Neo-Neocon linked to my post on the Christopher Hitchens interview. In the Neo-Neocon comments was one of more perceptive explanations of the intellectual and moral conflicts faced today by the extreme Left. This is by a Manhattan-based Psychoanalyst who hosts the pseudonymous blog Shrinkwrapped:
As someone who also made the transition (though I was hovering at the tipping point for several years before 9/11), while situated in the middle of Manhattan working in Mental Health (how is that for cognitive dissonance, a Conservative Psychoanalyst), I can assure you that while there are conservative and right wing loons, they are much fewer in number and percentage than the left. The left is forced by their beliefs, because of the lack of coherence with reality and the dogmatic nature of their belief system, to adapt reality to their fantasy as opposed to recognizing the inability to ever create a reality that exactly tracks one’s fantasies. As a result, you can never disagree with a leftist because anyone who does is not just wrong, but anti-Utopian evil (a modern day version of an counter-revolutionary.) Since conservatives do not believe in Utopia and do not, therefore, believe their ideas represent a complete, perfect prescription for social organizations, it is much easier to discuss and disagree with (most) people on the right. Further, recent history has shown us that conservatives are more able to self-correct and criticize their own. We will know the Democrats are starting to "get it" when Ted Kennedy is criticized by Hillary Clinton and both, along with The New York Times ("We’re Number 6!") demand the Daily Kos apologize for slandering the American military.
There are a number of insightful posts at Shrinkwrapped - well worth a visit and exploration. Especially recommended is the three-part series Political Correctness & the Denial of Reality.
Regarding terminology: I do not wish to offend the many left-of-center who understand and follow the principles of critical thinking. Some of this grouping are strong supporters of the effort to defeat Islamic extremism, and many of those have supported Anglo Iraq and Middle East policy. Perhaps they do not consider themselves to be "neo-conservatives", though they must share some of the same principles.
So what is the appropriate short-hand label for the remainder of the traditional "left"? By that I mean the group that would agee with such as Tom Hayden’s efforts to undermine the West’s defense? I have chosen the term "extreme Left". What do you think?
This terminology issue highlights the inadequacy of the two-dimensional left-right classification scheme, which bothers me every time I see it used in such contexts as these. David Nolan’s Nolan Chart classification seems much more useful to me.
The key word in the above screed is “extreme.” You are surely aware that the same disconnect with reality in favor of dogma is characteristic of the extreme right. Back in the 90s, when our guy was in office, our loons got tossed the occasional bone but they didn’t drive the train.
Ralph,
Agreed definitely. Shrinkwrapped wrote “they are much fewer in number and percentage than the left.” Such studies may have been done, but they haven’t crossed my radar screen. And I have met some of those 1990’s Clinton-haters (odd, since Clinton advanced several conservative principles).
I don’t know what to make of studies showing large numbers of Creationism supporters (40% to 60% depending on the source). They are classified as right-wing, though I’m not sure why belief in pseudo-science or religion associates them with conservative principles. That is another example of a reality-belief disconnect.
Shrinkwrapped’s argument on the Utopia vs Reality conflict has merit. Are there other explanations of the Tom Hayden affinity group? I mean other than that this group is still motivated by belief in the Socialist Utopia?
I’ve previously posted a caveat that I am not a student or follower of political thought. It was a genuine shock to discover “liberals” taking positions that are clearly anti-liberal by the traditional definitions. Reading David Horowitz’ book “Unholy Alliance…” is pretty much what I know of the “extreme left” of today.