See
here for a roundup of the other fifteen theories. The phenomenon to be explained is why liberals and leftists are so willing to join with Muslims who are on the far right, given that those Muslims will likely kill them if their joint goal of destroying the West is ever attained. My latest theory comes from Stephen R. C. Hicks’s book
Explaining Postmodernism. I first heard of this book the other day on the Gates of Vienna blog (
here), which posted an essay that I talked about
here in which Hicks’s book was frequently cited. I didn’t think much of the ideas when I saw them second-hand, but now that I am actually reading Hicks’s book, I can see they have a lot more to them than I originally thought.
Hicks’s theory on the left is that they are nihilistic. He doesn’t explicitly talk about the left and Islam, but what he does say is pertinent. He invokes Friedrich Nietzsche:
When some men fail to accomplish what they desire to do they exclaim angrily, “Let the whole world perish!” [Daybreak, section 304]Leftists are enraged, Hicks thinks, because they have failed to destroy capitalism and have had many other failures, and these failures smart so much that they are willing to have their own movement be destroyed, so long as they can destroy the West.
This theory has plenty of virtues. To begin with, it certainly is true that the Soviet Union failed and that this was a big event for the left. And oftentimes people on the right have pointed out to leftists that the cost of the alliance with fundamentalist Islam will be their own self-destruction, yet this observation has never had any impact on them. But if one’s opponent is thinking, “So what? The important point is that you and your system will be destroyed, too,” then this makes sense.
On the other hand, this theory depends on the assumption that today’s leftists are primarily socialists and are only secondarily feminists, gay activists, secularists, etc. This is doubtful. Take the case of the feminists. They have a lot to lose if the West is destroyed and fundamentalist Muslims take over. And while their older feminist sisters seem content with the situation, my expectation is that sooner or later, as the news about rapes in Scandinavia and honor killings and what not seeps out, younger women are going to wake up someday and tell the older feminists to get lost.
And are such people so hateful of the West? Sure, plenty of people on the far left are, but even people on the near left who aren’t so hateful have supported the left’s alliance. Plus, while those on the far left proclaim their hatred of the West, it is not as though they are moving out to non-Western societies. Most stay right here.*
Finally, the fact that some on the far left are disappointed with the outcome of their struggles doesn’t mean that all are giving up. The fact that we have been saddled with socialist medicine in the last few years shows that they are still trying.
Anyway, I offer this theory as another way of explaining what seems to me nearly inexplicable, namely why the far left has joined with the far right.
* When I was in Egypt, I met a woman from Switzerland who frequently proclaimed her love for Egypt and the Egyptian people. I couldn’t make her out, and it wasn’t until months later that it dawned on me that probably what happened is that she was on the left and kept harping on how wonderful Muslims were, until someone challenged her to move to a Muslim country. So she did. Once there, she seemed to make a point of ignoring all the horrible things about Egyptian life that leftists ought to be bothered by: their treatment of women, of gays, and so on. But I’ll say this in her favor: she actually accepted the challenge. Most leftists don’t. They rail about how awful the West is, but when push comes to shove, they prefer to stay here. She actually went. It’s true that she didn’t move to Saudi Arabia, but she did move to a Muslim country.