Disagreements which hinge on semantic differences are frustrating. We have all been in those discussions where both parties can’t seem to figure out where they are missing each other. If two men throw down because one thinks the Sox are going to clinch the pennant, and the other thinks it is a load of hogwash, they will feel like a couple of dolts when they realize one was walking about the Red Sox and the other the White Sox.
But this semantic difference is taken to another level if the underlying language being used by two parties is altogether different. When my wife was in France, she kindly asked the waiter if the chicken had any “preservatives”. “No,” he replied, looking down his sniggering nose, “there are no condoms in the chicken.” Preservatif, she learned that night, is the French word for a prophylactic. They all had a good laugh and she, a condom free dinner.
So when two people are using different definitions for the same word in the same language we have a semantic issue. When two completely different languages have a coincidentally homophonic ring, we have a misunderstanding on a whole other level and all sorts of shenanigans can ensue. Something of this latter sort is happening in the political discourse in America.
I want to give a general explanation for some behaviors of the political Right and Left based on the underlying philosophies which inform them. The ontological baseline each is launching from is as different as French from English, but the hair pulling comes from the fact that they think they are using the same philosophical vernacular. They ain’t. As the saying goes, politics is downstream from culture, and culture is downstream of religion. In order to find the bifurcation then, we need to head way upstream.
If you noticed in the beginning of the last paragraph I said I want to offer a generalized explanation. We speak in generalities for the purpose of seeing trends and metanarratives, but by doing so we sacrifice nuance. This means there will be plenty of holes for whatabout-isms and contradictory anecdotes to slip through. Alas, this is an occupational hazard which cannot be avoided.
There is an aggressiveness present among progressives not seen in conservative circles. Generally, conservatives will allow opposing viewpoints and encourage debate, while it is not uncommon among progressives to disallow dissenting opinions. More than a few times conservative speakers at universities have been physically barred from speaking on college campuses, or, if they make it to the podium, are heckled rudely throughout the presentation. Of course we are all familiar with the cancel mob which has targeted businesses and social media accounts which are contrary to a progressive ideology. Right leaning media platforms, on the other hand, uphold the importance of freedom of thought, even if it does attract some unsavory characters you wouldn’t want to date your worst enemy’s sisters.
I think a fair minded progressive would take a look at these few brief examples and agree that this has happened and, furthermore, would say it was good and necessary that these things happen. Some viewpoints ought not to be tolerated, particularly ones which are intolerant, even if one must sacrifice tolerance to shut it down. And I would even grant that, from their perspective, these things ought to happen to create a more fair, equitable and just society. I am not interested here in the rightness or wrongness of the perspective, but rather what is informing the perspective – the ideological wind in the sails. There is a fuse snipped short, one which makes killer bees look down right accommodating. What gives the progressiveness an aggressiveness which does not have a conservative corollary?
American conservatism is largely still informed by the Judeo-Christian ethic. They did not invent this ethic, but rather saw it simply as the Manufacturer’s intended use for mankind. They read the instructions that came in the box. Even if the conservative is not a Christian (and there are plenty), they are patriotic and constitutionally bound, believing our freedoms were granted by God or are at least transcendent in some mysterious way. Though they may not know God, there is a fear of him somewhere within, and on some level there is an agreement that He ought to be in charge of things. Even if they do not care much for the tree, they love the fruit of it and will defend the tree for its sake.
Humanism, on the other hand, shapes the progressive mind. There is a veneration of the human spirit which elevates the individual to a level of importance above any supernatural hocus pocus. Divinity in any meaningful sense is subtracted. The prevailing philosophy which funds humanism is existentialism.
Existentialism was born in the mid 19th century, but really hit puberty in the mid 20th century with gents like Albet Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger. It is the birth cries of a fatherless humanity, born again into a bleak and godless world where we know ourselves to be alone and without meaning; a world where we find ourselves searching for ourselves. At the root of existentialism is absurdity: the snickering irony of yearning for meaning in life though we know there is none. Existentialism is often misrepresented or confused with such phrases like “existential crisis” or “existential threat,” and conflates the philosophy proper with the angst brought about by situational turmoil and those goth kids you knew in high school.
Existentialism is, however, more robust than this, heavier, and more dangerous, and is the reason for the vehemence of the progressive mind.
At its core, the main difference between the convervative and progressive viewpoints come down to three little words: existence precedes essence. Jean-Paul Sartre, that wall-eyed philanderer, famously reduced existentialism to this sentence. Elegant in its alliteration, supple in its assonance, the phrase means that mankind first exists, then he must define his essence, his meaning. There is no predefined role for him to live up into, no criteria, no job description, no manufacturer instructions. Whatever mankind is to become it is up to him to hack this out of the wilderness of existence. His destiny is in his own hands, for God either doesn’t exist, or doesn’t care.
Compare this to a conservative mindset which is, to flip Sarte’s phrase, essence precedes existence. For a God-fearing individual, the essence of mankind has already been defined, having been moulded before the creation of the world, the job description uploaded to the website before he opened the job for applicants. This means there is a standard of mankind to which a person can be compared, of which they live up to it or fall short. That a man is a man and a woman a woman, that marriage is only between said genders, that mankind is dignified with the image of it’s Creator, are a few examples of what was already chiseled into stone before he existed.
This difference in how we arrive at essence plays out in every decision we make. The conservative sees no need to define mankind’s essence, only how to live up to what is already revealed. What he is conserving is the essence of mankind given by God. This is not the case for progressivism. The essence of man must be defined by man, and what better man than himself? He is progressing towards an essence, a meaning, as defined by himself, which is arrived at incrementally through his choices.
Existentialism rolled up humanity in humans. The true existentialist, when confronted with the absurdity of a desire for meaning in a world bereft of it, understands that he must carve out meaning from the bare and bleak rock of existence, and he does this with the only tool he has: his decisions. If he does this or that, he is conscious of the weight of the choice because he is not only choosing his own essence, but the essence of all humanity. Sartre was clear on this:
When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise but we also mean by that in making his choice he also chooses all men. In fact, that creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be…Our responsibility is much greater than what we supposed, because it involves all mankind. Therefore I am responsible for myself and everybody else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man.
For a progressive, what is on the table is not just the passing of a house bill, or a difference in fiscal policy, or the fifth seat in the Supreme Court, but the very essence of mankind. In choosing, he is defining all mankind as he thinks it ought to be.
So conservatives are showing up to a fight they didn’t know was happening. They are expecting a gentlemanly fisticuffs match according to the established rules, and are cold cocked with a chair to the back. The essence of mankind, as far as they knew, was never an open question, as God has no suggestion box on how to display his image. He made mankind in his image and that image is immutable. From an progressive standpoint, however, the essence of man is an open question, a question that needs answering, and they will be damned if they let someone else define it. They are not fighting for their physical lives, they are fighting for something far more integral, much more important – their essence. And when your very personhood is at stake, you fight tooth and claw.
So in large part I believe conservatives, and especially Christians, are still thinking both sides are still using the same rubric, the same rulebook and have the same understanding of humanity deep down. That is so adorable. But they do not. They are different philosophical languages altogether, and if we do not understand this, we will miss where the real fight is taking place and continue to inquire if there are condoms in the chicken.
Thought Butter 