Political Ideology and Fundamentalism

While reading E. J. Dionne Jr.'s Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism from Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond (2016), I realized something crucial to our public discussion of holding onto the cherished values of the past amid the onslaught of modernity. Some years ago, I had read Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (2009), which chronicled the careers of people like Julius Evola, Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon, who blended Sufism, Hinduism and other eastern beliefs with their own take on the perennial philosophy, a syncretistic concept dating back to Neoplatism, that all religions are essentially one. Sedgwick maintains a blog on this topic. The Perennial Philosophy is also associated with all sorts of New Age views of faith, which glosses over rather ruthlessly the inherent differences, as Stephen Prothero has pointed out in God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter (2010). People don't like to be lumped together, and don't like outsiders misrepresenting their beliefs to others. I got a taste of this when a former Kuwaiti room mate told me he saw no difference between Judaism and Mormonism. I told him that Jews might have something to say about that, let alone Latter-Day Saints.

We still read Evola, Guénon, Schuon and other traditionalists because of their elaborate synthesis of mystical ideas and critique of Western industrial society. We still read philosophers who  like Martin Heidegger and Oswald Spengler for their similar analysis of why modern man is in an existential crisis and his civilization is in decline. Whether it be spiritual or natural alienation, the true or higher self is endangered. What these authors also had in common, however, was their sympathy with Fascism. was really an attempt to fuse politics with mysticism, to wed the technology of the modern world with the efforts to revive a lost imperial state. Modern force of arms would be needed to achieve the conversion of a decadent world back to some more bucolic state.

The same Kuwaiti roommate shared his avowed sympathy for the Islamic State radicals, before their more egregious atrocities came to light. At the time, I saw this as a visceral reaction to the despotism and corruption associated with many Near Eastern governments, towards which the Arab Spring was a reaction. Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia had their revolts, and Turkey had a close brush with a coup. His sentiments were echoed in Morgan Spurlock's prescient documentary Where In the World is Osama Bin Laden from 2008, where widespread dissatisfaction was detected among the young people he was allowed to interview (under restrictive circumstances). I don't believe my roommate was necessarily condoning IS's tactics. I believe he was so sick of political repression and inertia in his own country he was willing to tie his fortune to a lesser-known entity which, at least, is achieving results.

A similar dissatisfaction, I believe, is at the heart of the Donald Trump phenomenon. Many Americans are so fed up with the political establishment, who seems to systematically ignore them, that they are willing to support an avowed "doer", no matter how catastrophic his pledges may seem. They want to shake things up, like my Kuwaiti roommate, and the devil take the consequences. They see him as anti-establishment, since the Republican Party and mainstream press have been his loudest critics, up until he secured his nomination. Even Fox News seemed to oppose his campaign until recently. Why middle class voters feel kinship with a brash billionaire comes down to the accepted notion that only a billionaire has the means to stand apart from special interests, as was the case with Ross Perot. The Bernie Sanders phenomenon, which drew upon wider populist support than Trump, demonstrates some of the same dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton, whom many perceive as just another establishment politician. In spite of Trump's gaffes, the Democratic party cannot see this election as a sure thing. Fear of Trump may not translate into votes for Clinton, especially if voters decide to vote for someone else, or just stay home out of disillusionment.

I am not suggesting from all this that the Tea Party and IS are the same, or that they are part of a Neo-Fascist movement. What they, and the Traditionalists, and religious fundamentalists have in common is a desire to recreate an idyllic past which never existed in the first place. It traces its origins among young academics who never lived in such a society. The Muslim Brotherhood, highly influential upon modern Islamic fundamentalism, traces its roots to Sayyid Qutb, who was appalled by the free-wheeling ways of American college students when he visited there 1948-1950, when he was in his early 40s. Younger, educated people have been at the forefront of other fundamentalist movements in Judaism and Christianity. Fundamentalism and traditionalism, in effect, are actually post-modern movements, and are not the continuation of unbroken traditions. While they attract many who are poor and less-educated, their instigators were part of the elite of society.

Historians have pointed out that many allegedly ancient practices are of more modern invention. Wicca and Freemasonry, while claiming ancient roots, are twentieth-century and eighteenth century creations, respectively. We like to appeal to tradition for our beliefs, but our traditions are not always that old. In some respects, we aren't much different from others who dress up in costumes and try to re-enact famous battles or who want to evoke lost customs and ages, such as the Society for Creative Anachronism. Or, we reimagine the past, as those who embrace the Steampunk lifestyle. A. J. Jacobs has pointed out in his The Year of Living Biblically (2008) the difficulties of turning back the clock and embracing obscurely described customs which aren't fully understood by seasoned scholars, let alone devotees. Would we really want to go back to nature, as portrayed in so many reality shows, without modern conveniences, or medical care, or electricity, or plumbing? For most, the answer is a resounding "No". If anything, rigorous fundamentalism entails a more burdensome lifestyle and more complication than living in the world today.

So, will the Tea Party movement really steer us back to the 1950s? Or the old pre-taxation days of America? Do we want a return to Jim Crow, to closeted homosexuality, back alley abortions, to the Cold War paranoia, and the exclusion of certain ethnic groups from the naturalization process? Will we see a return of high-paying, unskilled industrial jobs? Will our educational infrastructural deficiencies be surmounted by school uniforms and prayer? Will we have more state mental hospitals? Will we see a return to large-scale highway and dam construction, as implemented during the Eisenhower Administration? Will we see less divorce and more traditional marriage? Will people forswear narcotics in favor of alcohol, tobacco, and sedatives? Will we see a revival of fraternal associations? If we imposed an Eisenhower-era taxation system, upper income people would be paying a much larger share than they do today. If people didn't live so long, perhaps the social safety net system would work again. Then we would have to sanction assisted suicide. Will we see a higher birth rate? Not if medical costs continue to spiral for obstetrical care.

I am not suggesting that life is so great today, with fragmenting households and social circles. Life also wasn't that great in the past, either, without the advances in public health and information sources we have today. Neighborhoods, homes weren't necessarily safe back then, either. There was "juvenile delinquency" then, as opposed to "gangs" today. There were slums then, as there are slums, now. Emerging nations, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, have seen tremendous advances in quality of life and industrial capacity in the last 60 years. American cities have greater ethnic diversity today, though foreign-born citizens were a higher percentage of the population 150 years ago. There are neglected or forgotten customs, crafts, and practices worthy of revival and rediscovery. Our political upheaval today, so reminiscent of the left-oriented unrest of the sixties, with rudeness on the other end of the spectrum, can be seen as healthy if it helps to at least "shake things up". I am not in favor of complacency, of the gap between rich and poor continuing to widen, of an ever-burgeoning prison population and an aging, sickening population which society can't afford to accommodate, or of a young population which we have forgotten how to educate at reasonable cost.

So, there is much to be angry about. I think people need to talk about what can be done to improve society, rather than retreat to their own focus groups and tribes of faith, their gated communities and modern iron curtains of blissful ignorance. We will never be able to fortify ourselves enough in a world where too much is easily known, as quickly as thought, by the global community, for good and ill. Sure, let us preserve dignity, honor, loyalty to shared ideals. But let us not embrace revolution, and hatred, and persecution, just for the hell of it.