Richard J. Ellis

The author, a life long Democrat and liberal, examines the tendency and historical evidence for the extreme left to be as illiberal (defined as intolerant, bigoted, and narrow-minded) as the extreme right.

In current debate there exists little agreement (and perhaps there should not be) over what constitutes "progressive" and "reactionary." Vigorous criticism always toughens a position and suppressing or ignoring inconvenient facts strengthens no political dogma. "Protected from criticism, any argument becomes lazy and prone to excess." Ellis' goal is to "toughen the liberal reform tradition not to discredit or reject it."

It is inconceivable to think of liberalism without attendant belief in equality. Explicit in the Declaration of Independence, equality stems from seventeenth century liberalism that meant recognizing the equal worth of people's qualities and preferences.

"One of the great virtues of the modern liberal welfare state is that it does not pretend to have discovered the ultimate solution that will dissolve all contradictions; rather the welfare state explicitly 'muddles through,' institutionalizing the understanding that no single value, not equality, not liberty, not individualism, not community, not order, can be the polestar of public policy. The liberal welfare state recognizes that all institutional structures and arrangements, capitalist markets as well as governmental control, have weaknesses that must be compensated for if we are to achieve a decent and humane society."

Ellis goes further than Hofstadter's Age of Reform in that Ellis seeks to define the trend to illiberalism from a cultural perspective not just a psychological one. The actions of individuals derive from more than a desire to exorcize personal demons. Quite different personalities have adopted similar patterns of behavior and belief, and conversely similar personalities have opted for opposite poles of expression. Ellis traces radical egalitarianism episodically from the radical abolitionist movement to radical environmentalism. He has identified the "recurrent organizational and ideological dilemmas that have periodically thrown radical egalitarian political thinkers and movements down illiberal tracks. The desire to reform often results in an embracement of intolerance and violence, often welcoming authoritarianism.

In the case of the Students for a Democratic Society, one of Ellis' case studies, the normal democratic structures were perceived to be inegalitarian and were replaced by consensus voting. This effectively stripped the conventions of any decision-making ability so power shifted to the permanent national office. This office was staffed on an annual rotation basis and the offices of president and vice-president were abolished. Thus democratic reforms that were intended to make the organization more egalitarian had precisely the opposite effect. In an effort to become less elite, they became more patrician.

Of course, often the proletarian stance of many organizations is pure posturing. "Characteristic of both radical feminism and radical environmentalism is the tendency to dismiss the choices people make as a product of false consciousness. . . . Society implants the acquisitive impulse in us," they say, hence we cannot make the proper choices. The radicals pervert the liberal emphasis on privacy because it "impedes efforts to transform the way people think." Jesus recognized this and spoke of ripping the family apart. (cite) clearly, there is a political side to the distinction between what is public and private. "But to concede that the personal has political elements is one thing; to insist that the personal is equivalent to the political is to open the way to the politicization of private life."

The radical environmental movement has obscured this distinction. Its leaders have basic contempt for the way the everyday lives of people. In order to pave the way for greater intrusion into private decision-making, the radical environmental movement formulates all questions in terms of apocalyptic outcomes. "If the dangers to the human race are imminent and cataclysmic, then unprecedented restrictions on individual behavior are not just acceptable but mandatory. If no mistakes can be tolerated, then an individualistic trial-and-error process is out of the question. In an effort to remain "pure," these groups become less and less willing to work with established organizations. Outside groups are perceived to be unchangeable and violent confrontation becomes inevitable as the only solution to achieve change.

Another inherent flaw of the radical egalitarian movements is their unstated disdain for the underclass they purport to represent. Efforts to organize oppressed groups by intellectuals consistently fails because these groups are "more passive, distrustful, and diverse than the radicals romanticized view of the oppressed had led them to expect." The romanticization of the oppressed then created the necessity of explaining away the flaws of the persecuted."

One of the examples, among many, that Ellis cites is that of John Brown and his varying degrees of support from pre Civil War egalitarian abolitionists who rejected pacifism and came to support the war. William Lloyd Garrison, for example, had been such a committee devotee of nonviolence that even when attacked by a mob he refused to defend himself with the use of weapons. Ellis suggest that a gradual shift in the nature of egalitarians' view of slavery provided the basis for the change in viewpoint. The struggle against slavery became Manichean in nature; a classic contest between good and evil that justified any means to eliminate the evil that was slavery. Moral suasion could work only if the other side were viewed as redeemable.

Henry Wright provides another example of one who made an abrupt switch from devoted pacifism to support for violence against slaveholders. They were nothing more than subhuman animals in his eyes. This Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek did not apply. Violence in support of God's interest was validated. "In the end, radical abolitionist's utopian zeal outstripped its liberalism. . . . Opposed to institutionalized authority of virtually any kind, radical abolitionists often found themselves drawn toward arbitrary or charismatic leaders who disregarded legal or institutional restraints, restraints that are essential; to ensure the sort of limited and predictable government that is the foundation stone of liberal democracy."

Egalitarians are not unique in their desire for utopias that create a "unity that dissolves jarring conflict. Both the right and left have historically sought to transform questions of values, where disagreement is unavoidable, into questions of fact, where correct answers can be found." Egalitarians are uniquely vulnerable to the hope that perfect unity is possible since they distrust conflict and competition.

Ellis portrays these basic themes as being inherent flaws of egalitarian movements since the nineteenth century including as his final example, the anti-war movement of the sixties.

Update: A related book is [b:The Trouble with Diversity How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality|108940|The Trouble with Diversity How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality|Walter Benn Michaels|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171593256s/108940.jpg|104989]… (mehr)

This is a history of the Pledge of Allegiance, the ritual saying of which is familiar to many. Having attended a fundamentalist Christian school in my youth, I certainly am. In my old age though I became deeply skeptical of the rote repetition of patriotic fervor. From reading the book, it’s apparent that Mr. Ellis is also skeptical. Certainly those who have been proponents of the pledge come across as jingoistic rather than heartfelt, while those who have objected appear to fight the good fight as underdogs in his retellings.

(Full review at my blog)… (mehr)