Spencer Critchley

I always like talking with Joan Esposito, who asks great questions and allows time to explore answers. On Nov. 29, 2021, we talked about Wokeism, Critical Theory, and Critical Race Theory, and why I think an intolerant left can’t be the answer to the intolerant right.

Excerpt:

I overlap very closely in terms of policy positions with people who are on this sort of “woke left.” And so I’m not coming at this from some sort of squishy, compromising centrist position, or as a conservative or something. I basically agree on most of the policy stuff. This is a politics problem.

The intolerant right is descended from a totalizing ideology called ethnic nationalism and that’s basically what Trumpism is. It’s not conservatism in any way, it’s anti-conservative — it’s not really a coherent ideology at all. And that’s why it doesn’t make sense, because what it really is is ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is what produced the modern nations of Germany and Italy and then in its extreme form, became Nazism and Italian fascism.

And that’s based in this idea that the essence of human nature is this unique racial and cultural nation that springs from its native soil. It’s sometimes called “blood and soil.” And the point is for that national “people” to realize their destiny through the exercise of their will. And that’s essentially “Make America Great Again.” It’s trying to recover a supposed ethnic nationalist vision of America that has been lost to all these, you know, rationalizing liberals who don’t understand the glorious culture of supposed ethnic nationalist America.

So that’s essentially what’s going on with Trumpism and it does lead towards fascism — well, it’s pretty darn close to fascism right now, but you don’t have to call them actual Nazis and downplay the seriousness of what that word means, but it’s definitely the path that leads to Nazism.

Now, the other totalizing ideology is Marxism. And Marx’s view of human nature is diametrically opposed to the ethnic nationalist one, but it’s equally absolutist. So Marx essentially believed that human nature in its unspoiled state is essentially pure, like the way the romantic naturalist would think of nature. And the only reason that there’s exploitation and wealth disparities and poverty and cruelty in the world is that over time, technology and the struggle over the wealth that technology produces has led to class divisions, class struggle, and the bourgeoisie emerged on top, oppressing the workers. But if we overthrow capitalism and remove the source of exploitation in class struggle, we will restore natural human nature, which is naturally cooperative and communitarian, and essentially create a worker’s paradise on Earth.

Marx believed — this sounds mystical; I believe it actually is mystical — but he believed he had discovered the science of history, so this really wasn’t open to doubt. He predicted that capitalism was about to collapse. Of course it didn’t, but according to his science of history, it was about to collapse, and global communism would inevitably take its place through the revolution that was inevitably coming.

Now, the thing is that Marxist theory, usually in a less violent form, is the conceptual foundation of Critical Theory, which was created by Marxist philosophers, starting in the early 1930s, known as the Frankfurt School, in Frankfurt, Germany, and has been inherited by modern day Critical Theorists, who are also influenced by other philosophical trends, especially postmodernism. But they retain the Marxist view of history, that essentially we are living in an oppressive system under capitalism and Enlightenment liberalism, and the science that goes along with it has actually been captured by capitalism to maintain this capitalist oppression.

So the solution cannot be achieved through Enlightenment liberalism, because they see Enlightenment liberalism essentially as a poodle, sort of a pack animal for capitalism, and what we need is true enlightenment, which would be a radical, complete — I don’t want to say overthrow, because it sounds like violent overthrow, and they’re not necessarily, most of them are not calling for a violent revolution — but essentially, destroy capitalism and the Enlightenment liberal mythology that supports it, and replace it with essentially what would have to be a Marxist socialist solution, and in which we would critique all knowledge within the framework of Critical Theory.

So that’s the sort of five minute summary of what I see is the intolerant right versus the intolerant left. The problem in a nutshell, though, is, both sides are absolutely certain. It doesn’t really matter so much what they believe, because people should be free to believe almost anything except, that you should kill people you disagree with or something, but we should encourage people to have radical fringe ideas, all kinds of ideas in a liberal democracy.

So, the problem is not so much what they think, the problem is the totalizing instantiation of the fact that they’re just so darn certain they’re right, because if you think about it, if you are 100 percent certain you know how the world should be run, you just know it right? But you can’t tolerate disagreement, because anybody who disagrees with you is either just wrong or they’re morally wrong: They’re either mistaken or they’re corrupt. If you’re 100 percent certain, you know the absolute truth, that’s ultimately the problem. Any form of absolute certainty becomes absolutism, whether it’s on the right, or the left, or anything else. And that essentially in one word I think is the problem: the certainty.

As today’s Congressional testimony makes so powerfully clear, what we’re going through isn’t a political crisis, it’s a moral crisis. Until we face that as a nation, there can’t be any “moving on.”

One of the greatest strengths of democracy is that it separates most moral questions from politics — moralistic intolerance has been the source of some of history’s worst abuses. But in its current form, that separation has also left us poorly equipped to confront a moral crisis, because even the most basic moral values are now open to political dispute.

Thanks to democracy, we’re not required to believe in any religion, or disbelieve in any. But democracy can’t function if we don’t at least believe in democracy itself. That must include believing in its core moral values. We can’t prove logically that freedom, equality, and justice are good; we choose to believe they are.

But because democracy isn’t a religion, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that its values must be sacred. And we have lost sight of that sacredness.

Trumpism isn’t just politically wrong. Because it’s hostile to democracy, it’s morally wrong. (It’s also immoral by other moral codes, including the Christianity many Trumpists think they’re upholding.) We must face that truth, not so one side can win a political argument, but to protect democracy itself, at its core.

The claim made by Trumpist leaders and media personalities that this is just a political contest is a sign of their moral degradation.

Facing the essential immorality of Trumpism doesn’t mean we should judge Trumpists as uniquely immoral. Immorality exists in all of us, and all of us have played a part in creating a society in which Trumpism can flourish.

But it does require accountability.

Supporting Trumpism isn’t just a mistake, caused by misinformation. That so many analysts see it that way is another indication of what we’ve lost sight of. Not only information, but morality makes democracy possible.

And that morality must not only be shared among us, but be present within us, in the form of “civic virtue.” We can never expect all people to be virtuous of course, or expect any one of us to be virtuous all the time. But the necessity of civic virtue as a standard of behavior has been understood since the invention of democracy in classical Athens. We’ve largely abandoned that standard, while turning citizenship into a form of consumerism. Citizens make demands of leaders, not of themselves — forgetting that citizens are supposed to be the ultimate leaders.

Civic virtue includes a responsibility to be informed. So people who are still misinformed, after all we’ve all seen, are responsible for their state. Accurate information about Trumpism is available easily, instantly, and for free. Continuing support for Trumpism requires actively avoiding accurate information. That’s a choice. An immoral choice.

We can’t just move on from immorality, even if we all were to agree we wanted to. No matter what we may want, it won’t go away. It persists as shame, whether or not that shame is acknowledged. We’re still paying for the attempt to just “move on” from the Civil War.

The only way to move on is through the truth. If we don’t face the truth about Trumpism, we’ll be living with it, and suffering from it, for a long, long time.