Continued from yesterday. Please hold your fire until reading the whole thing.
V. The Political Left and the Cult of Hitler: Becoming What You Hate
It would be fair to ask why Hitler and his Germany have had this effect, as opposed to Tojo’s Japan, Mao’s China, or Stalin’s Russia. Arguments could be made that they were too foreign (Tojo and Mao) or that too many in the West were too sympathetic towards them (particularly Stalin). But I think the reason Hitler has such resonance in the Western Mind is that we recognize him: he is a demon of our own making, and in his antisemitism, his racism, his lust for conquest, his cruelty to the Other, his occultism and self-serving pseudo-science, we see a reflection of our civilization’s own sins, an Avatar of everything wrong with our society.
The Political Left has embraced this idea and has never let go of it. Like a Christian searching the Old Testament for foreshadowing of Christ, the modern leftist, in general, looks upon the history of their own civilization and sees nothing that they do not see in Hitler. In the face of such a Miserific Vision, the leftist does the perfectly sensible thing and runs headlong in the opposite direction, and, less sensibly, builds their worldview on the exultation of opposites. Hitler was white; therefore, non-whites must be elevated. Hitler was a man; therefore, woman must be exulted. Hitler was for a mono-cultural society; therefore, we must have a multicultural society. Hitler was authoritarian, therefore authority (including religious authority) must be rejected. Hitler was straight (allegedly) and persecuted homosexuals; therefore, we must exalt the homosexual. The list could go on and seems only to exclude Hitler’s vegetarianism and his permissiveness of abortion and euthanasia.
As mentioned earlier, running far away from anything remotely associated with Hitler is a sensible thing to do. It is thanks to that impulse that racism has become unfashionable in the West, and that the Civil Rights movement in the United States had the success that it did.
However, an ideology that bases itself on opposition to Hitler still has the idea of Hitler at the center. Hitler is still the model, even if he is the model of things to avoid. As mentioned earlier, imitation of a model continues even in an adversarial relationship. Given this relationship, it is not so surprising that the modern Left everywhere advocates for a stronger, more powerful state, the censoring of so-called “hate speech,” as well as championing abortion and euthanasia. But this is not the only respect in which they have become imitators of their idol. Spend any amount of time on a far-left website or forum, and you will find that they, too, have identified the source of all evil in a single gender of a single ethnic group. For what else are we to conclude when their academics speak of “whiteness” as though it were a disease? What are we to think when works long considered classics are removed from school curriculums because their authors are “dead white men?” How else are we to react when feminist activists speak of “the Patriarchy” in the same hysterical tone as cracks of yesteryear spoke of the Illuminati? Or when the phrase “White Privilege” is used to diminish the accomplishments of an entire group? The barrage from academia, activists, and talking heads in the media is relentless, determined at all cost that the target group must be regarded as a pariah worthy only of being ignored.
The alternative is Hitler, and the death of the Republic.
One might reasonably object that, in a society that has long favored white men, that some vestiges of that privilege may remain, and need to be corrected. One might also object by noting the large presence of whites, including white men, among the Political Left, including in positions of power. I grant the first objection as obvious, with the proviso that not every problem is a nail that needs to be hit by that particular hammer.
To the second objection, Rene Girard provides an answer to the conundrum: how a group of people could come to have such power and influence in a movement that supposedly demonizes them. The answer is Sacral Kingship. Girard saw that there was only one way for a scapegoat to escape being killed or exiled: by offering a substitute sacrifice. In this way, the crisis is averted, the people are calmed, and the scapegoat survives. But the scapegoat loses none of their fearsome mystique, since they are still blamed for starting the crisis and praised for ending it. They have, while living, achieved a divine or semi-divine status in their communities, and thus a position of authority (with the understanding that they will be killed the moment their substitute sacrifices fail to produce results.)
I believe a similar dynamic is at play within the culture of the Political Left. See, for example, the plot of Edward Zwick’s The Last Samurai, or James Cameron’s Avatar, or Kevin Costner’s Dances with Wolves. In each of these films, the hero is a white man who encounters a foreign culture in conflict with his own, and sides with the foreign culture against his former comrades. The foreign culture not only accepts him but gives him at least a nominal position of leadership. This trope, known as “Mighty Whitey,” is a prime example of Girard’s theory of Sacral Kingship: the enemy of the tribe becomes its leader by offering a substitute sacrifice: in this case, his nation, his history, and his culture (and, by implication, his religion if he has one). Anything he retains from his old life is used as a weapon against those other, less enlightened white men who threaten his new community.
This seems to be the basic mindset of the Political Left. I do not mean that everyone who identifies with the Left is power-hungry; most are simply horrified by past and present injustices and see no reason to excuse them or allow them to continue. But even in these there is some element of a spiritual survival mechanism, a way to separate their virtuous (or at least reasonably good) selves from the wickedness of their ancestors. Unfortunately, no amount of penance can cleanse their original sin: they who are white cannot change their ethnicity and trying to fully adopt another culture will also lead to charges of racism. The only way to be certain that they are good people and not enablers of oppression is to jump on board whatever new cause they are told they must support. To question the narrative is to ostracized. Such measures may strain the fragile alliance of the Left, but the cause must not be questioned.
The alternative is Hitler, and the death of the Republic.
VI. The Political Right and the Cult of Hitler: Secular Satanism
Before discussing the Right side of the political spectrum, we must acknowledge (pardon the pun) the elephant in the room. The Left accuses the Right of being Hitler-loving racists, and unfortunately there are some who fit the bill. But in terms of numbers, these are a minority. In any society there will be sick souls with a morbid fascination of evil who will fight under the banner of whatever their home society considers demonic. But this does not describe the vast majority of the Political Right.
Most on the Right despise Hitler as much if not more than those on the Left. The difference lies in how they view their history in relation to the man. For the Left, Hitler is a natural outgrowth of Western Civilization. For the Right, Hitler is an aberration, a cancerous cell in the otherwise relatively healthy body of the West. This is the primary reason why they despise him, and why they are hostile to the ideas of the Left: they see both as a perversion of their heritage. If the maxim of the Left is “We have sinned with our fathers” (Psalm 106:6), the maxim of the Right is “Honor thy father and mother” (Exodus 20:12). This reverence for ancestors and all they have passed on to us is entirely natural; without our forebears, we would not exist. The world we inhabit, for good or ill, comes from them.
But what is this inheritance, this store of spirituality, culture and philosophy that the Right wishes to preserve? The answer will vary based on who you ask. For some on the Right, it is the spiritual heritage of the West that matters most: Christianity (usually in whatever form the respondent holds) is what defines and sets the West apart from everyone else. Others see more value in the ideas of the Enlightenment, or Democratic Government, or Capitalism. There are even a few genuine Monarchists to be found. And, sadly, there are those who see their inheritance as a matter entirely of race. Like the Left, the Right is not a monolith; its members are usually allies of convenience who may despise each other as much as their mutual enemies. Yet on one point they all agree: those on the Left are destroying what they hold dear, and it cannot be allowed to continue.
The alternative is Hitler, and the death of the Republic.
Now it is true that the Right seems far less prone to bring out the Nazi accusations than the Left, though it does happen (I recall seeing a video on YouTube during Obama’s term in which a group of young conservative activists sang a parody of “Springtime for Hitler” in front of a giant picture of Obama sporting a Hitler mustache). I would argue, however, that the Hitler cult that grips the modern Left is just as embedded in the DNA of the modern Right. For the modern Right, like the modern Left, is a product of the Second World War.
It would be too easy (though not entirely false) to argue that the Right uses (or did use) Communism just as the Left uses Nazism: as a militant bogyman ready to jump out and destroy everything, unless votes are tossed in their direction. Even in this sense, though, it must be remembered that the Right is, for the most part, reactionary; they are not trying to tear down a civilization, but rather preserve and repair, like a watchman standing atop a thousand-year-old castle in which his people have lived for generations. Essential to the worldview of the Right is the notion that they are on defense, whether against old enemies or insidious new ideas. The modern Right, however, has added another layer to this notion: that they, the rightful owners and heirs of the castle, are no longer in charge, and usurpers (i.e. the Left and/or foreigners) have taken over what is rightfully theirs. This notion is not entirely false (America and European culture has changed dramatically since the 1950’s, for good or ill), but it’s chief effect on the mind of the Right is to allow them to be the guardians of tradition and rebels against the status quo at the same time. To be on the Right is to experience the thrill of being an obnoxious Satanist while still claiming the name and/or culture of Christianity.
This religious element bundled in this contradictory ideology cannot be overlooked. To be fair, many Christians embrace the political Right in reaction to the Left’s enthusiasm for abortion and unrestrained sex, a fact that the Political Right has taken advantage of in election after election. But this religious identity is important in another way: it cloaks the Cult of Hitler in Christian garb.
Two examples will suffice to illustrate this. The first is a common accusation directed at Barack Obama during his term as President: Antichrist. It seems silly now, but many American Evangelicals were convinced that (now former) President Obama was going to take over the world and usher in the 7 years of Tribulation prior to the Second Coming of Christ. The second example is an article by John Zmirak: “ If We Reject Trump, We May Be Inviting Persecution.” Published just prior to the 2016 election, Zmirak compares Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton to Constantine and Diocletian respectively.
What both these examples have in common is that the response they hoped to provoke makes little sense according to Christian theology. Evangelicals under Obama did not hide in bunkers and pray as though the coming of Christ was the only thing that could stop him from world domination; rather they fought his agenda every step of the way using political tactics, as though they believed the ultimate servant of Satan could be dethroned by elections. Likewise, Mr. Zmirak surely did not believe (I hope) that Hilary Clinton would demand literal worship from the masses and be throwing Christians into gladiator areas, or that a single election would be enough to stop her if she and her supporters were truly that diabolical. In either case, the message was not a warning of spiritual danger, but a call for political action against a political threat, one that they believed would destroy them and their way of life, and the only way to avert disaster was to vote Republican.
The alternative would be Hitler, and the death of the Republic.
VII. What is to be Done?
To quote C.S. Lewis, "Opposite evils, so far from balancing, aggravate each other." And so it is with our modern politics. In both Europe and North America, there are two political camps, Left and Right, each trying to convince the public that their opponents are, essentially, Nazis. As we’ve seen, adversarial relationships are still built on imitation. It would be bad enough if either side simply imitated the other (while being in fierce denial about it). We might be able to encourage both sides to be more civil and better behaved, and they might, in time, imitate each other in honesty and mutual respect rather than hatred.
Unfortunately, both sides of the spectrum have only one eye on their immediate opponents. The other eye is fixed upon the hidden third of this unholy trinity: Adolf Hitler, the dark god of democratic doom. As the third piece of this demonic triangle, the idea of the dead dictator draws both sides to himself, just as they draw each other to themselves. Both sides ramp up the Nazi rhetoric while becoming more intolerant, more belligerent, more tribal, and more convinced that their society is in a deep crisis that only ideological authoritarian rule can solve. The crisis, imagined differently by each side, is largely a product of their fever dreams (did any sane person really believe that George W. Bush was going to transform America into an Evangelical Theocracy or that Barack Obama was going to throw all gun owners into FEMA camps?). The authoritarian solutions, however, are very real, or can be if left unchecked. Meanwhile, our infrastructure is crumbling, we’re trillions of dollars in debt, and seem to never run out of small wars in which to waste blood and treasure. The European Union, meanwhile, is falling apart under a different set of crises, but with the same ideological deadlock.
What is to be done?
Ironically, I believe the Jews might have the answer to the West’s Hitler problem. I was privileged at one point to attend a Jewish Purim service. For those who do not know, Purim is the Jewish festival commemorating the events told in the book of Esther. During the ceremony, the entire book of Esther is read, with a peculiar twist: every time the reader mentions the name of Hammon, the court official who tried to massacre the Jewish people, the entire congregation shouts and makes all manner of noise, trying to drown out the name. The point is clear: while Esther and Mordecai (the heroes of the story) are worth remembering, Hammon is not. He deserves to be forgotten.
I believe this is the same attitude we must take with Hitler: we must forget him. Not his victims, not the brave men and women who fought him, but the man himself. He was not a demon of darkness, but a pathetic little man who does not deserve to have the amount of influence he currently holds over our political discourse. He deserves to be forgotten.
How to accomplish this? Not by political or legal action. Any sort of censorship law would inevitably backfire. Rather, this must be an individual commitment, made voluntarily. Our writers and movie makers must commit to using someone besides the Nazis as a template for their villains. Our politicians and political activists must commit to discarding Nazi accusations as a political strategy, even if it would benefit them in the short term. And each of us must commit to seeing our ideological opponents as fellow citizens instead of mortal enemies.
This is a lot to hope for, and I don’t have much hope it will be done. But I believe it is our only solution. The alternative is to continue as we are now, letting things escalate until, out of shear exhaustion, the general public longs for a lasting solution for our political woes, and embraces the first leader who promises such a solution: A leader who will accept no dialogue, no compromise, who will bring all the power of the state to bear on their rivals, and finally bring all our debates to a final, lasting end.
And then we will have Hitler, and the death of the Republic.
If you are interested in Rene Girard's mimetic theory, check out my novel Cain: Son of Adam, a mythological retelling of the story of Cain and Abel. Buy it on Amazon here.