Being a good parent, friend, and a consummate professional. But not everyone is a parent, and not everyone has a rich network of friends, or a fulfilling profession. Ideologies like communism, and religious-political movements like Islamism, are egalitarian in offering up the possibilities of heroism for everyone by becoming part of a grand revolutionary story.
There is much more at the link. Pointer from Tyler Cowen.
I am reading Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands, by Roger Scruton, the British conservative philosopher. Most of you will not want to read it, because it mostly discusses European philosophers. But I came away with some interesting ideas to chew on, and I may attempt to write an essay on the book. One of his points is that the left-right lens through which we view politics is designed not to be analytically sound but instead to tilt things in favor of Communists. The idea is to put fascism on the far right and Communism on the far left. Since everybody hates fascism, the implication is that you should like Communism, or at least cut it some slack.
I think that a more useful organizing axis for political movements might be satisfied vs. disaffected. People who support Hillary or Jeb are satisfied. They do not want to rock the boat. People who support Trump or Sanders are somewhat disaffected. Extremist groups, like ISIS, appeal to people who are extremely disaffected.
Where would you put libertarians on this axis? I would put them much closer to the satisfied end. As ticked off as they are about government and politics, they tend to be basically happy with their own lives.
I think this is basically accurate. And I agree on libertarians, especially the DC kind.
The question to ask is this. I’m a consummate professional, have friends, and may propose in the not too distant future. Yet I’m very dissatisfied. I know things aren’t working for the majority of the populace, and that things are likely to get worse over time. The current state of affairs seems like a great injustice, in large part because the current state of affairs won’t leave the status quo alone. To support the status quo is also to be a radical.
I more or less assume this is because I have empathy for the vast majority of middle America, while the elite despises them/is callously indifferent because they put personal striving above all other social or moral concerns. I don’t know if that comes from growing up working class or other factors.
He was another interesting part of Khan’s post:
That seems to mean they overly discounted important social-psychological / ideological parameters. But why did they make this error? I attribute it to a failure of theory of mind – that is – to accurately get into the very different heads of ISIS members and supporters and really understand the source and intensity of their motivations.
Notice also that the entire elite conservative commentariat really blew it regarding the rise and persistence of Donald Trump. I think the reason is similar; they have so little in common with the average Trump supporter that they discounted how different the range of opinion really was between that of those people and that of their own rarefied milieu.
“Where would you put libertarians on this axis? I would put them much closer to the satisfied end. As ticked off as they are about government and politics, they tend to be basically happy with their own lives.”
I’d add much of the so-called neo-reactionary crowd, who are even more comfortable from what I gather than libertarians (splitting hairs alert, I know). Libertarians are made up of would-be economists, journalists, and political theorists, all of whom have relatively low lucrative employment possibilities. The NRX crowd seem to be overwhelmingly working in tech, a comfortable place to be despite their often apocalyptic and hyper-pessimistic world views.
I don’t agree about movement libertarians, which is to say most libertarians. The correct mental picture of a movement libertarian is one of those weird people camping at PorcFest, not the polite, articulate libertarians around DC.
I still remember seeing a disaffected union worker holding a sign in 2012 saying he supported Ron Paul because Ron Paul hates NAFTA (cue “I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”).
All those people who voted for Paul in the primary four years ago, they are not voting for Rand. The polling numbers do not support that. Who do you think they are voting for? A lot of them are voting for Trump.
Thanks for the additional mention of his book. By coincidence, I had recently purchased his short book on Spinoza, not realizing the connection.
Your mention has got not just ‘Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands,’ but also his book ‘Beauty’ added to my wish list.
I wonder how many disaffected Republicans support Hillary or disaffected Democrats support Jeb. Not many of the latter or Jeb would be doing better but the former is a possibility though they usually go by independent. There are many disaffected people out there and probably more than go to extremes.