When the knee jerks, the mind goes blank

Many years ago, a dinner guest stormed out of our flat in a huff.  Or rather in hysterics.

She was married to an old friend, who was less intolerant of Left-wing sensibilities than I was. Alas, though we do choose our friends, we don’t choose their wives. They make that mistake on their own.

Anyway, the conversation veered towards political taxonomies, and such elusive categories as Right and Left or conservative and liberal. I was then writing my first book, How the West Was Lost, where one chapter dealt with language as a vital battleground of political conflict.

Whoever controls the people’s language controls their minds, a dominance I described as glossocracy, the rule of the word and by the word. When verbal volleys come in a steady barrage and tempers fray, political terms part company with their real meaning, both etymological and customary.

They are turned into shells fired at the enemy, acquiring the ad hoc meaning enabling them to act in that capacity. When the battlefield situation changes, so does their meaning.

That’s why, for example, liberal has got to mean illiberal; conservative, a libertarian – and the connotation of Right-wing and Left-wing became so jumbled that the same person could be branded as both or either in the same sentence.

That was the nature of the conversation that so excited my friend’s wife. She visibly winced every time the word ‘conservative’ came up, while I was playing host and trying not to upset her too much. I failed miserably.

We were talking about Texas, where I had lived for 10 years. My friend described it as a conservative state, which, I agreed, was by and large correct. But some Texans I knew called themselves conservative mainly because they disliked blacks.

When communicating that point, I imitated, badly, the Texan accent and, accurately, the pejorative term for the race in question. Had I written my statement down, that statement would have been enclosed in quotes, leaving the reader in no doubt that I was using someone else’s way of speaking, not my own.

But even in oral speech what I said couldn’t possibly have been interpreted as anything other than mockery of certain attitudes. But my friend’s wife, by then rather liberally oiled, as it were, didn’t even try to interpret or indeed understand anything I was saying.

The only word she heard was that pejorative term, and never mind the context. The dread word had the galvanising effect of an electric prod on the poor woman. She jumped up, shouted horrendous obscenities at all of us, including those who had taken no part in the discussion, and rushed out into the street, leaving her coat and handbag behind.

She was wearing only a silk blouse, and it was bitterly cold outside. Since she left her handbag behind, she had no money for a taxi or even a bus to get home. Death of hypothermia beckoned and would have occurred, but for Penelope’s lightning-quick response.

While the rest of us, including the lady’s husband, were momentarily too stunned to act, Penelope grabbed the woman’s belongings and ran after her at what by my estimation approached an Olympic speed. She came back a few minutes later, breath short, mission accomplished, a life possibly saved. Festivities were resumed, with my friend never missing a beat. He was used to that sort of thing, he explained.

Now, that woman was obviously hysterical and half-mad with ideological fervour. But extreme behaviour often provides a clue to general tendencies.

Political discourse nowadays tends to bypass reason on its way towards a realm ruled by emotions. In that realm it’s knee-jerk reactions that reign, not sensible arguments resting on a foundation of logic, analysis and facts.

When that tendency develops to its full maturity, one’s mind becomes cauterised and one no longer hears coherent human speech. One’s hearing latches on to a single word replete with either positive or negative connotations – and out comes that electric prod.

These days in the US and increasingly elsewhere such a word is ‘Trump’. I haven’t seen any sociological studies, but I don’t think there ever has been such a galvanising shibboleth consisting of a single man’s name.

Utter that word, and emotional outbursts will follow instantly. If you dare say something positive about the US president in ‘liberal’ company, the reaction wouldn’t be drastically different from that of my dinner guest. You’ll be instantly branded as a reactionary and a political dinosaur if you are lucky, a fascist if you are not.

Conversely, any attempt to criticise Trump among those who call themselves conservatives will get you castigated as a Leftie, preceded with an intensifying modifier. That has happened to me on occasion, when that transgression earned me the tag of a Left-winger.

When emotions take over, most people begin to think in strictly binary terms, for or against, us and them, friend or foe. Balanced, nuanced arguments need not apply.

In this case, the underlying logic, such as it is, is uncompromising and syllogistic. Trump’s nemesis was Joe Biden. Biden is Left-wing. Ergo, anyone who criticises Trump for anything is Left-wing.

The thought that reactionary conservatives like me can find fault with Trump’s actions and indeed may not recognise him as one of them doesn’t even cross the accuser’s mind. Nothing does, really. The buzz word has put his mind on hold.

Such primitive reflexes have been seen in action throughout modern history. That’s how, for example, Hitler acquired a Right-wing tag.

Unlike many such developments, this one can be traced back to a precise date: 22 June, 1941, when Hitler’s Germany attacked Stalin’s USSR. Until that date, the two totalitarian states had been allies, with commentators noting how much they had in common.

Since at that time the main demarcation between Right and Left ran through economics, analysts couldn’t fail to spot the startling similarities between Stalin’s Five-Year Plan and Hitler’s Four-Year version (FDR’s New Deal wasn’t all that different either, but this is a separate story).

Both were socialist, placing Hitler next to Stalin on the left side of the political spectrum. The Western Left had a warmer spot for Stalin than for Hitler because the latter was politically incorrect long before the term was coined. Yet both of them were undeniably on the Left.

However, that date in June had a polarising effect, with a syllogism taking charge. Hitler was Stalin’s enemy. Stalin was Left-wing. Ergo, Hitler was Right-wing.

Hitler was also a fascist, which is why this term is rather indiscriminately applied to anyone deemed Right-wing. Such as, for example, Margaret Thatcher, who was a Whiggish radical if she was anything.

Such are the political word games, but it’s vital to understand that they are akin to children playing cowboys and Indians with real guns. A fight for glossocratic positions can easily result in a political chaos that can only be resolved by a real, blood-letting war.

Emotions have a place in life, but they should be barred from entry into any political arena. When they sneak in, they’ll eventually take over, turning a symbolic fencing joust into a gladiatorial fight to the death.

Trump or any other politician says and does things. These ought to be analysed dispassionately and as deeply as the analyst’s mind allows. Since the things Trump says and does have already caused a turmoil, it’s vital that analysts keep their knees in check and their minds in full gear.

The fallout from the turmoil can eventually result in a prosperous and peaceful stability or in a devastating chaos. Which it will be largely depends on the mental acuity and self-restraint of the direct participants and their supporters.

A message to the Trump adulators I know: he who criticises Trump isn’t necessarily your enemy; he who praises him, isn’t necessarily your friend. Take it from me, the inveterate Left-winger of some people’s fancy.

P.S. Happy Valentine’s Day to all my women readers!