The Right to Hatred (Part I):
Liberalism died not only in terms of the classical liberalism of Locke, Rawls, civil liberties, individualism, and democracy but also in the diplomatic sense. In international politics, the two primary paradigms through which diplomacy is conducted are liberalism and realism. The former believes cooperation and agreed upon rules work while the latter is cynical and believes that force, power, extortion, bribery, and hegemony dominate the international arena.
To use the #metoo movement as an example, their neglect of scientifically trying to find sociological and psychological means to make institutional cultures respectful of women and their focus on vigilantism and prosecuting to the maximum degree anyone they were against with no mercy or love and with the demonization of their opponents as monsters. While this is morally objectionable and counterproductive in many ways, including it not actually fiinding the scientific solutions, it also inhibits any ability to come to a table and work out solutions. It results in emotional screaming for simple solutions to problems that are complex and detailed.
Their approach of hunting bad guys they saw as monsters meant they had no ability to compromise. They wanted punitive HR policies and stronger punishments for sexual misconduct without nuance or compromise. Those are the simplest answers to the problem. It doesn’t have any science, just increasing the pain for people doing what you’re against. They were not going to compromise with patriarchs and misogynists. They weren’t going to negotiate, they were going to fight the villains until unconditional surrender which left no latitude for sobriety or anything other than war. Either they won on their terms or there would be no peace. It is not merely that the other side had valid points but this approach precluded the long-winded discourses which forge the best results.
It is the same approach helicopter parents take with their children. Famously, parents take more issue with their children being offended by something or getting bad grades with the school than ever they do with their own children. They will defend their child to the last and neither listen to the school or be willing to compromise. Either they win on their own terms or there will be no peace. This is not about who should have more power in that situation, the parents or the teacher, but that a system without sobriety and dominated by parties consumed by torrents of emotion unwilling to engage in a discourse or concede anything will be one, ultimately, about power and not what will produce the best result.
Hatred does not allow for liberalism or the consideration of another point of view. The results are horrific. It turns what used to be long trials where the facts can be established and deep conversations may be had between all parties for a fair and tailored solution after mediations, depositions, and discoveries, into a Kangaroo Court of summary justice where the side with the most metaphorical muscle extorts their desired verdict which is hasty, dumb, and almost monosybillic.
In effect, this is fascistic. There is no rule of law and there are no ethics. Once again, the sword becomes mightier than the pen. The meek nerdiness of democratic government gives way to the dumb brawn of the authoritarian hammer. Then the classical liberalism of Locke and civil liberties breaks and doesn’t revive. Hatred is the end of liberalism, the enemy of sobriety, and the germ of fascism.