What do you think?
Rate this book
American Political Thought
The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America
Why do people who identify themselves as liberal or egalitarian sometimes embrace intolerance or even preach violence? Illiberalism has come to be expected of the right in this country; its occurrence on the left is more paradoxical but no less real. Although equality lies at the heart of the liberal tradition, the earnest pursuit of egalitarian goals has often come at the expense of other liberal ideals.
In this provocative book, Richard J. Ellis examines the illiberal tendencies that have characterized egalitarian movements throughout American history, from the radical abolitionists of the 1830s to the New Left activists of the 1960s. He also takes on contemporary radical feminists like Catherine MacKinnon and radical environmental groups like Earth First! to show that, even today, many of the American left's sacred cows have cloven hooves.
Ellis identifies the organizational and ideological dilemmas that caused Students for a Democratic Society to transform itself from a democratic to an elitist organization, or that allow radicals to justify illegal acts as long as they are free of self-interest. He explains how orthodoxy arises within a group from the need to maintain distance from a society it views as hopelessly corrupt, and how individuals committed to egalitarian causes are particularly susceptible to illiberalism--even poets like Walt Whitman, who celebrated the common people but often expressed contempt for their mundane lives. Political correctness, idealizing the oppressed, and an affinity for authoritarian and charismatic leaders are all parts of what Ellis calls "the dark side of the left."
Building on the groundwork laid by Richard Hofstadter in his pioneering book, The Age of Reform, Ellis exposes the shortcomings of today's left and provides a badly needed historical perspective on the contemporary debate over "political correctness." The Dark Side of the Left is a gutsy book that is essential reading for anyone who occasionally feels dark forebodings about seemingly noble causes.
In this provocative book, Richard J. Ellis examines the illiberal tendencies that have characterized egalitarian movements throughout American history, from the radical abolitionists of the 1830s to the New Left activists of the 1960s. He also takes on contemporary radical feminists like Catherine MacKinnon and radical environmental groups like Earth First! to show that, even today, many of the American left's sacred cows have cloven hooves.
Ellis identifies the organizational and ideological dilemmas that caused Students for a Democratic Society to transform itself from a democratic to an elitist organization, or that allow radicals to justify illegal acts as long as they are free of self-interest. He explains how orthodoxy arises within a group from the need to maintain distance from a society it views as hopelessly corrupt, and how individuals committed to egalitarian causes are particularly susceptible to illiberalism--even poets like Walt Whitman, who celebrated the common people but often expressed contempt for their mundane lives. Political correctness, idealizing the oppressed, and an affinity for authoritarian and charismatic leaders are all parts of what Ellis calls "the dark side of the left."
Building on the groundwork laid by Richard Hofstadter in his pioneering book, The Age of Reform, Ellis exposes the shortcomings of today's left and provides a badly needed historical perspective on the contemporary debate over "political correctness." The Dark Side of the Left is a gutsy book that is essential reading for anyone who occasionally feels dark forebodings about seemingly noble causes.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
440 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
1 person is currently reading
101 people want to read
About the author
Richard J. Ellis
44 books5 followersRichard J. Ellis is Mark O. Hatfield Professor of Politics, Policy, Law, and Ethics at Willamette University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 11, 2009
The author, a life long Democrat and liberal, examines the tendency and historical evidence for the extreme left to be as illiberal (defined as intolerant, bigoted, and narrow-minded) as the extreme right.
In current debate there exists little agreement (and perhaps there should not be) over what constitutes "progressive" and "reactionary." Vigorous criticism always toughens a position and suppressing or ignoring inconvenient facts strengthens no political dogma. "Protected from criticism, any argument becomes lazy and prone to excess." Ellis' goal is to "toughen the liberal reform tradition not to discredit or reject it."
It is inconceivable to think of liberalism without attendant belief in equality. Explicit in the Declaration of Independence, equality stems from seventeenth century liberalism that meant recognizing the equal worth of people's qualities and preferences.
"One of the great virtues of the modern liberal welfare state is that it does not pretend to have discovered the ultimate solution that will dissolve all contradictions; rather the welfare state explicitly 'muddles through,' institutionalizing the understanding that no single value, not equality, not liberty, not individualism, not community, not order, can be the polestar of public policy. The liberal welfare state recognizes that all institutional structures and arrangements, capitalist markets as well as governmental control, have weaknesses that must be compensated for if we are to achieve a decent and humane society."
Ellis goes further than Hofstadter's Age of Reform in that Ellis seeks to define the trend to illiberalism from a cultural perspective not just a psychological one. The actions of individuals derive from more than a desire to exorcize personal demons. Quite different personalities have adopted similar patterns of behavior and belief, and conversely similar personalities have opted for opposite poles of expression. Ellis traces radical egalitarianism episodically from the radical abolitionist movement to radical environmentalism. He has identified the "recurrent organizational and ideological dilemmas that have periodically thrown radical egalitarian political thinkers and movements down illiberal tracks. The desire to reform often results in an embracement of intolerance and violence, often welcoming authoritarianism.
In the case of the Students for a Democratic Society, one of Ellis' case studies, the normal democratic structures were perceived to be inegalitarian and were replaced by consensus voting. This effectively stripped the conventions of any decision-making ability so power shifted to the permanent national office. This office was staffed on an annual rotation basis and the offices of president and vice-president were abolished. Thus democratic reforms that were intended to make the organization more egalitarian had precisely the opposite effect. In an effort to become less elite, they became more patrician.
Of course, often the proletarian stance of many organizations is pure posturing. "Characteristic of both radical feminism and radical environmentalism is the tendency to dismiss the choices people make as a product of false consciousness. . . . Society implants the acquisitive impulse in us," they say, hence we cannot make the proper choices. The radicals pervert the liberal emphasis on privacy because it "impedes efforts to transform the way people think." Jesus recognized this and spoke of ripping the family apart. (cite) clearly, there is a political side to the distinction between what is public and private. "But to concede that the personal has political elements is one thing; to insist that the personal is equivalent to the political is to open the way to the politicization of private life."
The radical environmental movement has obscured this distinction. Its leaders have basic contempt for the way the everyday lives of people. In order to pave the way for greater intrusion into private decision-making, the radical environmental movement formulates all questions in terms of apocalyptic outcomes. "If the dangers to the human race are imminent and cataclysmic, then unprecedented restrictions on individual behavior are not just acceptable but mandatory. If no mistakes can be tolerated, then an individualistic trial-and-error process is out of the question. In an effort to remain "pure," these groups become less and less willing to work with established organizations. Outside groups are perceived to be unchangeable and violent confrontation becomes inevitable as the only solution to achieve change.
Another inherent flaw of the radical egalitarian movements is their unstated disdain for the underclass they purport to represent. Efforts to organize oppressed groups by intellectuals consistently fails because these groups are "more passive, distrustful, and diverse than the radicals romanticized view of the oppressed had led them to expect." The romanticization of the oppressed then created the necessity of explaining away the flaws of the persecuted."
One of the examples, among many, that Ellis cites is that of John Brown and his varying degrees of support from pre Civil War egalitarian abolitionists who rejected pacifism and came to support the war. William Lloyd Garrison, for example, had been such a committee devotee of nonviolence that even when attacked by a mob he refused to defend himself with the use of weapons. Ellis suggest that a gradual shift in the nature of egalitarians' view of slavery provided the basis for the change in viewpoint. The struggle against slavery became Manichean in nature; a classic contest between good and evil that justified any means to eliminate the evil that was slavery. Moral suasion could work only if the other side were viewed as redeemable.
Henry Wright provides another example of one who made an abrupt switch from devoted pacifism to support for violence against slaveholders. They were nothing more than subhuman animals in his eyes. This Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek did not apply. Violence in support of God's interest was validated. "In the end, radical abolitionist's utopian zeal outstripped its liberalism. . . . Opposed to institutionalized authority of virtually any kind, radical abolitionists often found themselves drawn toward arbitrary or charismatic leaders who disregarded legal or institutional restraints, restraints that are essential; to ensure the sort of limited and predictable government that is the foundation stone of liberal democracy."
Egalitarians are not unique in their desire for utopias that create a "unity that dissolves jarring conflict. Both the right and left have historically sought to transform questions of values, where disagreement is unavoidable, into questions of fact, where correct answers can be found." Egalitarians are uniquely vulnerable to the hope that perfect unity is possible since they distrust conflict and competition.
Ellis portrays these basic themes as being inherent flaws of egalitarian movements since the nineteenth century including as his final example, the anti-war movement of the sixties.
Update: A related book is The Trouble with Diversity How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality
In current debate there exists little agreement (and perhaps there should not be) over what constitutes "progressive" and "reactionary." Vigorous criticism always toughens a position and suppressing or ignoring inconvenient facts strengthens no political dogma. "Protected from criticism, any argument becomes lazy and prone to excess." Ellis' goal is to "toughen the liberal reform tradition not to discredit or reject it."
It is inconceivable to think of liberalism without attendant belief in equality. Explicit in the Declaration of Independence, equality stems from seventeenth century liberalism that meant recognizing the equal worth of people's qualities and preferences.
"One of the great virtues of the modern liberal welfare state is that it does not pretend to have discovered the ultimate solution that will dissolve all contradictions; rather the welfare state explicitly 'muddles through,' institutionalizing the understanding that no single value, not equality, not liberty, not individualism, not community, not order, can be the polestar of public policy. The liberal welfare state recognizes that all institutional structures and arrangements, capitalist markets as well as governmental control, have weaknesses that must be compensated for if we are to achieve a decent and humane society."
Ellis goes further than Hofstadter's Age of Reform in that Ellis seeks to define the trend to illiberalism from a cultural perspective not just a psychological one. The actions of individuals derive from more than a desire to exorcize personal demons. Quite different personalities have adopted similar patterns of behavior and belief, and conversely similar personalities have opted for opposite poles of expression. Ellis traces radical egalitarianism episodically from the radical abolitionist movement to radical environmentalism. He has identified the "recurrent organizational and ideological dilemmas that have periodically thrown radical egalitarian political thinkers and movements down illiberal tracks. The desire to reform often results in an embracement of intolerance and violence, often welcoming authoritarianism.
In the case of the Students for a Democratic Society, one of Ellis' case studies, the normal democratic structures were perceived to be inegalitarian and were replaced by consensus voting. This effectively stripped the conventions of any decision-making ability so power shifted to the permanent national office. This office was staffed on an annual rotation basis and the offices of president and vice-president were abolished. Thus democratic reforms that were intended to make the organization more egalitarian had precisely the opposite effect. In an effort to become less elite, they became more patrician.
Of course, often the proletarian stance of many organizations is pure posturing. "Characteristic of both radical feminism and radical environmentalism is the tendency to dismiss the choices people make as a product of false consciousness. . . . Society implants the acquisitive impulse in us," they say, hence we cannot make the proper choices. The radicals pervert the liberal emphasis on privacy because it "impedes efforts to transform the way people think." Jesus recognized this and spoke of ripping the family apart. (cite) clearly, there is a political side to the distinction between what is public and private. "But to concede that the personal has political elements is one thing; to insist that the personal is equivalent to the political is to open the way to the politicization of private life."
The radical environmental movement has obscured this distinction. Its leaders have basic contempt for the way the everyday lives of people. In order to pave the way for greater intrusion into private decision-making, the radical environmental movement formulates all questions in terms of apocalyptic outcomes. "If the dangers to the human race are imminent and cataclysmic, then unprecedented restrictions on individual behavior are not just acceptable but mandatory. If no mistakes can be tolerated, then an individualistic trial-and-error process is out of the question. In an effort to remain "pure," these groups become less and less willing to work with established organizations. Outside groups are perceived to be unchangeable and violent confrontation becomes inevitable as the only solution to achieve change.
Another inherent flaw of the radical egalitarian movements is their unstated disdain for the underclass they purport to represent. Efforts to organize oppressed groups by intellectuals consistently fails because these groups are "more passive, distrustful, and diverse than the radicals romanticized view of the oppressed had led them to expect." The romanticization of the oppressed then created the necessity of explaining away the flaws of the persecuted."
One of the examples, among many, that Ellis cites is that of John Brown and his varying degrees of support from pre Civil War egalitarian abolitionists who rejected pacifism and came to support the war. William Lloyd Garrison, for example, had been such a committee devotee of nonviolence that even when attacked by a mob he refused to defend himself with the use of weapons. Ellis suggest that a gradual shift in the nature of egalitarians' view of slavery provided the basis for the change in viewpoint. The struggle against slavery became Manichean in nature; a classic contest between good and evil that justified any means to eliminate the evil that was slavery. Moral suasion could work only if the other side were viewed as redeemable.
Henry Wright provides another example of one who made an abrupt switch from devoted pacifism to support for violence against slaveholders. They were nothing more than subhuman animals in his eyes. This Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek did not apply. Violence in support of God's interest was validated. "In the end, radical abolitionist's utopian zeal outstripped its liberalism. . . . Opposed to institutionalized authority of virtually any kind, radical abolitionists often found themselves drawn toward arbitrary or charismatic leaders who disregarded legal or institutional restraints, restraints that are essential; to ensure the sort of limited and predictable government that is the foundation stone of liberal democracy."
Egalitarians are not unique in their desire for utopias that create a "unity that dissolves jarring conflict. Both the right and left have historically sought to transform questions of values, where disagreement is unavoidable, into questions of fact, where correct answers can be found." Egalitarians are uniquely vulnerable to the hope that perfect unity is possible since they distrust conflict and competition.
Ellis portrays these basic themes as being inherent flaws of egalitarian movements since the nineteenth century including as his final example, the anti-war movement of the sixties.
Update: A related book is The Trouble with Diversity How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality
February 1, 2013
"Equality and liberty are certainly in conflict, but so are virtually all of the social goods we desire in this world. Liberal democracy requires that we acknowledge and balance these rival values and interests, not that we always resolve this tension by coming down on the side of liberty over equality. The libertarian who insists that each step taken in the direction of equality must lead inevitably to the final extinction of liberty betrays an absolutist, even illiberal, sensibility that is little different from the radical egalitarian who insists that liberty is meaningless until we have true equality."
As one who does tend to come down on the side of equality when it is in tension with liberty, this book was an interesting look at some under-explored social movements that sought to radically restructure power relations in society. Across half a dozen movements over a century and a half, Ellis identifies several trends common to radical egalitarians that lead predictably (though not inexorably) toward illiberal, authoritarian, or even totalitarian means. Several that are of particular relevance to the current political climate include:
"Manichaeanism"
Authoritarian and Charismatic Leadership - Radical egalitarians often eschew formal hierarchical trappings in favor of "true equality" and consensus-building. While an admirable goal, as movements grow, consensus becomes time-consuming and informal leadership by charismatic "movement leaders" or vanguards leads to de facto hierarchy without any institutional safeguards. I am reminded of the "Occupy" movement and its disdain for representation or voting and insistence on consensus, and wonder if they cast around for some revolutionary genius as they lost interest and relevance.
The False-Consciousness Trap - The idea that people's choices are rendered irrelevant due to being duped or brainwashed by some dominant paradigm can lead contempt for "normal" people or even the belief that the chosen radical few must make others' choices for them "for their own good" (i.e. "force you to be free"). To me this seems the most pernicious common aspect of radical egalitarian thought. If you discount a person's ability to form their own thoughts and preference, wherefore free will? If the dominant culture can create a false-consciousness, why couldn't a radical movement do the same of its followers? Here is the dark shadow lurking behind the calls for "America to wake up" thrown around today (mostly it seems by the far-right about Obama, but it's used on both extremes). If you can claim that everyone who does not agree with you is a thoughtless automaton that has no concept of its "true" self-interest, how can it matter what means you use to make them free? And how can you go back to believing everyone is equal after considering others as drones or worse for so long?
"Unselfish Crimes" - The common egalitarian idea that selfishness is bad can be carried to such an extreme that lack of selfishness is a great virtue. Once there, if someone acts with selfless intent, whatever he did must be good, even horrible crimes. As long as one is acting for others ("the unborn," "the 99%"), any destructive, violent, or authoritarian action can be justified. I am reminded of some of the uncritical defenses offered on the far left here in Seattle of last year's May Day vandalism.
Some of the things I disliked included Ellis' tendency to refer to other political scientists/writers/thinkers/etc without really shedding any light on who they were or why I should care what they say. Admittedly, this is a flaw very common in academic books. I thought his chapter on radical feminism gave it an undeservedly bad rap. Most of the stylistic quibbles I had are probably due to it being a tad dated. Overall, I think it is an especially important sort of criticism for liberals to read, given the rather severe polarization that exists in a lot of aspects of social life today.
As one who does tend to come down on the side of equality when it is in tension with liberty, this book was an interesting look at some under-explored social movements that sought to radically restructure power relations in society. Across half a dozen movements over a century and a half, Ellis identifies several trends common to radical egalitarians that lead predictably (though not inexorably) toward illiberal, authoritarian, or even totalitarian means. Several that are of particular relevance to the current political climate include:
"Manichaeanism"
Authoritarian and Charismatic Leadership - Radical egalitarians often eschew formal hierarchical trappings in favor of "true equality" and consensus-building. While an admirable goal, as movements grow, consensus becomes time-consuming and informal leadership by charismatic "movement leaders" or vanguards leads to de facto hierarchy without any institutional safeguards. I am reminded of the "Occupy" movement and its disdain for representation or voting and insistence on consensus, and wonder if they cast around for some revolutionary genius as they lost interest and relevance.
The False-Consciousness Trap - The idea that people's choices are rendered irrelevant due to being duped or brainwashed by some dominant paradigm can lead contempt for "normal" people or even the belief that the chosen radical few must make others' choices for them "for their own good" (i.e. "force you to be free"). To me this seems the most pernicious common aspect of radical egalitarian thought. If you discount a person's ability to form their own thoughts and preference, wherefore free will? If the dominant culture can create a false-consciousness, why couldn't a radical movement do the same of its followers? Here is the dark shadow lurking behind the calls for "America to wake up" thrown around today (mostly it seems by the far-right about Obama, but it's used on both extremes). If you can claim that everyone who does not agree with you is a thoughtless automaton that has no concept of its "true" self-interest, how can it matter what means you use to make them free? And how can you go back to believing everyone is equal after considering others as drones or worse for so long?
"Unselfish Crimes" - The common egalitarian idea that selfishness is bad can be carried to such an extreme that lack of selfishness is a great virtue. Once there, if someone acts with selfless intent, whatever he did must be good, even horrible crimes. As long as one is acting for others ("the unborn," "the 99%"), any destructive, violent, or authoritarian action can be justified. I am reminded of some of the uncritical defenses offered on the far left here in Seattle of last year's May Day vandalism.
Some of the things I disliked included Ellis' tendency to refer to other political scientists/writers/thinkers/etc without really shedding any light on who they were or why I should care what they say. Admittedly, this is a flaw very common in academic books. I thought his chapter on radical feminism gave it an undeservedly bad rap. Most of the stylistic quibbles I had are probably due to it being a tad dated. Overall, I think it is an especially important sort of criticism for liberals to read, given the rather severe polarization that exists in a lot of aspects of social life today.
July 18, 2010
There was something almost biblical about this book. Humans are basically flawed and groups of humans, despite their intentions, are also flawed. What I though was most interesting was the author's observation that there were certain characteristics of organizations which can best be described driven by zealotry. Each of the historical scenarios describing various organizations founded to address some clear cut evil ultimately resulted in harm to people which came as a consequence of activities driven to save humanity. To me the lesson is that we should judge on the basis of results and not intent.
April 25, 2009
the author seemed a bit biased towards radical movements in general, but he did have valid points which should be watched out for
February 7, 2011
5 stars for the first 2/3
lost interest for the last 1/3 (modern feminism and environmentalism) especially the latter
lost interest for the last 1/3 (modern feminism and environmentalism) especially the latter
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews