Ideological Parties and their Modern Day Equivalents

Over the weekend, I saw Oppenheimer in the theater. Christoffer Nolan’s 3-hour biopic on the life of the father of the atomic bomb has been igniting discussions on nuclear weapons, deterrence, the intersection of science and the state, and critiques about the devastating effects of those weapons on affected communities and the ways in which it was okay or not okay for the film to not highlight them. While those are all worthy and interesting topics of discussion I want to focus on the feeling I had coming out of the film which relates to a topic I’ve been obsessed with in regards to politics and political theory: aesthetics.

To start with, the film is visually fantastic. Nolan laces in a sort of unreality by pulling our title character out of his actual physical circumstances into a whirring of neutrons, the white flash of his creation, and the ethereal empty space where particles dance, jiggle, and bounce. It makes for a spectacle which effectively places us in the self-confused perspective of Oppenheimer himself as he navigates his own curiosity, ambition, and compassion for physics, the project, and his fellow scientists with his concerns and trepidations for the terrible consequences of his work’s output. This is all interwoven with the sort of sound design we’ve come to expect from Nolan from his previous features like Dunkirk, Interstellar, and Inception. 

Beyond the choices made by Nolan and his sound and design team, the film is filled with the aesthetics of the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. Suits of impeccable materials, wide and boldly designed ties tied woefully short. Waistbands sitting comfortably around their wearers belly-buttons. The houses and buildings are bedecked with well worn and darkly stained wood features, bays of stained glass windows, and stuffy gray stucco. The film is a visual treat for anyone who has romantic allusions to midcentury styles like myself.

But what really struck me about the film was the way in which the aesthetic of the political felt so abstract and removed from how we view politics today. The central conflict of the film is not WWII or Oppenhiemer’s personal qualms about the bomb, it’s about ideological competition. First between democracy and nazism/fascism but always lurking underneath is the competition between liberal democracy and communism. Oppenheimer flirted with, both literally and figuratively, communism throughout the early part of his life and clearly held pro-labor and left-wing views. This was used to stigmatize and delegitimize his outward political opinions about nuclear deterrence which some in the government felt were not helpful to their foreign policy goals. 

The conflict between political ideologies is palpable in nearly every scene in the film. So too is the causal association of individuals with distinct organizations espousing those ideologies. Early in the film Oppenheimer is seen attending communist party events, later he is approached by a close friend and party member about using the party to share vital scientific information with other states via the party.

Why did this stand out so sharply to me? Mostly because the idea of such direct and ideological organizing feels extremely foreign in the 21st century. Much of this has to do with the way in which the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war made not just communism seem illegitimate but political ideology all together. The famous “End of History” moment didn’t just mean that the only acceptable ideology left was liberal democracy, it meant that thinking of politics in distinct ideologies underpinned by solid policy positions was somehow awkward or unnecessary. 

Making ideology seem passé isn’t the only modern change that makes the scenes in Oppenheimer feel like they come from another world. The simple act of organizing feels somehow very 20th century. In a world where we can interact with anyone and everyone online, the thought of getting together with a group of locals to espouse a particular ideology or even interest is almost too small; why just spread a message to a few people in a room when you can broadcast to the whole world? It’s not just a feeling either, participation in community organizations and activities have been on the decline across America since the 1950s. The types of clubs and organizations that previously filled individuals' time and connected communities have been replaced by online communities which provide fewer social bonds, other forms of entertainment, and a ceaseless productivity culture. 

Are our politics much different today? Republicans throw around the baseless claim that all Democrats are communists fairly often but it has little practical meaning. No single elected Democrat claims to be a communist and the closest one gets is the five members of congress who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Meanwhile, some Democrats have bandied about fascism to describe some members of the Republican party, particularly Trump aligned MAGA Republicans. But to my knowledge, nobody with any political standing is claiming to actually be a fascist. Outside of American democracy, there are a few examples of parties in Europe which have explicit ties to nazisim like the Freedom Party of Austria or more explicitly Golden Dawn of Greece but most parties don’t explicitly associated with fascism or nazism. Although, a number of far-right parties have embraced various programs that seem fascism or nazi adjacent if we’re not being charitable. 

Political movements which seek to lower the strength of liberal democracy are abundant, particularly from the populist right but there isn’t some great ideological cause they attempt to espouse. In Hungary, Viktor Orban has coined the term illiberal democracy but thus far there doesn’t seem to be a great ground swell of party soldiers excitedly sharing writings about what it means to be an illiberal democrat. There is no illiberal democratic international. Some in the populist right are trying to make national conservatism happen but thus far there doesn’t seem to be any buy-in from anyone outside of think tanks and policy centers. Things are even more scattered on the left. As I mentioned earlier there is some level of support for the Democratic Socialists of America and there are some examples of grassroots organizations centered on climate policy which have made some membership gain like the Sunrise Movement. Likewise, social justice movements like Black Lives Matter have been successful in organizing large demonstrations and protests but the membership of these organizations seems far from the totalizing force of ideological parties seen in Oppenheimer’s time.

In many ways I think this is positive for political culture. Ideological parties require a certain level of policy rigidity. To have an organization or party built around an ideology means that it is much harder to grow and change with the times as new problems and realities arise. Ideologies, by their nature, are all different, and some more than others are adapted to change (for example liberalism). But all too often an ideology is exposed by its inability to adapt to modern challenges as communism was in the late 80s/early 90s and I would argue as neoliberalism is now in the 2010s/2020s. Furthermore, ideological parties and organizations require more obedience from their members. Because the guiding light of the party will always be ideology, this requires political actors to use the theory and world view of the ideology in order to propose ideas and climb the ranks. Less ideological parties can be carried by talented politicians towards a greater variety of policy aims. Maybe the greatest negative to ideological parties and organizations is the way in which ideological faith can be used to punish members or eliminate threats depending on who is wielding power. A talented operator in the party may recognize other talented operators and question those potential rival’s adherence to the true ideology thereby purging those rivals and making their path towards power easier. It becomes harder to purge members of less ideological parties because fewer are bought in on the notion of strict ideological rigor. 

Ideological parties and organizations aren’t all bad however. They do benefit from having easy to understand goals and aims. Explaining what the Communist Party is to someone who doesn’t know is a lot easier than explaining what the Democratic Party is because you only need to describe the ideology. This ease of use can lead to greater promotion and hopefully more members/prestige/power and eventually progress towards one’s goals. The rigidity of ideology can also help voters in an election understand just where a party truly stands and what they can expect if that party is elected to power. It should be much harder for an ideological party to stray from their promise to voters than a non-ideological party. 

What does all this have to do with today? I think what I was struck by while thinking about that era of politics was the way in which ideological parties behaved much in the same way that many non-ideological parties and organizations behave today: as teams. Identity vehicles which give people a sense of meaning, a shared vision, fellow travelers, and agreed upon targets. Fascists hated the communists hated liberal democrats and around it goes. Ideology makes it easy to see one’s enemies but I think the modern era is indicative of just how little the ideology itself really matters. Political parties and organizations stripped of strong ideological underpinnings can still hate their rivals with just as much vigor and passion. The mistake of the 20th century in politics was to believe that firm ideological differences were needed to make partisans into team players. In fact, all you really need is a sense of belonging to a particular group in order to identify and adopt its beliefs. Case in point comes from the New York Times article from this week about North Carolina Congresswoman Tricia Cotham who switched parties earlier this year handing Republicans a super majority in the state house. As far as anyone can tell, her reasoning seems to come down to Republicans being nicer to her than Democrats during a few years when she was out of office. 

Acceptance and support is a basic human need and our beliefs and views of others spring forth from the communities we receive it from. What modern political parties and organizations lack in ideology they make up for in flexibility. Completely remaking the image and policy of a party only drives so many members away as evinced by Trump’s capture of the Republican party. Most members are going to stay on for the ride because the party gives them an identity and social support and acceptance. 

Ideological parties are a thing of the past because ideology doesn’t really matter to the vast majority of people. Modern parties have mostly adapted to those realities. The end of the Cold War really signaled that the only parties that were allowable were parties which ascribed to liberalism in some form or fashion. But when all parties are in essence one ideology then none of them really are because it no longer allows them to differentiate themselves from other parties and organizations. I think this is why defenders of liberal democracy have been so weak in the face of populist and authoritarian threats in recent years because they just haven’t had to strongly articulate that ideological position for over three decades. 

And besides, why limit yourself to one ideological position when you’ve already got an established party or organization which you can simply mold or take over? Trump could have never taken over an ideological party but he managed to radically transform the Republican party. 

Teamism is the vital ingredient to any political organization. In the film, Oppenheimer’s previous attachments to the Communist party are what were used to remove his security clearance and tarnish his name. But at no point in the interrogation of his past associations did they ever bring up the actual ideological policy goals of the party, rather his great failing was that the party was representative of a separate team in American foreign policy of the day, namely the Soviet Union. 

I doubt we will see strong ideological movements ever again. They don’t hold practical utility to those who accumulate and exercise power. I hope that I am wrong. I would very much like to see a robust and well-articulate movement for liberal democracy made in a way which is attractive to the average person, but I’m not holding my breath. I don’t think a 3-hour masterpiece from Nolan himself about the importance of liberal values would even move the needle in our present political environment.