Tyranny is definitely worth thinking about now and again. After all, throughout history it’s ended and destroyed more human lives than any other human-made force or movement. Even war – which gets a runner-up trophy in this crummy contest – can’t match tyranny for sheer quantity of death and destruction.
As tyranny goes, Adolf Hitler serves as its poster boy. He’s perfect for the role. Not only did he kill around 11 million non-combatants, he spouted an ideology and plan anyone can easily see was truly horrific. That’s actually good. It provides us all with a clear, memorable reminder of the dangers tyranny poses to humanity.
More Death with Less Publicity
But there’s a problem… Hitler doesn’t lead the death and destruction pack for tyrants. Heck, he’s not even number two. Why is that a problem? Because this poster boy’s ideology leaned heavily on negative ideas that emanate from the uglier side of the political right. That leaves us frighteningly blind to tyranny’s more frequent, deadlier source… the uglier side of left-wing politics.
For any reader who leans left, please don’t misunderstand my meaning here. There are many aspects of left-wing politics I hold in very high regard. That doesn’t change its status as proven fertile ground for history’s deadliest leaders.
Joseph Stalin’s purges and policies in the Soviet Union killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people. Mao Zedong’s rule in China caused an estimated 65 million deaths. For sheer depth of devastation, perhaps nobody tops Cambodia’s Pol Pot, who killed between 1.2 and 2.0 million people in a country with a population of just 7 million.
It is critical for modern Americans – regardless of their politics – to understand all three of these regimes were born of left-wing politics taken to a hideous place. But how? It could be that left-wing politics may oddly lend themselves more easily to tyranny.
The Keys to Tyranny
Any successful tyranny needs not just large numbers of supporters, but also zealous supporters. Contrary to popular belief, most people just aren’t evil. They will only support something they can convince themselves is ultimately a good and righteous cause. That may be the advantage of left-leaning tyrannies: their messaging speaks of equality, tolerance and meeting people’s needs at a societal level. What a perfect way to attract people who want to be – or at least think of themselves as – good people.
The problem comes with the all-too-simple next step: After all, if I’m a good person, someone who holds views different from mine must be… wait for it… a bad person. And just that easily, good intentions twist into a truly dangerous mentality. Because if you know what’s right, and someone stands in your way, what’s the obvious solution? You must get rid of them in some way. It’s really the only way to achieve your kindness goals.
That’s exactly how Mao’s Red Guard worked. This surely well-intended group was made up of Chinese high school and college students who marched, spread propaganda and called out anyone not sufficiently dedicated to their cause. Much of this was done in so-called “struggle sessions” where those with views not in keeping with communism stood in the middle of a circle while their good and righteous peers yelled insults at them until they offered abject apologies.
Of course, apologizing only did you so much good. You still typically lost your job and your standing in the community. All this for (maybe) thinking there might be another way to do things.
Which Brings Us to Today
The Red Guard’s tactics should sound alarmingly familiar to the approach applied in America today by many on the Left. Except in place of a small circle of people hurling insults, people use the much more powerful and far-reaching platform of social media.
So what? You might ask. This time we ARE doing the right thing, so what does it matter if some people who richly deserve it suffer a bit? And just like that, you take a fateful leap. The very notion of open dialog and real tolerance is shut down by the very people preaching tolerance most loudly. Truly open discourse ceases and all the positive outcomes born of the friction of differing ideas colliding comes to a halt. The lifeblood of any truly vibrant and just society simply extinguished.
The real irony? Only the top leadership of the movement avoids its negative consequences and prospers. Everyone else – including those who loyally pushed the movement ahead – suffer the far-reaching effects of diminished social, intellectual and economic vibrance.
Can We Stop This?
So, what should we do? Well, we should continue vigorously supporting good causes, but we must become equally thoughtful and passionate about HOW we support them. We can no longer assume anyone holding thoughts different from our own is evil. We must cease attacking and discrediting people for simply holding differing beliefs from our own. In fact, differing beliefs are vital to the health of our society. We must be aware of all facets of the causes we support and be quite clear about the aspects we don’t support. Nuance like that must become something we embrace, not shun.
There’s little more disturbing than watching well-intended people act as the vehicle truly destructive individuals use to implement plans that inevitably end poorly for everyone but them. If you look around today with a genuinely open mind, you’ll see we passed the stage of flirting with such a thing. At this point we’re seriously dating disaster and in an abusive relationship. It’s time we break it off and look for something healthier.