“They had it all but they wanted more”: Left-wing radicals in the 1960s and right-wingers now

Seeing all this news about various well-connected right-wing activists and billionaires attempting to take apart the government, blow up the economy, and destroy our alliances . . . OK, at some level I get it. The recent election gave the Republicans a rare opportunity in which one faction of one party controls all three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) so it makes sense to run with it. That’s the “Project 2025” thing: Given the partisan polarization of voters, there’s a logic to pressing all the buttons on the console, making as many policy changes as you can, and trying to lock them all in so that they stay after you lose power–or set up conditions that make it harder for you to lose. So, yeah, sure, full-out attack on any alternative sources of political power, including the civil service, foreign allies, teachers, students, etc.

The “blow up the economy” thing is less clear, but even for that there’s a logic in terms of weakening alternative power bases. When the economy is going strong, employees can do what they want, with the confidence that they can find a new job if they quit or are fired, and companies have flexibility in hiring and business decisions. But if the economy is tanking, employees will be scared of losing their jobs and companies will be more vulnerable to government actions. So, again, less independent power. If your company is in financial peril, you’ll be less inclined to take one more risk by opposing the government.

So, yeah, I see the logic. But . . . looking at this another way, it’s all absolutely nuts. Right-wing activists and billionaires already had so much, even under the Biden administration. They had low taxes, low business regulation, a system of international alliances with other capitalist countries and freedom of action all around the world. They had lots of nice things, a Tesla in every pot, etc. From this perspective, I’d think that a natural goal on their part would be to keep what they have. Sure, push in the direction of lower taxes and less business regulation, push on whatever social issues you want, make whatever small changes to weaken the political opposition, but don’t go crazy–you don’t want to lose everything you’ve got.

Let me be clear here. I’m not trying to make the familiar argument that right-wing governments should compromise because too much political and economic inequality will anger the masses: cut universal benefits and replace them with tax cuts for the rich, and the people will come at you with pitchforks. That’s a tricky argument to make, because right-wing policies have their own attractions to the voters, and ideologues can well believe, sometimes with reason, that with careful messaging and enough control over the news media, that they can retain the consent of the governed.

Rather, I’m making a simpler argument. Right-wing activists and billionaires already have it all. Why would they want to blow everything up. If you think of the economy and society of the United States as being held up by many pillars, what you’re seeing is the party in power deciding to remove these pillars one at a time. There’s a risk that it could all collapse! And, sure, rich and well-connected people are better situated than the average person to weather an economic collapse, but, still, it seems crazy to me. And their kids can get measles too. It would take a better decision analyst than me to weigh the risks of your kid dying against the warm feeling you get by being part of the anti-establishment team.

They had it all but they wanted more.

I see an analogy to left-wing radicals in the late 1960s. The left side of the Democratic party controlled all three branches of government, they had most of the policies they wanted . . . but that wasn’t enough. They wanted more. As with the far right today, there was a lot of talk about blowing it all up and starting anew. In retrospect, it seems crazy. They had it all but they wanted more.

Again, I understand a little bit of this. Even if you have it all, why not ask for more. And you never have it all; there will always be some struggles on the margin, and in a free society such as the United States there will always be powerful institutions not under your control. In the 1960s, the left had to content with the Catholic church, the army, and big business: these were three major institutions with a strong conservative bent. Not to mention the political establishment in the south. In 2025, the right has its own opponents, notably in the worlds of education, medicine, and organized labor. The part that puzzles me, in both cases, was that pushing where you can, negotiating from a position of strength, was not enough. The people on top of the world wanted to blow up the world that they were on top of.

I get that, from a political standpoint, things are more complicated. Neither “the left” in the 1960s and “the right” today are unitary actors. The part that still baffles me is that many of the leaders of these groups already do have most of what they could possibly want–not just personally (money, fame, adulation, power) but also in their political goals.

From a psychological perspective, maybe the story is that if you already have it all, you feel invulnerable–vindicated by all the past gambles you’ve taken that have paid off–and you’re willing to throw the dice once again.

Perhaps the next step in understanding this is to sit down and read the full texts of the Port Huron Statement, the Weatherman document, Project 2025, and the most recent thousand tweets of Elon Musk.