After resigning from office, Richard Nixon spent nearly 2 years away from public life. He re-emerged when a British journalist named David Frost asked to conduct a lengthy interview with him. The most enduring single statement to emerge from that interview was this:
“Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
That was Nixon’s response to Frost’s question about whether it was acceptable for a US President to do something illegal if it is in the best interest of that nation. I had always assumed that this concept was universally condemned at the time, but as I look around at other Americans and their political opinions now, it seems that a lot of people agree with this kind of thinking. Most notable of late is this unspoken edict:
When Israel does it, it is not a genocide.
I said it was unspoken, but it is spoken in a very specific way:
Israel has a right to defend itself.
Certainly, Israel — and any other nation — has a right to defend itself, but when that phrase is applied to situations where Israel was clearly not “defending” but rather attacking, destroying, invading, conquering, colonizing, burning, raping, dismembering and maintaining an apartheid state in direct opposition to international law, while intentionally committing war crimes, the meaning of the phrase is clearly something more than its literal meaning.
Someone in my family is a little obsessed with video essayist Jacob Gellar, and his video Does Call of Duty Believe in Anything? really digs into the heart of this concept. Call of Duty is a video game where you play as an American soldier, but while a soldier is quite possibly the most political thing a person can be, Call of Duty‘s producers claim that the game is not political. Spoilers for that video are ahead, but I’ve watched that video 3 times now, and I can tell you that knowing the answer does not really spoil the video. (Jacob Gellar’s videos are also available on Nebula, where he’s allowed more creative freedom, so the videos you’ll find there are better versions of the ones he posts to YouTube.)
The answer is that, in a sense, Call of Duty does not believe in anything. In another sense, though, the answer is that Call of Duty believes that “we” are good people, and that whatever good people do is good. If that sounds like a Nixon level of narcissistic subjectivity, that’s because it is. We are the good guys, so when we kill people, it is good; even if we are killing babies with white phosphorous, our actions are the best possible actions. On the other hand when they (the enemy) kill people, it is bad, because they are the bad guys; never mind killing babies — the bad guys must completely submit because any other action is evil. In fact, the only way for the bad guys (who are, by definition, anyone who is not on our side) to be good is to stop existing. Even peacefully protesting “our” violence is unacceptable; even pointing out that it exists is unacceptable.
The really interesting thing about that concept is that it is a principle shared by Democrats and Republicans. When I say “Democrats and Republicans”, I am specifically talking about people who actively claim those labels (e.g., Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal) and not people who begrudgingly darken the circle next to the name of a Democrat or Republican while actively hating that person.
It isn’t just that Democratic and Republican Americans believe that their soldiers are all good guys, and it isn’t just that they believe any military action the US takes as a whole must be good. Those things are both certainly true, but this halo of goodness extends to many of our allies because those Democrats and Republicans have decided that those people are like us; they are American by proxy. In a way, those Americans see the whole planet as being part of America, and in the context of empire, they’re correct about that in a way. German industrial band Rammstein has a whole song about it (here it is with English subtitles) and they are not pleased. In essence, the White House plays the tune, and the whole world is obliged to dance.
How did the Muslims end up being the enemy? The West started it with their invasions, and then when Islamic nations chose to fight back instead of submit or, better yet, participate, they became the bad guys because, remember, the bad guys are anyone who is opposed to the good guys, and we are the good guys specifically because we are us (and no other reason).
Wilhoit’s Law states that:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Unspoken, but strongly implied, within Wilhoit’s Law is that the in-groups are presumed to be good, and the out-groups are presumed to be bad. In-groups are protected and not bound because they are the good guys, and whatever they do is good because they are the good guys. They are also us, but we are obviously the good guys because we are us. In contrast, they (the out-groups) must be bound because whatever they might do would be bad, and, for the same non-reason, they ought not be protected.
When a Republican-style conservative says that we should avoid moral relativism, what they mean is that we must not reject the in-group’s inherent goodness; i.e., we must not start basing morality on an ethical analysis of our actions because then, we would stop being the in-group. This is the thing that both Democrats and Republicans are terrified of: Becoming the out-group.
Democrats and Republicans are both conservatives. The difference between the two comes down to which groups they see as in-groups and out-groups, but they agree on certain groups, including nations such as Britain and, of course, Israel. The difference between conservativism and fascism is that conservativism is the static idea (as described by Wilhoit) whereas fascism is the idea put into action.
The fact that fascism reflects complete unreason is a direct result of how it must rationalize action in service to the central idea of conservativism, that we are good because we are us. My initial example was this idea that, “Israel has the right to defend itself,” which is true, but really means, Israel has the right to do whatever it wants, including stealing people’s homes, murdering children, bombing hospitals, and even killing their own citizens, which is how almost all the civilian deaths on October 7, 2023 occurred according to the Israeli press. “An investigation by Haaretz in July 2024 concluded that the directive had been used on several occasions on that day, starting with a 7:18 a.m. order for the situation at Erez border crossing.”
Consider this:
“White people have the right to defend themselves.”
Again, the literal meaning of that statement is true, but the literal meaning isn’t what matters or even what is intended when someone makes that claim. Let’s try something else.
“Straight people have a right to defend themselves.”
Again, literally true. Perfectly fine when taken literally, but it isn’t meant to be taken literally. It is a dog whistle whose implied meaning is far greater, more complex, and completely sinister. Right-wing gun rights advocates take the idea to the extreme of subjective narcissism:
“I have the right to defend myself.”
It’s certain very true when taken literally, but we know that they mean they believe they have the right to kill anyone that they are afraid of, and that their perceived enemies do not have the right to fight back or even defend themselves.
In stark contrast to Democrats and Republicans, leftists mostly abide by the concept of “critical support” which means that leftists will support the side that is actually good (rather than simply “good because they are us”) and, moreover, intends to embrace criticism of the groups it supports because we all make mistakes. Given enough evidence, the left will reject groups whose actions are, on the balance, bad, but will also support the group being victimized in cases where both sides are bad.
While conservatives claim that it is moral relativism whenever the left criticizes both sides, the truth is that conservativism represents the maximum extent of moral relativism. Normally, moral relativism means that morality varies based on culture; most moral philosophers, liberals, and leftists disagree with moral relativism based on culture but do believe the cultures of others should be respected as much as possible.
Conservative moral relativism is not based on culture; if it were, they would apply the same rules and punishments to their own group that they apply to others. They do not. Take, for example, stealing an election by interfering with the vote count. When the enemy does this, they are evil and should be locked up. When conservatives do it, it’s the right thing to do because they are doing it, and they are good. You may be thinking, well, then how are the Democrats conservative? They accuse the Republicans of being undemocratic, but then either forego a primary process or put their thumb on the scale to make sure their pre-approved candidate wins. I say “thumb” but it is more like a whole hand. While these two kinds of anti-democratic action are different, they are both clearly anti-democratic and I’m really not sure which one is worse — at least with the Republican system, you could potentially end up with a socialist candidate. In fact, about half of the arguments Trump used to win the 2016 were socialist talking points.
Related: Trump as Threat to Democracy