Half Villains

Book I of Plato's Republic tells of a dialogue between Socrates and several others concerning the topic of justice. Thrasymachus opines that justice is "the will of the stronger." In his view, strength is its own virtue, thus the natural order is for the will of these more capable men to be carried out. The just is always a loser in comparison with the unjust. In matters of human affairs, such as business, it is the unscrupulous man who comes out ahead, at the expense of the just man. In so many words, nice guys finish last. The most unjust society is one dedicated to profit and self-interest, because the unjust will naturally be advantaged. Thus, he reasons that the most just course of action is to see to the will of the strongest, because only the strong can counter the predatory behaviors of the unjust.

Socrates counters that injustice inherently foments friction and division. An unjust nation cannot be strong because it will be turned in on itself. Likewise, a purely unjust man would be incapable of gaining the societal power that would allow him to inflict harm in the first place. Such a man is to self-destructive to be a serious threat. He reckons that Thrasymachus's predators must have at least some virtue in order to hold the capacity to cause injury, and terms them as "half-villains."

It's an interesting concept, that those most dangerous to us must, by necessity, possess some fair amount of virtue. Perhaps its the reason we are advised not to dehumanize our enemies. It's a matter of self-interest. We become blind to the source of our enemies' power. If we can ever truly assess an opponent as having little to no virtue, then we could safely ignore that opponent and focus on more realistic threats. But if they are a threat, their virtues must be acknowledged.

The concept is reflected in a debate that occurs amongst conservatives today, regarding how to respond to our political counterparts. It is quite apparent that the Democrat party is largely infected with lunacy these days. Some opine that this is an excellent development for our interests - that the further disconnected they become, the less capable they will be to act on their delusions. Others lament that having a major party in such a state of disorder poses a serious hazard to our political process, and we must do whatever we can to encourage them back to moderation. (Both arguments have been made on this blog.) So which is correct? Should we encourage them towards greater virtue, or help push them off the deep end?

The answer must depend on the disposition and intent of the other party. An oncologist is much more aggressive in treating a malignant tumor, which has the disposition to kill the host. It is a villain. The benign tumor has no more or less virtue than its murderous counterpart, and yet it is not a villain.

The question then, is do the left wish us ill will? Not in the political sense, but personally. We can always make the argument that our political counterparts, by choosing the "wrong" ideas, will weaken us indirectly and cause us harm. For instance, we see Democrat policies as leading to poor economic outcomes, more crime, greater rifts between identity groups, etc. On their end, they imagine our policies will lead to oppressive aristocracy. Do they see us as mere counterparts to be negotiated with to secure the best realistic outcomes for all parties? Or do they view us as enemies to be destroyed?

It is quite apparent that they do, in fact, wish us personal harm. They seek to restrict our freedom of speech. That is as real a harm as anything. They wish to see us removed from meaningful employment, and engage in egregious witch hunts to do so.  They even wish physical violence on our persons, which has been demonstrated many times, and effectively formalized by the highly popular "Punch a Nazi" campaign. Who is a Nazi? Anyone they disagree with.

When we consider the consequences of empowered leftists, we can't just calculate the societal impact of enacting their desired policies. We must consider their virulent desire to punish us for all the perceived injustices in the world. Historically, radical leftists have always turned murderous once they've obtained power. They openly boast, today, that they want to hurt us. We should certainly take them at their word.

Our opponents are not equivalent to Thrasymachus's half villains, who were motivated to injustice by self interest. The radical left are ideologically driven. The are self-interested, to be sure, but they are also religious. As long as they believe that they are saints and we are demons, then any virtue they acquire will only be wielded against us. We'd rather them be Socrates' "perfectly evil" - but inept - villains, rather than dangerous semi-virtuous half-villains.

If that seems to be a broad brush, keep in mind that we are talking only of the ideologically possessed radicals. There are still a great many intelligent and sane folks among the left who can be persuaded with reasoning, who don't resort to cries of heresy in all debates. (Racist, misogynist, etc.) We should deal with those types gently, rationally, and persistently. But the rest, who engage in politics as religion, who are not liberal like Jefferson but progressive like Marx, whose thirst for vengeance is only limited by their lack of real power...they should be tormented towards insanity. Pull gently on the moderates, and kick the radicals as hard as you can.