Politics as Pathology

“Where visions conflict irreconcilably, whole societies may be torn apart.

Conflicts of interests dominate the short run, but conflicts of visions

dominate history.”

There’s an old joke in which it is asserted that “There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who believe that there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t.” In the realm of politics, that claim comes close to a truism. If nothing else, the contentious presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 made this division clear. The subsequent 9/11/01 attack on the WTC and the antecedent war in Iraq served to further project us into an acute phase of the chronic political discord that separates the so-called Liberal/Progressive Left from the Conservative/Traditionalist Right. This discord is the contemporary manifestation of an ongoing political rift the roots of which can be traced at least to the time of the French Revolution (1789). It was, in fact, the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly (radicals/dissidents on the left; loyalists on the right) which resulted in the terminology we use today.

The aim here is to look again at who, contemporaneously, are the contending voices in this political dichotomy of long-standing and, more importantly; why people come to hold their particular political biases in the first place. The assertion here is that these biases are not happenstance choices but are, at least partly, the result of predilections genetically embedded in the prefrontal cortex and thus have a component of neurological and heritable origin.

Protest marches and other forms of political activism (“street theatre”) are a staple of the radical Left but are virtually non-existent on the political Right. An example is that of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) which uses arson (pyrolagnia) as the preferred form of protest. [2] Another is the destructive Seattle riots [3] which “protested” the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings there in 1999. Displays such as these are infused with anger and violence suggesting that they have psychological origins. It is proposed here (from a layman’s perspective) that this anger is a neurotic manifestation of an infantile anti-authoritarianism rooted in father hatred. Anecdotal evidence for this is presented and discussed.

Human Nature and the Liberal-Conservative Conflict

All the people like us are We

And everyone else are They

                        ---Rudyard Kipling

Sowell [4] details the Left-Right political rift in terms of a perpetual clash between “…two long traditions of social thought” which have arisen from two fundamentally different perceptions of human nature. One considers man’s nature as innately fixed, competitive and, at its core, driven solely by incentives that further his personal well-being, status, esteem, and the fundamental issue of his survival. This is Sowell’s so-called “constrained vision” of man in which “…human beings [are seen] as tragically limited creatures whose selfish and dangerous impulses can be contained only by social contrivances which themselves produce unhappy side effects”.[4]

Since man, as seen in this constrained, or “tragic” vision, is at his core immutably driven by self-interest, so too will be those individuals who populate the ranks of government. Consequently government itself must be viewed warily and its reach and authority necessarily kept to a minimum. The intrusion of government into the social and economic affairs of man (now, via self-perpetuating bureaucracies effectively insulated from the voting public) is to be resisted. Its emphasis has traditionally stressed the primacy of the individual and maximization of his liberty within a proscribed framework of laws to maintain civil order.

The political Right - Contemporary Conservatism - has its roots in this “constrained vision” of human nature

This view argues that it is man’s innate competitiveness which has brought about the spontaneous and synergistic “free-market” socioeconomic system - the “extended order” of capitalism as described in the works of Friedrich Hayek. At its best, a free market system fuels innovation; forces efficiency and stimulates invention and growth.

In contrast to this traditionalist worldview stands a more idealistic perception that man is not bound by any fixed nature but has an unlimited potential for change and can “…act under the influence of a socially beneficial disposition, rather than simply in response to ulterior motives.”[5]

This is the so-called “unconstrained vision” in Sowell’s terminology. Implicit in this view is the need for an activist, top-down government leadership to set national agendas aimed at achieving prescribed social and economic outcomes. This leadership is to be drawn from an assumed intellectual elite wherein “… the special knowledge of the few [is] used to guide the actions of the many.”[6] It is this belief which informs the core of the political Left and contemporary liberalism.

Such centralized authority is anathema to the conservative mind which sees it as a doorway to totalitarianism. Tyranny notwithstanding, achieving a socioeconomic equality-of-condition for the masses remains the focus of the Left. As Horowitz [7] has put it "Ever since the French Revolution, radical 'equality' and conservative 'liberty' have opposed each other as the defining agendas of Left and Right." See also Muravchik's [8] discussion of that equality advocated by the Conspiricy of Equals faction of the Revolution.

Some of the contemporary manifestations of these conflicting worldviews have been noted by Pinker [9] who writes that today's Left and Right political factions each represent

Anyone supportive of this cluster of beliefs might well turn up, in a button down shirt, at a Republican Party affair as an unwitting adherent of Sowell’s “constrained vision” of human nature.

Pinker [9] adds that the:

A person embracing this set of beliefs would likely feel at home, sandal-clad, at a Democrat or Green Party function, an admirer of Rousseau and a believer in mans potential for perfectibility.

The above belief clusters are secondary manifestations of the core difference in the contrasting views of mans essential nature as either innately fixed; self-focused; self-reliant and responsible for his actions and their consequences; or alternatively, as compliant with, and amenable to, improvement under the (assumed benevolent) direction of a “morally superior breed of leaders”. [10] These conflicting worldviews are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but most of the politically-engaged (a relatively small sub-set of the overall population) generally support the tenets of one to the exclusion of the other.

The question is why have these two “conflicting visions” with their corresponding political differences persisted essentially intact (philosophically) over the centuries? Do individuals arbitrarily choose their political biases or just succumb to persuasive others? The historical duration, unyielding contentiousness and specifics of the conflict suggests that political views may originate, at least in part, from a genetic predisposition. Pinker [9] writes:

It was Roger Sperry [11] who was instrumental in demonstrating the laterality of the human brain. Sperry’s work, and subsequently that of many others, has demonstrated the “bicameral” nature of the cortex which consists of two conjoined symmetrical lobes or hemispheres. Sensory input is processed synergistically through these left and right lobes which synthesize a response. While all of us use our whole brain, many have a left or right lobe dominance which influences our personalities, learning styles and “colors” our perceptions of what we see and hear. Many such characteristics have been identified as intrinsic and relatable to one or the other of the two hemispheres. Some of these attributes [12] are listed below.

The hypothesis here is that political bias is, in part, a result of whether one inherently processes information predominantly via the left or the right lobe. If the latter, one would respond to the world through a feelings-oriented filter and be an intuitive, holistic thinker; artistic and creative. Such Emotional-Intuitives would tend to populate the artistic/creative world: writers, actors, musicians and gravitate to the intellectual professions (e.g.; theatre arts, the clergy, teaching [13], journalism [14], etc.).

It has become obvious since the 2000 & 2004 elections that a large percentage of individuals in such professions lean Left politically. Indeed one would be hard-pressed to find any but committed Left/Liberals in these more creative, intellectual milieus. These Emotional-Intuitives, may be said to be LEFT WING because they are genetically RIGHT LOBE dominant.

Women also tend to be more right brain dominant than men (Table A). One neurological study [15] (using “voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI” ) has shown that the architecture of men’s and women’s brains differ in that “Women have more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to IQ than men do.”

In the same study, PET scans also revealed that different areas in men’s brains than in women’s brains were activated while solving math problems (presumably with equal facility). Women, in general, are also thought to be more Liberal - at least on social issues - than are men in their voting habits. This again suggests, however tenuously, a possible correlation between right lobe-dominance and a proclivity for Left/Liberal political choices.

Does it follow from the above that Left-lobe dominant individuals are predominantly more Conservative/Right traditionalists? On average, do individuals who see the world through a more logical and objective prism find political expression as Conservatives? The menu of Left lobe characteristics (Table A) - logical, methodical, rule bound, disciplined and analytical - seems consistent with the traits of those on the Conservative/Right and the more by-the-numbers professions in which they predominate (e.g.; engineers, the military, police). This is the tradition-bound “warrior” class of pragmatic Logical-Rationalists. The answer again can only be speculative and inferential given the lack of direct laboratory evaluations.

The tentative connections made here between political proclivities and an inherited brain lobe dominance seems plausible but in obvious need of controlled laboratory studies. Some such evidence has been reported (Archived April 2006). [16] If future laboratory studies can verify such correlations the consequences would be significant. For one, the utter futility of much political debate would be clear: Trying to alter another’s political viewpoint would be akin to trying to change his eye color through force of argument. More importantly, the implications for the political Left would be sobering. The core belief of the Left is that man is a malleable creature readily adaptable to behavioral makeover’s under the direction of a “morally superior” leadership. To be faced with the reality of having to change some peoples “political eye color” by persuasion and “re-education” would seriously impact the Left’s Rousseauian vision of herding a compliant citizenry to the pastures of an earthly Eden.

The genocides under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al. attest to some of histories brutal attempts to deal with the obstinacy of those citizens who have been resistant to such “coercive utopianism.”

Much of the contentiousness between the Conservative/Right and the Liberal/Left can be understood on the basis of our re-defined appellations of Conservatives as Logical-Rationalists (objectivists) vs. Liberals as (subjectivist) Emotional-Intuitives. The former assemble available information and reason sequentially to a conclusion based on the available facts. In political matters the latter respond more emotionally to issues and intuitively arc to a conclusion based on feelings. Whatever information seems to support those feelings is selected post hoc and all else rejected as unimportant, wrong or outright lies. [17] Exasperation is often the only product when the two face-off in debate. No one gets their mind changed.

The upshot of all this is to recognize that some people are emotional intuitives (Liberals) and some are logical rationalists (Conservative) and “never the twain shall meet.” Nor should they. Liberalism is an engine of empathic, well-intentioned, if sometimes misguided socioeconomic change. Conservatism reflects the time-tested evolved order of things and provides needed restraint and historical perspective. Responsible progress requires both and each serves as a check on the other. It is out of such contending viewpoints that political tyranny is avoided.

There exists on the political Left, however, a far more radical, nihilistic, and revolutionary mindset. This “coercive utopian” worldview is discussed below with some speculation offered as to its possible psychopathology.

The Radical Left

Political activism in the form of protest marches, sit-ins, shouting-down [17] and physically assaulting [18] speakers [19] and other more violent [20] demonstrations are staples of radical Left politics but are virtually absent from the more individualistic and rule-bound political Right. Strident “activism” in the cause of sociopolitical change and a compelling need to hold political power to enact such change are distinguishing aspects of the radical Left along with a thread of anger which seems to run through it all.

If a certain neurological asymmetry in the pre-frontal cortex lies at the heart of Liberal-Conservative political differences something else must account for the fist-shaking, placard-waving; obscenity-laced, pie-in-the-face anger that infuses Leftist political activity and which seems to betray a psychological origin. If such exists it has, evidently, escaped the notice of social scientists who seem to be exclusively focused on the perceived pathologies [21] of the political Right.[22] A little “sidewalk psychiatry” from a layman’s perspective is offered here to fill the void.

Much of this political activism is directed in one way or another at “The Man” - a street euphemism for any vaguely defined but, by definition, authoritarian entity. For the Left, “The Man” is WASP patriarchy in general and its perceived derivative institutions in particular. Such reviled entities include:

Collectively these “phobias” constitute a syndrome of anti-WASP authoritarianism and are the targets of the radical Left’s anger and opposition. The latter, in expression [23] is suggestive of infantile tantrum-throwing hinting at likely neurotic origins. The implied patriphobia may be the result of an abusive, domineering, intolerant or absent father during infancy: misandry or a seriously unresolved Oedipal Complex. Atheism, not uncommon within the Left, has been attributed to such a pathology. [24]

So the “Rage-Against-the-Machine” hostility that characterizes the radical Left may be less about the noble causes (“social justice“) it purports to champion and more about a neurotic lust for power and revenge. For example, Marx himself was steadfastly committed to instigating revolutionary violence and was contemptuous of the working-class socialists who sought incremental improvements in their working conditions. Marx expected workers to leave their jobs, wages and dependent families to riot in the streets. It seems Marx was fixated more on generating violence than in achieving the imagined benefits it might produce or the devastation to the workers if it failed:

As the atheistic son of an apostate Jewish father; grandson and great-grandson of rabbis, Marx was a relatively well-born member of the bourgeoise who rarely worked for wages himself. He lived off the largesse of his family and others (notably his colleague Engels) for most of his adult life. He was a stranger to the working class that he used as a means of exorcising his own rabid anti-Semitic demons and “so far as we know Marx never set foot in a mill, factory, mine or other industrial workplace in the whole of his life”. [25]

Marx was a theoretician dealing with the world in the abstract and was noted for an anger that seethed just below the surface and erupted with little provocation:

Marx’s heir Lenin (nee: Vladimir Ulyanov) was similarly well-born into the Russian aristocracy as the son of a doting mother and a demanding, autocratic, often-absent father. Lenin became an impassioned disciple of Marx and echoed the fury of his mentor and his lust for violent revolution. One biographer [27] has written that “[Lenin’s] intellectual influences thrust him towards Revolution and his inner rage made this impulse frenetic. Lenin had greater passion for destruction than love for the proletariat.” Indeed, Muravchik [28] has noted that:

What fueled Lenin’s lifelong rage is uncertain but he shared his regicidal older brother Alexander’s hatred of the monarchy. Lenin “detested the…aristocracy, the clergy, the police and the high command. He hated the mercantile middle class and the rising industrial and financial middle class.”[37]

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), like Lenin, was “deeply attached to his mother and greatly admired her” but “…hardly ever mentioned his father, rejected his values completely, and broke entirely with the conservatism of his background“. And, possibly of more significance, “…blamed [his father] for his own afflictions(*) and condemned him for lack of care”.[30] Possibly another case of father-hatred transferred to the authoritarian Fascist [31] government under Benito Mussolini.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike Marx, Lenin got the revolution he wanted and established what became a brutally repressive, murderous Communist regime later inherited and amplified by Stalin. Many millions were murdered, executed, starved or worked to death under Lenin and Stalin to sustain the fundamentally flawed collectivist enterprise. Similar deadly scenarios have since transpired under Mao et al. in China and Pol Pot in Cambodia.

All this would seem to be manifestations of what Horowitz, [32] in a more contemporary setting, has termed “… the dark center of the radical heart:

Of interest here is the potential source of that “dark center of the radical heart” and why it is possibly what animates the radical Left.

Unintended Consequences

                                                -- Robert Louis Stevenson

History is rife with the deadly consequences of those driven by messianic visions of creating a perfect world.. The two world wars are examples. So too are the revolutions, genocides, purges, mass executions and engineered starvations perpetrated by tyrants in their quests for imagined collectivist utopias: Robespierre, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot (not a capitalist in the bunch) have been such tyrannical visionaries. According to Fischer:

Again, “displaced religiosity,” the “communal approach” and primacy of a “common good” are traits identified with the political Left. The ineluctable conclusion is that the multi-millions of humans slaughtered during the twentieth century were direct or indirect victims of coercive Leftist utopians:

It has been the radical Left that has been the revolutionary; the destroyer of extant order; the nihilistic entity which relentlessly strives to replace an imperfect present with an imagined perfect collectivist future:

It is natural to impute evil motives to those who have perpetrated the political crimes of the past century. But such nihilistic, murderous histories may be less about evil than about desperate attempts of messianic regimes to stave off the inevitable collapses of their untenable, oppressive enterprises which were built on a fatally flawed belief in the nature of man: a nature, that history has shown to be unwilling to be herded into a suffocating collectivist corral.

Nevertheless, a relatively small but zealous core of Leftist utopians continues a Quoxitic quest for “Social Justice” - the sociopolitical equivalent of trying to build a perpetual motion machine. Thus it is fair to question the rationality of those who persist in tilting at the windmills of capitalism in particular and Western culture in general.

Radicalism as a Secular Religion.

If there is a common theme linking the Liberal and Radical Left it is a mutual fear and hatred of the Conservative Right which stands as an annoying, biblically-infused traditionalism which the Left must expunge on its march to its imagined utopian future. The Liberal and Radical Left can be likened to two denominations of the same faith-based secular religion. It was author and academic Sam Harris who, in another context, wrote:

Whereas the Liberal wing of this secular faith is impelled to press for its vision of social equity, the Radical wing is compelled to do so without qualification. Welfare state Liberalism, is the denomination of “sentimental inexactitude” representing the warm and fuzzy, feel-good element of this faith. It is from this more empathic Liberal wing that Radicals recruit their more naive and well-intentioned cousins (*) to its devious causes. Liberals are driven by a pressing

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

need to feel good about themselves and are easily duped by the seductive, if disingenuous, rhetoric of their more destructive brethren.

The Radical (“Bolshevik”) wing represents a relatively small, but strategically well-placed hard-core, agenda-driven, denomination of zealous missionaries who crusade surreptitiously to convert the unwashed masses to the secular Church of Cultural Marxism by any and all means necessary. That process of cultural subversion [38] has been in progress for decades but has been greatly accelerated by the so-called New Left generation of 60’s student radicals.