- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I agree that hypocrisy occurs on both sides of the aisle (and in every human being, myself no exception). I also agree that both sides try to point it out and are right to do so. I'm not complaining about that. What I am trying to articulate is what seems to me to be a philosophical difference between left and right that is the reason why, in the short run, the right wing is so successful at smears, almost no matter how ridiculous. This philosophical difference reflects the fact that the two sides of the human personality that the right and left represent are not equally committed to open, reasoned discourse as a way of addressing societal concerns.
Reactionaries/Conservatives/Authoritarians find open, public discourse scary and weak-seeming. It's frightening to see Daddy in doubt. It feels like undermining Daddy to question him and run the risk of having him appear to be in doubt. I'm not even claiming to be myself immune from this reaction. Some part of me wishes there were a wise political father I could trust to do the right thing. If only there were a wise and virtuous Leader then my own virtue as an American foot soldier would be the uncomplicated task of offering unconditional loyalty to that Leader. This is the dream of many right-wing types (of course there are temperamental rightwingers in the liberal camp and vice versa). The rise of the so-called "politics of character" is the rise of this dream. The country doesn't need to know the facts and issues, such a politics argues. All the country needs to know is the "character" of the Leader. If he has the right character, then we can offer unquestioning, unconditional loyalty. Once Daddy is identified, criticism of Daddy is destructive and must be suppressed. That's why so few right wing blogs have comment sections and, more generally, why conservatives are so supportive of secrecy.
The relevance to this discussion is that unconditional loyalty includes distortions of reality--lying or promoting dishonest framing of issues and facts--for the higher purpose of supporting the Leader. Smearing the other side is as noble as hiding Jews from the Gestapo. Thus, the problem is that it is impossible to shame people of this mindset into adhering to truth because they believe themselves to be doing something virtuous in departing from it. Their "higher truth" trumps petty-minded facts any day, and allows them to be self-righteous even when proven wrong over and over.
Again, I don't mean to argue for a minute that there isn't some of this happening on both the left and the right. I do believe, however, that as a philosophical matter the right wing welcomes it more easily. The deepest value of the Enlightenment, against which conservatism has historically fought, is that so-called "higher truths" must be exposed to day and tested by reason. Daddy *must* be subjected to question. His decisions must be shown to be based on facts; they must make sense as a matter of reason, and they need to be made in the open with the participation of others. Otherwise, those decisions will not only be poorer, they will inevitably be corrupt. I understand the emotional dreams of the right wing, but my life has taught me that the Enlightenment was simply right about this.
Thus, we have to keep fighting for things to be in the open, against our own childish longings and against the sincere, though wrong-headed, resistance of conservatives. There will never be an easy way to combat the willingness to distort. It will always be slow, uncertain and victorious--if at all--only in the long run. The issue is very much in doubt.
