By Noah Rothman
Tuesday, May 17,
2022
The killing of ten black Americans in
Buffalo, New York by an 18-year-old suspect who was reportedly radicalized by
racist hate speech he encountered online should be an event that transcends
politics. It was a hideous, evil act, and the mania to which the alleged
shooter subscribed doesn’t merit serious scrutiny. That would be a better
world, but it is not the one in which we live. The temptations in modern
political discourse to write the discrete criminal actions committed by
individuals into wholesale indictments of the society they inhabit is too
great. Indeed, overcomplicating events to place ourselves within stories in
which we don’t belong has become a feature of the political landscape, and it’s
doing our politics no favors.
Though there is as yet no evidence that
the Buffalo shooter had any particular affinity for Republican politics or
mainstream conservative media, center-left
venues have been quick to note the extent
to which elected GOP officials have flirted with the toxic conspiracy theory to
which he subscribed. The “great replacement” theory posits that an ill-defined
cabal of elites seeks to supplant native-born Americans and replace them with
migrants, who would presumably be more amenable to their designs. The theory
and the paranoia that accompanies Republican
officeholders and right-wing commentators alike have lent it credence. Though none have shown that the
massacre in Buffalo was motivated by this idea more than the shooter’s mental
illness, the legitimization of this narrative is nonetheless irresponsible and
has the potential to radicalize the unstable.
Hold on, note critics of progressivism’s
attachment to tidy and exculpatory narratives. The right didn’t exactly invent
the idea that demographic change in America would lead to a wholesale revision
of the social compact. Democratic elected officials, leftwing activists, and
respected political scientists spent the better part of this century advancing
the idea that demographic trends have set the party on a predestined course
toward prohibitive political dominance. When it comes to the trajectory of
demographic change in America, the distinction
between the right and left seems to be that the right has noticed what the left says about this
phenomenon in private.
This is a misunderstanding of the theory
advanced by the likes of John Judis and Ruy Teixeira in their 2002 book, The
Emerging Democratic Majority, and it’s a misapprehension common to much
conspiratorial thinking. Among other predictions, these authors posited, and
Democrats subsequently adopted, a theory of demographic change predicated on a
straight-line projection. But it was always an organic phenomenon that would
develop entropically—not something that an organized cabal was or even
could do to anyone else. Most important, their theory was
wrong!
U.S. citizens with immigrant roots are not
lockstep Democratic voters; in fact, they’re trending away from Democrats. The
American left did not maintain its hold over an American working class of all
ethnic stripes; they’re trending away from Democrats as the party caters
increasingly to its educated, affluent activist class. The socio-economic
dominance of major metropolitan areas has not grown; geographic political
relevance has disaggregated as the professional classes retreated from urban
centers during the pandemic.
So much of the conspiratorial thinking
that is popular today among the most engaged elements of the American right is
characterized by similarly fallacious thinking. Specifically, they reject the
likeliest explanation for events and trends they find distasteful and attribute
them to a Rube Goldberg doomsday device. What they call “globalism” isn’t an
outgrowth of Adam Smith’s theories of comparative advantage, which have
contributed to a dramatic increase in standards of living around the world.
It’s a plan designed to displace an undesirable class of laborers from
perfectly viable industries. Donald Trump didn’t lose the 2020 election, as
head-to-head and job approval polling predicted he would for months. A sinister
plot spanning six
states and involving hundreds of conspirators robbed him of his due. Those who are inclined toward these ideas
abjure the simple and rational in favor of the complex, all in the effort to
preserve the idea that someone is doing this to me.
This trait did not arise in a vacuum, and
the right’s left-wing opponents often reinforce the right’s persecution
complex. Too much of what progressive activists and their comrades in media
reflexively deem conspiracy talk is vindicated in retrospect. The supposedly
sophisticated campaign of Russian disinformation that produced Hunter Biden’s
laptop turned out to be exactly what the right said it was: a boneheaded
error by the president’s hapless son. The
novel coronavirus that crippled the planet in 2020 may, indeed, have been released
as a result of Chinese negligence, which happens all
too frequently. Like the right, the left, too, prefers
the complex and comprehensive to the simple but messy in the pursuit of their
own psychologically soothing narratives. And when they wield the levers of
cultural power to enforce their preferred fictions, it absolutely does
reinforce the right’s belief that they are the victims of a vast enterprise
arrayed against their interests.
The collapse of these rearguard actions
should have helped the right balance its belief in the left’s ability to bend
reality to accord with its will. Like “great replacement” theory, though, the
right seems more inclined to cling to its sense of victimization than revel in
the left’s humiliations. Many on the right are sacrificing Occam’s Razor in the
process. While there is short-term political gain in reinforcing a fashionable
persecution complex, the long-term
sacrifice of raw political power isn’t worth it. It steals from the right not only the opportunity to revel in their
opponents’ mistakes but also the chance to explain to persuadable voters why
those mistakes happened in the first place. And in succumbing to their own
paranoia, Republicans become less relatable and, thus, less electable. Those on
the right who would trade the right’s political preferences for their own
celebrity at the cost of their voters’ sanity have earned their shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment