A century ago, Sigmund Freud coined the phrase the narcissism of small differences. He built upon previous works to postulate the phenomenon that:
it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other.
I cannot think of a more apt description for what goes on at the core of various modern political movements and issues. Liberals are famously cannibalistic, attacking their own over the slightest deviations from orthodoxy. Conservatives in the last presidential election reserved their greatest bile for those of their own party who differed on some policy issues. Libertarians, a group with which I identify, take no greater joy than in declaring each other impure, not true, or statists. Internecine conflict is bread-and-butter for many who play in the political sandbox.
An outside observer, considering matters from a strategic perspective, might find this sort of behavior extremely counterproductive to the pursuit of a group’s goals, yet it is ubiquitous. Moreso, it often displaces and distracts from focus on the bigger differences that the group has with other groups. It also blinds people to the cold realities of the world. Many in the nation declare that there is a war on women being waged by the other political party, but are unaware or willfully blind to the far, far greater subjugation of women (and culturally condoned atrocities done to women) in other cultures. Were one to engage in rationalization, one might come up with the argument that arguing with those who are close but not quite there has a greater chance of success than arguing with people who are far over on the other side. Into what, however, would such success translate? Picking and winning a fight with someone on your own team might make you feel better about yourself, but it’s not going to help achieve victory over the opposition. Therein, of course, is the narcissism, and it seems to be most prevalent among the most committed and dedicated to a principle, a cause or a party. Purist libertarians will engage in furious debate with others who self-identify as libertarian with the express purpose of demonstrating the latter’s impurity. I’ve witnessed liberals who see other liberals horning in on their turf turn on them, angered at the dilution of their power base or message. I’ve seen conservatives get vicious with others who are in the same tent but differ on a particular hot-button issue.
Robust debate within a movement or philosophy is a good thing. It fleshes out ideas, challenges, toughens and validates positions, and prepares for the inevitable conflicts with those outside the movement. However, when that debate becomes more important than the goal, when ideological purity becomes so overarching that it itself becomes the goal, then it’s time to take a step back and ask what one’s actual goals are. Are they winning picayune arguments with people who share common beliefs, or are they advancing an idea, a philosophy or a movement in the public arena?
The “age” of Freud’s observation, i.e. the fact that he wrote those words a century ago, tells us that there’s nothing new or unique about the state of politics today. People use the excuse that the system is broken as justification for purist intransigence and for pursuing victory rather than success. Keep that in mind next time you cross paths with someone who’s arguing on your side but denouncing your opinions.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters