Nietzsche and the American Right

In My Humble Opinion
1

I have a perspective on the American right that I haven’t heard anyone else share. I feel that I have a unique perspective in that I grew up in north Idaho among extreme right-wingers, but am now very liberal. I’ve also read a bit about Nietzsche (wiki and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, no primary sources), and what I read about his ideas about Christians and people that we now consider right-wing seem completely spot-on.

I often hear some other liberals claim right-wingers exist because of a lack of education or because of online echo-chambers. As if the right-wingers are unreasonable simply becourse they don’t know any better. I think this viewpoint is extremely naive, and as far as I can tell is only held by those who don’t have significant (i.e, decades worth) 1-on-1 experience with extremists.

My understanding of Nietsche’s ideas (which I feel are far more accurate) is that these people have completely internalized being poor and incapable of controlling their destiny. For generations they haven’t had the money to do what they want, the jobs they really want to do, or the romantic relationships they really want. For various reasons (I think it is the culture not teaching the right skill-sets), they are utterly incapable of getting anything they actually want out of life. They have internalized this, and now believe that enjoying life in this way is impossible. This sort of belief warps how your brain works. Your brain cannot survive always believing you forced to be at the bottom of society. So instead, they believe that they are this way due to purposeful choice and not lack of ability. That is, they believe they are poor because it is immoral to have money. They are chaste because it is immoral to have sex. They are sick because it is wrong to have healthcare, etc… I think this viewpoint explains quite a lot of the christian religion, the belief all these things are so enjoyable but lead to evil. Of course, this naturally leads to the belief that everyone who has any of these things (i.e. politicians and scientists) is fundamentally evil (and this belief is driven significantly by jealousy).

I think the major reason right-wing supporters are so incapable in obtaining stuff is that they (and their culture) completely miss the importance of relationships. They TALK a lot about how important relationships are, but their actions clearly demonstrate otherwise. (my friendships became so much better when I left the church!). One example of the effect this has is a story I heard from a pastor about a church member who stopped going to church, and as a result started drinking, becoming depressed, having a very hard time. The pastor convinced this person to come to church again, and the members life started to pick up and become better. They both attributed this affect to God. I think, however, the real effect is quite obvious. This member had no concept of the importance of relationships and so probably had no significant social contact outside the church. This lack of social contact caused depression. Once the man started going to church again he started to get the social contact he needed, thus relieving the depression. In this case I’m making a leap assuming the man had no contacts outside of church, but I’ve heard so many similar stories and have seen this behavior so often first-hand that I strongly believe this interpretation is accurate.

I’m sorry for the wall of text, but all these thoughts are closely connected. I’m curious of what the rest of you think. Does anyone know Nietzsche better than I tell me if my understanding of his is even semi-accurate? Does this match your experience of right-wing extremists?

2

Nietzsche wrote a lot of stuff about Christianity, which is well worth reading, but his problem with it is that it is “nihilistic” and does not overcome the paralysis of the spirit. Not specifically about enjoying life too much or too little, but the idea that this world (as opposed to some illusory realm) is not important, a denial of life. There is a lot of this kind of stuff in “The Anti-Christ”. The stuff about priests weaponizing weakness and the resentment of the poor and incapable against the knightly-aristocratic-warrior class also occurs in the polemic “On the Genealogy of Morals”.

3

The OP’s theories fail to explain several things; for example, the existence of “Prosperity Gospel” beliefs (it’s woefully incorrect theology, but a lot of self-proclaimed “Christians” believe it); the existence of highly successful Christian businessmen, such as R. G. LeTourneau; the existence of extremely conservative Christians that I personally have known who believe that it is almost a religious duty to save for retirement; the existence of people like John Wesley, who famously preached a sermon, “Earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can.”

Far from believing that it’s immoral to have money, a lot of the political and religious conservatives that I grew up with believe that IF you have money, and you don’t freely give it to help religious and/or charitable works, that that’s immoral. A lot of people will suggest that giving away 15% of your income is the minimum reasonable amount (10% to the church, and 5% to secular charities). Nor have I personally run across anybody who believes that healthcare is immoral. On the contrary, I have heard people pray in church, when somebody is sick, that God will guide the doctors to the correct diagnosis and treatment.

4

More generally speaking, it isn’t true that the very poor tend to be very conservative. If you’re talking about a specific group of Idaho extremists, I think you’re going to come to different conclusions from what you’d identify as the characteristics of people who are “incapable in obtaining stuff” broadly.

5

The question that really needs to be asked about OPs hypothesis is why does it seem to primarily appeal to white, christian men? I don’t see black women marching in the street demanding fascism.

I think the root cause is the great replacement theory. People who identify as in groups (whites, men, christians, native born, etc) are seeing their relative sense of status, power and priviledge going away as out groups (non-whites, women, atheists, muslims, immigrants) grow in both number and power. I think there is a deep seated fear that when white christians become the minority, they will be treated the same way that they treat minorities. White christians are terrified of losing control and being treated the way they treat blacks, muslims and immigrants. Hence why they are undermining democracy with a thousand cuts so they stay in power despite being the minority group. In the late 70s, around 80% of Americans identified as white christians. Now that number is closer to 40-45%.

I don’t think you can really explain the far right outside of the lens of identity politics based on race, religion and gender. Weren’t 80% of people who stormed the capitol building on 1/6 white men, despite white men only making up 30% of Americans at this point?

Paul Waldman’s column in Tuesday’s Washington Post was rooted in one compelling statistic, borrowed from research done by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape, who analyzed the identities of the 377 people who were arrested in the violent, lethal, Trump-incited Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol Building.

The 377 people did not come from pro-Trump counties. In fact, the majority of them came from “blue counties that [Joe] Biden won comfortably,” Pape found. But he also analyzed recent demographic changes in the home counties of the protesters, leading him to this finding:

“By far the most interesting characteristic common to the insurrectionists’ backgrounds has to do with changes in their local demographics: Counties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges.”

To restate that for emphasis or clarity: Those protesters who did enough to get arrested and charged with crimes came from counties that both were carried by Biden, and, while still majority white, have recently experienced a significant increase in non-whites in their populations.

6

Don’t know about Nietzsche, and can’t speak to individual cases: but it isn’t true, overall, that people are on the American right because they’re poor.

People with more money voted for Trump more than did those with less money.

According to exit polling in the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States, 57 percent of surveyed voters making less than 50,000 U.S. dollars reported voting for former Vice President Joe Biden. In the race to become the next president of the United States, 54 percent of voters with an income of 100,000 U.S. dollars or more reported voting for incumbent President Donald Trump.

ETA: I’m guilty by using that cite of conflating “the American right” with Trumpists; but it’s a lot easier to find a cite for that than one for average income of anti-Trump conservatives and right-libertarians. The ones I know of have money; but that’s insufficient data.

7

I believe what you are referring to is related to what Nietzsche called “master-slave morality”.

“Master morality” essentially believes that “individuals define what is good based on whether it benefits that person and their pursuit of self-defined personal excellence”. Basically exerting one’s own will through strength and excellence. Strength, wealth, power, prestige, are characteristic of master morality.

“Slave morality” attempts to devalue what the master has and the slave does not - strength, wealth, power, sexual awesomeness, whatever. Where the master defines morality, the slave is defined by it. Rather than asserting their own will, the slave attempts to subvert that which the master values as “good”. Humility, kindness, empathy are characteristic of slave morality.

As it pertains to Christianity, Nietzsche believed that Christianity attempted to apply slave theory universally to mankind (master and slave alike). Basically making all men “slaves” to a greater power.

I’m not completely sure how Nietzsche fits in with modern American politics. Nietzsche’s theory of the Übermensch (superman) has often been co-opted by white supremacists (including the Nazis). It also seems to align with Libertarianism and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism in its embracing of elevating humanity through the pursuit of individual achievement. It would also seem to align in their negative of more liberal sensibilities.

8

I’m not certain how well my OP pertains to prosperity gospel. Jealousy is an inherently contradictory thing, so I’m not surprised when I see this type of person call someone else evil for getting/doing something they want. e.g., going on and on about the evils of gossip just before going to gossip. I’d have to spend some time with prosperity gospel folks before I really decide if my OP makes sense for them or not.

I agree that my OP fails to explain the racial dynamic. Though, I do think it helps explain why the right are so racist in the first place. “Why does my life suck? It must be those evil people who are jealous of my morality! Who are the evil people? Obviously the ones that don’t look like me! (as well as those who have a better life then me!)”

I think a good example of this is my family who LOVE Folgers coffee. When we were still married, my now-ex and I visited them. She really likes fine/specialty coffee, and shared this interest with them. They scoffed and teased her about. Not so openly that I could get upset at them about it, but they clearly thought less of her because she enjoyed better coffee then them. Their history of Folgers is, of course, due to a long history of not being rich enough to enjoy nice coffee. BTW, this branch of my family lives mostly in Minnesota, this jealousy-driven morality isn’t an Idahoan-only phenomena.

Another good example is the famous meme: “It may not be much, but it’s god-honest work!”. I.e., the work sucks but that is okay because it is more moral than work that isn’t “god-honest” (probably scientists or lawyers if I had to guess from experience).

The last post seems to sound close to what I thought I knew about Nietzsche, but seems to describe something almost exactly opposite my OP.

9

Here is a thesis summarizing Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity:

10

I’ve never heard or seen the phrase “god-honest work.” What I’ve often heard and sometimes seen is “good honest work”; and a google search turns up almost nothing for the phrase “god honest work”. Are you sure you aren’t mishearing? though it’s possible that your immediate acquaintance says it that way.

And I still think that the fact that there are a lot of people with money on the American Right (see post #6; also posts #3 and #4) makes your claim in the OP that the reason people are on the right is because they’re stuck in poverty invalid.

11

Well IMHO the right are racist because the right tends to believe in a very Nietzschean concept that some humans are inherently superior to others. And they like to believe that they are part of that superior group of humans. Their basis for that often being that they descended from more advanced and enlightened European countries. Their ancestors arrived earlier in America’s history, helping in America’s establishment and thus giving their descendants a greater claim to American culture. They believe they work harder at jobs that are more legitimate. And because they are religious, that believe that all of this is the manifestation of God’s will.

So what they tend to see with immigrants, LGBT, Liberals or other people who don’t fall into their particular narrow world view are “sub-humans” or at best “others” who don’t share their values and are threatening their way of life through short-cuts.

The “Folger’s effect” you describe is a common “provincialism” I have witnessed with my own poorly-educated, less affluent, rural inlaws.

12

Well, then …

… is entirely based on hearsay. Read him for yourself. Nietzsche is one of those philosophers who has often been twisted out of all recognition by others’ interpretations of his work.

13

I don’t know anything about Nietzsche, but IMO you’ve got this backwards. Seems to me the right value family, community and relationships a lot more than the left. (Or maybe it is a rich vs poor thing, but you seem to be equating them…) Broadly, the right stay in one community, whereas the left move away for education and to find better jobs, leaving family and friends behind. The right expect if someone has problems their friends and family will rally round and help them; for the left it’s the government’s job to look after them. The right live in small towns where everyone knows everyone else; the left live in big impersonal cities where you may not even speak to your neighbours.

14

Seconded. And if the OP insist on talking about Nietzsche without reading him, at least read something written by someone serious. Walter Kaufmann comes to mind: perhaps a bit dated, but clear and respectful keeping a healthy distance. Here is a cheap hard cover in Amazon.

15

I appreciate the tips for resources of summaries about Neitzsche to read. I never wanted to claim (here at least) that I understand Neitzche. Though, I should probably be more careful on this IRL.

I could certainly have miss-heard good-honest work, but I don’t think this changes my point. They clearly believe that some work is more “honest” than others, and conservatives tend to view hard labor as more honest than more intellectual work.

I can’t believe that it tends to be wealthier people who vote more republican. Here is a site that shows that wealthier people vote more democrat: The Inverted New Deal: Elites Vote Democratic; Working-Class, Republican | The Daily Yonder

This website claims, like the posts above, that wealthier people are more likely to be republican: Economic Demographics of Democrats & Liberals – Politics & Debt. However, like the cites above it shows no supporting plots. In addition, it shows Idaho as democrat leaning, which is ludicrous. In addition, we know the wealthier states (e.g., California and New York) generally tend to lean democrat (I think Texas is one of the few exceptions).

Certainly the right believes they are superior But WHY? It is because, in their eyes, they suffer like a good moral person should.

The right CLAIMS to value relationships more, but I’ve observed that they actually don’t. As “Hate lives in a small town” by Aurelio Voltaire says:
“When you’re heading to a small town, they’re as nice as can be But then at night they put on sheets and hang your sad ass from a tree!”

Right-wingers love small towns because they don’t have the social skills to live in a close-packed community like an apartment complex. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with conservatives when they go on about how much they hate big cities because they can’t deal with all the people. They have constant fantasies about going off and living in the mountains (which they often turn into reality) because they can’t stand being close to other people. We know that conservatives cannot get along with anyone with even slightly different beliefs.

The conservatives I’ve known will go ON and ON and ON about how much they love their family. But the instant one family member exposes that they’ve been abused by another, the family will turn on the abusee and defend the abuser faster than you can blink.

Conseratives don’t value relationships. They value a heard that they can hide in, like zerbras.

16

That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

It takes a lot more social skills to live in a small town than in an apartment complex. In apartment complexes you can be anonymous if you want; and sometimes whether you want to or not.

Not sure what you mean by “supporting plots.” What it and the one I cited do provide, and what the one that agrees with you doesn’t provide, is information about where they got their percentages from.

Because you have trouble believing it doesn’t make it not so.