Right all along

July 14, 2018 9:18 AM

Corey Robin reflects on how and why people change their minds on political questions through the lens of Thomas Mann and recent events in US political commentary: How eerie and unsettling it can be when people change their minds
posted by the man of twists and turns (22 comments total)

This perspective is very alien to me. On the one hand, people changing their minds is supposed to be the exact point of engagement and argumentation. And on the other, some of the specific examples cited of individuals changing their minds without acknowledging that they've done so don't seem to me to be anything of the sort. The supposed embrace of "Sanders-style politics" by many within the Democratic party seems to me to be a clear continuation of the same politics they've been pursuing for years. If anything, I think that what's changed is that with greater distance from the contentious 2016 primary, it's becoming more obvious that mainstream Democratic politics and the goals and positions espoused by the more left wing of the party never had as much distance between them as some people thought. Not that there aren't real differences, but the obsessive focus on those differences has blinded many to the actual positions their erstwhile opponents held and continue to hold, such that when mainstream Democrats embrace what some think of as the domain of the left wing of the party, they are surprised. The inconsistency is only in the mind of the beholder.

The idea of trying to identify the "true" or "authentic" Thomas Mann is also very strange to me. Everything Mann freely chose was authentically him; to think otherwise seems incoherent to me. Mann, like all humans, was not some unchanging, Platonic ideal form. He was dynamic and changed over the course of his life. That's what being human means.
posted by biogeo at 9:44 AM on July 14, 2018 [15 favorites]

People who were lambasting that kind of politics in 2016 are now embracing it

because that was then, this is now. Then (and here I know I'm speaking for more than just myself), regardless of how I felt about his policies, I had zero confidence that a Bernie candidacy had would do anything but divide the so-called Left and effectively offer the Republicans the only hope they had of a Presidential win. As is, it seems the divide happened anyway, the Left got so hung up with its internal divisions, it forgot to take its opponents seriously in November-2016. The term realpolitik comes to mind (politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises). The Left failed at this in 2016. Badly. Foolishly. Catastrophically.

—without remarking upon the change, without explaining it, leaving the impression that this is what they believed all along.

For me, there has been no great change in my ideals or principles. I'm far more of a Bernie socialist than I ever was a Hilary Democrat. And right now, right here, let's just say the realpolitik is different. But it's just July. November is some months away. Or as I put it elsewhere a while back:

"... the real stuff of democracy is not what you do on voting day, it's what you do every day. The stands you take, the causes you support, the arguments you make, the agitations you pursue. Voting day is the one day you get ground level pragmatic and opt for the least evil option that has a chance of winning. Don't be a f***ing idiot."
posted by philip-random at 10:11 AM on July 14, 2018 [13 favorites]

In one of those lost Rhineland towns, I can't remember which, I had a glimpse of how quick the change-over had been for many Germans. In a workmen's bar late at night I made friends with several factory hands who had come off a late shift. They were about my age, and one of them, an amusing, clownish character, said: why didn't I doss down on his brother's camp bed at his place? When we climbed the ladder to his attic, the room turned out to be a shrine of Hitleriana. The walls were covered with flags, photographs, posters, slogans and emblems. His S.A. uniform hung neatly ironed on a hanger. He explained these cult objects with fetishist zest...

When I said that it must be rather claustrophobic with all that stuff on the walls, he laughed and sat down on his bed, and said: "Mensch! You should have seen it last year! You would have laughed! Then it was all red flags, stars, hammers and sickles, pictures of Lenin and Stalin and Workers of the World, Unite! I used to punch the heads of anyone singing the Horst Wessel Lied! It was all the Red Flag and the Internaional then! I wasn't only a Sozi, but a Kommi, ein echter Bolschewik!" He gave a clenched fist salute. "You should have seen me! Street fights! We used to beat the hell out of the Nazis, and they beat the hell out of us. We laughed ourselves silly—Man hat sich totgelacht. Then suddenly, when Hitler came into power, I understand it was all nonsense and lies. I realized Adolf was the man for me. All of a sudden!" He snapped his fingers in the air. "And here I am!" What about all his old pals, I asked. "They changed too!—all those chaps in the bar. Every single one! They're all in the S.A. now." Had a lot of people done the same, then? A lot? His eyes opened wide. "Millions! I tell you, I was astonished how easily they all changed sides!"

Patrick Leigh Fermor, A Time of Gifts
posted by theodolite at 10:16 AM on July 14, 2018 [17 favorites]

conformity is a monster
posted by philip-random at 10:42 AM on July 14, 2018 [3 favorites]

Corey Robin is overestimating the shift to "Sanders-style politics" in the Democratic Party, because he fails to account for primary voters who supported Sanders-style politics, but felt that Sanders was not the best candidate to bring those politics to fruition.
posted by jonp72 at 10:56 AM on July 14, 2018 [26 favorites]

I don't see or feel a shift towards "Sanders-style positions" (many of which I think have been popular for a while now) as much as I see a shift towards supporting "Sanders-style politicians." Speaking for myself - I preferred many of the policies he espoused but thought Clinton would make a better president. I wanted someone effective but a little boring over someone exciting who can't seal the deal. After the election I learned that I shouldn't have underestimated the importance/power of being exciting (see: Trump). So now I'm more open to supporting different candidates. Is it really so odd to change your mind after learning from experience that what you believed before didn't work out that well in practice?

I also think identity is important, too. We're calling these politicians "Sanders-style" but that kind of glosses over that a lot of the newer politicians people are getting excited about are people of color/young/women/queer, which to me is important.
posted by Emily's Fist at 12:22 PM on July 14, 2018 [19 favorites]

I've seen many people state that their policy is, roughly, to "support the left-most viable candidate", and at first glance this seems like a straightforward, practical strategy. It becomes eerie when you realize that what it means for a candidate to be viable is precisely to have enough support, and therefore to base your support for a candidate on how much support they already have collapses into a self-referential cycle.

It's eerie because in such a scenario individual participants, considered locally and in isolation, can convincingly argue that they're making principled realpolitik decisions, but considered in aggregate form a chaotic feedback system that can exhibit wild and unpredictable swings in behavior unattributable to any real change in material circumstances.
posted by Pyry at 12:47 PM on July 14, 2018 [10 favorites]

I wonder where Roberts is seeing this shift. I haven't seen anyone that I follow or is retweeted for me having shifted any more left. Most of the people I know that even know about the lady's win think that's great but it's not like it's a huge change in the Democratic Party.
Now, the Sanders babies who refused to vote for HRC (and thus elected Trump) may be thinking this is the sure sign that they were right and the eeeeeeeevil "coporate Democrats" are going to be out on their ear any time now, but that's just not the case.
Also, we shouldn't be calling Ocasio-Cortez a "Sanders-style" candidate - she's actually the anti-Sanders candidate - she's a woman of color who supports gun-control, is young, and doesn't suck up to Republicans when the chips are down.
posted by Docrailgun at 12:58 PM on July 14, 2018 [22 favorites]

I wonder if it's because the leftmost wing of the democratic party (mostly comprised of young people and people of color) was never seen as likely voters, and now are. So individual positions have not changed, but 'likely voters' polls show a huge swing.

And yeah, count me as another person who has always voted for the left-most viable candidate, but has also worked to make sure the left-most candidate is seen as viable. Nothing drives me up the wall quite like reheated electability arguments from 2004.
posted by dinty_moore at 2:08 PM on July 14, 2018 [3 favorites]

Also, we shouldn't be calling Ocasio-Cortez a "Sanders-style" candidate - she's actually the anti-Sanders candidate - she's a woman of color who supports gun-control, is young, and doesn't suck up to Republicans when the chips are down.

Seriously. Conflating "not part of the Democratic party establishment" and "Sanders" is... Not useful.
posted by PMdixon at 2:10 PM on July 14, 2018 [12 favorites]

I will echo others in saying that what I wanted in a president, especially after eight years of solid progressive progress (I realize that's redundant but I can't think of another word), was someone who would generally maintain the status quo and build gradually and sustainably on those gains. That's not necessarily what I ever wanted from non-president politicians. I was and am very happy to have Sanders and Warren and now Harris pushing the party farther leftward.

And now that the entire system is on fire, my calculus has changed, too. It seems even more important to me to have counterweights to Trump.

General homeostasis I think, really. The system was fairly stable and centrist, so I wanted that to continue. With the election the country made a gigantic lurch to the right, so I want farther-left people in to balance it out.
posted by lazuli at 2:12 PM on July 14, 2018 [6 favorites]

she's actually the anti-Sanders candidate

You know she worked for his campaign and is still making appearances with him, right? I should know better than to wade into this argument again but come on. She's a much better example of the future of the party for several reasons, but 'ol Bernie did play at least one important role - by proving that you can say the "s-word" (socialism) openly in American Politics and thrive. Can you think of another figure that can be attributed to?

it's becoming more obvious that mainstream Democratic politics and the goals and positions espoused by the more left wing of the party never had as much distance between them as some people thought

It's become more obvious that mainstream Democratic voters (and the sort of people who are up for volunteering, in my experience) aren't as far from the left wing of the party as some would have assumed. You can't pretend "moderate Republicans in the suburbs" never happened.
posted by atoxyl at 2:21 PM on July 14, 2018 [7 favorites]

I know lots of people who strategically and somewhat grudgingly voted for (Bill) Clinton-esque triangulators because they thought well that's just what you have to do to win. Now they're starting to think maybe that's not what you have to do to win. I think the party is going that way, too, but it sure seems to me like it's dragging itself that way.
posted by atoxyl at 2:35 PM on July 14, 2018 [1 favorite]

she's actually the anti-Sanders candidate

Jimminy Christmas, you guys are not paying attention at all, nor reading the article, if you are making this statement. 2016 did have a lot to do with movement building for the democratic party. All the newness is scary and makes the older hands bitter, but we need everyone.

Future victory will depend on not squelching that movement, no matter if it came from socialists or triangulationalists , if we can leave off the 2016 name calling and point scoring for a dang second, we can actually win elections and shift governance toward equity....
posted by eustatic at 3:12 PM on July 14, 2018 [1 favorite]

What you need to win is the ability to govern well. Therefore you need to push leftist economic policies once in office, because that will have the most positive affect on people's lives. Also let me reiterate again that no one gives two shits about some filibuster.
posted by bookman117 at 3:16 PM on July 14, 2018

I never read Thomas Mann but the reality that humans change their positions and don't realize we're doing it certainly resonates. I think we must acknowledge that the whole concept of rational decision making has been obliterated by the research: humans do stuff for reasons they don't understand and then post-hoc justify it it all day long. Myself included!

Regarding what wins elections, I certainly have my beliefs about it, but anyone who claims they Obviously Know The Truth on this topic is also full of crap. The fact is, we just don't know what works, what helps. We have some ideas, but there is nothing like controlled, unbiased research on this. Our pet theories are pretty useless, as important as it is to look at the past and attempt to draw tactical lessons, we Just Don't Know. More and more these days I am just open to any effort, any tactic, any strategy that may move progressive, humanistic, just change. I personally fall on the side that we shouldn't try to elect middle of the road candidates based on the idea that they start from a position of compromise leaving the option only to move right (instead of left). In my analysis, this has been borne out by past example. But let's face it, this is not an exact science, I just don't know. I'll personally throw any electoral energy I have (and most of my energy is for solidarity and direct action, but I do have some electoral energy too) into the most progressive/radical candidate available, but I'm not going to pretend I know for certain what "works". There are times we have to make a choice as two strategies are in direct opposition. Say I want to campaign for an Ocasio-Cortez while you want to elect a Crowley. So we may have to work in opposition and feel very convinced of our specific perspectives. But one thing I won't do is pretend to know for sure which is most likely to have the best outcome in the long term. We just don't know. Given that, I'm working for the radical edge because I think it's the right thing to do, not because I am certain of a given outcome.
posted by latkes at 3:33 PM on July 14, 2018 [1 favorite]

I don't think that changing which politicians you vote for or what political movements you "align" yourself with necessarily means that you've changed your mind. I have been a socialist since I was 17; I voted for HRC because I think she's very competent and a good leader. Those stances have never been in conflict for me and my mind hasn't changed in either case, but because HRC no longer has an active, salient campaign and the DSA is currently very active and salient, I am no longer volunteering for HRC and am getting involved in the DSA. The author probably would consider me to have "changed my mind," I guess, because now I show up to a slightly different set of events than I did a couple years ago? But I don't actually believe anything new. I have just changed my expression of those (consistent) beliefs, because the political landscape/context has changed.

The world changes and our participation in it changes in response, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have changed internally. Nor does it mean that any of that participation is inauthentic.

I feel like the writer is assuming that a change in external behavior signifies that an internal change has occurred, but I don't think it does. External behavior may simply change because the external environment has changed.
posted by rue72 at 5:15 PM on July 14, 2018 [17 favorites]

In the wake of the primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, there’s been a dramatic shift in mainstream liberal opinion—in the media, on social media, among politicians, activists, and citizens—toward Sanders-style positions.

I mean, this is kind of too early to say, right? Ocasio-Cortez is one candidate in one election in one district of NYC. Maybe Robin thinks it's a shift, but it's actually just the distorting and exaggerating affects of the internet, combined with the nature of the constant news cycle that always needs someone to talk about something, anything to generate more news.

Also, the author summarizes the changes in position that Mann goes through in a period from the lead up to WWI to 1953, which is like 40 years. That's a long time AND A LOT of shit happened in the world too and I think it makes sense to change your mind during that span of time. Last thing on this, I don't quite understand how the author comes to the conclusion that Mann doesn't acknowledge he's changed his mind. He may have just not written it down. Obviously, Twitter wasn't around during that period, so his letters and writings could be the tip of the iceberg of his mind.

And he compares the 40 years of Mann to the two year span from 2016 to 2018, which makes me wonder: Is the internet causing us to change our minds FASTER than people before us?

That's the part that would be weird to me, if it is true.
posted by FJT at 6:01 PM on July 14, 2018 [4 favorites]

It's an interesting subject, but one that's kinda hard to meaningfully frame since, to the outsider, you measure consistency by what you take to be a relatively concrete outside definition. Liberal, conservative, socialist, fascist, whatever, but internally people aren't necessarily referencing concrete definitions, but abstract ones based on hierarchical values, perceptions of the norm or needs of the time, and shifting demands of their own lives and understanding of abstract ideals, which may then be reported or argued in a way that better suits the larger social/cultural expectations for political engagement than the more personal manner in which the beliefs are formed and understood in the moment.

The idea that political ideology, or almost any mass concept, like religion or culture, is universally coherent in the same manner to all people is obviously not true and even to the extent there is some truth to it, defining likeness in general political terms under an umbrella label will always fail to account for the vast variety of difference that generality can't account for. In a very crude sense, I suppose, personal political or social values are held are often a bit like someone standing in a canoe. They are reactive to the influences of the moment. If the person thinks the canoe is tilting too much in one direction, they'll react by shifting their weight to balance. If they think things are holding steady they may shift their weight a bit more freely, but are less likely to feel compelled to move at all lest they upset the balance they have.

People in different circumstances will respond to events in ways that fit their experience, which may or may not align with set definition based on mass generalizations of belief, but on how they see their particular set of circumstances interacting with the specific people and events around them. That doesn't make individual views "right", it can lead to unrealized prejudice informing the choices, but "right" and consistent aren't quite the same thing.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:19 PM on July 14, 2018 [3 favorites]

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
(Robert Anton Wilson)
posted by philip-random at 8:50 PM on July 14, 2018 [3 favorites]

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."

Here in the USA, it only took 20 years for conservatives to become "far leftist" and/or RINOs without changing a single idea.
posted by anonymisc at 9:07 AM on July 16, 2018 [1 favorite]

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
(Robert Anton Wilson)

"Cthulhu only swims left" (Mencius Moldbug)
posted by theorique at 10:03 AM on July 16, 2018