A scathing satire of American politics and culture
In the tradition of George Orwell’s 1984 and Voltaire’s Candide comes a deep, and often absurd warning that if current behaviors continue, democracy in the United States could fall in an eerily similar fashion as the Roman Republic did over 2,000 years earlier.
At times hilariously inappropriate, and yet hitting today’s most important issues right in the smarts, Democracy Jones: 7/13 channels deadpan humor and the funniest aspects of the movie Idiocracy through a scifi-horror story; This book will leave you shock & awed with laughter and deep concern.
Collective narcissism by competing ideologies leads to fighting in Congress, assassinations and mob violence until the escalation reaches its natural conclusion, civil war or even a coup. The effect of which lands squarely on normal, law-abiding citizens and families who become displaced, are forced to choose a side and overwhelmingly suffer the consequences of living under the authoritarianism of an empire that grows out of the ashes of democracy.
Haisley & De’ontay are starting a new family in Ellington, a small American town
Captain Dick is the Chief of Police there, and his wife Emily is the mayor
Abra is the five year-old daughter of a rich, politically-partisan donor in town
Zeke is a revenge-driven townie whose business was cancelled by Abra’s father
They are all swept up in the tumult on 7/13/2040 when a five star general uses AI technology for his own benefit when he plans and executes a military coup.
But it’s not too late. Well before the coup takes place, Haisley Jones had been chosen to offset General Schenk. Now she must learn to harness its power in order to save democracy.
The countdown begins
Available on Audible, or Kindle, Kindle Unlimited and Paperback here
Two foreign countries, Israel and Russia, are influencing American public opinion and policy through their respective intelligence agencies, dangerously undermining US democracy.
In December, the New York Times ran a story called Screams Without Words, which detailed sexual crimes against Israeli women by Hamas on Oct. 7. The article has since been debunked and found to have been researched and written by an Israeli Defense Force intelligence soldier and her in-law. Too late though, the damage has been done as Israel has the support of the United States to eliminate Hamas while slaughtering Palestinian civilians.
At the same time, Republican members of Congress who refuse to pass funding for Ukraine, and also defend Donald Trump, initiated impeachment proceedings against President Biden and his son based on information provided by Russian intelligence. This too has been proven to be false, and yet the damage has been done in smearing Biden and justifying Trump’s candidacy even though he instigated an insurrection on Jan. 6.
These two current examples show that foreign interference in American policy and opinion is out in the open, and will influence the 2024 Presidential election through fake news from America’s “paper of record” and official Congressional lies.
As outlined in Back Circle Theory, this type of corruption degrades American democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of its media and its government.
Legitimacy is a basic condition for the use of power by a legally constituted government, and it is a lot more important than most people recognize. If Americans lose confidence in the ability of the media and government to be fair, and is instead proven to be corrupt, then it opens the door for more partisanship, mob violence and can lead to civil war or a coup.
“As the values of the government’s actors become increasingly politicized, legitimacy becomes a cancer that both sides compete against each other for a treatment. . . This back and forth of both sides claiming the other’s treatment is illegitimate. . . intensifies, enabling the cancer to metastasize until legitimacy itself dies.”*
The best way to combat the corruption that leads the country’s institutions to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizenry, is for the public to be aware of this so that it supports the Constitution’s system of checks and balances of the accumulation of power. This is done by forcing the media and its Congressional representatives to admit to wrongdoing, pay a price for the wrongdoing (accountability) and outline how they will do better in the future.
Please, do some research on these two topics of foreign intelligence interference. Tell your coworkers and friends and post about it on social media. Our democratic legitimacy is at stake.
If you’re on Audible and interested in the science fiction-horror genre, artofneed Productions & Shanachie51 Press is giving away Audible Promo Codes for Democracy Jones: 7/13.
This is a limited time offer, so please act fast. Democracy Jones: 7/13 has been getting a lot of interest lately, and we have one last giveaway that will be ending soon. The only thing we ask in return is that you write a short review on Amazon and/or Goodreads.
Satirical novel Democracy Jones: 7/13 is available on Audible
*****
A scathing satire of American politics and culture
In the tradition of George Orwell’s 1984 and Candide’s Voltaire comes a deep, and often absurd warning that if current behaviors continue, democracy in the United States could fall in an eerily similar fashion as the Roman Republic did over 2,000 years earlier.
At times hilariously inappropriate, and yet hitting today’s most important issues right in the smarts, Democracy Jones: 7/13 channels deadpan humor and the funniest aspects of the movie Idiocracy through a scifi-horror story; This book will leave you shock & awed with laughter and deep concern.
Collective narcissism by competing ideologies leads to fighting in Congress, assassinations and mob violence until the escalation reaches its natural conclusion, civil war or even a coup. The effect of which lands squarely on normal, law-abiding citizens and families who become displaced, are forced to choose a side and overwhelmingly suffer the consequences of living under the authoritarianism of an empire that grows out of the ashes of democracy.
Haisley & De’ontay are starting a new family in Ellington, a small American town
Captain Dick is the Chief of Police there, and his wife Emily is the mayor
Abra is the five year-old daughter of a rich, politically-partisan donor in town
Zeke is a revenge-driven townie whose business was cancelled by Abra’s father
They are all swept up in the tumult on 7/13/2040 when a five star general uses AI technology for his own benefit when he plans and executes a military coup.
But it’s not too late. Well before the coup takes place, Haisley Jones had been chosen to offset General Schenk. Now she must learn to harness its power in order to save democracy.
Since Democracy Jones: 7/13 was published on, you guessed it, July 13, reviews are starting to trickle in. Here are some highlights so far:
TO READ MTG101’s FULL REVIEW: (AudibleUK) This is near-future speculative fiction — cyberpunk Margret Atwood. It addresses societal and political issues stemming from both new technology and an increasingly polarised world. . . The soundscape in the book is amazing. Abstract synthwave flows in the background as sound effects punctuate the narrative. . . Of course it wouldn’t be any good if it’s just technobabble and politics. Thankfully the story is set around a small group of believable characters, spanning both sides, with a cleverly written child character that nicely allows for some quick world-setting and exposition in a relatively short story. “
TO SEE ANNIKA NILSSON’S FULL REVIEW: (Goodreads) You may not agree with Democracy Jones: 7/13, but there is no way you can ignore its powerful premise. . .The satire is such that some readers might not catch onto it, but as long as you know going into it that it’s satire, then you can understand the jokes and funny allusions. . . Even though this book takes place in 2040, it is a deep critique of the current American socio-political condition. . .
TO READ JOSH’S FULL REVIEW: (Goodreads) At this rate, we’re heading towards a coup like this much sooner than 2040. Very fast and interesting read.
TO SEE KEITH’S FULL REVIEW: (Amazon)This book is a futuristic satire about the over-rationalized critical theories of the left juxtaposed with Trumpian-style politics of the right and how, if the two sides don’t start compromising, at some point it will be too late and mutually assured destruction will set in. . .through the black smoke and the purposely absurd political rhetoric in the dialogue of the characters, there are some funny parts that had me chuckling. . . If you haven’t read Candide by Voltaire, you might think you’re supposed to take this book at face value, but it’s satire folks. Classic SATIRE!
TO SEE DAVIS STAMFORD’S FULL REVIEW: (Goodreads) Probably my favorite author at this point. Democracy Jones: 7/13 is a departure, but this short science fiction horror novel packs a humungous punch. Since the biggest reveal is in the description, I don’t think I’m giving any spoilers when I say AI software for neural chips causes a military coup in 2040 USA. And it is an epic downfall. Worse than the twin towers, Jan. 6 or anything you can think of, all rolled into one. . . Highly recommend! Loved it, hope there is a follow up to this. I’d love to see what happens after the coup.
TO READ JAKE PAUL’S FULL REVIEW: (Audible) A fun ride! Loved this adventure! The narration and sound editing were superb. Great book to listen to while I am cooking or taking a walk.
TO READ BRENNAN’S FULL REVIEW: (Goodreads) There was a lot of production that went into the audio version to make it feel like watching an action movie with all the music and sound effects. At its core this is a satire of the current political divide in the US, framed in a sci-fi dystopia near-future setting. . . Touches on some insightful things about politics and technology. Made for a very unhinged story. But very entertaining.
TO READ UILANI’S FULL REVIEW: (Goodreads) This isn’t my typical genre so it was out of my comfort zone, but still very interesting. . . If the wrong person reads this they might actually take this book at value, which i wouldn’t fault them since there’s so much that is going on currently. It’s definitely a good warning of how things could go in future without checks and balances.
TO READ TERRY’S FULL REVIEW: (Amazon) I read the paperback, but afterward I listened to the audiobook and wow, what a difference it made. The story really came alive for me after hearing the author read it. There is a level of deadpan satire that is almost imperceptible in the paperback, but really shines through in the audiobook.
TO READ ABR’S FULL REVIEW: (Amazon) The author and narrator, Eamon Loingsigh, tells a horrifying story of what America can become if left to narcissism and deadly ideologies. The characters are intensely portrayed to the extreme – Captain Dick, yes, he behaves like a dickish-type person, Abra, behaves much like one would expect a spoiled young child and the list of characters and behaviors grows. While the book had some laughable moments it also had its share of violence and shocking beliefs/behaviors.
7/28/2023 Note: Due to high traffic and interest in Democracy Jones: 7/13, the publisher has lowered prices for the paperback and Kindle versions. We are very grateful for the emerging concerns that are highlighted in this scifi horror novel and wanted to pass along savings to readers. The dangerous bifurcation of values, the reliance on rhetoric in place of sound logic and the sociopolitical antagonism we are witnessing ahead of the 2024 elections can, and should be quelled. If it isn’t, the horrifying, worst-case scenario depicted in this novel may transpire.
Today we bear witness as brash, irresponsible and unapologetic politicians and cultural influencers from the two dominant American ideologies denounce each other, while enforcing the belief systems within their own echo chambers.
This sociopolitical divide has become increasingly entrenched in the United States. Yet most Americans seem unaware of the dangers lurking behind this adversarial relationship. Most anthropologists and sociologists argue that all cultures naturally become divided. But not all become violent along those divisions.
Republicans vs. Democrats, Liberals vs. Conservatives, Socialists vs. Capitalists, however the two dominant ideologies are named is much less important as how they are becoming increasingly oppositional. To the point at which they, the country’s dominant bipolar groups, are showing respective authoritarian behaviors to gain control over the world’s unipolar power system.
—— Find out how to get a copy of Democracy Jones: 7/13HERE ——
The history of human civilizations tells us that this is a dangerous dichotomy in a democracy. Could the conflict between these oppositional ideologies continue to accelerate and result in a coup or civil war in America?
Democracy Jones: 7/13 plays out the worst case scenario; that over the next 15 years or so, that divide turns into a complete bifurcation of value systems which compete for dominance in independent democratic American institutions, as neither are able to get a clear majority.
Of course we all know the answer to solving this problem; compromise. Yet we have already travelled so far down the road of partisanship that compromise has too often become a synonym for weakness.
What could cause a civil war or coup? What would be the turning point? Wouldn’t it be gradual? Or would it be one inciting issue or event that would cause the relationship to go from oppositional to outright violent hostility?
In Democracy Jones: 7/13 I chose a technological breakthrough as the cause for the breaking point. Seemingly outside the purview of important issues that divide Americans, technology is a power structure all its own, which the worst type of demagogue would see as a great opportunity if they were able to control it.
In this scifi horror novel, it is no coincidence that the dangerous technological breakthrough that knocks the relations off its semi-peaceful axis is named Rhetoric.
Since earliest times humanity has endeavored to develop systems of organization to meet group challenges, rhetoric has been a powerful tool to consolidate power. To narrow it down, rhetoric can be defined as the art of persuasion. There is great value in all societies for those of us who have the ability to persuade people. Politicians, influencers, actors, CEOs, lawyers, philosophers and anyone placed in a position of power or leadership have a great ability to speak and act in a manner that persuades audiences to follow along, or even submit to their premises.
Rhetoric has the ability to do great and wonderful things, of course, but it also can be used for manipulative means to nefarious ends. The software for neural chips in this science fiction story was called Rhetoric by its creator Dr. O because of two main reasons; the ability to persuade people, and the dangerous effects it can have on society.
The novel’s opening sentences describe Rhetoric‘s usage as neural implant chip software that gives a user “the ability to mathematically calculate weakness in a binary opposite, deconstruct it and formulate plans to capitalize, via probabilities.”
Is it so far-fetched to believe artificial intelligence could be used to map plans for an incident that incites a civil war, an assassination or a military coup?
In the wrong hands, such as a Trumpian-style politician whose support mainly comes from the military and police in the United States of the year 2040, the consequences are devastating.
Note:Back Circle Theory is an approach to analyzing and critically interpreting American culture and politics through a Structuralist and Poststructuralist lens. It is not purely influenced by political science, but includes it, along with modes of analyses concerning sociology, social psychology, philosophy, ethnology and history.
Introduce The increased bending of truth in the United States toward ideological extremes is more than disturbing. It’s dangerous. Seemingly enemies, the far-left and the far-right have met at the back of the circle where anti-democratic and authoritarian behavior exists. This shared authoritarian psychological core is the true enemy of democracy, not the two dominant political binaries.
Define Back Circle Theory speculates American democracy will fall by the year 2040 if its citizenry does not embrace the traditional democratic norms of bipartisan compromise and invigorate the independence and legitimacy of its institutions. Taking this action is necessary to halt the trend of ideological bifurcation spreading throughout its culture and institutions. Not taking action will allow this cancerous trend to metastasize into polarized ideologies battling for control of the institutions, resulting in widespread distrust in them. This could lead, as it did during the Late Republic era of Ancient Rome, to normalized mob violence and end in a civil war or coup, removing democracy from the world’s most influential nation.
At a base level, to rely more on the back of the circle, where the extremes of both ideological spectrums meet, is to think with the back of the brain, or the basal ganglia and brainstem. This is the oldest, most primitive part where sexual drive, thirst, hunger, territorialism and procedural memory exists. In short, authoritarian behavior, or what can be described as tribalism. If we rely more on this part of the brain, we are likely to be violent, overtly sexual, predatorial or reactionary.
To rely more on the front of the circle is to think with the front of the brain, or the prefrontal cortex where reasoning, speech, and temporal organizational behavior exists. In short, to make more thoughtful, analytic and rational decisions.
In this way, Back Circle Theory argues against its namesake.
Ethnology It’s often been said that the best way to predict the future is to study the past. In this manner, we will utilize both retrospective and prospective ethnographic approaches in a cross-cultural comparison of the Late Republic era of Ancient Rome and modern American democracy, to forecast a high probability of a future outcome.
Although it is difficult to establish universal invariants in human societies separated by over two thousand years, or even during the same era, as abstract customs and values can’t be reduced to equations (see criticisms of Cliodynamics, Longue Dorée and Isaac Asimov’s Psychohistory). Still, the exercise can be fruitful in collecting patterns of similarities as data and formulating structural correlations to augur human behavior within a representative democracy in crisis. As logical, rationalistic and abstract means were used by Sigmund Freud to heuristically interpret dreams, and Claude Lévi-Strauss similarly did concerning cross-cultural myths, may we also use the same hermeneutic means to find parallels in an effort to avoid the catastrophic effect the death of American democracy would have on the world.
American democracy and the Roman Republic have often been involved in comparative studies, and is a recurring theme. The Roman Republic served as a direct model of government for the framers of the US constitution. The writer of this essay asks, if the framers of the US Constitution looked to the Roman Republic when creating its democracy, why wouldn’t we engage in a comparative framework study of the fall of the Roman Republic to negotiate the difficulties we face today?
In this comparative study, which utilizes inductive reasoning to influence a conclusion, four contributing factors are sited to have a large impact on four American democratic institutions.
Similar The main similarities in this essay concerns the cultural bifurcation and dueling mandates that occurred during both the Late Republic era in Rome, and is currently emergent in American democracy. The Late Republic era is most often cited as beginning at the murder of Tiberius Gracchus in 133BCE and ending in 27BCE with the establishment of the Roman Empire. Why the Roman Republic fell is up for debate, but many historians would agree that it was a conglomeration of events, including cultural and political bifurcation. Most citizens were forced to choose a side, as often occurs in societies experiencing unrest and civil war. Because this bifurcation lasted multiple generations, loyalties changed over time, and the cultural bifurcation accelerated in fits and starts. Eventually, Romans longed for a single person to dictate policy in an attempt to halt the madness of the double-headed serpent that had spread its venom into the bodies of so many generations of Romans.
In the United States today, there are explicit clues to the Roman Republic comparison given to us by means of escalation. Demagogues cast doubt upon the electoral system and force changes in the law, which causes the opposition to doubt future elections. The citizenry rallies to either side and everyone is seen in the ally/enemy dichotomy. Base mobilization turns into mobs, which morphs into politically motivated violence etc. This escalation, fueled by binary opposition and high-stakes elections has been described by political scientist Lee Drutman as a two-party doom loop and “why the two-party system makes resolution of the present conflict improbable.”
Although Rome did not have the type of liberal-conservative binary that exists today in America, the division in the Roman Republic can be generally drawn along the lines of Optimates and Populares. But even these abstractions become troublesome when considering the loyalty of respective armies after the Marion Reforms, and became focused on the ambitious generals who paid them.
But what can be established is that both sides shared authoritarian behaviors during the political violence, civil wars and purges of the Late Republic era that led to the establishment of the dictatorship of Augustus and the advent of the Roman Empire.
Share Behaviors Examples of shared authoritarian behavior by the American right and left today, as well as ancient Rome during the Late Republic era, vary in degree depending on the side, and include demands for political conformity, rhetorical and dogmatic attacks, hyper-subjectivism, the use of group authority to coerce independent institutions into purging competing narratives, ideological rigidity, slander and personal attacks against perceived political enemies, undermining constitutional checks and balances and delegitimizing the political independence of its institutions, breaking of norms/codes of conduct and even laws as a means for political ends, corruption, social policing of language, gaslighting, purity tests, ideological discipline among member groups, advocation of censorship to stifle opposing ideas, absolutist leadership styles, etc.
In this climate, people who can hold two conflicting ideas in their head at the same time are branded as traitors to each respective side, or simply cast as belonging to the opposing side. Cool-headed, centrist, nonpartisans are attacked as if they are in the throes of a zero sum game. Yet, the line between these two sides is not black and white. In fact there is no line at all. It is more like a circle. And we need to populate the front of that circle as best we can with appeals to open-mindedness, idea labs, allowance for opposing views, freedom of speech, demand independence for our institutions, point out ideological rigidity, discourage personal attacks, encourage free thinking and utilize more dialectical method of debate in place of rhetoric and echo chambers.
It is not illegal to call for someone to be silenced, cancelled or to discredit others’ views, so what we are speaking of is more along the lines of cultural norms. The revolutionary democratic norms outlined in the US Constitution and in the long-unwritten social agreements of the Roman Republic, in fact. Those norms call for extensive checks and balances in order to halt authoritarian attitudes before they become too powerful. These norms allow for multiple views to debate ideas, then compromise for the greater good.
The Greco-Roman writer Polybius felt as though the Roman Republic had such exceptional checks on authoritarian accumulation, that he believed it had successfully overcome history’s disturbing trends of democratic decline and eventual fall into the societal security that dictatorship offered. Call it Roman exceptionalism.
After the Roman Republic fell, the Mediterranean world was thrown into centuries of emperors, dictatorships, monarchs and tyranny. If we continue to allow authoritarian behavior to ascend today in the United States, the entire world could suffer a new dark age.
It’s time for thoughtful people to point out corrosive, anti-democratic behaviors committed by both sides. We must imagine a world where opposing sides come together in the spirit of solving real world problems by finding the highest probabilities of objective truth via compromise and reasoned argumentation. And to exclude the populist demagoguery of appealing to an audience, via the recognition that popularity is, in this climate, a fallacy of relevance.
Contributing Factors There are a number of divisive factors that both sides in the Late Republic and American democracy share which contribute to the bifurcation of values and dueling mandates, including Postmodernism, Mimetic Desire, Rhetoric and Identity.
Postmodernism As a mode of sociological analysis, postmodernism critiques the notion of universal validity, and therefore provides a vehicle to criticize shared values while emphasizing differences in American values. It’s also (in)famous for not offering viable solutions to problems, and therefore itself has been criticized for narcissistically categorizing others’ inconsistencies in place of some much-needed introspection. It’s been called a philosophy of negation. Current Postmodernist thought has a tendency toward the obsessive compulsive mind and when it finds a single speck of dust in the bathwater, it immediately throws the baby out with it.
Early in both the American and Ancient Roman societies there existed a shared acceptance of laws and norms, a collective sense of patriotism and civil responsibility, a uniting religion, and the stubborn belief that disagreements between competing ideologies need to be resolved via concessions from both sides.
In both the Late Republic and modern American democracy, these shared values degraded over time. And in their place, increased narcissistic behavior became emergent, which contributed to a sort of mitosis, or a bifurcation of values which become oppositional in nature in their respective attempts to assert dominance. The result is dueling echo chambers.
Postmodernism’s mode of critical analysis underscores disbelief, and argues that any belief can be deconstructed as to question its validity. Back Circle Theory argues that this narcissistic exercise in deconstruction emphasizes differences, instead of similarities, and therefore encourages tribalism and back circle thinking.
Mimetic Desire The innate human desire to be accepted by an in-group is illustrated by Rene Girard’s theory of mimetic desire, which states “people want what other people want.” To take this a bit further, Girard stated that a person desires what a role model desires, or believes in. The role models can be politicians, famous actors or even an older sibling or friend. The only real requirement is that the role model must have a perceived higher status.
But, without the traditional shared role models of the past, the American left and right have intensified a rivalry to elevate role models that represent their respective values, in place of elevating role models that can represent everyone. In response, opposing ideologies emerge.
All emerging role models are run through respective ideological purity tests and if accepted on one side, is often automatically rejected by the other. This intensifies the dueling echo chambers and increases oppositional behavior among the role models who fight each other for supremacy.
The Late Republic era is an example of where this dangerous double-headed serpent can lead (The rivalry between Marius and Sulla is a model for this argument in Democracy Jones: 7:13, represented by Manzana and Schenk). Equating the two oppositional sides in a single nation where the entire citizenry was forced to choose between them, political disputes turned into political violence on the streets and mortally damaged the representational democracy with zero sum civil wars. If you were on the side that won, you inherited the spoils. If you landed on the side that lost, you forfeited your life.
American democracy got a taste of political mob violence on Jan. 6, 2021 during the attempted insurrection of the traditionally peaceful transfer of executive power in the capital city. Earlier, the opposing side’s countrywide protests and riots displayed cultural mob violence. The role of mimesis became paramount in that these two examples successfully hardened the two ideological oppositions, causing the populace to flock to one side or the other. More spectacles such as these will cause an escalation of violence to the detriment of American democracy.
Rhetoric Bertrand Russell pleaded for us to rely on facts when deciding what to believe in, and not to be “diverted, either by what you want to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects.” He argued that language is often loaded with signifiers that are persuasive-based in the notion of Emotive Conjugation, and that too often we are swept up by rhetorical aspects, ignoring the more reason-based decisions that we are capable of.
One of the most notable similarities between the Late Republic era of Ancient Rome and American democracy today is the reliance on rhetoric over reason in contributing to the intensification of cultural polemics/adversarial ideologies.
Rhetoric, in and of itself, is not inherently negative, as the ability to convince or persuade others can be used to teach inherently positive things. But rhetoric in echo chambers often cannot withstand rigorous investigation since its power base comes from the perceived wisdom of the ideology and its leaders. Therefore, the reliance on rhetoric to convince in a polemic atmosphere is a case where the emperor has no clothes, because if you’re an adherent of an ideology, then you don’t typically disagree with its tenets. And if this is the case, when tempers flare, who in the echo chamber will refuse when the populist ideologues order followers to commit violence against the opposing side?
Cicero was said to have been one of the most persuasive speakers of all time, yet he was unable to convince members of the opposing side (Marc Antony’s men) to allow him to live. Cicero lived during the Late Republic era when Rome had been split by years of infighting and consecutive civil wars. Despite having the reputation as being a great thinker and rhetorician, in reality Cicero was yet another narcissistic, partisan politician, albeit a talented one. Due to the times he lived in, he had no choice but to choose a side, but as a rhetorician during a divisive time, we need to recalibrate his reputation so as not to encourage divisiveness today.
All humans are susceptible to great speakers with a populist message, but in times of increasing partisanship, we need to rely more on facts, reason and empirical evidence to make better judgments, not dueling facts, persuasive logic and emotional appeals by influential people.
Identity It is well known that there is little to no scientific evidence of multiple human biological races. The only species humans are included in is the human race, which includes all humans. Race was borne out of ethnocentric stereotyping of an informal, taxonomic ranking system based on skin color. Primarily identifying with a specific race or sex or gender is to enhance differences among the human species.
The Romans of the Late Republic era had different group-based hierarchies and relied more on a social class system as opposed to our modern racial/sexual/gender gradations, but similarities of ethnocentric beliefs in group-based hierarchies can be compared through an ethnological lens. For a very long time, if you weren’t “Roman,” then you could not become an official citizen of Rome, and the ruling elites refused to budge on the matter until the highly destructive Social War during the Late Republic era forced their hand. Discrimination in the US threatens a similarly disingenuous ethnocentric divide. Let us avoid a similar social war on par with the mortal destruction that visited the people of Rome’s Republic.
The principle that inspired the civil rights and abolitionist movements was that all human beings are created equal. All the great religious and moral traditions in history have had a similar theme, which is that we are all the same. Race, gender, sex gradations, like Rome’s social class system, emphasizes differences and contrasts, instead of focusing on similarities, and therefore encourages tribalism. Race is a category system thrust upon groups of people who are not limited to a specific set of values, and who embody broad variances across a spectrum.
When postmodernist thought is multiplied by mimetic desire and rhetoric is weaponized to drive prevailing systems of hierarchy like social class or identity, they become contributing factors in politicizing important sites of independent power, and can delegitimize a society’s major democratic institutions.
Institutions The democratic institutions, for the purpose of defining America’s most influential and supposedly independent power structures, are Media/Social Media, Government, Education and Economy.
Media/Social Media The framers of the US Constitution intended the media to be an independent free press, but according to a January 2022 Pew Research Center report, Americans’ trust in the news media “has become disaggregated and divided” and that “people tend to go with sources of information that map with their point of view.”
For years Media outlets have been bought up by big businesses and the entertainment industry, altering journalistic goals from educating the citizenry to earning a profit. This has caused it to rely less on striving for objectivity and more toward biased reportage. Outlets have often been forced to choose a political side to survive in a market economy, causing some to act as if it were a platform for subjective activism.
The institution where Americans communicate the most, Social Media, incentivizes conflict, thereby empowering extreme ideas. It is a space that lends itself to political activism and appeals to base values. Mere anecdotes, straw man fallacies, pseudo-reasoning and all types of emotional pleas and logical fallacies are used against perceived enemies. Here, anonymity replaces accountability behind the virtual veil, encouraging dogmatism at the expense of sound logic.
Both the Media and Social Media, institutions of American communication, champion division, outrage and echo chambers and have an outsized influence on the information ecosystem due to its need to maintain engagement. To do so, derisive postmodernist argumentation is given precedent and all forms of rhetoric are used to persuade. Identity is harnessed as a tool for outrage and alienation. Mimetic desire is found in the funneling of privilege to influencers and viral content, thereby encouraging groupthink, tribalism and scapegoating. All of which is back circle thinking.
Government Political independence is important in retaining legitimacy, a basic condition for the use of power by a legally constituted government. Legitimacy must be maintained in its executive, judicial, and legislative branches, as well as the entirety of the federal civil service and military. As the values of the government’s actors become increasingly politicized, legitimacy becomes a cancer that both sides compete against each other for a treatment. With emotional pleas, they deride their opponent as sabotaging the legitimate cancer treatment and do what they can to elect/appoint allies, including the breaking of traditional norms in order to do so. The side that loses an election/appointment claims martyrdom, and narcissistically alleges the tyranny of the majority to delegitimize their opponent with a victim morality. This back and forth of both sides claiming the other’s treatment is illegitimate, at least during the Late Republic era, intensifies, enabling the cancer to metastasize until legitimacy itself dies.
Without general trust in a president’s administration, courts or lawmakers, chaos descends and a zero sum game can ensue. Officials running for election must travel with large contingents of loyal bodyguards who, as careerists, offer ways of resolving the conflict violently in their favor, tempting leaders to an end-justifies-the-means escalation. Whether by a preconceived coup and subsequent purges, or accidentally falling into a civil war, cynicism takes over where once, many years earlier, legitimacy reigned.
Current examples of dueling ideological actions taken to undermine legitimacy include gerrymandering, partisan nominations to independent branches, striking down of campaign finance laws, allowing the rich to have an outsized influence on policy and insider trading/corruption, changing of bipartisan norms like the filibuster to win a political battle, interruption of the peaceful transition of power and the reactionary protests/riots, etc.
Postmodernist thought critiques the notion of objective natural realities, such as a universally accepted legitimacy, and in this way does not take one side over the other, but afflicts both sides with subjective cynicism. Mimetic desire spreads the values of cynicism into both of the dueling ideologies. Rhetoric is used to entrench the oppositional value system, and identity, or identification with either of the two value systems, further divides people along partisan lines. Even as it appears both sides are fighting each other, the fight itself mortally damages the legitimacy of government.
Economy The 2014 Princeton/Northwestern study by Gilens & Page, which essentially claims the US economy is acting like a civil oligarchy where “the wealthiest citizens. . . dominate policy concerning crucial issues,” alludes to the classic historical precedent that occurred during the Late Republic era. Then, an oligarchy ascended that had a direct effect on the polarization of economic values. After the fall of Carthage and Corinth, prisoner-slaves were brought to Rome, who then displaced the traditionally powerful farming class. Slave labor quickly increased disparities in wealth in favor of the ruling class. This allowed the richest Romans to buy more property in an agriculture-based economy. The great wealth brought to Rome from its foreign conquests underscored the culture’s gross disparities in wealth and split the society into haves and have-nots, which defined their oppositional mandates.
The American economy is also showing great wealth disparities. Per a fourth quarter 2022 report from Statista, “68.2 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. . . the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned three percent of the total wealth.”
Both the political binaries increasingly rely on big business donors for campaigns, and lobbyists for shaping policy. Big business has even outright bought media companies. All of these examples have cumulatively corrupting effects. As the US continues to transition away from manufacturing, the southern, midwestern and Great Lakes regions have been hit hardest. And it was this group that voted in droves for a populist demagogue in 2016 to represent their unhappiness. The opposition hardened against the president, exasperating the bifurcation of values.
Identity has played a role in the oppositional values system due to a lack of economic opportunities for people of color, women, LGBTQ+ and those of the southern, midwestern and Great Lakes demographics. Damaging rhetoric via claims on the right of an emerging socialist welfare state, and claims on the left of unregulated/discriminatory capitalism. Postmodernist thought comes into play with its short-sighted demands from both sides and mimetic desire has a multiplying effect on this mentality. Rational thought concludes that mixing socialist and capitalist economic values in economy is a viable option to consider, though neither side argues for that. Diversions such as sports, social media and entertainment have distracted the population to the benefit of the wealthy, so volatility concerning the economy has mostly been averted, though this has the emergent quality to intensify quickly.
Education Child developmental psychologist Jean Piaget once said, “only education is capable of saving our societies from possible collapse.” This statement assumes political binaries must agree on how to educate its children and young adults.
Education has long been in decline in the United States and this trend has no resolution in sight. One side claims public education is a form of socialism and supports private charter and religious schools to replace them. The other side actively critiques American history and agitates for revisionism. K-12 grade teachers are not considered an important commodity in a market economy. Teachers unions, who support the left, are not nearly as powerful as the right claims, making a lightning rod of its leaders. This dichotomy effectively mutes any meaningful advances in educating children, without which citizens lack critical thinking in their formative years.
Higher education, also subjected to the market economy, is unaffordable for millions of Americans. Those that take out loans enter formidable debt for much of their working lives. According to a Council on Foreign Relations study, from 2006-2020, total student loan debt leap-frogged auto loans and credit card debt. Meanwhile, Americans who come from the top 10 percent earning families are courted by colleges and universities, enhancing the great divide pervading the country, though not necessarily along political lines.
Without a solid intellectual footing that a well-balanced education provides, citizens can’t easily recognize rhetorical devices and are susceptible to emotional pleas, pseudo-reasoning and celebrity endorsements. Lacking the confidence gained in critical thinking exercises, citizens look for safety in group-think populism enhanced by mimetic desire. Critical theories of identity have become a hot button issue that divides along political lines. As a philosophy of resistance against collective order, purpose and agreement, postmodernism exists in the institution of education like any other, that is to say that both sides critique the other without a prescription for agreement in sight.
Conclude Back Circle Theory concludes that the contributing factors of postmodernism, mimetic desire, rhetoric and identity in American institutions of Media/Social Media, Government, Education and Economy will allow the cancerous bifurcation of values to metastasize into the loss of those institutions’ independence and legitimacy, and has a high probability, similar to what happened during the Late Republic era of Ancient Rome, to lead to the continued bifurcation of political views in American democracy and will devolve into a social ally/enemy dichotomy as well as normalized political violence, and democracy will end in civil war or coup by the year 2040, unless the citizenry embraces the traditional democratic norms of bipartisan compromise through the utilization of the dialectical method.
Critique Some have argued Back Circle Theory is similar to Horseshoe Theory, which has mostly been debunked by political scientists.
An interesting argument against Back Circle Theory is that Political Science already provides answers to the very same questions of the bifurcation of values.
From the liberal perspective, Back Circle Theory is unfair due to its putting liberal thought on par with conservatives. Liberals argue Back Circle Theory should be weighted in their favor because the right is unethical and drives the negative aspects of the dynamic, the egregious partisanship of Trumpian politicians, the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt, breaking norms to stack the Supreme Court, general support of systemic racism, sexism and anti-LGBTQ+ and transgender policies.
From the conservative perspective, Back Circle Theory is unfair due its putting conservative thought on par with liberals. Conservatives argue Back Circle Theory should be weighted in their favor due to the egregious cancellation of free speech, ignoring of the troubling issues in southern/midwest/Great Lakes states and the liberal agenda of Hollywood which dominates American culture.
Response to Critique While there are similarities to Horseshoe Theory, Back Circle Theory is not a political theory. It has cognitive, sociological, anthropological and historical baselines that map behaviors and values, antecedent to politics, and therefore sees political stances as a result of collective behaviors and values.
Recent studies in Political Science have suggested a better way of dealing with the issue of political polarization and agrees that it will erode the democratic traditions of the United States if left unchecked. This method includes the empowerment of third parties, such as a the Independent, Green, Workers or Libertarian parties to undermine the zero-sum nature of binary partisan conflict. Back Circle Theory would support this prescription, but retains reservations that such a thing will be supported en masse in a political complex that is fixated by ideological antagonism.
If we are to agree that there is no perfect objective reality, there can also be no perfect balance of authoritarian behavior displayed by respective sides. As Jacques Derrida pointed out, when it comes to binary opposites, “one of the two terms governs the other.” Or, one side usually has dominance over the other. Within the specific power dynamic of politics, it would appear right-leaning politicians display more authoritarian behaviors than left-leaning. Within the specific power dynamic of cultural values, however, the left exercises its power in places such as the massively influential entertainment industry, social media/media, academia, the workplace etc. left-leaning actors display more authoritarian behaviors than right-leaning actors when it comes to dictating norms, which has the effect of influencing policy. The solipsism of the political right, therefore, is similar to the solipsism of the cultural left.
As the left has more cultural authority, considerable criticism has been pointed at Back Circle Theory on social media platforms claiming that it “holds water for the right” simply by comparing them together. To be clear, the types of authoritarian behavior displayed are also different. In an important sociological study called Clarifying the Nature of Left-Wing Authoritarian Behavior, it’s authors concluded that although the left and right share some authoritarian behaviors, “relative to rightwing authoritarians, leftwing authoritarians were lower in dogmatism and cognitive rigidity, higher in negative emotionality, and expressed stronger support for a political system with substantial centralized state control. Our results also indicate that LWA powerfully predicts behavioral aggression and is strongly correlated with participation in political violence.”
All theories are falsifiable in some minute form or other as theories cannot withstand the scrutiny of empirical evidence, nor the postmodernist critique. Many theories choose one side (left or right) over another, but Back Circle Theory critiques both of the dominant value systems as having similar anti-democratic, authoritarian behaviors. Back Circle Theory attempts to be as objective as possible. But as postmodernists point out, there is no way to be perfectly objective. Yet Back Circle Theory refuses to accept subjectivism as an answer. Instead, it attempts to find the highest probabilities of objective truth.
In the spirit of the dialectical method, Back Circle Theory believes that through reasoned argumentation, we can work together to find the highest probabilities of truth, and therefore heuristically accepts all criticism as a form of crowdsourcing the highest probabilities of objective truth. Even when the criticism is not in good faith, sometimes there are valuable truths to be gleaned to improve Back Circle Theory.
Eamon Loingsigh for criticism or comments, send email to: artofneed@gmail.com
Ethos is something I will not bother you with. I have a degree in journalism, have worked in tech and have written some novels. Like many journalists, I know a little about a lot, but I’m a master of nothing. ~Eamon
A Parnassian is an archetype of the middle/upper middle class, even elites, who had an uneventful, sheltered childhood and received a respectable education who nonetheless believe they are entitled to have something eventful, relevant or important to add to the literary canon. Every generation in the book industry has a very large Parnassian clique who dominate discussion concerning what is, or is not relevant, yet are often remembered in hindsight as stifling or censoring the writers who come to embody their generation’s writing posthumously due to their conflict with the Parnassians.
The Parnassian poets, where the term Parnassianism derives, were a group of mid-to-late 19th Century bourgeois writers with connections to the French monarchy. They defined French poetry for a while by excluding the likes of Arthur Rimbaud, who famously agitated against their mundane, impassive values and came to epitomize the type of breakthrough poetry the Parnassians could never have imagined the public would embrace. Parnassians instead inspire great poetry via revolt against their established vision. The Parnassians were known for, “stories which the Madame could read whilst her maid was putting on her stockings, or which the Monsieur could devour when, hat on head and cane in hand, he waits till the Madame has buttoned the last button of her gloves.”*
Through the generations Parnassians have been known for their careerist value system when it comes to writing and maintain a loose semblance of power over the writing community through hot takes on social media, editorial or professorships and their presence in the industry’s establishments of public relations, marketing, publishing, reviews etc. Parnassians treat writing as if it were any other capitalist venture, and view their “product” as a brand. Much of their power over the writing community is obtained or retained by their outing of supposed inappropriate writers or topics, and loyalty to the industry’s categorization of writing by genres. The smug, exclusionary tactics they use are often exercised by means of ignoring the pleas of ambitious writers, who they see as attempting to replace their status in the writing community. To cover up their obvious capitalist, corporate-friendly establishmentarian value system, Parnassians often identify as bohemian, liberal-free thinkers.