Ontologist sez: This is why debating a postmodern leftist seems like you’re trying to nail jello to a wall.
by Fred Hutchison
Self-deceiving pride leads the sons of Adam into many foolish vanities and conceits. Some people concentrate on the petty vanities, and others indulge in grandiose delusions about themselves.
It has long been clear to me that grandiose delusions of pride are sometimes the motor force behind the personal ambitions of political careers. However, until I read Civilization and its Enemies by Lee Harris, I did not realize that inordinate pride can account for the contents of extreme political ideologies. Harris calls these “fantasy ideologies.”
The first part of this essay is about my futile efforts to debate with leftists and to refute the myths of their fantasy ideologies. Subsequently, I shall introduce Harris’ concept of the fantasy ideology, which will explain why these folks cannot coherently respond to debate arguments, and why they almost always attack the debater instead of challenging his arguments. Then I will offer the “green” movement as an example of a very popular fantasy ideology. Finally, we shall plunge into the dark waters of Muslim extremists who are following an irrational fantasy ideology. We shall end with reflections about mad men with missiles.
The destructive delusions of pride seem to be leading the world to destruction. But there is hope. As we shall see, popular fantasy ideologies often form like a bubble, and after a season, the bubble pops. In every life, the illusions of youth pop like a bubble during the middle of life or perhaps late in life. In like manner, every civilization goes through phases of the delusions of pride, which endure for an historical season, and then pop like a bubble. In this manner, God sweeps each historical age clean of its vanities and illusions to prepare for a new season under His dispensation.
But now there are bubbles that are not yet popped, and some of my misadventures involve the attempt to pop those bubbles. At carnivals, one can win prizes by puncturing balloons by throwing darts. It looks easy, but is surprisingly difficult. The same thing is true of the attempt to pop the bubbles of fantasy ideology.
Tilting with windmills
My various debates with leftists have often came down to a fight over a myth. When I recognize that a leftist believes a myth, I often take upon myself the task of proving to him that one of his cherished beliefs is a myth. In other words, I am a self-appointed bubble-popper.
My quest often has had all the futility of tilting with windmills. I confess that I have often tried to reason with fools, contrary to King Solomon’s advice in Proverbs. Am I unwise to do this? Should I leave the popping of bubbles to God? Perhaps. But if I had not tried to tilt with the windmills, I could not have written this essay.
Insults shouted from a high window
Some leftists call me demeaning names when I challenge their myths. The insulting names are carefully chosen to display their moral and intellectual superiority and my moral and intellectual inferiority. In their inflated pride, they see themselves as existing on a higher plane than I do. They are sincere in their contempt and malice.
The insults have a windy echo as though they have been shouted down from a great height. It is as though a man at a window at the top of a tall windmill is shouting execrations down upon me.
On windmills and straw men
Some leftists respond to my arguments with a “straw man” attack. They build a “straw man” that is purported to represent my views and then attack the straw man. Their attack on the straw man is like burning me in effigy or poking needles into a voodoo doll with my name on it. It is as though they are getting vicarious pleasure in my symbolic destruction. It is a voyeuristic approach to hatred.
In order to build a straw man, my opponent must ignore what I actually said and attribute to me fallacies and follies that he can take pleasure in knocking down.
Metaphorically speaking, when I am tilting with windmills, I can sometimes see the giant arms of the windmill smashing a straw man with my name pinned to it.
Then the man in the windmill will insist that he just demolished me and will point to the smashed straw man as evidence.
Responding to the straw man attack
Sometimes I respond to the straw man attack with words like “The views that you attribute to me are things I never said and never thought.” Sometimes, I say, “I wish I could get a response to something I actually said.”
It is amazingly difficult to get a postmodern leftist to respond to something you actually say to him. The postmodern left has lost the ability to communicate authentically with someone who is not in their clique.
The new tower of babel
When God confused the tongues at the Tower of Babel, construction stopped because the workmen could not understand each other. Is the postmodern left trying to build a new tower of babel? A tower is potentially much higher than a windmill. Such a tower might enable them be able to shout down imprecations upon us from a much greater height than they can do now.
The narcissistic obsessions of the postmodern left not only make conversation with conservatives impossible, but must eventually trip up their conversation with each other. When that happens, their Tower of Babel will collapse.
The century-long progressive era has reached its apogee in the Obama administration. The bubble of progressive fantasy ideology has been at maximum during Obama’s long honeymoon with the press. Is God preparing to pop the progressive bubble, sweep away the rubble of twentieth-century illusions and allow a new kind of culture to be born? Perhaps. I know that postmodernism is unsustainable, but I don’t know what kind of world will follow it.
Nancy’s meltdown
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s communication meltdown is instructive. She is second in power to the president and more liberal than the president. As she stood at the top of her high tower, she tried to shout down her contempt on her enemies. She got tangled in her own words and embarrassed herself at her own press conference. She almost fell from power, but did not fall because just enough of her powerful allies rallied around her to save her. But many in her own party distanced themselves from her.
The day of doom for Pelosi and her ilk will come when the kind of painful communications breakdown we saw on television occurs between Pelosi and her key allies. Such a breakdown must eventually occur because the power brokers of the postmodern left are mostly narcissists trapped in fantasy ideologies. The left-wing tower looks powerful, but it is fragile. One remembers the seemingly impregnable tower of the Soviet empire (1922–1991). Ronald Reagan blew on it, and it collapsed because it was all dry rot within.
The increasing inability of the left-wing media to communicate with the ordinary person is another sign of communication decay. The liberal big city newspapers are dying. The audience for the TV political talk shows that feature liberal opinion has shrunk drastically. Even the liberals don’t like to listen to the inchoate ravings of left-wing narcissists addicted to fantasy ideology.
Interestingly, the same incoherence can be observed in liberal theology. Books and Culture magazine, a project of Christianity Today, quickly moved from conservative theology and conservative politics to liberal theology and liberal politics. The editor, John Wilson, who presided over this great betrayal became rambling and incoherent in his essays as the shift was taking place.
The incoherence of the heretic reaches its thickest fog in New Age poetry and New Age mystical writing. This is no accident, because the New Age Movement is a swamp of many heresies.
Striking down Dirty Dick
Postmodern leftists cannot communicate authentically, but they fancy that they have powers of divination. They think they can divine men’s motives.
Some leftists I debate with insist that they understand my motives and dismiss my arguments, which they attribute to bad faith, malice, dishonesty, unworthy motives, vested interests, or ignorant prejudices. These divinations are similar to the building of straw men. The leftist who has no understanding of me creates an imaginary person and ascribes bad motives to that person. Then he can ignore my arguments and condemn the imaginary bad guy he has created.
When I was a small child, I created an imaginary bad guy. I dubbed a little plastic cowboy with the name “Dirty Dick.” I ascribed to Dirty Dick every quality of villainy that I supposed a cowboy bad guy ought to have. Then I dreamed up cowboy wars in which Dirty Dick would be struck down at the climax of the war. I struck down Dirty Dick with great drama and relish, and Dirty Dick would die screaming and writhing in a histrionic way. Sometimes I would act out his demise with melodramatic overacting that would make Jim Carey look inhibited by comparison.
When a lefty makes me the Dirty Dick of his melodramatic game, he has a lot of stock characters and stereotypes of right wing bad guys to draw from the fantasy world of the leftist imagination. It is much like Hollywood during the era of the studios, when central casting could choose from a number of character actors who specialize in villains.
One must keep one’s sense of humor during these games. It can be amusing to find out which Halloween costume for a right wing villain one is expected to wear. If one can keep firmly in mind that the postmodern leftist is acting out a fantasy, one can laugh instead of taking umbrage.
Presumptions about religion
I had a debate with an academic philosopher emeritus about evolution. He claimed to be an expert in logic. However, he never answered my logic or my facts. The only argument he made in favor of evolution was based upon his tally of how many biologists support evolution and how many were against it. This is called in debate circles “an appeal to authority.” An appeal to authority in debate is creditable only if it is not a substitute for making your own case, or a substitute for responding to your opponent’s arguments. However, Dr. “Expert in Logic” did not seem to know this.
This academic was obsessed with the idea that my opposition to evolution was based upon my religion. He did not know what my religious beliefs or doctrines were, and I had not mentioned religion in my arguments. In a formal debate, if I were to point out that his speculations about my religion were unsupported and irrelevant to the debate, the judge would charge points against the man’s case.
The evolutionists understand that evolution is vulnerable to criticism, but they also know that attacks against religion can divert the attention of the audience away from the issues and win cheap propaganda points. Dr. “Expert in Logic” insisted upon making these cheap propaganda points. I insisted that we talk about evolution using facts and logic. He insisted that we talk about religion. In spite of his claimed expertise in logic, he seemed to be allergic to the use of logic in an actual debate.
After a lifetime of teaching and writing about logic, his rational powers had been eroded away by trendy left-wing thought. Rationality cannot coexist in a mind filled with fantasy ideology. Postmodern liberalism founded upon narcissism cannot tolerate reason. The fantasies of narcissism are at war with reason, and at war with reason and reality.
Ad hominem attacks
In all of the cases cited above, my debate opponents refused to respond to my actual arguments. They made no effort explain to me why my ideas are wrong. They insisted on attacking me, instead of refuting my ideas. This is called in debate circles ad hominem, which means “against the man.” Attacking the man is not a legitimate substitute for responding to his arguments.
Why have postmodernist leftists limited themselves to ad hominem attacks on their opponents? Why do they refuse to logically refute the ideas of their opponents? In formal debate, a debater cannot score points with ad hominem attacks. To win, you must either demolish your opponent’s central arguments or put forward more persuasive arguments than your opponent did. Why do postmodern leftists stubbornly adhere to losing tactics? I did not understand this until I read Lee Harris’ Civilization and its Enemies.
Fantasy Ideologies
Lee Harris and a college friend of his demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but they did so for different reasons. Harris’s friend participated in some obnoxious and subversive activities that Harris considered counterproductive. More people would be turned against the anti-war movement than moved to favor of the movement by these tactics. Harris’ friend did not care. He said he was doing these things “for the good of my soul.” He did not care what the outward effects of his subversive activities were. He cared only for the effects they had upon him.
Lee’s friend cherished a fantasy narrative in which he was on the right side of history and stood tall with the heroes of the revolution. He did not care if the leftist rabble rousers were effective. All he cared about was having a beautiful memory of himself of fighting in the company of giants. He had what Harris calls a “fantasy ideology.” I have no doubt that he wore a Che Guevara T-shirt.
A fantasy ideology requires a narcissist with a vivid imagination. Like a Hollywood director, producer, and story board developer rolled into one, the narcissist formulates a grand scenario, which puts himself in the flood lights and reduces everyone else to supporting characters and enemies. Enemies are pawns in the shadows. They exist only for the sake of the script and wear whatever costume is assigned to them by the script.
A fantasy ideology can be passed down from leftist leaders and adopted by followers. However, one must come to the table as a narcissist or the fantasy ideology will not take. Fortunately for the leftist leaders, the postmodern culture of self-esteem, self-actualization, hyper-individualism, and relativism is multiplying the number of narcissists in our midst.
A pawn steps forward against the star
Imagine that the narcissist has developed his fantasy ideology and has reduced all his opponents to pawns wearing costumes. He is the star of the show, and the story requires him to kick around the pawns dressed up as villains.
Suppose one of these pawns ventures up to the glorious star of the show and tells him that the script does not make sense, or that it contradicts reality, or contains a myth. How shall the great one react?
He might think, “Who is this upstart pawn to challenge the sublime narrative of my greatness? Doesn’t that scoundrel know that his only reason for being is to support the story as I wrote it in the script? He is fighting against his assigned role in the master plan for the greater glory of me. I shall put that varlet in his place.”
He proceeds with an ad hominem attack upon his enemy. He never answers the challenge that his enemy made that the grand narrative is illogical or is based upon a myth or is in conflict with reality. He flies into a temper and throws the dishes at the upstart pawn who doesn’t know his place and dares to question the grand narrative.
There is a reason for this kind of behavior which transcends mere infantilism. If the postmodern leftist condescends to answer the logic of his opponent, it would dignify his challenge. Even if the challenger was unsuccessful in the ensuing debate, the fact that the debate was held and the star and his opponent met head to head on level ground would be an admission that the challenger is not a pawn wearing a costume. The leftist would have to admit that he is not an untouchable great one, and that the assumptions of his grand narrative are open to public examination and criticism. To condescend to having a real debate is to have one’s narcissistic bubble punctured.
This, my friends, is why leftists in positions of power are trying to silence the conservative voice. The very fact that we are speaking and some people are listening is intolerable to them.
The great unmasking
Lee Harris describes the pregnant moment when a conservative challenger meets a leftist with a fantasy ideology in a real debate. At some point in the proceedings, the mask of the conservative challenger will fall off, and an unmasked and unknown person will stand before the leftist. At this point, Lee tells us, the leftist will blink and say, “Who are you? Why are you here? What do you want? Why are you disrupting these proceedings?”
I wonder if abortion has brought about a hatred of babies and children. We teach ourselves to hate those we have wronged, so that we will feel better about having wronged them. During the era of slavery and Jim Crow, the white community ginned up a lot of hostility toward blacks. It was easier to hate than to face up to a guilty conscience. As the Nazis started to kill the Jews, they systematically trained themselves to hate Jews.
Readers Say: