With the classic Beatles’ track “Revolution 1,” John Lennon, famously (and controversially) sends a mixed message about his support for violent revolutionary activity. “If you’re talking about destruction yeah, don’t you know that you can count me out… in,” he sings. Aside from being a prime example of Lennon as proto-punk, I think this juxtaposition says much about the nature of far-left politics. In short, it suggests that political idealism, especially of the far-left variety, always contains an element of violence. Relating this to current US politics, the question becomes, will Bernie Sanders supporters embrace this violence and vote for Donald Trump?
As I’ve written about before on this blog, all human activity takes place in the shadow of ideals— visions, however vague, of the way the world should be. Those who profess radical political beliefs are particularly intimate with their ideals. Ideals though, by their very definition, are situated in opposition to the world of actually existing human affairs. This means that to embrace an ideal fully, to long for it and work towards its realization in the manner of a true radical, is to wish for the destruction of the actually existing. After all, the real and the ideal can’t exist alongside each other. One must give way.
So some level of violence is inherent in all idealism. Likewise, on a practical level, a cursory review of the historical record reveals that indeed all (or nearly all) instances of revolutionary change are occasioned by destruction. That the failure of the old is necessary for the new isn’t a particularly novel idea. It terms of human psychology, it makes sense that things must get really bad before people embrace new options. Simply put, if the old system is working, you’re not going to get revolutionary change.
This brings us to current state of US politics. Imagine you’re an idealistic Bernie supporter (or maybe you actually are). You look at the world and see inequality and oppression. Things are bad. Unfortunately, as the outcome of the Democratic primary shows, most people do not think things are bad enough to require revolution. Instead, they demand only a tepid incrementalism, a politics which leaves the current elites, and the system by which they benefit, in place. In short, the majority of the population is still tied to the real, thereby rejecting the ideal (they can’t exist together, remember)
So what has to happen for the majority to embrace a (leftist) ideal? The answer, unfortunately for most happy-go-lucky idealists, is destruction. For radical political change to occur, the system must utterly fail. The real world must be shown to be degraded, incapable of supporting human flourishing. In short, for things to get better, things have to get much, much worse.
According to the this logic, we can see how a far-left Bernie supporter could make a rational case for voting for Donald Trump. As numerous experts have opined, a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. The economy would collapse, international relations would fray. By all indications a lot of people would get hurt, yes. I’d like to suggest though that this violence—this unmitigated human suffering—is part of the logic of the ideal. A Trump presidency, by this thinking, is desirable simply because it would be so terrible.
Of course, much radical literature supports my claim. Mao and Stalin (and ISIS and Al-Qaeda for that matter) recognize that the road to utopia starts with instability, with destruction. John Lennon knew it too. In the end though, he backed away from the ideal, choosing to live in the real world. Like him, Bernie holdouts must make a choice: the violence of the ideal or the (slightly less intense) violence of the real. I hope the above makes clear the necessity of that choice.