I have always had a fascination for people who abandoned previously deeply held beliefs and engaged in a political or social metamorphosis. I have had the same core philosophy for more than twenty years. I moved on a few issues, but never really disrupted the essence. Either that indicates a profound immaturity and resistance to personal growth on my part or some effort to know myself well. We are a nation of narcissists, we all believe the most relevant subject is ourselves if only other would submit and agree to bask in the edges of profundity.
Why are some people capable of change and others are not, does one who embrace a new philosophy after being an arch enemy have less credibility? As a progressive should I not believe that all are capable of change given that human beings all contain an element of mystery that even the most pervasive consumerism and conformism can often not obliterate? I know there are many who are for example progressives or thoughtful moderates, who once admired Reagan. I am not one of them, his empty cheerful never stirred me. At that time I was living in Canada, and even today I never understood the concept of needing a President to "feel good" about myself or my nation again. My gut instinct is that if one feels "bad" about what has happened to their nation or doubts the sincerity and aims of national interest then just perhaps then perhaps it is time to question the basis of nationalism. Shit happens and some us of change our political stripes.
Now he is a somewhat forgotten author but John Dos Passos was once a name heavily associated with the " lost generation" of American writers. Like Hemingway, he was an ambulance driver during WW I. Hemingway never twanged me much, I discovered John Dos Passos after tearing through F.Scott Fitzgerald's novels.
His most recognized work is a group of works known as the USA Trilogy a rather sweeping big picture look at the social and political forces that gripped America in the post WW I era up till about 1930. I recommend it for anybody wanted to shuffle back through American literature, and to have a glimpse at somebody who has since been eclipsed by the likes of Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Dos Passos was overtly critical of the rising materialism that engulfed America and rather pessimistic about the lot of the ordinary man or woman. He used techniques in his writing that might not elicit much comment today but seemed visionary at the time. He was acutely aware the rising influence of the mass media and incorporated these into his writing, for this he was dubbed a social realist.
He was one of the voices who were outraged by the outcome of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial in which two Italian born immigrants and anarchists were accused and executed for robbery and murder. The trial took place during the Red Scare in which there was turmoil and unrest. Strikes, bombings, and residual fear about the ripple effect of the Russian revolution produced generalized hysteria and draconian responses. I willingly confess my weakness as a credible historian but it seems one could substitute terrorists for reds in this era and the post WW II era and draw a few parallels. Under the right circumstances any one of us could be subjected to such and accusation, the same way many American lives were ruined by McCarthyism.
Dos Passos embraced and then rejected the ideals of communism. He was bitter about the execution of a friend by communistsduring the Spanish Civil War. He shifted his philosophical leanings and ultimately ended up supporting the views of Nixon and McCarthy. How is it he saw the darker side of leftist philosophy hijacked by the cult of personality, statism, and power ambitions but not those same elements in the right?
David Brock traveled from the exact opposite direction. I suspect we all have deeply embedded personal reasons why we make these choices. We may see the hypocrisy the culture we are raised in, we may be rejected by those we sought to align ourselves with, we experience revelations and crisis that push up to question the beliefs we cherished. We become disenchanted by the failures and paralysis of those we expect to lead. We retreat into our private lives because the public sphere appears corrupted.
I have always found my solace in rather simple things, I think this reflects my quest for finding my center. I also tend to intellectualize deeper emotions when they overwhelm me. I have always attached my regards for ideas rather than specific individuals because I am deeply suspicious of the idea of any saviour leading me to the promised land. I think of it as a flaw and a strength, demagogues don't appeal to me but I find it hard to immerse myself without a touch of skepticism. I am not leadership material but I also tend to be a snarky follower. what happened to you? Do you hold the same beliefs that you touted in your youth or have you undergone a transformation?