I find that in political discussions my positions are often opposed by both Right and Left. A current example: I adamantly support Israel, its position on the war, on Gaza, and on its right to exist. I also adamantly support the right to protest in favor of Palestine, Gaza, and against Jews, even though I find such views abhorrent. I supported the Harvard president in her testimony about the Harvard student protests and oppose Rep. Stefanic and others who are keen on silencing her and other university presidents who testified. I find Stefanic to be doing exactly what she condemns the Left for doing – trying to silence those views with which she disagrees.
This sort of hypocrisy from both Right and Left which is
more and more the norm these days along with the denial from both sides that
they do what they condemn the other side for doing, is more than annoying, but
even worse is the fact that so few are willing to see or acknowledge it. The extremes of both sides are dug in against
one another and yet cannot see that they and their enemy are more alike than
they are different.
Trying to explain this in the context of political
discussions with individuals who clearly identify with Right or Left is
difficult. But recently I was reminded
of the horseshoe theory of politics, and that indeed is a perfect
explanation. Moreover, it leads me to
realize that if this dynamic of our politics continues we absolutely must see
the development of a strong third party (perhaps as the two extremes merge into
one?) if our country as we know it is to survive.
The Horseshoe Theory
The horseshoe theory holds that the political spectrum,
rather than being shaped as a straight line, is in the shape of a horseshoe. The center of the horseshoe represents the
political center and as you move upward toward the end of either side you will
move more and more to the Right or the Left until you reach the end of each
side where reside the Far Right and Far Left.
You will note that these ends of the horseshoe bend toward
one another indicating, according to this theory, that the Far Right and Far
Left, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear continuum, approach and are
really quite similar to one another.
While this theory is often criticized for being too
simplistic, I think that it is worth thinking about, if for no other reason than
to try to objectively view one’s own viewpoint in contrast and comparison with
that of one’s own political foes.
What makes the extremes similar while still appearing
different?
The commonly used example of sameness is Communism (Left, strong
central state, work for common good) and Fascism (Right, strong central state,
work for the common good). There are of
course differences: Communist ideals include a classless society with economic
equality while Fascism includes a top-down class system and rule by
dictator.
But we can certainly come up with more topical concrete
examples. Consider identity politics.
The Left likes to identify people based on certain characteristics and
then label these groups as victim or victimizer (e.g. white vs. black, male vs.
female, rich vs. poor, etc.). The Right
complains about such identity politics and yet it also uses this approach as it
condemns members of groups that advocate (usually progressive) ideas that the
Right opposes (thus, enemy groups include LGBTQ, anti-traditional religion,
abortion advocates, etc.).
Again, there are differences, not only with the specifics,
but Left identity groups tend to be based upon external and often immutable
characteristics while the Right’s
placement of someone in an identity group more often begins with a belief that
they hold that is contrary to that held by the Right. But regardless, the end result is that both
Left and Right create identity groups and then either embrace or condemn all
those whom they have placed into that group.
For both Far Right and Far Left, a person’s color affects
the group’s perception of them. The Left
sees white people as oppressors and racists while people of color are seen as
victims of that oppression. The Right condemns
people of color for what they see as taking advantages including jobs,
education, etc. from white people due to affirmative action type programs. Both Far Right and Far Left reduce
individuals to a perceived group identity.
Cancel culture and free speech are other areas in which the Far
Right and Far Left are more similar than different. The Left will gladly justify the silencing of
those holding views contrary to their progressive values; for example, they
will gladly shout down a pro-life or anti-transgender speaker but will assert
the rights of protesters to call for the annihilation of Jews. Meanwhile, the Right will attempt to silence
those who protest or support the right to protest for Palestine and Hamas but
will demand the freedom of speech for advocates against progressive
ideals. The Right condemns the Left for
censorship and silencing in various areas such as vaccine debates. Yet the Right would silence progressive views
by condemning and banning books relating to gender identity.
Both sides will assert the Constitution and the First
Amendment free speech right as their support for their approved speech, but
they seem to forget those things when they wish to silence speech with which
they don’t agree.
In deciding whether Trump should be allowed to appear on
primary ballots, the Far Right suddenly ignores their previous demands that the
courts and especially SCOTUS be literalists in their reading of the
Constitution and not cave to or interpret the Constitution’s plain and clear
language to satisfy popular demand.
Meanwhile, the Left is now looking for a simple reading of the 14th
Amendment within the 4 corners of its language.
Both sides also regularly use ad hominem attacks (directing
their opposition and anger against the person rather than the position
maintained by that person). Again, while
the precise form or will differ language (e.g. racist, communist, fascist, deplorable,
plain stupid etc., all of which and more I have personally been called by both
the Left and the Right), the bottom line is that both sides find it easier to
engage in name-calling rather than to engage in a rational discussion about
their differing views, a discussion in which they begin by acknowledging the
other’s right to hold a view different from their own.
A horseshoe? It
depends.
Whether this horseshoe theory works depends on what you are
comparing. If you look at the specifics you
can conclude that the theory fails – the sides are nothing alike. Certainly shouting down a pro-life speaker is
nothing like trying to silence someone who yells “from the River to the
Sea.” The words are different, the issue
being addressed is different, the people involved are different. And you may agree with one speech but disagree
with the other.
And yet, if we go beyond the surface, they are far more
alike than different. In both cases
there is an attempt to deny someone their First Amendment right to speak their
opinion. It denies others of hearing
that opinion which in itself goes against one of the cornerstones of our democracy:
our form of government demands a free marketplace of ideas where all will be
heard and individuals will be left to make up their own minds rather than be
told by government or some other majority what they can, cannot, and must believe
and what they can and cannot say.
Beyond ignoring this core principle, it also violates the tolerance
that is a necessary characteristic if our free society is to succeed.
Claudine Gay was attacked for saying “it depends on context”
in regard to whether the pro-Palestinian protests violated her school’s code of
conduct. But that is exactly what a good
American should say. As a mentor of mine
recently stated:
[S]everal decades of "critical
thinking" being taught in junior and senior high schools didn't seem to
deal appropriately with the meaning of "critical" in the
context. The guy who taught my [children] in
the so-called "gifted" program would just review whatever he had
heard on NPR on the drive to school.
Remember my admonition to [pre-law]
students - every question you are going to face should be answered, in the
first instance with two words - "It Depends". Instead each side gets its thinking orders
from Fox or MSNBC and then proceeds to see everything through that lens. All surface.
In the case of the protests and conduct codes, one would
have to look at the actual activity and the language of the codes to understand
whether this was within the context of speech which, though abhorrent, was
within the First Amendment rights of the students to utter, or was this more,
perhaps combined with actual violence or immediate threats thereof? If we allow the silencing of speech alone, no
matter how abhorrent, in essence we are advocating the end to the protections
of the First Amendment for all Americans.
It all depends. Not just determining free speech rights, but
in determining most of the underlying issues of our day and of our country. It
does often depend on context. But core rights such as free speech should not
depend upon one’s view or on the speech being uttered. Yet for too many on both the Far Right and Far
Left, freedom of speech depends upon what is being spoken.
That hypocritical ability to view the same core concepts
differently depending upon what one is seeking to accomplish is the similarity
that drives the two political extremes to become almost as one. While their stated goals may be different,
their means are the same and both conflict with our core democratic principles.
Think
Good Americans think.
They ask why. The extremes of
both the right and the left are too wrapped up in themselves and their
mandatory causes to understand the phrase “it depends.” They don’t think, or if they do, they don’t
understand that issues can be more complex than a simple yes or no, black or
white, up or down, day or night. Yet if they apply this thought process to
their own views as well as those of others, they may realize that they are
often doing exactly that for which they condemn their opponents.
So, if we go beyond the surface, if we look beyond the overt
details to the deeper concepts directing various actions, we will likely see far
more similarity than difference between the two extremes of the political
spectrum.
I think it is that deeper conversation that desperately
needs to be had in America today. People
need to think and ask why rather than simply accept what they are told and the soundbites
they repeat from their chosen news source. That conversation can only be had if the
conversants understand the why underlying the positions they assert. Otherwise, when their position is countered they
likely feel threatened because they don’t really understand the position that
they are parroting and so a simple contradiction of their position and
memorized phrases becomes almost a contradiction of themselves. It is impossible to reason and explain a position
that is merely memorized but not understood.
When the focus becomes upon only the surface dissimilarities
rather than the suggestion of complexity, any hope of real understanding is
likely to dissolve and become something akin to a playground dispute. If
forced to look at the deeper concepts the response is likely either to attack
not the ideas of the counterargument, but rather to attack the bearer of the
unmemorized, considered idea, or to simply run away.
The Parties – not for most Americans
The horseshoe theory is a somewhat simplistic way of viewing
politics and political parties, but it is a good place to begin to review one’s
own views as well as those of one’s opponents.
Both the Republican and the Democrat parties currently seem
in large part controlled by their extremes. It would be more likely that they
merge into one than that they actually distinguish themselves on underlying
principles. In the end, both sides seek
power to control the rest of society – individual thoughts, beliefs, and
actions would all fall under their control. While what might be allowed or condemned
would differ, both would take away individual right and responsibility to
choose. That is not American, not
traditional and not progressive.
Indeed, both extremes are more than willing to dismiss the
Constitution, the rule of law, and any number of core American principles to ensure
that all individuals conform to what they think is proper and good. That is not America, traditional or
progressive.
I think that, divorced from their chosen Right or Left
newsfeeds, most Americans would fall somewhere near the middle of the
horseshoe, rising a bit to the Right on some things, to the Left on
others. But we have given those
Americans (including myself) nowhere to go.
If both the current major parties are but two sides of the same extreme
then Americans are almost forced to take sides against one another rather than
work together for solutions to serious problems.
We need a middle party.
A strong middle party, not just a third party stealer but a real party
that represents the vast number of Americans who find themselves standing on
one or the other end of the horseshoe – a place where they really don’t want to
be.
2024
It is almost, but not yet, too late for the appearance of a
candidate who fits more to the middle of the horseshoe. It could come from a third party or it could
come from one or both of the major parties.
Donald Trump or Joe Biden (or hopefully both) could be replaced by
candidates more representative of the middle, candidates who have slid down
from those horseshoe extremes to a point of moderation that allows them to
represent the policy positions of their party in reasonable ways, avoiding the
extremism and lack of cooperation and compromise that are the destructive
stance of both parties today.
We can only hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment