Noah Smith suggests that from a historical perspective, the revolt of the public is not new. He cites the period from 1789-1848 as well as the 1960s.
These were two former eras, one far in the past, one recent, in which spontaneous activism and popular rage led to widespread rejection of elites and endemic political chaos. And yet in each case, the public didn’t need Facebook or Twitter to revolt – all it needed were pamphlets, independent newspapers, books, or that ultimate information technology, word of mouth.
So the Revolt of the Public might not be such a new thing under the sun. Instead, it might be a recent manifestation of a recurring phenomenon – a periodic eruption of popular discontent. Such a cycle might be driven by improvements in information technology – the printing press, telephones, radio, blogs, and now social media. Each time information technology improves, it might lead to an explosion of chaos and rage while elites and institutions struggle to adapt. But each time in the past, the slow-moving engines of government, business, and media have eventually figured out how to put the lid back on public rage. It may turn out similarly this time.
Putting a lid on popular discontent may or may not include addressing that discontent in any meaningful way. We all have a tendency to create and/or adopt narratives that explain current discontent in ways that further our own interests or that support our own world views. Elites are no exception.
The pen is mightier than the sword for good reason, it is lightweight and takes first advantage of new technology.
Popular revolts are indeed nothing new: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
Not long ago, I read Rothbard’s ‘The Anatomy of the State’. He presented a view of the intellectuals I found awakening. The intellectuals have a symbiotic relationship with the state where they sell the state’s legitimacy in exchange for sinecures and support. Of course, intellectuals are not homogeneous so there is constant jockeying for influence within the context of the state’s legitimacy.
My view is that over the 20th century, the media became gatekeepers to the intellectuals, especially off the college campus as they controlled short “news” stories, but also the book marketing. This permitted a skewing and inhibiting of competing intellectual ideas. Then, suddenly, in regards to readership, social media.
So we are seeing a war among the intellectuals. This is why it is so vicious on campus and, due to the breaking of the gates, the media. It seems to troubling because the controlling intellectuals had skewed things so far off from what the populace had been convinced.
As for Trump, he knew how to work the media and was able to take advantage of their decline in income by being a click generator. There have been a few stories of late on how Trump went on the “other networks”. He spread the wealth, so he got eyeballs over a wider spectrum of viewers.
Facebook and Twitter, even Google have all been enlisted to take up the gatekeeper function, but a lot of the populace is now “woke” and are calling it out.
Noah is more correct on the “not-newness” issues, in general.
In the specific internet social net with smartphones & laptops, with the ability to get any fact, to get a factual questions answered immediately — this level of outsider empowerment with information remains new.
But the Red Guards, and the Cultural Revolution of China are the revolt that comes to mind as most like the PC-Klan and their mobbing & e-lynching of their targets: Kavanaugh, the Covington kids with MAGA hats (Nick Sandmann), Jussie Smollett’s fake hate crime.
Rod Dreher writes about the rise of socialism and
quotes Theodore Dalrymple:
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Worshipping PC-Klan claptrap lies makes most college folks unable to resist any more.
Here’s a similar book, with a similar title, from the 1930s:
Revolt of the Masses
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/282447.The_Revolt_of_the_Masses
The top review could almost be a review of Gurri’s book (which I was looking for).
In his book Gurri states that he intentionally riffed on the Ortega y Gassett title. One of the things that sets Gurri’s book apart that he addresses discontent and reaction in numerous countries around the world.
Smith points out what might be the same between current instability and past eruptions of discontent. But Martin is arguing that the Fifth Wave would be different because of the technology and the adaptation to the technology. So we would need detailed looks at past eruptions compared and contrasted to Martin’s examples. Let me suggest three similarities which may be differences. Martin seems to be making a Mancur Olson argument. Networks mean the cost of organization have gone way down fostering near constant disintermediation between the public and elites. So that’s a similarity but it might also be a difference: at some point a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. Second, constant mobilization requires constant rage. A few fanatics can sustain rage over the long term, but most cannot. Even Internet chiefs need some Indians, but the latter grow weary at least in places like the US (recall that Martin is comparative). Third, a certain degree of elite cohesion is needed to reimpose order on the public. To choose a pertinent example: if the video of the transgendered person in the women’s restroom comes down (stays up), you have threatened and enraged half the country. Elite fragmentation may preclude stability. The Facebook Oversight Board may also be chiefs without any real claim on a larger public.