As you may have noticed, it is possible, sometimes, to tell how someone votes by the arrangement of their yard. I say, “sometimes,” because most yards are neutral. There’s a lawn, probably, and some landscaping. There might be a fence, or a garden gnome. If there are children in the house, there might be toys scattered around. None of these tell us much about a homeowner’s politics.
But there are a few yards that do tell. The crisply mown lawn, edged to perfection, with a swept driveway cutting through it in stark contrast. The metal shed at the back, or a workshop, or a number of trim outbuildings, with clean walls of beige or gray, and bare, except perhaps for a thermometer. The faint chemical smell of fertilizer. A sense of readiness and order. This is a red-team yard. Count on it.
On the other hand: a compost pile, hidden behind a wild profusion of greenery. Sunflowers. A vegetable garden. A tangle of green so thick and profuse it seems more wild than an untouched field or forest. Flashes of color, stained glass and brass or copper. A path to the house through the green, made of natural stone. A neglected driveway, an afterthought. This is a blue-team yard, no question.
Have you ever wondered what causes these strange consonances? Why should Obama voters prefer one style of yard, and Bush voters another? Certainly there’s no direct link between being pro-lawn-fertilizer and being pro-life. Certainly there’s no direct link between funky yard art and being pro-choice. What’s going on?
I’ll leave that for you to puzzle over, if you like. Whatever the cause, it’s plain that red teamers and blue teamers have more in common, intramurally, than mere politics. These commonalities can be found and contrasted in other areas, too.
For example: Blues, you’re earthier than the reds. You have an affinity for life as it is, growing on the earth. You don’t try to scold life into behaving “as it should.” You try to follow its grain, explore its nooks, taste everything it offers. It makes you better cooks.
It also makes you better company, often times. Reds are rigid thinkers, easily made uneasy. Consequently, their small talk is as bland as their canned dinner rolls. Tell a red teamer about that theme park you’ve always wanted to build — the one with roller coasters that toss you through waterfalls to land in pools teeming with android mermaids, where you must catch holograms of talking fish in nets made of laser light, then hold them to your ear to get the password to the water slide, the one that goes down to a hidden grotto bar, where strong drinks are served in goblets like conch shells and everyone drinks merrily until the coaster cars come around again — and they’ll just say, “Whoo-kay.” They’ll miss the invitation to talk about fantastic sights as yet unseen. A pity.
There are other points blue teamers can justly pride themselves on, I think. But at least one common point of pride among you is one you haven’t earned. Although false modesty prevents you from saying so plainly, you believe yourselves to have evolved beyond bigotry. Or at least, you believe yourselves more evolved on this point than the rednecks, Republicans, and Walmart shoppers you disdain. But you are bigots. You are the worst, most complete, most perfectly closed-off, vacuum sealed, and hopeless bigots I have ever, in my life, encountered.
The fulcrum of your bigotry is pride in your education. Those who oppose you are often, so you say, mentally ill (racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, etc.), they might be malevolent too (although you hesitate to say so, unless they’re winning), but they are almost always, as you understand it, ignorant. Everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. You know this, because, if they weren’t ignorant, they would agree with you. You learned this in college. Your opponents must either have not gone to college, or they went, but somehow missed getting educated.
In the wake of the Trump phenomenon, several of your own have taken you to task for this obdurate smugness. Here’s an excerpt from a typical example, and a good one, from Emmett Rensin writing at Vox.com:
Elites, real elites, might recognize one another by their superior knowledge. The smug recognize one another by their mutual knowing.
Knowing, for example, that the Founding Fathers were all secular deists. Knowing that you’re actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself than an intruder. Knowing that those fools out in Kansas are voting against their own self-interest and that the trouble is Kansas doesn’t know any better. Knowing all the jokes that signal this knowledge.
… It is the smug style’s first premise: a politics defined by a command of the Correct Facts and signaled by an allegiance to the Correct Culture. A politics that is just the politics of smart people in command of Good Facts. A politics that insists it has no ideology at all, only facts. No moral convictions, only charts, the kind that keep them from “imposing their morals” like the bad guys do.
But the friendly critics like Rensin merely want you to modulate your rhetoric. They don’t deny that you’ve got science on your side. No, they just want you to try addressing the red team with arguments rather than insults, because they think this approach will be more likely to advance your political goals. They frame your smugness as a tactical misstep, not as what it is: a character flaw.
The problem isn’t that you are wise in matters of policy, but foolish in matters of strategy. The problem is that you are fools, full stop. And you are not benign fools, either. You are the worst and most dangerous kinds of fools; you are fools who think yourselves wise. You are sophomores who never graduate, who never stand to defend a thesis. You are Eternal Sophomores, mere beginners, who are aware that they have learned something, and mistake that tiny something for the whole of wisdom.
You vaunt your education, but I have seen the kind of work you do. I’ve seen how uncritically you accept your instructors’ framing of issues. I’ve seen how little time you spend in libraries, seeking out contrary views, how dependent you are on sources that are handed to you. I’ve seen how sloppily you put your papers together, how you raid your sources, just as Nietzsche says the “worst readers” do:
The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole.
In short, I’ve seen how little you value ideas, even your own. You don’t take them seriously. You never have taken them seriously. You might never take them seriously. For you, an idea is good if it helps you fit in with the crowd you’ve chosen. An idea is good if supporting it earns you nods or Facebook Likes from the right people. You would disagree. You would say you think an idea is good if it is true, or perhaps if it is useful. But you have no way of measuring ideas against these standards, and you’re not interested in learning how to do it. When you say you care about the truth, you lie.
I’ve watched you long enough to know that this isn’t a passing phase. It’s not the shock of Trump’s victory that’s got you dabbling in sophistry. This is your true, authentic, ultimately self-expressive stance toward ideas: they don’t matter. What matters is being liked by the right people, holding the right opinions, and knowing, as Rensin says, the “Good Facts.” It’s all a game for you.
And this is what makes you bigots. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines a bigot as:
A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government.
An unwillingness to honestly consider arguments or evidence is the essence of bigotry, not racial prejudice, or any of the boogeymen of the contemporary left. Bigotry is unreason; it is an indifference to reality. Bigotry isn’t fundamentally about our attitudes toward other groups. If it were true that, for example, gay marriage were a threat to our civilization, then to be against it would not be bigoted. To refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple would not be bigoted. But it is bigoted, right now, today, when blue teamers refuse to duly consider the arguments the red team marshals for this flawed thesis.
Blue teamers, it has become fashionable of late to distance oneself socially from those who hold differing political opinions. I’m sure you’ve noticed. Perhaps you’ve done this yourself. But when you do this, it’s not your instinct for self-preservation at work, or a cautious prudence, or some kindergarten ethos that bids you to say nothing at all, since you can’t say anything nice. It’s your bigotry. Your unreason. Your Eternal damned Sophomorism. You know this as well as I do. So do better.
Make an argument for once. Hear an argument for once. Take it all the way to the end. I really don’t think you can do it. I think you’re too far gone. But because some of you — when I choose to overlook your loathsome bigotry — are some of my favorite people, I’m rooting for you.
Let us look more closely; what is the scientific man? A type of man that is not noble; he has an instinct for his equals and for what they need; for example, that claim to honor and recognition, that constant attestation of his value and utility which is needed to overcome again and again the internal mistrust which is the sediment in the hearts of all dependent men. He is rich in petty envy and has lynx eyes for what is base in natures to whose heights he cannot attain. Their sense of the mediocrity of their own type instinctively works at the annihilation of the uncommon man and tries to break every bent bow, or preferably, unbend it.
—Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil § 206, as presented by Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times, pp. 34–35
I was asked on Facebook how I would move people toward learning how to talk about politics. My answer grew too big for a Facebook comment, so I’m posting it here:
As for what can be done right this second, yes, participating in and encouraging civil and serious discussion is the way to go. One reason I recommend this is because serious discussions make us reflect: “Was my answer really good enough? Did I take everything into account? Maybe I am missing something? But what could it be?” And, especially if we share these struggles with each other, then we model that it’s okay not to know everything, and we encourage better thinking in ourselves and in our interlocutors.
Another reason is: Facebook is a medium that’s hostile to reason. It’s also tremendously important and influential. I think good discourse should crowd out the bad, if possible. And I’m not sure it’s not possible yet.
I’m actually very curious: if people just did more of this, would they discover on their own how inadequate their thinking has been? Would they consequently abandon the meme tossing, and hit the books? I’ve never seen it, so I can’t say. But I don’t discount the possibility.
Beyond this, I’m still working out for myself just how I can best move people toward learning how to talk about politics. I haven’t yet formed a detailed opinion on how people in general can effect positive changes here. The great difficulty is that merely understanding what people need to learn doesn’t get you all the way to helping them do it.
That said, whatever rhetorical strategy I might come up with would certainly take these factors into account:
First, the problem isn’t primarily about politics. It’s about method. People don’t know how to think, in general. Their difficulties with politics are direct extensions of their difficulties with epistemology. To get to clear thinking about politics, people must first learn how to get to clear thinking in general. How do they do that? Through the deliberate study of method.
Second, everyone already has a method for arriving at opinions, whether they recognize this about themselves or not, and whether they arrived at it formally or not. It’s tremendously helpful, I’ve found, to recognize that red teamers tend to share one epistemology, blue teamers another, and Aristotelians (such as myself) a third. Because of this, blue teamers probably need totally different kinds of improvements to their method than red teamers do. (Aristotelians, if they need to improve their method, need to do it in still another way.)
What are these characteristic methods? They can be categorized by their attitudes toward integration. Integration (roughly) is the mental process of taking MANY factors and arriving at ONE conclusion. In general, blue teamers are uncomfortable with integration. Red teamers are very comfortable with it, but want their conclusions to conform to a “higher reality” of some kind. Aristotelians are just as comfortable with integration as red teamers, but don’t believe in any higher reality, and therefore are more fastidious about which factors in regular reality should be included in an integration.
This is why blues emphasize statistics and expert opinion: they don’t think individuals can ever adequately take into account all the MANY factors that are relevant to complex issues. They don’t trust individuals to make decisions for themselves that could affect the community as a whole. Therefore, they step back and want to let the experts handle both the gathering of data and the design of policy based on that data. But they also don’t trust conclusions, so they want all conclusions to be provisional and subject to continual renegotiation, usually through the democratic process.
Reds tend to emphasize both individual judgment and eternal principles when coming to a decision about policy. This is because there’s ONE true answer to any question, and many of the important questions’ answers are given to us by God. The complexity of the world is not overwhelming, because integration works for individuals.Single individuals are more than capable of understanding everything they need to understand before making informed decisions, even if those decisions, in the aggregate, will have a massive effect on the community as a whole.
Aristotelians are so few in number, they have no recognized voice in public discourse.
This has all been a massive oversimplification, of course, but it gestures in the right direction. I’ll just point out, to avoid a possible later confusion, that Marxists are a pro-integration minority within the blue team, and, with respect to method, they have much more in common with red-team Christians than with Aristotelians or with other blue teamers.
These characteristic methods should be taken into account when trying to reach out to someone and help them to improve their method.
The third factor that a good general rhetorical strategy would take into account, I think is that not everyone is equally ready to begin working on their method. If someone’s interested in methodological questions, they’re a good candidate for learning and growth. If they scoff at the necessity of improving their method, they’re probably not a good investment. Focus on people on all teams who are especially intellectually curious.
The last factor I want to mention is the magnitude of the problem. I think it’s huge. A typical college-educated person is years of study away from holding a single competent political opinion.
To sum all this up: a good general strategy for helping people to improve their thinking on politics would be to guide them toward a focus on improving their general method of thinking. It would take into account that they already have methodological habits, and it would be tailored to address them. It would take a long-range approach, and not expect easy victories, but rather slow and difficult progress.
Huge caveat: once a person passes a certain threshold of intellectual curiosity, all this rhetorical daintiness can be tossed out the window. If someone really wants to understand politics, and they’re willing to seriously consider the possibility that a rigorous study of method (epistemology) is an essential means to that end, then they don’t need to be guided through the normal convalescent process. Instead, they can just read a few books. I’m hesitant even to mention them, however, because I realize that there’s something I haven’t mentioned yet:
I spent a good portion of my intellectually formative years puzzling over a single question: Why don’t people seem to care whether their opinions are actually true? And I became progressively more convinced that this was because, either at a very early age, or perhaps even at conception, mankind gets divided in two: those who care about the truth, and those who just want to get along. And this was a bit depressing.
And then I became a teacher. As a result of my experiences there, I started to take very seriously an alternative hypothesis: that our natural interest in the truth is systematically suppressed. I now consider this more plausible than the some-of-us-are-just-less-human-than-others hypothesis.
And this is finally what we are up against in politics, I think: Very clever people have designed important institutions, notably education and mass media, to exploit certain inherent human vulnerabilities. This is rather vague sounding, so let me give a specific example. Bill Gates, in his support for the Common Core, is trying to improve education. I believe this effort of his is genuine and benevolent. I also believe, unbeknownst to himself, that he supports this kind of education because, if it worked out, public schools would churn out more workers suited for the kind of work that gets done at Microsoft. He doesn’t perceive, I don’t think, this conflict of interest: the kinds of workers ideally suited to working for Microsoft are just the kinds of workers ill-suited to start their own firms.
School promotes institutional thinking. Institutional thinking is deep in a niche and shallow everywhere else. It keeps the big picture obscure. It promotes citizens that understand, say, the dangers of climate change very well, but are helpless to put those dangers in any larger context. Because the kind of thinker who makes a good project manager at Microsoft, but who would never conceive of a new, user-friendly OS, is the same kind of thinker who sees the dangers of ocean acidification, but cannot conceive of the dangers of political remedies to this problem.
Every aspect of public intellectual life is a hall of mirrors. Anyone who wants to see the big picture has to smash the mirrors and get outside. And Gates and Zuckerberg and their ilk don’t want us outside. So a sincere desire to improve one’s thinking is not, I’d guess, enough. It has to be a desire strong enough to overcome a whole world that’s telling you to put the books down and get with the program, already.
That said, these are the books I’d tell myself to read in order to get out:
The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand. Optional, but highly recommended. Pay special attention to how popular opinion is managed by the story’s villain, but the main reason (in the present context) to read this book is to get a sense for what an Aristotelian ethos feels like.
Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand. Introduces an original, but Aristotelian way of understanding the big picture. Pros: a page-turner. Cons: highly stylized writing, often mistaken for a clumsy attempt at more conventional prose. There’s a big speech near the end that must not be skipped or skimmed, although most readers seem to. Many adult readers will struggle to take this book seriously, unless a concerted effort is made. It’s worth that effort, and then some.
For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand. Read the title essay only. It’s not going to make a whole lot of sense, but read it anyway. As with all of her nonfiction, take copious notes.
The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, et al. This presents Rand’s ethics. Understanding these ethics is prerequisite to understanding her politics.
Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, et al. Presents Rand’s politics.
Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand. Probably the single most useful book for understanding contemporary politics, or contemporary intellectual life in general. Nearly incomprehensible without a firm grounding in her philosophy.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand. Very technical, although not a hard read. Totally necessary. Do not skip under any circumstances.
The Ominous Parallels, Leonard Peikoff. Explains why Hitler happened, and why the U.S. is headed the way of the Weimar Republic. Essential first step in learning to apply a broad philosophical framework to cultural analysis.
The DIM Hypothesis, Leonard Peikoff. Like a cheat sheet for understanding how everyone around you thinks. Totally incomprehensible without having read and thoroughly digested most of the above.
Understanding Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff. Clears up a number of common misunderstandings. Highly, highly recommended, although optional.
Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff. A summary of Rand’s philosophy. Optional, but it’s the only way to get the whole thing in one piece. This book is not useful as an introduction to Rand’s thought, so do not, under any circumstances, start here.
At this point, you have a number of options. You can delve into criticism of Rand’s work, or you can try to build a foundation in red-team and blue-team fundamentals that matches the Aristotelian-team fundamentals outlined in the books above. If you decide to delve into Rand criticism, be aware that almost all of it written before 2010 is garbage. I can recommend only three works of criticism:
Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge, Allan Gotthelf and James G. Lennox eds.
Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue: Studies in Ayn Rand’s Normative Theory, Allan Gotthelf and James G. Lennox eds.
Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand, Roderick T. Long.
And that’s about it. Your question really merits and requires a book-length answer, and this certainly isn’t it. But it’s, as I said above, a gesture in the right direction. If it seems I’ve suggested resources for becoming expert in one particular philosophy, rather than for improving thinking in general, it isn’t so. Not only does one have to start somewhere, but, the Objectivist / Aristotelian framework has the advantage of being very tightly integrated. It’s a model, whether one ultimately accepts its conclusions or not, of coming to see the one in the many.
What you think this is: a dark satire that speaks to our disgust with commissars and oligarchs.
What this actually is: a confession of bloodlust, felt everywhere, but neither understood nor (openly) admitted to.
See, the thing is, people, keep it up like you have been — the rage and the fervent belief, unsupported by serious arguments — and in retrospect this kind of thing is going to look quaintly optimistic. Bloodlust isn’t nearly so sensible as the sensible hope.
Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, [Patrick] Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed…. All are career Foreign Service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
A group of top State Department officials that some called “The Shadow Government” met weekly to discuss Freedom of Information requests related to Mrs Clinton. They wanted her emails to be released all at once, instead of on a rolling basis, as would normally be the case, according to the FBI summary. But the group did not get its way.
From the lede of the same article:
A State Department official offered a “quid pro quo” deal if the FBI would change the classification of a Hillary Clinton email, FBI documents indicate.
Patrick Kennedy, an undersecretary of state, had asked the email be downgraded to a lower category. [Emphasis mine.]
IN JANUARY 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decade long escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials….
Two senior administration officials said Thursday that the Trump administration told four top State Department management officials that their services were no longer needed as part of an effort to “clean house” at Foggy Bottom.
Was Kennedy fired, or did he resign? Why does the answer matter?
Even though he never said it, Francis Bacon is famous for the dictum, “Knowledge is power.” Like many stories we receive as history, this one is fiction. But despite the misattribution of the saying, it expresses an important truth. Let us approach that truth carefully.
The Two Coalitions
In living memory, there have been only two significant political parties in the United States. They are fundamentally different, but not in the way that most people suppose. The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is not that one favors “small government” and the other “big government”; it is not that one favors “law and order” and the other “social justice”; it is not that one is “working class” and the other “business class.” No, the difference is that the Democratic party is a coalition built around a shared political philosophy, and the Republican party is a coalition, built around no philosophy whatsoever.
In lieu of a shared philosophy, what serves to unite Republicans — incompletely, intermittently, and incoherently — is opposition to the Democratic agenda. If you scrutinize the Republican coalition, it becomes obvious that the constituencies of which it is comprised have little in common. Evangelicals oppose libertarians on nearly every social policy. Neoconservatives oppose evangelicals on the aims of foreign policy, if not the means toward those aims, while libertarians oppose neoconservatives on every policy — social, fiscal, foreign, and domestic. East-coast “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only, such as Michael Bloomberg) are reviled by both libertarians and evangelicals, but maintain a prickly alliance with neoconservatives.
What Republicans Really Want
If you listen in on conservative talk radio and read Republican-aligned publications, it emerges very quickly that the Republican base not only is unhappy with its party leadership, but it isn’t happy with the party, period. This has been true at least since the mid-1990s, when the so-called Republican Revolution fell flat. Partly because each constituency of the Republican coalition opposes and undermines every other constituency, Republicans have been losing and losing and losing and losing — not elections, but every contest for shaping American government at its fundamentals — for as long as anyone remembers. Party leaders and cheerleaders try to paper over this fact, but the pro-party propaganda has never been entirely persuasive to coalition’s base. (The Republican base leans toward the culturally and fiscally conservative elements of the coalition, while the party leadership leans toward neoconservative and RINO views — views, by the way, which are indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s.)
Democrats, in general, do not understand this. They see the Republican alliance as an intractable, irrational, regressive foe, that, due to its members’ intellectual and moral failings, has perennially — and too often successfully — resisted “progress.” A typical Democrat cannot imagine what the Republican base wants, and so cannot imagine how deeply frustrated these people are from so many years of not getting it. On the contrary, Democrats look back at the presidency of George W. Bush, bemoan the lost opportunities for “progress” that America had to endure under it, and imagine that the Republicans are getting what they want all too often.
Nothing could be further from the truth. What follows is a sampling of what the Republican base wants. Not only has it gotten none of these things, but it is clear that the historical trend is such that they will never get these things. This sampling is going to be contradictory, because the Republican coalition is a tangle of contradictions, but it is nonetheless representative of views held by millions of Americans, even if few Americans hold all of these views simultaneously.
The Republican base wants:
A total ban on abortion
Prison terms for women who get abortions
A restoration of explicitly Christian mores to the center of civic life
A massive reduction in Federal taxes. (Imagine an income tax capped at perhaps 12% for the highest earners, and 5–7% for middle-class Americans.)
The repeal of Social Security
The repeal of Obamacare
The total dismantling of all Federal welfare programs
The total dismantling of
The Department of Education
The Department of Energy
The Department of Labor
The Department of Health and Human Services
The Department of Commerce
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
And many other agencies
An end to all funding for foreign aid, the arts, and scientific research
To wage all-out war against radical Islam, by any necessary means, including large-scale nuclear assault, until it is utterly crushed, and the spirit of the movement is broken. Toward this end, reducing entire countries to radioactive, rubble-strewn wastelands would be considered perfectly acceptable, even if it meant hundreds of millions of civilian casualties.
To kick all illegal aliens out of the country, no matter how disruptive this would be
To immediately institute “colorblindness” as Federal policy, meaning, for example, that no institution receiving Federal funds would be permitted to consider race in any way (e.g., in hiring, admissions, or the awarding of contracts). Further, no institution receiving Federal funds would be permitted to gather or retain any race-related statistics at all.
To make every neighborhood in America safe to live and work in, no matter how much police violence is needed to accomplish this, and even at the cost of violating civil rights
To implement economic policies that made it dramatically easier for individuals to accumulate wealth and property, especially in rural areas and in areas experiencing long-term economic decline, even at the cost of environmental quality
In sum, domestically, the Republican base wants a massive reduction in the size and scope of government, a reduction so stark that the character of American social and economic life would be transformed beyond recognition. Think of American social and economic structures reverted to their norm circa 1911, and you are not far from picturing their ideal. In foreign policy, the Republican base wants total warfare against any intractable enemy of the United States, and withdrawal from the international stage in all other spheres. Culturally, the base wants to see mainline Protestant values regain centrality in civic life.
To a typical Democrat, many of the items on this Republican wishlist are, strictly, unthinkable. It is impossible for a typical Democrat to imagine a sane, lucid, informed person who really wanted any of these things — let alone several of them.
First, let me assure you: millions of Republicans really do want at least a few of the things on this list. Second, although many will not believe this, they have reasons that are at least as well thought out as Democrats’ reasons for not wanting these things.
Now, if you lean toward the Democratic side, it doesn’t matter whether you believe me that Republicans are at least as thoughtful as Democrats. What matters is that you recognize that these people exist, and exist in large numbers, and that they are not getting what they want. Not only are they not getting what they want, they have no realistic prospect of getting it. No matter how “regressive” you fear a Trump presidency might be, you are deluding yourself if you think it would significantly advance their agendas. If Trump voters were to get their candidate in office, and then get Obamacare repealed and replaced, they would be ecstatic. If they also saw the Department of Education abolished, that would go down in history as the Republican coalition’s greatest victory to date. And really, these two victories, the second one absurdly unlikely, would hardly amount any “progress” at all, from their perspective. Overall, in the long view, they would still be history’s losers.
This is necessary context for understanding contemporary politics: millions of Americans can see and understand the way the country is headed — but they hate it. They don’t want more social programs; they want to dismantle the existing ones. They don’t want more social justice; they want more traditional justice. They don’t want clean, green energy; they want cheap energy, dirty or not. They don’t want globalism; they want America First.
The left’s response to the intransigence of their opposition has been to cover its eyes and ears and pretend this isn’t happening. They refuse to see that every so-called “progressive” victory is perceived, by the Republican base, as oppression. They refuse to see that Republicans are not at peace with this accumulation of oppressions. Republicans, contrary to Democratic wishful thinking, are not just adjusting to the times a bit more slowly than their more enlightened neighbors. There are limits to how much anyone’s worldview can be “adjusted.” For decades, for generations, the Republican base has been building up resentment after resentment. The pressure and heat have been building, and all the institutions and norms that have been put in place to contain it are beginning to fail. Trump’s insurgent candidacy is proof of this.
(Now time is short before election day, and so in what follows, concerning the media and education, I will just state the truth without going through the rituals meant to persuade you of it. You already know that this is all true anyway.)
Why Republicans Never Get What They Want
In the present-day United States, the Democratic vision of the common good is ascendant, close to achieving the final and total victory it has long sought. It has achieved this dominance because Democrats and their allies control the key institutions that act as gateways to government power. Because, as we shall soon have further cause to understand, knowledge is power, the most important institutions for mediating access to power are the institutions that develop and publish knowledge and information on a large scale: mass media and mass education.
With the exception of talk radio, the Democratic coalition controls mass media. All major television and cable networks, except Fox News, have supported Hillary Clinton against Trump. Fox News has been ambivalent at best. The vast majority of newspapers support Clinton. The vast majority of news magazines support Clinton. The vast majority of celebrities support Clinton. The media as a whole supports Clinton.
Now, I’m not arguing that the media is wrong to do this. I’m just pointing out the obvious: that they do it. Most people who lean toward the Democratic coalition’s vision of the common good probably believe that this pro-Clinton / anti-Trump bias is justified, that, in other words, it’s not really a bias at all, just the unavoidable consequence of Trump’s personal repugnance and ignorance. Let’s leave this question aside for the moment.
Consider instead that this pro-Clinton bias has nothing to do with the relative merits of Clinton and Trump. Go back up and look at the Republican base’s wishlist again. Now try to imagine any candidate who went against the grain of our times and supported several of the items on that list. Imagine this fantasy candidate getting even-handed treatment from the major media. Doesn’t work, does it? This has never happened and will never happen. That’s because the major media are not united against Trump per se, they are united against anyone who projects an intention to resist the Democratic vision of the common good, or to advance a Republican-friendly alternative. The major media, which still largely controls the flow of information, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic coalition.
Again, the important thing to understand here is not whether this state of affairs is good, just, right, or “progressive,”; the important thing to understand here is that everyone already knows this. There is a perverse tendency among members of the Democratic coalition to deny or downplay the media’s bias. But this tactic only makes sense if downplaying this bias stands some chance of lulling significant numbers of the opposition into complacency. I’m here to tell you: it doesn’t. None of them are fooled.
From the Republican coalition’s perspective, the left’s dominance of the major media is repugnant. But far more worrisome, for those Republican-types who pay attention to these things, is the Democratic coalition’s dominance of higher education. That’s because higher education hates America, and everyone knows it.
When a college freshman starts attending classes, his general-education curriculum, in almost every school in the country that still has one, will have one over-arching theme: The United States of America Is Evil, and your Duty, once Higher Education has made you ready for it, is to Right the Wrongs of this country by dedicating yourself to Progress.
Many students tune this propaganda out, because, as is well-known, young people don’t go to college to learn. The agenda the left pushes in the university system goes right past many students. Nonetheless, the better students tend to pay attention. And every student who does pay attention is going to get this message.
The Democratic coalition’s total dominance of higher education is not discussed in polite company — which means members of the Republican coalition discuss it amongst themselves all the time. Like toddlers think themselves with blankets over their heads, Democrats seem to think the academic world’s antipathy for Republican values is invisible, as long as it’s not in the open. This is not true. They are fooling no one. Millions of parents across the country send their children off to college, knowing that their values will be denigrated by every adjunct instructor of Intercultural Communication 101, Sociology 101, Psychology 101, History 101, and so on, ad nauseam.
The reason the Democratic coalition’s Final Solution is nigh is that it was superbly incisive strategy on their part to capture the knowledge-management institutions of mass media and higher education. There can be no serious argument over whether they have captured these institutions, which is why I have only glossed over the evidence here. Everyone knows these institutions belong to the left. Everyone has known it for a long time. But there are implications of this capture that are not as clear to everyone.
First, the left’s capture of higher education, combined with our cultural tilt toward credentialism, means that the only people qualified to hold upper-level positions in the civil service bureaucracy are those who have spent thousands of hours earning those credentials — in institutions of higher education that already belong to the left. As a result, especially considering the Ivy League is the unofficial headquarters of the Democratic coalition, the upper reaches of power in American government are much easier to access for those who have deep roots within the Democratic coalition’s establishment. It was no accident that the 2004 presidential election was between two of Yale’s C-students, both of them members of its most elite fraternity.
Second, the left’s capture of mass media means that every issue, every controversy, and every candidate will be presented in a way that favors the Democratic coalition’s agenda. Even though it is well known in the Republican coalition that the media are compromised, the rhetorical power of “framing” issues remains formidable in the extreme. Even if every Republican ignored the media’s framing, the centrists and undecideds that finally decide every issue can still fall for it, and they do. By holding the high ground of these key institutions, the left has managed to advance its agenda, with a few minor setbacks, virtually without opposition, for more than a century.
One further aspect of the left’s domination of key institutions must be understood before moving on. That is: the Republican party is part of the Democratic coalition. The Republican base, the mass that forms the heart of the Republican coalition, when it is paying attention, has nothing but contempt for the Republican party leadership. It has been paying attention more and more often lately.
The leadership of the Republican party went to Andover and Yale, just like the leadership of the Democratic party. Thus, top Republicans and Democrats share the same general worldview, the same manners, the same values. There are differences, but, from the perspective of the Republican base at least, these are slight. For example, on foreign policy, both the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership are interventionist and globalist. The difference is that the Republican party tends to favor a global community with the United States of America as its undisputed leader. The Democratic party favors a global community ruled by transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and bodies like the United Nations. It’s a difference of emphasis, not essence. And the Republican base knows it.
If you doubt this, consider the Tea Party. This was an attempt by the Republican base to get around their party leadership and begin to bring the issues they cared about directly to the general public’s attention. Although the Tea Party did not have a central leadership and therefore had no official agenda, the typical views of its members, you will find, looked much more like the Republican coalition wishlist above than, for example, the Republican party platform under the RINO John McCain.
But even more than the rise of the Tea Party, the candidacy of Donald Trump has been a reaction to a basic truth in American politics: for at least a century, the left has controlled all the key institutions that mediate access to government power.
All of this points to a basic, obvious truth of contemporary American politics: the Republican coalition is going to lose. Republicans are clumsy with power; they can’t seem to hold it for long, or ever use it to achieve any vision that fundamentally opposes the Democrats’. Republicans have been fatally outmaneuvered, flanked, and divided. The key institutions, the high ground, belong to the Democrats. Therefore, the Republican base is not going to get what it wants. The Democrats may offer a few expedient compromises along the way, but the state is well and truly caught up in the engine of “progress.” The total transformation of American social and civic life to align with the Democratic vision of the common good is a foregone conclusion.
Why the Left Should Be Afraid of Winning
And this basic truth, in turn, points to another. It’s this second truth that has become my singular political concern in the last several years. And this truth is one that the left has studiously ignored, because if they admit it, they will have to let go of their beloved vision of the common good. The truth is this: the right is not going to accept the left’s victory. The left has treated politics like a game, like a matter of points and position, like a matter of scoring goals and blocking returns. It isn’t a game. There are neither rules nor referees. At its base, the Republican coalition is furious, outraged, boiling. They will not quit the field gracefully. We are not heading into the fourth quarter. We are heading into an explosion. We are heading into civil war.
Everyone who is paying attention to politics knows this, by the way. It’s just something we don’t speak of. But if we want to survive, this silence has to stop. Each side has reasons for staying quiet, but it’s the left’s reasons that matter most. The left remains quiet about the civil war we all know is coming … because they think they are going to win it.
On a few occasions, I’ve broached this topic, or heard it broached, among more thoughtful leftists. As they considered the possible outbreak of hostilities, I could tell they were picturing a pathetic, Malheur-style insurgency — overweight, middle-aged men playing army. I could tell because they always said something like this: “Well, if that happens, those militia-types’ shotguns and hunting rifles aren’t going to do much against the army’s drones, and attack helicopters, and tanks. It’ll be a massacre, and that will be that.”
That will, most certainly not, be that. Leftists see government as a benevolent force because they recognize, rightly, that it is their force. In the quotidian routine, government is the weapon that lets leftists work their will on their helpless victims (“deplorables”), and it is also the tool that helps them build their vision of paradise on earth (a community-college campus, dominated by green space, linked by maglev trains, stretching unbroken from coast-to-coast). Thus, they love government, both as a sadist loves her whip, and as a mason loves her trowel. But it’s a human tendency to overlook some aspects of the people and things we love. And leftists have overlooked a pivotal fact about government: its armed forces are not loyal to “progressive” ideals. Quite the contrary.
The armed forces, collectively, lean toward conservative or libertarian values. When civil war breaks out, the armed forces will split into factions, some supporting urban elites, but more supporting the deplorable flyover country. There will be no swift victory for either side. But in the end, because they will have greater numbers and a mass of armed civilian support, the right-wing factions will come out on top. Civil war will leave a broken and bleeding country in the hands of Trump voters, Sarah Palin fans, and evangelical Christians. The Democratic coalition will drop its whips and trowels, or be ground into mush.
If Hillary is elected president, this — a civil war followed by a right-wing dictatorship — is the most probable long-term result. But to understand why, it is necessary to delve below the superficies of the Republican and Democratic coalitions, to identify the fundamental nature of the forces that have created these coalitions. And, more important than understanding why this will be the outcome, is coming to recognize the one and only way out.
Why There Will Be No Compromise
And there are five fundamental forces that have created these coalitions: First and foremost, these coalitions exist because Washington, D.C. is the greatest power on earth. If you have something big you want done, and you can’t convince enough people to contribute their efforts voluntarily, D.C. is the key to making them do it.
Second, these coalitions exist because they each appeal to the masses through altruism. Since its rise in the waning days of the Roman Empire, Christianity has provided the dominant ethos in the Western world. There are no serious contenders. Even the vast majority of Western atheists adhere to fundamentally Christian ethical precepts. The single word that best captures this ethos is “altruism.” The characteristic moral advice offered by this ethos is: if you can make others happy by giving up whatever makes you happy, then do it: put others’ needs and interests before your own. Both the Republican and the Democratic coalitions frame their appeals to the masses in altruistic language, and the masses respond because the only ethos popular with the masses is altruism.
Third, these coalitions exist because, long ago, adherents to the Christian-altruist ethos split into two factions. It is difficult to place the moment of the split, but the watershed event seems to have been the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859. After Newton’s 1687 Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, this was the most important work of science ever produced.
Darwin argued that species came into being through a process of natural selection, or the interaction of naturally varying phenotypes with their environment. Some phenotypes would be more apt to survive in their environment, and would thus live to reproduce. Eventually, natural variations would pass through this environmental filtering effect for long enough that the variants would be distinguishable as new species.
It didn’t take long for the implications of this theory to suggest themselves. Consider the times in the mid-19th Century. Newton had already shown that there might indeed be nothing beyond the reach of human reason. After all, if the motion of the celestial spheres could be explained with a simple inverse-square, then what couldn’t be captured by math and measurement? The United States of America had already made the first attempt at organizing an entire society on reasoned principles, rather than on dynasties of inheritance, accidents of geography, or myths. The clear implications of Darwin’s work, which Darwin himself made clearer in later publications, were these:
Man is part of, not above, the natural order.
Living things, including man, change and develop.
The interaction of living things with their environment is the force that drives change and development.
The development of living things in interaction with their environment can be measured.
Science had already shown that what can be measured might be controlled. So if the human environment could be measured, which it could, then it meant human nature might be controlled. It might be improved. Human nature itself might be made more humane. And this would be “progress.” And this is why Democrats, especially the more ambitious ones, call themselves, “progressives.”
But if science and technology could open a path to “progress,” changing the human environment, and ultimately human nature itself, for the “better,” what defined “better?” Since the Christian-altruist ethos ruled unchallenged in the West in Darwin’s time (as it rules today, and has ruled since the inception of Western civilization), as the “progressive” political philosophy emerged, it drew its ideas of “betterment,” “improvement,” and “progress” directly from Christian theology. For Christians, the purpose of life is to reach God in heaven. Before they split into two factions, all Christians agreed that heaven and earth were distinct realms. But Darwinian science inspired a new ambition in some Christians. Rather than wait for another world to bring peace, joy, and direct fellowship with God, why not bring heaven to earth? Why not build heaven on earth? Why not transform earth into paradise?
The Christian-altruists, which, until Darwin, had shared a broad agreement, split into two factions over precisely these questions. One faction maintained the traditional faith that man was fallen, and not only constitutionally incapable of creating his own paradise, but bound by humility to accept God’s grace on His own terms and timeline. For them, heaven was, and remained, another realm. Speaking very broadly, with expansive room for exceptions, these people became Republicans.
The other faction, which of course became the Democrats, believed there was no reason to wait for heaven. They would use science and technology to bring it into being. They took Francis Bacon and turned him on his head. He had argued, understanding the ethos of altruism as he did, that free scientific inquiry must be allowed in order to make life better for the poor and downtrodden. The progressives inverted the Baconian gambit. Instead of leveraging altruism to free science from Christian authority, they would press all scientific inquiry into the service of a secularized Christianity. They would do this “for the common good.”
The fourth fundamental reason the Democratic and Republican coalitions came to exist is that the opposing factions of Christian-altruists saw incompatible visions of the “common good.” Even though they continued to share the same altruist ethos, one faction believed that it was morally incumbent upon them to bring all human resources to bear on improving humanity on earth, the other believed it was hubris to try this. In the Republican vision of the common good, it was better to cultivate — on earth — the social conditions that would bring individuals and families closer to God — in heaven. They felt that existing social norms were well suited to this end. Thus, they were “conservatives,” wanting to conserve the established patterns of social life. From these broad visions of the common good, it is easy to understand why the Republican coalition clashes with the Democratic coalition over the public-school sex-education curriculum. The former prioritize the young’s spiritual connection to God, and thus rigid obedience to the testaments’ strictures. The latter prioritize pleasant, hygienic, and orderly life on earth. Sex is pleasant. Condoms are hygienic. Planned parenthood is orderly.
The fifth and final reason that these coalitions exist in their contemporary form is that visions of the common good, which must be prodded into being with government’s guns and bayonets, do not direct themselves. They cannot direct themselves. This is what Hillary Clinton is, and what Donald Trump proposes to become: a director of prodding for the “common good.” A symbiosis naturally arises between any vision of the common good that compels mass allegiance and the officials, priests, or mandarins who usher this vision into reality. Put another way, any vision of the common good that garners mass support naturally develops a political class (or a priestly caste) that manages the practical work of keeping that vision on track.
In sum, the Republican and Democratic coalitions exist in their present form because the Founders’ vision for limited government could not withstand the power lust of two warring factions of Christianity, each wanting to wrest the power of government from the other, in order to realize two opposing visions of the common good: The Republican vision of earth as a waiting-room for heaven, versus the Democratic vision of earth, and the people on it, as raw material from which heaven should be built.
Obviously, two visions of the common good, each one claiming to be the One True Vision, each one claiming to be the True Altruism, cannot “compromise.” One has to make the other extinct. After all, the priests, pastors, scientists, or “experts,” on each side make it their business to assure their followers, as often as necessary, that their Good Works for the Holy Cause must never flag. The Enemy must never gain ground. The Others’ vision of the common good, the priests, pastors, scientists, and experts always say, is a heresy.
And now you have — nearly — all the means to understand why, if we value our lives and liberties, Donald Trump must be the next president of the United States.
Sunset in the West?
More than 2000 years ago, Aristotle introduced two of the three or four most radical ideas in human history: that logic is the one method that builds knowledge, and that the senses are the one foundation to build it on.
Then Newton and Locke inspired a confidence in human reason, in the Aristotelian inheritance, that had never been seen before. The United States of America, a nation founded on reason, was the result.
The American ideal of social order founded on individual rights, a social order that exists only to secure those rights was an Aristotelian order.
When Aristotle placed the root of all knowledge in the senses, he placed the root of political sovereignty in the individual. Only individuals have eyes, hands, ears, senses of any kind. If knowledge is rooted in the senses, and if senses are attributes of individuals, then each individual is his own highest authority. Each individual is the foundation of a new understanding, a unique understanding, a private understanding that was built on the most public space of all: the world we all see and hear and touch in every act of everyday life.
Plato, in contrast, stood within the long tradition of thinkers, of priests, of witch doctors, of shamans, of all the men who saw visions in the temples and sacred, secret spaces. Plato said that the roots of knowledge weren’t in the world of sight and sound and touch, but in a “higher” realm.
And Plato didn’t discover the “truths” of this higher realm by observation, by using his eyes. He discovered these “truths” in conversation. By coming to a “consensus” as he sat at a banquet table, chatting with the idle rich of Athens, the “best men.” The truth of the higher realm did not just emerge from these conversations, it was created in these conversations.
And this leads us to the fundamental political insight of the West, the heart of Western civilization, that Hillary Clinton means to cut out and eat: whoever controls knowledge will have the power, because knowledge is power.
If knowledge comes from the senses, which everyone has equally, then everyone has power.
If knowledge comes from officers, priests, scientists, political operators, agency men, commissions, committee members, or “representatives,” coming to “consensus” in their secret councils, then they will have the power. All of it.
In the medieval world, those holding power/knowledge wore robes or held scepters. Now they wear lab coats or pantsuits. The story is the same: these people know better than you do. These people have special insight. These people have access to a “higher” truth, a truth no mere peasant can claim to lay hold of. And this truth tells the priests and politicians that it is their noble duty to look after us all, in the name of the “common good.”
It’s an iron law of history, although we are only now seeing its first full unfolding: If individuals are let to make their own knowledge, they will be free. If they must submit to the “higher truths” of some priestly caste’s “consensus,” they will be slaves. Hillary Clinton doesn’t aim to usher in some “progressive” future, she means to bring the Aristotelian experiment to an end, to bring civic life in the United States back in line with the rest of humanity, back in line with all of human history. She means those beneath her cast to be slaves. She means herself and her ilk to be masters. She means to do this in the name of the “common good.” She means to do this on the authority that they “know better.”
Ray Bradbury, the great American author, foresaw, decades ahead, much of what is befalling our culture now. He recorded some of what he saw in his novel Fahrenheit 451.
451 is misunderstood by the teenagers who suffer through it in school to be a book about censorship. That’s because the main character is a fireman who, instead of putting out fires, sets them. And he sets them to burn books.
What 451 is really about is two contrary drives in human beings: first, to try to know the truth at all costs; second, to be comfortable at all costs. The America of Fahrenheit 451 has chosen comfort. And since ideas can make us uncomfortable, and since books are packed with ideas …
At one point, the main character (Guy Montag) finds a mentor, a former professor, a man of experience who, Montag hopes, can explain what has gone so dreadfully wrong with the world. Montag has noticed that no one seems to be happy in their world that’s tailor-made for comfort. He has begun to wonder whether the pandemic of unhappiness has something to do with all the books he’s been burning, that maybe people need books.
Montag’s reluctant mentor says it’s not the absence of books that’s making everyone so miserable, he says the real cause of the universal misery is that there are three human needs that aren’t getting met. First, says the mentor, people need access to high-quality, textured information. (In the world of Fahrenheit 451, what they get instead is something more like endless MTV mixed with soap operas and tabloid shows. Or, come to think of it, something a lot like CNN and Fox News.) Second, says the mentor, people need leisure time to really think through all this textured information. (Instead, free time is packed full with “activities” in the world of Fahrenheit 451. Speaking of which, how much textured information is Facebook providing about this election? How much leisure time do people have, and of that, how much are they dedicating to thinking through all of the available information?) But it’s the last thing Guy’s mentor says that’s always stuck with me: He says that, in order to be happy, people need to be able to take action on what they’ve concluded from all their textured learning and leisurely thinking.
This vital power, the power to act on what we know is the power that any politics based on a “common good” robs from us. It is absolutely necessary to every vision of the common good that knowledge and power, including the power to act on knowledge, are concentrated in the hands of a priestly caste, an elite, a DNC, an oligarchy.
What does the Republican coalition want? It wants to force everyone in America to contribute to its vision of the common good. What does that mean? It means, in practical terms, and among many other things, that the Republican base wants to take away every woman’s self-determination, to tell her, if she’s pregnant, what she can and can’t do with her body, and with any potential human life that has taken root inside of it.
What if the woman’s best reasoning tells her that the six-week-old fetus growing inside her isn’t yet a human life? What if her conscience tells her, therefore, that the abortion she wants, for her own, well considered reasons, can harm no one?
Too bad, says the Republican coalition. The truth we perceive is greater than the truth you perceive. After all, our pastors and priests came to a consensus, by scrutinizing the lines of texts we say are sacred, even if their sacredness is invisible to you. Certainly, you cannot see, with your own eyes, how we know that this fetus has a fully human life. But our insight is into a higher realm. We know God’s will. If you can’t see it, so much the worse for you; we will force you to save that life, the life we know is human, and you say is not human yet.
What does the Democratic coalition want? It wants to force everyone in America to contribute to its vision of the common good. What does that mean? It means, in practical terms, and among many other things, that the Democratic coalition wants to see gay people able get a nice wedding cake from any bakery in the country, even if that bakery is owned by evangelical Christians.
What if the bakers’ best reasoning tells them that marriage can only be between a man and a woman? What if their consciences tell them that baking that cake is tantamount to telling God: “Your word doesn’t matter. What matters is that I make gay people comfortable in our shop.” — ?
Too bad, says the Democratic coalition. The truth we perceive is greater than the truth you perceive. After all, our sociologists and LGBTQ theorists came to a consensus, by scrutinizing the law through the lends of critical theory, even if critical theory is gobbledygook to you. Certainly, you cannot see, with your eyes, how we know that this cake must be baked, for justice. But our insight is into a higher realm. We know the vector of history. We are the keepers of Progress. If you can’t see it, so much the worse for you; we will force you to bake that cake, the cake we know is just, and that you say is treason to your covenant with God.
In the original conception of law in the United States, a conception based on Aristotelian reason and Lockean individual rights, the government had no power — it was granted no power — to enforce either of these visions of the common good. It was granted no power to enforce any vision of the common good. It was granted power only to ensure that each individual — using her own senses, her own mind, her own reason, her own values, her own judgment, her own hands, her own work, and whatever she made real with that work — could pursue her own good, her own happiness, in peace.
Seduced by the lure of power, drunk on visions from “higher” dimensions, visions that tell them the violence they do is just, both coalitions have betrayed this chance at peace. Neither coalition will ever persuade the other to see things its way. There will never be a pan-American consensus. There will never be a universal vision of the common good. And because the “reasons” that justify each vision come from “higher” realms that are invisible to the uninitiated, reason will be impotent to bring these coalitions closer together.
And when men and women cannot deal with one another with reason, they will deal with one another by force.
And we ain’t seen nothing yet.
If Hillary is elected president, it might happen like this: One way or another, in her first term or her second, she will get new gun-control measures passed — into what passes, now, for “law.” The Democratic coalition will congratulate itself, smugly, for whatever twist, under color of law, finally broke the Second Amendment’s meaning on the rack of sophistical language. And then there will be a shooting.
The news will report it as domestic terrorism. There will be much hand-wringing, and talk of further measures to re-educate the angry white males, to reason with them, to get them to see why they need to just lay down their arms, just comply, just go along. After all, it will all be for the “common good.” Everyone on television will agree that this is the only sensible thing to do, and surely gun owners will soon see the truth of this, just like they did in Australia.
And then there will be another shooting. And another. And another. And in little fits and starts, in expected places, and in places no one would ever expect, there will be more shootings.
A retired army officer will go on Fox News. He will be expected to say calming things. Things to “unite us, not divide us.” He will say something else. A hundred thousand gun owners will take up arms and march, soon after, on Washington. It will not go well, for anyone.
Now, of course, it might not start like this at all. It’s unpredictable.
But the end of war is not as hard, I think, to predict.
The Democratic coalition’s roots are in the college-educated classes. Their vision of the common good only really reaches people who’ve had years and years of expensive socialization. It’s a vision only plausible to those enthralled with the self-satisfaction one gets from mastering lightweight undergraduate coursework in the social sciences. In other words, it’s a vision of the common good that only appeals to a small (but disproportionately influential) segment of the population.
Old-fashioned regressive Christianity, though? That’s a vision of the common good that has reach. And because it has reach, because it speaks to millions and millions of people, and speaks to their hearts, once the right-wing coalition gets its hands on power, it will keep it.
Vote Trump: The One and Only Way Out
There is one chance, as I see it, to avoid this.
If Donald Trump is elected instead of Hillary Clinton, America, and those of us living here, get a stay of execution.
The Trump candidacy is a freak phenomenon. The Democratic coalition’s lock on power is nearly absolute. Trump is the only candidate since Reagan to challenge it at all, and the only candidate in American history to present a somewhat credible threat. If he loses, there will be no second Trump. The Democratic party will, for all practical purposes, run unopposed for the foreseeable future.
This has several implications. Two need mentioning here. First, Trump will have no support from the entrenched civil service bureaucracy, no support from the Republican party, and fierce opposition from every Democrat in the country. Should he win, he will never be able to implement any of the hyperbolic horrors the Democrats have promised.
Second, his election will calm the Republican base. Right now, that base is seething. It is making ready for war. If Trump wins, it will mean the Republican base has gotten a speaking part on the national stage for the very — first — time. Contrary to the dark fantasies of Democrats, this will not open up a path to a right-wing populist dictatorship. Quite the opposite. It will delay this dictatorship.
It will delay this dictatorship because, having their candidate in power for the first time ever, the Republican base will not know what to do with itself. The Republicans allied with Trump will need to showboat and prance on that stage until they get it out of their system. They will spend a full year patting themselves on the back, I’m sure. They will win some token policy victories, maybe the repeal of Obamacare, but they will not roll back the welfare state. They will not make much headway toward realizing their vision of the common good.
And by the time Trump’s one or two terms in office have expired (and no, he won’t declare himself president for life; the country is not ready to accept that kind of power grab yet), he will have made a lot of noise and maybe a bit of a difference, but the sky will not have fallen, there will have been no second Kristallnacht, and America will have remained pretty much the same country it is today.
On the other hand, we’ve already seen what happens if Hillary becomes president. It might not happen during her terms in office, but happen it will.
While the Republican coalition savors Trump’s victory, everyone with sense to exploit it will have an unprecedented opportunity: a break in left’s long march through the institutions. During this pause, we can work, not through politics, but through other means, to restore reason and rights to the center of American civic life. It’s a long shot, but I think it can be done.
So if you align with the Democratic coalition, my final message to you is this: Vote Trump, or you will snatch a gruesome and bloody defeat from the jaws of victory.
If you align with the Republican coalition, it is this: power corrupts. A government powerful enough to, finally, give you everything you want, even if all you want is to save the lives of the unborn, is powerful enough to take everything you have. And it will. So Vote Trump on November 8th, but get your mind right right after. You cannot use force to achieve any good end. If you try, you will bring horrors to the world, the like of which we’ve never seen.
Aristotle, Locke, and Jefferson gave us, gave humanity, one chance at getting it right. We have to learn to live together without holding guns to each others’ heads. We have to renounce the power of government to realize any fantasy of a common good, no matter how it calls to us. We have to give each other the right to discover what’s best for ourselves, the right to know what’s best for ourselves, and the right to act on this knowledge. If we do not, it can only end one way. We’ve come far too close to that end already now. And so, finally, to all of you, of both coalitions:
You fucking idiots. You’re half-likely to burn the world, to waste the gift of peace, a gift you’ve never done anything yet to earn, a gift that heroes gave to you. But at least it couldn’t happen to a more deserving lot.
(Note: this video confuses democracy and small-“r” republicanism, and the solutions it suggests are sophomoric and doomed to failure. But focus on the illustration of the problem, and let these failings pass.)
Second, oligarchy is the natural tendency of all rulership. A second Clinton presidency will, without question, accelerate this “progress” in America:
The United States of America was the first country in history to be founded, explicitly, on any philosophy, and is still the only country in history to have been founded on the principle of individual rights. It had taken thousands of years for a series of heroes, Aristotle foremost among them — aided by unlikely happenstance upon unlikely happenstance, the unintended consequences of misplaced passions, the printing press, and a mad monk — to wrest the idea of individual rights into being. At the peak of the Enlightenment, in the afterglow of Newton, when humanity was still beaming with new-found pride in its power to reason, when it still seemed possible to organize a society on rational principles, some few among the revolutionary generation of Americans sought to put the theory of individual rights into practice. This idea inspired a rag-tag conglomeration of Britain’s cast-offs to take up arms against the most powerful empire in the world, to fight it, persevere, and win. Yet today, if you were to ask a recent college graduate, one who had paid close attention in her classes at a top-tier school, a superb student, a model, a paragon: “In the interest of justice, before anything else, what should everyone understand about founding of the United States of America?” she would unhesitatingly answer: “The founders kept slaves, didn’t recognize women as equals, and stole all their land from the first peoples.”
This profound superficiality, which is the rule among the up-and-coming “educated” classes in contemporary American society, is a large part of why, if something doesn’t change, if Hillary is elected president, we are likely fucked. If vacuous ignorance continues to align itself with oligarchic power, there will be no coming back. The tens-of-thousands-of-years long slog through the muck of human misery, the millennia of the strong preying on the weak, of priests, nobles, and kings pressing their boots on the necks of the men and women they saw below them, like a dark tide that has been out too long, like an ocean sucked flat before a tsunami, will come rushing back, black and inexorable, to drown out all hope.
While today a variety of significant cultural, political, and institutional forces are aligned against individual rights, and the forces that contend to preserve rights are weak and few, the transition from freedom to enslavement is likely to be permanent for deeper reasons. The uniqueness of the American way in human history indicates a basic truth about us: that we do not yet know how to be free. Taken as a whole, humanity does not yet want to be free. Our ancient habit is to submit to hierarchies, to raise up chiefs and presidents, medicine men and priests, to anoint David with oils, to give glory to the emperor, to carry pictures of Chairman Mao, and to elect FDR to four consecutive terms in office. To be free, humanity must learn something new.
Even though they didn’t have the reach for it yet, the American revolutionary generation grasped at political freedom, at this something new. But what does political “freedom” mean, really? When a contemporary politician alludes to “our freedoms” or the like, it sounds like an empty platitude — because it is. Still, just because a word can be parroted meaninglessly, doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. In a political context, freedom means: a social organization that secures individual rights. If this were broadly understood, there would be zero chance of Hillary Clinton’s election in November. If it were broadly understood, Donald Trump would never have won the Republican party’s nomination. If it were broadly understood, there would be riots in the streets tomorrow. These realities hint at why the ruling classes have worked so long, so hard, and so effectively, to make sure this isn’t broadly understood. They explain the profound superficiality of our exemplary college graduate.
In fact, the concept of ‘rights’ has been so muddled (people now believe that healthcare and Internet access are “rights” (!)), that it now communicates nothing to a general audience. This is a disaster in the making. Hillary Clinton’s election to the presidency would significantly advance an existential threat to Western civilization, but that threat would come in the form of a sneak attack on the very rights that, now, few Americans understand or appreciate. The greatest treasure of our civilization, the work of generations of geniuses, the inheritance that we are squandering, individual rights, may be stolen from us by a threadbare con.
Since it means less than nothing to a contemporary audience to warn them, “Hillary Clinton is a threat to individual rights!” let us consider the matter indirectly. If you cannot understand what Clinton is against, understand what she is for. And what Hillary Clinton is for (publicly) is: her vision of the “common good.”
What is the “common good?” The “common good” is a vision of what the left carefully calls the “distribution” of goods in a society — plus one additional element, which we will come to shortly. To understand the “common good,” one must first understand goods generally. Education, healthcare, housing, clothing, food, transportation and entertainment are all goods. Romantic partnerships, friendships, and pets are goods. Goods are everything we spend our lives trying to get and to keep.
In the Western world, it is broadly agreed (for now) that people should be able to decide for themselves what goods to prioritize in their own lives. It is also understood that not every effort to get or to keep a good will be successful. For example, you might want to be a lawyer, but if your LSAT scores are too low, that good will be difficult or impossible for you to get. And people generally accept that not always getting the goods that we want is normal.
Despite the general agreement that goods are, largely, a personal matter, and that, to some degree, we won’t always get the goods we want, most politicians adhere to some vision of the “common good.” This “common good” is supposed to both override the private goods of individuals and also to underpin all these private goods. What I mean by this is that politicians tend to believe that certain “distributions” of goods in society are necessary for the “health” of the society. But since goods don’t come from thin air, but have to be produced with thought and effort, and since politicians don’t produce goods themselves, this means that any who subscribe to an idea of the “common good” intend to steal goods from some individuals and hand them to others. This is their only means for having goods “distributed” in accordance with their visions. Thus a vision of the “common good” overrode my own personal good when my income was taxed to support the second Iraq war. I would never have volunteered to support it in any way. Yet, against my will, the government took my goods (my earnings), by force, and used them to buy a few rounds of depleted uranium, or something equally repugnant to me. The implicit justification for this was that the Iraq war was in the “national interest,” which is another way of saying “common good.” So president Bush had a vision of dead Iraqis that he thought was more important than my vision of, e.g., a new pair of cross-country skis, and his vision overrode mine, with the help of all the United States’ government’s guns.
This is how the “common good” overrides individuals’ private goods. But the “common good,” in theory, only has this overriding privilege because it benefits everyone. Supposedly, maiming and killing Iraqis — after pretending they had something to do with 9/11 — protected our “freedom.” And since individual Americans, like me, could hardly pursue our own private goods without the benefit of our “freedom” — well, you can see why all that maiming and killing had to be done.
Another example of how the “common good” is supposed to underpin each individuals’ private good is found justifying public education. The theory there is that educated workers produce more goods, which enriches the entire society. Therefore, say proponents of the “common good,” taxing me to provide public education actually benefits me and everyone else; it underpins my successful pursuit of private goods, because it improves the economy and makes more goods available at less cost.
With these examples in mind, we can expand on the definition of “common good” above: The “common good” is a vision of the proper distribution of goods in a society, intended to be realized by force.
Because Hillary “It Takes a Village” Clinton is an enthusiastic proponent of the “common good,” she rejects freedom. A society can be guided by one principle, or by the other, but never by both. A free society must reject, as an organizing principle, any reference to a “common good.”
The necessary opposition between political freedom and any “common good” is not trivial to discover. Our paragon of contemporary college education — with someone’s vision of social justice misting her eyes — will not find it. For us to discover the connection now, we must examine the founding principles of the United States.
Ceremonially, the United States came into being in July of 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration proclaimed the following founding principles:
Equality: The Declaration repudiated the notion, central to all prior systems of government, that some men were, either by nature or by divine sanction, “set above” others. In the Declaration, there is no political hierarchy among men: we are all, politically, equal.
Unalienable Rights: Rights are the central concept of the Declaration, derived directly from Locke’s philosophy (and, by extension, from Aristotle’s). To “alienate” something, a possession for example, means to separate it from yourself. You “alienate” your dollars when you spend them. You “alienate” your house when you sell it. You “alienate” your old clothes when you give them to a charity. According to the Declaration, you cannot “alienate” a right: rights cannot be sold, traded, or given away. If they are taken away, the taking is always illegitimate and always criminal.
Natural Rights: In the Declaration, rights are not just inseparable from the individuals who hold them, they are aspects of human nature, endowed by God when he created humans and created human nature. This means that rights exist before governments, and outside and beyond all governments. Because human nature is the same at all times and in all places, rights are the same in all times and in all places. Rights do not “evolve,” develop, or change in any way. The number of rights cannot increase or decrease. No new rights will ever be discovered (although some rights that have existed all along might come to be recognized), and nothing that was ever a right can ever, later, turn out not to be a right. (It is vital to note here that the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist. When a Deist writes the word “God,” he does not mean what typical churchgoers today mean by that word. Deists were the Enlightenment-era analog of what, in contemporary life, we call “atheists.” Deists believed only nominally in God, as a kind of abstract force that created the laws that govern the cosmos, then let the clockwork mechanism of the cosmos turn out its internal tensions for the rest of eternity. While it’s true that not all of the founders were Deists, and some (Sam Adams, for example) were fervent Christians, it’s also true that Enlightenment Deism was the animating philosophy behind the Declaration, and behind the United States as such. Far from being a religious republic, or a republic founded on or inspired by Christian belief, the United States were the most non-theistic political entity in human history.)
Unlimited Rights: The wording of the Declaration is subtle (by contemporary standards). It is easy to miss key implications by passing too breezily through its passages. Take this sentence, for example: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The word “among” here implies that there are other rights than those listed. In fact, in natural-rights theory, individuals possess an infinite number of rights. Essentially, it holds that individuals have a right to do anything and everything they deem necessary to do in order to preserve and secure their lives. To put this in concrete terms: according to this theory, you have an absolute right to read She-Hulk comics (assuming you do not obtain them by force). You have this right, for example, because if it makes you happy to read She-Hulk, then that happiness contributes to the preservation of your life — if only by contributing to a pleasant evening, which makes it easier to relax and rest well, which makes it easier to get up on time, which makes it easier to get to work on time, which makes it easier to keep producing whatever it is you produce in order to provide for yourself. She-Hulk, by your own judgment, helps you to be productive in the service of your own life. Therefore, you have an absolute right to all the She-Hulk you can obtain through peaceful trade.
Rights-Based Government: According to the Declaration, the whole, entire, exhaustive purpose of government is to secure individuals’ rights. There is no legitimate purpose for government beyond this. (And here we begin to see how radically individual rights theory repudiates the notion of a “common good.”)
Consent of the Governed: In the Declaration, because the only (legitimate) purpose of government is to secure individuals’ rights, and because it is an observable fact that governments do not always limit themselves to this one legitimate function, there needs to be a way for the legitimacy of a government to be decided. The answer given in the Declaration is that governments are legitimate only as long as they keep the consent of the governed. This consent can be withdrawn at any time, which leads to the next principle of the Declaration.
The Right of Revolution: Since the people can withdraw their consent at any time, and since, in practice, governments tend to prefer not to be dissolved and replaced, the Declaration proclaims the people’s right to “alter or abolish” a government whenever they believe that government is failing to secure their rights. The clear implication is that the people have the right to do this violently, if necessary. As Jefferson wrote elsewhere:
what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.
Popular Sovereignty: Consistent with what Locke had argued in his Second Treatise of Government, the Declaration’s view of governing power is that it is power derived from the people. In other words, whatever power and authority a government legitimately wields, it wields as a loan fromthe people. As such, it is the people (individuals in the aggregate) who are sovereign, not the government, not any king, legislature, or council. Popular sovereignty would be the principle underpinning the United States’ Constitution.
Taken all together, these principles of the Declaration construct government as the servant of the people, a diametric reversal of thousands of years of human history. Consider now: if the government is really the servant of the people (meaning, not merely in rhetoric, but in practice), what will it be permitted to do? Some people, for example, might want the government to subsidize corn production, because they truly believe these subsidies will benefit the country as a whole (it being a mere coincidence, of course, that those with this insight farm corn). But surely other people would rather keep their wealth than give it to corn farmers. Still others might want the same wealth that might be expropriated for corn subsides to subsidize college tuition instead. If the corn crowd manages to capture the government’s power and turn it toward its vision of the “common good,” everyone else loses.
Since there are contingents for and against just about any conceivable use of government power, it is obviously incoherent to claim that government is the servant of the people as a whole, if it is going to be common practice for one contingent to get its wishes today, another tomorrow, and neither the day after. There are only three possible solutions to this dilemma: One, to give up the notion that government is, or ought to be, the servant of the people. Two, to school the people to assent to one set of common values (a universal “common good”), so that everyone assents to the forces brought to bear in service of those values. Three, to radically limit the use of government power, so that no “interest group” can ever use it to steal goods from some and hand them to others. (Some readers, probably hailing from what I have elsewhere called the “Blue team,” might want there to be a fourth option: to say that government serves the people, even if it takes goods from some needy people to give to others who are no more needy, as long as the winners and losers are decided upon democratically. Think about that for a bit. Realize it’s a dishonest dodge. Move on.)
The framers of the United States’ Constitution chose the third option. Their implementation of the Declaration‘s principle of popular sovereignty was the constitutional precept of enumerated powers. This basic principle of the Constitution means that the federal government has only the powers that are explicitly granted to it (enumerated) in the text. If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government, from the limitless pool of powers (rights) that each individual possesses by nature, then the federal government, in theory, has no right to exercise that power.
Consider the implications of this for the “common good.” If government is only granted a meager quiver of powers, just enough to secure individual rights and no more, where will it find the power to expropriate goods from some citizens and hand them to others? Nowhere. A limited government is too fine an instrument to be wielded for the “common good.” That requires a club, something blunt enough and broad enough to “get things done.” This indicates why freedom, individual rights, limited government, and prosperity like mankind had never before seen came up together in history. It also indicates why slavery, contingent and ever-changing “rights,” tyrannical government, and mass poverty characterized all previous social orders. This is an either-or choice. There is no way around it.
Now, no one could reasonably argue that the federal government has, in fact, kept within the size and scope suggested by the theory outlined above. (One could argue instead that the theory is inaccurate, but that would be a losing case.) Not only do we have corn subsidies, we have federal bureaucrats telling Americans what plants they can smoke, how many inches from the ground their hand-railings have to be, how prepared their restaurants must be to accommodate miniature horses, how much gasoline their trucks are allowed to burn, what wage they are allowed to work for, what parts they are allowed to have in their rifles, where they can keep their retirement savings, how much money they are allowed to put in a bank account (without being investigated), how much money they are allowed to withdraw from a bank account (without being investigated), what patterns of deposit and withdrawal they are allowed to follow (without being investigated), and, perhaps most importantly, what percentage of fat content is minimally permissible in a processed cheese spread.
But maybe it is all for the best? Maybe the blurring of the federal government’s once-narrow boundary lines has enabled us to pursue a “common good” that’s worthwhile? Maybe all this change has not been corruption, but progress?
No one really cares, in the abstract, whether the United States’ government adheres to the principles of its founding. What people care about, if they care at all, is whether the government does good — or, perhaps, allows good to be freely done. If the principles of the founding were good, right, and true, and they have been abandoned, that is a matter for concern, and for remedial action. But if they were no good in the first place, then their apparent abandonment is hardly worth noting.
The upcoming election is a referendum on these questions. Put directly: A vote for Hillary Clinton says: “Yes, these changes are for the best. Yes, there’s a common good worth pursuing. Yes, the changes so far have been progress.”
But the truth is the opposite: These changes are destroying individual rights. There is no such thing as a common good, because the notion is incoherent. What’s happened so far has not been progress, but a return to the norm, a regression to the mean of human history: slavery and tyranny, justified by mystical visions. If Hillary is elected, she will, with the full support of the ruling class, slyly prepare Americans to be ruled, cowed, enslaved, degraded, and impoverished. She will do this superbly well. She will do this in the name of a “common good,” and I think she will sincerely believe that she is making the world better. She will be wrong.
People reasonably fear Donald Trump as president. His principles are incoherent. He is brash, ignorant, and oblivious to his limitations. Although they are not, I think, representative of his support, racists and other savages do throng to him. Although I believe he does love America, in some hazy way, and all that it means and stands for, he will not advance the cause of freedom. He will not restore the promise of the Enlightenment. But Trump’s haphazard vision is cast perpendicular to the arrow of history. If elected, his notion of the common good will go nowhere, as institutions and inertia will resist him. This will give the few of us who have some sense a little time to act. Maybe then the death of Western civilization can be averted.