Rousseau thought that, once free of contemporary civilization's corruption, every citizen would freely want to do only that which they should do. Unfortunately, that happy state corresponds to the Christian Heaven, not to life here on Earth. Since Rousseau's day, anthropology has put paid to the notion that pre-civilization humans were "Noble Savages."
Back on Earth, Reset elites have taken a page from "Brave New World" and look forward to the day when genetically modified humans "will love their servitude." In a worldview that rejects the transcendental character of the Good, the True and The Beautiful, the will of the elite supplants God's will, and genetic manipulation supplants free will. And on the way to this nightmare, we have the working out of the Second Law of Conquest.
As I interpret your engaging essay, classical liberalism at first creates Jefferson's natural aristocracy of talent and virtue. But the gates that welcome the talented and virtuous invariably let in the dark aristocracy of the talented and malevolent. Perhaps a dark aristocrat belonged to a hitherto persecuted minority, and his desire for revenge trumps his grudging admiration for the established order. Another dark aristocrat may be a sexual deviant and, given the steady erosion of values occurring around him, he believes that he can expand the notion of good behavior to include his vice. Better yet, he may even get society to regard the minor offenses of his foes as major vices. As time goes on, the dark aristocracy lets in the envious, and manages to fashion battering rams from the numberless splinters of mediocrity.
Greg, you have persuaded me that both culture and politics are downstream from psychology. I believe that in a healthy society, both those with the "liberal psychology" and the "conservative psychology" exhibit their strengths, rather than their drawbacks, and complement each other as members of a team. In an unhealthy society, their drawbacks come to the fore and the two groups oppose each other as mortal enemies.
You're someone who has pondered these matters longer than I, so I hope that in a future essay you can describe both the light and dark sides of the liberal and conservative nature, with perhaps some recommendations of how the better angles of both sides can eventually prevail.
Good article and don't get me wrong I appreciate your work but the hope you have that people will "see the light" and future generations will prevent left wing infiltration or dominance is just flat out inaccurate. The Left implies entropy. Things in nature unless held together with extreme force and effort will eventually decay. In property management its called depreciation. And the people who cause the decay will always make excuses using some for the people regurgitation. Look at the Amish. Regardless of how people view them or how backwards people think they are, the degree to which they live is that they adhere to the higher power (the local/county gov'ts) but they live separate lives with a religious conviction that is very constrained. Is that good? Not necessarily but nonetheless they have been able to preserve what they've had for centuries by adhering to their rules, regardless of rigidity.
Rousseau thought that, once free of contemporary civilization's corruption, every citizen would freely want to do only that which they should do. Unfortunately, that happy state corresponds to the Christian Heaven, not to life here on Earth. Since Rousseau's day, anthropology has put paid to the notion that pre-civilization humans were "Noble Savages."
Back on Earth, Reset elites have taken a page from "Brave New World" and look forward to the day when genetically modified humans "will love their servitude." In a worldview that rejects the transcendental character of the Good, the True and The Beautiful, the will of the elite supplants God's will, and genetic manipulation supplants free will. And on the way to this nightmare, we have the working out of the Second Law of Conquest.
As I interpret your engaging essay, classical liberalism at first creates Jefferson's natural aristocracy of talent and virtue. But the gates that welcome the talented and virtuous invariably let in the dark aristocracy of the talented and malevolent. Perhaps a dark aristocrat belonged to a hitherto persecuted minority, and his desire for revenge trumps his grudging admiration for the established order. Another dark aristocrat may be a sexual deviant and, given the steady erosion of values occurring around him, he believes that he can expand the notion of good behavior to include his vice. Better yet, he may even get society to regard the minor offenses of his foes as major vices. As time goes on, the dark aristocracy lets in the envious, and manages to fashion battering rams from the numberless splinters of mediocrity.
Greg, you have persuaded me that both culture and politics are downstream from psychology. I believe that in a healthy society, both those with the "liberal psychology" and the "conservative psychology" exhibit their strengths, rather than their drawbacks, and complement each other as members of a team. In an unhealthy society, their drawbacks come to the fore and the two groups oppose each other as mortal enemies.
You're someone who has pondered these matters longer than I, so I hope that in a future essay you can describe both the light and dark sides of the liberal and conservative nature, with perhaps some recommendations of how the better angles of both sides can eventually prevail.
Good article and don't get me wrong I appreciate your work but the hope you have that people will "see the light" and future generations will prevent left wing infiltration or dominance is just flat out inaccurate. The Left implies entropy. Things in nature unless held together with extreme force and effort will eventually decay. In property management its called depreciation. And the people who cause the decay will always make excuses using some for the people regurgitation. Look at the Amish. Regardless of how people view them or how backwards people think they are, the degree to which they live is that they adhere to the higher power (the local/county gov'ts) but they live separate lives with a religious conviction that is very constrained. Is that good? Not necessarily but nonetheless they have been able to preserve what they've had for centuries by adhering to their rules, regardless of rigidity.