THE PREDATORY RIGHT

On the surface, it might seem like the political left is more internally conflicted than the right. But that’s because the left has moral lines the right doesn’t. The left makes space for a wider range of cultural and philosophical diversity. More kinds of people. More identities. More lived experiences. Which means it encompasses a broader spectrum of ideology. Diversity creates complexity. More perspectives require more ethical consideration. Social cohesion in a pluralistic society requires maintenance.

It constantly demands negotiation and accountability.

The political right preys on this dynamic. They use it to frame the left as internally conflicted, intrinsically unstable, even hypocritical. But the reality is that the political right doesn’t actually have greater social cohesion… it just externalizes its problems. Its cohesion is built on in-groups and out-groups… so instead of resolving internal contradictions, it projects them… typically onto a scapegoated segment of the population.

That projection creates the illusion of unity.

If your problems are always “out there,” you never have to look in the mirror. You never have to wrestle with internal conflict. So what looks like cohesion isn’t harmony. It’s actually a collective form of deflection. The political right has a malignantly avoidant personality. It consistently shifts blame away from itself. This often appears as legislation that criminalizes people based on their identity. If there is always a group that is seen as criminal, attention can be easily redirected away from structural harm and institutional oppression. Domination becomes the mechanism that holds the group together.

This is DARVO.

It doesn’t just operate socially through in-groups and out-groups. It operates structurally the same way. When federal harm is exposed, blame shifts to the states. “States’ rights” becomes the shield. But when states pass laws that expand rights or protections, federal power suddenly reasserts itself. Accountability is decentralized when convenient… centralized when useful.

In an abusive relationship, control replaces resolution. Coercion replaces dialogue. Blame replaces accountability. One party dominates… and the other submits. There is always a rationalization that’s used to deflect. There is always a reason the harm is justified. And the narrative is always shifting… so accountability is always out of reach. 

It is important to highlight, that in abusive relationships, the same party is always considered the aggressor. An abusive relationship can be mutually toxic. But the most widely accepted psychological models do not support the idea of mutual abuse. Abuse is rooted in power imbalance. It flows in one direction.

Authoritarian politics operate using the same mechanics. It refuses to integrate difference. It suppresses diversity. It punishes dissent. It frames homogeneity as virtue and plurality as a weakness. It does not reconcile contradictions. It denes, deflects, and attacks the critic rather than acknowledging the criticism. It never offers accountability. Instead it projects its problems outwards.

And that brings me to the point.

Cohesion built on exclusion is not cohesion.

It’s abuse.