It’s sort of gratifying to be unable to keep up with all the people talking about your ideas. But I really can’t keep up. I promised Jonah another reply, but haven’t done it yet. We’re doing a Bloggingheads tomorrow, so maybe I can get some of it out then. Here’s another reply from Ross. Let me say something about this bit:
Yes, there’s a best-case scenario in which the dumbening of the American Right works out fine for libertarians, because the infusion of “liberaltarianism” suddenly makes the left-of-center much smarter and more freedom-friendly about issues of economic policy. But I think the more likely scenario is that the liberaltarians vanish into the center-left without much of a ripple, leaving a right-wing rump to battle eternally with a fat, lazy, none-too-libertarian left-liberalism. And in fact, that worst-case scenario already exists: It’s called the state of California.
I want to emphasize for all the conservatives who’ve come ’round these parts complaining about me calling them dumb that I swear it was Ross Douthat, the conservative Catholic Republican, who brought up the topic of “the dumbening of the American Right.” I admit that I leapt on the idea and indulged in some “jingoistic fagbasher” sort of rhetoric, which is a poor strategy for winning the affection of both those conservatives who do and do not fit the description. I assure you that many of my closest friends are Republicans, and those approving of gay sex on burning flags are closer still. To clarify further, Ross and I were not talking about the relative IQ scores of Democrats and Republicans. We were talking about “intellectuals,” an elusive species of social parasite paid to publish their worthless thoughts, and whatnot. I noticed that some among those who thought I was saying that they are dumb simply on account of their ardent belief in the Good Book seemed to be a bit hostile to the very idea of an “intellectual.” Because who the heck are intellectuals to think they’re so much smarter than the rest of us when they probably can’t even change the oil or gut an elk? It’s a good point. But there you have it.
But that’s neither here nor there. Pardon me if my series of blog posts is not internally coherent, because I’m truly working things out in real time. But again I find myself wanting to stress that all this farseeing speculation about the relevance or irrelevance of liberaltarians is interesting to me, but decidely secondary. I’ve now spent well over a decade devoted to the study of philosophy and political economy and for what?! I have had many periods of doctrinal enthusiasm, but let me now congratulate myself by publicly admitting that my aim has always been to get it right. As a human, I’ve liked being on teams and have taken some real satisfaction in ideological partisanship. It seems I can’t help but listen to arguments against my side because I’m so aggressively partisan I mean to personally undo them all. Through dumb repetition, I eventually gained a distinct awareness of the singular subtle sensation of intellectual aggravation. Allow me to generalize here, so that this is not about me only.
The more one feels aggravated by a line of reasoning, the more one resolves to unravel it. Our methods for disposing of the obviously spurious vary, and we may become attached to our methods. But not all methods are equally useful for swift and total disposal. Those especially inefficient in this are prone to become intrigued by arguments whose indubitable spuriousness is deviously hidden. One may pick at the knot a while, but become distracted by, say, a beloved but dubious proposition simple to sadistically dissect. So certain problem thoughts are shunted off to obviously spurious storage. One assumes one will return, soon, better equipped to straigten things out. The day of reckoning will come. But then one night, while sniffing the hamper, one recalls with mild alarm earlier in the day deploying, with no trace of devil’s advocacy, an argument previously locked in obviously spurious storage. There may be a problem! Tiny spiders of self-suspicion canvass the web of belief. Heretofore unquestioned doctrines may be quietly accused of undetected spuriousness. In the end, one makes the minimum necessary adjustments. No, there is no problem at all, one is relieved to conclude. There is yet so much in common with the team. The best team!
These are not conversion experiences. These are periodic tune-ups. But how many periods until the boat you’ve rebuilt one plank at a time while sailing in it is a distinguishably different model? What if you like your boat, but you’re lonely on it? Oh what a team our regatta would be! This is liberaltarianism to me. If the question was what to do with my voter registration card, I’d make an origami cat.
Back to Ross’s passage. Regarding the state of California, I’m told the problems more than anything have to do with their ill-designed scheme of direct democracy. And the prison union.
Let's Go Twins!?!?! This post was about baseball, right? I'm confident that if something can't be explained by a sports analogy, then it's not worth explaining.
Aren't dating analogies more apt, Jeff?
It's fun to watch the libertarians trying to justify their dumping of the Republicans now that they are out of power.
The real question is…will the Democrats fall for it?
Twins? Royals.
Liberaltarianism is reasonable enough, but it doesn't give me the buzz it used to. Now I get my cognitive dissonance fix as an Anarxist.
Yikes. The Royals haven't been relevant in years…. oh wait … I get it… touche….
No. I really just mean I'm a Royals fan. You're psyching yourself out!
No, I like the team analogy. Sometimes you put up with a Randy Moss, a Duante Culpepper, etc. because you're winning. Then, a boat party scandal and a couple losing seasons later, and you don't like what you're cheering for anymore. You lose the players that aren't working anymore and sometimes start over from scratch with almost a completely new line-up. There are an endless amount of variations. Do you bring in the old vet to plug some holes? Do you give the young kid a chance? You form a team out of the best you have available of willing participants. The line-up is hardly ever constant from year to year, but the uniform stays the same…. it's your team.
Anarxist!
Not sure who you mean by “the” libertarians, but I know of many who dumped the Republicans long before they even controlled the congress. And they never went back.
Ross sounds like a loser talking about cliques in a high school. Sez the bloated Harvard grad: If the libertarians start to hang out with the jocks, they'll be swallowed whole. No ripples in any of the cheerleader's skirts. But ah, if they stay at our table–the Young Life table–ticket sales won't be as high at prom, which means less money for next week's pep rally. Who gives a bull shittake?
No one but Atlantic writers think this way. There's no such thing as smart Republican populism.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
What's wrong with belonging to the Libertarian party if you're a libertarian?
“Ross sounds like a loser talking about cliques in a high school.”
Actually, that's what this whole episode has reminded me of, on all sides. Will made a comment in a previous thread which I'm paraphrasing-but-barely, “In the worst case scenario we'll have a cool social network.” It seems to me that anyone outside of DC (or maybe a few other urban centers) really doesn't need to pay much attention to this movement.
Meanwhile, I'll be hanging out with the Rothbardian kids, smoking cigarettes behind the gym and listening to Iron Maiden.
If the liberaltarian project is really, completely apolitical, and it's only about establishing friendships and creating new teams, then why is the ideology important at all? If you want to enlarge your social network (which is probably a much more fruit-yielding strategy of long-term political change than op-eds or arguing), why not just make some friends who are liberals? Invite some liberal folks over to dinner, or to a poker game, or whatever. Talk politics if you want, or you can ignore politics and talk about music and the Oscars. I guess I don't see the necessity of working through the ideology if all you care about is making some new friends or having a book club.
But if, somewhere deep down, this really is about politics …
Liberaltarisocialervitism is where it's at — a coalition of Facebook wall-writers poking for social change.
This is high, bedroom-slippers-wearing, pipe-smoking drollery indeed. Perhaps it is just what the rhetorician ordered.
Is that due to geography or do you just randomly like the Royals? When I lived in southeastern Iowa I cheered for the Cubs. It would be interesting to dissect Iowa into regions of support for baseball teams in neighboring states. Would anyone cheer for the Brewers?
Re: “tiny spiders of self-suspicion”
Blog posts that aim to be poetic rarely succeed. This one does. Bravo.
Geography. I was born in Independence, MO, near the site of Christ's imminent return. Moved to Iowa at 5, but stuck with the Royals, and Chiefs (betrayed by the KC Kings.) Growing up I was a huge George Brett fan, pine tar and hemorrhoids and all.
“If the liberaltarian project is really, completely apolitical, and it's only about establishing friendships and creating new teams, then why is the ideology important at all?”
It's obviously not apolitical. My point was that people are more likely to find you persuasive if they think of you as a friend. This is a Fact of Science.
“Friend” = Concern Troll?
I don't get the point of it, but that sentence has no “s”.
Well that's almost self-evidently true. But every time someone in the last few threads argued against the political efficacy of the project, you were quick to point out that it wasn't about politics, that it was only the others out there making it about politics. I guess I misunderstood, but that's how I was reading it. Makes more sense now.
Can the liberaltarians debate the progressive Burkeans?
I think I'll just join the Rainbow Whigs movement. Either that or remember that most people loathe reading and thought too much for us moderners to worry about philosophical movements.
That fact that a writer is enjoying the sound of his own voice does not at all mean it shouldn't be enjoyed by others as well!
I'm friendly towards everyone (until they give me good reason not to be).
But, I don't like their dangerously stupid ideas and prejudices and don't want to support those things, or even pretend to support those things.
Thus far, I haven't been able very successful getting them to change their minds.
I wish you luck.
“There's no such thing as smart Republican populism.”
Ahh, once again the sentiment previously found in the epithet “flyover country” And this from a blog who's “author” lives in flyover country. Who'd thunk it!
Pingback: Leaving the Right to Save the Right | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Heresy. The Twins organization is Run just like the Bush Administration. No accountability for hire ups, incestuous appointments, ignorance of basic facts, and banal falsehoods to the fanbase.
As a Libertarian you should support it since All Libertarians are Republican.
Plus the Twins got the state of Minnesota to exempt the sales tax increase in Hennepin County from a public referendum vote…seems like something the Bush Administration would be proud of!
thanks for the share…