Thanks for reading, and special thanks as always to the supporters of The Gadfly. If you're new here, clicking the article 'like' and 'restack' buttons helps others find the piece and subscribing keeps me writing. Regular readers may have noticed I've been showing up more in these essays. I'll probably write more about China and other experiences in future, and include some sunnier topics as well.
I believe we've been living through the death of the Enlightenment.
What interests me is how a movement whose fruits so clearly improved the world for all of us can have failed to hold the public consciousness. As you rightly point out, reasoned debate in public life has become unfashionable and the focus on ego is tearing society apart.
Do we have to experience a complete collapse of society before we revert to the principles that saved us a couple of centuries ago?
In my piece on postmodernism, I argued that Enlightenment liberalism had succeeded beyond anyone's imagining, effectively solving so many of the problems it set out to solve that its inheritors had little left to build. The only remaining move for a certain kind of intellectual was to question whether the structures themselves were legitimate (hence the intellectual lunacy that followed).
I think a mix of boredom, the decline of religion, and misplaced guilt at the success of the West combined to undermine self-confidence in the project, while its beneficiaries lost themselves in entertainment — including hobbyist activism. So yes, unfortunately, I agree: only when people grasp how fragile the open society is will they learn what it takes to defend it. The pessimistic view is that by then it may be too late.
You started a fascinating thread here, Jim. Thanks.
You can read that postmodernism article here if it interests you:
Like a dog, we need to be given something to chew on, if we are not to destroy our own home. Another good analogy comes from immunology: growing up in a very clean environment leads to allergies - the bored immune system 'protectively' reacts to good or harmless things such as peanuts, shellfish etc, even unto the point of causing death. We are anti-fragile, we get wise, strong by working on problems. If you have no good problems/puzzles to work on in your life, it's a very big problem!
Good points! Humans evolved over the millennia through challenge and problem-solving. As we have now seen, coddled, self-centered people who generally have never had to deal with any major challenges, or cooperate with others as a matter of survival, end up obsessing over unfalsifiable and nonsensical ideas by the mentally unwell of academia.
Did the movement fail? Or did the culture and values change, because electronic media and screen culture turned so many into hypnotized, button-pressing primates? Because the narcissistic focus these platforms promote changed who we are? Because deregulation of broadcasting (US) ushered in catering to the lowest common denominator?
I don't know. But I wonder about this a lot.
I also think that modern childhoods do not produce the kind of adults who have the abilities and critical thinking skills previous generations have had.
It's hard to generalize about an entire generation, but it seems like Gen-x might have been the last generation who en masse engaged in regular independent free play and kid-generated activities. Does this matter? I believe it does, maybe even more than we know.
I believe there are many threads to our current woes: the demise and commercialisation of academia, woke-ism, the self-inflicted ruin of the Church, social media (not substack!!!), safety-ism, and probably lots more.
Perhaps these are the consequences for a society whose basic needs have been met by the labour and enterprise of its predecessors - we are the victims of their success and we have become decadent like Rome under the emperors.
Our leaders have embraced luxury beliefs that are dangerous to us but I still think that the core of our culture - of Britishness - is embedded deeply in the rest of us and will wake like the proverbial 'sleeping giant'. It just needs some encouragement.
Here's a thought: The Age of Enlightenment was brought about by people with extensive educations concerning civilizations going back for millennia. They had the depth of knowledge required to develop such a significant philosophy as was the Enlightenment. And yet they had their blind spots, as we all do, as the Gadfly references. But they were aware of those blind spots and attempted to see thru them.
Only some of a population is introspective to the point of questioning their own beliefs. I think the majority have always just wanted to live life the easiest way possible. I have no problem with that. But with self-government such people are voting on the future for all of us. Enter the charlatan, the snake oil salesman who sees the golden opportunity, to steal legally, to gain power thru subterfuge rather than competence.
Yes, you have pointed to the recurring question in Western Civ: Can people be self-governing, or do we lack key character strengths and abilities required to pull that off? Maybe its one of those things like monogamy, that has a high failure rate in humans.
I have been devoted all my life to Jefferson's vision that an educated populace can govern itself, and until recent years I thought that the U.S. was and would continue to be a place and a system where self-governance was going on. Now I am old and more jaded, and at the same time the freedoms I experienced here in the U.S. can no longer be assumed to exist. And as you said, the majority of the people don't necessarily want life to be difficult. It's alright with them to be told what is going on, what it means, and what is the approved response. I have been very disillusioned to see this; I never knew it was such a prevalent tendency. Or maybe it is a lot worse now and is a reaction to the disintegration of Western Civilization.
As to the solution, I don't think that 'more of the same' type of democracy is it. We could go back to tyranny, theocracy, empire, autocracy or communism all of which can provide an 'easy' life free from doubt. I hope we don't go this way but it's a distinct possibility.
I do think we need to make a 'direct democracy' (called Panocracy in my substack).
I have to disagree with direct democracy, for the very reason we've discussed.
Democracy centers around self interest, not justice, fairness or cooperation.. As the saying goes, democracy is best illustrated as three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
And we seem to agree that many/most voters are ill informed. I have no desire to put my fate in their hands. We all have equal rights in theory, but that doesn't hold up under totalitarianism. Apart from wolves, democracy is also know as the tyranny of the majority. I'm willing to put my fate in the hands of voters when it comes to deciding where roads get built, but not necessarily in deciding how my children will be educated, or what my values should be. No legitimate government interferes in such things. Ours does.
Well, you won't be surprised to hear that I don't agree!
I really appreciate this comment because it gives me an insight into what is problematic about democracy.
I follow Adam Smith who pointed out that the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker each has his own self-interest - sustaining himself and his family. However, they must cooperate to survive. They must develop a system of barter or money; they can't cheat their customers because they soon wouldn't have any, and so on. In this way Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' directs society towards an outcome that is favourable to almost everyone.
Let's deal with your points:
'Most voters are ill-informed' - Strictly, that applies to everyone. However, there are those who have specialist knowledge and we should be capitalising on that to produce better policy, not ignoring it. In a direct democracy the ignorant on one side of the debate more or less cancel out the ignorant on the other. If it's our leaders who are ignorant or dishonourable - and they are - then there's nothing to cancel them out.
'The tyranny of the majority' - what we have at the moment is the exact opposite: the tyranny of the minority. Governments, especially here, are mandated by a fraction of the electorate that's a lot less than 50%. They can't even represent the people who voted them in, let alone the rest.
'deciding where roads get built ...' - in a direct democracy (like panocracy) that decision would probably be delegated to an agency whose powers would be decided by popular vote. Everyone has an interest in where roads are placed. The same holds true for education - there doesn't need to be a one-size-fits-all policy. There doesn't need to be an agency ontrolling education - there wasn't one in Enlightenment times and the results here in Scotland were spectacular. These are matters that could well be decided on by popular vote after being argued over by the policy creators (which, in Panocracy, is you).
'No legitimate government interferes in such things' - but they all do. This is why removing politicians, their cronies, their networks of deceit is so important. I believe we need to replace the ignorant and idiotic few - who have no skin in the game when deciding the fate of other people - with the not so ignorant or idiotic many who have everything to gain, or to lose. Responsibility is a powerful incentive.
The current system of representative democracy relies on it being run by honourable men like the founding fathers of the US. Once these men are gone, so is the integrity of the system. Just as Rome turned from being a republic into being an empire, so have we. We have emperors now in all but name.
Wow, that's a long reply. Sorry it's taken me a while to address all your points. I'll go through them one by one. It's going to be a lot longer I'm afraid. I hope Substack doesn't run out of memory.
I can see you're in the USA whereas I'm in Scotland but our problems and outlook seem to me to be similar.
"I think we agree philosophically, but not pragmatically." I'm not sure we do – you are not a fan of direct democracy for reasons that I don't entirely understand. I'm sure there are many who share your scepticism so I'd like to understand it better.
"I think you contradict yourself. You want direct democracy, but observe that we need to yield our authority to experts to handle execution of specific programs." I think I need to clarify my position here. In a direct democracy, certain functions would have to be outsourced to 'experts': for example, the military for defence against foreign thrall and the police for domestic law enforcement. I believe that such functions must not be politicised and that's a big part of where I think we're going wrong. So to put it in a crude example, the people should have the final say in whether they go to war but the military should have the responsibility for conducting the war without political interference. That would concentrate minds.
"I think we are pretty much doing that right now. And we need to do that. I know it's impossible for me to handle my life, and then keep up with everything in government. We trust that the mechanic can fix our car, that the doctor can heal us, and that government can properly make and enforce law. The idea of all of this is obvious. How well it works is open to question. Mechanics and doctors have certifications that indicate they're competent. No such certification for politicians. In the end, it's up to we citizens to set high standards and enforce them. But we don't." Yes, I agree we've been lax in blindly following the political systems offered to us. But there's more to it than that. If I take my car to a garage for repair and they mess up then I will demand some remedy. It's obvious that something is wrong. Not so for government where policy outcomes are neither clear nor are they monitored. The government even makes up stories when they have messed up.
"The effectiveness of direct democracy diminishes as the population increases. How much are 330 million people going to agree on? Why try? To what end?" No, I don't accept the framing here. Democracy is not unanimity but a simple majority in favour. This gives a policy legitimacy and gives the voters confidence and responsibility. Direct Democracy is just that except it's run to reduce the overheads to the voting public to almost nothing. And I think that's now workable.
"We need national defense and national trade policy." I agree about defence (see above). Trade Policy can be determined by the citizenry, though, as they are the 'customers' of it. How many people got a say in Mr Trumps tariffs? There are a lot of very clever people out there who I believe would have raised serious objections to these policies and others who would have found good reasons to support them. None of them were heard.
"We don't need national schools, hospitals, or retirement plans. Why is the federal government involved in any of this?" Some people want these things, others do not. I think it's obvious that politicians want control and nationalisation is a great way to get it.
"Why would 330 million people vote on any of this?" These matters are to my mind political choices and that's exactly why people ought to have their say. We need to clearly separate the administration and execution of policy, which are practical matters, from the decisions about policy which are political and social concerns.
"The federal government has no authority to oversee the states. The constitution, the federal government, were created by the states, not the other way around. The federal government has only whatever authority the states agree to allow it to have. That is why the states very deliberately allowed for no national elections for anybody or anything. That is why the states elect the president, not the people. And I think we should go back to the state governemtns selecting their own senators, not the state's citizens. That may sound anti-democratic, but it's pragmatically workable. The citizens give their state government its power. The states give the federal government its power. Bottom up, the way it should be." I can't comment on the relationship between the States and the Federal Government in the USA but as soon as you allow people, especially politicians, to select their representatives you're inviting corruption. There are other ways in the modern world of creating policy and we don't need corrupt politicians doing that.
"They say that democracies fail, once people come to believe they can vote themselves prosperity. We are there. It's up to We the People, and we have failed, even more than governments have." I think that was Socrates so a while ago. The question is what are we going to do about it? My response has been to propose a practical answer. Time will tell if it's right or not.
"You mentioned the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. I lived that. My business was a subcontractor on commercial construction. A construction site has dozens of individual contractors, each with their own interests, yet with a common goal. We all want to do well, but that can only happen if we are attentive to each other. What's the difference between a productive construction site and dysfunctional government? The people, pure and simple. Apart from the obvious skills involved in building a building, it takes a certain kind of person. It takes a person who is analytical, can sort thru countless possibilities to find the one best way. It takes a person who can see how things relate, plumbing, electrical, concrete, etc and make sure that their work dovetails with everyone else's work. Apart from the required skills, not just anybody can do this.
That's why I think we need far fewer lawyers and liberals arts majors in government, and more tradesmen and businessmen. We routinely sort thru issues and make things happen as efficiently and fairly as possible. Lawyers only get paid for as long as there are issues. If they resolve the issue, their gravy train comes to a stop. Artists and philosophers generally have no experience with actually resolving issues. They examine them, pontificate about them. But resolve them, not so much."
Yes, I agree. With my wife I run a small online business and so I have a lot of respect for tradespeople and practical folks in general. Here in Britain red tape and bull-headed bureaucracy have just about destroyed small businesses. I've been an IT contractor for commercial and government concerns and I've been a public employee too. The difference between large corporates and government is much less than it is between small companies and large.
I'd say the difference between real working and public service is motivation. A public servant can get away with failure – and there are many ways of covering it up – so there is little motivation to succeed. The 'soft' professions in politics, law, academia, the arts, etc. suffer from this to varying degrees.
It's been difficult to address the points you raised and I'm aware that I've probably missed some. I'm grateful that someone is prepared to put finger to keyboard to air these issues.
I think we agree philosophically, but not pragmatically. But I, too, have observed that we don't really have majority rule, we have minority rule.
I think you contradict yourself. You want direct democracy, but observe that we need to yield our authority to experts to handle execution of specific programs. I think we are pretty much doing that right now. And we need to do that. I know it's impossible for me to handle my life, and then keep up with everything in government. We trust that the mechanic can fix our car, that the doctor can heal us, and that government can properly make and enforce law. The idea of all of this is obvious. How well it works is open to question. Mechanics and doctors have certifications that indicate they're competent. No such certification for politicians. In the end, it's up to we citizens to set high standards and enforce them. But we don't.
The effectiveness of direct democracy diminishes as the population increases. How much are 330 million people going to agree on? Why try? To what end? We need national defense and national trade policy. We don't need national schools, hospitals, or retirement plans. Why is the federal government involved in any of this? Why would 330 million people vote on any of this?
The federal government has no authority to oversee the states. The constitution, the federal government, were created by the states, not the other way around. The federal government has only whatever authority the states agree to allow it to have. That is why the states very deliberately allowed for no national elections for anybody or anything. That is why the states elect the president, not the people. And I think we should go back to the state governemtns selecting their own senators, not the state's citizens. That may sound anti-democratic, but it's pragmatically workable. The citizens give their state government its power. The states give the federal government its power. Bottom up, the way it should be.
They say that democracies fail, once people come to believe they can vote themselves prosperity. We are there. It's up to We the People, and we have failed, even more than governments have.
You mentioned the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. I lived that. My business was a subcontractor on commercial construction. A construction site has dozens of individual contractors, each with their own interests, yet with a common goal. We all want to do well, but that can only happen if we are attentive to each other. What's the difference between a productive construction site and dysfunctional government? The people, pure and simple. Apart from the obvious skills involved in building a building, it takes a certain kind of person. It takes a person who is analytical, can sort thru countless possibilities to find the one best way. It takes a person who can see how things relate, plumbing, electrical, concrete, etc and make sure that their work dovetails with everyone else's work. Apart from the required skills, not just anybody can do this.
That's why I think we need far fewer lawyers and liberals arts majors in government, and more tradesmen and businessmen. We routinely sort thru issues and make things happen as efficiently and fairly as possible. Lawyers only get paid for as long as there are issues. If they resolve the issue, their gravy train comes to a stop. Artists and philosophers generally have no experience with actually resolving issues. They examine them, pontificate about them. But resolve them, not so much.
Probably. At least in a sense. Given the growing momentum of this modern Enlightenment death It’s hard to see how it might change direction without some kind of serious and cataclysmic catalyst.
I agree it's hard to see how it might be reversed. You might think that a world economic catastrophe or war could bring us back to our senses. I hope it won't come to that. And if it did, it's likely that some kind of demagogue or oligarch would take power (like the collapse of the Soviet Union).
The original Enlightenment arose partly as a reaction to the behaviour of the Church (very strict here in Scotland - a theology student was executed for blasphemy in 1699!). It grew quickly because people saw the good in it and they could all read, ironically because the Church wanted them to be able to read the Bible.
My hope is that the current head of steam: resentment of the mismanagement by our governments will eventually lead to a peaceful reaction. I wouldn't bet on it, however!
Your mention of China reminded me of a time my wife and I went there to assist with our daughter and son in law's adoption of one of their three Chinese children.
There were about twenty couples involved and we went everywhere in a charter bus. We had Chinese 'guides' who both showed us the sights and facilitated the adoptions. They were wonderful people who we got to know fairly well. One guide, a woman, was vivacious, outgoing, young, spoke perfect English, and loved America. While on the bus someone asked the obvious question: Had she been to America. "Oh, no," she said. "I'm young, not married, and speak English. The government won't let me go. The government is afraid that if they let me go, I won't come back."
Instant silence in the bus. As Americans, we can barely fathom such a thing. Yet, to this young woman, acceptance of the government's authority was unquestioned. I'm sacred as hell that we're headed that way in America.
Thanks for sharing this – what a moment. In the few years I was there, I met plenty of people like this who understood very well what the rules were. They were happy to play along while the economy worked and living standards rose. That was the trade-off many were willing to make, and it was understandable; the catastrophes of the Mao era were still within recent memory for a lot of them.
Things have changed since, of course, not least the social credit system, which is deeply sinister and creeping into the West. Also, I read recently that the allure of a Western education is nothing like it was, which makes a depressing kind of sense looking at our universities today.
Yes, the thinking has become more reductionistic. It's weird how that happened. It's like whole populations are breaking down cognitively and emotionally.
As a 90s girl , I grew up watching “friends” and enjoyed rewatching it in recent years with my Gen Z daughter. When she started a new secondary school, she was told by other classmates that it was homophobic, sexist etc. I was quite surprised to hear that she was basically told off for it and any unapproved words or thoughts that didn’t align with progressive ideology.
That Friends is now a struggle session says everything about what's gone wrong with the culture. Glad your daughter has a sane person around to watch it with.
Part of the problem is that the mind too easily falls captive to paradigms, in Kuhnian sense. The embrace of paradigms can make for lazy thinking. I write about this on my Substack w reference to the "Settler Colonialism" construct.
I have tremendous admiration for J.K. Rowling and regard her as one of the greatest feminist leaders of all time. Thank you for this essay, which highlights other dimensions of her genius and wisdom.
Thank you for another sensitive and thoughtful piece.
Anna Van Zee makes some good points in the comments. I’m sure she’s right that the basis of empathy and critical thinking comes from the type of childhood which isn’t introspective and self centred. Perhaps too much time on screens speaking in sound bites with people who agree with you is not a great way to create rounded and balanced adults. Face to face interaction is much more likely to result in debate and discussion which is then more likely to lead to the ability to disagree amicably. It’s too easy to throw around abuse online.
As for reading a wide range of novels, I couldn’t agree more with you. I can’t imagine life without a book on the go, it gives me a feeling of calm pleasure knowing that a book is waiting for me at the end of the day.
Thanks, TT. I'm sure much of this comes down to changes in how we raise kids today. As for books, I'm tempted to start one of those book clubs here where readers talk about books they love and share recommendations.
I think you would like Richard Rorty's work on story telling and narrative. It was a key part of his move from liberal lefty to more sensible pragmatist. Achieving Our Country (1998) was written 30 years ago but predicted everything that has happened (although of course, he followed James Burnham and his brilliant Suicide of the West which was written even longer ago and is truly extraordinary).
I'm new here. Thank you for this thoughtful missive. I try to think openly, consider myself a free thinker, but I often catch myself clinging to the comfort of my own beliefs, a safe place where imagination dies and life shrinks. I love it when someone shakes up my thinking, causes me to reflect, to reconsider, to see things anew.
Thanks, Lee, great to hear. Yes, we all get attached to certain ways of looking at things. There's a free subscription option if you'd like more of this in your inbox.
This one is a banger — profound and on point — thank you. Writing like this is why I subscribed. In a time of madness, it confers a lucidity that heals my soul. 🌼
The only way to really get it right on trans is through the civil system with civil suits. If doctors face litigation and civil damages if they get it wrong by either automatically pushing for gender-affirming care and medicalisation in the majority of cases, or prohibiting the very rare cases where gender dysphoria becomes much more acute even with therapeutic help, then the incentives realign to treat patients like individuals rather pawns in an ideological divorce.
Besides, from a surgical perspective puberty should never be interrupted by interventions like puberty blockers before Tanner stage 4. This gives surgeons more material to work with, and reduces the need to use bowel material for the additional surgeries ten years later which are often required. That's a bare minimum. Many systems are now opting for a 'not no, but not now' approach which pushes delays the decision until patients reach the age that they can give adult consent. I'm not saying this will always be the case. There will be exceptional circumstances where the gender dysphoria has reached life-threatening levels, but these cases are extremely rare. In the past they've hovered around the level of less than 30 a year for a population of 65 million.
I agree with conclusion and moral direction, understanding the opposition's perspective is crucial in expanding one's understanding of the world.
1. I disagree with the examples chosen in the essay. J.K. Rowling does not support "Imaginative Faculties" especially the moral ones, she uses "Simplified Archetypes" that lacks texture and perspective, which reinforces the "Bigot and Simplicity" that the author refutes. She might in fact be one to cause this political distress, for she is the first "Global Author" who does not emphasize the importance of moral literature and mutual understanding.
2. I also disagree with the "Chinese People Made Me Realize I was the Brainwashed one" narrative. That is a significant misunderstanding of how "Confucianism" based culture works. Confucianism culture holistically supports the following principles "Don't Ask Questions" "There Are No Multiple Perspectives" and "Stop Thinking." Which goes against the principles the author is supporting. The woman you met, likely was a "Gaslighter" someone who finds no shame in lying to others, to reinforce their perspective to gain a moral advantage, even at the cost of everyone's loss. She has lied to you, so she doesn't have to think or ask questions, stay in her perspective, and let you take all the blame while she has to do nothing.
Which is why I felt conflicted after reading this essay. The conclusion is right(mutual understanding, widening perspectives, deepening understanding), the ways to get there are wrong(Chinese Culture, J.K. Rowling).
Thanks, Benedict – appreciate the thoughtful pushback. The example from China was meant to briefly illustrate that my preconceptions weren't reflected in reality. Of course, there's vastly more to this part of the discussion than either of us can cover here.
It’s too late for them, much past the age of twenty five. Neuroplasticity has ‘solidified’ by then, sometimes takes ‘till thirty… But, the ideas and behaviours people learn and/or are cultivated before that age are locked in.
Thanks for reading, and special thanks as always to the supporters of The Gadfly. If you're new here, clicking the article 'like' and 'restack' buttons helps others find the piece and subscribing keeps me writing. Regular readers may have noticed I've been showing up more in these essays. I'll probably write more about China and other experiences in future, and include some sunnier topics as well.
I believe we've been living through the death of the Enlightenment.
What interests me is how a movement whose fruits so clearly improved the world for all of us can have failed to hold the public consciousness. As you rightly point out, reasoned debate in public life has become unfashionable and the focus on ego is tearing society apart.
Do we have to experience a complete collapse of society before we revert to the principles that saved us a couple of centuries ago?
In my piece on postmodernism, I argued that Enlightenment liberalism had succeeded beyond anyone's imagining, effectively solving so many of the problems it set out to solve that its inheritors had little left to build. The only remaining move for a certain kind of intellectual was to question whether the structures themselves were legitimate (hence the intellectual lunacy that followed).
I think a mix of boredom, the decline of religion, and misplaced guilt at the success of the West combined to undermine self-confidence in the project, while its beneficiaries lost themselves in entertainment — including hobbyist activism. So yes, unfortunately, I agree: only when people grasp how fragile the open society is will they learn what it takes to defend it. The pessimistic view is that by then it may be too late.
You started a fascinating thread here, Jim. Thanks.
You can read that postmodernism article here if it interests you:
https://www.gadflynotes.com/p/postmodernism-the-idea-that-ate-itself
Like a dog, we need to be given something to chew on, if we are not to destroy our own home. Another good analogy comes from immunology: growing up in a very clean environment leads to allergies - the bored immune system 'protectively' reacts to good or harmless things such as peanuts, shellfish etc, even unto the point of causing death. We are anti-fragile, we get wise, strong by working on problems. If you have no good problems/puzzles to work on in your life, it's a very big problem!
Good points! Humans evolved over the millennia through challenge and problem-solving. As we have now seen, coddled, self-centered people who generally have never had to deal with any major challenges, or cooperate with others as a matter of survival, end up obsessing over unfalsifiable and nonsensical ideas by the mentally unwell of academia.
Did the movement fail? Or did the culture and values change, because electronic media and screen culture turned so many into hypnotized, button-pressing primates? Because the narcissistic focus these platforms promote changed who we are? Because deregulation of broadcasting (US) ushered in catering to the lowest common denominator?
I don't know. But I wonder about this a lot.
I also think that modern childhoods do not produce the kind of adults who have the abilities and critical thinking skills previous generations have had.
It's hard to generalize about an entire generation, but it seems like Gen-x might have been the last generation who en masse engaged in regular independent free play and kid-generated activities. Does this matter? I believe it does, maybe even more than we know.
I believe there are many threads to our current woes: the demise and commercialisation of academia, woke-ism, the self-inflicted ruin of the Church, social media (not substack!!!), safety-ism, and probably lots more.
Perhaps these are the consequences for a society whose basic needs have been met by the labour and enterprise of its predecessors - we are the victims of their success and we have become decadent like Rome under the emperors.
Our leaders have embraced luxury beliefs that are dangerous to us but I still think that the core of our culture - of Britishness - is embedded deeply in the rest of us and will wake like the proverbial 'sleeping giant'. It just needs some encouragement.
It is my fond hope that this is true. The heedlessness of your elites is absolutely astonishing.
It was ever thus. The phrase 'fiddling while Rome burns' seems to fit.
The sad bit is that 2,000 years later and we have learned nothing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Here's a thought: The Age of Enlightenment was brought about by people with extensive educations concerning civilizations going back for millennia. They had the depth of knowledge required to develop such a significant philosophy as was the Enlightenment. And yet they had their blind spots, as we all do, as the Gadfly references. But they were aware of those blind spots and attempted to see thru them.
Only some of a population is introspective to the point of questioning their own beliefs. I think the majority have always just wanted to live life the easiest way possible. I have no problem with that. But with self-government such people are voting on the future for all of us. Enter the charlatan, the snake oil salesman who sees the golden opportunity, to steal legally, to gain power thru subterfuge rather than competence.
The solution? I don't know.
Yes, you have pointed to the recurring question in Western Civ: Can people be self-governing, or do we lack key character strengths and abilities required to pull that off? Maybe its one of those things like monogamy, that has a high failure rate in humans.
I have been devoted all my life to Jefferson's vision that an educated populace can govern itself, and until recent years I thought that the U.S. was and would continue to be a place and a system where self-governance was going on. Now I am old and more jaded, and at the same time the freedoms I experienced here in the U.S. can no longer be assumed to exist. And as you said, the majority of the people don't necessarily want life to be difficult. It's alright with them to be told what is going on, what it means, and what is the approved response. I have been very disillusioned to see this; I never knew it was such a prevalent tendency. Or maybe it is a lot worse now and is a reaction to the disintegration of Western Civilization.
I agree with your observations.
As to the solution, I don't think that 'more of the same' type of democracy is it. We could go back to tyranny, theocracy, empire, autocracy or communism all of which can provide an 'easy' life free from doubt. I hope we don't go this way but it's a distinct possibility.
I do think we need to make a 'direct democracy' (called Panocracy in my substack).
I have to disagree with direct democracy, for the very reason we've discussed.
Democracy centers around self interest, not justice, fairness or cooperation.. As the saying goes, democracy is best illustrated as three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
And we seem to agree that many/most voters are ill informed. I have no desire to put my fate in their hands. We all have equal rights in theory, but that doesn't hold up under totalitarianism. Apart from wolves, democracy is also know as the tyranny of the majority. I'm willing to put my fate in the hands of voters when it comes to deciding where roads get built, but not necessarily in deciding how my children will be educated, or what my values should be. No legitimate government interferes in such things. Ours does.
Well, you won't be surprised to hear that I don't agree!
I really appreciate this comment because it gives me an insight into what is problematic about democracy.
I follow Adam Smith who pointed out that the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker each has his own self-interest - sustaining himself and his family. However, they must cooperate to survive. They must develop a system of barter or money; they can't cheat their customers because they soon wouldn't have any, and so on. In this way Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' directs society towards an outcome that is favourable to almost everyone.
Let's deal with your points:
'Most voters are ill-informed' - Strictly, that applies to everyone. However, there are those who have specialist knowledge and we should be capitalising on that to produce better policy, not ignoring it. In a direct democracy the ignorant on one side of the debate more or less cancel out the ignorant on the other. If it's our leaders who are ignorant or dishonourable - and they are - then there's nothing to cancel them out.
'The tyranny of the majority' - what we have at the moment is the exact opposite: the tyranny of the minority. Governments, especially here, are mandated by a fraction of the electorate that's a lot less than 50%. They can't even represent the people who voted them in, let alone the rest.
'deciding where roads get built ...' - in a direct democracy (like panocracy) that decision would probably be delegated to an agency whose powers would be decided by popular vote. Everyone has an interest in where roads are placed. The same holds true for education - there doesn't need to be a one-size-fits-all policy. There doesn't need to be an agency ontrolling education - there wasn't one in Enlightenment times and the results here in Scotland were spectacular. These are matters that could well be decided on by popular vote after being argued over by the policy creators (which, in Panocracy, is you).
'No legitimate government interferes in such things' - but they all do. This is why removing politicians, their cronies, their networks of deceit is so important. I believe we need to replace the ignorant and idiotic few - who have no skin in the game when deciding the fate of other people - with the not so ignorant or idiotic many who have everything to gain, or to lose. Responsibility is a powerful incentive.
The current system of representative democracy relies on it being run by honourable men like the founding fathers of the US. Once these men are gone, so is the integrity of the system. Just as Rome turned from being a republic into being an empire, so have we. We have emperors now in all but name.
Wow, that's a long reply. Sorry it's taken me a while to address all your points. I'll go through them one by one. It's going to be a lot longer I'm afraid. I hope Substack doesn't run out of memory.
I can see you're in the USA whereas I'm in Scotland but our problems and outlook seem to me to be similar.
"I think we agree philosophically, but not pragmatically." I'm not sure we do – you are not a fan of direct democracy for reasons that I don't entirely understand. I'm sure there are many who share your scepticism so I'd like to understand it better.
"I think you contradict yourself. You want direct democracy, but observe that we need to yield our authority to experts to handle execution of specific programs." I think I need to clarify my position here. In a direct democracy, certain functions would have to be outsourced to 'experts': for example, the military for defence against foreign thrall and the police for domestic law enforcement. I believe that such functions must not be politicised and that's a big part of where I think we're going wrong. So to put it in a crude example, the people should have the final say in whether they go to war but the military should have the responsibility for conducting the war without political interference. That would concentrate minds.
"I think we are pretty much doing that right now. And we need to do that. I know it's impossible for me to handle my life, and then keep up with everything in government. We trust that the mechanic can fix our car, that the doctor can heal us, and that government can properly make and enforce law. The idea of all of this is obvious. How well it works is open to question. Mechanics and doctors have certifications that indicate they're competent. No such certification for politicians. In the end, it's up to we citizens to set high standards and enforce them. But we don't." Yes, I agree we've been lax in blindly following the political systems offered to us. But there's more to it than that. If I take my car to a garage for repair and they mess up then I will demand some remedy. It's obvious that something is wrong. Not so for government where policy outcomes are neither clear nor are they monitored. The government even makes up stories when they have messed up.
"The effectiveness of direct democracy diminishes as the population increases. How much are 330 million people going to agree on? Why try? To what end?" No, I don't accept the framing here. Democracy is not unanimity but a simple majority in favour. This gives a policy legitimacy and gives the voters confidence and responsibility. Direct Democracy is just that except it's run to reduce the overheads to the voting public to almost nothing. And I think that's now workable.
"We need national defense and national trade policy." I agree about defence (see above). Trade Policy can be determined by the citizenry, though, as they are the 'customers' of it. How many people got a say in Mr Trumps tariffs? There are a lot of very clever people out there who I believe would have raised serious objections to these policies and others who would have found good reasons to support them. None of them were heard.
"We don't need national schools, hospitals, or retirement plans. Why is the federal government involved in any of this?" Some people want these things, others do not. I think it's obvious that politicians want control and nationalisation is a great way to get it.
"Why would 330 million people vote on any of this?" These matters are to my mind political choices and that's exactly why people ought to have their say. We need to clearly separate the administration and execution of policy, which are practical matters, from the decisions about policy which are political and social concerns.
"The federal government has no authority to oversee the states. The constitution, the federal government, were created by the states, not the other way around. The federal government has only whatever authority the states agree to allow it to have. That is why the states very deliberately allowed for no national elections for anybody or anything. That is why the states elect the president, not the people. And I think we should go back to the state governemtns selecting their own senators, not the state's citizens. That may sound anti-democratic, but it's pragmatically workable. The citizens give their state government its power. The states give the federal government its power. Bottom up, the way it should be." I can't comment on the relationship between the States and the Federal Government in the USA but as soon as you allow people, especially politicians, to select their representatives you're inviting corruption. There are other ways in the modern world of creating policy and we don't need corrupt politicians doing that.
"They say that democracies fail, once people come to believe they can vote themselves prosperity. We are there. It's up to We the People, and we have failed, even more than governments have." I think that was Socrates so a while ago. The question is what are we going to do about it? My response has been to propose a practical answer. Time will tell if it's right or not.
"You mentioned the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. I lived that. My business was a subcontractor on commercial construction. A construction site has dozens of individual contractors, each with their own interests, yet with a common goal. We all want to do well, but that can only happen if we are attentive to each other. What's the difference between a productive construction site and dysfunctional government? The people, pure and simple. Apart from the obvious skills involved in building a building, it takes a certain kind of person. It takes a person who is analytical, can sort thru countless possibilities to find the one best way. It takes a person who can see how things relate, plumbing, electrical, concrete, etc and make sure that their work dovetails with everyone else's work. Apart from the required skills, not just anybody can do this.
That's why I think we need far fewer lawyers and liberals arts majors in government, and more tradesmen and businessmen. We routinely sort thru issues and make things happen as efficiently and fairly as possible. Lawyers only get paid for as long as there are issues. If they resolve the issue, their gravy train comes to a stop. Artists and philosophers generally have no experience with actually resolving issues. They examine them, pontificate about them. But resolve them, not so much."
Yes, I agree. With my wife I run a small online business and so I have a lot of respect for tradespeople and practical folks in general. Here in Britain red tape and bull-headed bureaucracy have just about destroyed small businesses. I've been an IT contractor for commercial and government concerns and I've been a public employee too. The difference between large corporates and government is much less than it is between small companies and large.
I'd say the difference between real working and public service is motivation. A public servant can get away with failure – and there are many ways of covering it up – so there is little motivation to succeed. The 'soft' professions in politics, law, academia, the arts, etc. suffer from this to varying degrees.
It's been difficult to address the points you raised and I'm aware that I've probably missed some. I'm grateful that someone is prepared to put finger to keyboard to air these issues.
I think we agree philosophically, but not pragmatically. But I, too, have observed that we don't really have majority rule, we have minority rule.
I think you contradict yourself. You want direct democracy, but observe that we need to yield our authority to experts to handle execution of specific programs. I think we are pretty much doing that right now. And we need to do that. I know it's impossible for me to handle my life, and then keep up with everything in government. We trust that the mechanic can fix our car, that the doctor can heal us, and that government can properly make and enforce law. The idea of all of this is obvious. How well it works is open to question. Mechanics and doctors have certifications that indicate they're competent. No such certification for politicians. In the end, it's up to we citizens to set high standards and enforce them. But we don't.
The effectiveness of direct democracy diminishes as the population increases. How much are 330 million people going to agree on? Why try? To what end? We need national defense and national trade policy. We don't need national schools, hospitals, or retirement plans. Why is the federal government involved in any of this? Why would 330 million people vote on any of this?
The federal government has no authority to oversee the states. The constitution, the federal government, were created by the states, not the other way around. The federal government has only whatever authority the states agree to allow it to have. That is why the states very deliberately allowed for no national elections for anybody or anything. That is why the states elect the president, not the people. And I think we should go back to the state governemtns selecting their own senators, not the state's citizens. That may sound anti-democratic, but it's pragmatically workable. The citizens give their state government its power. The states give the federal government its power. Bottom up, the way it should be.
They say that democracies fail, once people come to believe they can vote themselves prosperity. We are there. It's up to We the People, and we have failed, even more than governments have.
You mentioned the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. I lived that. My business was a subcontractor on commercial construction. A construction site has dozens of individual contractors, each with their own interests, yet with a common goal. We all want to do well, but that can only happen if we are attentive to each other. What's the difference between a productive construction site and dysfunctional government? The people, pure and simple. Apart from the obvious skills involved in building a building, it takes a certain kind of person. It takes a person who is analytical, can sort thru countless possibilities to find the one best way. It takes a person who can see how things relate, plumbing, electrical, concrete, etc and make sure that their work dovetails with everyone else's work. Apart from the required skills, not just anybody can do this.
That's why I think we need far fewer lawyers and liberals arts majors in government, and more tradesmen and businessmen. We routinely sort thru issues and make things happen as efficiently and fairly as possible. Lawyers only get paid for as long as there are issues. If they resolve the issue, their gravy train comes to a stop. Artists and philosophers generally have no experience with actually resolving issues. They examine them, pontificate about them. But resolve them, not so much.
Probably. At least in a sense. Given the growing momentum of this modern Enlightenment death It’s hard to see how it might change direction without some kind of serious and cataclysmic catalyst.
A swift kick in the ass is probably in order.
I agree it's hard to see how it might be reversed. You might think that a world economic catastrophe or war could bring us back to our senses. I hope it won't come to that. And if it did, it's likely that some kind of demagogue or oligarch would take power (like the collapse of the Soviet Union).
The original Enlightenment arose partly as a reaction to the behaviour of the Church (very strict here in Scotland - a theology student was executed for blasphemy in 1699!). It grew quickly because people saw the good in it and they could all read, ironically because the Church wanted them to be able to read the Bible.
My hope is that the current head of steam: resentment of the mismanagement by our governments will eventually lead to a peaceful reaction. I wouldn't bet on it, however!
The sad bit is that it’s 2,000 years later and we have learned nothing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Your mention of China reminded me of a time my wife and I went there to assist with our daughter and son in law's adoption of one of their three Chinese children.
There were about twenty couples involved and we went everywhere in a charter bus. We had Chinese 'guides' who both showed us the sights and facilitated the adoptions. They were wonderful people who we got to know fairly well. One guide, a woman, was vivacious, outgoing, young, spoke perfect English, and loved America. While on the bus someone asked the obvious question: Had she been to America. "Oh, no," she said. "I'm young, not married, and speak English. The government won't let me go. The government is afraid that if they let me go, I won't come back."
Instant silence in the bus. As Americans, we can barely fathom such a thing. Yet, to this young woman, acceptance of the government's authority was unquestioned. I'm sacred as hell that we're headed that way in America.
Thanks for sharing this – what a moment. In the few years I was there, I met plenty of people like this who understood very well what the rules were. They were happy to play along while the economy worked and living standards rose. That was the trade-off many were willing to make, and it was understandable; the catastrophes of the Mao era were still within recent memory for a lot of them.
Things have changed since, of course, not least the social credit system, which is deeply sinister and creeping into the West. Also, I read recently that the allure of a Western education is nothing like it was, which makes a depressing kind of sense looking at our universities today.
When drawers replace thinking…
Just put people into those neat, little drawers and life becomes so much easier.
Read the label on the drawer and react in accordance.
Yes, the thinking has become more reductionistic. It's weird how that happened. It's like whole populations are breaking down cognitively and emotionally.
As a 90s girl , I grew up watching “friends” and enjoyed rewatching it in recent years with my Gen Z daughter. When she started a new secondary school, she was told by other classmates that it was homophobic, sexist etc. I was quite surprised to hear that she was basically told off for it and any unapproved words or thoughts that didn’t align with progressive ideology.
That Friends is now a struggle session says everything about what's gone wrong with the culture. Glad your daughter has a sane person around to watch it with.
That is truly disturbing.
Same experience in my family...and we live in small town NZ..this is truly world wide.
Part of the problem is that the mind too easily falls captive to paradigms, in Kuhnian sense. The embrace of paradigms can make for lazy thinking. I write about this on my Substack w reference to the "Settler Colonialism" construct.
'Neurodiversity' is another one that is everywhere now!
Yes, these "catchwords," well, catch--and can be hard to shake off!
I have tremendous admiration for J.K. Rowling and regard her as one of the greatest feminist leaders of all time. Thank you for this essay, which highlights other dimensions of her genius and wisdom.
She's the voice of moral clarity in a confused age, and the abuse she gets is the surest sign of it. Thanks, Sandra – glad you liked the piece.
Thank you for another sensitive and thoughtful piece.
Anna Van Zee makes some good points in the comments. I’m sure she’s right that the basis of empathy and critical thinking comes from the type of childhood which isn’t introspective and self centred. Perhaps too much time on screens speaking in sound bites with people who agree with you is not a great way to create rounded and balanced adults. Face to face interaction is much more likely to result in debate and discussion which is then more likely to lead to the ability to disagree amicably. It’s too easy to throw around abuse online.
As for reading a wide range of novels, I couldn’t agree more with you. I can’t imagine life without a book on the go, it gives me a feeling of calm pleasure knowing that a book is waiting for me at the end of the day.
Thanks, TT. I'm sure much of this comes down to changes in how we raise kids today. As for books, I'm tempted to start one of those book clubs here where readers talk about books they love and share recommendations.
Sounds like a plan. I often pick up recommendations from comments.
I think you would like Richard Rorty's work on story telling and narrative. It was a key part of his move from liberal lefty to more sensible pragmatist. Achieving Our Country (1998) was written 30 years ago but predicted everything that has happened (although of course, he followed James Burnham and his brilliant Suicide of the West which was written even longer ago and is truly extraordinary).
Thanks, Jane – I've made a note and added these to my reading list.
I'm new here. Thank you for this thoughtful missive. I try to think openly, consider myself a free thinker, but I often catch myself clinging to the comfort of my own beliefs, a safe place where imagination dies and life shrinks. I love it when someone shakes up my thinking, causes me to reflect, to reconsider, to see things anew.
Thanks, Lee, great to hear. Yes, we all get attached to certain ways of looking at things. There's a free subscription option if you'd like more of this in your inbox.
This one is a banger — profound and on point — thank you. Writing like this is why I subscribed. In a time of madness, it confers a lucidity that heals my soul. 🌼
Thank you, Lightwing. Lucidity is what I'm aiming for in pieces like this, so that's great to hear.
I just subscribed. Thank you for writing, teaching, awakening (and entertaining) - Jim
Great to have you on board, James – and many thanks for the support.
The only way to really get it right on trans is through the civil system with civil suits. If doctors face litigation and civil damages if they get it wrong by either automatically pushing for gender-affirming care and medicalisation in the majority of cases, or prohibiting the very rare cases where gender dysphoria becomes much more acute even with therapeutic help, then the incentives realign to treat patients like individuals rather pawns in an ideological divorce.
Besides, from a surgical perspective puberty should never be interrupted by interventions like puberty blockers before Tanner stage 4. This gives surgeons more material to work with, and reduces the need to use bowel material for the additional surgeries ten years later which are often required. That's a bare minimum. Many systems are now opting for a 'not no, but not now' approach which pushes delays the decision until patients reach the age that they can give adult consent. I'm not saying this will always be the case. There will be exceptional circumstances where the gender dysphoria has reached life-threatening levels, but these cases are extremely rare. In the past they've hovered around the level of less than 30 a year for a population of 65 million.
Thanks, Geary – that's a useful addition. The 'not no, but not now' approach is the right one.
Correct
I agree with conclusion and moral direction, understanding the opposition's perspective is crucial in expanding one's understanding of the world.
1. I disagree with the examples chosen in the essay. J.K. Rowling does not support "Imaginative Faculties" especially the moral ones, she uses "Simplified Archetypes" that lacks texture and perspective, which reinforces the "Bigot and Simplicity" that the author refutes. She might in fact be one to cause this political distress, for she is the first "Global Author" who does not emphasize the importance of moral literature and mutual understanding.
2. I also disagree with the "Chinese People Made Me Realize I was the Brainwashed one" narrative. That is a significant misunderstanding of how "Confucianism" based culture works. Confucianism culture holistically supports the following principles "Don't Ask Questions" "There Are No Multiple Perspectives" and "Stop Thinking." Which goes against the principles the author is supporting. The woman you met, likely was a "Gaslighter" someone who finds no shame in lying to others, to reinforce their perspective to gain a moral advantage, even at the cost of everyone's loss. She has lied to you, so she doesn't have to think or ask questions, stay in her perspective, and let you take all the blame while she has to do nothing.
Which is why I felt conflicted after reading this essay. The conclusion is right(mutual understanding, widening perspectives, deepening understanding), the ways to get there are wrong(Chinese Culture, J.K. Rowling).
Thanks, Benedict – appreciate the thoughtful pushback. The example from China was meant to briefly illustrate that my preconceptions weren't reflected in reality. Of course, there's vastly more to this part of the discussion than either of us can cover here.
It’s too late for them, much past the age of twenty five. Neuroplasticity has ‘solidified’ by then, sometimes takes ‘till thirty… But, the ideas and behaviours people learn and/or are cultivated before that age are locked in.
Thanks, Nolan – interesting point and something I'll have to look into more.