Four Varieties of Vilification, Outrage, and Extremists
Culture Wars and the Political Compass
The name of the game, for some who see themselves as the most serious and committed, is to vilify their opponents. They do this by emphasizing any statement—usually taken out of context—that makes the opponent seem illogical, extreme, dangerous, or any undesirable trait that is alarming to their audience. This tactic often backfires by bringing attention to the opponent, which grows their influence if the audience does some fact checking. More importantly, the vilification contributes to making politics into an ongoing antagonism, in which real bipartisan solutions can never be worked out.
At the same time, those intent on identifying enemies will engage in little or no self-reflection about their own party’s failures or excesses. They may admit, “Oh, of course we have a few slip ups, but who wouldn’t sometimes overreact in the face of such blatant corruption shown by the other side?”
Complaints About Extremists of Each Party by Extremists of Other Parties
It’s become common for all of us to think of our own party as mostly reasonable people and other parties as having more extremists. We tend to believe that the snarky comments are predominantly from the other side, while our side is only speaking the obvious truth. It seems most plausible that each party has mostly reasonable well-intentioned people, who have different life histories that lead to different beliefs. More of us have come to understand that due to online search and social media algorithms designed to promote our own point of view, so what we hear about each party comes largely from its most extreme advocates who confirm our mistrust. Thru popular sources such as The Social Dilemma Netflix documentary, the majority of us know now that what is most engaging is outrage (Orlowski, 2020). Another reason for distrust is that U.S. citizens have become increasingly geographically sorted (Ehrenhalt, 2021), so our neighbors and work associates are more likely to share our views. Any news that makes it to us from circles outside our own, one would expect it to be the more inflammatory or unusual, and that we have less cultural context to understand. The next section refers to Pew labels and type descriptors that are detailed in an earlier post.
Reactionary Right = Extremes of the Populist Right and “Faith&flag”ers
For the Populist right, the reactionary impulse is most obvious with ardent MAGA supporters such as the Oath Keepers. Those in socially conservative religious groups share the fervent distaste for the extremes of “wokeness.” They feel that their responsibility is to fend for themselves and those they care about personally, not to pander to the victimhood of people who are not their neighbors or kin.
“Parents rights” is a growing movement against what is perceived by trans activists as simply allowing children and teens to explore gender identities they feel more aligned with. Detransitioners insist the trans activist agenda is too aggressive, as well as financially and politically motivated in ways that exploit the youth drawn into their ideology. While seeking to make it okay for youth to reveal their trans identity, activists are promoting an in-group identity at a time when vulnerable teens are most easily influenced and haven’t fully developed rational thinking. Detransitioners regret that they permanently altered their bodies and impaired their fertility at a time of life when they were most susceptible to peer influence and the suggestion of popular online personalities who suggested the way to feel better is to first socially transition. They complain that too little medical information was provided about the potential negative physical effects of physically transitioning thru hormones, and some later thru surgery. (See https://donoharmmedicine.org/)
It’s not obvious how the dissident right (Pew’s ambivalent right) would count as reactionary. The rhetoric of some reveal an interest to revert to an earlier political state. Their attraction to a past era shows up as intolerance of economic and business regulations. It harks back to the wild west when there was a sheriff (small government) but little other effective restriction. Another reversion to values of the past is that many millennials have experienced modern sexual licentiousness and found it unfulfilling. There is a natalist movement promoting value of a more traditional family structure among the dissident right, though absent the religious norms that previously compelled monogamy. (See relationship themes in the Subversive podcast by Alex Kaschuta.)
Radical Left = Extremes of the Left, Especially the Progressive Left
Among the progressive left, these are the most impassioned who organize marches, instigate boycotts, mandate language change, and create provocative journalism and art. The movement became increasingly extreme as the more extreme adherents continually sought to cancel moderates on the left who seemed to lack commitment or ideological purity in that they toned down their message or promoted moderate agendas.
The Pew polls show the outsider left as less engaged voters. They view the establishment as a corrupt duopoly. They may have only mild agreement with some of the most fervently held convictions of the progressive left, but they are not apolitical. It would be extremists in this group who block bridges to protest climate change, live in trees, chain themselves to bulldozers to prevent logging, and as a new trend to gain attention for a cause, glue themselves to objects such as streets.
As has seemingly always been the case, these anti-establishment ideologies consist of two types of activists who are both trying to change the world for the better:
Violent people who want to force their change on others.
Peaceful people who want to persuade by showing others a better way that they themselves are practicing.
Rather than dismissing all messages of those considered extremists, we might do well to encourage the latter sort on both sides. The Amish, going about their quiet lives, are hindering no one with their extremism. Many in ecovillages are busy running a local small farm CSA (community supported agriculture) distributing boxes of vegetable produce, building with scrap materials, and making compost. They have no time to foment violent revolution.
Thanks for reading. Here’s a related post about egregores.
Repeat of Quadrants Content
This section repeats the writing in the quadrants, for any who have difficulty reading in that format. Groups are presented in order of political party size.
Auth-Left Quadrant
Other parties complain: “Democrat proposals such as universal basic income will tank the economy.” Opponents always make reference to Venezuela, rather than the U.S. becoming more like Canada or Denmark. “Dems pretend to work for betterment of the disadvantaged, but now it’s become a pretense of promoting a few token minorities from elite backgrounds, while ignoring the majority of economically disadvantaged from all racial and ethnic groups. They blame big business for social ills while taking campaign donations from the same, and push thru laws written by them.”
Auth-Right Quadrant
Other parties complain: “Republican tax cuts will continue to widen the gap between the wealthy and impoverished. Big business focus on competition and ‘greed is good’ has eroded social cohesion and trust in institutions. Business externalizes costs (e.g., pollution), and privatizes gains. The military industrial complex will continue to find reasons to fund violent confrontations that keep promoting weapon manufacturing. The financial institutions have been bailed out while the taxpayers have not. The idea of meritocracy is promoted while all pay to get into their positions of privilege & power.”
Lib-Right Quadrant
Other parties complain: “Gun rights advocates insist on no restrictions, believing those would be used to criminalize all gun ownership. Libertarians are allied with the racist alt-right white nationalist movement concerned with Aryan population decline. The men’s rights movement and anti-abortion activists want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, unable to support themselves or leave abusive partners.”
Lib-left (Green) Quadrant
Other parties complain: “The progressive left wants to defund the police, promote the rights of the homeless to defecate on the sidewalk with impunity, increase “transgender rights” allowing natal males to compete in sports with natal females (so much for women’s progress), and mandate compliance with chosen pronouns. They throw soup on works of art, glue themselves to roads, support terrorists.”