There are innumerable examples of this going way back. Joseph De Maistre called reason a fundamentally destructive force and recommended people be indoctrinated into dogmas and come into the world with all their opinions ready made.
Nietzsche said people should be educated...
...to be slaves and servants, not taught how to participate in politics.
Willmoore Kendall mused Athens was right to execute Socrates since his nagging questions were fostering revolutionary sentiments. The parallels to condemning critical theory were clear.
Even Edmund Burke mused that is was a real shame when people enquired into the historical origins of political authority and asked themselves theoretical questions about its legitimacy. He suggested "pleasing illusions" were preferable to the nakedness of reality...
...since it helped everyone accept the elevation of one ordinary man over another ordinary man.
The list goes on and on and on. If you want the short summary of the right Stephen put it well: obeying a real superior is a primary virtue.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor points out that the egalitarian and universalistic ethics of liberal modernity which develop out of Christianity is "higher" and more demanding precisely because it insists that we need to take our ethical obligations to everyone seriously.
That is very much the opposite of the Trump regimes , which is not that we prioritize those closest to us-but that we can do harm to others if it advances the interests of those we align with. Which is neither a Christian ideal or any ethical ideal worth defending.
I should add the irony of all this is whenever I see conservatives decry the idea of taking ethical universalism seriously as utopian they're implicitly conceding it is harder and demands more from us than their self-serving doctrines. Conservatism appeals because its easier.
Appreciated this acidic take by @GregTSargent in @newrepublic where he talks about how MAGA projects itself as speaking for the people, even after majorities of Americans have consistently rejected it....
...Two things to say about this. Firstly is that this is very typical of right forms of populism. The "people" right populists project to are usually those who feel they once possessed status, wealth, and prestige relative to others which has been taken away from them...
....Its important to understand that to grasp the sense of victimization and persecution inherent to the aesthetic style.
Secondly, Trumpism is the latest in a long line of reactionary styles that have emerged in the United States which try to couple a kind of...
I'd argue that right has a much better instinctive understanding of how the left behaves, but a much worse understanding of its intellectual drives. I say this having been routinely impressed by the right's ability to predict how mainstream leftists with react...
...and having sighed over too many books where allegedly serious intellectuals moan about how Marx wasn't interested in economics.
Part of the reason is the general different between how ideas tend to be treated on different ends of the political spectrum...
...Generally the right is more comfortable with abstract ideas than its intellectuals sometimes concede. Someone like Yoram Hazony will characterize conservatism as "historical empiricism" but be very happy appealing to non-empirical entities like the "nation" or "God"...
Good piece by @GregTSargent on Trump's talent for projecting an aura of personal and political invincibility despite repeatedly losing the popular vote, mid terms, and elections....
...and it is without a doubt projection. As far back as The Art of the Deal Trump acknowledged he "played to people's fantasies" by insisting he was doing something big and spectacular. This was intended to excite people and get the to invest in his project...
...albeit as subordinates. Trump has channeled the same skill set into his political career, which itself has a deep basis in the reactionary tradition. It was Burke who after all said leaders need to have sublime qualities attached to them less the people realize...
The right is generally viewed as having a more pessimistic view of human nature and history, and consequently to value the need for hierarchy to maintain order. But you could very easily argue that human evil is precisely why we need to avoid concentrations of power and wealth..
...or that our shared human weaknesses are a basis for a deep equality.
Interestingly the conservative @PatrickDeneen made a similar argument in his best book Democratic Faith, stressing equality in human frailty rather than perfectionist optimism
I think @LukewSavage made a good point recently when he pointed out how these strains in our meritocratic mythologies points to how there is an enduring revulsion towards inherited aristocratic privilege which once upon a time had progressive implications...
...You see this in the American revolutionaries revulsion for what Jefferson called "artificial" aristocracy. Less remembered is the fact that he called for a so-called "natural aristocracy" of merit which would be entitled to its privileges and power. So the problem wasn't...
...aristocracy per se, just that the wrong one was in charge.
Today we are moving towards a recognition that a genuine meritocracy would involve massive social transformation to alleviate unfair starting conditions which disadvantage many. Ironically Kimberle Crenshaw...