Far-Left Orthodoxy: An Introduction
Understanding the West’s Most Deadly Contemporary Threat
Author’s Note: This essay was originally written in early 2019, as a result of my building frustration to what I was both observing in society, and learning to help understand those observations. I’m publishing it publicly to highlight the enduring (and in some ways, intractable) nature of what we’re currently facing as a society, and the urgency necessary to effectively combat this grave ideological threat. The only update I’ve made to the document is a brief, non-exhaustive list of the core tenets of FLO.
“One of the largest casualties in the aftermath of Conservative’s surrender to Progressives in the culture war, is the ceding of legitimate moral authority to those whose own subjective morality would later be employed in the most authoritarian and caustic endeavors imaginable.”
Thesis: Unless a new strategy and dialectic approach is implemented by the opposition, current trends toward the acceptance of Far-Left Orthodoxy (FLO) will continue culturally, resulting in the election of radicals (or those espousing radical legislation), and the nearly irreversible legislation of authoritarian and collectivist policies. The loose (yet instructive) application and observation of Moore’s Law in rapid cultural shifts over the past decade (radical and rapid changes on immigration policies, gender, etc.) underscore the urgency of this problem.
The dialectic problem is twofold:
1) “Conversion” via faith-like acceptance or silent acquiescence of this new religious FLO.
2) “Branding” issue of non-FLO ideas vs. FLO ideology, ideas, and cultural stances.
These problems will be discussed separately, but first it must be explained who FLO opposition has a dialectic problem with.
-Born 1980–1993.
-15% prioritize religion in their lives.
-First generation since onset of data collection to not cite “work ethic” as a staple of their generation. Instead, listed “smarter” and “tolerant” among other unique qualities.
-Supported Obama 2-to-1 and strongly lean Democrat.
-68% say more gay couples raising children isn’t a bad thing for society.
-63% say single motherhood is good or neutral for society.
-82% identified as Democrats say “Blacks are treated less fairly today than whites are.”
-Value good parenting, having a successful marriage, and helping others as top three life priorities.
-64% Say “Government should do more to solve problems.”
-30% identified as Republican or Conservative hold the viewpoint above.
-37% Voted Trump in 2016.
-70% say “Government should do more to solve problems.”
-52% identified as Republican or Conservative hold the viewpoint above.
-35% know someone who “Prefers Gender-Neutral Pronouns.”
-82% identified as Democrats say “Blacks are treated less fairly today than whites are.”
-43% identified as Republican or Conservative hold the same view as above.
-64% say single motherhood is good or neutral for society.
-Raised with significantly less unstructured play time, leading to moral dependence and appeal to authority as dominant means of solving problems.
Key takeaways regarding plurality of voters:
-51% of Millennials voted in 2016, 55% Democrat.
-In 2020, 27% of voters will be Millennial, 10% will be Gen Z.
-62% of eligible voters will be those who favor government expansion:
Gen X- 25% of voters, 53% favor more government.
Millennial- 27% of voters, 64% favors more government.
Gen Z- 10% of voters, 70% favor more government.
-As prioritization of religion decreases, demand for larger government increases. Reliably trending upward, this now represents a majority of the new generation or voters, unfortunately including those who identify as Conservative.
-Little emphasis on the value of intact families or social institutions, indicating large cultural divide.
Dialectic Issue 1: Creating Converts
Humans are religious beings. We long for purpose and meaning outside of ourselves, and a social network of like-minded individuals to pursue that purpose with. As Eric Hoffer points out in his classic True Believer, “Though ours is a godless generation, it is far from irreligious.” FLO has created an acceptable substitute for the increasingly irreligious and disaffected generations feeling devoid of purpose in life. In reality, FLO is a hyper-Puritanical dogma thinly masked under the guise of higher morality and equity. As a religious orthodoxy, FLO checks all necessary boxes:
-Original sin = privilege. Those who have privilege must repent, ally with those who do not have privilege, use their privilege to implement systemic change bent toward creating equity at all costs.
-Moral framework outlines all aspects of belief and life in framing desired personal and societal goals. Christians pursue holiness, Buddhists pursue Zen, and FLO adherents pursue equity (sometimes articulated as “equality,” despite having very different definitions) and “fairness” above all else (See The Righteous Mind by Johnathan Haidt).
-As Marx framed his ideology through the lens of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, FLO follows in a similar vein using the dichotomy of oppression/victimhood vs. structural oppression/white supremacy (also known as Conflict Theory). FLO uses this dichotomy to separate the pious from the unwashed, and ultimately the good from the evil.
-Moral high ground as a self-proclaimed standing allows for the justification of any and all means necessary in enforcing one’s ideology. More on this later.
One must adhere to all tenants of FLO. Just as a few distinct yet crucial differences separate Mormons from Baptists and Catholics from Protestants, any deviation from FLO in the form of heterodox views means immediate excommunication. Worse yet, one is not simply ostracized for such heresy, but there is a corresponding lexicon of “scarlet letter” accusations one will be permanently and publicly labeled with due to their apostasy. Favoring any limits on abortion is misogyny, believing in some form of controlled immigration or secured border is racism and xenophobia, etc. The core belief tenets of FLO include, but are not limited to:
- Faith in the claims regarding our collective impending doom due to man-made climate change, and the equity-minded Socialist economic policies (Green New Deal) being prescribed to “save” us from that climate change apocalypse.
- Faith in the claims regarding contemporary systemic societal racism against non-white individuals, including the claim that inherent racism is both held and upheld by all white individuals.
- Faith in the claims about the founding of the United States, as told by The 1619 Project.
- Faith in the claims about gender as a social construct, the malleability and fluidity of biological sex, and the lack of plainly obvious biological differences between males and females. Included in this tenet is the unequivocal support and celebration of transgender individuals, especially transgender women (biological males) who choose to participate in women’s sports.
- Faith in the Federal Government as the institution of first resort for solutions to all problems, both personal and collective. This includes faith in the presupposition that Government is legitimately capable of solving virtually all, let alone most problems in the first place (when led by enlightened Priests of FLO).
- Faith in the proposition that truth is a matter of subjective “lived experience,” rather than objective realities which can be discovered through discourse and earnest pursuit. This includes faith in the notion that anyone with oppressed identity markers (as determined by FLO) must be believed in all aspects of their claims, their claims constitute objective reality regardless of evidence, and the request for evidence of claims is actually evidence of the questioner’s lack of moral purity, rather than indicators of the fantastic or dubious nature of the claims being made.
- Faith in the legitimacy and utility of moral judgments and condemnation made on past generations, including artwork and literature, as filtered through the lens of contemporary moral and social standards (as determined by FLO).
- Opposition to the sin of inequality, including the belief that inequality is not only avoidable, but capable of eradication through policy and governance put forward (and enforced) by self-selected morally enlightened and intellectual superior societal elites.
- Opposition to the sin of doubt, as often articulated by those outside of FLO. Doubt in the factual basis of claims made by FLO adherents is synonymous to doubt in the moral purity of those making the claims, and must be treated as personal attacks rather than good-faith efforts at discerning truth.
FLO adherents know what awaits those who dissent, leading to the other side of religiosity in FLO. As with Catholicism at certain points in history or Islam in some parts of the world today, FLO obtains converts through genuine conversion or silent acquiescence. Those in or on the fringe of social circles with FLO Zealots have witnessed firsthand the way those who disagree are treated. It is simply easier to remain silent than voice disagreement and risk life ruining via being labeled racist, rape apologist, white supremacist, etc. This is supported by the enormous number of Americans who are legitimately afraid to share their political beliefs due to rampant political correctness and the increasingly violent backlashes and general ostracization apostates from FLO receive.
The rigid orthodoxy and self-proclaimed moral superiority of FLO makes it extremely adept at shrinking one Overton Window when it comes to criticisms that could be levied against it, while infinitely expanding a second Overton Window in regards to what FLO adherents can say about their critics. Whether through means of making genuine converts, or silencing those who would potentially dissent, FLO ensures that the only voices and perspectives being heard are those of its adherents. This successfully presents that which is not necessarily mainstream as the prevailing public will, via de facto majority as far as the public discourse is concerned. As this cycle of self-feeding legitimacy continues, FLO gets stronger. Within the religious framework, the successful smearing of all dissenting views as evil, immoral, etc. further strengthens the false legitimacy of FLO.
Dialectic Issue 2: Branding
As John Stuart Mill alluded to in On Liberty, we live in a ‘Marketplace of Ideas’. The notion that it is not merely monetary transmissions of wealth which adhere to economic principles is a fascinating one which will be expanded upon later, but for now it is sufficient to simply meditate on how ideas come to be accepted or rejected (purchased or remain on the shelf) by the public. Consider for a moment something as absurd as the notion that the Earth is not round, but is actually flat. If someone describes this idea to you, you must decide to either reject it, accept it, or mull it over and decide later, much like you would do after seeing an advertisement or hearing a sales pitch. To ultimately accept is to ‘buy’ it, and to reject it is to decline. While buying entails incorporating this knowledge into your perception of reality and subsequent decisions, to reject it means to simply disregard the notion and proceed with life as usual. You may mull it over, discuss it with your spouse, friends, etc., but ultimately, the decision falls on you as to whether you grant the idea enough legitimacy to believe it or not. We do the same with warnings against smoking, revelations about the downsides of certain foods, or weather forecasts in the light of perspective hiking trips. In short, the marketplace of ideas encompasses nearly every aspect of our lives, whether we realize it or not.
In the New York Times best-seller Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath, the authors outline several factors that contribute to the overall “stickiness” of an idea. This essentially boils down to whether or not an idea appears legitimate enough to succeed in the minds of those who hear it- in other words, purchased in the Marketplace of Ideas. A few of the factors the Heath brothers outline are:
-Is the idea simple enough to be recalled at a later date? Could you restate the idea with relative accuracy to a third party, if necessary?
-Is the idea surprising? Does the nature of how unexpected it is force you to stop and think about it? If the idea breaks a pattern (real or perceived) it helps in the surprise factor.
-Is it concrete enough to paint a clear picture in your mind?
-Does it elicit emotion? Does the idea create some sort of hope of something to come?
-Is it credible? Not credible in the sense that you know how it could be done, but does it at least seem possible?
Notice that the closest check on the veracity of an idea is its credibility, though only in the sense that it seems possible. This is a far cry from any real level of scrutiny, and makes perfect sense when used to analyze FLO. Consider the “stickiness” factors in light of the overall ideology and subsequent platforms of FLO:
-Health care as a human right/Medicare for all. Can you imagine paying less in health care? Can you imagine not worrying about medical bills? Does the idea that this could be possible surprise you?
-Cancel all student loans/make college free for all. Is this a simple outcome to you? Does it surprise you? Do you feel any emotion/hope at the prospect of no longer having a student loan payment?
-Stop family separation/there are kids in cages at the border. Does a clear picture comes to mind? Could you articulate this idea to someone else? Does any emotions accompany the notion that there are children in cages?
-Climate change will kill us all unless we act now. Is this simple? Does it surprise you? Are you forced to contemplate the startling notion that impending doom is upon us?
Consider some of the more pervasive ideas of FLO that are not as commonly articulated, but are still a primary aspect of the ideology:
-All inequality is immoral.
-Any disparity between group outcomes is driven by prejudice (arrest rates, pay gaps, etc.)
-Negative/disparate outcomes for minority groups relative to other groups are a result of external oppression/prejudice of majority groups rather than normal Pareto Distribution observable in across all aspects of the world, or internal choices or decisions of some within the minority group.
-The legacy of slavery in America is strong and lingers on in institutional racism and white privilege.
-The history of sexism in America lingers in the pay gap and lack of opportunity for women.
-Punch a Nazi. Speech is violence if it can be tenuously connected a minority group. Therefore, violent speech can be met with violent action, because violent attacks warrant violent self-defense.
Now, consider whatever you find the opposite of any of the previous ideas or ideology to be. You’ll find that what comes to mind as you go down the list is inherently more complicated due to the necessary nuance applied to the situation, and is almost always a less sexy explanation of data realities compared to oversimplified and dishonest representations. It is much easier to simply declare that all student loans should be “canceled” (which is actually an immoral proposition) than it is to have a nuanced discussion regarding whether or not college education is being pushed on too many people, whether we should stop undervaluing trade schools, and the myriad of other issues within the general pricing of higher education as it exists today. In other words, the ideas opposite to FLO are not very sticky.
Moving beyond the stickiness of an idea, in his book Contagious: Why Things Catch On, Jonah Berger delves into what motivates an idea to be shared or transmitted from one individual to another. While Berger admits in the introduction that the Heath brother’s book was an inspiration to him, he wanted to understand what caused an idea to move beyond acceptance and into transmission. There is some overlap in factors that cause stickiness and factors that cause an idea to be spread, such as the usefulness of accompanying anecdotes and emotion (though Berger emphasizes the fact that anger is just as useful of an emotion to exploit. People will share stories that anger them with others they also expect to be angered, strengthening the relationship via having a mutual cause, shared enemy, etc. FLO thrives on this).
The first factor Berger highlights in his book, and the one that will be the subject of discussion here, is the notion of social currency. Berger points out that people are more prone to share things that make them look cool, informed, etc. than they are to share things that make them look incompetent, uninformed, or just generally dorky. Plainly stated, social currency is the “pull or influence a consumer has among their peers.” Moving beyond Berger’s apolitical explanation, however, one could substitute “cool” for “virtuous” in light of how politics and FLO’s culture war has infiltrated all aspects of life (Nike shoes, Mastercard, Soccer, Home Depot, etc.). As Berger points out, it is illustrative to observe not only the last idea/product you shared with someone else, but the last time you refrained from doing so. As mentioned previously, people are increasingly self-censoring when it comes to their expression of ideas and opinions. If they know something might cast doubt on their allegiance to all aspects of the virtues of FLO, they remain silent. It is much more damning to say something that could be falsely construed as racist or advancing oppression than it is to simply appear “uncool”.
This harkens back to the religious aspect of FLO which encourages self-censorship under threat of becoming a social pariah. To quote John Stuart Mill:
“…when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of terrorizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandate; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
-On Liberty, John Stuart Mill (emphasis added)
The observation Mill made 160 years ago is just as true today, if for no better reason than how readily observable it is. There is simply no social currency to be found in criticizing FLO, or any of the ever-changing appendages in its amorphous philosophy. It is one thing to look uninformed or silly in front of your friends and colleagues; another to have them suddenly find out that you’re a ‘bigot” due to the expression of a heterodox opinion, even if that opinion would have been mainstream and non-controversial as early as 5 or 6 years ago. On the issue of branding, there is no mainstream counter to the ideas, social currency, and cancerously oppressive silencing powers of FLO.
Summary and Implications
The most recent generation and incoming generation of voters are bent towards authoritarianism, even if they do not realize it. The members of Generation Z who label themselves “conservative” contains a majority that desires more government action to solve problems, not less. This alone demonstrates the uphill battle to be fought for what is increasingly the majority block of voters. Looked at as potential recruits to the religion of FLO, they are primed to go along to get along, if for no better reason than to prevent the fallout which comes from blasphemy against FLO. They might even truly convert due to the lack of religion and purpose increasingly found among the youngest generation. The outcome is the same: the adherence or complicity in the spread of FLO. There is no counter-movement to FLO that has the same mainstream appeal and purpose-filling potential that FLO currently has.
On the other side of the coin, FLO’s idea set stands distinct from the ideas of those who disagree with it. The ideology and doctrines are simple (easily accomplished when one disregards all nuance or inconvenient facts when promulgating an idea), and have the advantage of being masked under the guise of compassion and moral authority. The ideas themselves are morally and factually bankrupt, but this is irrelevant in the world of advertising. As Eric Hoffer points out: “Mass movements are to be judged by their ability to absorb the frustrated, not the viability of their ideas.” All FLO has to do is portray itself as plausible, and enjoy the benefits of being the dominant ideology. These benefits include setting the terms of the debate, which include the automatic assumption of moral superiority. This makes the ideas unassailable by those who do not want to “purchase” them, again, creating either legitimate adherents or those who remain silent due to the observable negative social currency which comes from speaking out against FLO. As with the religious aspect of FLO, there is no mainstream narrative that has anywhere near the simplicity, appeal, and social currency that FLO has. Stated differently, FLO has the majority market share of moral authority, sticky ideology, and contagious ideas.
As mentioned in the introduction, this can be simplified as a dialectic problem. Ideological conversations between adherents to FLO and anyone who disagrees can be likened to a member of a religious cult being confronted by a concerned friend. All the facts in the world bear no relevance on someone who is convinced of the morality and “truth” of their position. As conservative commentator Ben Shapiro is known for saying: “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” In reality, it is the opposite for those who have bought into FLO: “Feelings don’t care about your facts.” When any debate takes place, the current model seems to be something approximating ‘Empirical Facts vs. Cherry-Picked & Misleading Half-Truths in Support of Ideology.’ This is a mismatch of dialectic goals and methods, and will almost always continue to lead to failure in productive dialogue in this current form. FLO has no desire to operate in the realm of objective, observable reality and facts. Facts leave too much room for failure. It is no coincidence that so many of the intellectual proponents of FLO also happen to be of the postmodern, neo-Marxist persuasion. Thus, the argument of those who would oppose FLO must be augmented in Trojan Horse fashion.
According to Berger, another aspect of a contagious idea is the ability to be brought to mind in everyday life, or triggered. The more triggers a product or idea has, the more likely it is to be contagious. As Berger puts it: “Top of mind is tip of tongue.” One way he suggests doing this is by building a Trojan Horse for the idea- attaching the idea to something else the consumer might not have originally associated with it. A common example would be one product or idea becoming associated with it’s competitor’s products or ideas. This is particularly useful when the brand or idea is new or has a small market share. By becoming associated with the dominant market share, the brand or idea is now easily triggered by any mention of the more popular idea or brand. Donald Trump did this during the 2016 presidential campaign. He managed to attach himself to essentially every other candidate in the race by attacking them, giving them unflattering nicknames, etc. By doing so, he made it so that no competitor could stand out on their own, but always had to speak at least to some degree in the context what Trump had recently said about them or someone else. While I am not advocating in the slander or denigration of any individual, it is helpful to note this anecdote for what it is: a successful Trojan Horse.
Opposing ideas of FLO must find a way to infiltrate the ideology of FLO, turning FLO’s own arguments on their head. However, this must be done using the same lexicon and framing that FLO uses in establishing those ideas in the first place. Thus, the opposition of FLO must be facts hidden within the Trojan Horse of morality, justice, fairness, etc. This is not as daunting as it might seem, as it just so happens that facts tend to be more on the side of morality and justice than contrived, authoritarian doctrines.
This outline is meant to be more descriptive than prescriptive. However, I have a few general strategies that I believe will be effective in combating FLO, including:
-hijacking their key talking points using effective Trojan Horses
-using their own language of morality in highlighting the superior morals of competing ideas and principles, such as capitalism vs. socialism, etc. One of the largest casualties in the aftermath of Conservative’s surrender to FLO in the culture war is the ceding of legitimate moral authority to those whose own subjective morality would later be employed in the most authoritarian and caustic endeavors imaginable.
-remove the stigma from dissent against FLO in public discourse, and weaken the social capital of FLO ideology. This is probably the most critical component of weakening FLO, as it directly impacts the power of FLO in normative social discourse. The more people feel comfortable engaging in disagreement (or even doubt) with FLO, the weaker its power of censorship is on individuals. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to do this specifically. That said, the lack of knowledge specific to execution of a goal does not negate the critical necessity of accomplishing that goal, and the threat FLO poses on the stability and future of our country (and the West more broadly) necessitates effective action sooner than later.