Philosophical Differences

A reader of this blog recently commented about having a fascination with the polarization that characterizes politics in America today. Politics has always been a partisan affair and there certainly have been times in our nation's history when it's been more combative (the Civil War comes to mind). The reasons for the current poisonous political climate are legion--too many to cover in this post.

But, I recently stumbled across a rather lengthy and interesting post on One Cosmos, my favortie new blog, which lays out the differences between the left and right from a philosophical point of view. Forgive me as I quote extensively from Gagdad Bob's post (which I recommend you read in its entirety).

The philosopher Michael Polanyi pointed out that what distinguishes leftist thought in all its forms is the dangerous combination of a ruthless contempt for traditional moral values with an unbounded moral passion for utopian perfection.

The first step in this process is a complete skepticism that rejects traditional ideals of moral authority and transcendent moral obligation. This materialistic skepticism is then combined with a boundless, utopian moral fervor to transform mankind. However, being that the moral impulse remains in place, there is no longer any boundary or channel for it. One sees this, for example, in college students (and those permanent college students known as professors) who, in attempting to individuate from parental authority and define their own identities, turn their intense skepticism against existing society, denouncing it as morally shoddy, artificial, hypocritical, and a mere mask for oppression and exploitation. In other words, as the philosopher Voegelin explained it, the religious hope for a better afterlife is “immamentized” into the present, expressing the same faith but in wholly horizontal and materialistic and terms.

What results is a moral hatred of existing society and the resultant alienation of the postmodern leftist intellectual. Having condemned the distinction between good and evil as dishonest, such an individual can at least find pride in the “honesty” of their condemnation. Since ordinary decent behavior can never be safe against suspicion of sheer conformity or downright hypocrisy, only an amoral meaningless act can assure complete authenticity. This is why, to a leftist, the worst thing you can call someone is a hypocrite, whereas authentic depravity is celebrated in art, music, film, and literature.

All emotionally mature people understand that sexuality, for example, can be a dangerous and destructive force when unhinged from any moral framework. But few people seem to understand that the same type of destruction can occur when the moral impulse is detached from its traditional framework. We can see the deadly combination of these two--“skepticism and moral passion,” or “burning moral fervor with hatred of existing society”--in every radical secular revolution since the French Revolution--from the Bolsheviks to nazi Germany to campus unrest in the 1960s. If society has no divine sanction but is made by man, men can and must perfect society now, while all opposition must be joyfully crushed--with moral sanction, of course.

You often hear it said (in the MSM) that suicide bombers are not immoral, that they are simply operating out of a different moral code. This only highlights the point that, just because you have a moral code, by no means does it mean that you are moral. In fact, the moral code may be entirely corrupt, in that it allows one to behave immorally, all the while being sanctioned by the code itself. This is similar to primitive societies that operate “logically” within a cognitive system that itself is illogical. These primitive individuals can reason perfectly well within the idiom of their beliefs, but they cannot reason outside or against their beliefs because they have no other idiom in which to express their thoughts. Logic doesn't help; it can prove anything, so long as the conclusion follows its premise. If the premise is faulty, then so too will be the conclusion. Likewise, if I believe that murdering infidels will gain me instant access to heaven, it is perversely logical and thoroughly “moral” under such a system to murder infidels.

One can be so enmeshed in the system that, for example, a woman might confess to having ruined her neighbor's crops through witchcraft, just as a a university administrator may confess to crimes against womankind for uttering a banal truth that is forbidden in the cognitively closed, tribal system of the contemporary feminist Ovary Tower. The intellect no longer serves Truth, but is in the service of the ideological superstructure, so that freedom of thought is bound by the confines of the system---by political or academic correctness.

For a while, civilization was able to withstand the skepticism unleashed by the enlightenment, by benefitting from the momentum of the traditional moral framework that gave rise to science to begin with (for example, the use of our God-given free will in pursuit of objective truth in a rational world made so by a beneficent creator who wished for us to know him through his works). But this could only go on for a few generations before it began detaching itself from the religious morality that underlie it. Since no Christian society can ever live up to its ideals, it wasn’t difficult for the skeptics to begin the process of hammering away at the foundations of tradition.

This process of deconstruction began in earnest in the late 1960s, a revolutionary time in America in which many noble political and social acheivements were realized. Unfortunately, many radicals became enamored with their ideals and intoxicated with self-importance, throwing the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting the wisdom of their elders ("don't trust anyone over 30") and traditional institutions, such as the church, the government, and the military. No doubt there were plenty of reasons to feel betrayed by these institutions during the late 60s nd early 70s. But instead of fighting to change them from within, many on the left "turned on, tuned in, and dropped out." In their immaturity, they embraced narcissism (becoming known as the "Me" generation) and rejected God, their parents and a host of societal mores.

Traditional religious observance, for instance, was abandoned and new age spirituality, oftentimes cobbled together from several religious traditions (or just made up entirely), became fashionable. Spiritual practices were developed in keeping with their foundational philosophy--"if it feels good, do it." However, over time the irresponsible behaviour precipitated by this philosophy produced a myriad of harmful consequences, individually and collectively.

Fortunately, many came to realize that, although she is not perfect, American society and institutions are worth preserving. For it is the ideals of America--freedom, liberty, the rule of law, the opportunity to attain a better life (the pursuit of happiness), among others, which are the envy of many around the world. Gagdad Bob argues that this counter-balance has helped to preserve our country.

...America escaped this destruction because it had a very different intellectual genealogy, having been much more influenced by the skeptical enlightenment of Britain and Scotland rather than the radical enlightenment of France. In addition, America never lost touch with its Judeo-Christian ideals, which inspired individuals to work to improve and humanize society without violent disruption of traditional ways or heavy-handed government intervention.

Many of our enlightened friends around the world--particularly those of the heavy-handed-government-intervention variety--view America's steadfast commitment to its Judeo-Christian ideals as laughable. They look down their noses upon the pathetic, ignorant American masses--unsure of whether to scorn or pity us. They mock our lack of sophistication and nuance, which is their clever way of ridiculing our deeply-held beliefs. These are the kindered spirits of many American leftists.

The political left in America abandoned true (vertical) religion and replaced it with an idealized religion of man (horizontal) that develops its theology in the secular monasteries of academia, finds its resonance in the echo chambers of the leftwing blogosphere, and expresses itself in the political arena. Because secular leftists, by definition, don't believe in an afterlife, their work on earth takes on a fevered urgency and religious zeal. This is why today's pitched political battles are conducted with such religious fervor and apocalyptic phraseology (i.e. Bush = evil = Hitler = fascist = terrorist, etc.).

One example from the news today: The left's crusade against Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), who is struggling to retain his senate seat in the upcoming primary. His sin--supporting the Iraq War and being friendly with Lucifer Incarnate, AKA George W. Bush. Lieberman, a decent and honorable man of the center-left, has become a heretic in the fever swamps and must be excommunicated. If the far left succeeds in defeating Senator Lieberman, it will provide more evidence that there is no room for centrists in the Democrat party.

Gagdad Bob characterizes a surf through the fever swamps,

I think about Polanyi’s simple formulation every time I wade into the left-wing blogosphere. The utterly sad and destructive cynicism. And the boundless moral fervor. Its mantra is “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” For it is purely mindless and reactionary: no digestion at all, just chewing up and spitting out, repeated ad bulimeum. In short, one is not enough and a hundred is too many when you partake of the Satanic Eucharist of primordial envy.

Ah, envy--a topic for a different post, altogether.