I am a recently "enlightened" (in the sense of being aware of what the hell is going on in Progressive World, and what it's doing to many people's understanding of how the world works) Enlightenment Liberal. I am now aware of what is going on, because two of my daughters (whom I raised to be old-school feminists and to think like scientists) recently declared themselves to be "nonbinary". I knew that there was an upswing in kids being "into" this worldview, and in my search for what the hell this was all about, I discovered that it's a particularly militant corollary of postmodernism. A person is simply not allowed to question the idea that gender is defined solely by one's own "feeling" that one is really a man/woman (a designation completely divorced from physical sex, which latter is now considered a "spectrum"), and if they do, they can expect to be cut off from their children, ostracized from their social circle, or even lose their job. Of couse. Postmodernism is bullshit, completely divorced from anything we actually know, or could actually find out. Does Critical Race Theory point out some things that we have still to do, beyond the tremendous accomplishments of Enlightenment Liberalism, where we recognize as a first principle that we are all people? Sure. Should we address it using Critical Race Theory? Not a chance. I'm delighted to discover that there are others aware of all this. What do we do? I'm not really looking forward to explaining to my kids what postmodernism is, if they'll even listen. I showed my son an article about the science which raises some questions about the appropriateness of transitioning children, and he told me the article was "disgusting", presumably because it doesn't go along with what he's been persuaded is absolutely true. Why is postmodernist activism so bloody addictive, can you tell me that?
My path to conservatism wasn't all that different from yours. I came from a family of solid Roosevelt Democrats. I didn't know any Republicans or conservatives growing up. In junior high school, I was a member of Young Democrats. In high school, I became a leftist student radical. Then as a college freshman in 1969, I was told by the head of the campus radicals that to be a real radical, I had to support the Arabs against Israel. That started me down the road towards conservatism. The big turning point was during law school when I read Bork's "The Antitrust Paradox." That was my first introduction to what you call "neoliberal economics" and it was an eye-opener. Between economics and the law, I could start to see how the world really worked. The final turning point was President Reagan, whose successes in both foreign and domestic policies convinced me that conservatism provided better solutions.
I was educated at William & Mary 71-75 and that overview of history was considered understood by most people who considered themselves modern and educated. I don't see a lot of people questioning themselves on whether it is actually true. It is easy to choose examples selectively to support the case, but that is actually a danger, not an advantage. Slavery down, yes fine. But marriage down, # children down? Greater atomisation of populations? Increased involvement of the collective in education? Maybe all these things will turn out to be great, but thus far they don't look positive. I think it's just seeing what one wants.
There is a conflict underway in the legacy media, on the internet, in social media, in government and in international affairs that is coming to a boil and it is important to understand it clearly for what it is.
The conflict is between those who prize individual rights and those imposing collectivism.
Anyone framing it as a war between the races, religions, ethnicities, sexes, or sexual orientations is on the side of collectivism.
They are trying to get you to fan the flames of chaos and societal collapse, while opposing individual civil rights.
You may even be unaware you are doing it.
Stop serving their purposes.
The Third Commandment provides: ”Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7 (KJV).
It means that you shall not pretend to act with God’s authority when you lack it.
It means that you shall not deign to speak for God, except to use God’s own words.
A violation of the Third Commandment occurs whenever a sinner usurps God’s omniscient righteousness by claiming it for the sinner’s self for the sinner’s own purposes.
Jesus Christ stated: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 (NIV). By this, Jesus Christ makes clear that no one gets into Heaven without accepting their salvation from Him as their almighty Lord.
Jesus Christ never said “all Jews go to hell.”
Ascribing those words to Him violates the Third Commandment.
By contending that all Jews go to hell, one is not stating exactly what Jesus Christ stated, but misquotes Him to make a point, and in doing so usurps His divine authority to judge us.
Jesus Christ told us the way forward is through Him.
All people, even Jews, are able to receive Jesus Christ’s salvation at any time prior to death by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior.
Being born a Jew has nothing to do with it.
Galatians 3:28 (KJV) teaches “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Once anyone has truly taken Jesus as the Christ and as their savior, they are our brother or sister in God’s eyes.
Saying otherwise in God’s name violates the Third Commandment.
Support all Christians who denounce atheistic collectivism, whatever form it takes.
First thing, we need to openly accept the tag of being "racist" because according to them we are by nature so accepting the tag will eliminate its power to manipulate. If we follow suit with all of their pet labels intending to manipulate, they will be left with nothing else. Second, we need to laugh at them, tell them how hilarious they are and do NOT take them seriously. This is what the want and demand more than anything - to be taken seriously - so laughing them to derision at their ridiculous ideas will be a strong offensive move like declaring the King has no clothes.
I heard that a teacher in Norman, Oklahoma lost her job for sharing a QR code for Brooklyn Public Library's Books Unbanned program that provides teens all over America access to banned books.
It would be horrible for this offensive code to be shared all over the internet!
So, this was a bit of a mistaken piece of discourse -- philosophically speaking -- from the cultural theorist of a guest as well as from Glenn. One can dress things up in contemporary particularism but keep committing deep if simple general fallacies. The metaphysics of 'thesis-antithesis' arose by denying moral absolutism as possible knowledge (I believe it was Hegel's Philosophy of the Right, which is not exactly a defense of 'rights'). By doing so, the idea of fighting anything becomes moot upon analysis: if one fights something that is not wholly false, one risks denying any lessons from the intellectual movement. Now, one could rationally believe that things are not wholly knowable but can be wholly true or false. But it would not be rational to believe that one ought to hedge one's bets in intellectual combat on the possibilities of good and evil without having tried a cooperative approach to begin with. If efforts at cooperation are fully satisfied and fail, then go ahead and try fighting. But I don't rationally believe we're even close to forging a cooperative relationship with a supposed evil (as no definition of cooperative terms has been devised and presented), launching rather into a desire for military confidence, the likes of which seek non-uniquely moral-legal aesthetics behind which to hide.
Regarding Glenn's point about academics being cancelled, (I realize we're all Waxed-out! but I do need to mention Amy once again), I saw Ms Wax's recent interview. A must-see.
So far, I mostly supported her, like Glenn did, but hearing her views first hand, well, let me say I changed my mind and there's a LOT I disagree vehemently with her about. Not just as an Asian American, but simply a human. Having said that, do I want her fired? No, no and no! Thankfully, I managed to hold on to my objectivity throughout her interview, and came away with the conclusion that she is one of our last living intellectual giants, and possessed of a razor-sharp intellect, extremely fast processing speeds, the ability to dissect a point and lay it bare, and an articulation the likes of which one seldom sees these days. She also has the rare capacity to concede a point gracefully, and did so on several occasions. Her critics rarely mention this. For instance, admitting that her predilection towards nostalgia and a bygone era may be clouding her thinking about recent immigration, was a rare breath of fresh air in these days of Intellectual Supremacy where everyone seemingly hangs on to their point for dear life. My only wish is that someday, I get to sit with her, and have the opportunity to engage with her. It is disheartening that students aren't able to objectively appreciate the magnificence that is Amy Wax, and thank their stars that they have the opportunity to interact with such a legend.
I'll leave the hyperbole about how fabulously awful the progressives are framed in some of the prior comments alone - the drum banging is as ignorant, in my view, as any Q-Anon rant.
Kant would probably agree with universality being rooted in dignity. But if you go down that path, you'll probably find yourself on the losing end of the cultural war. The word "dignity" can be used as a vicious hammer, by those with malicious intent, to crush any form of individuality and self expression.
For example, an apparatchik might request that people like Glenn pay additional tax, because he's "too smart". Such a tax, only on the genius, creates an "equal playing field" and returns "dignity" to those with less talent.
Or a more insidious apparatchik might request that Glenn undergo a procedure, in which he's required to transfer some of his intelligence to someone else whose "dignity" is at stake.
It seems to me that Universality is rooted in certain fundamental truths, and that these truths can be identified through our faculty of reason. These values, found by deduction and experience, are then adopted by our culture, out of a necessity, to help us live in harmony, and harmony is necessary for procreation and for advancement.
This is another instance of what can be called the paradox of activism. People tend to think of activism as something dedicated to solutions for a particular cause and on paper, that may be true. In practice, however, the activist has no end game, no point at which victory can be declared. The activism exists for its own sake and becomes more intent on perpetuating the issue than resolving it. Because the cause has become a livelihood and resolution would put the activists out of work. This applies to virtually any cause, from race to feminism to the environment and now, the what we once called liberalism.
Liberalism became so illiberal that even people on the left subconsciously realized it, ushering in the idea of progressivism which turns out to be as regressive as any ideology. When the typical reaction to dissent on any aspect of progressive dogma is to demand one's banishment from the public square, you are dealing with totalitarians who are, thus far, relying on coercion but who will eventually turn to blunt force in their push for conformity.
These are not reasonable people who can be engaged in good faith debate. These are people whose default setting is to label anyone not on board as a racist, sexist, etc., etc. They are blind to reality and impervious to facts. They will turn on their own who dare to question the orthodoxy as people from Bari Weiss to Brett Weinstein to JK Rowling have discovered. Multiple cities are awash in crime over the notion that the justice system is racist or some such, and the victims of this are usually minorities, the very people whom the progressives claim to champion. The old saying of, "with friends like these....." comes to mind.
Perhaps the activists are reaching their common end state - overplaying their hand, but the carnage is piling up as they get there. Public trust in academia, government, the media, and other institutions is at all-time lows, largely due to this endless push to enforce group think. It is a corrosive approach and I'm not sure what equilibrium would look like. The divisions in Covid cannot go away; when someone advocates you losing a job or being banned from the grocery store over rightful skepticism about a vaccine, that cannot be unseen. Same with things ranging from the idiotically reductionist view toward history taken by the left or the redefining of common terms like 'woman.' We are becoming less of a country by the day and more of different tribes constrained by a common border.
I think Caitlin Flanagan called it right in her recent Atlantic article, what we are combatting here is Coercive Progressivism. This viewpoint is different than ordinary progressivism which seeks to influence within a democratic framework. Coercive Progressivism seeks to punish someone for words simply because they gave offense to somebody’s feelings, beliefs, or political views, and thus renders the concept of freedom of expression devoid of all meaning.
I do think Justice Brandeis said it best in 1927 (Whitney v California) “order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”
Because Coercive Progressivism seeks to repress through punishment, it shares elements of other totalitarian philosophical beliefs such as fascism, communism, authoritarianism and certain fundamental religions. Thus while steadfast in my absolutism about the primacy of freedom of belief and people are allowed to believe or say what they want in public discourse as long they do not cross the line which Brandenburg v Ohio set, I do not believe people who have totalitarian tendencies in their belief system should be anywhere near seats of power. If you need to coerce people into believing as you do, you do not have much faith in the basic truth of your philosophy. And if you start doing ad hominem attacks on your opponents, you betray the fact that you do not believe you have a fundamentally strong argument.
I say this as someone who is playing a small part in the current Culture War fight back which has engulfed the Society of Authors in the UK (it was recently reported on in the City Journal https://www.city-journal.org/the-woke-takeover-of-publishing ) Freedom of belief must include the right of dissent or else we stumble towards totalitarianism and the great American project of freedom and democracy for all ends.
I do think it is long past time that Salman Rushdie received a Nobel Prize and the free world stood up to coercive philosophies. The West's failure forty years ago has resulted in a poison seeping into the democratic system and it does threaten us all.
Keep fighting the good fight. It is time to lead the discussion back to that pathway of safety which Justice Brandeis spoke about.
Also, a note, from an alien. This cultural problem is not a problem of America alone, not at all. It concerns the entirety of the West. Its roots were incubated in Europe, even if it exploded in the form we see today in the US first, and then became exported to the Anglophone West and spreads further on.
While it is undoubtedly important to focus of what happens in the USA, to take a broader view of the phenomenon and the possible differences may be helpful also to better understand the local situation.
In an ideal situation, the enemy is never the individual, but the unreasonable positions that the individual embraces. Notwithstanding the fact that for obvious reasons, when push comes to shove and people act on their positions, the individuals become the enemies as well until they are prevented from doing harm.
I like the kind of effort that the Institute for Cultural Evolution is making. And it is time to take back the pride in the values of the West -- the ones that every good thinking progressive and every good thinking conservative once endorsed. To remember that the culture born of the Enlightenment (from ancient Greece through the best traits of Christianity and because of the material environment created by the Industrial Revolution, with all its evils) is the one culture that gave humanity the Rights of Man, the refusal of slavery, the ideal of the equality of human beings, and democracy. It does not make it a superior culture, but it is the culture that informs the ability/hope of our species to progress and yes, to evolve. It is something to be proud of, without arrogance.
It would also be important to remember that this one is not the first time that an ideology was born as a reaction to modernity and took root. Nazism and Communism were such, and both promised to erase the 'evils' of modernity with an end-of-times kind of faith. Such ideologies have strong appeal to the minds of people for whom to be self-determined individuals is often too hard (and all of us tend to be that, at one time or another), especially because of the strong element of faith and group cohesion.
Besides, the concern about the pathological progressive ideology of today is more pressing for intellectuals like myself (and Loury, and McWorther, and Weiss, and Singal, and many others), for we care about cultural institutions, academia, the traditional media, the once established guardians of knowledge and truth. This is our fight to take up (even if not in a belligerent way, it is a fight nevertheless).
But we should also never forget that the attack on modernity and the values of the Enlightenment come not just from that side -- the reaction is always two-fold, on both extremes. The obscurantist forces bent on dismantling democracy from the right (which have always existed just like the quasi-psychotic delirium of the far left) are as active and influence society at different levels than our revered institutions: they have alternative media that propagate their distorted vision of the world and conspiracy theories, and an easy pool of grievances personal and collective from which to draw to inflame mobs in their specific echo chambers. Cancellation is not a tool used by the left alone... it is the preferred tool of totalitarian thought.
These two plagues, so different on the surface and so similar in their essence, feed on each other constantly. And they may well create immense destruction before being put out.
If they can be. Because Progress is not an linear path, and neither is evolution. And like a friend of mine who is a Professor of Genetics often repeats, the normal condition of species on the evolutionary playfield is EXTINCT.
This is a fight we need to join without delay, but which track or approach is most effective varies a lot depending on context. By “we” I mean pro-Enlightenment liberals. Some of us are going to be more liberal; some will be more conservative. But I think what many of us are seeing with ever greater clarity is the complimentary sort of yin yang dynamic of more liberal and conservative instincts and insights within that broader, shared Enlightenment rubric. One can be a civil libertarian and old-school ACLU supporter like me, and, as long as you aren’t blinded by ideology and groupthink and can incorporate changing objective policy impacts and an appreciation of the role of ideology and radically shifting balance of power within major institutions, it’s not too hard to see where a recalibration is needed. The ACLU, at least as it used to exist, was an extremely important, principled, and effective counterweight to unchecked state power. That doesn’t mean you want the current ACLU to effectively set the rules that increasingly beleaguered police departments must follow in some of the largest, highest-crime cities. It doesn’t mean we need effectively two public defenders’ offices per jurisdiction and no prosecutors actually willing to hold dangerous criminals accountable for serially preying on the public. We can see before our very eyes Edmund Burke’s admonition that public order which actually supports and enables liberty is difficult to achieve and all too easy to take for granted and thus lose. One somewhat hopeful approach I’ve found with some generally more progressive-leaning friends who are nonetheless still guided by what I think of as the common decency, humility, and real tolerance of Enlightenment liberalism is to avoid responding to tribal signaling or venting and instead look for more subtle ways of confirming and solidifying shared values. It can be as simple as expressing discomfort at the tendency on both sides to retreat into echo chambers and othering or even condemning people en masse for disagreeing about even issues of great personal concern. One friend replied simply that othering people in this knee-jerk, totalizing way was “not constructive or kind”. With another friend who was instinctively sympathetic to BLM, but had seen and even experienced directly how simply ceding the epistemic high-ground and all moral authority to anyone who wants to use their identity as a dare and a bludgeon and even a basis to smear and extort with impunity - while claiming to always in every situation that they are being oppressed - obviously just empowers and enables the most cynical, divisive, dishonest behaviors by bad actors (who come in all colors). Joking with a friend who is an English teacher about how ending her texts with punctuation is hurtful and harmful and aggressive, opened up a relatively light but meaningful discussion about how real kindness and compassion and inclusion is not the same as creating a dynamic in which one must cave and cater to a never-ending series of increasingly ridiculous demands. That it’s actually not good for either individual human beings or a community to incentivize extreme fragility and encourage endless accusations and demands as the default means of solving problems. That it’s particularly weird and counterintuitive to do so at the same time (thank you Haidt and Lukianoff) cognitive behavioral therapy is largely ascendant in clinical psychology and day to day therapy. In other words, I’m not going to overreact if a left-leaning person vents something about Ron DeSantis’s policies which may or may not be true. I’m going to look for signs of and openings to discuss and reaffirm more subtle but fundamental shared values.
I am a recently "enlightened" (in the sense of being aware of what the hell is going on in Progressive World, and what it's doing to many people's understanding of how the world works) Enlightenment Liberal. I am now aware of what is going on, because two of my daughters (whom I raised to be old-school feminists and to think like scientists) recently declared themselves to be "nonbinary". I knew that there was an upswing in kids being "into" this worldview, and in my search for what the hell this was all about, I discovered that it's a particularly militant corollary of postmodernism. A person is simply not allowed to question the idea that gender is defined solely by one's own "feeling" that one is really a man/woman (a designation completely divorced from physical sex, which latter is now considered a "spectrum"), and if they do, they can expect to be cut off from their children, ostracized from their social circle, or even lose their job. Of couse. Postmodernism is bullshit, completely divorced from anything we actually know, or could actually find out. Does Critical Race Theory point out some things that we have still to do, beyond the tremendous accomplishments of Enlightenment Liberalism, where we recognize as a first principle that we are all people? Sure. Should we address it using Critical Race Theory? Not a chance. I'm delighted to discover that there are others aware of all this. What do we do? I'm not really looking forward to explaining to my kids what postmodernism is, if they'll even listen. I showed my son an article about the science which raises some questions about the appropriateness of transitioning children, and he told me the article was "disgusting", presumably because it doesn't go along with what he's been persuaded is absolutely true. Why is postmodernist activism so bloody addictive, can you tell me that?
My path to conservatism wasn't all that different from yours. I came from a family of solid Roosevelt Democrats. I didn't know any Republicans or conservatives growing up. In junior high school, I was a member of Young Democrats. In high school, I became a leftist student radical. Then as a college freshman in 1969, I was told by the head of the campus radicals that to be a real radical, I had to support the Arabs against Israel. That started me down the road towards conservatism. The big turning point was during law school when I read Bork's "The Antitrust Paradox." That was my first introduction to what you call "neoliberal economics" and it was an eye-opener. Between economics and the law, I could start to see how the world really worked. The final turning point was President Reagan, whose successes in both foreign and domestic policies convinced me that conservatism provided better solutions.
I was educated at William & Mary 71-75 and that overview of history was considered understood by most people who considered themselves modern and educated. I don't see a lot of people questioning themselves on whether it is actually true. It is easy to choose examples selectively to support the case, but that is actually a danger, not an advantage. Slavery down, yes fine. But marriage down, # children down? Greater atomisation of populations? Increased involvement of the collective in education? Maybe all these things will turn out to be great, but thus far they don't look positive. I think it's just seeing what one wants.
There is a conflict underway in the legacy media, on the internet, in social media, in government and in international affairs that is coming to a boil and it is important to understand it clearly for what it is.
The conflict is between those who prize individual rights and those imposing collectivism.
Anyone framing it as a war between the races, religions, ethnicities, sexes, or sexual orientations is on the side of collectivism.
They are trying to get you to fan the flames of chaos and societal collapse, while opposing individual civil rights.
You may even be unaware you are doing it.
Stop serving their purposes.
The Third Commandment provides: ”Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7 (KJV).
It means that you shall not pretend to act with God’s authority when you lack it.
It means that you shall not deign to speak for God, except to use God’s own words.
A violation of the Third Commandment occurs whenever a sinner usurps God’s omniscient righteousness by claiming it for the sinner’s self for the sinner’s own purposes.
Jesus Christ stated: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 (NIV). By this, Jesus Christ makes clear that no one gets into Heaven without accepting their salvation from Him as their almighty Lord.
Jesus Christ never said “all Jews go to hell.”
Ascribing those words to Him violates the Third Commandment.
By contending that all Jews go to hell, one is not stating exactly what Jesus Christ stated, but misquotes Him to make a point, and in doing so usurps His divine authority to judge us.
Jesus Christ told us the way forward is through Him.
All people, even Jews, are able to receive Jesus Christ’s salvation at any time prior to death by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior.
Being born a Jew has nothing to do with it.
Galatians 3:28 (KJV) teaches “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Once anyone has truly taken Jesus as the Christ and as their savior, they are our brother or sister in God’s eyes.
Saying otherwise in God’s name violates the Third Commandment.
Support all Christians who denounce atheistic collectivism, whatever form it takes.
The survival of America depends on it.
X
Y
Z
First thing, we need to openly accept the tag of being "racist" because according to them we are by nature so accepting the tag will eliminate its power to manipulate. If we follow suit with all of their pet labels intending to manipulate, they will be left with nothing else. Second, we need to laugh at them, tell them how hilarious they are and do NOT take them seriously. This is what the want and demand more than anything - to be taken seriously - so laughing them to derision at their ridiculous ideas will be a strong offensive move like declaring the King has no clothes.
Accepting a slur as one’s moniker subjects one to the corrective discipline. It must be resisted at all costs, if it is untrue. Truth always matters.
Let me leave this tweet here without comment
https://twitter.com/HeatherBarrett/status/1563923141021384704
I heard that a teacher in Norman, Oklahoma lost her job for sharing a QR code for Brooklyn Public Library's Books Unbanned program that provides teens all over America access to banned books.
It would be horrible for this offensive code to be shared all over the internet!
So, this was a bit of a mistaken piece of discourse -- philosophically speaking -- from the cultural theorist of a guest as well as from Glenn. One can dress things up in contemporary particularism but keep committing deep if simple general fallacies. The metaphysics of 'thesis-antithesis' arose by denying moral absolutism as possible knowledge (I believe it was Hegel's Philosophy of the Right, which is not exactly a defense of 'rights'). By doing so, the idea of fighting anything becomes moot upon analysis: if one fights something that is not wholly false, one risks denying any lessons from the intellectual movement. Now, one could rationally believe that things are not wholly knowable but can be wholly true or false. But it would not be rational to believe that one ought to hedge one's bets in intellectual combat on the possibilities of good and evil without having tried a cooperative approach to begin with. If efforts at cooperation are fully satisfied and fail, then go ahead and try fighting. But I don't rationally believe we're even close to forging a cooperative relationship with a supposed evil (as no definition of cooperative terms has been devised and presented), launching rather into a desire for military confidence, the likes of which seek non-uniquely moral-legal aesthetics behind which to hide.
Regarding Glenn's point about academics being cancelled, (I realize we're all Waxed-out! but I do need to mention Amy once again), I saw Ms Wax's recent interview. A must-see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_L9LMZnLKs
So far, I mostly supported her, like Glenn did, but hearing her views first hand, well, let me say I changed my mind and there's a LOT I disagree vehemently with her about. Not just as an Asian American, but simply a human. Having said that, do I want her fired? No, no and no! Thankfully, I managed to hold on to my objectivity throughout her interview, and came away with the conclusion that she is one of our last living intellectual giants, and possessed of a razor-sharp intellect, extremely fast processing speeds, the ability to dissect a point and lay it bare, and an articulation the likes of which one seldom sees these days. She also has the rare capacity to concede a point gracefully, and did so on several occasions. Her critics rarely mention this. For instance, admitting that her predilection towards nostalgia and a bygone era may be clouding her thinking about recent immigration, was a rare breath of fresh air in these days of Intellectual Supremacy where everyone seemingly hangs on to their point for dear life. My only wish is that someday, I get to sit with her, and have the opportunity to engage with her. It is disheartening that students aren't able to objectively appreciate the magnificence that is Amy Wax, and thank their stars that they have the opportunity to interact with such a legend.
Our cancellers need to be cancelled.
Excellent discussion. Thank you both.
I'll leave the hyperbole about how fabulously awful the progressives are framed in some of the prior comments alone - the drum banging is as ignorant, in my view, as any Q-Anon rant.
Kant would probably agree with universality being rooted in dignity. But if you go down that path, you'll probably find yourself on the losing end of the cultural war. The word "dignity" can be used as a vicious hammer, by those with malicious intent, to crush any form of individuality and self expression.
For example, an apparatchik might request that people like Glenn pay additional tax, because he's "too smart". Such a tax, only on the genius, creates an "equal playing field" and returns "dignity" to those with less talent.
Or a more insidious apparatchik might request that Glenn undergo a procedure, in which he's required to transfer some of his intelligence to someone else whose "dignity" is at stake.
It seems to me that Universality is rooted in certain fundamental truths, and that these truths can be identified through our faculty of reason. These values, found by deduction and experience, are then adopted by our culture, out of a necessity, to help us live in harmony, and harmony is necessary for procreation and for advancement.
This is another instance of what can be called the paradox of activism. People tend to think of activism as something dedicated to solutions for a particular cause and on paper, that may be true. In practice, however, the activist has no end game, no point at which victory can be declared. The activism exists for its own sake and becomes more intent on perpetuating the issue than resolving it. Because the cause has become a livelihood and resolution would put the activists out of work. This applies to virtually any cause, from race to feminism to the environment and now, the what we once called liberalism.
Liberalism became so illiberal that even people on the left subconsciously realized it, ushering in the idea of progressivism which turns out to be as regressive as any ideology. When the typical reaction to dissent on any aspect of progressive dogma is to demand one's banishment from the public square, you are dealing with totalitarians who are, thus far, relying on coercion but who will eventually turn to blunt force in their push for conformity.
These are not reasonable people who can be engaged in good faith debate. These are people whose default setting is to label anyone not on board as a racist, sexist, etc., etc. They are blind to reality and impervious to facts. They will turn on their own who dare to question the orthodoxy as people from Bari Weiss to Brett Weinstein to JK Rowling have discovered. Multiple cities are awash in crime over the notion that the justice system is racist or some such, and the victims of this are usually minorities, the very people whom the progressives claim to champion. The old saying of, "with friends like these....." comes to mind.
Perhaps the activists are reaching their common end state - overplaying their hand, but the carnage is piling up as they get there. Public trust in academia, government, the media, and other institutions is at all-time lows, largely due to this endless push to enforce group think. It is a corrosive approach and I'm not sure what equilibrium would look like. The divisions in Covid cannot go away; when someone advocates you losing a job or being banned from the grocery store over rightful skepticism about a vaccine, that cannot be unseen. Same with things ranging from the idiotically reductionist view toward history taken by the left or the redefining of common terms like 'woman.' We are becoming less of a country by the day and more of different tribes constrained by a common border.
I think Caitlin Flanagan called it right in her recent Atlantic article, what we are combatting here is Coercive Progressivism. This viewpoint is different than ordinary progressivism which seeks to influence within a democratic framework. Coercive Progressivism seeks to punish someone for words simply because they gave offense to somebody’s feelings, beliefs, or political views, and thus renders the concept of freedom of expression devoid of all meaning.
I do think Justice Brandeis said it best in 1927 (Whitney v California) “order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”
Because Coercive Progressivism seeks to repress through punishment, it shares elements of other totalitarian philosophical beliefs such as fascism, communism, authoritarianism and certain fundamental religions. Thus while steadfast in my absolutism about the primacy of freedom of belief and people are allowed to believe or say what they want in public discourse as long they do not cross the line which Brandenburg v Ohio set, I do not believe people who have totalitarian tendencies in their belief system should be anywhere near seats of power. If you need to coerce people into believing as you do, you do not have much faith in the basic truth of your philosophy. And if you start doing ad hominem attacks on your opponents, you betray the fact that you do not believe you have a fundamentally strong argument.
I say this as someone who is playing a small part in the current Culture War fight back which has engulfed the Society of Authors in the UK (it was recently reported on in the City Journal https://www.city-journal.org/the-woke-takeover-of-publishing ) Freedom of belief must include the right of dissent or else we stumble towards totalitarianism and the great American project of freedom and democracy for all ends.
I do think it is long past time that Salman Rushdie received a Nobel Prize and the free world stood up to coercive philosophies. The West's failure forty years ago has resulted in a poison seeping into the democratic system and it does threaten us all.
Keep fighting the good fight. It is time to lead the discussion back to that pathway of safety which Justice Brandeis spoke about.
Also, a note, from an alien. This cultural problem is not a problem of America alone, not at all. It concerns the entirety of the West. Its roots were incubated in Europe, even if it exploded in the form we see today in the US first, and then became exported to the Anglophone West and spreads further on.
While it is undoubtedly important to focus of what happens in the USA, to take a broader view of the phenomenon and the possible differences may be helpful also to better understand the local situation.
In an ideal situation, the enemy is never the individual, but the unreasonable positions that the individual embraces. Notwithstanding the fact that for obvious reasons, when push comes to shove and people act on their positions, the individuals become the enemies as well until they are prevented from doing harm.
I like the kind of effort that the Institute for Cultural Evolution is making. And it is time to take back the pride in the values of the West -- the ones that every good thinking progressive and every good thinking conservative once endorsed. To remember that the culture born of the Enlightenment (from ancient Greece through the best traits of Christianity and because of the material environment created by the Industrial Revolution, with all its evils) is the one culture that gave humanity the Rights of Man, the refusal of slavery, the ideal of the equality of human beings, and democracy. It does not make it a superior culture, but it is the culture that informs the ability/hope of our species to progress and yes, to evolve. It is something to be proud of, without arrogance.
It would also be important to remember that this one is not the first time that an ideology was born as a reaction to modernity and took root. Nazism and Communism were such, and both promised to erase the 'evils' of modernity with an end-of-times kind of faith. Such ideologies have strong appeal to the minds of people for whom to be self-determined individuals is often too hard (and all of us tend to be that, at one time or another), especially because of the strong element of faith and group cohesion.
Besides, the concern about the pathological progressive ideology of today is more pressing for intellectuals like myself (and Loury, and McWorther, and Weiss, and Singal, and many others), for we care about cultural institutions, academia, the traditional media, the once established guardians of knowledge and truth. This is our fight to take up (even if not in a belligerent way, it is a fight nevertheless).
But we should also never forget that the attack on modernity and the values of the Enlightenment come not just from that side -- the reaction is always two-fold, on both extremes. The obscurantist forces bent on dismantling democracy from the right (which have always existed just like the quasi-psychotic delirium of the far left) are as active and influence society at different levels than our revered institutions: they have alternative media that propagate their distorted vision of the world and conspiracy theories, and an easy pool of grievances personal and collective from which to draw to inflame mobs in their specific echo chambers. Cancellation is not a tool used by the left alone... it is the preferred tool of totalitarian thought.
These two plagues, so different on the surface and so similar in their essence, feed on each other constantly. And they may well create immense destruction before being put out.
If they can be. Because Progress is not an linear path, and neither is evolution. And like a friend of mine who is a Professor of Genetics often repeats, the normal condition of species on the evolutionary playfield is EXTINCT.
This is a fight we need to join without delay, but which track or approach is most effective varies a lot depending on context. By “we” I mean pro-Enlightenment liberals. Some of us are going to be more liberal; some will be more conservative. But I think what many of us are seeing with ever greater clarity is the complimentary sort of yin yang dynamic of more liberal and conservative instincts and insights within that broader, shared Enlightenment rubric. One can be a civil libertarian and old-school ACLU supporter like me, and, as long as you aren’t blinded by ideology and groupthink and can incorporate changing objective policy impacts and an appreciation of the role of ideology and radically shifting balance of power within major institutions, it’s not too hard to see where a recalibration is needed. The ACLU, at least as it used to exist, was an extremely important, principled, and effective counterweight to unchecked state power. That doesn’t mean you want the current ACLU to effectively set the rules that increasingly beleaguered police departments must follow in some of the largest, highest-crime cities. It doesn’t mean we need effectively two public defenders’ offices per jurisdiction and no prosecutors actually willing to hold dangerous criminals accountable for serially preying on the public. We can see before our very eyes Edmund Burke’s admonition that public order which actually supports and enables liberty is difficult to achieve and all too easy to take for granted and thus lose. One somewhat hopeful approach I’ve found with some generally more progressive-leaning friends who are nonetheless still guided by what I think of as the common decency, humility, and real tolerance of Enlightenment liberalism is to avoid responding to tribal signaling or venting and instead look for more subtle ways of confirming and solidifying shared values. It can be as simple as expressing discomfort at the tendency on both sides to retreat into echo chambers and othering or even condemning people en masse for disagreeing about even issues of great personal concern. One friend replied simply that othering people in this knee-jerk, totalizing way was “not constructive or kind”. With another friend who was instinctively sympathetic to BLM, but had seen and even experienced directly how simply ceding the epistemic high-ground and all moral authority to anyone who wants to use their identity as a dare and a bludgeon and even a basis to smear and extort with impunity - while claiming to always in every situation that they are being oppressed - obviously just empowers and enables the most cynical, divisive, dishonest behaviors by bad actors (who come in all colors). Joking with a friend who is an English teacher about how ending her texts with punctuation is hurtful and harmful and aggressive, opened up a relatively light but meaningful discussion about how real kindness and compassion and inclusion is not the same as creating a dynamic in which one must cave and cater to a never-ending series of increasingly ridiculous demands. That it’s actually not good for either individual human beings or a community to incentivize extreme fragility and encourage endless accusations and demands as the default means of solving problems. That it’s particularly weird and counterintuitive to do so at the same time (thank you Haidt and Lukianoff) cognitive behavioral therapy is largely ascendant in clinical psychology and day to day therapy. In other words, I’m not going to overreact if a left-leaning person vents something about Ron DeSantis’s policies which may or may not be true. I’m going to look for signs of and openings to discuss and reaffirm more subtle but fundamental shared values.
Wonderfully put.