Hatemongering: The Politics of Irrationality

One of the paradoxes of the early twenty-first century is that the era’s rhetoric simultaneously contains self-righteous diatribes against what it calls “hate,” yet also has made it fashionable to make blatant declarations of hatred.

In 2004, a group of media personalities and celebrities joined leaders from the Progressivist movement, the Democratic Party, and the Leftist political scene to contribute to an anthology titled The I Hate George W. Bush Reader. The book was devoted, not to disagreeing with President Bush or with his policies, but rather to personal animus.

This book followed on the heels of 2003’s The Bush-Hater’s Handbook.

Yet the authors, contributors, and editors of these books proclaimed themselves to be standing in opposition to hate.

One might begin to ask for a clarified definition of the word ‘hate.’

The rhetoric of hate in the media manifested itself in a pattern of expressing the hope that someone - President Bush, Vice President Cheney, etc. - would be assassinated. Such expressions were often disguised as jokes, allowing the speaker the ready-made excuse that it was “merely a jest.”

But the pattern continued, as the Washington Post published an editorial in 2016 titled I Hate Donald Trump. But He Might Get My Vote.

There is an internal contradiction in the news media, sometimes called the “mainstream” media, as it loudly proclaims its opposition to hate, and at the same time expresses passionate hatred toward anyone it opposes.

The establishment media and those it controls - the Democratic party, the Leftists generally, and the Progressivist movement - “are the ones who use Nazi bullying and intimidation tactics and subscribe to a full-blown fascist ideology,” notes historian Dinesh D’Souza.

Thus events described as rallies against hate are in fact hate-filled rioters. The word “protester” is systematically substituted for “rioter” in various reports. As D’Souza explains,

The self-styled opponents of hate are the actual practitioners of the politics of hate. Through a process of transference, leftists blame their victims for being and doing what they themselves are and do.

As often happens in political conflicts, language itself is hijacked. Consider the key vocabulary words: hate, protest, and riot.

The rhetoric escalates. Harsher and harsher terms are used. Eventually a fascist movement emerges and labels itself “Antifa,” meaning ‘anti-fascist.’ D’Souza notes that

In a sick inversion, the real fascists in American politics masquerade as anti-fascists and accuse the real anti-fascists of being fascists.

In a media age in which information is reduced to a 140-character or 280-character ‘tweet,’ or to a 20-second soundbite, readers and viewers can be misled into thinking that “Antifa” is an anti-fascist organization, especially when the establishment media fails to report that organizers of Antifa rallies regularly arrive with knives and baseball bats to conduct their peaceful anti-hate events.

Consumers of news media must carefully consider and ask who is truly on the side of individual political liberty.

Enlightened Politics, Enlightenment Politics

Modern political liberty, usually residing in the structure of freely-elected representatives, is based on a view of the relationship between society and government. That view articulates human rationality as the foundation for voting and political decisions.

British philosopher John Locke (1632 - 1704) and his writings can serve as an icon for this perspective.

Given that all people seek the same things - life, liberty, and a chance to explore their opportunities in terms of personal creativity and diligence. People want security for themselves, for their friends and family, and for their possessions. People want opportunities to see what their creativity and diligence can accomplish.

In addition to Locke, versions of this view were advanced by Edmund Burke (1727 - 1797), an Anglo-Irish thinker, and by Americans Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809), Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803), James Otis (1725 - 1783), and Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799).

Historians sometimes use the phrase “The Age of Enlightenment” to label the era in which these individuals lived.

Enlightenment politics is based, then, on those things which are common to all human beings. All people have a baseline capability for rational thought, and all people share certain basic desires.

In a republic governed by freely-elected representatives, the majority will express itself in voting, and in so doing, will manifest a common human attitude, rather than the attitude of some select small group.

This ‘Enlightened’ political thinking stands in opposition to ‘identity’ politics.

According to the ‘politics of identity,’ voters should vote based on some distinguishing feature which marks them as part of a distinct subgroup. Motivated by “identity politics,” voters should vote, not based on common human traits, like the desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but rather voters should vote on what separates them from others, e.g., race, gender, religion, etc.

So there is a clear tension between “enlightenment politics” and the “politics of identity.”

The twenty-first century voter, then, is confronted with two alternatives: either one can vote as a rational human being, valuing those things which all humans value - life, liberty, and economic opportunity - or one can vote based on one’s membership in a demographic category - race, gender, ethnicity, etc.