Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Post of the Week Created with Sketch. The Paradoxical Popularity of Progressive Professionals

 

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and other progressives of that era envisioned a government of professionals. Vaguely like Plato’s philosopher kings, they would be highly educated and would spend their lives selflessly serving society, using their expertise to help the common citizens with the complexities of the modern world. A bureaucracy should be a centralized repository of knowledge, designed to help commoners with all sorts of things. And all sorts of things would have their own bureaucracies. After all, who wouldn’t benefit from some expert guidance, from time to time?

Like many progressive ideas, this sort of makes sense if you don’t think about it too much. But when this concept was actually applied in governments around the world throughout the 1900s, one catastrophe after another demonstrated the flaws inherent in such systems. It became painfully obvious to everyone except bureaucrats and academics that the world is too complex to understand and certainly too complex to manage. It also became obvious that you cannot control a creative process without destroying it, and that any organization (including government) will consider its own interests above those of its clients as it becomes more powerful. You might think that all this would create problems for today’s Democrat party. And I suppose it probably does. But I think there’s something else which has more impact. And it’s their own fault.

The study of literature and philosophy has always been an effort to understand the thinking of the greatest minds in history. But in the ’60s and ’70s, academia became more interested in clever interpretations of Plato and Shakespeare than they were in the actual thinking of Plato and Shakespeare themselves. This gradually diminished the perceived authority of the wisdom of the ancients, and elevated clever interpreters of their work, like modern academics. Academics probably thought this was a good thing, at the time.

When the pill came out, American society was poised to move further from the guidance of traditional authorities, like religion and traditional systems of ethics. After we abandoned the wisdom of the ancient thinkers, and then abandoned the Bible, many started to believe that one’s wisdom or expertise could be called into question simply by their actual wisdom or expertise. “Never trust anyone over 30” sort of made sense, in that environment. So academics managed to elevate themselves over the greatest thinkers in history, and then managed to elevate children over themselves, losing all the authority they had just gained, all in one generation.

I suspect they didn’t understand what happened until after it was over. Imagine their surprise.

One of my kids is taking a marketing class in college right now, in which they discuss the difficulties this presents in modern marketing campaigns. Nobody cares what the experts say. Rather than researching your product, the first thing prospective customers look at today is online reviews, written by people just like them, who know nothing about your product. Which means companies no longer have any control over their own marketing campaigns.

Imagine trying to work in marketing in this environment.

Imagine trying to work in academia in this environment.

Or, just for fun, imagine trying to promote bigger government in this environment.

“We’re the experts! We’ll take care of you! No problem! You can trust us with your retirement, your health care, your security, and just anything else that troubles your little mind! Most of us went to Harvard! You can trust us!”

This is poison to a modern audience. The Democrats have a problem.


The above reasoning all sounds really good, except for one slight problem: It’s wrong.

The young, the rebels, and those who don’t like being told what to do, tend to vote Democrat. In overwhelming numbers. I find this astounding.

A college student can shout, “Keep your laws off my body!” while wearing an Elizabeth Warren t-shirt. It’s surreal.

As I often say, I feel like I’m missing something important here. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out what it is.

The only explanation I can think of is that as we have abandoned wisdom, experience, and even logic itself, we have started making more and more decisions based purely on emotions. And Democrats are good at emotions. It’s all about the children. Or the baby seals. Or whatever.

But surely there’s more to it than that. Surely.

Why do we scorn experts and authorities, and then beg Democrats to run our lives for us?

I’d appreciate any explanations for this paradoxical behavior. So would the Republican party.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 39 comments.

  1. Arahant Member

    Dr. Bastiat: The only explanation I can think of is that as we have abandoned wisdom, experience, and even logic itself, we have started making more and more decisions based purely on emotions. And Democrats are good at emotions. It’s all about the children. Or the baby seals. Or whatever.

    Yep.

    Dr. Bastiat: But surely there’s more to it than that. Surely. 

    Not really. Civilization rests on a barbarian base.

    • #1
    • November 19, 2019, at 5:20 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  2. Guruforhire Member

    I think its just the long struggle to convince people there is a higher purpose, or a greater joy, than a dopamine hit.

    People who chase dopamine are always unhappy, because its always temporary.

    • #2
    • November 19, 2019, at 5:24 AM PST
    • 10 likes
  3. Pony Convertible Member

    I have a mid-50’s coworker who thinks of himself as a hippie. He is also a leftest. One day I asked him how he could be in favor of more government and consider himself to be a hippie. He looked at me with a puzzled expression. I responded, “Hippies were against The Man. The Man was the government. How can you be both in favor of more government and against government control at the same time?” He never responded, he just maintained that puzzled look. I walked away. 

    • #3
    • November 19, 2019, at 5:44 AM PST
    • 14 likes
  4. Jon1979 Lincoln

    We really saw this half a century ago with the attempt by the media to elevate the most radical of the first wave Baby Boomers and those leading them who were born in the years immediately before and during WWII to Absolute Moral Authority status. They took their support of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War and extrapolated out from there that if those older teens and young adult leaders also hated capitalism in general, then all of the Boomer generation hated it.

    Now you have the current generation of millennial and Gen Z activist wanting those same Boomers to hurry up and die off, so real Socialism can finally be enacted in America. The question is what happened between 1969 and 2019 that turned the Boomers from the great hope of the progressives into their demographic scourge, and will that apply to the millenials and Gen Zers as they get older?

    What the left seems to hope is that the general feminzation/special snowflaking of society has created a generation of needy adults who won’t think they can survive without government — a world of both female and male Julias, from that 2012 Barack Obama ad. But 50 years ago it turned out enough Boomers, especially the late gen ones, didn’t like the media and the pols of the day telling them who their leaders were and what they were supposed to do with their lives, and instead decided to support more things that made sense to them — sometimes that jibed with what the left wanted, but most times not.

    That’s where we are now, with the aggressive efforts by the left in regular and social media to control peoples’ lives. Have they created enough Beta males and females among the 35-and-under crowd that they’ll meekly accept ideological bullying, or are they getting as sick as the Boomers did in the 1970s and early 80s of being told how they should be thinking and revolt, even if it’s not as loudly as the Boomer activists of the late 1960s?

    • #4
    • November 19, 2019, at 6:29 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  5. I Walton Member

    All societies, as far as we know, were top down and that inevitably led to a narrowing of power and eventual failure, collapse, conquest or just stagnation. Folks in Great Britain, because of the complexity of control because of geography had to work things out in part from the ground up. The US decided it didn’t need the Monarchy but liked the ground up reality which it was living, so embraced it and created modernity. Other Anglo Saxon societies did the same. That approach lasted a couple hundred years and didn’t start returning to top down until the 20th century. Top down is natural because there are lots of influential people who seek political power, for its own sake, for the advantage it gives them or their business, or family or whatever. Power provides leverage which is obviously useful. With time it narrows, centralizes and fails. So it’s not that we make decisions on emotion rather than reason, it’s that power gets narrowed, and those with power use what ever helps them extract power and wealth from everybody else, emotion, threats, reason, whatever serves their interest. There can be no broad collective that can use reason in a way that benefits people who are not influential parts of the collective. The only reason to be big is self defense, everything else needs to return to the people and mostly they do not need government, but they do need good laws and means to enforce them because there are folks who will take advantage of them just like remote government does.

    • #5
    • November 19, 2019, at 7:02 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  6. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Some of this confidence in bureaucracy comes from France where the politicians have been hopeless since Napoleon. The bureaucracy, obviously a French word, has kept the trains running and the wheels turning in spite of whatever was going on in the Luxembourg Palace. The French also have the Lycee system which, sort of like China’s Mandarins, is based on strict standards arrived at by examination. The Civil Service was founded as an attempt to recreate the French system but it has gotten too big and too insular. The Garfield assassination was probably an incentive to get the office seekers out of the hair of presidents.

    • #6
    • November 19, 2019, at 7:11 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  7. I Walton Member

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Some of this confidence in bureaucracy comes from France where the politicians have been hopeless since Napoleon. The bureaucracy, obviously a French word, has kept the trains running and the wheels turning in spite of whatever was going on in the Luxembourg Palace. The French also have the Lycee system which, sort of like China’s Mandarins, is based on strict standards arrived at by examination. The Civil Service was founded as an attempt to recreate the French system but it has gotten too big and too insular. The Garfield assassination was probably an incentive to get the office seekers out of the hair of presidents.

    Good point. I just returned from spending 3 weeks in France, a place I hadn’t visited since I was a fairly junior diplomat. I was impressed with the way the French run things. We couldn’t and don’t do so well when we centralize but the point is they have always been centralized like almost the entire world always. We and the other Anglo Saxon spin offs were unique, ground up not top down. The French are probably the best top down out there, and while they’re narrowing and corrupt and will eventually fail as do all centralized systems, they do pretty well. However, I can’t imagine how they could ever do ground up. We could, did, and we’re throwing it away.

    • #7
    • November 19, 2019, at 7:56 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  8. Raxxalan Member

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    I think its just the long struggle to convince people there is a higher purpose, or a greater joy, than a dopamine hit.

    People who chase dopamine are always unhappy, because its always temporary.

    I agree in part. I think the default social religion in the United States use to be Christianity. Everyone, who wasn’t a practicing member of a different religion, was at least nominally operating on a Christian value set and world view. That started to change in the 60’s and by now that change is complete. Now the default social religion in America is leftism. Just as before, if you aren’t a practicing member of an alternate faith you are going to operate and be comfortable with that world view.

    • #8
    • November 19, 2019, at 8:37 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  9. Raxxalan Member

    I Walton (View Comment):

    All societies, as far as we know, were top down and that inevitably led to a narrowing of power and eventual failure, collapse, conquest or just stagnation. Folks in Great Britain, because of the complexity of control because of geography had to work things out in part from the ground up. The US decided it didn’t need the Monarchy but liked the ground up reality which it was living, so embraced it and created modernity.

    A good deal of this was because the US was composed largely of the groups of people who were the most dissatisfied with top down rule in Europe. The most restless groups of people for whom top down society chaffed the most are the ones most willing to leave all they have known for the frontiers. Another part of the problem is we don’t have frontiers anymore. This makes me question if the overall project to reinstate top down rule in America can actually work. In the past people just moved west whenever it started to chaff in the US, That really isn’t an option any more. Has the leftist social religion taken enough hold to override the natural American instinct to chaff under top down authority?

    • #9
    • November 19, 2019, at 9:04 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  10. Arahant Member

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Another part of the problem is we don’t have frontiers anymore.

    Mars for the USA!

    • #10
    • November 19, 2019, at 9:31 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  11. Percival Thatcher

    Arahant (View Comment):
    Civilization rests on a barbarian base.

    Is it time to start pillaging yet? Don’t start until I get there.

    • #11
    • November 19, 2019, at 9:32 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  12. Arahant Member

    Percival (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):
    Civilization rests on a barbarian base.

    Is it time to start pillaging yet? Don’t start until I get there.

    Soon. Quite soon.

    • #12
    • November 19, 2019, at 9:33 AM PST
    • 1 like
  13. Raxxalan Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    Another part of the problem is we don’t have frontiers anymore.

    Mars for the USA!

    Agreed. We need a new frontier.

    • #13
    • November 19, 2019, at 9:41 AM PST
    • 1 like
  14. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Always remember that civilization is not the default state of society. In ancient DNA there is lots of hunter gather mtDNA but not very much hunter gatherer Y DNA. It’s all Indo-European who brought their herd animals. Just like most Mexican DNA has mtDNA of Indians and YDNA of Spanish.

    • #14
    • November 19, 2019, at 10:26 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. I Walton Member

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    All societies, as far as we know, were top down and that inevitably led to a narrowing of power and eventual failure, collapse, conquest or just stagnation. Folks in Great Britain, because of the complexity of control because of geography had to work things out in part from the ground up. The US decided it didn’t need the Monarchy but liked the ground up reality which it was living, so embraced it and created modernity.

    A good deal of this was because the US was composed largely of the groups of people who were the most dissatisfied with top down rule in Europe. The most restless groups of people for whom top down society chaffed the most are the ones most willing to leave all they have known for the frontiers. Another part of the problem is we don’t have frontiers anymore. This makes me question if the overall project to reinstate top down rule in America can actually work. In the past people just moved west whenever it started to chaff in the US, That really isn’t an option any more. Has the leftist social religion taken enough hold to override the natural American instinct to chaff under top down authority?

    The top always develops the power it needs to gather power to it. It’s why it ultimately fails. But societies don’t then adjust by going to ground up because that is a uniquely small town thing that we uniquely adjusted to federalism and it even survived after we’d become fairly big. We showed it could be done, but, it seems, we may not know how to preserve it, let alone go back to it. (do you mean reinstate top down rule in America, or do you mean reinstate bottom up?)

    • #15
    • November 19, 2019, at 12:29 PM PST
    • 1 like
  16. Eridemus Coolidge

    @ Pony Convertible

    The aging hippie was uncomprehending because the space era had started to lose its imaginary grip on a lot of non-STEM type students and in his hippie form he thought of science visionary government not as leading the future, but as the theatening Vietnam era “military-industrial complex.”Also the teckkie boom of technology that evetually appealed to young people (being able to code etc. without being able to design or engineer) hadn’t burst on the scene yet. So being willing to follow and obey “social visionary government” (seen as the benevolent “Great Society”) wasn’t at odds with the drug, music, and bell bottoms/tie dyed scene. When self-expression is pretty shallow, it’s easy to accomodate – support for it all depends on who is going to get “controlled.”

    • #16
    • November 19, 2019, at 1:30 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  17. Western Chauvinist Member

    I’m having a problem with this paradox in trying to write for our local diocesan newspaper about the infection of environmental leftism in the Catholic Church under Francis. It’s not that people are uncomfortable with authority, per se. It’s that they’re uncomfortable with any authority that disagrees with or challenges their own presuppositions and conclusions. 

    In my particular case, I’m tempted to assert some scientific authority based on my engineering background. But, I realize that is unproductive with people who accept Al Gore’s authority based on the opinions of “expert” climate “scientists.” They’ll accept some authority and reject others. And, I agree with Raxxalan, the default has become leftism, thanks in large part to our public education system and corruption of the universities. 

    But, mostly, what I want people to think about is (the lack of) intellectual humility. What do you know ? (about climate science, economics, mental health, …); what do you know that you don’t know?; what don’t you know that you know?; and what don’t you know that you don’t know? For example, what is the ideal global average temperature? Ahem.

    This is a fairly new field of philosophical study (intellectual humility) I believe, which Professor Church of Hillsdale College is promulgating in cooperation with the University of Edinburgh (IIRC). 

    It’s the arrogance of the central planners and ecofascists that’s almost impossible to break through. Where a Christian (and, particularly, a Catholic) submits to the moral and teaching authority of the wisdom of the ages (handed down through the Magisterium), modern secularists are completely cut loose and will fall for whatever “authority” validates their own inclinations.

    Ultimately all these failings fall into one of four categories: addiction to pleasure (feelings of self-righteousness), addiction to wealth, addiction to honor (pride), addiction to power. It’s this last (power) which is the primary driver of leftism. It will not end well.

    • #17
    • November 19, 2019, at 2:04 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  18. Raxxalan Member

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    All societies, as far as we know, were top down and that inevitably led to a narrowing of power and eventual failure, collapse, conquest or just stagnation. Folks in Great Britain, because of the complexity of control because of geography had to work things out in part from the ground up. The US decided it didn’t need the Monarchy but liked the ground up reality which it was living, so embraced it and created modernity.

    A good deal of this was because the US was composed largely of the groups of people who were the most dissatisfied with top down rule in Europe. The most restless groups of people for whom top down society chaffed the most are the ones most willing to leave all they have known for the frontiers. Another part of the problem is we don’t have frontiers anymore. This makes me question if the overall project to reinstate top down rule in America can actually work. In the past people just moved west whenever it started to chaff in the US, That really isn’t an option any more. Has the leftist social religion taken enough hold to override the natural American instinct to chaff under top down authority?

    The top always develops the power it needs to gather power to it. It’s why it ultimately fails. But societies don’t then adjust by going to ground up because that is a uniquely small town thing that we uniquely adjusted to federalism and it even survived after we’d become fairly big. We showed it could be done, but, it seems, we may not know how to preserve it, let alone go back to it. (do you mean reinstate top down rule in America, or do you mean reinstate bottom up?)

    I mean reinstating top down rule. I am not arguing that bottom up rule isn’t in jeopardy too. Only that top down rule isn’t something Americans are particularly good at. We tend to chaff under it. It may be possible we are entering a really dangerous period when neither really exists.

    • #18
    • November 19, 2019, at 2:13 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  19. Lilly B Coolidge

    I don’t think young people reflexively prefer Democrats because they actually want the government to run their lives, but I do think that they’ve internalized the marketing of the Democratic Party. Not that it’s the only reason, but the Democrats and the left are very effective at attributing racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. motives to Republican politicians and voters.

    I remember not knowing much about politics as a high school and college student, but I had gotten the message somehow that the Democrats were the party of right-thinking, educated people, whereas Republicans were bigoted.

    Thankfully, I would read different writers without knowing their political leanings. I happened upon the Manhattan Institute while doing research in law school and found solid information that I had no idea was right-leaning. I could go on, but that would be in contravention of my current QOTD post. 

    Although I am not optimistic about the political direction of the country, I do think reality gets a vote. As people grow up, they are less susceptible to the prevailing group-think if it doesn’t match what they are actually experiencing. 

     

    • #19
    • November 19, 2019, at 2:28 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  20. Lilly B Coolidge

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    But, mostly, what I want people to think about is (the lack of) intellectual humility. What do you know ? (about climate science, economics, mental health, …); what do you know that you don’t know?; what don’t you know that you know?; and what don’t you know that you don’t know? For example, what is the ideal global average temperature? Ahem.

    This is a fairly new field of philosophical study (intellectual humility) I believe, which Professor Church of Hillsdale College is promulgating in cooperation with the University of Edinburgh (IIRC).

    It’s the arrogance of the central planners and ecofascists that’s almost impossible to break through. Where a Christian (and, particularly, a Catholic) submits to the moral and teaching authority of the wisdom of the ages (handed down through the Magisterium), modern secularists are completely cut loose and will fall for whatever “authority” validates their own inclinations.

    I love this point about intellectual humility. I have noticed that of the virtues taught at our public schools, humility is not included. 

    • #20
    • November 19, 2019, at 2:58 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  21. HeavyWater Coolidge

    I think most people, including young people, actually do place a good deal of trust in experts.

    I have some Leftish relatives who are in their late teens, twenties and thirties.

    If they get sick, they see a physician. If their car breaks down, they take it to a mechanic.

    The stakes for hiring the wrong expert are high. So, they don’t screw around.

    But we have our biases and we all suffer from confirmation bias. The Democrat mantra of “we’ll give you more free stuff and the rich will pay for it” is always going to seduce lots of people, young and old, because the difficulty in paying ones own expenses can be challenging at times (especially when one is young and is still paying off student loan debt from medical school).

    Let’s face it, most politicians in Washington DC, whether they are Republican or Democrat, don’t spend a lot of time telling people that Medicare and Social Security are bankrupting the country. Why? Because voters, both Democrat and Republican, don’t want to hear it.

    You can do a Ross Perot and put forth all of the fancy charts and graphs you want, telling them that good ole FDR (Social Security) and LBJ (Medicare) did a bad thing to the country by getting us all hooked on the opioids of big entitlement programs. But politicians don’t like being tomatoed by their constituents. So, they don’t say anything about it (except Paul Ryan and he’s retired, to the applause of millions).

    Finding the truth isn’t easy and it isn’t always fun. So, many people say, “I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy.”

    • #21
    • November 19, 2019, at 3:07 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  22. philo Member

    Your answer is right there in the second paragraph:

    Dr. Bastiat: Like many progressive ideas, this sort of makes sense if you don’t think about it too much.

    The Comprachicos of the Mind have molded an electorate of such deformed cognition and short attention spans that the end state dictated by that simple little bit of truth above falls out rather nicely. Its almost like it was planned that way a hundred or so years ago…

     

    • #22
    • November 19, 2019, at 5:01 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  23. MarciN Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Where a Christian (and, particularly, a Catholic) submits to the moral and teaching authority of the wisdom of the ages (handed down through the Magisterium), modern secularists are completely cut loose and will fall for whatever “authority” validates their own inclinations.

    That is a profound observation. I think that is probably the crux of the matter. 

    • #23
    • November 19, 2019, at 7:16 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  24. James Lileks Contributor

    Lilly Blanch (View Comment):
    I don’t think young people reflexively prefer Democrats because they actually want the government to run their lives, but I do think that they’ve internalized the marketing of the Democratic Party. Not that it’s the only reason, but the Democrats and the left are very effective at attributing racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. motives to Republican politicians and voters.

    That’s a big part of it. Voting D for the young is a cost-free way of telling yourself you’re a better person. You also believe that the government may not work right now because the parsimonious Rs starve it and give all the money to billionaires and oil companies. There’s enough money, as they say – it’s just in the wrong hands. 

    There’s also the appeal of Europe, where they do everything right, and it’s super-cool to see people biking to work along picturesque canals – it’s how life should be! The fact that the Europeans live in tiny flats with fridges half the size of R2-D2 doesn’t mean much to someone who’s living in a dorm. 

    • #24
    • November 19, 2019, at 9:04 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  25. Henry Castaigne Member

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Why do we scorn experts and authorities, and then beg Democrats to run our lives for us?

    I’d appreciate any explanations for this paradoxical behavior. So would the Republican party.

    Free stuff. 

    • #25
    • November 19, 2019, at 11:09 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  26. Arahant Member

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Why do we scorn experts and authorities, and then beg Democrats to run our lives for us?

    I’d appreciate any explanations for this paradoxical behavior. So would the Republican party.

    Free stuff.

    The only stuff they give out for free is lies.

    • #26
    • November 19, 2019, at 11:24 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  27. Henry Castaigne Member

    Dr. Bastiat: The young, the rebels, and those who don’t like being told what to do, tend to vote Democrat. In overwhelming numbers. I find this astounding.

    You are fundamentally wrong about the nature of the young. To be young is to be unsure and nervous (Can they be blamed? Life is terrifying in the best of circumstances.) Unsure and nervous people understandable seek safety. Without G-d, family or beauty (seriously our art became garbage after all the artists abandoned Truth and G-d) they do what there Professors tell them. Furthermore, the Left is incredibly effective at calling people racist and attacking their motivations and that’s terrifying for someone who isn’t established as a person yet. 

    More importantly, the human desire for freedom doesn’t mean much compared to their desire for unity. Darwinian theory explains this perfectly but apparently that’s not very popular on Ricochet for reasons I still can’t understand. 

    Americans are raised to respect freedom so we don’t understand that we aren’t inclined to like it. Throughout history, honor, the need to belong and the will to power meant more to people than that pesky little thing like freedom. If we reject the Anglo-American love of liberty, why shouldn’t we see our young people revert into their more primal form.

    • #27
    • November 19, 2019, at 11:30 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  28. Western Chauvinist Member

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: The young, the rebels, and those who don’t like being told what to do, tend to vote Democrat. In overwhelming numbers. I find this astounding.

    You are fundamentally wrong about the nature of the young. To be young is to be unsure and nervous (Can they be blamed? Life is terrifying in the best of circumstances.) Unsure and nervous people understandable seek safety. Without G-d, family or beauty (seriously our art became garbage after all the artists abandoned Truth and G-d) they do what there Professors tell them. Furthermore, the Left is incredibly effective at calling people racist and attacking their motivations and that’s terrifying for someone who isn’t established as a person yet.

    More importantly, the human desire for freedom doesn’t mean much compared to their desire for unity. Darwinian theory explains this perfectly but apparently that’s not very popular on Ricochet for reasons I still can’t understand.

    Americans are raised to respect freedom so we don’t understand that we aren’t inclined to like it. Throughout history, honor, the need to belong and the will to power meant more to people than that pesky little thing like freedom. If we reject the Anglo-American love of liberty, why shouldn’t we see our young people revert into their more primal form.

    One of the things that started to turn me was when Trink challenged me with, “So, you believe in social engineering?” It took me a while, but I finally concluded that scary freedom was better than some other idiot trying to make my life work!

    • #28
    • November 20, 2019, at 5:04 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  29. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Lilly Blanch (View Comment):
    Although I am not optimistic about the political direction of the country, I do think reality gets a vote. As people grow up, they are less susceptible to the prevailing group-think if it doesn’t match what they are actually experiencing. 

    Conquest’s rules.

     Conquests’s Three Laws of Politics:
    1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

    • #29
    • November 20, 2019, at 10:30 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  30. Raxxalan Member

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Lilly Blanch (View Comment):
    I don’t think young people reflexively prefer Democrats because they actually want the government to run their lives, but I do think that they’ve internalized the marketing of the Democratic Party. Not that it’s the only reason, but the Democrats and the left are very effective at attributing racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. motives to Republican politicians and voters.

    That’s a big part of it. Voting D for the young is a cost-free way of telling yourself you’re a better person. You also believe that the government may not work right now because the parsimonious Rs starve it and give all the money to billionaires and oil companies. There’s enough money, as they say – it’s just in the wrong hands.

    There’s also the appeal of Europe, where they do everything right, and it’s super-cool to see people biking to work along picturesque canals – it’s how life should be! The fact that the Europeans live in tiny flats with fridges half the size of R2-D2 doesn’t mean much to someone who’s living in a dorm.

    My biggest problem with Europe was ice. There seemed to be a 3 cube limit. I being from the south like lots of ice in my drinks. Of course if you fridge is the size of R2-d2 your freezer is the size of a toaster, so it makes sense.

    • #30
    • November 20, 2019, at 7:20 PM PST
    • 3 likes