Parsing Out Dystopia: The Sameness of the Opposites

 

One of the defining characteristics of dystopia is how similar supposedly opposite principles are in terms of their effects in the public sphere.  For example, the principle of “bodily autonomy” is used by both sides of the political isle.  The Left believe in such autonomy when it comes to abortions but not when it comes to vaccine mandates.  The Right advocates autonomy when it comes to vaccines but refuses to apply it to abortions.

One might claim that abortion is murder (it is not, the nonviable fetus has no awareness in the human sense and is therefore no more a “person” than a unborn chimpanzee).  The other might claim that the unvaxxed are killing others (that is overly simplistic and tabloid caliber rationality).  Though these opinions are in opposition their effects are the same.  

The anti-vaxxers call the other side a “vax cult.” The pro-vaxxers call the other a “death cult.”  Hence, they are the same in terms of demonizing one another.  They display communicative incompetence by refusing to genuinely consider the other side's perspective.  They are equally deaf, equally unsympathetic, equally polarizing.  This is the nature of dystopia, where opposing views have the same effect on public discourse, which is literally tearing society apart.

No particular side is to blame for the present polarization and culture wars.  Both bare precisely the same responsibility.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Kevin McCarthy hold differing political views, but their actual impact is exactly the same.  Both admonish the other and both see the other not as a fellow citizen but as a threat to democracy.  In real terms of a working democracy both are equally pathetic and harmful.

Another example is the infamous Texas abortion law which creates a society of snitches to surveil fellow citizens.  California is now considering the creation of its own snitch state when it comes to gun control.  Both sides are equally responsible for creating a new kind of gestapo-like invasion of privacy.  The principle of freedom is restricted equally in its own way.  The issues may be different but the fundamental negative impact on American society is the same.

In my previous post, I analyzed the rise of American fascism.  Now I want to turn my attention toward the equally authoritarian aspects of the American Left.  In dystopia your political opinion is not as important as the tactics you are willing to use against your opponent.  America has thrived on a diversity of opinion since its inception.  The War Between the States was a violent exception to an otherwise functioning nation.  Compromise used to be the magic that made everything work.  The compromise the pace of change was governed by the degree of cooperation between opposing sides.  In dystopia, compromise is dead and everyone is authoritarian.  

President Biden, who I had hoped would show some degree of moderation (he failed miserably at this and just about everything else he's said and done), recently made an infamous speech in Atlanta on voting rights.  The speech was grotesque in its polarizing spin, resulting in a mixed response that one might expect from a Donald Trump rally, with the political parties reversed, of course.

Biden previously demonized Republicans for “placing a knife at the throat of democracy.”  He has referred to Republicans as “domestic terrorists” on several occasions.  To use “terrorism” to universally condemn a party that represents at least 40 percent of America is absurd enough.  But, he has done so without any mention to the massive rise in rioting and mayhem committed by the Left in cities across America.  Of course, he can't do this because of his base, which is the polar opposite of Trump's base, except in terms of the actual instability it causes.  Destabilization by the Left is precisely identical with that inspired by Trump.

The most recent call to arms or decrying of the sky is falling is in the name of “voter suppression.”  This worried me as well in 2020.  But, if you look at what is happening to voting rights in this country you see that the only “suppression” actually happening in new laws enacted in Georgia, Arizona, and elsewhere is that these states have simply made it so that a voter actually has to get off their lazy ass and go down to their polling place, if they even know where it is, and cast their vote. 

 
According the politically neutral RealClearPolitics: “What Republicans have insisted on is that our elections should be run in ways that discourage fraud and political manipulation, namely that individual voters should take responsibility for their own votes and should do so in the manner prescribed by law. Democrats, on the other hand, want to make it as easy as possible to vote, whether that means turning Election Day into Election Month or turning the sacred act of voting into the equivalent of an Uber delivery, where a political party can collect and transport multiple ballots to unsecured drop boxes and hope for the best (wink wink, nod nod!).”

In my previous post, I discussed how Trump is setting up to steal the 2024 election.  But that has nothing to do with the new voting legislation passed in several states.  As I explained, the submission of electors by state legislatures is constitutionally separate from the popular act of voting.  As far as actually voting is concerned, however, nothing in any state legislation is making it impossible for a legally registered voter to actually show up at the polls and cast their vote.  Nothing in any state legislation is forbidding votes cast in this fashion from being accurately accounted for.

My concern about Trump is that the state electors might no longer reflect the actual vote. That is a separate issue.  Biden and Stacy Abrams and others on the Left conflate the two things.  In truth, no one has done anything to prevent those who are legally registered to vote from actually voting in person.  They might not be able to do “ballot harvesting” or “drive-by voting” but having to put out personal effort to vote is in no way suppression of voting.  It is, rather, a desire to change what it means to vote (“Uber delivery”).

RCP again: “Election Day used to mean something. It was a time when we gathered together in a ritual of democracy that brought us closer and reassured us that our neighbors were taking their responsibility just as seriously as we were. 'Voter turnout' meant that someone had actually turned out to vote — they had made a positive effort to cast their ballot, because they cared about our country and our future.

“Democrats have done everything in their power to replace that grand ritual with a system that not only lessens our connection to each other, but also increases our reliance on political parties to harvest votes and turn elections into a referendum on which party has the most money and the most muscle.”

The Democrat complaint of suppression is the same as the Republican complaint of massive voter fraud.  Neither is factual.  Both equally play in the realm of propaganda.  That is because political principles no longer guide the Left nor the Right in America.  Instead, it is all about narrative, not facts, not evidence, but opinion espoused as evidence and fact.  In this regard, the Left has a lot in common with Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.  This is another example of the dystopian sameness of the opposites.  The spin and the pitch directed at feelings rather than empirical facts guides American politics today.

There is no better example of this than “critical race theory.”  This is a progeny of the academic world, which is in itself walled off from society as a whole.  For decades Leftist academicians have cast judgment upon society through the sterile lens of whatever they wish to advocate – outside and distinct from American society.

In the case of CRT, we are told that nothing is more fundamental to the fabric of America than racism against blacks.  There is nothing about America that is not stained with this racism.  Racism is an inescapable justification for perpetual victimhood.  The authoritarian aspiration of CRT, its all-encompassing decree that we can never escape the past has exactly the same impact on the public sphere as “second amendment rights” advocacy.  The world is interpreted as nothing is more important than race in understanding the present, just as, to others, nothing is more sacred that the right to bare arms.

Certainly, racism is still prevalent in America today.  But the refusal to take heart at the progress made is myopic.  Future action against racism should be inspired by accomplishment rather than required by hard theory.  CRT is arrogant to the extent that a certain brand of person is allowed to claim that their central issue within reality is the inescapable whole of reality.  That the suffering of a minority of people is the vortex of the lives of all people.

CRT does not take into account facts such as the lessening of the importance of racial orientation amount younger generations such as Millennials and Gen Z.  The fact is Generation Z may be the least racist group of Americans to ever emerge into the public sphere.  Rather than see clearly where we are going as a people in the behavior and attitudes of what will become our most powerful future generation, CRT clings to the far more prevalent bigotry in older generations that will only decline in power as they die out.

The CRT narrative also fails to take account the racism between and within minority groups themselves.  Obama was “not black enough.”  Asian Americans and African Americans have a lot of work to do between their own communities that never is taken into account outside the traditional white vs. black narrative that is, frankly, becoming antiquated in terms of a complete picture of race in America.  Every ethnicity holds a racial prejudice toward some other ethnicity.  Even white people were slaves throughout history.

Instead, CRT maintains an authoritarian position anchored in the traditional past as if there are no forces at work in contemporary society that are defying this tradition.  This is not the case.  By refusing to acknowledge its own weaknesses, CRT is a self-perpetuating ideology that offers no solution.  We cannot have a more racially equal society not because of the racism of the majority but because to achieve such a racial balancing would make CRT itself irrelevant.  This is a classic case of Nietzsche's slave morality and the resulting ressentment among its adherents.

What is the future of CRT in a world that is becoming less racist even without anyone even knowing what CRT is all about?  CRT seeks to wall-in a dynamic concept that is changing every year.  The 2020's are not the same as the 1950's as far as race is concerned in America.  Every institution, and particularly institutionalized academia, seeks to perpetuate itself.  It is part of the DNA of ever theory to eternally justify itself regardless of any changes made of knowledge gained with the passage of time.  The fact that CRT is unwilling to submit itself to internal critique but, instead, is perpetuated as a force within academia at large is one of the clearest examples of propaganda in the world today.

Another authoritarian position inflicted by the Left unto the public sphere is cancel culture.  Some claim this issue does not even exist.  But what do you call it when contrary voices questioning the liberal narrative, are subject to attempts to prevent those contrary views from being publicly expressed?  When the mob shouts-down attempts by illiberal speakers at universities from uttering a word?  Examples of cancel culture abound under the excuse of hate speech or misinformation (see here and here).  

Many are canceled for other reasons.  Woody Allen is an obvious example.  He has never been convicted of anything.  He and his wife genuinely love and support one another after many years of marriage.  And yet one of the greatest film-making talents of the last 50 years might never make another movie due to being ostracized by the cancel police.  

Of course, with the exception of Allen and a few others, these individuals are not truly “canceled” by society.  Most of them continue to otherwise freely live out their lives.  The so-called cancelling itself is not what disturbs me.  Rather, it is the disingenuous application of one set of freedoms for another or the belief that my freedoms are more important than your freedom of speech because of what you say.  This is clearly a form of cultural authoritarianism.  

It is another sure sign that we live in dystopian times when the Left opposes freedom of expression by others who advance ideas that do not correspond to the liberal narrative.  Cancel culture is not about removing people from the public sphere (although that happens) so much as claiming legitimacy of judgment on what can and cannot be spoken or acted out.  In this way the liberal narrative becomes disoriented and morphs into what is a Nazi-like desire not to encourage debate but to shut down it all down.

Mandated speech such as the theoretical forced use of neopronouns in the public sphere is without question a power grab.  Rephrasing government documents to minimize the traditional use of pronouns and alleged sexist/racist word choices only alienates one part of the population from another.  Restricting or controlling what people can say to other people is gestapo-like regulation.  Liberals who don't like what someone says or does, as long as it doesn't cause harm in a legal sense, are simply leveraging their power to limit the power of the Other.  In the process they marginalize themselves and make themselves increasingly irrelevant to the “suburban housewives” that supposedly swing our elections.  It is an exercise in “feelgood totalitarianism.”  

Control of media as a means of controlling and limiting certain ideas is another Leftist asset.  Again, there is little difference between this and what Goebbels did in Nazi Germany and dystopia emerges where those who once advocated of civil rights and freedoms wish to limit the rights and freedoms of anyone they judge as hateful or misinformed.  The absurdity of this is crushing.

An example of thought-control by the Left can be found in the liberal media assassination of anyone using Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.  Repeatedly and disingenuously, the media characterized this treatment as “a horse de-wormer.”  But, like all good propaganda, that is only a half-truth.  The half-lie is that Ivermectin is prescribed for a range of legitimate human illnesses and yet CNN and other media outlets ONLY characterized Ivermectin in a most limited sense; not putting “facts first” but rather putting their liberal narrative first.  Joe Rogan was crucified for taking Ivermectin when he caught COVID-19, but the fact is it was prescribed for him by his physician.  That's an inconvenient fact for CNN. 

The absurd idea of “defunding the police” is another ironic example of authoritarianism.  By claiming that police forces are inherently racist and that we will be better off with community outreach programs is an interesting social experiment.  But it fails to take into account the inherently violent nature of American society.  The south side of Chicago and other urban areas of America are a war zone.   Americans are afraid of their own society.  Therefore, it is absurd to the majority of people that we would have less police instead of more.  

At the very least it is bad politics.  It makes the liberal narrative absurd to the majority and thereby strengthens the fascist narrative as the only alternative.  In other words, liberal attempts to overwhelm contrary perspectives and to push an absurd experimental social agenda play into Donald Trump's hands by driving voters who remain moderate or at least near-center toward the Right.  The radical Right seems less radical than the radical Left because the Left is more absurd.  Which is exactly the way German society felt at the beginning of Hitler's rise.

Another absurdity of the Left is “cultural appropriation.”  Why is this even an issue at all?  Could be because “democrats whine too much,” as James Carville recently put it?  First of all, such appropriation is not necessarily demeaning to whatever culture to which it pertains.  In most cases, it is a celebratory or harmless “play-acting” behavior.  More importantly, however, is the fact that no culture has copyright.  Cultural concepts and expressions are not privileged.  To a large extent, cultures have to influence one another (often through appropriation of custom or lifestyle) in order for cultures to mingle and coexist.  

To feel denigrated in some way by how other people “appropriate” someone's culture is a sign of arrogance, not victimhood.  “How dare you imitate me!” is quite obviously childish and neurotic.  More to the point, the majority of people see nothing wrong with such “appropriation.”  If the majority thought otherwise then, like morality itself, consensus would dictate a change in such behavior.  The Left does not have a consensus on appropriation beyond its myopic perspective.  Isn't that one thing that cultures are about?  Being shared?  Even imitated?  The Left seems disconnected from reality when it advances such foolishness.  Society is no more harmed by acts of appropriation that it is by marijuana use, which the Left seeks to legalize.

“Inclusivity” is another ironically absurd Leftist buzzword.  Everything is to be “included” except anyone hesitant about such inclusion.  Inclusivity is really exclusive to intellectual elitists and those who wish for more political and cultural power than culture is naturally willing to give.  Cultures evolve and the Left ultimately gets its way, but Leftists confuse political enabling with cultural realization.  The historic Civil Rights Act, for example, enabled civil rights to advance in America but it did not change American culture immediately.  Instead, that change took place (and is still taking place) over the course of generations born, reared and, most importantly, interacting after such legislation existed.  Genuine change on matters of ethnicity is always cultural not political.

Woke inclusiveness has not made America more inclusive.  That will take decades to manifest through younger generations.  But the Left heavy-handily wants to force inclusivity upon the population that is not fully ready for it.  Again, the dynamics of change are cultural through time not political through specific acts of legislation.  To confuse this is the drive the center away from you and toward your opposition, thereby actually slowing down the very change you seek to enable.

The liberal narrative is pushed by a frustrated bunch of discomfited advocates just like their Right counterparts, but for different reasons.  Progressives mistakenly believe that progress must always move “forward” without regress.  But that isn't true (as we are about to discover with Roe v. Wade).  The fact is, so-called progress in a theoretically democratic society will only “advance” to the degree that conservative culture allows.  When it attempts to overreach its progression then the power of precedence intercedes to slow things down or, as in the case of abortion, to possibly revert to a previous norm.  

But the point is that the far Left wants to dominant American society no less than the radical Right.  In many cases, the agenda of the Left is overwrought with academia, which is as disconnected from the enthnocentric nature of American society as are the various militia groups of the radical Right.  It is the sameness of these opposites that has polarized our country and strangled legitimate public discourse.  The Left is no less authoritarian than the mobster politics of Donald Trump.  It a classic example of Nietzsche's “will to power” in action.

From another RCP article: "On a whole host of other issues important to Americans, with Democrats in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, there appears to be what can only be called a disconnect between the party and a significant majority of the public. Whether it is a leaky southern border, more deaths from COVID-19 in 2021 than in 2020 (despite the widespread availability of vaccines), the disaster that defines the withdrawal from Afghanistan, or dramatic and frightening increases in crime, Democrats cling to their outdated strategy of first blaming Donald Trump, and second labeling those who oppose their agenda and performance as enemies of democracy.

"For Democrats and the leaders of the Woke Police, it is not merely a matter of conservatives and Republicans being wrong. Instead, they define the battle as being between truth and lies. Many liberals explicitly state that nothing less than punishment is justified.

"Doubt this statement? A recent survey of younger Americans indicated that while 37% of Democrats would not be friends with a Republican, only 5% of Republicans felt the same way about Democrats. On a related question, 71% of Democrats would not date a Republican, versus 31% of Republicans who said they would not date a Democrat.

"Rasmussen reports 59% of Democrats support placing those who have not been vaccinated under house arrest. Fully 45% of Democrats agree with placing the unvaccinated in 'designated facilities.' This has the odor of concentration camps."

As James Carville warned: "Some of these woke people need to take a nap."  In other words, if the Left wants to relevantly combat the aggressive Right it needs to return to the center.  Moderates, not conservatives or liberals, determine every national election.  The American Leftist movement is elitist and arrogant and seems no more capable of moderating itself than the radical Right.  The effect of both is the same.

I happen to personally agree with much of the Left agenda (global warming, diversity, equal rights, abortion rights, etc.) but I can no longer support its political agenda because its tactics are restrictive, close-minded, and absurd in terms of what the average American voter will accept.  Like Trump, Leftists play upon the fears of society just as their policies and behavior perpetuate new fears.  The Left wants to mandate speech and mandate behavior, to control human individuals and force them to live or at least pretend to live progressive ideals.  This is a violation of how cultures change and how individuals transform.

The truest difference between the Right and the Left is that the former resists while the latter insists.  This effect of this dichotomy upon society is the same.  Insistence and resistance are equally authoritarian.  Both create tension and neither provides resolution.  We are living in a a form of dystopia where political power is ineffective and disorienting.  

Rather than engage in genuine dialog like reasonable adults should in all other cases of their lives, rather than attempt to understand one another and to seek common ground while respecting differences, the Left has chosen the path of forcing their worldview upon all others.  You will speak and behave how I want you to and, more importantly, I don't have to respect your hesitations and apprehensions.  As such, the radical Left is inhumane by failing to engage with the limits of all humanity.

It cannot be stressed enough that legitimate political change only occurs within cultural change, with the passage of time, the intermingling of people and the emergence of perspectives from youthful generations.  To that extent, it is best to allow everyone to freely express themselves and behave as they see fit while you advocate your hopes and aspirations for a new or renewed nation.  The Left's attempt to control thought and expression through the media and academia is no less an example of dystopian authoritarianism than the aims and utterances of the radical Right.  

As Jurgen Habermas said many years ago, it is the “unforced force” of the expressed perspective that ultimately wins not just the argument but the hearts and minds of participants.  The sooner the Left becomes woke to their own power grabbing ways, the better their chance to return to the forefront of American politics and affect genuine change.  But it must realize that change does not occur on its own terms with the passage of an agenda.  Rather, it happens incrementally through time as resistance naturally breaks down with the interplay of prevalent cultural forces, the advancement of technology and the evolution of each successive generation of citizens.