Let's be realistic. The ideal of a thriving, self-governing republic of virtuous, informed citizens is a beautiful 18th-century fantasy.
Look at the world you're so keen to 'preserve.' The average voter is emotionally driven, poorly informed, and susceptible to demagoguery and base prejudices.
They vote based on which candidate they'd rather have a beer with, not on a nuanced understanding of monetary policy or geopolitical strategy.
The problems of the 21st century are terrifyingly complex: climate change, global pandemics, international financial systems, artificial intelligence.
These are not issues that can be solved by a majority vote of a populace that struggles with basic scientific literacy. They require expertise. They require dispassionate, data-driven analysis from those who have dedicated their lives to understanding these intricate systems.
We are not 'imposing' anything. We are guiding. We are the adults in the room, making the tough, necessary decisions that the emotional and shortsighted body politic is incapable of making for itself.
Is it really 'tyranny' to mandate vaccines during a deadly pandemic? Or to regulate industries destroying the planet for future generations? Or to enforce basic standards of dignity and inclusion to prevent the social friction and violence that comes from bigotry?
This isn't about power for its own sake. It's about steering humanity away from the cliff. Democracy, in its pure form, is not infinitely scalable and it is certainly not immortal. It often leads to short-term gratification at the expense of long-term survival.
Left to their own devices, democratic electorates will vote themselves unsustainable benefits, reject necessary but painful reforms, and scapegoat vulnerable minorities.
We, the managerial class, are the circuit breakers on that suicidal impulse. We are the necessary check on the chaos of pure democracy. We are doing humanity the great, unthanked favor of saving it from itself.
Our rule is not of blood or soil, but of knowledge and reason. It is, in fact, the only form of governance sophisticated enough to handle the problems we face. You may call it imposition; we call it necessary stewardship.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A criticism not of de jure libertarianism/libertarians, but rather of their subsequent subversion and de facto use as a fifth column for managerialism.
In essence, libertarianism's theoretical purity is weaponized by managerial elites to advance their agenda while paying lip service to freedom.
True liberty requires not abstract individualism but ordered liberty within a framework of cultural and national continuity-something libertarianism, in its de facto form, fails to deliver.
The American founding was fundamentally a liberal project, grounded in Enlightenment principles that are ultimately incompatible with traditional Christianity and organic nationhood.
The American Experiment was built on Locke’s social contract theory, Rousseau’s general will, and Enlightenment rationalism
- all profoundly anti-traditional frameworks that replaced divine right with consent of the governed and Christian natural law with abstract individual rights.
The American Experiment was never a static ideal; it was a dynamic, predatory system designed by and for a propertied elite.
It required constant geographical and demographic growth to stave off its inherent contradictions-between liberty and slavery, between democracy and oligarchy, between promise and reality.
The Silence of the "In-Betweens": The analysis focused on the binary of White/Black and the triad of Protestant/Catholic/Jew. It was silent on those groups that have historically destabilized these neat categories.
Where do Mediterranean peoples (e.g., Sicilians, Greeks, Levantine Christians) fit? They were often considered non-White upon arrival.
During the 17th century, colonial elites did indeed use racial distinctions to prevent solidarity among oppressed groups, such as indentured servants (many of whom were of Celtic or other European descent) and enslaved Africans.
By creating a hierarchy based on skin color, they fostered divisions that served their economic and social control interests. This tactic is a classic example of divide and conquer, aiming to weaken collective resistance by emphasizing superficial differences.
If you place the starting gate of "classical liberalism" in the English Civil-War-era arguments of the Levellers (1640s) and John Locke's 1689 Second Treatise-then the very first hurdle it failed to clear was the question of who counts as a rights-bearing person.
Locke and the Levellers thundered that every man has a natural right to "life, liberty, and estate," yet both groups wrote slavery and hereditary bond-servitude straight into their social contract: