Home > News > “Similarities between Left Wing and Right Wing Radicals”
139 views 5 min 0 Comment

“Similarities between Left Wing and Right Wing Radicals”

- August 12, 2009

That is the title of a great 1985 article by Herbert McClosky and Dennis Chong (JSTOR). Two things brought it to mind. One is the comments thread on my post on birthers vs. truthers, in which a few people take issue with this comparison because the two things are different and my conspiracy theory is better than your conspiracy theory and so on. Whatever. I’m not interested in this argument. The second thing is this comment by Ezra Klein about the town hall protests:

bq. What we’re seeing here is not merely distrust in the House health-care reform bill. It’s distrust in the political system.

I think Klein is right about these protesters, but it’s also relevant to point out that a similar sentiment may exist among people on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Noting the similarities between “radicals” on either side also draws our attention to how much left- or right-wing conspiracy theories are really motivated by the same underlying beliefs and cognitive styles.

Now to McClosky and Chong.

In a couple surveys from the late 1970s, they asked batteries of questions that tap underlying ideologies and allowed them to locate the “far left” and “far right.” (I’m leaving out some of the details; see the article for more.) For purposes of illustration, they compare these two groups to “moderates.”

Unsurprisingly, the far left and far right have vastly different opinions about sexual freedom, racial equality, women’s rights, and other topics. But they are much more similar to each other, and different from moderates, on other dimensions.

One is trust in the political system — the attribute that Klein refers to. See the graph below:

mccloskychong.PNG

Both groups of radicals have less trust in the system.

They are also similar in what McClosky and Chong call “paranoid tendencies.” Large majorities of both left and right wing radicals, but few moderates, agree that “We’d be much better off now if our foreign affairs were conducted out in the open, for all to see, rather than secretly” and that “I often feel that the really important matters are decided behind the scenes by people we never even hear about” and that “Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.”

Both groups are similarly “intolerant of ambiguity.” They are much less likely than moderates to agree that “On important public issues, I believe you should always keep in mind that there is more than one side to most issues.”

Both groups can be equally intolerant of free speech. Only about 40% of both left and right wing radicals, but 71% of moderates, agree that “Free speech should be granted to everyone regardless of how intolerant they are of other people’s opinions.”

McClosky and Chong’s conclusion is worth reading in full:

bq. Nevertheless, while the two camps embrace different programmatic beliefs, both are deeply estranged from certain features of American society and highly critical of what they perceive as the spiritual and moral degeneration of American institutions. Both view American society as dominated by conspiratorial forces that are working to defeat their respective ideological aims.

bq. The degree of their alienation is intensified by the zealous and unyielding manner in which they hold their beliefs. Both camps possess an inflexible psychological and political style characterized by the tendency to view social and political affairs in crude, unambiguous and stereotypical terms. They see political life as a conflict between ‘us’ and ‘them’, a struggle between good and evil played out on a battleground where compromise amounts to capitulation and the goal is total victory.

bq. The far left and the far right also resemble each other in the way they pursue their political goals. Both are disposed to censor their opponents, to deal harshly with enemies, to sacrifice the well-being even of the innocent in order to serve a ‘higher purpose’, and to use cruel tactics if necessary to ‘persuade’ society of the wisdom of their objectives. Both tend to support (or oppose) civil liberties in a highly partisan and self-serving fashion, supporting freedom for themselves and for the groups and causes they favor while seeking to withhold it from enemies and advocates of causes they dislike.

Topics on this page