When the merely militant are called radical: Fascism and the false politics of rage

(Comment published in New York Times online, reply to: “What’s wrong with radicalism?” by David Brooks, December 11, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/opinion/radicalism-trump-moore.html?comments:)

Part of what Brooks is criticizing is a nihilistic mood based on a political culture of antagonism that can well be gratuitous. It is a culture that easily confuses radicalism with militancy. 

It is also, and increasingly with social media, one of gratuitous feuds based on idle chatter, a semblance of true political contestation that fits with our media-based ad hominem and representational culture, where celebrities are authorized to spout opinions and model personalities, and social problems are reduced to the individual guilt of one of these representatives. 

It is a culture that promotes gratuitous rage, and that is not afraid to make enemies and spout hatred. 

Anger and militancy do not make you radical; they just tie you more implacably to whatever you are for and against whatever you are against. In America, it is easy to mistake militancy and radicalism, and many would-be radicals have done so. It works because people are looking for this and find it gratifying. 

Let us pursue our own collective interests, some seem to say, or defend our easily wounded vanity, or exercise repression (in the name of liberation as empowerment) "by any means necessary," which was once a radical slogan. Fascism is in part a radicalism of sentiment and false contestation that only serves an increasingly authoritarian state and its war against the poor and vulnerable, partly by sharing and promoting its dominant mood.