Today's Left Can't Govern, And It Doesn't Want to
Movements built solely on resistance are incapable of governing
The Progressive Victory
“The Left won the culture war, now they’re going around shooting the survivors.” The culture war is over. You can ask the left, right, or center and they’ll fundamentally agree. This might sound like hyperbole but a quick overview of how societal norms have changed over the last 20 years illustrates the point clearly. Without making any moral judgements, we can say definitively what each side of the spectrum finds objectionable. In the early 2000’s the right held the moral highground. For example, Whoopi Goldberg lost sponsors for making inappropriate statements towards President Bush. Contrarily, Toby Keith faced little to no backlash for this song. Fast forward to the modern day and we see Lil Nas X not lose sponsors for this video while Gina Carano was fired for an insensitive Tik Tok. Without judging the merits of these cases, its clear that in 2004 if you were going to go in one extreme, to be on the right was better and today it is better to be on the left. As of now, a directionless and reactionary right does not have any real answers or strategy to initiate a new culture war, so the left’s victory seems temporarily indelible.
The left in America does not resemble the left of the past, it does not even really have much in common with the left in much of the west. The root ideology of today’s ‘leftists’ (which is probably not even the best term to use) is much different than those of traditional labor movements. If you want to understand the issues driving left wing politics in the US you should start reading Nietzsche, not Marx. Post-Modernism was born from Nietzsche’s long (and varied) lineage and rose from an obscure intellectual project to the dominant force in modern American politics. This shift first occurred in universities and eventually spread to the mainstream.
Post-Modern Postulations
Post-Modernism is not the easiest ideology to define but it is easy to identify. In its most basic sense, it is deconstructivist. It asks questions about the roots of everything in a Socratic manner. Any and every assumption about society is brought into question. Foucault’s deconstruction of prisons is the most classic example of this. This process usually leads to two outcomes, nihilism or destruction. Society is built on many inequities and those who take the path of destruction pay no mind to the social fabric or what will replace the system they seek to destroy. The ideology does not seek to create more equity or build a better system, just to dismember what already exists. This may sound benign but it can have devastating effects. Every belief system dreamt by humans has had flaws that can be exposed. If one follows the logical path from this viewpoint, then there will be no beliefs or values in any society anymore.
Post-Modernism in its most pure form is obscure and quite rare but its fingerprints are all over American Leftism. The Left is fractured and not a monolith, but it is hard to deny the rising power of progressives in the party. The influence of post-modernism is really only present with progressives and one of their favored ways to spread their message illustrates this. A quick overview of the slogans in their graphics shows that most start with a De- or Dis- word (e.g. destroy, dismantle, etc.) Both of these Latin roots have meanings centered around casting something off or removing it. The focus of Progressivism is not on Marxist economic ideals (most likely since it has been coopted by the college educated elite that would stand to lose financially), its focus is on dismantling the current societal structure that they view as unfair and systemically rigged against the disadvantaged. Take a quick look at these graphics that a quick Google search turned up.
The emphasis remains on the negative. This is to complete a trick that has been used by politicians since the days of Ur. Ascribe all of the societal ills to an enemy and use the hatred you’ve fostered as a vehicle to power and control. If there are financial woes or economic issues, blame capitalism. If there are racial inequities and racists, blame whiteness. If there are unequal opportunities for women, blame masculinity. All of these things can have their faults but the blanket statements show how little serious thought goes into the attacks. The last image is especially telling. Capitalism is presented as an amorphous and unknown enemy that needs to be destroyed simply because it is bad in of itself. The call to action is simple. There are horrific and unsustainable inequities in society that are created and propagated by the current power structure. Any attempt to destroy the status quo is good because it will end the process by which an established segment of society impresses their advantage over everyone else permanently. This segment is seen in the figure above privilege; those carrying attributes that are associated with societal power are seen as actively creating and furthering their societal advantages.
The fact that the Left has won and that the crux of their current movement is defined by their opposition to the current power structures explains why they cannot govern. If one did not know better, they would believe that Manicheanism is what formed the basis of the Us vs Them belief that has pervaded the Left. No movement defined by what it opposes can successfully sustain power or unite a nation without widespread violence (this logic would also apply to Trumpism to be fair, but that’s for another article). A resistance movement has to evolve into something else or begin to create enemies that did not exist. You cannot claim the legitimacy of resistance if you hold all of the cards. You can claim this legitimacy if you find ways to explain why your hold on power is tenuous and under constant threat. A quick look through history can show several movements and how they fared based on how they defined themselves.
The Cultural Revolution
It is not necessarily original to compare the direction and ethos of modern progressives to Maoism. Some have even said that the Left will reach its nadir when it resembles Mao’s China. This comparison holds weight because of how truly unique Maoism is.
The Cultural Revolution began in the 1960’s and its ostensible purpose was to promote China’s welfare and purge subversive elements. It came about following the failure of the Great Leap Forward (in which as many as 45 million people died) and some potential opposition to Chairman Mao. At its beginning, only a select few were killed or ostracized. Someone whose parents had been a landlord might have been killed and someone who spoke up in the Hundred Flowers Campaign may have been sent to the countryside, for example. Eventually, factionalism was taken to the extreme as posters went up denouncing anyone and everyone. People were killed by each other in the streets and others lost all their status and were sent to starving villages to work. Public humiliations of those (and their family members) deemed to be not sufficiently dedicated to Chairman Mao were a common occurrence. The death toll wasn’t close to as high as the Great Leap Forward, but the societal and cultural destruction were unmatched. What is more important to the article is how the ideology of Maoism led to a point where the student Red Guards terrorized the populace.
The first word in nearly all Maoist thought shows the underlying belief it shares with the Post-Modernist Left. Revolution. Intellectuals were disgraced for being insufficiently revolutionary or, far worse, counterrevolutionary. Every activity needed to be furthering the revolution that took over China. The ultimate goal was to create a socialist paradise, but at times it feels hard to really dig into what that even meant. The core belief of Maoism, revolution, meant opposition to the oppressive forces in the world.
When posters went up decrying those that had been demonized they often portrayed them as a few things. A Rightist, ‘Capitalist Roader,’ or sympathizer/collaborator of Chiang Kai-shek. In reality, there were very few who met any of these categories. People who were utterly devoted to Chairman Mao lost everything and were branded a rightist because of some small transgression they had made in the past. It may seem like an idiosyncrasy of a large scale Salem Witch Trial, but it could not have happened without Maoist ideology. Maoism, like today’s progressives, is defined by what it is not.
The Cultural Revolution is the living proof that movements defined in opposition cannot govern or truly ‘win.’ Mao had achieved total control in China in 1951. The victory could only sustain support for so long and it was soon realized that without an enemy like the Japanese Empire or Americans in Korea people would begin to blame the government for their problems. Despite not having any true challenge to authority, destroying enemies became the primary focus of the party. Movements like this have to invent enemies if none exist. Constant revolution will eventually turn on the government if there are no enemies to unleash it on. This is why potential KMT collaborators were hunted out to stop a potential invasion even though Taiwan was incredibly weak compared to China at the time.
In taking this action, students were given incredible amounts of power to condemn and remove whoever they wanted. Formerly upstanding members of society were ruined. Yet, not only these people were affected. The Red Guards eventually turned on each other. Many were called ‘Rebel Groups’ and thus always had to be rebelling against someone. One group would claim to be more righteous than the other and denounce them. It created a cycle in which no one could truly win and purges became common. The spirit of what some call ‘Cancel Culture’ has a similar feeling in which everyone is put into a constant purity test and those who fail must be denounced. A passage from the incredible book “Son of the Revolution” puts this into perspective, (note: conservative=bad and no group would call themselves this; in the same vein rebel=good and all would call themselves this)
The situation was basically the same as it was all over China, and the Rebel groups were deeply involved in factional struggle. The old ‘Protect the Emperor’ group had been disbanded, but some of its members had formed a Rebel group called ‘Mao-Zedong Thought Struggle’ group under the famous scholar Guo Mo-ruo’s son Guo Si-Hong, and it remained a major conservative force. The Rebel group was led by Peng Ming, and it was called the ‘Red Cliff Struggle’ group after the book about a pre-Liberation KMT prison. There was also a new group, which had splintered off from the Red Cliff Struggle group, called the ‘Peking Commune.’ Each of these groups claimed to be the most Revolutionary, and it was always attacking the others in big character posters and broadcasts as ‘protectors of the Reactionary Capitalist Road.’
The Cultural Revolution was clearly an absolute failure. Beyond the destruction of pre-communist Chinese culture, the society was locked into a constant struggle. Everyone had to write daily self criticism’s and recited Mao’s works religiously. Families no longer trusted each other and friendship meant nothing. Conflicts like the one above played out in every locality. This was the logical conclusion of an ideology that could only use revolutionary language to describe everything. Once a revolution wins, it has to find a way to adapt to the current reality. Maoism proved to be an utterly hollow ideology. Mao plunged his nation into absolute disaster just to keep his version of communism in power. Progressivism is similarly hollow. While we are a long way off from results as disastrous as these, lessons can be learned from what happens when an ideology fails to adapt from being rebellious. The successful revolutions in history have a vision for the future structure of society, not merely the destruction of the old.
The Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates
The rise of Islam as a global force may stand as the penultimate antithesis of today’s progressives. Although it had things it stood in opposition to, it was defined by its practical vision for society. There was a clear mission and long term goal. The political success directly after Muhammad’s death, and the followed up success after a brief internal struggle, exemplify how movements that are defined on their own terms succeed best.
The early Muslims certainly did have something they were in opposition to. The Jahiliyyah (This word has been reinvented in the modern context by many terrorist groups and I am using only its original definition), or pre-Islamic Arabia, was seen as something that needed to be brought down. In Arabic, the word literally translates to the age of ignorance. It was seen as a time of idol worship and without strong public morality. The opposition to this era was not what defined Islam, however. Maoism and Progressivism see the dismantling of power structures as their goal. The early caliphates saw it as merely an obstacle to their goals and that is why they found such incredible success.
Rival empires, such as the Byzantines and Sassanians, were swept away by the upstart Caliphate. The reasons for their success certainly involved their military strategy and strength but it went much deeper. Their vision for a new society gave them material benefits over their rivals. They developed a judicial system around the newly formed Islamic law. One of the most important features was how they selected judges, a Qadi. They were well paid and were selected for competence, these two things eliminated much of the corruption present before they arrived.
Unlike today’s claim to the caliphate, the society was surprisingly tolerant. They protected the rights of their citizens and allowed religious pluralism (with the HUGE caveat that they believed in only one God). The government was centralized and it truly functioned as a state in an era that was pre-feudal and where other nations ruled in an ad hoc manner. Public works were built and prosperity was a goal. Corruption was low (until the Umayyad’s became comfortable in their rule) and looking back there was clearly a strong guiding mission.
The reason that the early Caliphates were successful is simple. They came from a revolution but had a clear vision for how they wanted to transform society. Islam provided a clear and tangible strategy for the future. Several Hadiths had long term strategy in mind (such as asking Muslims to have as many children as they could). Having a shared ideology that was mostly consistent gave an edge no one else had at the time. There is a reason that Islam is still a powerful political force in the world (although it is quite different after Al-Ghazali’s philosophical victory).
Progressives cannot mold themselves in this fashion. An entirely new philosophy would be needed with an appeal to some sort of higher authority. Post-Modernism precludes a calling from a higher power than humans. These historical examples may not ultimately help reform the American Left but they can show its trajectory. Mao could never do what Abu Bakr and Ali did and their core beliefs are the reason why.
Recommended Reading/Watching
Son of the Revolution by Liang Heng and Judith Shapiro
Why is America Crazy Now by Whatifalthist
The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt
Ask me for more recommendations about specific topics and I’d be glad to provide them!