For years, I have described American politics as the right playing a unified and brilliant power game and the left playing a contentious and divisive truth and justice game and arguing endlessly within themselves about whose vision of truth and justice was more pure.
I like most your stuff,but I think this article originates with a major misunderstanding of the Democratic Party and “the Left”.
It’s not the DNC that is attacking Matt Yglesias or disowning too far to the right candidates,it’s Leftists. The left in America is embroiled in a civil war between Liberalism/Social Democrats & Socialists. There’s only about 1,000,000 Socialists in America (including DSA & PSL),but they are far more politically active in dem hotspots and social media than liberals/social democrats. It gets to a point where many of these socialist members actively voted or formed parties advocating for Trump to spite the DNC.
I like you,but this post fundamentally misunderstands Democratic Politics and the left of guys that generally agree on the same thing but quibble over little things,when really it’s the majority being attacked by a very vocal minority that’s sucking them dry. I wouldn’t be suprise if when Elon bought Twitter he began boosting these irrational,unreasonable leftists,solely to mischaracterize the Dems
After cori bush and Jamaal Bowman lost primaries, the only person who I think fits your profile in national elected office is Rashida Tlaib (maybe ilhan Omar , but she's not in the DSA). Unless you think Bernie Sanders counts too.
"... when really it’s the majority being attacked by a very vocal minority that’s sucking them dry."
Agreed. But what you're missing (that I think is implicit in this article) is that the majority doesn't usually repudiate the bullshit of the vocal minority, and sometimes supports it.
Seth Moulton's treatment after the last election is a good example. More recently is progressive influencer Dean Withers' group Unfuck America that was nearly torn apart by a small group of activists having a woke hissy fit. Just like the democratic party usually does, the group caved to their demands.
The first one wasn't a demand of ideological purity, it was a demand not to disobey the great leader.
I think H1B story also affirms this story. Given the sheer extremity of what Trump said "stamping a green card to every university graduate", every single conservative in the country should have been talking about it, and they would have if a Dem said it. But because Trump said it, barely anyone cared, it was a minority voice that made an animated pushback.
The cult vs. exclusive club distinction may have some roots in deeper religious past.
One controversy in Christianity is between those with a sort-of OT/Jewish perspective and those with a NT/Pauline perspective. The "Jewish" one being about "good is good and bad is bad, be a good person, do the right thing, work hard, face responsibility". The "Pauline" one being about "maybe good is good and bad is bad, but the real good is to realize you can't live up to the Law (naive goodness) and thus your only chance at salvation is a non-works loyalty to Jesus". (To be a real follower of Paul, you have to be conflicted, because he was, over "straightforward good vs. the real good is to realize you can't live up to the good", and I think everyone is "Jewish", in some areas of life, including those who strive to be "Pauline".)
Conservative Protestants all strive to be "Paulines", some more successfully than others. (I think of the Reformed as being the Christian "Jews" who strive to be
"Pauline", while the (Arminian) Baptists are more naturally "Pauline".) I would guess that many of Trump's supporters are downstream of this natural-"Pauline" culture (perhaps are Arminian Baptists or the cultural descendants of the same). Whereas progressive culture comes out of Puritanism, which is Reformed and thus in ethos (though not in explicit theology), is "Jewish", and has by now gotten rid of the Puritan theological attempt to be "Pauline".
So it would make sense that the more progressive cultures are about "getting things right", while the "anti-progressives" would be about "being loyal to people". As you point out, there can be downsides to either approach, so I think it might be attractive to try to go for the best in both.
I would say that progressives (the kind who make exclusive clubs) can be just as loyal as "Paulines", but their loyalties are to truth and justice rather than to people, despite their humanism.
One possible solution to the "getting things right vs. being loyal to people" problem is something like "be loyal to God, who wants you to get things right". (Maybe there's some of this in Paul.) One problem when you secularize this is that when your god is Trump, he's not as good a person to emulate as God, and he doesn't necessarily communicate to you that he wants you to get things right. You could be loyal to people in general, and thus want to get things right. Arguably God is loyal to all people.
A structural analysis of political coalitions explains this a lot better than a value based view.
The most active and vocal in Western left wing politics are cause-driven, and they are a diverse coalition. Such people often have a lot personally invested in that cause, thus failure of a major figure to support a particular cause (or causes) effectively pushes that group out of the coalition and leaves them with no voice in a major party. It's not a singular coordinated voice for purity on the left - it's a thousand different groups, each of whom speaks out when their sole avenue of redress is denied. This makes left wing politics fractious and paranoid to traitors.
Centre and Right wing politics rarely operates like this (with the exception of the far right). For centre and right coalition, party politics is simply one avenue of power, not the only one (if you're vexed by tax burden for example, then there are many ways to address that if government isn't). Centrists and right wingers tend not to be driven by single causes but rather are looking for a conservative coalition to buttress their existing position. Such a constituency will simply align with a new power when needed, the detail is less relevant.
These aren't really consciously chosen political attitudes of purity and loyalty on the left and right, but rather aspects linked to the social and material conditions of people in those political coalitions. They aren't bugs of left and right politics, they are features.
It seems wrong to say that the right never looks for traitors or demands purity of ideology. In 2021, a mob of right-wingers chanted to hang Mike Pence because he refused to lie about the election results. And some right-wingers have turned on Elon Musk because his support for H1B immigration visas offends their anti-immigration beliefs. (Keep in mind that Elon is Trump's right hand man, and has said Trump supports H1B visas as well - so this is a purely ideological dispute, not a dispute about disloyalty to Trump.) Clearly, both the left and the right can be pretty mean to those putatively on their side but who don't toe the party line - and that's just what we should expect from a polarized society.
Actually, that is true. Both Trump and Biden started no wars. Both are also scummy in various offhand ways, but those would not qualify either as the most amoral man in the Oval Office.
Are you familiar with Jamie Wheal's discourse on how the extreme elements of each party bear far more in common with each other, in terms of the 'Dark Triad' of psychopathic traits, than they do with the vast majority of members of the party label they affiliate with? Sadly though, the deep longing of most people to associate with a particular team (look at how absurdly obsessive sports fans can be!) seems to far outweigh any rational self-awareness or introspection. Cure that aspect within ourselves, and the radicals who falsely claim to be guardians of a particular club's membership worthiness will be properly ignored..
the reason that is, is because that any policy decision would cause a “disparity”. @Nathan Cofnas explained it best as “Equality hypothesis ” taking seriously.
Well said. The times we are in call for a 3rd way, a middle path. The radical left and the radical right are two sides of the same coin, radical ideology, perforce both are key to the degradation of America. The world looks for a new vision, a new way, new leadership. Instead of hoping the Democrats get their stuff together and save us we need something/one new. The attention shown to Bernie Sanders speaks to this although he is clearly not the right man for the job.
For years, I have described American politics as the right playing a unified and brilliant power game and the left playing a contentious and divisive truth and justice game and arguing endlessly within themselves about whose vision of truth and justice was more pure.
I like most your stuff,but I think this article originates with a major misunderstanding of the Democratic Party and “the Left”.
It’s not the DNC that is attacking Matt Yglesias or disowning too far to the right candidates,it’s Leftists. The left in America is embroiled in a civil war between Liberalism/Social Democrats & Socialists. There’s only about 1,000,000 Socialists in America (including DSA & PSL),but they are far more politically active in dem hotspots and social media than liberals/social democrats. It gets to a point where many of these socialist members actively voted or formed parties advocating for Trump to spite the DNC.
I like you,but this post fundamentally misunderstands Democratic Politics and the left of guys that generally agree on the same thing but quibble over little things,when really it’s the majority being attacked by a very vocal minority that’s sucking them dry. I wouldn’t be suprise if when Elon bought Twitter he began boosting these irrational,unreasonable leftists,solely to mischaracterize the Dems
I agree it's more extreme on the far left. But AOC isn't a fringe figure. Distrust of centrists and moderates is mainstream.
I think you should look into AOC. She had a big falling out with the DSA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialDemocracy/comments/1e0qide/rep_alexandria_ocasiocortez_loses_dsa_nationals/
After cori bush and Jamaal Bowman lost primaries, the only person who I think fits your profile in national elected office is Rashida Tlaib (maybe ilhan Omar , but she's not in the DSA). Unless you think Bernie Sanders counts too.
"... when really it’s the majority being attacked by a very vocal minority that’s sucking them dry."
Agreed. But what you're missing (that I think is implicit in this article) is that the majority doesn't usually repudiate the bullshit of the vocal minority, and sometimes supports it.
Seth Moulton's treatment after the last election is a good example. More recently is progressive influencer Dean Withers' group Unfuck America that was nearly torn apart by a small group of activists having a woke hissy fit. Just like the democratic party usually does, the group caved to their demands.
The first one wasn't a demand of ideological purity, it was a demand not to disobey the great leader.
I think H1B story also affirms this story. Given the sheer extremity of what Trump said "stamping a green card to every university graduate", every single conservative in the country should have been talking about it, and they would have if a Dem said it. But because Trump said it, barely anyone cared, it was a minority voice that made an animated pushback.
The cult vs. exclusive club distinction may have some roots in deeper religious past.
One controversy in Christianity is between those with a sort-of OT/Jewish perspective and those with a NT/Pauline perspective. The "Jewish" one being about "good is good and bad is bad, be a good person, do the right thing, work hard, face responsibility". The "Pauline" one being about "maybe good is good and bad is bad, but the real good is to realize you can't live up to the Law (naive goodness) and thus your only chance at salvation is a non-works loyalty to Jesus". (To be a real follower of Paul, you have to be conflicted, because he was, over "straightforward good vs. the real good is to realize you can't live up to the good", and I think everyone is "Jewish", in some areas of life, including those who strive to be "Pauline".)
Conservative Protestants all strive to be "Paulines", some more successfully than others. (I think of the Reformed as being the Christian "Jews" who strive to be
"Pauline", while the (Arminian) Baptists are more naturally "Pauline".) I would guess that many of Trump's supporters are downstream of this natural-"Pauline" culture (perhaps are Arminian Baptists or the cultural descendants of the same). Whereas progressive culture comes out of Puritanism, which is Reformed and thus in ethos (though not in explicit theology), is "Jewish", and has by now gotten rid of the Puritan theological attempt to be "Pauline".
So it would make sense that the more progressive cultures are about "getting things right", while the "anti-progressives" would be about "being loyal to people". As you point out, there can be downsides to either approach, so I think it might be attractive to try to go for the best in both.
I would say that progressives (the kind who make exclusive clubs) can be just as loyal as "Paulines", but their loyalties are to truth and justice rather than to people, despite their humanism.
One possible solution to the "getting things right vs. being loyal to people" problem is something like "be loyal to God, who wants you to get things right". (Maybe there's some of this in Paul.) One problem when you secularize this is that when your god is Trump, he's not as good a person to emulate as God, and he doesn't necessarily communicate to you that he wants you to get things right. You could be loyal to people in general, and thus want to get things right. Arguably God is loyal to all people.
A structural analysis of political coalitions explains this a lot better than a value based view.
The most active and vocal in Western left wing politics are cause-driven, and they are a diverse coalition. Such people often have a lot personally invested in that cause, thus failure of a major figure to support a particular cause (or causes) effectively pushes that group out of the coalition and leaves them with no voice in a major party. It's not a singular coordinated voice for purity on the left - it's a thousand different groups, each of whom speaks out when their sole avenue of redress is denied. This makes left wing politics fractious and paranoid to traitors.
Centre and Right wing politics rarely operates like this (with the exception of the far right). For centre and right coalition, party politics is simply one avenue of power, not the only one (if you're vexed by tax burden for example, then there are many ways to address that if government isn't). Centrists and right wingers tend not to be driven by single causes but rather are looking for a conservative coalition to buttress their existing position. Such a constituency will simply align with a new power when needed, the detail is less relevant.
These aren't really consciously chosen political attitudes of purity and loyalty on the left and right, but rather aspects linked to the social and material conditions of people in those political coalitions. They aren't bugs of left and right politics, they are features.
The Libertarians demand to be left alone—but nobody pays any attention to this demand (really, more of a plea).
To be fair, they’re both cults. But that’s what happens with ideologies, they crowd out any nuance and facts become inconvenient.
It seems wrong to say that the right never looks for traitors or demands purity of ideology. In 2021, a mob of right-wingers chanted to hang Mike Pence because he refused to lie about the election results. And some right-wingers have turned on Elon Musk because his support for H1B immigration visas offends their anti-immigration beliefs. (Keep in mind that Elon is Trump's right hand man, and has said Trump supports H1B visas as well - so this is a purely ideological dispute, not a dispute about disloyalty to Trump.) Clearly, both the left and the right can be pretty mean to those putatively on their side but who don't toe the party line - and that's just what we should expect from a polarized society.
The first one is a cult of personality issue while the H1Bs is a minority or quickly forgotten about by most.
Communism in practice isn't actually fully indisposed to MAGA ideology - see 'right wing Leninism'.
Calling Trump the most amoral man on the planet is strange. So far, he claims the mantle of the only recent US president not to start a war.
What war did Biden start?
Actually, that is true. Both Trump and Biden started no wars. Both are also scummy in various offhand ways, but those would not qualify either as the most amoral man in the Oval Office.
FDR. He comes across as being driven entirely by a lust for power with no positive vision justifying it.
He didn't start any wars though.
He sure finished them, though.
He entered a world war.
What do you call assassinating Iran's top general?
A measured response that didn't start a war.
What war did Biden start?
When Biden was elected the democrats were "more united than ever" and the right was in shambles. This piece will not age well.
Are you familiar with Jamie Wheal's discourse on how the extreme elements of each party bear far more in common with each other, in terms of the 'Dark Triad' of psychopathic traits, than they do with the vast majority of members of the party label they affiliate with? Sadly though, the deep longing of most people to associate with a particular team (look at how absurdly obsessive sports fans can be!) seems to far outweigh any rational self-awareness or introspection. Cure that aspect within ourselves, and the radicals who falsely claim to be guardians of a particular club's membership worthiness will be properly ignored..
the reason that is, is because that any policy decision would cause a “disparity”. @Nathan Cofnas explained it best as “Equality hypothesis ” taking seriously.
Purity tests are a form of demanding loyalty. It’s just less overt than when rightoids to it.
Very interesting and balanced, though, I would not say personality cult is worse than purity cult. Both are same madness in the end.
What’s wrong with being nice to people who are nice to you, in politics and in life?
I’m not sure ideology helps much to have impact in the world, certainly not if you make it a part of your identity.
I posted a Twitter poll to see if we can verify this finding. Of course, my followers are self-selected in various ways, but maybe it will still work out. https://x.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1917789634374914163
Well said. The times we are in call for a 3rd way, a middle path. The radical left and the radical right are two sides of the same coin, radical ideology, perforce both are key to the degradation of America. The world looks for a new vision, a new way, new leadership. Instead of hoping the Democrats get their stuff together and save us we need something/one new. The attention shown to Bernie Sanders speaks to this although he is clearly not the right man for the job.