Patrick Deneen’s book Why Liberalism Failed attracted a lot of attention for its criticism of liberalism as an ideology. He has a new book called Regime Change that I have not yet read, but which is reputedly his attempt at defining what a replacement for liberalism would look like.
Tom Piatak from Chronicles, a long time friend of Sam Francis attempted to set the record straight with Matthew Rose twice about major inaccuracies in his chapter about Sam Francis. Rose changed one word in an erroneous sentence about Francis's interest in art but otherwise ignored the critique. You have to be a Chronicles subscriber to read the link, but the headline says it all. I definitely would not recommend Rose's book. Piatak's first defense of Francis was called " A Giant beset by Pygmies."
As I'm not able to read the post, are you able to summarize the critique? In Rose's chapter, there are roughly 20 references to various writings by Francis, so on the surface it would perhaps seem that he has not cherrypicked a small number to paint a skewed portrait. I would note that Aaron's brief characterization of Francis mostly aligns to Rose's, in my view.
This post is spot on about the most important job we face. From a European perspective, I don’t think our aim should be regime replacement, but building a parallel polis.
It’s the muddied relationship of church and state that infested theology in the first place: when the church is supposed to include all or even a majority of citizens, theology will accommodate to that.
This occured and it brought the complete evaporation of the proper boundary between the church and those outside of it. Seminaries and theology faculties started it, and we are reaping the cultural effects now. Mutatis mutandis for American Christian consensus.
“The Christian scions of the Roman pagan elite turned aside from the traditional Roman status system in favor of the church. Over time, this produced a parallel elite that would wield power.”
I don’t know if we’re going to wield power as we used to, but I certainly hope we won’t. Otherwise, this citation is the way.
Good thoughts. The last paragraph is especially well put.
I enjoyed "Why Liberalism Failed" and picked up Deneen's new book, but I had trouble getting into it and set it aside for now. I've found myself getting a lot more enjoyment out of Turchin's new book instead. Obviously we should all take Turchin's predictions with a very heavy dose of salt, but I still think it's a fun read, with a lot of commentary on the topic of elites.
I disagree with analysis on the right that treats control of culture as a chess game between right and left, in which the left has outplayed the right since WW2 if not earlier, and therefore the right just needs to huddle and come up with better plays. Civilizations and cultures have a momentum of their own, economics and technology shape them, and it's very hard even for the politically powerful to intentionally alter the course of culture in the direction they want them to go, for good or for ill.
I keep coming back to details like this: Franco tried to bolster the Catholic Church in Spain; the Communists in Poland tried to suppress it. In the aftermath of those two regimes, the result was the opposite of what the men in charge intended -- a more religious Poland and a more secular Spain. But now Poland is secularizing rapidly -- again, contrary to the generally conservative bent of the ruling coalition.
A major strategic blunder is that conservative institutions simply don't have the expertise they need to counter the other side because they have not adjusted to the era of geographic polarization. For conservatives to create a new elite, they first have to go find the expertise that sympathizes with their side. It absolutely exists, but 99+% of that expertise lies outside the elite institutions and major urban areas that have all been captured by the other side. They are not at HYPS and their equivalent institutions. They are not in DC/NY where all the conservative institutions and think tanks reside. The conservative institutions have not shown themselves willing to shake the dust off their feet of the big blue urban areas. Intersecting with your religious discussion, this is in large measure why Protestants, especially evangelicals, punch below their weight. The overwhelming number of us want nothing to do with inhabiting these big metro areas. So you're left with the few curmudgeonly Catholic and Jewish conservatives who are willing to be in those areas. The conservative institutions have an insistence that expertise should willingly come to them in places no one wants to go and they haven't bothered to cultivate anyone anywhere else.
As to the argument that the institutions need to be located in the urban centers because that's where the power base is--that is a complete misunderstanding of how power works in our era. Rod Dreher practically created US Senator JD Vance from scratch by blogging in Louisiana. Influences don't need to be located in the power base so long as they are listened to by the power base. Put the institutions where the personnel are located and let the power flow from there. Don't expect the personnel to come to you if you're located in places they don't want to go.
Aaron, let me recommend "The Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy," by Keith Whittington of Princeton. It illustrates some of the factors as to why playing under the current set of rules is a rigged game, why the Federalist Society are not solving anyone's problems but creating more of them, and why Strong-Executive leadership, like that of Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, or Franklin Roosevelt, is necessary for any kind of serious reform of our corrupt kritarchy.
I don't recall, I haven't read any UR since back in the day when it was on the original blog.
I read it in context of a graduate course in constitutional theory, along with some of Randy Barnett's work. I'd also recommend "Restoring the Lost Constitution," by the way, for its chapters on why kritarchy isn't compatible with the notion of government by consent, and how the entire edifice of the American mythology of legitimacy needs an urgent facelift, lest the left-wing narrative about social justice as the meaning of the American system go unchallenged.
Once again, not saying that I agree with Barnett's conclusions, but the arguments are interesting and the issues they raise are urgent.
I am figuring out that to get a "good culture," people with the vision for a good culture must be "in charge" in the same way that parents with a good vision for their children are in charge of the children. The child simply cannot be left to raise him- or herself. Many rules must be enforced for the child's good. Discipline, restrictions and guidance are necessary. Fortunately the children do not vote for their parents' policies.
So one element is getting the vision and general policies correct, but the harder element to accomplish is actually implementing policies over the objections of the voting populace. It seems to me that the government will need to become much more authoritarian with sharply drawn policies/enforced laws. Unpopular perhaps but done "for the good of the people." (extreme example: Singapore's drug laws). How does that happen in the United States? Can voters be convinced that "it is for your own good" and can the elections be won? Where has it happened? If it can't happen, what other options are available?
Perhaps more succinctly, we still await that day doing the best we can with what the Lord gives us, while understanding the signs of the times and the waxing worse and worse.
It will all fail until Jesus sits on the throne of David and still there will be rebellion but there will be justice and righteousness.
I don't think Douthat mentioned it, but it would seem that the Federalist Society, as far as it goes, has been somewhat successful in generating a counter-elite. Not an actual replacement for the liberal elite, just a functioning opposition, that occasionally (i.e. now) gets some big wins.
Since the two most successful conservative issue-oriented movements (gun rights and pro-life) are largely grass-roots in their membership, studying the interface between grass-roots and elite would be interesting.
A good book with a chapter on Samuel Francis his intellectual forbears: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300268133/a-world-after-liberalism/
Tom Piatak from Chronicles, a long time friend of Sam Francis attempted to set the record straight with Matthew Rose twice about major inaccuracies in his chapter about Sam Francis. Rose changed one word in an erroneous sentence about Francis's interest in art but otherwise ignored the critique. You have to be a Chronicles subscriber to read the link, but the headline says it all. I definitely would not recommend Rose's book. Piatak's first defense of Francis was called " A Giant beset by Pygmies."
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/columns/short-views/defaming-the-dead/
As I'm not able to read the post, are you able to summarize the critique? In Rose's chapter, there are roughly 20 references to various writings by Francis, so on the surface it would perhaps seem that he has not cherrypicked a small number to paint a skewed portrait. I would note that Aaron's brief characterization of Francis mostly aligns to Rose's, in my view.
This post is spot on about the most important job we face. From a European perspective, I don’t think our aim should be regime replacement, but building a parallel polis.
It’s the muddied relationship of church and state that infested theology in the first place: when the church is supposed to include all or even a majority of citizens, theology will accommodate to that.
This occured and it brought the complete evaporation of the proper boundary between the church and those outside of it. Seminaries and theology faculties started it, and we are reaping the cultural effects now. Mutatis mutandis for American Christian consensus.
“The Christian scions of the Roman pagan elite turned aside from the traditional Roman status system in favor of the church. Over time, this produced a parallel elite that would wield power.”
I don’t know if we’re going to wield power as we used to, but I certainly hope we won’t. Otherwise, this citation is the way.
Good thoughts. The last paragraph is especially well put.
I enjoyed "Why Liberalism Failed" and picked up Deneen's new book, but I had trouble getting into it and set it aside for now. I've found myself getting a lot more enjoyment out of Turchin's new book instead. Obviously we should all take Turchin's predictions with a very heavy dose of salt, but I still think it's a fun read, with a lot of commentary on the topic of elites.
I disagree with analysis on the right that treats control of culture as a chess game between right and left, in which the left has outplayed the right since WW2 if not earlier, and therefore the right just needs to huddle and come up with better plays. Civilizations and cultures have a momentum of their own, economics and technology shape them, and it's very hard even for the politically powerful to intentionally alter the course of culture in the direction they want them to go, for good or for ill.
I keep coming back to details like this: Franco tried to bolster the Catholic Church in Spain; the Communists in Poland tried to suppress it. In the aftermath of those two regimes, the result was the opposite of what the men in charge intended -- a more religious Poland and a more secular Spain. But now Poland is secularizing rapidly -- again, contrary to the generally conservative bent of the ruling coalition.
Maybe not related, Aaron, but here's a link to the Lord of Spirits' somewhat recent podcast on Constantine. https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/saint_constantine_the_great
I don't think they think the Christian Roman Empire is coming back though. :)
A major strategic blunder is that conservative institutions simply don't have the expertise they need to counter the other side because they have not adjusted to the era of geographic polarization. For conservatives to create a new elite, they first have to go find the expertise that sympathizes with their side. It absolutely exists, but 99+% of that expertise lies outside the elite institutions and major urban areas that have all been captured by the other side. They are not at HYPS and their equivalent institutions. They are not in DC/NY where all the conservative institutions and think tanks reside. The conservative institutions have not shown themselves willing to shake the dust off their feet of the big blue urban areas. Intersecting with your religious discussion, this is in large measure why Protestants, especially evangelicals, punch below their weight. The overwhelming number of us want nothing to do with inhabiting these big metro areas. So you're left with the few curmudgeonly Catholic and Jewish conservatives who are willing to be in those areas. The conservative institutions have an insistence that expertise should willingly come to them in places no one wants to go and they haven't bothered to cultivate anyone anywhere else.
As to the argument that the institutions need to be located in the urban centers because that's where the power base is--that is a complete misunderstanding of how power works in our era. Rod Dreher practically created US Senator JD Vance from scratch by blogging in Louisiana. Influences don't need to be located in the power base so long as they are listened to by the power base. Put the institutions where the personnel are located and let the power flow from there. Don't expect the personnel to come to you if you're located in places they don't want to go.
Aaron, let me recommend "The Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy," by Keith Whittington of Princeton. It illustrates some of the factors as to why playing under the current set of rules is a rigged game, why the Federalist Society are not solving anyone's problems but creating more of them, and why Strong-Executive leadership, like that of Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, or Franklin Roosevelt, is necessary for any kind of serious reform of our corrupt kritarchy.
I'm reading UR right now, and I believe that is something Curtis quotes often in some of it... am I wrong?
I don't recall, I haven't read any UR since back in the day when it was on the original blog.
I read it in context of a graduate course in constitutional theory, along with some of Randy Barnett's work. I'd also recommend "Restoring the Lost Constitution," by the way, for its chapters on why kritarchy isn't compatible with the notion of government by consent, and how the entire edifice of the American mythology of legitimacy needs an urgent facelift, lest the left-wing narrative about social justice as the meaning of the American system go unchallenged.
Once again, not saying that I agree with Barnett's conclusions, but the arguments are interesting and the issues they raise are urgent.
I am figuring out that to get a "good culture," people with the vision for a good culture must be "in charge" in the same way that parents with a good vision for their children are in charge of the children. The child simply cannot be left to raise him- or herself. Many rules must be enforced for the child's good. Discipline, restrictions and guidance are necessary. Fortunately the children do not vote for their parents' policies.
So one element is getting the vision and general policies correct, but the harder element to accomplish is actually implementing policies over the objections of the voting populace. It seems to me that the government will need to become much more authoritarian with sharply drawn policies/enforced laws. Unpopular perhaps but done "for the good of the people." (extreme example: Singapore's drug laws). How does that happen in the United States? Can voters be convinced that "it is for your own good" and can the elections be won? Where has it happened? If it can't happen, what other options are available?
Deneen is a friend of mine. If you'd ever like to have him on the podcast I can help make it happen.
Perhaps more succinctly, we still await that day doing the best we can with what the Lord gives us, while understanding the signs of the times and the waxing worse and worse.
It will all fail until Jesus sits on the throne of David and still there will be rebellion but there will be justice and righteousness.
I don't think Douthat mentioned it, but it would seem that the Federalist Society, as far as it goes, has been somewhat successful in generating a counter-elite. Not an actual replacement for the liberal elite, just a functioning opposition, that occasionally (i.e. now) gets some big wins.
Since the two most successful conservative issue-oriented movements (gun rights and pro-life) are largely grass-roots in their membership, studying the interface between grass-roots and elite would be interesting.