Political change: unidirectional?
Christopher Hitchens made some interesting statements in this interview (via Seekerblog).
Here’s Hitchens describing an experience he had while in Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War, at a time when he positively hated George Bush Sr.:
I was bouncing around in a jeep with some Kurdish guerillas at that point. And on my side of the windshield, there was a big laminated picture of George H. W. Bush. And I said to them, “Look, comrades, do you have to do this? For one thing, I can’t see out of my side of the windshield. But for another, I know quite a few reporters in this area and might run into one of them at any moment. And I don’t want them seeing me in a jeep that has this guy’s image on it. So do you have to?” And they said, quite soberly and solemnly to me, “No, we think we should have this picture because we think, without him, we would all be dead, and all our families would be dead, too.” And from what I’d seen by then in that region, I thought, that’s basically morally true. I don’t have a reply to that. I don’t have a glib one and I don’t have a sound one. It’s true. So at that point my criticism of the war became this: that it had not been a regime-change war, that the slogans of liberty and justice that had been used to mobilize it had not been honored. But if they had been, I would have been in favor of it. It’s a narrow but deep crevasse to cross, and once you’ve crossed it, I’ll tell you this, you can’t go back over it again. You can’t find yourself on the other side of it. Some of you may be in transition across this crevasse yourselves or be thinking about it. I warn you: don’t cross over if you have any intention of going back, because you can’t.
He is speaking of a specific position regarding the justification for the Gulf War, but I think he is also speaking generally of political change and political changers.
It does appear, for the most part, to be a one-way street (except for Churchill, who famously said “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat”). It’s certainly not a path that’s commonly traversed–one of the major topics of my “change” series is how difficult the negotiation over that crevasse can be. But, once crossed, that path seems ordinarily to go in one direction only (hint: it’s the same way we read, left to right).
Why is this? Those on the right would say it’s because the position of the right is more grounded in facts, logic, and experience, and that of the left on hopes and dreams and wishes. The former tend to be the province of maturity, the latter of youth. The former can overrule the latter more easily than vice versa.
It’s an oversimplification, no doubt, but I think it has a certain validity nevertheless.
Opposing stances on issues by conservatives & liberals sometimes seem arbitrary & accidental to me. If I stretch my imagination it could be imagined that liberals could be anti-abortion & conservatives in favor of abortion. On what grounds? Well, the liberals seem to be more altruistic & it could conceivably be seen as kindness to be in favor of assuring that pregnancies are not interrupted. The right is known for being in favor of the rights of the individual, perhaps even to the extent it should be the individual that determines whether an abortion takes place.
What if there were a game on a playing field with a flat area in the middle where 2 teams would gather & hills all around. At random intervals ‘issue’ flags would pop up on the hills & the players on the two teams would rush to the top of the hills to be first to claim the flags. “This flag is ours,” they might say, “we claim this issue, we were here first.” Part of the game would be that they would then have a certain amount of time to formulate reasons justifying why they have a right to keep possession of the flag. Another aspect of the game would be that the opposing team who were not the first to the flag could try to formulate reasons why the flag-holders should relinquish the flag to them.
The ability of our species to rationalize any of its own behavior is immense. Since 9/11 I am like a fish that has been blown up onto the dry edge of the fish tank & is thus able for the first time to become dimly aware of the water. It was hard to breath at first but it’s getting easier. I grow lungs. Now I have to figure out what air is & learn to walk on fins. I hope eventually I’ll grow feet.
It is time Bush Jr. apologize to the Shiite of Iraq for his father.
I think Bush should personally amputate one limp from 3,000 Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers, and Marines on top of the 2,000 something that have already died. This should complete the ritual apology to the Shiites, and atone for his father’s sins.
You’re right, it is time for Bush Jr. to apologize to the Shiites, as well as for messing with Al-Sadr as well.
By then I imagine your hormone levels will be so low none of you will have the balls to stand up and be a real American, that is criticise your government for being wrong,
A lot of people are like me, but unlike me they are silent. very very silent.
And what they are silent about, is the fact that they really want Bush to nuke 4 countries. France, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia.
So it isn’t that the silent killers in America don’t have the balls, it is just that they want to give Bush a chance to find a peaceful solution, they want to give the Arabs a chance to save themselves from annihilation. We’re merciful like that.
I favor abortion rights, so I automatically must oppose the war in Iraq, hate George Bush, and want to string up Republicans, ne c’est pas? I don’t have a choice, do I? It follows automatically, like a mathematical proof, doesn’t it?
Don’t project behaviors that you assume must exist upon other people. Republicans can clearly see that Michael Totten and Glenn Reynolds aren’t pro-life, jeesus. And I’m sure neo neo con can as well
We don’t live under cognitive dissonance of “Every abortionist must be against us, that is why Michael Totten, a pro-choice person, is with us”.
I think you’re stretching a bit by suggesting it is immutable the distinctions of left and right.
In reality there need not be any connection whatsoever between my views of gay marriage and my views on, say, abortion: they are independent questions.
About as independent as the principle of mass and energy has to do with fusion and boiling water.
There isn’t a straight line connection, but there is a connection.
(Oops, sorry. Hit the “Publish” button before I was quite done.)
It seems, in other words, as though there really is a degree of coherence among these fairly fundamental abstractions that give some actual substance to the label. And this is what makes the “conversion” experience (so to speak) a bit like crossing a crevasse that you can’t re-cross (Churchill was referring to changing political parties, I believe, not political philosphies).
For what it’s worth, I too have gone from left to right. And I think, despite the opinion of one the anonymouses, that, in the present historical context at least, left to right is the direction of the great majority of such changes. Which has nothing to do with any supposition that “only your side is correct”.
Political labels are always simplifications to some degree (– as are any generalizations, for that matter, including this one), but that doesn’t mean they don’t have their uses. What’s curious, to me, for example, is how well they identify relatively stable sets of values, beliefs, principles, and even policy positions.
To neo-neocon, re: “However, for the sake of convenience, I will continue to use the traditional nomenclature…”
I have adopted the label “extreme Left” to identify, in short-hand, the Tom Hayden affinity group.
I thought Shrinkwrap’s comment was very perceptive on the logical conflict faced by (my) extreme Left. So much so that I lifted the entire comment.
Writing that post led me back into the struggle for appropriate terminology. Then, when I return to neo-neocon I immediately discover that you are having a lively discussion of just that issue!
Goesh says:
“I don’t know, it is tempting to engage in reefer madness again and blame all my personal problems on my nation and pursue bliss in the arms of Liberalism.”
A typical American crap conservative response, when not questioning one’s sanity, maturity or patriotism they accuse a “liberal” of being a drug addict.
And who’s blaming anyone’s “personal” problems on my nation, we’re blaming the Middle East’s problems on “our” nation. If you’re not aware of our footprint on the region, our interventions and Machevallian games the last 50 years, I can assure you
the Arabs are, as was made evident today in London.
No, we haven’t done anything to deserve this. Absolutely nothing.
How on earth can you breath with your head so far up your ass?
I agree that “left” and “right” are very flawed ways of referring to complex political stances. But words are all shorthand in a way, and we must bow to these conventions if we’re not to have conversations that are well-nigh interminable.
Understand that, as a neo-neocon, my positions are not unitary, and therefore not typical of what is thought to be on the “right.” Nor, as a liberal, was I particularly typical of those on the “left.” However, for the sake of convenience, I will continue to use the traditional nomenclature (how very conservative of me :-))!
I read the Den Beste article when it originally came out, and thought it was good.
To steve d.–I, likewise, am way behind in updating my blogroll. I keep waiting till I get a chunk of spare time to do it, so I keep putting it off. Thanks! (PS–I’m never grumpy!)
There are too many counterexamples for the left>>right change to hold any water.
It must feel comforting to think that, but it’s a bit immature to think that only your side is correct, and the rest of the world will come around eventually (if only they listen to reason!, right?). That’s certainly what I used to think as a young republican.
Since conservatives do not believe in Utopia…
What else is the conservative minimalist state? It’s a myth about rugged individuals doing without the nanny state & perfect markets self-regulating. Conservativism is positively awash in utopian mythologies.
I don’t think that’s bad, actually: in order to critique and point the way forward, there has to be a world-as-it-should-be against which the world-as-it-is can be compared.
In your rush to sound all cool and jaded, I think you missed that.
Neo,
Thanks heaps for the link. Then I thought “better double check that neo-neocon is in my blog-roll, I certainly don’t want her grumpy about that…”
Since neo-neocon is SeekerBlog’s most heavily linked other blog (26 outlinks as I write), it was embarrassing to discover a glaring blog-roll error. An error that I just corrected.
The lame excuse for the missing blog-roll entry is that I try to focus the list on the best blogs that I read every day. Rather, every day when we are near enough to land to get an internet connection. When a blog-roll gets into the hundreds of links it becomes just a telephone book. It takes more care to keep a short list accurate than a long list where you just automatically append any new blog of interest.
As excuses go, that’s not much better than “The dog ate my homework…”.
Instead of using such divisive and ultimately meaningless words as “left” and “right”, why not employ useful and factual distinctions like realistic <-----> idealistic, or serious <-----> light-hearted, or sophisticated <-----> naive?
I agree with you in spirit, but you have to have some point of reference in which to discuss politics. “Left” and “Right” is the existing point of reference, even though it’s not ideal.
I don’t know, it is tempting to engage in reefer madness again and blame all my personal problems on my nation and pursue bliss in the arms of Liberalism. I could seek meaning in being a human shield for a tyrant. I could again worship Che and Fidel and justify Stalin’s purges. It’s tempting.
It is pretty indicative, ins’t it, that there are neo-cons (and by now even neo-neocons, like our esteemed hostess), but no neo-libs.
The political learning processes indeed exclusively, or at least overwhelmingly, appear to go in one direction.
Michael, Germany
Some day, I hope to convince you that there is no such thing as “conservative” or “liberal”, “left” or “right”. These terms, constantly used here, are largely socially defined clusters in an inherently multi-dimensional space.
Let’s try a thought experiment. I favor abortion rights. (“Pro-choice” is a euphemism designed to win the political debate through chicanery: I disdain it.) I favor gay marriage. I am opposed to the death penalty. Ok, now you have three data points about me. Question: how do I feel about the war in Iraq? “Bush lied, people died”, right? I favor abortion rights, so I automatically must oppose the war in Iraq, hate George Bush, and want to string up Republicans, ne c’est pas? I don’t have a choice, do I? It follows automatically, like a mathematical proof, doesn’t it?
That’s all silly of course, but that’s the sort of thinking to which the use of these terms leads. In reality there need not be any connection whatsoever between my views of gay marriage and my views on, say, abortion: they are independent questions. Each such question is an independent dimension on which my belief system can be plotted.
Why then do people cluster in their beliefs, as they clearly do? I don’t know, but my theory is that political beliefs are tied up with gobs of other aspects of life. There’s a huge social component for example. We all want to have friends; we all want to be liked. Social pressure tends to make us conform to the beliefs of our friends. If we find an issue, X, on which we have very strong beliefs we will start to hang out with people who share the belief in X. If we discover that almost all of those people who believe in X also believe in Y, then we will tend to start going along with the belief in Y because it isn’t that important to us. Given time, we often come to believe in Y ourselves. This is how soldiers were brainwashed during the Korean War by the way.
I like most of the people on Roger Simon’s board, for instance. I agree with them on the War on Terror. But I don’t like Rumsfeld and they do. That causes me rethink my views on him, or at least to hold my tongue. I want the people I like to like me.
Then there’s plain old social coercion: if I don’t agree with you, you won’t invite me to your parties.
There are other factors. In addition to beliefs, there are also meta-beliefs, beliefs about beliefs. This can become extremely reinforcing. For example, if I not only believe in abortion rights, but also believe that people who believe in them are [smarter, more caring, superior], then, as I want to be all of those good things, my belief in abortion rights becomes reinforced.
At some point a cluster of beliefs and meta-beliefs becomes somthing more, passes a certain line, at which point it becomes a semi-coherent self-reinforcing whole, i.e., a religion. At some point it becomes impossible to question any part of the system without threatening the entire structure. At some point it becomes impossible to discuss the issues at all because the only issue is whether you buy into the whole picture, whether you are “of the body” or not “of the body”, the body of believers.
In my perception, political beliefs today encompass one religion and outside of that religion is everybody else. The religion is of course what is usually referred to as “leftism”, “liberalism”, etc. “Conservative” or “rightist” means everybody else. Now, personally, I’m perfectly aware that my political beliefs count for very little. I vote, and my vote is one among millions. Other than that my beliefs are of zero account (except for enabling me to alienate my former friends). So I don’t take my beliefs seriously. But an essential part of the “leftist” religion is the belief that the Deity really really cares how one believes on each and every one of these issues and it is essential that one have the correct belief on each and every one. No apostasy permitted whatsoever.
All of us understand other human beings only through the process of “projection”, through believing, in other words, that the cognitive systems of others must be some sort of mirror of our own. Thus, those who continue to belong to the “leftist” religion imagine that everyone who disagrees with them on any issue must be a member of a corresponding counter-religion, typically dubbed “conservative”.
Traditionally, a “rightist” was someone who was pro-monarchy, pro-Catholic church. A modern American who continues to want to change the world and simply seeks different means has nothing in common with this classical meaning. The word has become meaningless, meaningless except for one thing: a “rightist is someone not of the “leftist” body. Someone who is no longer a true believer. Someone who has been excommunicated.
Like pastorius, I don’t like a lot of people who aren’t members of the “leftist” religion. But hey, guess what, out here everybody’s a free agent. Ain’t no coercion anymore. Think what you will. Persuasion, not ostracism.
One of the themes of this blog seems to be to explore what happens when one loses one’s “leftist” religion. Why not begin with a new language for a new persona? Instead of using such divisive and ultimately meaningless words as “left” and “right”, why not employ useful and factual distinctions like realistic <-----> idealistic, or serious <-----> light-hearted, or sophisticated <-----> naive?
Homework assignment. Further reading can be found here.
The lies and mis-conceptions that are the foundation of American conservative political commentary, made evident on this blog, is so vast, one wonders where to begin, or if in fact “patient America” is a terminal case, beyond hope of ever seeing reason.
Your “lies” make sense, but they are nevertheless “lies”.
Staying with the Kurdish fellow who praised G. Bush Sr., insisting to Mr. Hitchens his photo remain on the jeep, I suppose he forgot the U.S. sold out the Kurds twice previously, or that Father George was CIA station chief in Cairo when Saddam was recruited and put on the US payroll, causing untold harm to the Kurdish people and cause, not to mention Iraq.
Now, after 30 years of dictatorship, “democracy” is our call to arms. Whether any one is going to believe or trust us, “the messenger”, in the Middle East today is one question.
Another is where will all you mature, American conservative moralists (now that your hormone levels have levelled out) be when democracy gets too democratic in Iraq, wanders too far toward their Iranian cousins or any other imaginary enemy, and America requires another “strong man” to protect it’s geo-political interests again. Then I suppose we’ll start the whole story from the beginning.
By then I imagine your hormone levels will be so low none of you will have the balls to stand up and be a real American, that is criticise your government for being wrong, even when others “more mature” (a uniquely bizarre American formulation) question your sanity or patriotism.
“Funny” how many American’s became “conservative” (more aggresive) after 9/11, that is since we got hit, since we suffered. Now maybe we know how others feel, and react to those who have hit them.
To thinking people at least.
“Why is this? Those on the right would say it’s because the position of the right is more grounded in facts, logic, and experience, and that of the left on hopes and dreams and wishes. The former tend to be the province of maturity, the latter of youth. The former can overrule the latter more easily than vice versa.
It’s an oversimplification, no doubt, but I think it has a certain validity nevertheless.”
That old Churchill quote about liberal in youth and conservative with maturity is becoming almost too cliched to cite; but it’s true, nonetheless.
If I may dabble in your field, I would say that when it comes to improving or maintaining the world, people’s beliefs are defined by two questions:
1. What’s right? (i.e., Goals)
2. What will we do about it? (i.e., Means)
I think question 1 is less subject to change than question 2; but for many people, question 2 can come to dominate.
In the classic case of a neocon, “What’s right?” is: freedom, liberty, human rights, equal opportunity. But “What will we do about it?” changes when we realize that the old Leftist prescriptions have failed — not just failed, but produced exactly the opposite of the results we wanted.
A doctrinaire Leftist, meanwhile, lets “What will we do about it?” replace “What’s right?” And “What will we do about it?” is “the same old Leftist techniques, only more and harder.” They’ve substituted Means for Goals.
A conservative might say that “What’s right?” is “Protect and conserve the good things we have built up over ages.” And one answer to “What will we do about it?” could be “Isolation and looking inward.” But that’s as much a failure as Leftist collectivism. So a realistic conservative must look for other approaches; but a doctrinaire Rightist will instead make the isolationism a Goal in itself.
And so surprisingly, that puts the far Left, with its knee-jerk opposition to anything when they’re out of power, in league with the far Right.
And yes, this is a vast oversimplification; but I think that it captures the position of many neocons: our Goals haven’t changed, but we’ve adopted new Means because the old ones were miserable failures.
Yes, but from where does the idea that “consciousness-raising” will lead to utopia arise? It all strikes me of having wafted-in from California where Socialism, Buddhism, Anarchism, and Duuude-ism all seem to congeal (for the left) into something resembling a political philosophy.
*(As an aside, I’m reminded of the episode of Simpsons in which we learn that Mr. Burns has so many diseases that they have struck a balance to ward-off death)
…
Mike
Intriguing question, Neuroconservative. My younger self would have most likely thrown a molotov cocktail at my older self, being a supporter/believer in the Weathermen, SDS, SLA, Black Panthers, etc. My younger self would have been into ELF and being an anarchist. I am not nearly as far Right as I was as far Left, and my transformation has memory deletions. I suppose there was some alchemy, some psychosis, some mysticism, some addiction at play, all converging and roiling and churning, a traditonal crucible if I’ve ever seen one, that has resulted in these memory gaps. And no, there are no known neurological deficits involved here to account for this. I call it the convenience of political PTSD, though I get flashbacks in which I have my hair to my waist again, engaging in reefer madness and I start to yell “power to the people” but refrain and never quite fully raise the clenched fist into the air. These fits don’t last long and are actually quite rare, but this ‘PTSD’ has saved me the minor agony of trying to fully understand the transformation and account for it and put it into a type of order. I briefly miss at times the nihilism – there is a sociopathic glee in total defiance you know. I do avoid prolonged listening to Janis Joplin but reconcile this loss with an expensive piece of briar and some custom blended pipe tobacco.
Neoneo, you said: “The former tend to be the province of maturity, the latter of youth.”
I agree.
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that one of the main differences between radical liberalism and conservatism (or at least neo-conservatism) is the difference between the thinking of children and the thinking of adults.
The radical liberal/child connection: blame, entitlement, envy, jealousy, martyr, victim, whining, begging, screeching, extreme emotion, name calling, guilt tripping, license. There are probably more, but that is off the top of my head.
The neo-conservative/adult connection: individual responsibility, accountability, creating opportunity (not guaranteeing results), providing, protecting, courage, individual liberty (not license), rational discourse, temperance, balance. That’s it for now.
So, how does one deal with children who blame, whine, screech, guilt trip etc.? I don’t think it will work to try to send them to their room. I think the best approach is to speak and write from our hearts in a way that might be able to teach, inspire, lead them out of the wilderness of their prolonged childhoods and adolescent-hoods.
We all have to grow up someday. I hope that more and more of the children of the left do so today.
Liberals also refuse to see the truth about human nature: that the capacity for evil within human beings will never disappear from this earth.
Liberals believe with enough education and consciousness raising, we can improve human nature to a state of perfection.
They think evil died with Hitler. We know it will always be with us, so we prepare for it, we fight against it.
neo–
I wonder what you (and the other neos here) think your younger self would have made of your older self? More broadly, how do you imagine that thinking liberals encode the fact that neo-cons exist but neo-libs don’t? This is hard for me to answer, since I have always been conservative.
Pastorius:
As someone who also made the transition (though I was hovering at the tipping point for several years before 9/11), while situated in the middle of Manhattan working in Mental Health (how is that for cognitive dissonance, a Conservative Psychoanalyst), I can assure you that while there are conservative and right wing loons, they are much fewer in number and percentage than the left. The left is forced by their beliefs, because of the lack of coherence with reality and the dogmatic nature of their belief system, to adapt reality to their fantasy as opposed to recognizing the inability to ever create a reality that exactly tracks one’s fantasies. As a result, you can never disagree with a leftist because anyone who does is not just wrong, but anti-Utopian evil (a modern day version of an counter-revolutionary.) Since conservatives do not believe in Utopia and do not, therefore, believe their ideas represent a complete, perfect prescription for social organizations, it is much easier to discuss and disagree with (most) people on the right. Further, recent history has shown us that conservatives are more able to self-correct and criticize their own. We will know the Democrats are starting to “get it” when Ted Kennedy is criticized by Hillary Clinton and both, along with The New York Times (“We’re Number 6!”) demand the Daily Kos apologize for slandering the American military.
Pastorius:
Take heart in that one of the perks of being a “neoconservative” is that have a community with whom you share a passionate and sincere belief in national defense and defeating fascism through the “War on Terror”–but with whom you are not necessarily obligated to be in agreement with on all other issues.
As a result, you become a member of a very interesting mix of people and opinions that you wouldn’t find as a die-hard member of either party.
Neo-neocon
My problem with the first Gulf War was that humanitarian reason is secondary (or third) in important. Protecting Saudi Arabia (which was and is corrupt) was the primary reason. I always thought that we should have gone all the way and liberated all of Iraq and ennobled our endevour. My friend who was in that War witnessed the masacre of Shiites but could not lift a finger to help. It is time Bush Jr. apologize to the Shiite of Iraq for his father.
“an oversimplification, no doubt, but valid nonetheless” – that seems to nicely sum up the over-arching theme of this blog. I guess that’s where facts, logic and experience lead us eventually.
I made the same change as you, at the same time; post 9/11. In fact, it was an almost instantaneous change.
I agree that it seems like you can never go back, but sometimes I look at my fellow conservatives and I am so disgusted that I don’t want to be associated with them.
Instances which have caused me to feel this way include:
1) Right-wing support of Trent Lott.
2) Some of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric.
3) Taxation is theft rhetoric.
But alas, it does seem true that I could never return, because I don’t think I could ever work together with people who considered it appropriate to give Michael Moore a respected place at the Democratic Convention.
A good way to accelerate the transformation: put a liberal in charge of some other people.
Most quickly learn that the liberal pieties simply do not work in practice.
I’ve seen a few cling to their “principles” in rhetoric, but become incredibly draconian in practice.
One case of the latter leaps to mind. I once interviewed at a consultancy where the CEO spent 10 minutes extolling his liberal Democratic principles, while I tried not to look sceptical.
Having finished his inappropriate speech, without blinking an eye he then proceeded to tell me he was the big cheese, made all the decisions, called all the shots, that no one else counted for anything, that when he said “Jump!” they’d better say “How high, sir?”, and it was his way or the highway.
Righhhttt. No issues there. I nodded gravely, and ran for the door.