If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:
- Why Liberalism Failed by: Patrick J. Deneen
- Leviathan Falls by: James S. A. Corey
- Termination Shock by: Neal Stephenson
- The Histories of Herodotus by: Herodotus
- The Golden Transcendence by: John C. Wright
- The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse by: Charlie MacKesy
- Doctrine and Covenants
I had hoped to finish at least 104 books this year. There are a couple of reasons for this: First, it’s what I did last year. Second, it would mean I had averaged two books a week. Unfortunately I only ended up with 102. I was very close to finishing two other books, but between the holidays, the big extended family trip we take every year between Christmas and New Years, and, most of all, getting COVID. (Yes, for those following along at home, my PCR test was positive.) I eventually decided it would be better to start 2022 a little bit ahead, than try to fit in a bunch of feverish reading on the last day of the year.
You may have guessed that there was a connection between COVID, and the “big extended family trip”. Indeed there was. But in retrospect, even knowing that I, and many others, would end up with COVID, I’m not sure what we would have done differently. When you’re doing a vacation that involves over 30 people it’s kind of a juggernaut, with spending well into the five figures. Also Omicron really only spiked a few days before we were set to leave, so we didn’t have the information necessary to make the decision to cancel the trip in time even if it had made sense to. On top of all of the foregoing, it’s not as if we were ignoring the problem. We did a bunch of rapid tests immediately before the trip and they all came up negative. And basically everyone was vaccinated and most people (including myself) were boosted on top of that.
I suspect that there will be a lot of stories similar to mine of holiday gatherings that acted as super spreader events . One can already see a huge recent spike in cases, which appears to be almost vertical. It’s interesting to compare this spike to last year’s holiday spike. Last year the spike started in mid-October. This year, in mid-October, cases were still declining from a September peak, and it wasn’t until the end of November that they started turning up, and then there was a weird plateau between the 3rd and the 17th of December before they shot up like a rocket.
I guess what I’m curious about is when we’ll hit the daily case peak and how high will that peak be? Last year we peaked on the 12th of January, but that’s the peak of a trend that started in mid-October, but also grew more slowly. This year’s started later, but is growing much faster. So based on that and eyeballing things I think it’s going to peak and start it’s decline around January 15th. As far as what that peak will be, I’m going to say 2,500 daily cases per million people as per the ourworldindata.org site. Should anyone want to make their own predictions on this I’d be very interested in seeing them. You can email me or leave them in the comments.
A lot of things could affect this number, in particular attitudes around and availability of testing. I had to wait in line for two hours in order to get my PCR test on the 31st, and my kids had to wait four hours on the 3rd despite getting in line several hours earlier.
Of course, what we’re really interested in is confirmed deaths and so far that hasn’t spiked, and hopefully it won’t.
I- Eschatological Reviews
Briefly, what was this book about?
It’s difficult to condense it into a single point, but perhaps it can be boiled down into the conflict between liberalism and democracy. The former pulls everything to the opposite extremes of individualism or globalism, while the latter requires strong civic engagement in the middle (communities, states, organizations, etc.)
Who should read this book?
I’ve read many books about the collapse of Western liberal ideology. I would say that this is the densest. So you should either read it after you’ve established a broad foundation with other books. Or if you’re in a hurry, only read this one since it contains most of what’s said elsewhere.
As I have already said, there’s a lot going on in the book. Deneen covers a huge amount of territory, in a comparatively tiny number of pages. So I’m going to focus on just one thing, his claim that liberalism pushes everything to the ends of the spectrum—it is an ideology that simultaneously pushes politics towards maximum individualism and maximum statism.
I don’t know about you, but I hadn’t come across this description of the bifurcated nature of liberalism before and at first glance it seems obviously contradictory. How can an ideology simultaneously encourage individuation and absolutism? As it turns out, despite the fact that I hadn’t encountered the idea it’s not new. Alexis de Tocqueville, that famous chronicler of Democracy in America, wrote the following all the way back in 1835:
So … no man is obliged to put his powers at the disposal of another, and no one has any claim of right to substantial support from his fellow man, each is both independent and weak. These two conditions, which must be neither seen quite separately nor confused, give the citizen of a democracy extremely contradictory instincts. He is full of confidence and pride in his independence among his equals, but from time to time his weakness makes him feel the need for some outside help which he cannot expect from any of his fellows, for they are both impotent and cold. In this extremity he naturally turns his eyes toward that huge entity [the tutelary state] which alone stands out above the universal level of abasement. His needs, and even more his longings, continually put him in mind of that entity, and he ends by regarding it as the sole and necessary support of his individual weakness
To put it in different terms, if you want maximum liberty some entity has to guarantee that liberty. And as we have decided against individuals ensuring their own liberty, (i.e. armed anarchy) that entity is the state. Here’s Deneen going into greater detail.
Ironically, the more completely the sphere of autonomy is secured, the more comprehensive the state must become. Liberty, so defined, requires liberation from all forms of associations and relationships, from family to church, from schools to village and community, that exerted control over behavior through informal and habituated expectations and norms. These controls were largely cultural, not political—law was less extensive and existed largely as a continuation of cultural norms, the informal expectations of behavior learned through family, church, and community. With the liberation of individuals from these associations, there is more need to regulate behavior through the imposition of positive law. At the same time, as the authority of social norms dissipates, they are increasingly felt to be residual, arbitrary, and oppressive, motivating calls for the state to actively work toward their eradication.
This creates a tension between liberalism and democracy, because in essence liberalism hinges on changing what “liberty” has historically meant:
“Liberty” is a word of ancient lineage, yet liberalism has a more recent pedigree, being arguably only a few hundred years old. It arises from a redefinition of the nature of liberty to mean almost the opposite of its original meaning. By ancient and Christian understandings, liberty was the condition of self-governance, whether achieved by the individual or by a political community. Because self-rule was achieved only with difficulty— requiring an extensive habituation in virtue, particularly self-command and self-discipline over base but insistent appetites—the achievement of liberty required constraints upon individual choice.
Democracy, in fact, cannot ultimately function in a liberal regime. Democracy requires extensive social forms that liberalism aims to deconstruct, particularly shared social practices and commitments that arise from thick communities, not a random collection of unconnected selves entering and exiting an election booth.
“Thick communities” is a great term, and it’s precisely what we don’t have any more. We have carved out the middle so that there will be no restrictions on individual choice, and created Hobbes’ Leviathan in order to have a weapon equal to the task.
I can only pretend to have the smallest amount of understanding of this subject, but I definitely got a strong sense of that former definition of liberty, a liberty of self-discipline, while reading Plato. And what I have read beyond that would seem to support this idea. And of course it was this virtue, these associations, religions, communities, and norms which represent the “thickness” we no longer have.
For a more modern example of what he’s talking about, Deneen brings up the example of Julia. If you were paying attention during the 2012 election then perhaps you remember Julia.
Julia appeared briefly toward the beginning of Obama’s campaign as a series of internet slides in which it was demonstrated that she had achieved her dreams through a series of government programs that, throughout her life, had enabled various milestones… In Julia’s world there are only Julia and the government, with the very brief exception of a young child who appears in one slide—with no evident father—and is quickly whisked away by a government-sponsored yellow bus, never to be seen again. Otherwise, Julia has achieved a life of perfect autonomy, courtesy of a massive, sometimes intrusive, always solicitous, ever-present government.
You may get the impression from the examples given so far and my generally traditional bent that this is all a problem originating from progressive liberalism. And indeed it’s hard to think of a better example of massive government intrusion in the service of individual autonomy than the current battle over transgender rights. But Deneen heaps just as much criticism on classical liberalism and their valorization of corporations and markets. I’m probably not the guy to steelman that particular argument, but it is worth including an excerpt on how left and right are two sides of the same coin:
These ends have been achieved through the depersonalization and abstraction advanced via two main entities— the state and the market. Yet while they have worked together in a pincer movement to render us ever more naked as individuals, our political debates mask this alliance by claiming that allegiance to one of these forces will save us from the depredations of the other. Our main political choices come down to which depersonalized mechanism will purportedly advance our freedom and security—the space of the market, which collects our billions upon billions of choices to provide for our wants and needs without demanding from us any specific thought or intention about the wants and needs of others; or the liberal state, which establishes depersonalized procedures and mechanisms for the wants and needs of others that remain insufficiently addressed by the market.
When he goes on to identify the “key features of liberalism” as the “conquest of nature”, “timelessness”, “placelessness”, and “borderlessness”, this list of attributes is mostly associated with classical liberalism, rather than it’s progressive brother.
I need to wrap up this section. I understand that the review has been heavy on quotes and excerpts. In part this is because, as I write this, I’m still recovering from COVID, and copying is easier than composing. In part it’s because there are so many passages worthy of excerpting. With that in mind I would like to close out the section with one final excerpt:
Today’s widespread yearning for a strong leader, one with the will to take back popular control over liberalism’s forms of bureaucratized government and globalized economy, comes after decades of liberal dismantling of cultural norms and political habits essential to self-governance. The breakdown of family, community, and religious norms and institutions, especially among those benefiting least from liberalism’s advance, has not led liberalism’s discontents to seek a restoration of those norms. That would take effort and sacrifice in a culture that now diminishes the value of both. Rather, many now look to deploy the statist powers of liberalism against its own ruling class. Meanwhile, huge energies are spent in mass protest rather than in self-legislation and deliberation, reflecting less a renewal of democratic governance than political fury and despair. Liberalism created the conditions, and the tools, for the ascent of its own worst nightmare, yet it lacks the self-knowledge to understand its own culpability.
It is commonly pointed out, both by this book, and others, that at the beginning of the 20th century there were three competing political ideologies: fascism, communism, and liberalism. Fascism was eliminated as a competitor by World War II (unless you think that’s what’s happening in China) and communism was eliminated by the end of the Cold War (again, depending on what you think is happening in China.) In an ideal world this would mean we now live in an era of international cooperation and peace between liberal nations, where the protection and celebration of individual autonomy has led to unprecedented happiness within those nations. The first part would appear to be mostly true, whether it will remain true is a subject for another time. But whatever the state of the world at the international level, no one would say that we are experiencing unprecedented happiness. The question: why not? Is an interesting one, but in the context of this book I’d rather ask: why now?
Deneen explanations for liberalism’s failures go all the way back to the founding, and beyond to people like Locke, Hobbes, Burke and Mill. If the seeds of liberalism’s failure have been in the ground for so long, why are they only sprouting now? In one sense a large percentage of this blog’s content has been dedicated to answering that question. But if we restrict ourselves to the themes outlined in the book I’d like to consider two specific explanations:
The first, and the one Deneen emphasizes the most is that liberalism’s recent failure is a result of its recent victory. That all of our current problems are due to liberalism essentially winning the race and crossing the finish line.
A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty, in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom. Its success can be measured by its achievement of the opposite of what we have believed it would achieve. Rather than seeing the accumulating catastrophe as evidence of our failure to live up to liberalism’s ideals, we need rather to see clearly that the ruins it has produced are the signs of its very success. To call for the cures of liberalism’s ills by applying more liberal measures is tantamount to throwing gas on a raging fire. It will only deepen our political, social, economic, and moral crisis.
We have recently achieved near perfect bifurcation. People have basically no limits on their choices, except those which have been imposed by nine judges operating at the very highest level of government oversight, and then such laws are backed by the force of trillions of dollars and millions of enforcers. We have achieved the absolute leviathan and the perfectly autonomous individual.
Or rather we are getting very close to this achievement, certainly far closer than anyone ever dreamed of and the means of doing that bring up the second explanation for “why now?” As is so often the case, technology has played a role.
Liberalism was premised upon the limitation of government and the liberation of the individual from arbitrary political control. But growing numbers of citizens regard the government as an entity separate from their own will and control, not their creature and creation as promised by liberal philosophy. The “limited government” of liberalism today would provoke jealousy and amazement from tyrants of old, who could only dream of such extensive capacities for surveillance and control of movement, finances, and even deeds and thoughts. The liberties that liberalism was brought into being to protect—individual rights of conscience, religion, association, speech, and self-governance—are extensively compromised by the expansion of government activity into every area of life. Yet this expansion continues, largely as a response to people’s felt loss of power over the trajectory of their lives in so many distinct spheres—economic and otherwise—leading to demands for further intervention by the one entity even nominally under their control. Our government readily complies, moving like a ratchet wrench, always in one direction, enlarging and expanding in response to civic grievances, ironically leading in turn to citizens’ further experience of distance and powerlessness. (emphasis mine)
The big theme of both of these explanations and of Deneen’s quotes in general is that liberalism has reached a dead end, and going forward will only make things worse. Unfortunately there’s no easy way of backing up either. Perhaps, to strain the metaphor somewhat, we need to climb some nearby wall, and find a new road. But it’s unclear which wall to climb or what that road might look like. Deneen thinks we need a completely new ideology, an “epic theory”.
When the book was first published he believed that such a project would take a very long time, events since then have changed his mind. From a preface attached to the new edition:
I now believe I was wrong to think that this project would take generations. Even in the months since the book’s publication, the fragility of the liberal order has become evident, now threatened by both right-wing nationalist movements and left-wing socialism. Instead of imagining a far-off and nearly inconceivable era when the slow emergence of liberalism’s alternatives might become fully visible from its long-burning embers, we find ourselves in a moment when “epic theory” becomes necessary. The long era in which we could be content with “normal theory,” working within the existing paradigm to explore the outermost reaches and distant implications of liberalism while also signaling its solidity and permanence, has ended. Epic theory becomes necessary when that paradigm loses its explanatory power, and events call forth a new departure in political thinking. When I was writing the conclusion of my book, I believed we were in a long phase of preparation for postliberal epic theory. But in mere months—having seen the American political order assaulted by two parties that are in a death grip but each lacking the ability to eliminate the other, and observing the accelerating demolition of the liberal order in Europe—I now think that the moment for “epic theory” has come upon us more suddenly than we could have anticipated. Such moments probably always arrive before we think we are ready. Augustine’s City of God was made necessary by the sudden and unexpected overturning of the “eternal” Roman order in A.D. 410. It seems more apparent every day that a comparable epoch-defining book must arise from our age, and I hope some young reader of this book will be the person to write it.
With his comments on right-wing nationalism and left-wing socialism, he alludes to the idea that perhaps we’ll return to liberalism’s vanquished alternatives: fascism and communism. But it’s hard to imagine that our salvation lies in either of those directions. Deneen suggests as much with his call for an epic theory, but it’s hard to imagine salvation coming from that corner either. More likely we’ve reached the end of history and instead of discovering a durable paradise we’ve uncovered a tumultuous hell.
II- Capsule Reviews
Briefly, what is this book about?
This book concludes The Expanse series, finally dealing with the issue of the malevolent elder gods who destroyed the ring builders.
Who should read this book?
If you’ve made it through the first eight books in this series I can’t imagine that you would be reluctant to read one more book to see how it all ends. For those who have read only some of the previous eight books, or who perhaps haven’t read any of them, and are hesitating because they want to know if the series as a whole has a satisfying arc. I would say that it does.
Ending things is tough, and there are many works of art—books, TV shows, series of all kinds—which succeed right up until that point, only to fail when it comes time to tie up all the loose ends. Art whose reach ultimately exceeds its grasp. So how does Corey do with the job of ending The Expanse? I would give it a 7 out of 10. So not perfect, but better than average. It was solid, but not extraordinary.
In order to explain my mild dissatisfaction I’m going to go into mild spoiler territory. So if you’d rather avoid that sort of thing skip the next paragraph.
I came away with the strong feeling that when the ring builders and their destruction were introduced at the end of the third book, that Corey (who is actually two people btw…) had not quite figured out the nature of the ring builders or the nature of their enemies. So when it comes time to conclude things, some of the things they had already established no longer made sense. I understand this is being kind of picky, but a really great ending is all about revealing the grand plan you’ve had from the very beginning. And in this case those disparities made the plan less grand, or at least less elegant. It left one with the feeling that perhaps they were making it up as they went along.
Still as somewhat pulpy science fiction goes, this was a great series, and if you’ve been thinking about either picking it up or continuing it. I would recommend that you do so.
by: Neal Stephenson
Briefly, what is this book about?
A hard headed Texas businessman, the Dutch Queen, and other assorted characters decide to solve global warming through geoengineering.
Who should read this book?
Anyone who likes Stephenson already. If you have no strong opinion or haven’t read anything he’s written this book is not a bad place to start.
The last time I reviewed a Stephenson novel I paid special recognition to a horribly awkward sex scene he had included. There is more of that in this book, though he’s managed to move things in the direction of humorous double entendres, making things both less explicit and less cringe-worthy, but for me it was still a false note. Perhaps the only one, because other than that I quite enjoyed the book, particularly the characters of T.R. and Rufus. After being somewhat disappointed in his last two books (Seveneves and Fall) this felt like a return to form.
The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories
Briefly, what is this book about?
It’s the founding book of western history, which describes the rise of the Persian empire and the Greco-Persian war, among other things.
Who should read this book?
If you have any interest in ancient history or the genesis of the West, this book is not only important, but eminently accessible.
This is the third time I’ve read Herodotus. I picked it up again because I couldn’t resist this new edition which has all kinds of maps and appendices. The hardback is pretty expensive but you can pick up the paperback for $15. In it you’ll find all sorts of great stories, including the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, Creosus of Lydia (call no man happy until he’s dead), and Herodotus’ great attempt at explaining why the Nile floods.
On this third reading I spent a lot of time wondering how much the Greco-Persian war contributed to the whole idea of the “Western World”. As a foundational myth, the story of the tiny city states of Greece taking on the million man army of Xerxes of Persia, and miraculously, winning, is hard to beat. Now, of course, modern historians doubt that Xerxes had anywhere close to the numbers Herodotus claims, but one assumes that most of the people reading the account in the thousands of years since it was first written didn’t know this.
The Golden Transcendence: Or, The Last of the Masquerade
by: John C. Wright
Briefly, what is this book about?
The final book in The Golden Age Trilogy, which kind of ends in the way you would expect a series like this to end, with a bunch of philosophy added in for good measure.
Who should read this book?
I’m not sure. It’s a weird mix of metaphysics, Victorian adventure story, transhumanism, love story and AI ethics. Which, yes, could be awesome, but it requires all of them to be subtly intertwined, and one thing this trilogy is not, is subtle.
I’m glad I read the trilogy. If nothing else, the world-building was great. In particular Wright did a great job of describing a full spectrum of transhuman possibilities. One that was far larger than what you find in most futuristic science fiction. But now that I’m done I think it’s another series where the author’s ambition exceeded his ability to execute. But if you’re just looking for a whole mess of interesting ideas, this series has that in spades.
The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse
by: Charlie MacKesy
Briefly, what is this book about?
It’s not so much what the book is about, but what it looks like. It’s more a work of visual art than it is a story.
Who should read this book?
Everywhere I turned I was hearing about this book. So I read it to see what all the fuss was about. It’s a beautiful book with a sweet message. But it might be one of those things that’s famous for being famous…
It’s probably going to take me longer to write this review than it did to read the book. (It took me about 20 minutes to read the book.) And I’m not sure how I feel about that. It’s a typical children’s book, and I’m not sure I’ve read enough of those recently to be qualified to pass judgment. It struck me as being pretty saccharine. Here are three consecutive pages:
“Life is difficult — but you are loved.”
“So you know all about me?” asked the boy. “Yes.” Said the horse. “And you still love me?” “We love you all the more.”
“Sometimes I think you believe in me more than I do.” Said the boy. “You’ll catch up.” Said the horse.
It’s entirely possible that I am too jaded to give an objective opinion.
III- Religious Review
Briefly, what is this book about?
This book is part of the scriptural canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). It consists of modern day revelations received by Joseph Smith, mostly in the 1830’s, along with a few additional revelations received by subsequent prophets.
Who should read this book?
If you’re interested in the Church, then I would suggest reading the Book of Mormon first, but the Doctrine and Covenants also has some really great stuff.
Within the Church last year was dedicated to studying Church history and the Doctrine and Covenants, which is how this ended up as one of the books I read. Obviously you can cover a lot of territory in a full year, and I can only cover a tiny portion of that in a single review. So I figured I’d just provide my two favorite passages. The first is from Doctrine and Covenants Section 58, verses 26-28:
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
This first one came to me with particular impact many years ago when I was unemployed and fighting a lawsuit. At the time I was praying every day for guidance, and it wasn’t coming. And then I came across those verses, which I had heard many times (particularly verse 26) but they had never hit me before like they hit me that day. And I realized that it was up to me. That I needed to do what I thought was best, and that in a sense the whole thing was a test. Phrasing it like this, probably trivializes it, but perhaps if I move onto the other verse it will make more sense. This one is from Section 93, verse 30:
All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
Existence and intelligence are about making choices, and acting for ourselves. If you’re familiar with my extensive writings on the relationship between LDS cosmology and the AI alignment problem then you might be able to see some connection between that and this verse.
One of the reasons why I continue to be a very devout member of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints is that this model (which I have only touched on in the most superficial way) continues to make sense to me, and explains the world at least as well if not better than anything else I’ve come across in my reading and searching.
I’ve seen a lot of things recently that would seem to indicate that anyone who reads as much as I do is a pseudo-intellectual who’s just trying to run up the score, not really engaging with what they read. If you disagree with that. If you happen to like how much I read and the reviews it generates, consider donating.
Julia was a bit overblown. I imagine a Julia Franchise event (and perhaps with digital deaging of actors, we can bring back the original cast!). Julia’s mother is on Medicaid during her pregnancy because her father’s job doesn’t have health insurance. Julia goes to a public school during the day while both her mother and father go to work. Her parents buy a home with an FHA mortgage, it is a larger home so her aging grandmother comes to live with them during the end of her life. Julia’s father gets a job protected by a strong union, health care is not a concern, Julia goes to school with nicer clothes and when ‘computer camp’ comes up, her parents can afford to send her. Years later Julia gets into college. Her parents are retiring, they are not holding her back as they have both Medicare and Social Security, even when disaster strikes and a hurricane levels her family’s home, FEMA helps with temporary shelter and they even rebuild the house with help of homeowners insurance (the company is not bankrupt because insurance regulators ensured they had sufficient reserves). After graduating, Julia has an idea for a biotech innovation but her boss doesn’t care. She wonders can she risk trying to start a startup company? She just got married and has a baby, but with Obamacare she is able to buy a plan and even if she takes no pay for a few years she can afford it. With a Small Business Loan she is able to open the door. Later on there’s another gov’t loan program, she makes the final cut, one company is Solena that makes solar panels, there’s her, and some odd looking guy getting a loan for electric cars. Tragedy strikes, her father dies of a heart attack while fishing. She tells her mother not to worry and move in with her. Her mother collects Social Security, has an insured pension from her husband’s work and quickly meets some friends to play Bingo with every Tuesday night while watching her granddaughter grow up. Feel free to remix it with all sorts of ‘thickeners’. Perhaps Julia has a brother who goes on missionary work for a few years. Perhaps she is Jewish and goes to summer camp (we could get Sarah Silverman to play her!)
This commercial would be just as applicable if the Obama campaign ran it back then and wouldn’t confront any ideological problem with progressivism. The criticism of Julia was a rather cheap marketing criticism. Julia’s family, beliefs, religion, etc. were not articulated because the point is that isn’t really Obama’s business. If Julia went to church every Sunday, well what program in the commercial would she not be able to use? In fact who on TV ever went to church? Sure on sitcoms a character may talk about going to church, but it’s kept vague because even in 1950 mass communication meant you had to be as generic as possible. You could watch your old sitcom, hear a character talk about getting back from Sunday church and imagine they are Roman Catholics, Protestants, or even LDS I suppose. Julia has no ‘community thickness’ but then neither does the family that wonders into the AT&T commercial or Flo from Progressive.
This then raises the Republican counterpoint to Julia….I imagine perhaps she marries Joe the Plumber, they start the business, he works hard at it, she helps with the books but spends most of the days with the kids. They go to Church every Sunday and celebrate the 4th of July with lots of flags (American flags, I’m thinking pre-Trump era here). OK that’s cool but then, well, so what? As mentioned before, all those programs they probably utilize. The government isn’t telling them to go to church and no one would put up with any serious attempt to have a gov’t that did that in the US. In fact a bit savier Obama campaign could cut multiple Julia commercials and play them in different markets including that ‘Republican’ commericial. The intellectuals back in 2012 sounded like they had a point with Julia, it turns out they didn’t. If they did, where has that point been for last decade?
“The “limited government” of liberalism today would provoke jealousy and amazement from tyrants of old, who could only dream of such extensive capacities for surveillance and control of movement, finances, and even deeds and thoughts”
Do they? An interesting documentary I watched a while ago was The Forbidden Orange (playing on HBO). It’s about the effort to get A Clockwork Orange to be shown in Spain under Franco’s regime. What’s interesting about it is while students had a surprising amount of freedom to push for the edgy movie to be shown, and the regime had conflicted motives (they wanted to both appease the conservative Catholic Church but also promote Spain as something other than a backward and out-of-date country lead by an aging dictator) but yea the controls were pretty extensive. When everyplace is closed at 9PM and being on the street is suspect, the gov’t doesn’t need a ‘social credit network’ to exercise a massive amount of control.
This brings us to the question of a ‘new ideology’ that he is calling for some creative person to create. Well there kind of is a precedent here, fascism. For a moment, leave aside Hitler because he can be a distraction in discussing fascism. The ideology was premised on:
1. The modern world produces innovations that are clearly enhancements over older modes of living.
2. It rejects attempting to return to the past as unviable (Amish need not apply here). People won’t tolerate it and even if they did such a community would be at the mercy of others willing to embrace modern innovation.
3. It acknowledges modern capitalisms ‘unthickens’ communities by connecting people together in commerce and making it easier for everyone to go off in a thousand different directions exploring their niche hobbies, fetishes, obsessions and whatnot. In other words you can’t have modernism without the realities of post-modernism.
4. It proposes resolving this conflict by the rise of a leader who embodies the ‘spirit’ of the community even though that community is extended over a large geographic area with many smaller communities inside it.
The ‘leader’ should be brought to power by any means necessary (election is fine but elections, rules, etc. are secondary to this imperative). The leader ‘rises’ by simple nature. Any community that has a true ‘spirit’ will produce such an embodiement of it (esp. if the time demands it). Communities that do not are ultimatly doomed to failure anyway and at best will just become parasites. For you the advice is simple, loyalty to the leader unless you’re the leader himself…in which case you shouldn’t need advice from a blog post’s comment.
Of course it never actually worked. Hitler, of course, left the nation in ruins but other fascists at the end of the day produced, well nothing. Stodgy inept states that had paid positions for movie censors while kids went to other countries to watch the good stuff and the anemic state could not produce either actual culture and provided material goods by coping what more liberal states were doing. (There is the old joke about the meeting of economics ministers from the West and the East. Trade within the Soviet bloc had a pricing problem. How would the USSR know how many tractors to send to Poland in exchange for so many tons of wheat? The solution was to use the prices of wheat and tractors on the international markets. The Western minister asks what will they do when the revolution is done and the whole world is communist. The Eastern minister frowns, and says “we will keep one national capitalist for that purpose”)
But the caution here is that I suspect there’s a ‘mini-great filter’ here. There is no modern alternative to the liberal state and those who seek one out will end up embracing fascism. The ‘thick community’ works for small populations with limited geography and less communication. No large scale ‘thick community’ can work without something like liberal democracy being its form.
Regarding Patrick Deneens book, I just wanted to quickly highlight another recent paper which might be of interest to you about the demise of liberalism. It’s by Jonathan anomaly and filipe nobre Faria and tackles this topic from an Evolutionary perspective. Here’s the link in case you are interested:
Greetings from Germany!
Thanks! I’ll check it out!
And honored to know I have another international reader!
No problem! Iam always looking forward to your monthly book reviews, there is at least one which I put on my reading list every time. Recently finished Deneens book, was a great read.
By the way, one of the coauthors of the paper, filipe nobre Faria, has even written a whole book about liberalism, called “Evolutionary limits of liberalism”. It’s written in an academic style, but has nevertheless some interesting ideas in it.
Bought it, not sure when I’ll get to it. My stack of dead tree books is pretty big, and harder to get through than my stack of audio books…
I know that problem too 😀 there are so much interesting books out there but just a finite amount of time to read them. Because of this, I always appreciate recommendations to guide me towards the worthy ones.
“The author’s ambition exceeded his ability to execute” describes a lot of Wright. But, I really enjoyed his Golden Age trilogy in a way I didn’t his more recent books – I think his ability approached his ambition there more closely than elsewhere.
Yeah, the only other thing I’ve read of his was “Awake in the Night Land”, which is a collection of four closely tied novellas rather than a novel and also based on someone else’s story. But i did enjoy it.