Your link to the article Millenarian Mobs by Codevilla at Claremont Review of Books provided thought provoking reading, but disturbingly so. The historical events and the descriptions of popular movements that precipitated them could easily be read as representing some elements of both the hyper radicalism of the current political far left in the U.S., and the hyper conservatism of the current political far right. My overall impression is that Codevilla is here referring primarily to the radical left, especially with his extensive discussion of the currently ongoing iconoclasm, the idea of aggrieved lower social classes being manipulated by a "cultural elite" whose only concern is the capture and maintenance of power and the sympathies expressed by a fairly wide middle tier of people seeking absolution for real and imagined complicity in the entrenched mechanisms of the lower class aggrievement. The confounding factor here seems to be the lack of an explicit millenarianism on the left.
Elements descriptive of the hyper conservative camp are characterized by a very strong millenarian narrative, a dominant central leader whose primary aim is the attainment and maintenance of personal power, while being supported by a certain element of the current religious establishment,and said leader's relentless amplification of the grievances of a mainly lower-to-middle class clan of citizens who feel both personally and culturally threatened. Calculated blame casting is directed toward a widely generalized "they" who include among their ranks specific ethnic scapegoat groups.
The chilling commonalities shared between these two tribes are their seemingly volitional isolation from virtually any reasoned discourse with the other side (thereby dehumanizing and delegitimizing the "opposition"), and the expressed willingness by elements of both sides to shed blood if judged necessary; the necessity of which being based upon dense but very fragile triplines of paranoid ideological criteria. Yesterday I read an article (I apologize for not remembering whose byline it was) the author of which had been at a recent political rally in the upper Midwest. Based upon interviews of the rally attendees, the author reported that, should their candidate lose the upcoming election, a distinctly militant attitude was expressed by the stated willingness by supporters of this candidate, to instigate (implicitly armed) revolt via invocation as precedents our own revolutionary and civil wars. According to the interviewees, they staunchly believe that there is no way that their candidate, who was described by one person as a "Godsend" who can "do no wrong," could lose reelection short of an electoral process that had been manipulated by the other side. (Never mind that there is overwhelming concrete proof of significant attempts at electoral manipulation by forces outside this country in support of this particular candidate and against his rivals). The author is very concerned that this November and December of 2020 could be dangerously unsettled times that put massive strain on our system that is based upon the rule of law as well as to our national cohesiveness, such as it is. I fervently hope and pray that he is wrong.
I too thought that the writer thinks of these historical millenarian movements as mostly coming from the left, or at least he wants us to think about today's left as we read. And I think you are correct in assuming that the right is just as capable of such millinarian violence. thanks for the comment.
Mark,
Your link to the article Millenarian Mobs by Codevilla at Claremont Review of Books provided thought provoking reading, but disturbingly so. The historical events and the descriptions of popular movements that precipitated them could easily be read as representing some elements of both the hyper radicalism of the current political far left in the U.S., and the hyper conservatism of the current political far right. My overall impression is that Codevilla is here referring primarily to the radical left, especially with his extensive discussion of the currently ongoing iconoclasm, the idea of aggrieved lower social classes being manipulated by a "cultural elite" whose only concern is the capture and maintenance of power and the sympathies expressed by a fairly wide middle tier of people seeking absolution for real and imagined complicity in the entrenched mechanisms of the lower class aggrievement. The confounding factor here seems to be the lack of an explicit millenarianism on the left.
Elements descriptive of the hyper conservative camp are characterized by a very strong millenarian narrative, a dominant central leader whose primary aim is the attainment and maintenance of personal power, while being supported by a certain element of the current religious establishment,and said leader's relentless amplification of the grievances of a mainly lower-to-middle class clan of citizens who feel both personally and culturally threatened. Calculated blame casting is directed toward a widely generalized "they" who include among their ranks specific ethnic scapegoat groups.
The chilling commonalities shared between these two tribes are their seemingly volitional isolation from virtually any reasoned discourse with the other side (thereby dehumanizing and delegitimizing the "opposition"), and the expressed willingness by elements of both sides to shed blood if judged necessary; the necessity of which being based upon dense but very fragile triplines of paranoid ideological criteria. Yesterday I read an article (I apologize for not remembering whose byline it was) the author of which had been at a recent political rally in the upper Midwest. Based upon interviews of the rally attendees, the author reported that, should their candidate lose the upcoming election, a distinctly militant attitude was expressed by the stated willingness by supporters of this candidate, to instigate (implicitly armed) revolt via invocation as precedents our own revolutionary and civil wars. According to the interviewees, they staunchly believe that there is no way that their candidate, who was described by one person as a "Godsend" who can "do no wrong," could lose reelection short of an electoral process that had been manipulated by the other side. (Never mind that there is overwhelming concrete proof of significant attempts at electoral manipulation by forces outside this country in support of this particular candidate and against his rivals). The author is very concerned that this November and December of 2020 could be dangerously unsettled times that put massive strain on our system that is based upon the rule of law as well as to our national cohesiveness, such as it is. I fervently hope and pray that he is wrong.
I too thought that the writer thinks of these historical millenarian movements as mostly coming from the left, or at least he wants us to think about today's left as we read. And I think you are correct in assuming that the right is just as capable of such millinarian violence. thanks for the comment.