In the United States, we have long taken pride in our supposedly fundamental differences from other countries, “This is America!” we can often be heard loudly saying when something happens to offend our ‘uniquely American’ values. Usually this sort of exclamation occurs in the context of political discussion; we like to think of ourselves as a brave beacon of democracy, indeed we often think of America as the one fundamentally democratic country, one that prides itself on it’s unmatched freedom and liberty. Yet we do recognize real problems in our society, a recent poll conducted by Gallup found that only 28 percent of US citizens, “are satisfied with the state of the nation.” Clearly something is wrong here, when only such a small proportion of the population feels confident in the way things are being done. This same poll found as well that only 21 percent “had confidence in” big business, while just a measly 8 percent said that they had confidence in Congress. These findings were significant too in the degree to which they signal a drop in public confidence, historically speaking, only two US institutions received higher confidence than in past years, and these are the military and small businesses. A spokesman for Gallup even went as far as to say that, "From a broad perspective, Americans' confidence in all institutions over the last two years has been the lowest since Gallup began systematic updates of a larger set of institutions in 1993." Unfortunately, we still don’t agree on what should be done to fix our system, as many have noted, party lines have become ever more sharply divisive in the US today. Many people are now strongly attached to the message of either the Democratic Party or the GOP, and show little chance of converting. This has not gone unnoticed and many have blamed increased partisanship, and specifically the threat of ‘political extremists’ for the problems we face, people we see as unreasonable radicals, representative of a grave danger to the stability of our nation. A popular book by John Avion published in 2010 was especially representative of this, entitled Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America, it purported to be an illumination of how divisive elements in the US political scene were damaging the possibilities for, as Bill Clinton said in a review of the book, “The reasoned discourse that can produce real solutions to our problems”.
The problem with this way of thinking is that it represents an enormous logical gap in the idea that political moderatism represents our best chance at solution and change. More often, this sort of rhetoric, which discredits the far left and far right as ultimately the same, is an attempt to perpetuate the current system (one designed specifically, as should be readily apparent, for mass exploitation and subjugation). The message sent is that the people should calm down, be reasonable, and in the end not stray from the capitalist, globalist, party line. And it’s a fundamentally ridiculous idea, what possible similarity could exist between an anarchist or council communist and a totalitarian fascist? The two exist as diametrically opposed visions of what society should look like and what the role of the state is. Furthermore, in characteristically empiricist and imperial fashion, this idea serves to discount the notion that certain things are fundamentally true while others are not, that there is in fact a correct and differentiated position to be taken, and that we shouldn’t look upon the intolerant and violent policies of conservatism with a tolerant attitude. With radical, fundamental problems in our society, it will take radical, fundamental changes to fix things, and this will in the end obviously require unity. Division is a grave foe for political and social progress, a greatly effective tool used to maintain the stability of the violent state. And although the demarcations between Democrat and Republican don’t actually represent any form of substantive policy difference, we’ll have to meet somewhere. It certainly shouldn’t be the middle, where the true extremism of the State’s fundamentally violent nature is allowed to stand. Americans need to unite for actual freedom, and they need to do so without compromises.
Sources:
This blog post brings up some very important points about political rhetoric and the way people are "supposed" to view certain political ideas. Along with the illogic of favoring "moderate" or "centrist" approaches to deep, systemic problems, I think it's also important to think about who decides what positions are "moderate" and whose interests these positions serve. Also, the fact that both major American political parties have shifted their positions to the right in the past decades as well as the fact that America is significantly to the right of the rest of the world in terms of political ideology puts into doubt a lot of people's fears about "left-wing extremists". The media often discuss political polarization in Congress and between the President and Congress, but rarely discuss the fact that on hugely important issues such as trade agreements and the use of military force, the parties' positions are rarely distinguishable. In the recent debates over the Iran nuclear deal, both Democrats and Republicans took it as a given fact that Iran desperately wants nuclear weapons and that, if they acquired them, they would attempt to destroy Israel. Not one politician pointed out that U.S. intelligence has no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program or the fact that Israel happens to be the only country in the Middle East that does have nuclear weapons already.
ReplyDeleteAddressing the question of similarities between anarchist/communist vs. fascist viewpoints, the Horseshoe Theory as I understand it deals not so much with ideologies as they exist on paper but with the actions and behaviors that are condoned, and even carried out, by those who allege to hold to said ideologies in the real world. The more those in power radicalize, the more the more authoritarian they become... In other words, they become increasingly convinced of their own moral superiority and that their way is the only "right" way, so they also become less tolerant of "deviant" behaviors and more willing to employ increasingly brutal measures to suppress them. Thus, while both the ones on top and those who they persecute may change, the behaviors do not. That said, a staunchly centrist and change-fearing attitude does serve to merely perpetuate whichever dominant system is currently in place...
ReplyDeleteJasper,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you that it seems that extremists on the very far right and very far left are often both negatively portrayed in the media through the perpetuation of moderatism. This reminded me of this idea that had been brought up in a conversation today about what is inherently good or bad, without getting in to all of that there was one idea that resonates with this article. What can be good for a society depends on what that society needs, and there will always be an area that the people within that society feel could be better and hypothetically work towards goals that might represent the common 'good'. Why then, is there this historical process and cycle of the accumulation of capital and progress of mind to, or a rise, and then a fall when the exploitive practices that supported that society deplete in some way creating conditions that cause the need for a revolution. Which really draws on the point you made about how radical fundamental problems require radical change and that change is often dramatic and upheaving because a moderatism was maintained for too long the changes necessary to fix. In a bi-partisan system such as the U.S. the parties stall each other laws get so much time being made and vetoed that it is more rare that bills actually go through and come into effect. Thus what happens in a bipartisan system that encourages moderatism? Rarely anything!