A nice mention at a blog called corrosive material that puts me in company with some amazingly good writers. Thanks guys!
I submitted three articles to RewireMe.com as a series on conversion. “Rewired by Faith” and “When Gender is Rewired” both ran; I don’t believe this post on political apostasy, a subject that is dear to my heart, ever did. I am posting it here for your reading pleasure.
In politics as in religion, few are as zealous as converts. Whether it’s because they feel they have to prove themselves to their new comrades or because they have first-hand knowledge of the depravities that their ex-comrades were capable of, the grandest of Grand Inquisitors often turn out to be apostates.
Ex-leftists like Irving Kristol and Sydney Hook were at the vanguard of the so-called Neo-conservative movement in the 1960s. David Horowitz was a red diaper baby who once edited the New Left magazine Ramparts; today he shares podiums with Phyllis Schlafly, accuses Obama of being an extreme radical with an anti-American agenda, and has even called the anti-tax stalwart Grover Norquist a secret Muslim who has “infiltrated” the Republican Party.
Michael Alan Weiner earned his PhD in nutritional ethnomedicine from the University of California, Berkeley, named his son Goldencloud, and swam naked with Allen Ginsberg before he changed his name to Michael Savage and became a firebrand on right wing talk radio.
It goes the other way too. Former Nixon counsel John Dean, who served prison time for Watergate, would call for George W. Bush’s impeachment in 2004 and pen such books as Conservatives Without Conscience and Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches. David Brock, the creator of the press watchdog group Media Matters for America, began his political career as a right wing propagandist, breaking the “Troopergate” story in The American Spectator that inspired Paula Jones to file a sexual harassment suit against Bill Clinton, and penning the book The Real Anita Hill, which slimed Clarence Thomas’s accuser as “a little bit slutty, a little bit nutty.” Brock would publically recant, first in an Esquire magazine article entitled “Confessions of a Right Wing Hit Man” and then at greater length in his book Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.
Ariana Huffington campaigned assiduously for Michael Huffington, a Republican congressman and her then-husband, when he ran for the US Senate in 1994; by the early 2000s, she was an avowed progressive. Andrew Sullivan still calls himself a conservative, but he has been a strong supporter of Barack Obama and has become a relentless critic of the Republican Party. The jazz guitarist and software developer Charles Johnson ran a much-trafficked right wing blog called Little Green Footballs; in November, 2009, he announced that he’d “parted ways with the right” because of its “support for fascism,” “support for bigotry,” “support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages,” “support for anti-science bad craziness,” “support for homophobic bigotry,” “support for anti-government lunacy,” and more. Bruce Bartlett is an economic historian who served in the Reagan and Bush I administrations; after he wrote a coruscating book called Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy he was effectively blackballed from the conservative movement. Today he Tweets relentlessly about the obscurantism and racism of the “wankers” that have hijacked his old party.
I could go on pretty much indefinitely, but I think I’ve made my point. The kinds of apostasies that I’m talking about aren’t gradual and subtle, in the manner of a slow turning from the opinions and values received unquestioningly from one’s parents. Nor are they precipitated by a particular disagreement over policy or philosophy. It is almost as if each of these writers blew their circuits, and when the electrician came in to rewire them, he restored everything in reverse—what used to be the off position now turns the power on and vice versa.
When a person falls out of love, the former beloved becomes an object of disgust. When political activists join the other team, they tend to see their former comrades—their former selves—as irredeemably stupid and obdurate. The guilty knowledge that they themselves are being regarded in a similar light only intensifies their abhorrence.
But political conversions turn less on affections than values. Politics is not only like religion, for many people it is religion, or at least how they enact their spiritual values in the world. When those values are upended, it is a literally shattering experience for them. Whittaker Chambers’ Witness is no less anguished than the novels of Dostoevsky.
In 1949, Louis Fischer, André Gide, Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Stephen Spender, and Richard Wright contributed essays to a volume entitled The God That Failed, in which they recounted their disillusion with and rejection of Communism. Koestler’s description of his initial infatuation with Marxism makes the relationship between religious and political faith explicit:
To say that one had ‘seen the light’ is a poor description of the mental rapture which only the convert knows (regardless of what faith he has been converted to). The new light seems to pour from all directions across the skull, the whole universe falls into pattern like the stray pieces of a jigsaw puzzle assembled by magic at one stroke. There is now an answer to every question, doubts and conflicts are a matter of the tortured past—a past already remote, when one had lived in dismal ignorance in the tasteless, colorless world of those who don’t know. Nothing henceforth can disturb the convert’s inner peace and serenity, losing thereby what alone makes life worth living, and falling back into the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
For apostasy to not be a falling back, one must be convinced that that light one formerly experienced was really darkness—and that the angels with whom one previously soared were demons. But people who are inclined to couch things in absolutes, who believe that every question can be answered completely, may not need any convincing at all.
In the first article in this series, on religious conversion, I mentioned Dean Hamer’s idea that religious feeling was partially attributable to the action of monoamine neurotransmitters, which are involved in feelings of “self-transcendence.” Hamer defines self-transcendence as people’s capacity “to reach out beyond themselves—to see everything in the world as part of one great totality. If I were to describe it in a single word,” he adds, “it might be “at-one-ness.” “At-one-ness” is a concept that we associate with spirituality and mysticism, but it can also reflect a world-view that is monomaniacally dogmatic and judgmental–or at a paranoid extreme, that believes the world is ruled by secret powers. An affinity for singular explanations can be reflective of a susceptibility to totalism.
People of lukewarm sensibilities are more apt to fall away from their beliefs than shift them. Zealous converts were zealous before they were converted; along with their heat they had a certain volatility.
Good news! Isms & Ologies can now be downloaded.
Eva Ilouz just published a devastatingly powerful essay in Haaretz that I suspect is destined to be loudly deplored and hardly read at all, except maybe years from now in schools, when students are studying the history of the ex-Jewish state.
The occupation is a condition of slavery, but not slavery: a striped lion is like a tiger, but isn’t a tiger. The occupation started as a military conflict and, unbeknown to itself, became a generalized condition of domination, dehumanizing Palestinians, and ultimately dehumanizing Israelis themselves. This magnificent people – which distinguished itself historically by its love of God, its love of texts and its love of morality – has become the manager of a vast enterprise of brutal military domination.
Without ever intending to, Israelis have become the Lords and Masters of a people, and the only interesting question about this is not how we got there….but why so many Jews outside and inside of Israel are not more disturbed by this.
The reason for this is that Israel has its own proslavery lobby, which is now in the corridors of power, shapes Israel’s policy and has successfully managed to make the occupation appear to be a containable casualty of war and nation-building. The settlers’ discourse – which only 20 years ago was marginal in Israeli society –has become mainstream, and one can only be struck by its resemblance to the 19th-century American proslavery ideology.
Because I’ve written as much about anti-Semitism as I have, a lot of my critics (especially the ones who haven’t read much more of me than my Jewish name) presume that I’m a Zionist. I’m not and I never have been. The notion of a religious state not only runs against my secularist grain; as a product of 2000 years of diaspora, and the descendent of a socialist grandparent who was imprisoned by the Tsar for learning Esperanto, I am troubled by the very idea of nations. I know that people are evolved to be tribal and exclusionary, but I look to civilization to raise us above our naturally brutish and fearful state.
Herzl was right, I think, in recognizing that Jews would never be accepted as full citizens of the European nations, but he was wrong in embracing Jewish nationhood as a solution (not that I have any idea what a viable solution would have been–there would have been a Hitler and a Final Solution in our future no matter what we did).
But as sixty some years of Israeli independence and expansion have proved, a militarized Jewish nation state is no less chauvinistic, violent, and self-justifying than any other nation state–and its existence, moreover, puts Jewish claims of a transcendental identity and destiny on the same footing as Canada’s, Finland’s, or, God help us, Germany’s. I try to avoid writing about Israel and Judaism, because I find the whole subject so painful. I don’t like feeling like an apostate–we are wired to be tribal, after all; a lot of people I love and otherwise admire are deeply identified with Israel and its aspirations, for better and for worse. But I’m not much of a belonger, and as witnessed by my books, I have a pretty low tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
The audio edition of THE NEW HATE, published in November, 2013, just appeared at #20 on Amazon’s “Hot New Releases in Political Conservatism and Liberalism” list.
“Marvelously well researched….THE NEW HATE is a very important book.”
Wow, every time I think THE NEW HATE came and went without leaving a trace, something happens to remind me that it had/has a few readers. This review just appeared in the Kingman, Arizona Daily Miner.
Kingman, of course, plays a role in some of the movements I write about. It was one of the places that Timothy McVeigh lived during the lead-up to Oklahoma City; it was also a significant location in the Ghost Dance uprisings in the 1890s.