The politics of infantilism
This US election proves that mainstream political discourse is now indistinguishable from social media squabbling.
This week Kamala Harris described Donald Trump as a “fascist” who seeks “unchecked power”. Conservative commentators have expressed outrage at this absurd strategy, one which will doubtless backfire. And yet they appear to have forgotten that Trump has repeatedly referred to Harris as a “fascist” and, one on occasion, called her a “Marxist, communist, fascist, socialist”.
We have grown accustomed to the tactics of social media, the online crèche where those who bawl the loudest are rewarded with treats. What has become known as “Godwin’s Law” states that the longer an online discussion continues, the higher the probability that a comparison with the Nazis or Hitler will take place. Even Godwin has succumb to Godwin’s Law, penning an article for the Washington Post last December with the headline: “Yes, it’s okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don’t let me stop you.”
If this election is going to be reduced to each candidate shouting “fascist” at the other, we may as well give up hope. I have never been more convinced of the growing infantilism of political discourse than in the last few weeks, or that the US is now divided – perhaps irreparably – between two groups who see the world in entirely incommensurable ways. With sensible discussion now seemingly impossible, the election has descended into a battle of memes.
Harris’s campaign team, for instance, gleefully embraced the “Brat” identity bestowed upon their candidate by Charli XCX. I must confess that I have no idea who Charli XCX might be. Her surname in Roman numerals means 100 - 10 + 10, so I can only assume she’s a classical scholar making a sardonic point about the philosophical principle of eternal recurrence.
Likewise, Trump’s now infamous reference to the eating of cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, has been remixed multiple times and shared more widely than any campaign statement. All of which is very funny, but one might be forgiven for yearning that the election of the leader of the free world should be a generally humourless affair. International conflicts are not best resolved through a series of “yo momma” jokes.
This week I wrote a piece for the Washington Post about George Orwell’s essays, and the lessons that might still be gleaned from them. Specifically, I pointed out that Orwell continually cautioned against tribal thinking, and is still despised today in certain left-wing circles for reminding his readers that authoritarianism can occur on both sides of the political aisle. I quoted Orwell’s essay “Notes on Nationalism” (1945), in which he identified “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.” I also quoted his dismay that the word “fascist” is so commonly misused. The piece can be read here.
I don’t often read the comments under my articles (except for here on Substack, of course), but I was interested to see how the overwhelmingly Democrat-supporting readership of the Washington Post might react. The comments are extremely revealing, given that most of those wading in seem determined to prove my point. I have rarely seen such unthinking and flagrant tribalism on display. Apparently, Trump is a literal “fascist”, and Orwell would have been the first to identify him as such. Orwell, of course, took up arms against actual fascists in Spain and was shot in the throat for his troubles. Would these commentators argue that if Orwell were alive today he would have packed up his gun and headed for the US in the run-up to this election? If not, why not?
The answer is probably quite simple. I am certain that most of these people, if they reflected calmly for one moment, would understand that Trump has authoritarian instincts, but is by no means a “fascist”. They might also admit that Harris and Biden have similar tendencies. In the UK, we are currently ruled by an authoritarian Labour government, one which is determined to censor speech and curb the freedoms of the population. The Conservative Party likewise sought to limit freedom of assembly and crack down on so-called “hate speech”. To put it bluntly: all major political parties in the Western world are currently authoritarian to one degree or another.
I would agree that US citizens are right to be concerned by Trump’s reckless behaviour on January 6, but they should be equally troubled by the Democratic Party urging the incarceration of a presidential candidate through the overt manipulation of the law. For those in any doubt about what happened here, they should read this thorough and temperate overview by Elie Honig, senior legal analyst for CNN (hardly a rabid MAGA supporter).
There was a common refrain in the comments under my Washington Post article which took umbrage at the “both sides” quality of my writing, but this is merely one of the thoughtless clichés that Orwell warned us against. No political faction is immune to the human instinct for authoritarianism, and it most certainly does occur on “both sides”. When we think in strictly partisan terms we are not thinking at all. Those who have convinced themselves that “my side can do no wrong” are suffering from a delusion. Orwell knew this perfectly well, and stated it in unambiguous terms on multiple occasions.
And yet consider this comment from one disgruntled reader:
“You’ve misinterpreted Orwell. What so disturbed him was the shattering of his early views by learning just how evil Stalin was. And that had nothing to do with socialism, which you claim he thought had totalitarian tendencies possibly within it. That isn’t true.”
And yet here is Orwell writing in 1943:
“Socialism has totalitarian possibilities.”
I don’t think he could be much clearer than that. And yet most of those who like to cite Orwell in defence of their position are often guilty of sidestepping the inconvenient aspects of his writing. While claiming him as their mascot, they are illustrating precisely the closed-mindedness that he criticised so vehemently.
Much of this has arisen due to a fear of “playing into the hands” of the other party, and in the run-up to an election this feeling is especially pronounced. No doubt most White House reporters are aware that they behaved unethically by ignoring the obvious signs of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. After Biden’s speech at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, in which he asked whether the recently deceased Jackie Walorski was in the audience, the press should have been more rigorous in demanding to see his medical assessments. These kinds of instances, frequent as they were, cannot be dismissed as mere “gaffes”. The press were in dereliction of duty quite plainly because they did not want to risk providing ammunition to the Republicans and securing another Trump victory.
Orwell had little patience for this kind of behaviour, and his thoughts on the subject are so pertinent that they are worth quoting in full:
“A phrase much used in political circles in this country is ‘playing into the hands of’. It is a sort of charm or incantation to silence uncomfortable truths. When you are told that by saying this, that or the other you are ‘playing into the hands of’ some sinister enemy, you know that it is your duty to shut up immediately.
For example, if you say anything damaging about British imperialism, you are playing into the hands of Dr Goebbels. If you criticize Stalin you are playing into the hands of the Tablet and the Daily Telegraph. If you criticize Chiang Kai-Shek you are playing into the hands of Wang Ching-Wei - and so on, indefinitely.
Objectively this charge is often true. It is always difficult to attack one party to a dispute without temporarily helping the other. Some of Gandhi’s remarks have been very useful to the Japanese. The extreme Tories will seize on anything anti-Russian, and don’t necessarily mind if it comes from Trotskyist instead of right-wing sources. The American imperialists, advancing to the attack behind a smoke-screen of novelists, are always on the look-out for any disreputable detail about the British Empire. And if you write anything truthful about the London slums, you are liable to hear it repeated on the Nazi radio a week later. But what, then, are you expected to do? Pretend there are no slums?
Everyone who has ever had anything to do with publicity or propaganda can think of occasions when he was urged to tell lies about some vitally important matter, because to tell the truth would give ammunition to the enemy. During the Spanish Civil War, for instance, the dissensions on the Government side were never properly thrashed out in the left-wing press, although they involved fundamental points of principle. To discuss the struggle between the Communists and the Anarchists, you were told, would simply give the Daily Mail the chance to say that the Reds were all murdering one another. The only result was that the left-wing cause as a whole was weakened. The Daily Mail may have missed a few horror stories because people held their tongues, but some all-important lessons were not learned, and we are suffering from the fact to this day.”
Orwell was right. When people dismiss arguments relating to “both sides” they are attempting to undermine a truth that we would all do well to heed. Yes, “both sides” are engaging in the politics of infantilism, resorting to smears and lies to achieve their goals. Yes, “both sides” are disregarding the true meaning of “fascism” to score cheap points against their opponents. And yes, “both sides” are capable of authoritarianism. Once we can be adult enough to admit this, we might be able to restore some semblance of a productive political debate.
Brilliant and thank you for handing me the very piece I needed.
Ever since our elections in November last year people on the progressive left (including the media) keep saying "don't say X or Y because it will play in the hands of Wilders". But what are we supposed to do? Ignore issues a growing number of voters are worried about?
Apart from infantilisation there is also "invalidating" other people's opinions and/or worries by merely suggesting they are "facist opinions" and therefor should be ignored.
This is currently our political debate: Person X is worried about migration but is told "we don't have to listen to fascists...". End.
And glad to see you still read the comments. :-)
I read your WaPo article with great interest—including the many Orwell references and links, particularly the one on the use of the term fascism. After scrolling through the comments on the WaPo article (which I can attest that Andrew fairly describes), I wrote a comment of my own. In the event you may have overlooked it, here it is:
“I have been following Andrew Doyle for a while. (I am in the US, and a lifelong, largely progressive, Democrat, so I write from that perspective.) Whether or not I agree with his analyses, I have found them thoughtful, substantive, and a good means for challenging and refining my own thinking. I’m glad the Post has chosen to publish him, and I hope we will see more of him in these pages.”
On the state of play here in the US, I am despondent. My own assessment is that Trump DOES present a unique threat to our democracy and must be stopped, but equally that those who share my view do not always think or act constructively to make the case. A prime example is hauling out the term “fascism.” To my mind, for one, that word is inextricably tied, at this point, to the particular conflagration that was WWII. For that reason, my view is that using “fascism” to describe the contours of the current threat Trump poses qualifies as a thought-terminating cliché. There is plenty else to bring to bear in factual matter, and in Trump’s own statements and actions, to make the case for reason for alarm about what will befall our democracy if Trump once more ascends to the Oval Office.
I agree, also, that authoritarian tendencies are not the singular province of one political party in the US. Among other things, the Democratic stances related to gender identity provide a vivid demonstration of that.
So, in sum, while I may have differences of view from time to time, I agree completely with your overarching message, as lucidly summarized in the closing words of this post. Thank you, Andrew, for challenging us to think as clearly as we can. We need it more than ever in these fraught times.