble. Those who pursue a political agenda driven by a set of interests or concerns will invariably encounter those who have competing interests or different ideas of what’s best. Having squared off as opponents, most of us will try to convey the advantages of our point of view while pointing out the deficiencies in theirs. But some people have trouble distinguishing between competition with opponents and conflict with enemies. If two groups are arguing over the same resource that they each want for themselves, the situation is easy enough to understand, if not to compromise on. But in disputes over policies or laws of the land, partisans will go far beyond arguing that their ideas have more advantages and fewer flaws than their opponents. No, we’re the heroes and they’re the villains. Our opponents are just out to hurt people. One side or the other may be misguided in some way, or there may be a sharp disagreement on priorities or likely results, or there may be those who consider the status quo virtually sacred and fear change, or perhaps the actions of a few zealots lead to unfair characterizations of the group.

Some may charge that unwelcome aspects of a policy is the true intent, as in “the government taxes us just so they can take our money” or “opponents of affirmative action want to roll back gains made by minorities”. But a political movement simply can’t have purely harmful or hostile intentions and have any viability, so warnings to the contrary are likely to be off-base. A mainstream movement needs to be seen as entirely benevolent to be successful, and a movement which can’t resist a hard-line agenda will be relegated to the fringes, the irony here being that it is these groups who will most loudly accuse their opponents of malevolence. A successful extremist movement like the Nazis is the exception which proves the rule, both in that they rose to power amid the vilest denunciations of the groups they targeted, and since then in providing an example for countless extremists to base their denunciations on. Quite clearly then, it is characteristic of extremists to portray their opponents as opposing extremists, polarizing the populace as they square off for conflict.

Our problems and the political landscape we deal with them in have evolved greatly in recent history. For so much of the past, people faced invasions by neighboring tribes or nations, were taxed or enslaved by greedy rulers, stood to lose more than they gained in revolts, enjoyed second-class status, or otherwise faced adversaries in situations which were black-and-white if not life-or-death. Conditions like this still prevail in much of the world, but in areas such as the West where has been much reform, the moderating weight of massed public opinion can deny power to anyone who could emerge as an “enemy”. Nevertheless, in a throwback to dark ages just past, many here persist in portraying any dispute as a violent conflict-in-waiting. In the real world, reconciliation awaits understanding and compromise; in the symbolic world of the extremist, roles of hero and villain are assigned to parties to the debate as though it were a great drama set to unfold–if not as a war then a “war”. It is the extreme extremist who goes beyond imagining a real war is in the works, but behaves as though one has actually begun. The only thing more amazing than how stupid these people are is how inevitable is seems to be.

A political movement is shaped like a pyramid. The bulk of its supporters are on or near the solid ground of moderation, but from their midst arises a smaller number who take a more uncompromising stance. The broader the base, the higher “off the ground” the true believers will be, until the tiny cluster at the top emerges as dangerous whackos on a mission. Recent examples abound of a movement being represented by its extreme extremists even as its mainstream distances itself from them: The Oklahoma City bombing and the murders at several abortion clinics have shown how quickly a war of words can lead to real killing. The beating of Reginald Denny (during the Rodney King riots) shows how extremism can escalate to violence with spontaneity, while the random killings of blacks by white supremacists show how deeply rooted it can be. The fatal bombing at the University of Wisconsin by Vietnam anti-war extremists and the Tate-LaBianca killings by the counterculture extremists that were the Manson family show that a killer can emerge from any movement if the numbers are large enough, even if that contradicts the movement’s ideals. But the 60’s movement which gave rise to these two examples had tens of millions of true believers whereas the anti-government gun-nut movement which begat the Oklahoma City bombing was much smaller. So it seems that some pyramids are steeper and narrower than others, the slope of the sides indicating how inclined, as it were, its members are towards violent extremism.

Indeed it’s often easier to identify a political movement by what it opposes. The warnings given, whether exaggerated or all too real, against the actions of an institution, an ongoing practice, a certain group of people, or another political movement, and the actions taken against it can define a movement more readily than its positive goals. Such positive goals, as communicated, can be vague and fanciful, and even begin to resemble those of one’s opponent (“prosperity for all”), but rising to the surface as always is the conflict. Wherever sides can be drawn sides will be drawn, to the point that people expect there always to be sides. But opposing political movements rarely square off against one another, then join in political combat, not at first anyway. More often a campaign gets started up against something that’s simply been going about its business (nasty business though it might be), then a counter-campaign emerges and the tide swings back and forth. As the warring parties seek more support, they seek to define the times in terms of their cause. Society becomes polarized along the lines of not one but a whole range of issues which line themselves up. People’s positions on various issues, and the people themselves, are associated with one another symbolically, and they associate their opponents with the symbolically opposite positions on those issues.

All of politics is thereby reduced to one symbol. We’re all familiar with the “left wing/right wing” model. The wing, as we’ve all been taught, balances on a point of perfect moderation and moves towards extremism on the left through liberalism, then radicalism, to communism, and on the right through conservatism and reactionaryism to fascism. This model–these symbols–are used constantly in political discourse, but is it real? For example, on the left, where does socialism–more moderate than communism–fit in alongside radicalism? Where on the right does laize-faire capitalism–the opposite of communism–fit what with fascism occupying that slot? Whither anarchy, Left or Right?

The whole Left wing/Right wing thing got its start in the 1790’s in revolutionary France, where the members of the Council of 500 took to arranging themselves from one side to the other of their hall, most revolutionary to most conservative. The latter side, the “Right”, came to represent as a whole the established political order in any mid-modern society, consisting as it does of institutionalized authorities, a capitalist (or feudal) economic system, and a wide variety of traditionalistic mores. To the “Left” are those who decry the unfair inequities, oppressive taboos and violent injustices brought by them the “establishment” and the late-modern movements opposing it politically. Institutions such as the government, the military, the church, and moneyed interests embody the status quo as a singular entity, accepted positions on all issues being handed down from among them in turns. Different societal standards can become established where revolutionary change has occurred, but always only to some extent on some issues in some places. Often while movements bring radical change to some aspects of society, the status quo prevails in many others, or now it’s the backlash to the backlash ad infinitum driving the issues further afield. The traditional alignment of issues in the ideological spectrum gets pulled apart and reshuffled as their true, more complex, relationships gradually emerge. Furthermore, the meaning of political labels can change entirely, depending on perspectives of time and place which issues are emphasized at the moment. So the idea that everyone in the world is on one side or the other of a one-dimensional “wing” is clearly false dichotomy.

For example: In the Russian revolution of 1917 Communists took over that country, then in 1991 they were toppled by a movement which brought democracy and free market economic reforms. From a global/historical perspective, communism is regarded obviously as a left-wing movement, seeking to overthrow traditionally capitalist societies one after the other throughout the world. But having been the “establishment” for generations, the Russian Communists could be regarded as conservative–and therefore right-wing–in comparison to the free-market Democrats (or is that a small “d”), who are obviously liberal. That means they’re left-wing, but only so far as the two terms are synonymous. What with the root of liberal meaning “free”, a free-market economy is liberal and left-wing to the extent that it’s less controlled by the government and allows people to seek their fortunes independently. But its conservative and right-wing as its proven track record of success and growth resists change despite undesirable results such as worsening inequality. A socialist economy is liberal–which also means “generous”–in that it seeks to redress the toil and deprivations amid plenty that afflicts the less fortunate. But when implemented to any degree where it deprives anyone of liberty or significant property, socialism is not liberal. Political radicals who would support more extreme socialism can be vengeful or indoctrinaire enough to disregard people’s rights, and once in power can act like any right-wing regime.

Speaking of right-wing regimes, the Nazis got their name from an acronym which means “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, and while they certainly did not abolish private industry they did maintain considerable control and had many state-run enterprises. They came to power criticizing war profiteers and those who rich during Germany’s severe depression, resenting especially the economic success of Jews who–in yet another twist–who were also associated by the Nazis with Leftist revolutionaries (the “stab in the back”). More so than economics, the Nazis emphasized extreme nationalism–taking it as far as genocide–and implemented more totalitarian control even than the Soviets, who conversely de-emphasized nationalism in favor of global revolution. Already we have at least three issues which appear as polarized dichotomies: The economic issue framed by collectivization and unfettered capitalism, the one between totalitarian government and unfettered civil liberties, and the one between nationalistic identity and globalism.

There are many more issues that may be portrayed as a contest between opposing extreme positions. And since there’s only one world, all issues are ultimately connected, yet the substantive relationship is often very indirect. Nevertheless, the symbolic connection that exists in people’s minds can create a very real political significance. The emphases placed on certain issues by groups pursuing an agenda, together with the fears which produce enmity toward groups with differing priorities, are what drive political conflicts.

Read the rest of this entry »