Devil Shift
Part One
I wrote this long before the depressing recent events, but it seems an appropriate time to upload it. The assassination of Charlie Kirk illustrates well the dynamics of devil shift and its potentially dire consequences. I was in two minds about the thumbnail, but on reflection I think Mr Kirk would approve.
I write with a singular purpose. That is to get my reader to give up their addiction to the opium of politics and turn their minds instead toward the one great matter of the afterlife. I have to assume most of my readers are, unfortunately, engaged in politics. What is more, it is likely you have some affiliation or at least sympathy with one or another of the ‘sides’ in the political divide. I say ‘one or another’, because I suspect most of my audience is American — although truth be told even if I am wrong, America’s today has a tendency to become the rest of the world’s tomorrow.
What I hope to do with this short piece is to demonstrate to you why your engagement with politics is likely distorting your perception of reality. In the course of doing so, I will make some original arguments about the dynamics of polarization. While I am concerned about polarization, there is no need to roll your eyes in disgust — this is not a call enlightened centrism. As I have argued in a forthcoming book, polarization is dangerous as it destabilizes the liberal democratic system. I am very far from an adherent of liberal democracy — quite the opposite. But I fear its destabilization because the downward arc of history makes it unlikely that the coming undone of a liberal democratic order heralds a restoration of one I would approve of — that is to say, one grounded in metaphysical truth. Rather, liberal democracy — should it come to an end — is likely to be replaced by something more frightful. I have no delusions about the scope of my influence. The possibility that my work will have any meaningful effect in conserving liberal democracy is very remote. My intention with this piece, as I have already stated, is purely to inch the reader towards a disillusionment with politics.
Devil shift is a concept first conceived of by Paul Sabatier together with Susan Hunter and Susan McLaughlin. It refers to the tendency of actors in competition with other actors over an area of policy to not evaluate their competitors in a rational manner, but rather to project onto them two fallacies — firstly, to regard the competitor as more morally bad than they actually are and, secondly, to perceive their competitor as more powerful than they actually are. I would add to Sabatier’s theory a third fallacy, namely that actors are likely to see their competitors as more irrational than they really are.
Devil shift is, in my estimation, a very real phenomenon. To illustrate, let us take a suitably controversial example — Donald Trump. Trump is regularly characterised as a racist and a fascist. This, I submit, is an excellent example of the devil shift in operation. This is no defence of Trump. The man is deeply distasteful, lacking in virtue or competence for his office and dangerous both in the ideas he emboldens domestically and even more so, in the recklessness and fecklessness of his foreign policy. However, this does not prevent him from being the subject of devil shift.
Let us just consider his attitudes to immigration. Imagine a continuum of anti-immigrant policy orientations. This spectrum runs from the most moderate anti-immigration positions to the most radical. Where do you place Trump? At the most radical end we have the most brutish National Socialists, represented by organisations like Combat 18, who would advocate the mass killing of non-white immigrants and their descendants. Slightly more moderate are fascist groups like Patriot Front or the British National Party who propose “repatriation” i.e. kicking non-white immigrants and their descendants out of the country. Where does a man go who, for example, was born in the country to a Nigerian mother and a Korean father? That is none of their concern. A further step along the spectrum in the direction of moderation we find those who instead of “repatriation” favour “remigration”. Remigration conceives of itself as more humane than repatriation — it entails the use of incentives to encourage immigrants to return to their countries of origin. It is usually accompanied by a blanket ban on immigration or at least an insistence on net zero migration. The next most moderate position on the continuum is precisely this — net zero migration or a blanket ban on new migration, but without remigration. Thereafter come policies to reduce but not end immigration, followed finally by an opposition to only irregular or undocumented migration.
Get Johan Nilsson’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Where on this spectrum are we to place Trump? Speaking objectively, it must be between the final and penultimate positions. Again, one may be entirely justified in opposing Trump’s attitude to immigration. His temporary ban on entry from certain Muslim countries was, while not unprecedented, framed in indisputably Islamophobic terms. His border wall was arguably ineffective and advocated for in intentionally crude language. The point, however, is that the emotional image of Trump vis-à-vis immigrants is as something much more demonic than he actually is. He is also likely seen as more powerful than he actually is. For all the panic about Trump upon his election in 2016, he effected remarkably little of what he promised on the campaign trail regarding immigration. This was not out of his good will, but rather out of powerlessness. His wall was not built, and his executive order effectively intended to limit Muslim entry was quickly struck down. So, we see that Trump is not as powerful as his opponents imagine either.
If my reader is sympathetic to Trump, the above paragraph likely elicited smug agreement. My Trump leaning reader should not imagine that he or she is not also subject to devil shift. To illustrate the point with an anecdote — I once met a Trump voter prior to the 2020 election. This was at the stage in the primaries where there were about 20 candidates competing for the Democrat presidential nomination. The Trumpian insisted that every single one of the 20 was a Marxist. Joe Biden is not a Marxist. Even Bernie Sanders is not a Marxist. I would go so far as to venture that, at least in 2020, there was not a single Marxist in an elite position in the Democrat party. Was part of my Trumpian acquaintance’s misidentification down to a poor understanding of political terminology? Most likely. The same could be said for the frequent misidentifications of Trump as a fascist and/or racist.
But his claim had more to it than ignorance. Devil shift was also at play. He felt there was something distinctly diabolical about the Democrats presidential offerings. His use of the label “Marxist” was on some level an expression of his emotive view of the Democrats. What my acquaintance saw in these democrats, and what you may well see in your opponents, is not the actual figure standing before you but the monstrous shadow they cast upon the wall behind them. This shadow resembles your actual opponent in its general outline, but is deformed, tenebrous and gargantuan.
This is what being afflicted by devil shift is like. If you are forced to reflect, you may come to realise your opponent is not quite the demon you have depicted them as. Consider this: as bad as they are, who is worse? Is Joe Stalin worse than Joe Biden? How is the Georgian different from the senile American? The Republicans may be awful bigots, but can you honestly say you would be indifferent if they were replaced in their positions of power by the Aryan Nations? Surely, the Aryan Nations is worse? If you think I am wrong in what I am insinuating, why have you not picked up arms against these villains? Why is respecting the liberal democratic process so important if the winning side is as tyrannical as you claim?
My hope here, of course, is that you do see that the Democrats and Republicans (or whatever the analogues are where you live) are not nearly so demonic as you imagine them to be. Of course, there is a risk that you will (wrongly) come to the conclusion that the shadow upon the wall is in fact real, and respond to my challenge by reaching for the gun.
Take a deep breath, the other side is not nearly as wicked as you believe. We are instructed to love our neighbours, not shoot them.
In part two, I will offer a sketch of how devil shift facilitates polarisation.
Reference List:
Sabatier, P., Hunter, S. & McLaughlin, S. (1987). “The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents”. Western Political Quarterly, 40 (3), 449–476.
