Beyond Reason

Several conditions may be identified that contribute to the preservation of the deeply held political beliefs and ideals discussed here. Most obviously, it is always easier to retain familiar, internalized beliefs, held over long periods of time, than to discard them. The greater the length of time invested in a political cause or movement, the more difficult it becomes to abandon it. Many of the well-known representatives of these enduring beliefs are of advanced age or are deceased. What they have in common are core convictions about the corruptions and injustices that, in their view, define American society. Hatred of the enemy--the United States--led to solidarity with the enemies of that enemy, who could be communist dictators, third-world autocrats, Islamic fanatics or domestic terrorists.

The other major factor in the durability of these beliefs is their centrality to the sense of identity of the individuals concerned. When political beliefs and actions satisfy important emotional needs and bolster a favorable self-conception, they are likely to endure. Resisting political disillusionment was important to Western intellectuals whose sense of identity rested in large measure on their self-conception as fighters for social justice and righteous critics of the corruptions of their society. Favorable disposition toward communist systems and movements often complemented this role. While the latter greatly diminished, the aversion toward their society did not. This aversion seemed to more profoundly determine their attitudes than the alternatives embraced.

Political beliefs are also more likely to endure when they are shared with a group or subculture. Breaking with the beliefs results in the loss of important human bonds, social connections and friendships.

Of further importance, Western intellectuals who resisted reappraisals of their ideological convictions were spared the personal experience of living in communist societies. For those in the West, the unappealing attributes of communist systems remained abstractions that could not compete with, or undermine, high political expectations nurtured by leftist ideals.

The single most important factor that enables the individual to retain radical leftist (or other radical) beliefs is the capacity to dissociate ends from means, theory from practice, ideals from realities. Such a capacity rests on what Arthur Koestler called "the doctrine of unshaken foundations"--the overwhelming, superior moral importance attributed to the ends, which allow the individual to overlook, or altogether dismiss, the human costs of their pursuit.

Paul Hollander is the author of the forthcoming work The End of Commitment: Revolutionaries, Intellectuals and Political Morality, from which this essay is adapted. His works include Soviet-American Society: A Comparison (1973), Political Pilgrims (1981), Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad (1992) and Political Will and Personal Belief (1999). He also edited more recently Understanding Anti-Americanism (2004) and From the Gulag to the Killing Fields (2006).