Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
There Is Only One ‘Ideology’ To Be Resisted: Authoritarianism
Mrs Rodin and I recently watched a documentary on Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale amongst other novels. She is a fascinating character. Toward the end, both of us were put off by her focus on her fear of conservative authoritarianism. Not because she feared conservative authoritarianism, but because she seemed to be blind to progressive authoritarianism.
As Mrs Rodin noted: When you examined her work and her statements she had statements about not seeing yourself (as a woman) to be a victim; she adapted to her role as a mother — restricting her writing to when she wasn’t caring for the children — without expecting her author husband to pick up the slack; and she took on a caretaker responsibility, apparently without complaint, when her husband developed dementia. In other words, she defined herself as an individual and did not make doctrinaire decisions in how she lived her life.
In fairness, the documentary was made during the Trump Administration, so I wondered whether Covid and events in Canada under Justin Trudeau, or what’s going on with WEF, has given her any concern about progressive authoritarianism. Sadly, it doesn’t appear so. She is firmly in support of climate alarmism, and while she certainly supports the women’s protests in Iran and author freedom as well, she doesn’t seem to appreciate that “Gilead” — Atwood’s fictional dystopia — can be arrived at through multiple routes.
Atwood is a Canadian. And it is startling to see such a proponent of “liberty” not involving herself in marches opposing Trudeau’s “Gilead” — the arrest of the preacher during the pandemic, the Emergencies Act shutting down of credit and banking to wrong thinkers, the banning of protest, the continuing health emergency rules. She was happy to do so in America during the Trump administration.
The reason why Atwood and many people who see themselves as progressives are blind to progressive authoritarianism is the same reason why people who see themselves as conservatives are blind to conservative authoritarianism: we focus too much on the path and not the destination. The authoritarian impulse exists and it is agnostic about the pathway. Who among us has not at one or another time secretly (or not so secretly) wished that we could extend our personal control and order things to our (righteous) preferences? If we can see that in ourselves, we know it exists in others.
And it is this impulse that can be exploited through ideology in service to someone else’s more powerful drive for authoritarian control. And that is what we must fight, whether it is “our” team or “their” team. We can disagree mightily about this or that policy, so long as we can agree that we will not succumb to authoritarianism in support of our policy preferences.
But it appears that only the “losing” side at any given time is ever sensitive to authoritarianism; the “winning” side seems to revel in how they are getting their way without giving any thought to how authoritarianism will eventually grind them down. If we are to save ourselves, it is not through forcing our will on anyone; it is through acceptance of suboptimal outcomes (from our perspective) that maximize individual liberty.
When your neighbor paints their house an outrageous color, rejoice in their freedom to do so, or look for new neighbors. Don’t turn the country into a massive homeowner’s association thinking that the rules will always reflect your tastes. For any homeowner’s association left unchecked will surely, at some point, become a gulag.
Published in General
Rodin, did the documentary point out that Margaret Atwood wrote A Handmaid’s Tale in the 1980s? At that time, the Christian right was—or appeared to be—ascendant, with what seemed to New York Times’ readers, at least, to be eager to impose itself on others, e.g. proposing flag-burning amendments and whatnot.
And in those days, too, feminists would decry the serious and vicious misogyny of Muslim countries. I even remember Ms. Magazine decrying the saber-rattling that preceded the first Gulf War by explaining that Saddam’s Iraq was less oppressive than other middle-eastern/Muslim countries. No chador, women could work outside the home, etc.
As I recall, Atwood modeled Gilead on the real-life dystopia of Afghanistan under the Taliban, assuming that a dystopia ruled by Christian fundamentalists would be pretty much the same thing.
Hence the value of ideological diversity, however inefficient and inelegant its processes may appear from the outside!
Yes. That was the point in the documentary where it highlighted a shift toward more express political writing — as opposed to cultural. People have some ability to resist cultural pressures so long as those pressures are not backed by the State.
And even conservatives are calling for authoritarianism at home in the guise of some sort of vague, ill-defined assistance for East Palestine. There was a time when conservatives understood very well what it meant for someone to say, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”
I think I need examples of “conservative authoritarianism.” At least, some American version thereof.
Leftists have done to “conservative” what was justifiably done to (tax and spend) “liberal.” An American conservative is one who is a “friend of the Founding” — Andrew Klavan. And our Founding is very much anti-authoritarian. Its principles are: rule of law, sovereignty of the people (consent of the governed), and separation of powers in co-equal (competing) branches of government strictly bound by the Constitution, which is designed to limit the power of government, not the people.
Our “conservative” system has been upended by years of growing the unelected (unaccountable) bureaucracy (Deep State) and the public maleducation and secularization of our people. Unfortunately, Ben Franklin was prophetic when he said “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
A flag burning amendment is a pretty weak example of conservative authoritarianism, although I agree the notion is foolish. Give me an example of a clamp down on lefties’ ability to keep their jobs if they speak their minds (or use the “wrong” pronouns) or suffering lawfare for their lefty opinions. I’m interested to learn.
Back in the 1980s there was talk among conservatives of “restoring prayer in public school.” It never really went anywhere. I suppose that is what is meant by “conservative authoritarianism?” Forcing people to accept a certain set of conservative religious beliefs?
This is a fair point. American society in the latter half of the 20th Century experienced freedom and economic well-being to a degree never seen before and so conservative authoritarianism has been largely erased from our memories. Examples include property rights that could include slavery, denying women the right to own property or vote, prohibition and “blue laws”, Sunday closing laws, etc. I am not suggesting that contemporary conservative thought is as authoritarian as contemporary progressive thought, only that neither outlook is inherently safe from authoritarianism. You may argue that your conception of conservatism is, just as mine is (which is actually classical liberalism), but that doesn’t mean that everyone’s conception of conservatism is. And that is what I warn against.
See comment #7. Coerced religion can be one form of “conservative” authoritarianism. Though depending upon what is regarded as a religious practice (e.g., priestesses as prostitutes in ancient Rome) it might be hard to classify under our current conservative vs progressive beliefs dichotomy. But theocracy is not the sole means of authoritarian rule.
I just thought of another potential answer that would describe conservative authoritarianism. Children today can be put in any school their parents choose (public, private, etc.) Although a governor like DeSantis is demanding that a basically balanced curriculum be taught, mostly what we would call conservative thought, conservatives could try to force all schools to teach only conservative thought. I can’t imagine our doing that, but that would be an example, I think.
But, what made those examples “conservative?” In the sense of the Founding (both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution together)?
Slavery was very much a Democrat (pro-regressive?) institution and still is. They’ve just found more subtle means to keep blacks on the plantation. Abortion has led to the tremendous sexual exploitation of women, whether they know it or not. Women aren’t valued for their procreative capacity. If anything, pregnancy is viewed as a disease to be “treated” by killing babies.
Sunday closings? Well, okay. A formerly Christian nation no longer observes the Lord’s Day because we must have 24/7 365 commerce. I remember being on flights over Kansas(?) when the attendants would have to clear the cocktails while crossing Kansas’s airspace on Sunday. I guess that’s authoritarian. If I had to choose between that and lockdowns? No competition.
If you are a Seventh Day’s Adventist, the Lord’s Day is Saturday, not Sunday.
I think the valuable part of this discussion is not determining if we currently have conservative authoritarianism in place, but what it might be if we do not pay attention. There are a lot of angry conservatives who might relish the idea of forcing their ideas on others who hate them. I’m actually more concerned that we can’t think of examples to help us identify these action, because will we notice them if and when they arise?
If something is bad, it is labelled “conservative.” That’s the rule.
School prayer was widely accepted and approved by the people. It was hardly an imposition of religion as the prayer was more like well-wishing the good of one’s school, community, and country, and even the non-religious could say it before they became such snowflakes.
But, I’m opposed to “public” schools as they stand today, so destroy the public education establishment and you don’t have to worry about prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance in “public” schools.
Whether we like it or not, and whether or not it is intellectually correct, our political debate is essentially binary: conservative vs progressive. ( I use “progressive” because I just hate the redefinition of “liberal” that progressives have given it. And, yes, progressive is regressive.) And so it is that every liberal who steps out of line with progressivism is labeled “conservative”. I accept those terms and point out that the term is irrelevant — only authoritarianism is the enemy.
True. And some decades ago there were a few communities that were made up predominantly of Seventh-day Adventists and had de jure or de facto Saturday closing laws.
On Saturday I listened to Coleman Hughes’s Podcast interview of the former Oxford University philosophy professor Kathleen Stock who left academia due to all of the protests against her critical comments regarding the transgender movement.
Kathleen Stock is a lesbian and says she has always voted for the Labour Party in the UK. Yet, because she says that when a man says he is a women, “this is a fiction,” she was consistently the subject of protests.
Neither Coleman Hughes nor Kathleen Stock are politically conservative. But because they both are critical of some of what the transgender movement is doing, they are labeled as such.
I recently published a post here titled, “New York Times accused of being right wing.”
Yes. It is a question of whether they don’t exist or whether we don’t recognize them. We should listen to our progressive critics and consider whether there is a valid criticism before rejecting out of hand, given the source.
This is how we defeat progressivism: by making common cause against authoritarianism. Our liberal colleagues can join us. After it is defeated we can resume our competition on policy. But nothing is more important than opposing authoritarianism.
I’ve recently become concerned with (my own) projection because I’ve seen someone do it, up close. But, I’m also not a fan of moral equivalency and I believe the Left’s ideology is, ultimately, totalitarian, not just authoritarian, and very much the opposite of the Right in America.
Sometimes a spade is a spade, and the assault on our Republic is exclusively from the Left. Progressives have no room to criticize, but their denial of truth and reality — their embrace of cognitive dissonance — allows them to accuse the Right of every evil they impose, from racism to misogyny to environmental destruction.
Conservatives — especially religious ones — acknowledge the fallenness of man, which is very much why we embrace the Founding.
At least one religious conservative here on Ricochet has openly announced his opposition to individual freedom because he thinks individual freedom undermines Christian virtue. He views the American Founding as the bitter fruit of the enlightenment.
I am not making a distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian. How do you draw the distinction, @westernchauvinist?
Every time I come across a topic on authority the first thing that comes to mind is the importance of process and process was a big part of what the founders gave us.
What has been the big issue on the right with respect to the recent elections? What has been the issue on the right with respect to public education. I could go from institution to institution and the issue for conservatives is always process.
I have always thought that fair and equitable processes tend to yield fair and equitable results.
Attention to process is one of the important ideas emphasized by America’s founders.
And, if true, then pre-determined outcomes (“equity”) require unfair and inequitable processes.
As a process, I can’t even make sense out of that approach. Who determines what the pre-determined outcomes should be?
Is there an ideology called “Money Talks”?
Asset forfeiture strikes me as possibly an example of conservative authoritarianism, although it’s worthy of discussion.
It’s also an example of a weapon that is very flexible ideologically.
Obviously, for an anarchist, the only opposing ideology will look like “authoritarianism,” because it is authority that the anarchist rejects.
It may be true that a libertarian is an anarchist who lacks the courage of his convictions.
It is surprising to me that this ideology appeals to any adults.
Libertarianism, at least, doesn’t appeal to adults. It’s the political philosophy of the gifted adolescent. Libertarianism appeals to intelligent and competent people who are well but unobtrusively protected, so much that they take the community for granted. Libertarianism is one half of the political philosophy of a competent adult.