The Radical Right has been all over the news recently because of its involvement in the attack on the US Capitol January 6th 2021. These groups were provoked by Trump and his manic refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election. They took action to disrupt the electoral vote count and possibly do harm to our elected officials. The most radical elements believed that is what Trump wanted them to do.
Who are these groups and what was their relationship with Trump? The answer begins with ideology. There is a common belief that these are conservative groups, based on the public’s assumption that politics and ideology are the same thing. But they are not the same. Political and ideological spectrums feature different groups, which means that Neo-Nazis and the Alt-Right are Socialists, not Conservatives.
If you think about the spectrum of American political parties, you can visualize Progressives on the far left, Liberals left of center, Independents in the middle, Moderates right of center, and Conservatives on the far right. The Left favors equality and a large role for government in people’s lives. The Right prefers smaller government and letting the capitalist economy lift the tide for the disadvantaged. The Left wants change; the Right favors the status quo.
The spectrum of political ideology is plainly different. Here, Economic Socialism is on the left, Authoritarian Socialism is on the Right, and Classical Liberalism is in the middle. By classic Liberalism we mean, free market capitalism with a focus on the individual freedom required to succeed in life.
A diagram showing these differences follows.
As shown by the arrows, Left-wing socialism makes its home on the extreme Left as a faction of the Progressive Movement. It is the most extreme element of Left-wing ideology because it includes those who would like to replace the American Government with a Communist or Socialist state. Its members believe that achieving equality requires tearing down the American political system.
Conservatives connect to the Classic Liberal ideology. This is not the Liberalism of FDR or the Great Society, it’s the Liberalism born during the Enlightenment. Conservatives believe that they can achieve success in life if they are given the freedom as individuals to pursue it.
Socialism
Socialism developed out of Collectivist thinking during the Enlightenment. The most important early Socialist was John Jacques Rousseau, the French writer and philosopher. Rousseau believed civilization developed at the expense of morality, and the root of moral degradation was reason, as defined by the Enlightenment. Human beings lived simple lives before they were able to reason, but as time went on, man’s behavior led to a surplus of wealth and claims of property rights, which motivated men to accumulate wealth at the expense of the less fortunate. Having succeeded in the competition of life, the rich fought to protect their positions and possessions, which expanded the inequality between themselves and the poor.
Rousseau sought the creation of a new society that would stand in the middle ground between the idle rich and a primitive state. This new state would be governed by religion which would act as a stabilizing force. Reason was destructive to society, so natural passions must replace it. By joining together into civil society through a social contract and abandoning claims of natural right, individuals could preserve themselves and remain free.
After Rousseau, Socialist thinking took two separate paths. Outside of Germany, the Left built competing ideologies. They tried Utopianism in the early 19th Century, by forming new communities of volunteers to live together in Egalitarian communities. All failed because equality could not be maintained. Anarchism also emerged as a radical ideology that sought the complete elimination of government in favor of rule by the masses. The anarchists were eventually marginalized by the growing power of Communism. Observing the exploitation of workers, during the Industrial Revolution, led Marx to propose his Communist theory to explain the outcome of tension between workers and management. He believed the working class would eventually become dissatisfied, start a revolution, and take power for themselves.
Socialism took a different path in Germany. Germans hated the Enlightenment, because they saw it as an attack on traditions and the Catholic Church. Separately, they wanted to build a path toward unity as a nation and throw off the obsolete Holy Roman Empire. The intellectual underpinnings of German nationalism were created by three men: Johann Herder, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel.
Herder was a philosopher and literary critic, who pressed the German people to speak their own language rather than use the languages of other nations. In his Outline of a Philosophical History of Humanity, Herder pushed for cultural affinity to bring all the German people together into a single culture with a single language. He asserted that every nation belonged to its own people, independent of all others. The German people were a tribe by nature, and they needed to use that characteristic to turn Germany into a nation-tribe, rather than a nation of tribes.
Fichte is known as the father of German Idealism. His contribution was based on a collectivist view of German nationalism and the need for an approach to education that would unite the German people. Fichte saw the future of Germany as dependent on a mandatory educational system that was uniform across the country. Students must be indoctrinated in the way Germans must think of themselves; a united nation that must be protected from outsiders.
Hegel is perhaps the most famous German Philosopher, after Kant. Like Rousseau, Hegel agreed that the Enlightenment notion of freedom was a fraud. The truth was that all human possessions came through the state, and that human history consisted of working out what was absolute, whether it was God, universal reason, or the divine idea. The carrying out of God’s plan was human history. The state as the instrument of God’s plan, was more important than the individual.
Throughout the 19th Century, the German people worked toward unification. Political progress was accomplished through the work of Otto von Bismarck, who served as Minister President of Prussia, starting in 1862. Bismarck had his hands full initially because the German trade unions were under the influence of Left-wing Socialists, who were agitating for the creation of a German Socialist state. In order to frustrate these efforts, he developed a political model called “Revolutionary Conservatism.” This was a Conservative state-building strategy designed to make ordinary Germans more loyal to state and emperor, through the creation of a modern welfare system.
His strategy, to grant social rights to enhance the integration of a hierarchical society, would forge a bond between the public and the state. That bond would strengthen workers, maintain traditional relations of authority between status groups, and provide a check against the forces of Liberalism and Socialism. Bismarck’s balancing act of political interests was successful, allowing traditional conservative elements to retain control of the country while accommodating liberal interests through welfare programs.
After Bismarck left the scene, German Conservatism became even more nationalistic. Between 1890 and the end of the First World War, shared nationalist ideas led to the merging of the German Liberal Party with the Conservatives. A few years later, the Catholic Party also joined the coalition. When the First World War ended, Conservatives adopted a “pre-Fascist” stance, positioning themselves against the working class, which was represented by Left-wing Socialists. That development replaced the old-style nationalists with a more modern version. The new party, called the German National People’s Party (DNVP), advanced the Conservative banner and replaced the obsolete Fatherland party. The DNVP was eventually replaced by the Nazi Party, which became the sole political party in Germany after Hitler came to power. When the German people voted the Right-wing Socialists (Nazis) into power, they were choosing them over the Left-wing Socialists.
Right-wing radicals have not had a home since World War II ended. Their Fascist ideology was utterly discredited by the horror of the Nazis. The West would never again give serious credence to a superior-race ideology that might lead to an authoritarian political system dedicated to world domination and genocide.
Back to Trump
Twenty-first Century Right-wing radicals were attracted to Trump for two fundamental reasons: they like strong leaders and they operate with an “us versus them” mentality. Trump’s political strategy was to play the part of an outsider, focus on his enemies, and use political leverage to take them out. This was the famous “drain the swamp” initiative. Trump’s approach found compatibility with the Right-wingers because they could imagine Trump as the one who would lead them in the battle against evil.
Trump and many Republicans suspected foul play during the election and it first appeared they might be right. The Democrats made no declaration regarding their commitment to fair elections and they didn’t provide any evidence to support the idea that the Biden election was fair. Silence in this case was suspicious. In addition, there were activities on election night that seemed questionable; these activities were never satisfactorily explained. The expelling of Republican poll watchers and their isolation from locations that would allow them to accurately examine the vote counts provided additional ammunition for those who suspected cheating.
Still no judge accepted the evidence provided the Republicans as incriminating, so no charges were brought against the Democrats. That should have ended the corrupt election debate. True to form, Trump did not accept the rulings of the courts and kept pushing his narrative.
Many believed the election was fraudulent only because Trump said so. The most militant individuals used Trump’s words as motivation, were the most aggressive in attacking the Capitol, and did the most damage. They are now subject to prosecution for the crimes they committed, while their actions embarrassed Conservatives and scared the Congress. These groups will never be large, but will always be present in any society where hate can be used to create power.
Trump played a game with the radical Right, subtly supporting them by not saying anything against them. That strategy motivated them to become part of his “army.” Only Trump knows the purpose behind his behavior. He had to understand that he was playing with fire, and his code words might incite the mob to react at some point. Was his ego so big and his rage at the Left so deep, he didn’t care? No matter what the reason, Trump has to accept responsibility for the actions of those he enabled.
The spectrum of political ideology is plainly different. Here, Economic Socialism is on the left, Authoritarian Socialism is on the Right, and Classical Liberalism is in the middle. By classic Liberalism we mean, free market capitalism with a focus on the individual freedom required to succeed in life.
A diagram showing these differences follows.
As shown by the arrows, Left-wing socialism makes its home on the extreme Left as a faction of the Progressive Movement. It is the most extreme element of Left-wing ideology because it includes those who would like to replace the American Government with a Communist or Socialist state. Its members believe that achieving equality requires tearing down the American political system.
Conservatives connect to the Classic Liberal ideology. This is not the Liberalism of FDR or the Great Society, it’s the Liberalism born during the Enlightenment. Conservatives believe that they can achieve success in life if they are given the freedom as individuals to pursue it.
Socialism
Socialism developed out of Collectivist thinking during the Enlightenment. The most important early Socialist was John Jacques Rousseau, the French writer and philosopher. Rousseau believed civilization developed at the expense of morality, and the root of moral degradation was reason, as defined by the Enlightenment. Human beings lived simple lives before they were able to reason, but as time went on, man’s behavior led to a surplus of wealth and claims of property rights, which motivated men to accumulate wealth at the expense of the less fortunate. Having succeeded in the competition of life, the rich fought to protect their positions and possessions, which expanded the inequality between themselves and the poor.
Rousseau sought the creation of a new society that would stand in the middle ground between the idle rich and a primitive state. This new state would be governed by religion which would act as a stabilizing force. Reason was destructive to society, so natural passions must replace it. By joining together into civil society through a social contract and abandoning claims of natural right, individuals could preserve themselves and remain free.
After Rousseau, Socialist thinking took two separate paths. Outside of Germany, the Left built competing ideologies. They tried Utopianism in the early 19th Century, by forming new communities of volunteers to live together in Egalitarian communities. All failed because equality could not be maintained. Anarchism also emerged as a radical ideology that sought the complete elimination of government in favor of rule by the masses. The anarchists were eventually marginalized by the growing power of Communism. Observing the exploitation of workers, during the Industrial Revolution, led Marx to propose his Communist theory to explain the outcome of tension between workers and management. He believed the working class would eventually become dissatisfied, start a revolution, and take power for themselves.
Socialism took a different path in Germany. Germans hated the Enlightenment, because they saw it as an attack on traditions and the Catholic Church. Separately, they wanted to build a path toward unity as a nation and throw off the obsolete Holy Roman Empire. The intellectual underpinnings of German nationalism were created by three men: Johann Herder, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel.
Herder was a philosopher and literary critic, who pressed the German people to speak their own language rather than use the languages of other nations. In his Outline of a Philosophical History of Humanity, Herder pushed for cultural affinity to bring all the German people together into a single culture with a single language. He asserted that every nation belonged to its own people, independent of all others. The German people were a tribe by nature, and they needed to use that characteristic to turn Germany into a nation-tribe, rather than a nation of tribes.
Fichte is known as the father of German Idealism. His contribution was based on a collectivist view of German nationalism and the need for an approach to education that would unite the German people. Fichte saw the future of Germany as dependent on a mandatory educational system that was uniform across the country. Students must be indoctrinated in the way Germans must think of themselves; a united nation that must be protected from outsiders.
Hegel is perhaps the most famous German Philosopher, after Kant. Like Rousseau, Hegel agreed that the Enlightenment notion of freedom was a fraud. The truth was that all human possessions came through the state, and that human history consisted of working out what was absolute, whether it was God, universal reason, or the divine idea. The carrying out of God’s plan was human history. The state as the instrument of God’s plan, was more important than the individual.
Throughout the 19th Century, the German people worked toward unification. Political progress was accomplished through the work of Otto von Bismarck, who served as Minister President of Prussia, starting in 1862. Bismarck had his hands full initially because the German trade unions were under the influence of Left-wing Socialists, who were agitating for the creation of a German Socialist state. In order to frustrate these efforts, he developed a political model called “Revolutionary Conservatism.” This was a Conservative state-building strategy designed to make ordinary Germans more loyal to state and emperor, through the creation of a modern welfare system.
His strategy, to grant social rights to enhance the integration of a hierarchical society, would forge a bond between the public and the state. That bond would strengthen workers, maintain traditional relations of authority between status groups, and provide a check against the forces of Liberalism and Socialism. Bismarck’s balancing act of political interests was successful, allowing traditional conservative elements to retain control of the country while accommodating liberal interests through welfare programs.
After Bismarck left the scene, German Conservatism became even more nationalistic. Between 1890 and the end of the First World War, shared nationalist ideas led to the merging of the German Liberal Party with the Conservatives. A few years later, the Catholic Party also joined the coalition. When the First World War ended, Conservatives adopted a “pre-Fascist” stance, positioning themselves against the working class, which was represented by Left-wing Socialists. That development replaced the old-style nationalists with a more modern version. The new party, called the German National People’s Party (DNVP), advanced the Conservative banner and replaced the obsolete Fatherland party. The DNVP was eventually replaced by the Nazi Party, which became the sole political party in Germany after Hitler came to power. When the German people voted the Right-wing Socialists (Nazis) into power, they were choosing them over the Left-wing Socialists.
Right-wing radicals have not had a home since World War II ended. Their Fascist ideology was utterly discredited by the horror of the Nazis. The West would never again give serious credence to a superior-race ideology that might lead to an authoritarian political system dedicated to world domination and genocide.
Back to Trump
Twenty-first Century Right-wing radicals were attracted to Trump for two fundamental reasons: they like strong leaders and they operate with an “us versus them” mentality. Trump’s political strategy was to play the part of an outsider, focus on his enemies, and use political leverage to take them out. This was the famous “drain the swamp” initiative. Trump’s approach found compatibility with the Right-wingers because they could imagine Trump as the one who would lead them in the battle against evil.
Trump and many Republicans suspected foul play during the election and it first appeared they might be right. The Democrats made no declaration regarding their commitment to fair elections and they didn’t provide any evidence to support the idea that the Biden election was fair. Silence in this case was suspicious. In addition, there were activities on election night that seemed questionable; these activities were never satisfactorily explained. The expelling of Republican poll watchers and their isolation from locations that would allow them to accurately examine the vote counts provided additional ammunition for those who suspected cheating.
Still no judge accepted the evidence provided the Republicans as incriminating, so no charges were brought against the Democrats. That should have ended the corrupt election debate. True to form, Trump did not accept the rulings of the courts and kept pushing his narrative.
Many believed the election was fraudulent only because Trump said so. The most militant individuals used Trump’s words as motivation, were the most aggressive in attacking the Capitol, and did the most damage. They are now subject to prosecution for the crimes they committed, while their actions embarrassed Conservatives and scared the Congress. These groups will never be large, but will always be present in any society where hate can be used to create power.
Trump played a game with the radical Right, subtly supporting them by not saying anything against them. That strategy motivated them to become part of his “army.” Only Trump knows the purpose behind his behavior. He had to understand that he was playing with fire, and his code words might incite the mob to react at some point. Was his ego so big and his rage at the Left so deep, he didn’t care? No matter what the reason, Trump has to accept responsibility for the actions of those he enabled.
No comments:
Post a Comment