WOKE vs. MAGA - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The West is at a historical junction that will determine the West's moral and spiritual direction for centuries to come. The political turmoil in the U.S. for the past 8 years has been a struggle for control over this direction. Now, Trump and the forces of Americanism have won a resounding electoral victory. When Trump re-entered the White House on inauguration day, the Republicans had already secured a trifecta with both the electoral and popular votes. They will have, not only the power, but also the endorsement of the majority of American people to implement the MAGA agenda. This is an interesting development because they will, in effect, attempt to turn back the clock to an earlier point in U.S. liberal democracy.
MAGA aims to evoke the America of the second half of the 20th century—an era marked by significant events such as the Cold War victory and the moon landing. Proponents of MAGA view this period as a time of technological advancement, economic growth, and broad expansion, and they advocate for a return to what they consider the foundational principles of freedom, capability, and liberty. However, this perspective is contentious, as critics argue that it overlooks the era's social and economic inequalities and idealizes a past that was not beneficial for all. Thus, in direct opposition to this are the rival forces under social justice's name, which we now colloquially call 'woke.' This movement developed its ideology within American academia through the same time span as the dominant liberal culture. It emphasizes a vision of social progress focused on addressing systemic inequalities and redistributing opportunities to create a more equitable society. It seeks to challenge traditional hierarchies and promote inclusivity in order to elevate marginalized groups that have been historically disadvantaged in different competitive parts of U.S. society. While its supporters view this as a necessary correction to longstanding injustices, critics argue that its methods and goals can sometimes lead to inefficiency or unintended societal tensions. This new morality has been slowly but surely indoctrinating new generations through a wide-reaching network that controls the education system to promote its own doctrine of progress, in contrast to the MAGA doctrine.
As one used to say, "There is nothing new under the sun", you may not be surprised to learn that all of this has happened before. Such reflections have resurfaced in the wake of Donald Trump's presidential victory, prompting comparisons to the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate. Christianity coexisted with various Eastern religions and esoteric sects in the early Christian era as a minor, often persecuted faith. Both Christianity and the dominant pagan traditions acknowledged a spiritual realm influencing the material world and a divine authority governing earthly matters. However, their theological premises diverged significantly. Pagans viewed the monotheistic God of Christianity as merely one among a multitude of deities, whereas Christians dismissed the pagan pantheon as either misinterpretations of natural phenomena or demonic deceptions. How Christianity differed from paganism was not only in its metaphysics, but also in its moral approach to human life. Paganism celebrated a vitalist, solar ethos where virtue and achievement garnered honor. In contrast, Christianity emphasized compassion, prioritizing charity and support for the marginalized and oppressed. It appears to me that both of these moral currents are a perennial feature of human life, and neither one can be permanently extinguished. They both contain aspects of the good that imbue them with moral legitimacy.
Christianity’s expansion throughout the Empire was propelled not only by its comforting doctrines but also through acts of charity. The faith gained traction among the elite, notably with Constantine the Great, who attributed his military success at the Milvian Bridge to the Christian God. Constantine's subsequent policies, including the Edict of Milan in AD 313, not only legalized Christianity but initiated a systemic favoritism towards Christian institutions and leaders, coupled with the disenfranchisement of pagan establishments. This shift marked a definitive alignment in a cultural conflict within the Empire, as Christian groups, now backed by state power, increasingly targeted pagan symbols and practitioners in acts of retributive violence. This historical episode exemplifies how religious and cultural hegemonies can be instrumentalized within political frameworks, leading to significant shifts in societal structures and intergroup relations.
This moral and cultural revolution was brought to a halt by the accession to the throne of Constantine's nephew, Julian. Julian was a brilliant youth who received a Hellenic education in the Greek East. Though initially reared within the Christian tradition, he found himself increasingly at odds with its emphasis on compassion, gravitating instead toward the Homeric ideals of the pagan tradition, which earned him the epithet of 'the Apostate' by Christian historians. Recognizing the sizeable Christian demographic within the Empire, Julian appreciated that outright persecution would tarnish his reputation and undermine his historical legacy. Instead, he opted for a strategy rooted in intellectual engagement and educational reform to counteract Christian influence. Julian initiated a comprehensive imperial program aimed at reinstating paganism to its former stature. He restored state patronage to pagan rituals, allocated funds to rejuvenate pagan temples, and systematically removed Christians from military and bureaucratic positions. Most significantly, he implemented a prohibition on Christians serving as educators, aiming to curb the transmission of Christian doctrines to future generations.
As Edward Gibbon put it in the second volume of his famous 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire': "In all the cities of the Roman world, the education of the youth was entrusted to masters of grammar and rhetoric who were elected by the magistrates, maintained at public expense, and distinguished by many lucrative and honorable privileges. The Edict of Julian appears to have included the physicians and professors of all the liberal arts, and the Emperor, who reserved to himself the approbation of candidates, was authorized by the laws to corrupt or punish the religious constancy of the most learned of the Christians." Julian's intent was clear: to reverse the previous disenfranchisement of pagan educational authorities under Christian rule, ensuring that pagan educators would dominate academic institutions. This was designed to marginalize Christian intellectuals, who, if they adhered to their religious convictions, would find themselves excluded from these centers of learning. Gibbon suggests that Julian anticipated this shift would gradually erode the intellectual foundations of Christianity, leading to a regression to a more rudimentary form of religion. Julian posited that learned and eloquent Christian theologians would be replaced by less educated, more dogmatic successors, unable to effectively argue their doctrines or critique polytheism. Unfortunately, Julian's premature death in battle against the Persians and the subsequent accession of leaders who favored Christianity prevented his reforms from remarkably influencing Roman society. Within two decades, the Edict of Thessalonica was enacted by Emperor Theodosius to establish Nicene Christianity as the state religion and accelerate the decline of paganism.
I'm sure you see the parallels I am drawing. Just as Emperor Julian sought to restore the religious landscape of Rome to its prior state, Trump's administration aims to recalibrate the liberal trajectory of the United States towards a direction they see as foundational. Should these efforts not fully succeed, the post-Trump era could see a reaffirmation and possibly a strengthening of 'woke' ideologies, which could become more consolidated into the American ethos. This might lend them a lasting influence over the moral and cultural direction of the country, potentially displacing the MAGA movement as a transient episode in history, reminiscent of Julian's attempt to revive pagan practices. History is shaped by the actions and decisions of its participants; thus, the dominance of any ideology is not preordained but contingent upon the initiatives and responses of those in power. The future demands proactive engagement. Winning elections is not enough; sustained efforts are required to influence future generations' moral and cultural outlook to avoid becoming only a historical footnote.
Comments
Post a Comment