Diagonalism, the Cosmic Right and the Conspiracy Smoothie
How do you explain the journey of many people – previously thought to be of the Left – and now turning up in far-right channels and spaces?
William Callison and Quinn Slobodian describe the phenomenon as ‘Diagonalism’:
“Taking a cue from one of the movements itself—Querdenken in Germany, in particular—we call the strategy behind the diverse movements “diagonal thinking” and the broader phenomenon they represent “diagonalism.” Bridging the more familiar concept Querfront and the more recent term Querdenken, the idea of “diagonalism” exceeds the German context of its coinage, where it means something like out-of-the-box thinking. Born in part from transformations in technology and communication, diagonalists tend to contest conventional monikers of left and right (while generally arcing toward far-right beliefs), to express ambivalence if not cynicism toward parliamentary politics, and to blend convictions about holism and even spirituality with a dogged discourse of individual liberties.
At the extreme end, diagonal movements share a conviction that all power is conspiracy. Public power cannot be legitimate, many believe, because the process of choosing governments is itself controlled by the powerful and is de facto illegitimate. This often comes with a dedication to disruptive decentralization, a desire for distributed knowledge and thus distributed power, and a susceptibility to rightwing radicalization.”
This description fits many in the American scene, such as the former feminist writer Naomi Wolf, or here the celebrity Russell Brand or the tv presenter Neil Oliver all of whom have been consumed by the wildest aspects of conspiracism – and has ended up with Brand supporting Donald Trump. You can see this process, a dramatic shift to the right, in other journalists and commentators, for example here with Iain Macwhirter or Joanna Blythman who have either got caught up in (what they perceive as ‘culture wars’, or conspiracy culture).
A common theme here is a rejection of aspects of ecological politics. This ranges from a perception of a ‘war on motorists’ (see ‘Bladerunners’ and other anti-LEZ activists) through to an obsession with Net Zero (see Farage and the Tory party) through to the massed-ranks of the Scottish commentariat consumed by hatred of the Scottish Greens, both for their stance on trans rights and their questioning of growth economics, which has had Macwhirter, Alex Massie, Chris Deerin, Euan McColl et als convulsed in fury. While for some this is a generational crisis which has provoked complete incomprehension, despite their job, literally being to understand things, for others this is about a journey rightwards. Naomi Klein explains why it is important to have formerly ‘progressive’ voices onboard:
“Despite claims of post-partisanship, it is right-wing, often far-right political parties around the world that have managed to absorb the unruly passions and energy of diagonalism. folding its Covid-era grievances into preexisting projects opposing ‘wokeness’ and drumming up fears of migrant ‘invasions’. Still, it is important for these movements to present themselves (and believe themselves to b) ruptures with politics-as-usual; to claim to be something new, beyond traditional left-right poles.”
“That’s why having a few prominent self-identified progressives and/or liberals is so critical. Importantly, the role of these progressives is not to renounce the goals of social justice and embrace a hard-right worldview. On the contrary, they must continue to identify as proud members of the left…while claiming that it is the movements and tendencies of which they were once part that have betrayed their own ideals, leaving these uniquely courageous individuals politically homeless and in search of new alliances.”
This is certainly a hallmark of many of the UK individuals who have made a journey rightward through the paranoia of lockdown or the experience of climate catastrophe and its various political ramifications. Some older journalists and commentators simply can’t process the reality that a) capitalist economics are the driver of climate breakdown and therefore b) alternatives to capitalist economics will be necessary. This is an anathema to writers who (as famously stated) find it “easier to comprehend the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.
Others find easier explanations. Some argue that Russell Brand is not on a political journey, he is just a grifter cynically manipulating his audiences to give himself cover for his sexual predatory behaviour.
But grifters aside, what brings such a rich and diverse group of people together in conspiracism is more a form of denialism, best seen in the reaction to climate realities and consequences. This is a new form of denialism, few nowadays actually deny the reality of climate change, they sort of deny instead that this means anything. William Callison and Quinn Slobodian again (‘Coronapolitics from the Reichstag to the Capitol‘):
“Efforts to name the snowballing movements—incorporating a range of anti-government, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and anti-vax positions—have been strained so far. Beyond the United States, where support for the recently defeated president offers a convenient common denominator, most observers have made heterogeneity the takeaway. The Economist referred to the “diverse bunch” at demonstrations that often feature New Age homeopaths next to skinheads and QAnon supporters in stars and stripes. “Meet Germany’s Bizarre Anti-Lockdown Protesters” read the title of a New York Times op-ed in August. Naomi Klein referred to the “conspiracy smoothie” that unites many protesters. Sociologist Keir Milburn hazarded the coinage of “the cosmic Right.” Drawing lessons from the mass phenomenon that is Bolsonarismo, Brazilian philosopher Rodrigo Nunes described the protests as the latest manifestation of “denialism” born of an inability to come to terms with the enormity of challenges confronted by humankind.”
These new forms of populism have taken all of the counter-culture of the 1960s 70s and 80s and moulded it into some new form, a grotesque caricature of anti-establishment, denuded of any political analysis, and leaning heavily into critiques of state power and media power with no conception of capital. This is a Hippy Grotesque, Dead Heads in a post-truth fever-dream, refusing to come down from the high that is conspiracism, a sort of Peter Pan existence of forever living in your bedroom, stoned and paranoid.
Callison and Quinn Slobodian describe the constituents of this new movement as: “hippies, antiwar activists, libertarians, constitutional loyalists, anti-state monarchists (Reichsbürger), neo-Nazis, alternative medicine practitioners, anti-vaccination campaigners, and apolitical left-liberals” – to which you could add, I think enraged elderly journalists and D-List celebrities (think Far-Right Said Fred & others). On the fringes of this in the UK are the hard-right (Reform etc) who are leaning into this rich seam of paranoia without really believing in it, and in the US those who feel that ANY state intervention or collective action is a stepping stone to Communism (!).
Much of the underlying drive behind these political phenomenon is the realisation (and denial) that anything needs to change about western civilisation, whether this is the idea you can fly anywhere anytime for peanuts, the idea of any restriction on your right to drive, or the idea that we need to change the way we eat and produce food. These very basic ideas are only the start of a process of transformation that will be required in the coming months and years, but such is the affront caused by any idea that WE might need to be part of the change that wild and visceral reactions are provoked. They provide a very useful cover for the states and classes in the global north who benefit from the ongoing experience of business as usual, as the earth burns.
Can you provide any evidence that communist societies have been more green than capitalist ones?
This “drift to the right” is hard for those to explain who swallowed the Marxist doctrine that economics (capitalism v communism) is what matters. For those who think it is democracy v totalitarianism, it’s blindingly obvious.
You’ve addressed a question which arises often over our breakfast table – thanks Mike. I cant help but return to the huge deficit in political education, particularly following 2014 for us in Scotland. Analysing developments, searching for a few pointers (like how does the political system work, how have movements succeeded or failed historically – this is all heavy lifting which still needs to be done for us to move forward in a clear sighted way. We need to understand the concepts we use rather than fling them around – a good example from yesterday’s discussion is that of ideology. I’m not advocating one size fits all definitions, but at least an undersanding of what lies beneath particular approaches. To adopt a rightwing stance has consequences and probably historical understanding is the only way to understand them.
“Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”, as Sophocles or Aeschylus might have said.
Both Sophocles and Aeschylus use versions of the phrase, presumably having pinched it from some older antecedent. The phrase “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” first appears in English in exactly this form in William Anderson Scott’s book Daniel, a Model for Young Men (1854).
In my case, the declining authority of egalitarian dogma after the fall of the Soviet Union and the free availability of information on the internet after around 2010 – much of it still there, though harder to find following the post-2016 censorship drive – changed my views on many subjects, generally to the right.
Certainly there is also money in it for a good few content makers, though that would only be the case if they had a ready audience of people frustrated with the limited range of views and arbitrary gatekeeping of what they call the “mainstream”, or “legacy” media and to some extent in academia.
When will political Flat Earthers realise that, if you move too far to the left, you suddenly find yourself on the right. That’s how Fascism was born.
I had a friend, now sadly deceased, who had a long career in the European Commission Diplomatic service. He used to say that the linear spectrum from left to right of political views was wrong and that a circular mode, like a clock face, was a better descriptor. As someone’s views moved more to the left, eventually he went over the top and joined the right.
However, I think we need to remember these are just simplified models which do not fully capture the complexity of human thinking.
Political scientists have frequently argued that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs. The libertarian writer, David Boaz (who, incidentally, died earlier this month), argues in his book, The Politics of Freedom: Taking on the Left, the Right, and Threats to Our Liberties, that the political terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are used to spin a particular point of view and/or to demonise one’s political opponents rather than as simple descriptors. Boaz reckons that such ‘name-calling’ often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against ‘the Other’.
Tony Blair described the main cleavage in contemporary European politics as not ‘left’ versus ‘right’, but ‘open’ versus ‘closed’. According to Blair, attitudes towards social issues and globalisation are more important than the conventional economic left–right issues following the rise of populism. In this model, ‘open’ voters tend to be culturally liberal, multicultural, and in favour of cultural globalisation, while ‘closed’ voters are culturally conservative, opposed to immigration, and in favour of cultural protectionism.
Alistair
I sometimes wonder whether the older male columnist’s, examples of whom you have quoted, are just becoming grumpy old men or are cynically espousing views that they know will continue to get their columns published thus giving them a profile and a pay check?
If your young and not a socialist then you don’t have a heart, however if your old and still a socialist then you don’t have a brain.
For some reason I can’t think of any major figure of the “right’ who’s gone ‘left’ in middle/old age. Plenty of examples of lefties who’ve gone over to the dark side.
Cliches do not constitute debate!
To answer your cliche – the Tory vote has drifted downwards in Scotland since 1979 my first election which:
1)proves your cliche doesn’t apply to Scotland
2)shows how unrepresentative media are by platforming those columnists who are drifting rightwards or are willing to change their opinions for the cash.
The politics of ‘left and right’ was defined by the French Revolution . At least 30 years ago that was recognised as a circular concept and not extreme opposites. viz: They merge. Discuss
@William Lochhead, as far as I know, the left-right shorthand indeed came from a seating arrangement in a French assembly. The rightmost seats were filled by the most ardent royalists. Royalism, then as now, is a politically extremist form of hierarchy. Opponents gravitated to the leftmost seats. It’s a terribly simplistic and flawed model of the political spectrum, and yet it stuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was recorded as carrying out a more empirical research programme, and I’m sure we can do a lot better these days (I recommend the Hearts of Iron series of games which models politics on a number of axes).
I found it interesting to read what philosopher Susan Neiman wrote in Learning from the Germans, which I briefly summarise: West Germany was rocked by the Historian’s Debate (Historikerstreit) 1986, where “Hitler just copied Stalin” kicked off mudslinging. East German crimes were not debated. p87 “As the East German playwright Heiner Müller would later say, the GDR left behind mountains of Stasi files, not mountains of corpses.” Soviet Communism was not like German National Socialism. Yet consensus that fascism does not resemble communism does not hold today, with a vocal minority industry trying to equate them, ‘two German dictatorships’ etc. People conflating fascism and communism seek to exonerate Nazis.
Now, it is fairly obvious that fascism (including in-power German National Socialism — which underwent various purges of its left and street-thug wings on the way) at the time had strong misogynistic and racist elements, which haven’t gone away today (despite younger female leadership being required to regenerate parties lumbered with incompetent older male leadership), a strong attachment to hierarchical organisations (like the Church and sometimes royalty, pretty obviously in places like Spain), and a warrior-virtue social values base. These are not characteristic of socialist movements of the time. Even that great critic of Eastern European communist party rule, Martina Navratilova, said that the one thing she could say in their favour was that the publics cheered men’s and women’s teams equally. Sex equality is not a normal feature fascism (in hard analytical terms, it cost the Axis the war: WW2 was won by women). One could argue that while women had vastly superior career opportunities and rights in most socialist countries, these countries typically operated a softer form of patriarchy nonetheless.
But because fascists lost WW2 (one could argue that some were on the winning side too), some more thoughtful fascists have been reflecting on what deficiencies their ideology had, and working on their media skills, so now have women in some leadership roles and have toned down their public racism (or diverted it: open Islamophobia instead of open anti-Semitism, say).
Where there is alignment between Left (collectivist, egalitarian) and Right (individualistic or hierarchical) in particular instances, it can be simply in another dimension like authoritarianism, openness (or closedness) of society, hawkishness (or dovitude), internationalist or isolationist, and so on. Trump and Stalin both wanted to move their respective countries away from internationalism and become self-reliant in industry, but it doesn’t mean their ideologies were similar. The ‘circular spectrum’ is typically a bogus contrivance to smear opponents with one’s own group’s crimes.
As for democracies, however notional that label, their crimes tend to be poorly examined as if some form of absolution applied. Democratic (more and less) Athens was apparently highly belligerent and its debates were often about despoiling neighbours, but it has been a while since I looked at that portion of (rather sketchy) history.
Was Lenin ever a ‘Leftist’? He believed in vanguard politics, so breeched Marx’s 3rd thesis on Feuerbach – who educates the educator?
Too many ‘Leftists’ have followed Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, the ‘party line’ – they are authoritarians not humanists, so ending up on the ‘Right’ is not a ‘turn’ for them but a consequence of staying on the path they were always following: technological, economic or naturalist determinism with a symbiotic voluntaristic worship of leaders.
Having an truly interactive conversation becomes impossible because ‘identification’ with ‘position’ is paramount. Without this ‘identification of the other’ such positional automatons are paralysed because they no longer ‘know’ who they are talking to and, therefore, their well-prepared ‘scripts’ become meaningless (“you’re a lefty woke gammon isolationist which means you believe that … and I can argue against such a straw man with ease because I’ve read Toskies’ Renegades at Bathtime”). The ‘theory’ of what is ‘Left’ takes over from the situated existential experiences of ‘the workers’ or ‘the people’, so car manuals written for the Model T Ford are brought out to fix a broken down electric car. If you don’t believe in filling the tank, you’re not one of “us”.
Horkheimer: if your theory says revolution is impossible then your theory is wrong, so change it.
@Brian McGrail, I think vanguardism is relevant, but a simpler model often proposed is the Left-Right split on human nature. If people are generally good, trust them to work things out collectively (Left model); if people are generally bad, impose a hierarchy to coerce the desired behaviour (Right model).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/20/human-nature-politics-left-right
If this is a good explanation, it hardly gives room for overlap. If a person becomes disillusioned with human behaviour, they may move Right. If their faith in human nature is increased/restored, they may move Left.
There are examples where personal familiarity with immigrants are said to bring about more pro-immigrant views, and cases where political corruption leads to calls for ‘strong leaders’ instead of representative democracy. Christian churches which emphasise innate sinfulness are typically hierarchical; those that preach that everyone has something good to offer are typically flatter in structure.
There are also biological and psychological studies, but even today these tend to be WEIRD and of uncertain general application globally. Acceptance of cognitive load, ambiguity and disgust responses feature in Left-Right indicators. Developmental psychology, conditioning, trauma, social factors, historical teachings, indoctrination, in-group out-group polarisation, sex differences and aging, and national schismogenesis are all factors of interest.
Economics can be a false road. So many USAmerican rugged individualists have their survival gear made in Chinese factories.
There is a simple explanation in that individuals can be blackmailed, corrupted, seduced, exploited, flattered, coerced into changing their behaviour. We cannot see into their minds directly (see the philosophical Problem of Other Minds), so who knows how deep or real or fluctuating any belief is. How many priests believe in their own god strongly enough to bet their own lives on it, every waking hour of every day? I mean, at school people called each other poseurs for some apparent reason. The great British values of Hypocrisy and Cant are widely-practised art-forms.
But analysis of this article fails to grasp the multi-dimensional nature of political ideology which is far more complex than the (Eurocentric) Left–Right paradigm. In particular, the rise of Ego-Dominance ideologies, the Self-Over-the-Collective, is an important development of neoliberal contrivances, and while technically right-wing is best analysed on its own terms, and for its degenerative, narcissistic and atomising tendencies which are surely designed to defeat collectivisation.
In these cases, paranoia seems to be related to perceived attacks on the Self, and perceived attacks on groups as the means to get to the Self. We see a lot of this in opposition to abortion, in-womb tests for genetic birth defects, and assisted suicide. It is plausible that (in loose, general terms) social media has helped bring this about, but I have not seen a comprehensive theoretical model with evidence yet. After all, many people find communities online.
Of course, as I’ve said before, the modern world is built on pillars of idea communism, despite a large element of imperialist-capitalist infrastructure. In fact, capitalism is so inefficient and destructive, that it needs idea communism to function. However, the people most aware of this seem to be the anti-communists. It would be funny if it the consequences weren’t so dire.
Naomi Klein’s book Doppelganger, extensively elucidates this phenomenon. I wanted to mention this though there was passing mention of her perspective in your piece, Michael; it really is excellent on this specific topic.
Yes, I’ve read it, agreed, its extremely good
Welcome to the TicTok generation! I didn’t even have to use an ism.
The fulcrum between ‘left’ and ‘right’ has shifted so far to the right that Edward Heath would be a raving socialist nowadays. No-one is even contemplating the nationalisation of entire industries now. So, I take the word ‘left wing’ with a pinch of salt. Anyway, I thought that the author of this piece was a proponent of the ‘drain the swamp, its all shit’ mantra?
Grumpy and entitled old men egotistically raging against a modern world they no longer even try to understand is one thing. An issue of greater concern emerging from the recent elections to the European Parliament is the extent to which young people in some countries (including France and Germany) are being attracted to the far right.
@Paddy Farrington, in my recent reading, the far right in many European countries are drawing attention to the fact that while their shameful histories are to some extent exposed due to being on the losing side of WW2, colonialist European countries among the victors have not reckoned with or apologised for their histories. I spoke at length with a moderate, left-leaning German from Pforzheim, a harmless German town which the British RAF bombed to rubble in the last days of WW2 killing about a third of its population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pforzheim_in_World_War_II
While the Germans have built Holocaust memorials and are struggling with their (relatively short, but still longer than the Nazi period) colonial history (including the Herero and Nama genocide), countries like the UK have built monuments glorifying Bomber Harris and the RAF who mass-murdered so many German civilians (and foreign forced labourers, who bore the human brunt of Dambusters etc). See historian Keith Lowe (Prisoners of History, etc) on this disparity.
So to my mind, the British have a very substantial responsibility for stoking up the far right in Europe by their Jingoistic (and royalist) exceptionalism and failure to acknowledge their crimes of Empire etc which drives understandable if misdirected grievances in those countries.
This article leaves me mentally writhing in my attempt to understand how so many of the comments here presume it to be astute commentary.
To explain my distress, follow me through a review of the article on its own terms:
According to the author, “William Callison and Quinn Slobodian” begged a question they term “diagonalism,” which is never explained in immediate context, which this author is now treating as a established theory of partisan political alignment. The “theory” not described is of course not tested and no critical mention is made about its validity. So the author introduces a theory of no theory.
To rhetorically suit this setup, the author constructs a language for diagonalism by cherrypicking from the hysterical rantings of a small set of salacious celebrity influencers, without regard any aspect of popularity or populism independent of the narrow scope of topics promoted by those influencers.
A baseline reference to work in German is included to as a cosmopolitan rhetorical flourish to add an air of academic authority. The reference skips any consideration whatsoever of the complexities of the German political landscape and is used as a rhetorical bridge to a grotesquely limited scope of MAGA Trump to beg further questions of “culture wars.” The insanely ambiguous and intellectually problematic terms “left, right, progressive, power” and “conspiracy” are dumped on the reader without the merest attempt at definition in context.
To flesh out his authority on this theory of no theory called diagonalism, the author lists his blog roll (“commentariat”) and cherry-picks celebrity Noami Klein (or is it Naomi Woolf?) begging another question about political “polarity”:
“Despite claims of post-partisanship, it is right-wing, often far-right political parties around the world that have managed to absorb the unruly passions and energy of diagonalism.”
Interestingly, this author’s citation of Klein begs a question of the existence of a partisan domain “beyond left-right poles” which the author somehow mutates into support for diagonalism which has already been overtly established as a domain between left and right— where left and right have been implicitly parlayed as nothing more than the U.S. presidential party duopoly.
Building on the vacuous incantations of left and right,references to populist hot-button, weasaly topics are sprinkled upon the prose: “Covid, ecology, migration, wokism, conspiricist” along with pure hyperbole like “drumming up fears,” “movements,” “ruptures,” and “politics-as-usual,” as if it were reciting a litany of a scientific taxonomy. This is done purely as rhetorical affect. Nothing has been studied, no theory is being proposed.
Klein’s points seems to be reflections about a new form of partisan political chameleons who are doctrinaire conservatives posing as progressives, or vice versa. That this article employs the Klein excerpt is an interesting gibe because classical liberalism in the 21st century is ideologically conservative, so what is Klein observing but her own species adaptation to the vicissitudes of political commerce? It turns out Klein doesn’t see her own reflection, as quoted in context: “That’s why having a few prominent self-identified progressives and/or liberals is so critical.”
—But critical to what? This is never discussed even as it appears to a thesis!
More Klein nonsense is dumped on the reader for sciency rhetorical effect, as if Klein been taking notes in some Galopagos of the celebrity political commentariat:
“This is certainly a hallmark of many of the UK individuals who have made a journey rightward through the paranoia of lockdown or the experience of climate catastrophe and its various political ramifications.”
I imagine giant land tortoises making a diurnal creep across the hot rocky landscape of an equatorial archipelago, seeking shelter under shallow outcroppings of rocks from the scorching noonday sun. How do these creatures survive this inforgiving landscape?
The author, having let Naomi Klein’s ramblings serve as a primary academic source for his theory of no theory, now moves to record his thoughts within a tunnel to maximize the reverberations of the afore/mentioned celebrity echos:
“Others find easier explanations. Some argue that Russell Brand is not on a political journey, he is just a grifter cynically manipulating his audiences to give himself cover for his sexual predatory behaviour,”
…then reverses to the question of diagonalism which question is to be more fully begged:
“William Callison and Quinn Slobodian again (‘Coronapolitics from the Reichstag to the Capitol‘): “Efforts to name the snowballing movements—incorporating a range of anti-government, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, and anti-vax positions—have been strained so far.”
—So far as where? These dangling judgments are employed routinely.
(The rambling free associations make think of Peter O’Toole on camel’s back with desert sickness singing “Of the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo” which reverberate as slap echos from desert canyon walls in both Lawrence of Arabia, and recapitulated by David the Android reciting Lawrence in Ridley Scott’s Alien sequel, Prometheus.)
From this point on, the article eschews its pretense of a theory of diagonalism and in place of reasoning it devolves into an inadvertent structuralist “cataloguing of particulars” (to lift a turn of phrase from Chomsky).
Many hundreds of additional words, typified by terms within this selection:
“hippies, antiwar activists, libertarians, constitutional loyalists, anti-state monarchists (Reichsbürger), neo-Nazis, alternative medicine practitioners, anti-vaccination campaigners, and apolitical left-liberals”
are proffered in service of a conclusion, but not about diagonalism!
The conclusion meanders off into the weeds of ecological expectations for transportation and dining:
“the realisation (and denial) that anything needs to change about western civilisation, whether this is the idea you can fly anywhere anytime for peanuts, the idea of any restriction on your right to drive, or the idea that we need to change the way we eat and produce food…”
The essay finishes with a nosedive and crash into an incoherence typical of celebrity prognosticators:
“These very basic ideas are only the start of a process of transformation that will be required in the coming months and years, but such is the affront caused by any idea that WE might need to be part of the change that wild and visceral reactions are provoked. They provide a very useful cover for the states and classes in the global north who benefit from the ongoing experience of business as usual, as the earth burns.”
What was the author’s thesis? So what is “diagonalism”?
This article manufactures partisan political lingity-frankity in the guise of academic rhetoric. This is precisely the sort of ivory tower bullshit that leads to a reactionary withdrawal from overt parliamentary politics.
Who is paying to construct this language and why does it serve them?
“Born in part from transformations in technology and communication, diagonalists tend to contest conventional monikers of left and right (while generally arcing toward far-right beliefs), to express ambivalence if not cynicism toward parliamentary politics, and to blend convictions about holism and even spirituality with a dogged discourse of individual liberties.
At the extreme end, diagonal movements share a conviction that all power is conspiracy. Public power cannot be legitimate, many believe, because the process of choosing governments is itself controlled by the powerful and is de facto illegitimate. This often comes with a dedication to disruptive decentralization, a desire for distributed knowledge and thus distributed power, and a susceptibility to rightwing radicalization.”
Simple. Nothing academic or too difficult to understand …
Thanks for replying.
So the theory truly is a theory of no theory.
If the simple-to-understand point is to define a label in about 200 words, with no citations nor references, to demarcate the edge of an a-political sector of an electorate, with no interest in history nor parliamentary process, who adopt a wholesale rejection of power in preference for whatever shiny stuff they see on the web, and their structurally irrelevant and incoherent personal beliefs, then what is the point of other 1000s words and references of pseudo-intellectual posturing? Why is a geometric term needed for those who are simply politically ignorant and disinterested?
I can guess why the term diagonalism might be useful jargon for an PR functionaries whose jobs are partitioning political ignorance into demographic sectors to be targeted with curated messaging, while carfully tacking upwind of denigrations that might jeopsrdize their credibility: We’re dealing with “diagonals,” not “deplorables.” The extra bullshit proffered provides cover for Empire’s continuing program of agenda-setting and manipulation— precisely what these deplorables say they resent!
OTOH, If the author is honestly interested in theory and respects individual volition in the political process, why not start from someplace viable like the Propaganda Model?
By your own reasoning, skip the elitist lingity-frankity.
—
Genius!
Brilliant!
@Arrnon, why does diagonalism have to be a theory, instead of a pattern (or a phenomenon as stated)? A political philosopher might be more interested in a theory, but a political scientist could be primarily interested in (patterns of) observable behaviours, with theories coming later. I’m not saying I see the same pattern as implied by the article, mind.
I’m not sure what the point your making is, and I’m not sure that you do either.
From what I can discern you want me to use Chomsky’s Propaganda Model?
I guess that you find some comfort in the conspiracy culture and don’t like it being called out?