A better way to define the transition is by people’s belief in the existence of Free Will.
This occurred to me while reading first-hand descriptions of the rise of socialist tyrannies in Germany and Russia. Decades before Jonah Goldberg wrote his book on Liberal Fascism, contemporary political observers noted Germany’s Gleichschaltung (Coordination) was really a mass conversion to a new, secular religion. What shocked everyone at the time was the speed with which the religious conversion occurred. When we read “Norway converted to Christianity” in a history book, we assume this took generations. In fact, such transitions travel very quickly through the human subconscious. In a small country, it may take only a few months. In a larger country, it may take a few years.
By 1971, the majority of Americans had been coordinated, and no longer believed they were conscious individuals making free choices. This view of human nature remains ingrained in the population to this day, but is masked by the new meanings of old words. Even so, you can verify this modern view with a series of questions: “Do you think the government should ban cigarette advertising? Do you think Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech should be regulated by the FCC? Can people change?” And so on… Carefully following these leading questions with a probing but nonjudgmental dialogue gradually exposes a core value system (a theology) that views Free Speech as a government-endowed benefit (not a God-given right) and Free Will as a relative characteristic of a biological automaton (not an absolute property of a spiritual creature). You will also find that political labels such as “conservative” and “liberal” are not necessarily indicative of a person’s core theology.
In 1938, Oxford Professor Micklem wrote: "All political questions are at bottom theological.” It’s true. A person’s political views are derived from their fundamental beliefs regarding the Nature of Man, the Nature of God, the Ultimate Nature of Internal Reality, etc. Bill Maher and Glen Beck each believe themselves to be rational and intelligent, and the other man to be irrational and stupid – even insane. Who is correct?
Both and neither.
Beginning with a deeply ingrained personal philosophy, each man has developed a fully rational approach to life and politics. While they might agree on some subjects, many of their arguments cannot converge because their basic ideas are derived from radically different theological contexts.
The Radical Left does not accept the existence Free Will. Neither does Islam. This is why these two groups have such an affinity for each other in contemporary European politics. They can find common ground on many political subjects because their basic view of human nature is derived from similar theological contexts.
