The Twitter discussion between Thomas Zimmer and Tom Nichols on whether MAGA is a nihilistic movement, or a white patriarchal Christian movement is worth the read, and a good discussion. However, I wanted to add to the discussion on a few things I think are missing by using a few parallels that are found in Leo Strauss’ German Nihilism. Now obviously there are quite a few differences from MAGA and the German nihilism that Strauss discusses – like the German nihilists were young, or they were atheists. But there are a few things that I believe are relevant to today’s discussion on whether MAGA is a nihilistic movement (there is actually more than a few). I hope this essay can add something worthwhile to the discussion.

Strauss defined German nihilism as the rejection of modern civilization as such. It was “not absolute nihilism, [the] desire for the destruction of everything including oneself, but a desire of the destruction of something specific: of modern civilization,” and a rejection of the “moral meaning” of this modern civilization. In other words, the German nihilists were rejecting the moral meaning that was found in the Communist, liberal or utilitarian formulations, like “to relieve man’s estate; or: to safeguard the rights of man; or: the greatest possible happiness of the greatest possible number.” Thus Strauss argued that the nihilist’s motivation for rejecting modern civilization was a “moral protest” against the “internationalism inherent in modern civilization” and against the “open society.” With that very brief summary of Strauss’ German nihilism I will move into the MAGA movement.

One cannot help but see a parallel here with the German nihilists and the MAGA movement – though the difference would be the MAGA movement is a “moral protest” against our current form of America’s liberal/democratic order. It’s also not hard to see the parallel between a moral protest against the German nihilist’s internationalism and open society of their day, and all those “build the wall” chants at Trump rallies.

There are a variety of MAGA supporters: religious fundamentalists, white nationalist groups, GOP establishment figures, grifters & opportunists, and intellectuals who see Trump as a catalyst. Because of the variety of groups in MAGA is why Nichols’ thinks the MAGA “rank and file are ideologically incoherent.” Though Nichols does agree with Zimmer that some of the “putative leaders” do have a “racist and religious fascist ideology.”

Nichols is probably correct that the rank and file MAGA supporter does not have a very articulate conception or idea of what they want for America’s future. Even the New Right intellectuals are still trying to articulate a clear and decisive definition and way forward for the Right. The ideas that the MAGA rank and file espouse are, at bottom, generally rooted in mythical conceptions of America’s past and its founding – conceptions that are often at odds with historical evidence. And, yes, some of the Q ideas from the rank and file are just downright ignorant and absurd.

To bring back Strauss’ German nihilism, he noted the nihilists “did not really know, and thus were unable to express in a tolerably clear language, what they desired to put in the place of the present world.” Strauss stated “Their Yes is inarticulate – they were unable to say more than No!” Again, it is not hard to see the parallel here. The MAGA rank and file may not have a coherent ideology (their Yes is inarticulate), but there is little doubt they are resoundingly saying No to the current form of our liberal/democratic order; and this No is what binds the various groups of the MAGA movement together. And this No has “proved however sufficient as the preface to action” – including the destructive and violent action of Jan 6^th.

Strauss went on to discuss the opponents and the problems they had of trying to refute the German nihilist’s No. He stated the opponents of nihilism “committed frequently a grave mistake” because they believed “to have refuted the No by refuting the Yes” when they pointed out the “inconsistent, if not silly positive assertions” of the nihilists. Furthermore, the opponents often “did not even try to understand the ardent passion underlying the negation of the present world.”

The vast majority of today’s anti-Trump and liberal/left pundits commit the same mistake when they focus the majority of their refutations by capturing and highlighting the stupid, inconsistent, and contradictory things spoken by Trump and the MAGA rank and file. Nichols gives a great example of this when he wrote, “white Christian men are worried about losing status. But these are Christians who don’t go to church, globalization haters who consume gobs of globalized culture, misogynists who’d freak if they had to live in the pre-sexual revolution era.”

These kinds of refutations are not even an attempt “to understand the ardent passion underlying” the MAGA movements rejection – the No! – of the liberal/democratic order – and since there are various groups, there will be various reasons for their No.  To be fair, Nichols does try to offer a reason for MAGA’s No: they are ”turn[ing] against democracy out of boredom and plenty.” I just don’t find this argument to be convincing, and think the No is more of a disaffection they have with the political elites, and a rejection of the current form that our liberal/democratic order has taken on (But that is another article). And, ironically, Nichols’ boredom and plenty thesis sorta does the same thing he accuses Zimmer of doing: wrapping MAGA all into one label.

Additionally, highlighting these contradictions and inconsistencies and then laughing, ridiculing and condemning them has only strengthened and “confirmed their beliefs.”  They had already come to doubt America’s “great authorities” (“the liberal media,” political elites & pundits) so the anti-Trump rebuttals and supposed refutations, led by the very same great authorities MAGA had already come to doubt, was just further confirmation of their beliefs and a strengthening of their No! 

MAGA rank and file will continue to follow Trump because he’s very adept at feeding the appetite of each different group’s No! To the Christian fundamentalists, he speaks to their No of a liberal world that allows gay people to marry, transgender people to live in dignity and women to have reproductive freedom. To the white nationalists, he winks and nods “stand back and stand by” and speaks to their No of living in a racially diverse and plural society. To the extremely conservative plutocrats, he gives them the Courts, and speaks to their No to the democratic order that threatens their Randian worldview, or traditional religious views.

In my opinion, academics, like Zimmer, offer a better diagnosis of the MAGA movement because it does a more thorough job a really trying to understand the ardent passions underlying the MAGA movement. And it comes closest to touching on the No that binds the various groups of the MAGA movement together. However, going back to Strauss and the problems he highlighted about German nihilism I ask myself: how the hell are we going to stop a movement that is hellbent on destroying the current form of our liberal/democratic order if our great authorities and political elites have barely addressed their No! I’m not completely sure on that, but I do think it’s worth looking at FDR and his successful fight against the plutocrats and America’s fascist movement of the 30s.

I’m not ashamed to admit, I’m a golfer. I’ve golfed my whole life. My grandpa, grandma and father taught me at a young age. I love it, just as much as I can dislike it when my game starts to fall apart. So when I see social media getting all high and mighty and dissing the game of golf because of say, Trump, or whatever triggers people these days, I feel the need to defend it. So here goes.

First, I’m reminded of a joke that Bill Maher made on Real Time. He said “while I don’t play golf, I like golf courses because they keep douchey white people off the streets.” I laughed and laughed. I also love the old George Carlin stand up bit on golf. I think these jokes are hilarious.

Here is why I don’t take offense when I hear these great jokes at the expense of golfers. Because there is some serious truth to them. It’s true there are wealthy “white, well-to-do business men who use the game to get together to make deals to carve up this country… wearing their green pants, their yellow pants, and their orange pants, and their precious little hats, and their cute little golf carts.” It’s true there are douchy white people who feel special about themselves because they belong to a very expensive country golf club.

I am happy these douchy folks are at their uptight country clubs because it keeps them not only off the streets, but off of the public golf courses. The public golf courses I play are affordable for working class people. There are some really fun and challenging public golf courses throughout this country. There are easy Par 3s as well for the beginners. These public golf courses welcome people of all ages, ability, race, and gender. I’ve met so many genuinely good people on public golf courses – some turned long time friends now. I’ve also met some weirdos who I’m glad I’ll never be paired up with again – but that’s life in the public sphere.

In this day and age, when there is a serious assault on public institutions, let’s remember public golf courses are not your enemy. It’s just a place that millions of average citizens enjoy fresh air, sometimes great scenery, being together with friends and your neighbors, and enjoying, or trying to enjoy, a truly difficult game – which is what so few who bash this sport (yes, it’s a sport! To which I’ll discuss below) don’t get.

I can already hear the protestations of “but the wasted land and wasted water.” Well, there’s certainly much more private land locked up in the hands of the wealthy and corporations than there is land granted for public golf course use. And, at bottom, when you suggest to get rid of golf courses, what you are suggesting is taking away something that millions of people enjoy on a daily basis. Talk about what a buzz kill you are. As for the water, well, watch the Bill Maher clip to see what industry is really sucking up the most water.

I can already hear the protestations of, “but golf is a racist and a patriarchal sport.” Yep, it certainly was. But wasn’t that really a problem for all of America’s institutions at one point? The demographics in golf are changing in America as we speak. A few years ago a man from Japan won the Masters, and an American female golfer, competing against women from countries from around the world, won gold at the Olympics. Let’s give it some time, and a few more generations from all backgrounds, to get introduced to the sport before we condemn it as unredeemable.

And now to the protestations of “golf is NOT a sport.” Well, first, a sport is defined as: a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job.” Golf does fit in this definition. Does it require a physical effort like a swimmer or gymnast? No. However, it absolutely does require some physical effort and a whole lot of skill. Yes, golf takes an incredible amount of skill to be a descent player. This aspect of the game is what most of the people (btw who’ve never actually played the game) don’t seem to realize.

Also, as someone who was a competitive freestyle skier, and a competitive whitewater kayaker – two pretty difficult sports – I can say that golf is the hardest sport I have ever played. Don’t want to believe what some “rando” on his blog says? Well, here’s what one of the greatest all time athletes, Michael Jordan, had to say about the game of golf: “It’s the hardest game to play.”

Anyway, that’s my defense of golf, and I’m sticking to it.

Arendt would go one step further than just the idea of people sharing a language with common meanings. She argued that the things of this world, in themselves, are common to us all. We may each have differing perspectives and relations toward the things of this world, but they will always be something each of us has in common. For example: the beautiful state capitol I pass by everyday in my city is something that is common to every person who passes by it as well. But my relation to it, or my perspective about it, is likely different from, say, those of the politician who works in the building, or somebody who might hold different political views about the government. Arendt noted that the world is like “a table [that] is located between those who sit around it.” The table gathers us together and creates a commonality among strangers, but it also separates and “prevents our falling over each other, so to speak.” Thus the things of this world are located between us and create a two-fold nature because they both relate and separate us.(9)

As the recent Supreme Court ruling came out partially in favor of the majority of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) an outbreak of debates and speculation spread across the media and into people’s everyday conversations.  There appear to be two main arguments being put forth.  The first comes from the Republicans who don’t want the government to interfere with the private sector and believe that only a market-based solution is the answer.  The second comes from the Democrats who believe that the private sector has failed to address the problems of health care access and that government needs to step in to regulate insurance companies.  However, is it possible that both parties are not honestly addressing the health care crisis because of their own ideological cant?

A basic understanding of economics shows us that a market-based approach to solving the health care crisis is not possible.  And a basic understanding of how the insurance companies operate shows us that banning bad insurance practices and forcing all U.S. citizens to buy their product may also not solve the health care crisis.  The unfortunate casualty of this ideological short-sightedness is all U.S. citizens because the best solution to the health care crisis, a medicare-for-all system, has been ignored in a rush to push ideology ahead of objective solutions.

The conservatives are upset about this bill because they would rather have the government stay out of health care and let the market solve everything.  But have they ever stopped to ask if the market is even capable of such a thing?  Empirical evidence has shown us that it is not a good way to deliver health care because that is not the market’s primary purpose – which is to maximize profits.  A research paper written by two leading public health policy experts, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, has also provided evidence to show how the private health industry is increasing costs, and not decreasing costs like the theory suggests it should.

There are a few basic elements that are required for an efficient market to work properly.  In order for the producers to operate under conditions of perfect competition requires a rigorous set of conditions – perfect information, a uniform product, many sellers and buyers, and freedom of entry and exit.  All of these things support the basic idea that sellers are price takers, producing at the lowest possible cost in the long run and earning profits.  In the health care industry the number of sellers is limited and restricted, while the number of buyers is uncontrolled and could be considered almost infinite. Add to this fact is that buyers have no freedom of exit from the health care industry. For example: The buyer says, “Well, I disagree with how much you are charging for a heart bypass, so I’ll just skip on down the street to the next guy who is doing them for cheaper.”

The above elements, along with the massive lopsidedness of information, the monopoly power of hospitals, and the atypical nature of health care are all clear violations of the perfect competition requirements for the market to function as the theory suggests.  Furthermore, in a market the price is supposed to be established not by the buyers or sellers, but through a thing called market forces – supply and demand.  In the health care industry the market forces fail to institute either price or quantity because demand is price-inelastic.  So the market has failed to establish price and quantity and the health care providers have become price-makers.  This phenomenon in economic speak is called, market failure.  So why do Republicans continue to promote privatization of health care if the private market is failing?  Market reform is a nothing short of a joke because of the inherent non-market nature of this industry. And this is all before the insurance companies even step into the picture.

The inherent function of insurance companies is to maximize shareholder value and profits, and not provide health care, as their number one objective.  This basic understanding of the health insurance industry is why the Democrats believed it was necessary to curtail some of their worst abuses.  The New England Journal of Medicine published a research article by three public health policy experts that explains how thirty-one percent of health care spending in the United States is wasted on administrative costs.  To compare, the overhead cost of running the non-profit Medicare system is three percent.  Take a moment to think about that.  Thirty-one cents of every dollar is wasted on profits for insurance executives and shareholders, advertising and the bureaucratic mess of running a patchwork system of for-profit payers.  So why do the Democrats believe it is a good solution to force all U.S. citizens to buy insurance from a system that siphons so much money out of actual health care?

The Democrat’s argument claims the ACA bill is a step in the right direction because it regulates the insurance companies from engaging in bad practices.  Ending rescission policies, ending denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, ending of lifetime caps, and expansion of Medicaid are all good things.  But what of price controls?   According to experts there are no price controls in the bill.  The idea that an insurance company can no longer deny customers insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions is a great concept, but how great of a concept can it really be if there are no mechanisms in the bill to stop insurance companies from charging whatever they want for monthly premiums and co-pays?   To make matters worse, the ACA bill forces all of us to buy into this situation.

The curious fact about the ACA bill is that so few seem to know who actually wrote the bill.  It turns out the majority of the bill was written by Liz Fowler, a former Wellpoint insurance executive.  How comfortable should we all feel that the “solution” to our health care crisis was written by a person with an obvious conflict of interest?  Liz Fowler may be a credible expert in maximizing profits for insurance corporations, but she is definitely not an objective public health policy expert like those who run Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP).

The objective solution to our health care crisis is a basic medicare-for-all system, or a single-payer system as some call it.  A single-payer system is not socialized medicine; it is a non-profit financial mechanism run by the government.  After all, why is a middle-man corporate entity allowed to make billions in profits from the sick and dying?  The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) agrees that implementing this type of system would help solve spending problems and ensure universal coverage. The GAO stated: “If the universal coverage and single-payer features of the Canadian system were applied in the United States, the savings in administrative costs alone would be more than enough to finance insurance coverage for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured.”  So why is the objective solutions coming from the GAO and PNHP ignored in favor of the solutions of an insurance policy expert?  This question and many more will definitely be things to think about as we watch how the ACA bill unfolds in our everyday lives.

Yours Truly,