You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘History’ category.
The Age of Discovery was not a morality play. It was a capability leap. Between the late 1400s and the 1600s, Europeans built a durable system of oceanic navigation, mapping, and logistics that connected continents at scale. That system reshaped trade, ecology, science, and eventually politics across the world.
None of this requires sanitizing what came with it. Disease shocks, conquest, extraction, and slavery were not side notes. They were part of the story. The problem is what happens when modern retellings keep only one side of the ledger. When “discovery” is taught as a synonym for “oppression,” history stops being inquiry and becomes a single moral script.
What the era achieved
The Age of Discovery solved practical problems that had limited long-range sea travel: how to travel farther from coasts, how to fix position reliably, and how to represent the world in a form that could be used again by the next crew.
Routes mattered first. In 1488, Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope and helped establish the sea-route logic that linked the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean world. That made long voyages less like stunts and more like repeatable corridors.
Maps made it scalable. In 1507, Martin Waldseemüller’s map labeled “America” and presented the newly charted lands as a distinct hemisphere in European cartography. In 1569, Mercator’s projection made course-setting more practical by letting navigators plot constant bearings as straight lines. These were not aesthetic achievements. They were infrastructure for a global system.
Instruments and technique followed. Mariners relied on celestial measurement, and Europeans benefited from earlier work in the Islamic world and medieval transmission routes that carried astronomical knowledge and instrument development into Europe. This is worth stating plainly because it strengthens the real point: the Age of Discovery was not magic. It was the synthesis and scaling of knowledge into a logistical machine.
Finally, there was proof of global integration. Magellan’s expedition, completed after his death by Juan Sebastián del Cano, achieved the first circumnavigation. Whatever moral judgments one makes about the broader era, this was a genuine expansion of what humans could do and know.
What it cost
The same system that connected worlds also carried catastrophe.
Indigenous depopulation after 1492 was enormous. Scholars debate the causal mix across regions, but the scale is not seriously in dispute. One influential synthesis reports a fall from just over 50 million in 1492 to just over 5 million by 1650, with Eurasian diseases playing a central role alongside violence, displacement, and social disruption.
The transatlantic slave trade likewise expanded into a vast engine of forced migration and brutal labor. Best estimates place roughly 12.5 million people embarked, with about 10.7 million surviving the Middle Passage and arriving in the Americas. These are not “complications.” They are central moral facts.
And the Columbian Exchange, often simplified into “new foods,” was a sweeping biological and cultural transfer that included crops and animals, but also pathogens and ecological disruption. It permanently altered diets, landscapes, and power.
A reader can acknowledge all of that and still resist a common conclusion: that the entire era should be treated as a civilizational stain rather than a mixed human episode with world-changing outputs.
The Exchange is the model case for a full ledger
A fact-based account has to hold two truths at once.
First, the biological transfer had large, measurable benefits. Economic historians have argued that a single crop, the potato, can plausibly explain about one-quarter of the growth in Old World population and urbanization between 1700 and 1900. That is a civilizational consequence, not an opinion.
Second, the same transoceanic link that moved calories also moved coercion and disease. That is not a footnote. It is part of the mechanism.
The adult position is not denial and not self-flagellation. It is proportionality.
Where “critical theory” helps, and where it can deform
Critical theory is not one thing. In the broad sense, it names a family of approaches aimed at critique and transformation of society, often by making power, incentives, and hidden assumptions visible. In that role, it can correct older triumphalist histories that ignored victims and treated conquest as background noise.
The failure mode appears when the lens becomes total. When domination becomes the only explanatory variable, achievement becomes suspect simply because it is achievement, and complexity is treated as apology. The story turns into prosecution.
One can see the tension in popular history writing. Howard Zinn’s project, for example, explicitly recasts familiar episodes through the eyes of the conquered and the marginalized. That corrective impulse can be valuable. But critics such as Sam Wineburg have argued that the method often trades multi-causal history for moral certainty, producing a “single right answer” style of interpretation rather than a discipline of competing explanations. The risk is that students learn a posture instead of learning judgment.
A parallel point is worth making for Indigenous-centered accounts. Works like Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s are explicit that “discovery” is often better described as invasion and settler expansion. Even when one disagrees with some emphases, the existence of that challenge is healthy. It forces the older story to grow up.
But there is a difference between correction and replacement. Corrective history adds missing facts and voices. Replacement history insists there is only one permissible meaning.
Verdict: defend the full ledger
Western civilization does not need to be imagined as flawless to be defended as consequential and often beneficial. The Age of Discovery expanded human capabilities in navigation, cartography, and global integration. It also produced immense suffering through disease collapse, coercion, and slavery.
A healthy civic memory holds both sides of that ledger. It teaches the costs without denying the achievements, and it refuses any ideology that demands a single moral story as the price of belonging.
References
Bartolomeu Dias (1488) — Encyclopaedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bartolomeu-Dias
Recognizing and Naming America (Waldseemüller 1507) — Library of Congress
https://www.loc.gov/collections/discovery-and-exploration/articles-and-essays/recognizing-and-naming-america/
Mercator projection — Encyclopaedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/science/Mercator-projection
Magellan and the first circumnavigation; del Cano — Encyclopaedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ferdinand-Magellan
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Juan-Sebastian-del-Cano
Mariner’s astrolabe and transmission via al-Andalus — Mariners’ Museum
European mariners owed much to Arab astronomers — U.S. Naval Institute (Proceedings)
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1992/december/navigators-1490s
Indian Ocean trade routes as a pre-existing global network — OER Project
https://www.oerproject.com/OER-Materials/OER-Media/HTML-Articles/Origins/Unit5/Indian-Ocean-Routes
Indigenous demographic collapse (1492–1650) — British Academy (Newson)
Transatlantic slave trade estimates — SlaveVoyages overview; NEH database project
https://legacy.slavevoyages.org/blog/brief-overview-trans-atlantic-slave-trade
https://www.neh.gov/project/transatlantic-slave-trade-database
Potato and Old World population/urbanization growth — Nunn & Qian (QJE paper/PDF)
Click to access NunnQian2011.pdf
Critical theory (as a family of theories; Frankfurt School in the narrow sense) — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
Zinn critique: “Undue Certainty” — Sam Wineburg, American Educator (PDF)
https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2012-2013
Indigenous-centered framing (as a counter-story) — Beacon Press (Dunbar-Ortiz)
https://www.beacon.org/An-Indigenous-Peoples-History-of-the-United-States-P1164.aspx
In the world of advocacy and human rights, consistency is more than just a virtue—it’s what gives our principles real meaning. Recently, a comment on social media highlighted a familiar pattern: certain voices who are vocal about one cause may fall silent when similar struggles appear in a different context. It’s a reminder that if we want justice to truly be just, it must be blind to who is involved—applying the same standards to all people, regardless of race, creed, or background.
This isn’t about slamming any particular group; it’s about encouraging all of us to reflect on the importance of consistency. When we advocate for human rights, it’s crucial that we do so across the board. If a group of protesters in one country deserves our solidarity, then those in another country risking their lives for similar ideals deserve it too.
In short, “justice” in quotes should indeed be blind. Not in the sense of ignoring the nuances of each situation, but in the sense of applying our moral standards fairly and universally. By doing so, we strengthen the credibility of our advocacy and remind the world that human rights aren’t selective—they’re for everyone.
Find that tweet inspiration for this post here.
– Evidence from the Harper Era in CanadaIn Canadian political discourse, it’s a common trope—often repeated in partisan debates—that “Conservatives hate the poor.” This accusation implies that conservative governments prioritize the wealthy at the expense of low-income families, offering little to no support for those in need. However, a closer look at the record of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government (2006–2015) reveals a different story: a series of targeted policies designed to put more money directly into the pockets of low-income Canadians, working families, and vulnerable groups.
This was powerfully illustrated in a recent X post by user@GreatBig_Sea, which directly refuted the claim in response to another user’s assertion that “Conservatives have always hated the poor and working class.” The post compiled a detailed, evidence-based list of 15 major Harper-era initiatives, backed by official records and Statistics Canada data showing measurable reductions in poverty and low-income rates during that period.Key Harper-Era Policies Supporting Low-Income CanadiansThe Conservative approach emphasized tax relief, direct cash transfers, and incentives to encourage work and family stability—rather than large-scale institutional programs. Here are some highlights from the post:
- Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB, 2006; expanded 2015): Provided $100/month per child under 6 (later $160), plus $60/month for ages 6–17. This universal payment went to all families, delivering $1,200–$1,920 annually per young child to help with living or childcare costs—directly benefiting low-income households without means-testing stigma.
- Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB, 2007; precursor to Canada Workers Benefit): A refundable credit topping up earnings for low-wage workers (up to $1,000 for singles, $2,000 for families), reducing the “welfare wall” and making work more rewarding.
- Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP, 2008): Government matching grants up to 300% plus bonds up to $1,000/year for low-income families with disabled members.
- Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA, 2009): Allowed tax-free growth and withdrawals, helping low-income Canadians build emergency savings.
- Children’s Fitness and Arts Tax Credits (2006–2014 expansions): Up to $500–$1,000 per child, made partially refundable for low-income families.
Other measures included enhanced GST/HST credits, public transit tax credits, caregiver credits, and increased funding for First Nations child welfare. These weren’t trickle-down theories—they were direct transfers and credits that disproportionately aided lower-income groups.Measurable Impact: Poverty and Low-Income Rates DeclinedStatistics Canada data corroborates the effectiveness of these policies:
- Child poverty under the Market Basket Measure (MBM, Canada’s official poverty line since 2018) showed improvement during the Harper years, with overall poverty at 14.5% in 2015 (the benchmark year for federal targets).
- Low-income rates using the after-tax Low Income Measure (LIM-AT) fell from around 13–14% in the mid-2000s to 11.2% by 2015.
- After-tax incomes for the bottom income quintile rose approximately 17% from 2006 to 2015, driven by tax cuts and benefits.
While poverty dropped more sharply after 2015 with the introduction of the Canada Child Benefit (which built on and reformed some Harper-era programs), the Harper government laid groundwork with direct supports that helped stabilize and reduce low-income rates amid the 2008 global recession.Why the Myth Persists—and Why It’s MisleadingCritics often prefer expansive government-run programs (e.g., national daycare) over direct cash to families, viewing the latter as insufficient.
Yet the Harper policies empowered parents to choose how to use the money—whether for childcare, essentials, or work incentives—while avoiding bureaucracy. As one reply to the X post noted, Conservatives focus on growing the economy and providing targeted relief to encourage participation, rather than broad welfare expansion.The original X post (available here: https://x.com/GreatBig_Sea/status/1982121517665137029) serves as a valuable, fact-checked resource in heated debates, reminding us that policy differences aren’t about “hating the poor” but about differing philosophies on how best to help them.
References:
- Original X thread and policy list: https://x.com/GreatBig_Sea/status/1982121517665137029
- Statistics Canada Dimensions of Poverty Hub (MBM and LIM trends): https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/topics-start/poverty
- Government of Canada background on Harper-era family measures: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/07/today-parents-get-child-care-payments-harper-government-1003359.html
- Wikipedia summary of Universal Child Care Benefit (with sources): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Child_Benefit
In the end, actions speak louder than slogans. The Harper record shows a commitment to practical support for low-income families—not indifference.
In British Columbia, a dangerous woke ideology masquerading as “reconciliation” is being weaponized by Premier David Eby and his inner circle to dismantle the foundations of Canadian society. As Caroline Elliott reveals in her piercing National Post opinion piece, Eby’s advisors—figures like Doug White and Dr. Roshan Danesh—promote a worldview that treats Canada’s formation as an “original sin” demanding atonement through “turbulent transition,” “rupture,” “sacrifice,” and the “utter transformation of human affairs.” This is not benign progressivism; it is extremist zealotry that views Western civilization as inherently oppressive, requiring painful societal upheaval to achieve absolution.
By framing non-Indigenous Canadians as “settlers,” “colonizers,” or “uninvited guests,” these ideologues sow division and guilt, paving the way for the erosion of property rights, economic stability, and democratic norms.
At the heart of this agenda lies the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which mandates aligning B.C. laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including taking “all measures necessary” to enforce it. Elliott highlights how this has led to precedents like the Haida agreement, which recognizes Aboriginal title over private property for the first time, and the B.C. Supreme Court’s Cowichan decision, creating profound uncertainty for landowners. Advisors like Danesh explicitly link this to colonialism’s “domino effect,” where ignoring Indigenous title “knocks down much of the foundation for certainty of fee simple property title.” What woke zealots celebrate as justice is, in reality, a calculated assault on private ownership—the bedrock of a free society—turning secure homes and businesses into contested territories subject to Indigenous jurisdiction.
This radical push extends to land-use and resource development, where officials demand Indigenous consent as the “rightful owners,” effectively halting projects and ceding control over vast public lands. NDP figures like Spencer Chandra Herbert and Christine Boyle openly advocate for the “LandBack” movement, criticizing government ownership and calling for jurisdiction to be handed over to Indigenous groups. Elliott quotes the advisors’ chilling vision of reconciliation as a “coming of age” process that renders “widely accepted practices and conventions, cherished attitudes and habits… one by one being rendered obsolete.” Such language betrays the true intent: not coexistence, but the deliberate obsolescence of Canadian traditions, values, and economic prosperity in favor of a reorganized society built on perpetual atonement.
The consequences of this woke extremism are already manifesting in an “ungovernable province,” where economic devastation looms from blocked development, property values plummet amid title uncertainty, and social cohesion fractures under the weight of imposed guilt. By prioritizing ideological purity over the public interest, Eby’s government treats disagreement as complicity in oppression, dismissing concerns as veiled racism. This is the hallmark of authoritarian zealotry: silencing opposition while pursuing a transformative agenda that benefits a narrow elite of activists and bureaucrats at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Ultimately, British Columbia’s radical reconciliation agenda exemplifies how woke ideology seeks the destruction of society as we know it—replacing merit, individuality, and rule of law with collective guilt, tribalism, and state-enforced rupture. If unchecked, this precedent will spread, undermining Canada’s sovereignty and prosperity nationwide. True reconciliation requires mutual respect and practical solutions, not the painful demolition demanded by these extremists. Citizens must resist this zealotry before the foundations of our civilized order are irrevocably shattered.
(TL;DR) – Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France warned that abstract ideals, once severed from tradition, devour the civilization that birthed them. Against the arrogance of rationalist utopia, Burke offers a philosophy of gratitude: reform through inheritance, freedom through reverence, and wisdom through time.
Edmund Burke (1729–1797), the Irish-born British statesman and philosopher, published Reflections on the Revolution in France in November 1790 as an open letter to a young Frenchman. Written before the Revolution’s worst excesses, the work is less a history than a prophetic warning against uprooting inherited institutions in the name of abstract rights.
At a time when Enlightenment rationalists sought to rebuild society from first principles, Burke defended the British constitution not as perfect but as the tested fruit of centuries of moral and political experience. Against the revolutionary attempt to remake society on metaphysical blueprints, he argued that true political wisdom rests in “prescription” (inheritance), “prejudice” (habitual virtue), and the moral imagination that clothes authority in reverence and restraint. Reflections thus became the founding text of modern conservatism, grounding politics in humility before the slow wisdom of civilization (Burke 1790, 29–55).
1. The Organic Constitution versus the Mechanical State
Burke likens a healthy commonwealth to a living organism whose parts grow together over time. The British settlement of 1688, which balanced liberty and order, exemplified reform through continuity—“a deliberate election of light and reason,” not a clean slate.
The French revolutionaries, by contrast, treated the state as a machine to be disassembled and reassembled according to geometric principles. They dissolved the nobility, confiscated Church lands, and issued assignats—paper money backed only by revolutionary will. Burke foresaw that such rationalist tinkering would require force to maintain: “The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.” The predictable end, he warned, would be military dictatorship—the logic of abstraction enforced by bayonets (Burke 1790, 56–92).
2. The Danger of Metaphysical Politics
The Revolution’s fatal error, Burke argued, was to govern by “the rights of man” divorced from the concrete rights of Englishmen, Frenchmen, or any particular people. These universal abstractions ignore circumstance, manners, and the “latent wisdom” embedded in custom.
When the revolutionaries dragged Queen Marie Antoinette from Versailles to Paris in October 1789, Burke saw not merely a political humiliation but a civilizational collapse: “I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.” The queen, for him, symbolized a moral order that elevated society above brute appetite. Once such symbols are desecrated, civilization itself is imperiled (Burke 1790, 93–127).
3. Prescription, Prejudice, and the Moral Imagination
For Burke, rationality in politics is not the isolated reasoning of philosophers but the accumulated judgment of generations. “Prescription” gives legal and moral title to long possession; to overturn it is theft from the dead. “Prejudice,” far from being ignorance, is the pre-reflective moral instinct that makes virtue habitual—“rendering a man’s virtue his habit,” Burke wrote, “and not a series of unconnected acts.”
In his famous image of the “wardrobe of a moral imagination,” Burke insists that society requires splendid illusions—chivalry, ceremony, religion—to clothe power in dignity and soften human passions. Strip away these garments and you are left with naked force and the “swinish multitude.” Culture, in his view, is not ornament but armor for civilization (Burke 1790, 128–171).
4. Prophecy Fulfilled and the Path of Prudence
Events soon vindicated Burke’s warnings: the Reign of Terror, Napoleon’s rise, and the wars that consumed Europe. Yet Reflections is not an “I told you so” but a manual for political health. Burke accepts reform as necessary but insists that it must proceed “for the sake of preservation.” The statesman’s duty is to repair the vessel of society while it still sails, not to smash it in search of utopia.
Reverence for the past and distrust of untried theory are not cowardice but prudence—the recognition that civilization is a fragile inheritance, easily destroyed and seldom rebuilt (Burke 1790, 172–280).
5. Burke’s Enduring Lesson
Burke’s insight extends far beyond the French Revolution. His critique applies wherever abstract moralism seeks to erase inherited forms—whether through revolutionary ideology, technocratic social engineering, or the cultural purism of modern movements that prize purity over continuity. The temptation to rebuild society from scratch persists, but Burke reminds us that order is not manufactured; it is cultivated.
In an age still haunted by ideological utopias, Burke’s prudence is an act of intellectual piety: to love what we have inherited enough to reform it carefully, and to mistrust those who promise perfection by destruction.
References
Burke, Edmund. 1790. Reflections on the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to that Event. London: J. Dodsley.
Glossary of Key Terms
Assignats – Revolutionary paper currency secured on confiscated Church property; rapid depreciation fueled inflation.
Latent wisdom – Practical knowledge embedded in customs and institutions, inaccessible to abstract reason.
Moral imagination – The faculty that clothes abstract power in elevating symbols and sentiments.
Prejudice – Pre-reflective judgment formed by habit and tradition; for Burke, a source of social cohesion.
Prescription – Legal and moral title acquired through uninterrupted possession over time.
Swinish multitude – Derisive term for the populace once traditional restraints are removed.
When the extremes meet, the center collapses. (TL;DR)
When the Horseshoe Hangs from the Scales explains why the far left and far right increasingly resemble each other—not in ideas, but in methods. Drawing on the metaphors of the scale and the horseshoe, this essay argues that both totalitarian idealism and populist reaction stem from the same metaphysical error: the rejection of objective reality. Only realism—humility before truth—can keep Western society from closing into a circle of coercion.
Political language often obscures more than it reveals. The familiar left–right spectrum suggests linear opposition—progressives facing conservatives across a straight divide. Yet history and experience show something stranger: as ideologies radicalize, their behavior begins to mirror one another. The further the extremes move from reality, the closer they become in method, rhetoric, and moral psychology.
In The Scales of Society (published yesterday), realism anchored the crossbar, and idealism dragged the pans downward into totalitarianism. The horseshoe adds a complementary image. Viewed from above, the scale’s pans curve toward each other like the ends of a bent spectrum. The metaphysical collapse becomes social convergence. Both metaphors describe a single process: when realism breaks, the poles of idealism meet in coercive symmetry.
The Geometry of Political Collapse
The horseshoe theory proposes that the political spectrum bends upon itself, bringing the far left and far right into proximity. Communism and fascism, though ideologically opposed, resemble one another in practice: one abolishes private property, the other subordinates it to the state; both demand absolute obedience. Each claims to redeem humanity through purity—of class or of nation—and each regards dissent as treason.
The scale explains why this happens: both extremes spring from idealism detached from reality. The horseshoe shows how it manifests: through behavioral and institutional mimicry. One describes the metaphysical axis, the other the social. Together they form a complete model of ideological deformation. The vertical collapse of realism generates the horizontal convergence of fanaticism.
From Difference to Sameness
Political polarization masquerades as difference, but when stripped of surface content, the ends often converge in identical impulses:
- Moral totalism. Each side claims moral monopoly—an absolute vision of justice or order that sanctifies any means.
- Friend–enemy logic. Politics becomes warfare. Dialogue is betrayal; neutrality, complicity.
- Collectivist ethics. The individual dissolves into the movement, valuable only as a vehicle for ideological ends.
- Epistemic closure. Truth is no longer discovered but declared; narrative replaces verification.
Arendt observed that totalitarian movements, regardless of ideology, replace empirical reality with “a fictitious world” sustained by propaganda. Popper saw the same pattern: the closed society begins when ideas become sacred and unfalsifiable. Whether draped in red flags or eagles, the architecture is the same.
What begins as opposition ends as resemblance. The revolutionary who abolishes hierarchy and the reactionary who enforces it both deny human limitation. Each demands transformation rather than reform, purity rather than compromise. The further they stray from realism, the more they mirror one another’s methods—purges, censorship, mythmaking, and ritual denunciation.
Convergence in the Contemporary West
The horseshoe is no relic of the twentieth century; its shape defines the present. In the West, the rhetoric of liberation and the rhetoric of restoration increasingly share an authoritarian grammar.
Cultural absolutism. On the progressive extreme, morality is redefined as the enforcement of inclusivity. Dissenting speech becomes “harm,” and linguistic deviation, “violence.” On the reactionary extreme, purity is national or moral rather than social, but the logic is the same: deviation equals corruption. Each side builds orthodoxy around identity.
Information control. The progressive insists on regulating “disinformation,” policing language for moral safety. The populist right responds with its own echo chambers, treating factual correction as conspiracy. Both distrust open discourse, substituting propaganda for persuasion. Truth is no longer common ground but a weapon.
Purity politics. Cancel culture and culture-war purges are functional twins. One excommunicates for heresy against equality, the other for heresy against tradition. Each side frames punishment as virtue, enforcing conformity by shame or exclusion. In both cases, moral capital accrues not from good deeds but from the public destruction of sinners.
The psychological mechanism is identical: belonging through denunciation. The horseshoe’s curve tightens as participants draw moral comfort from collective outrage. When opposing extremisms adopt the same tactics, the distance between them is illusion.
The Horseshoe Meets the Scale
The two metaphors illuminate one another. The scale shows the metaphysical error: idealism’s detachment from realism. The horseshoe shows the social consequence: the return of opposites through behavioral convergence. The result is not diversity of belief but monoculture of method.
Imagine the scales viewed from above: the crossbar of realism forms the straight backbone, but as the pans descend into idealism, they bend toward one another, forming the curve of the horseshoe. The more society abandons truth, the closer its extremes approach in both temperament and technique.
When realism—objective verification, moral humility, and factual accountability—fails, politics becomes a contest of myths. The question is no longer “what is true?” but “whose truth will rule?” In that struggle, the difference between revolutionary and reactionary becomes decorative. Both invoke moral crisis to justify compulsion; both see coercion as salvation.
Why the Center Cannot Hold Without Realism
Critics often lament the “vanishing center,” as if centrism itself could rescue political sanity. But moderation is not a position; it is a discipline—an adherence to external reality over internal fervor. The true counterweight to the horseshoe’s closure is not neutrality but realism.
Realism anchors discourse in verifiable truth: data, evidence, experience, and the acknowledgment of limits. It permits disagreement without dehumanization because it recognizes a shared world beyond ideology. Realism turns enemies into interlocutors by subjecting both to the same facts.
Idealism, by contrast, makes conflict existential. When truth depends on belief, contradiction becomes evil. The desire to perfect the world leads to the compulsion to perfect others, and the moral imagination becomes the tool of tyranny. Only realism—accepting that the world corrects us—keeps the curve of politics open rather than collapsing into a circle of extremism.
The Moral Psychology of the Horseshoe
The convergence of extremes is not merely institutional; it is psychological. Both sides attract personalities drawn to certainty, purity, and moral theater.
The late political theorist Eric Voegelin described this as “gnostic revolt”—the refusal to accept human limitation and the longing to recreate the world in one’s own image. Arendt called it “world alienation.” Each formulation captures the same impulse: the substitution of idea for reality. The horseshoe is the social geometry of that spiritual rebellion.
When entire populations internalize this mindset, societies lose the ability to distinguish moral conviction from metaphysical arrogance. Activists and autocrats alike begin to speak in the same register—of awakening, purity, and necessary sacrifice. The vocabulary of utopia is universal; only its symbols differ.
The Path Back to Reality
Escaping the horseshoe requires reattaching it to the scales—recovering realism as the crossbar that holds political difference in balance. This means restoring institutions that mediate between belief and fact: open science, free inquiry, due process, and honest journalism. It means accepting that error, not heresy, is the normal state of human reason.
Humility, not ideology, is the civic virtue realism demands. The realist admits uncertainty, revises judgment, and learns from failure. Such modesty is not weakness but strength—the discipline that prevents conviction from hardening into cruelty.
Conclusion: The Shape of Sanity
The geometry of political life reflects our metaphysics. When truth stands above us, the scales stay level and the horseshoe remains open. When truth becomes a tool of power, the scales tilt, and the horseshoe closes into a circle—opposites united in coercion.
The West’s present turbulence is not a clash of left and right but a crisis of realism. Both sides, in their extremes, are tempted by the same illusion: that belief can replace being, that will can dictate truth.
If freedom is to endure, it will not be because one ideology triumphs but because reality reasserts itself—quietly, stubbornly, as the only ground capable of bearing the weight of difference.
References
- Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951.
- Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: J. Dodsley, 1790.
- Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage, 2012.
- Lukianoff, Greg & Haidt, Jonathan. The Coddling of the American Mind. New York: Penguin, 2018.
- Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge, 1945.
- Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
- Ortega y Gasset, José. The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W.W. Norton, 1932.
Why do societies slide toward tyranny when they pursue utopia? (TL;DR)
The Scales of Society argues that the real divide in politics isn’t left versus right, but realism versus idealism. When truth yields to belief, coercion follows. From communism and fascism to modern moral crusades, history warns that abandoning objective reality tips civilization toward totalitarianism. The balance must be restored—anchored in realism, humility, and truth.
In the landscape of political philosophy, metaphors serve as intellectual scaffolding—structures that help us grasp dynamics too intricate for direct depiction. The familiar political compass, with its left–right and liberty–authority axes, sketches ideological positions but fails to reveal the deeper fracture driving modern polarization. A more illuminating image is that of a balance scale. Its crossbar represents philosophical realism—the recognition of an objective reality—while the suspended pans embody the idealist extremes of communism and fascism. This model captures not just polarization but the gravitational descent into totalitarianism that occurs when societies abandon reality for utopia.
The Core Divide: Realism vs. Idealism
Realism begins with the premise that reality exists independently of human will or perception. The wall remains whether one believes in it or not, and collision has consequences indifferent to ideology. This external order imposes limits: progress requires trade-offs, and perfection is impossible. The realist accepts these constraints, submitting theories to verification through evidence, reason, law, and experience. Responsibility and competence—not vision or zeal—earn authority.
Idealism inverts this relationship. It treats reality as a projection of consciousness, imperfect but malleable. If perception shapes the world, then changing minds can remake existence. Truth becomes what society collectively affirms. This impulse, when politicized, leads toward social constructivism and, inevitably, coercion: those who refuse to affirm the “truth” must be re-educated or silenced. A contemporary example can be seen in gender ideology, where subjective identity claims are enforced as social fact through compelled speech and institutional conformity. The point is not about gender per se but about the pattern: belief overriding biology through social pressure rather than persuasion.
The Platonic ideal—perfect, transcendent, and abstract—becomes the new absolute. The imperfect, tangible world must be reshaped until it conforms. Once utopia is imagined as possible, coercion becomes inevitable, for someone must ensure that all comply with the ideal.
The Scale and Its Balance
The realist crossbar allows for movement and balance. One may lean left toward egalitarianism, right toward hierarchy and tradition, or find equilibrium between the two. Disputes are adjudicated by verifiable standards: evidence, empirical data, or, for the religious, revelation interpreted through disciplined exegesis. Justice is blind, authority is earned, and failure prompts responsibility rather than revolution.
From that crossbar hang the chains leading to the pans—communism on the left, fascism on the right. Each represents idealism in a different costume. Descent is gradual, a shimmy downward from realism into partial idealism, then freefall into extremism. The pans have no centers: in a world of pure ideals, moderation cannot hold.
Communism imagines a belief-driven utopia—re-educate humanity into “species-being” beyond property or conflict, and paradise will emerge. Fascism demands obedience to a mythic hierarchy—sacrifice self for the community’s glory, and unity will prevail. Both subjugate reality to ideology: when facts resist, facts are crushed. From the perspective of either pan, the realist crossbar appears as the enemy’s support beam. Each seeks to destroy it, believing that only by breaking the balance can truth be realized.
Polarization and the Descent
As tension mounts, the scale begins to swing. Idealists radicalize when realism resists persuasion—utopia seems attainable but for “obstructionist” constraints. In frustration, anti-fascism justifies communism; anti-communism, fascism. The center thins as factions define themselves by opposition rather than truth. The political becomes existential: the other side must be destroyed, not debated. The mechanisms of verification—law, science, journalism, reasoned discourse—collapse under pressure. Force replaces evidence; propaganda replaces persuasion.
History confirms the pattern. The twentieth century saw communism outlast fascism, not because it was less violent but because it sold coercion through promises of emancipation. Fascism, with its naked appeal to dominance, exhausted itself; communism cloaked tyranny in moral idealism. Both ended in mass graves.
Left and Right: The Limits of Tolerance
The realism–idealism axis cuts deeper than the traditional left–right divide. The left tends toward anti-traditionalism and radical egalitarianism, seeking liberation through the dissolution of hierarchy and norm. The right inclines toward tradition and hierarchy, valuing stability and inherited order. Each contains wisdom and danger.
Tradition carries epistemological weight: customs that survive generations have proven utility—Chesterton’s fence stands until one understands why it was built. Yet tradition can ossify, defending arbitrariness or prejudice. Egalitarianism corrects injustice but becomes destructive when it denies the functional necessity of hierarchy. Even lobsters, as Jordan Peterson once observed, form dominance orders; structure is not oppression but biology. When hierarchy is treated as sin and equality as salvation, society drifts from realism into moral mythology.
The Peril of Idealism
Idealism’s danger is not merely its optimism but its refusal to recognize limits. When imagination detaches from reality, coercion rushes in to bridge the gap. The ideal cannot fail; only people can. Those who resist must be “re-educated” or “deprogrammed.” What begins as moral vision ends as total control.
The cure is humility—a willingness to let facts instruct rather than ideology dictate. Repentance, in the philosophical sense, means returning from illusion to reality, subordinating theory to evidence and loving wisdom without claiming omniscience. Realism requires courage: to see, to accept, and to act within the bounds of what is possible.
Lessons from the Twentieth Century and Beyond
The horrors of the last century—gulags, purges, and genocides—were not aberrations but logical conclusions of idealism unmoored from realism. Communism and fascism both promised transcendence from the human condition; both delivered degradation. Today, similar impulses reappear in moralized movements on left and right that treat disagreement as heresy and consciousness as the final battleground. These are not new phenomena but recycled idealisms—different symbols, same metaphysics.
In an era of manufactured crises and moral crusades, the scales remind us: cling to the crossbar. Only realism—anchored in evidence, bounded by humility, and guided by verifiable truth—permits tolerance, adaptation, and progress. When the crossbar breaks, society plunges into the abyss, and one pan’s triumph becomes delusion for all.
References
- Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1951.
- Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: J. Dodsley, 1790.
- Chesterton, G.K. The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic. London: Sheed & Ward, 1929.
- Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. London: Oxford University Press, 1943.
- Lindsay, James. Left and Right with Society in the Balance. New Discourses Lecture, 2025.
- Peterson, Jordan B. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Toronto: Random House, 2018.
- Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge, 1945.
- Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…