Max Boot has a complaint:
I spent the first 29 years of my adult life as a Republican. But the day after the 2016 election, I re-registered as an independent. A couple of years later I wrote a book that reflected on my career as a conservative and admitted errors ranging from my support for the Iraq War to my willingness to overlook the GOP’s growing nuttiness. I admitted that I too bore some responsibility for President Donald Trump’s rise.
None of that has deterred some progressives from attacking me as a war criminal who should never be allowed to publish another word again. One scold wrote “Iraq-Raping Neocons Are Suddenly Posing As Woke Progressives To Gain Support.” Another kind soul wrote “Max Boot is very sorry for backing the GOP and the Iraq invasion. Why is he being praised for this?”
As you might imagine, this experience gives me additional sympathy for political defectors — whether they are moving from right to left or left to right — because I know that, either way, it’s not easy. You are likely to be reviled by old friends who can’t understand why you left and jeered by new allies who can’t understand why were ever on the “wrong” side to begin with. Both sides are likely to question your motives.
Sin, a word I use metaphorically and with some relish as an agnostic, comes in two main categories.
There are those sins that come from self-deviancy or weakness. By this, I mean that the acts involved are taken in conscious knowledge that they violate some moral or philosophical system to which we allegedly have some allegiance. That knowledge may be delayed, given the uneven nature of the human brain, but it is clear the violation is of the basis of our behavioral suite. Examples: the bribe was too tempting, the sexual opportunity “couldn’t” be passed up. Sins of the moment for the earnest.
But sins are necessarily public business, no matter how much we’d like to conceal them. This leads to the second category of sins relevant to this discussion: Sins of philosophy.
For our purposes, philosophy provides guidelines for behavior, whether the source is rational reasoning, irrational self-interest, or commands from the Divine. Communal philosophy holds communities together by providing shared guidelines for behavior that makes the actions of a community member roughly predictable as well as anodyne to the community. Being unpredictable need not always result in universal condemnation, but the results of the behaviors had best be positive for the community.
But usually deviations from communal philosophy is often perceived as a sin, if only by those doing the perceiving. In fact, that is often the case; deviants in this category do not perceive themselves as deviating. The tolerance required of a heterogeneous community such as the United States compounds the problem, reducing public discourse to cries of sinner and deviant, with little to no recourse to actual reason.
Long time readers know that I’ve written on occasion regarding redemption, Boot’s concern. Category 1 deviations are easily enough forgiven so long as the harm is not irremediable; while the irremediable harms are considerably more difficult to forgive. Redemption is what allows our society to succeed and excel, as minor deviations do not cripple a person’s prospects for life and invite destructive responses. However, theological deviations are an exception; punishments can be existentially and irrationally severe, and, even when survived, they are often life-changing.
Category 2 deviations, on the other hand, clashes of philosophy, are fundamentally different. Whether they result from different understandings of how society succeeds, or not, or come from deliberate choices, or are a result of the aforementioned tolerance required by heterogeneous societies, or are theologically based, they are based on some of the most fundamental assumptions concerning existence, or sometimes observations for the more careful temperaments, and individuals are rarely, if ever, disposed to be rid of these foundational elements of their lives.
Redemption requires remorse and a promise to change behavior; but behavior springs from philosophy, among other sources, and when the basic philosophy doesn’t change, there’s little reason to believe claims of remorse and for redemption.
Which brings me to the current situation in the United States. There are many philosophies extant in America, but I tend to break them into 3-4 categories: the theologically insane, meaning they believe in what I call arrant nonsense, such as the End Times being upon us; the theologically sane, meaning they believe in both God and rationality; the rationalists, who believe in rationality and science, which are more or less synonyms; and the ideologists. The last category consists of folks at the extreme ends of the political spectrum who have chosen to believe in non-theological tenets concerning the nature of reality, with great rigidity and fanaticism. Various elements of the trans-gender movement might be classed in this last category; on the right, there’s more a tendency to believe in God, although it’s worth noting that fascist tendencies needn’t be accompanied by religious inclinations – except that the fascist believes they have a Divine right to leadership.
No offense to anyone.
The believers in life being a power structure may find these natterings about philosophical categories to be superfluous, but I don’t agree. A philosophy built on misapprehensions concerning the nature of reality has, in my opinion, a greater chance of terminating in disaster than does that which is based on a good understanding of reality.
This means that the Republican Party, which appears to be built on the baseless suppositions of certain religious leaders, as well as the false beliefs of the leaders concerning their opponents politically, has good reason to fear the future: its foundation is crumbling in the light of reality, but it continues to obstinately plunge ahead with its ideology even as members become doubtful and leave it.
But how it got there, which I theorize elsewhere is due to a combination of team politics and religious zealotry, is another matter.
Insofar as Boot goes, he states he’s not religious and has changed parts of his philosophy. The insights concerning his former comrades are actually invaluable; I have no problem suggesting redemption is good. The haughty poseurs who, to borrow a phrase, think their shit don’t stink, need to remember that redemption is one of finest features this nation offers, and stop the political rivalry they engage in so mindlessly.
But for others? The question has no automatic answer for the ideologically fallen, liberal or conservative. As ever, redemption requires heart-felt change and self-analysis.
