I'm more with Orwell, seeing the totalitarian dangers from non-realism.
I'm not aware of any tyranny that failed to assert a moral realist position. The relationship between their philosophies and physical reality was tenuous, but they didn't act like they were uncertain.
I think Mussolini counts. I don't have the original reference, but Mussolini argued that ethical relativism licensed Italians to champion and impose their values upon whomever they felt it appropriate to. Given the premises, Mussolini's conclusion seems inevitable.
Edit: found it
...Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to
From Being a Realist (even if you believe in God):
My mother, who doesn't call herself a theist (I think she's agnostic), doesn't even accept realism. She doesn't even agree with this:
That's little more than tautologies here. Yet it elicited an impression of being forced to believe. I know because she told me about the totalitarian dangers from such narrow thinking.
I'm happy to have finally found the root cause of our ongoing disagreement, but now, how can I deal with that? It looks pretty hopeless, but just in case, does someone have a suggestion, or should I just leave it at that? (My ego doesn't like it, but giving up is an option.)
Now I'm relieved to know that in near mode, she's a complete realist. This craziness only shows up in far mode.