Many conservatives make the argument against utopianism. The millenarian longing for a world where all systems are destroyed, all problems are solved, and everything is permissible – that’s dangerous whether it comes from Puritans or Communists. These same conservatives have traced this longing through leftist history from Lenin through social justice.Alexander explains that the biggest problem with Karl Marx was that he actively refused to make any clear statement about what the world would be like after the revolution: "Just as, a dam having been removed, a river will eventually reach the sea somehow, so capitalism having been removed society will eventually reach a perfect state of freedom and cooperation." So his followers went about destroying capitalism without giving anywhere near enough thought to what might come after, with predictably disastrous results. Since he realized this, Alexander writes,
Which of the candidates in this election are millennarian? If Sanders were still in, I’d say fine, he qualifies. If Stein were in, same, no contest. But Hillary? The left and right both critique Hillary the same way. She’s too in bed with the system. Corporations love her. Politicians love her. All she wants to do is make little tweaks – a better tax policy here, a new foreign policy doctrine there. The critiques are right. Hillary represents complete safety from millennialism.
Trump’s policy ideas are mostly silly, but no one cares, because he’s not really running on policy. He’s running on making America great again, fighting the special interests, and defying the mainstream media. Nobody cares what policies he’ll implement after he does this, because his campaign is more an expression of rage at these things than anything else.
One of the central principles behind my philosophy has been “Don’t destroy all existing systems and hope a planet-sized ghost makes everything work out”. Systems are hard. Institutions are hard. If your goal is to replace the current systems with better ones, then destroying the current system is 1% of the work, and building the better ones is 99% of it. Throughout history, dozens of movements have doomed entire civilizations by focusing on the “destroying the current system” step and expecting the “build a better one” step to happen on its own. That never works. The best parts of conservatism are the ones that guard this insight and shout it at a world too prone to taking shortcuts.I endorse the basic thrust of this argument. The bane of our politics and maybe all democratic politics is mistaking technical problems for moral problems. It is not enough to have your heart in the right place. It is not enough to sweep the bad people out of power. It is not enough to proclaim the rule of the people, or the rule of the real Americans. Governing is hard. Governing well is so difficult that hardly anyone can do it.
Donald Trump does not represent those best parts of conservativism. To transform his movement into Marxism, just replace “the bourgeoisie” with “the coastal elites” and “false consciousness” with “PC speech”. Just replace the assumption that everything will work itself out once power is in the hands of the workers, with the assumption that everything will work itself out once power is in the hands of “real Americans”. Just replace the hand-waving lack of plans with what to do after the Revolution with a hand-waving lack of plans what to do after the election. In both cases, the sheer virtue of the movement, and the apocalyptic purification of the rich people keeping everyone else down, is supposed to mean everything will just turn out okay on its own. That never works.
A commenter here the other day quoted an Atlantic article complaining that “The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally”. Well, count me in that second group. I don’t think he’s literal. I think when he talks about building a wall and keeping out Muslims, he’s metaphorically saying “I’m going to fight for you, the real Americans”. When he talks about tariffs and trade deals, he’s metaphorically saying “I’m going to fight for you, the real Americans”. Fine. But neither of those two things is a plan. The problem with getting every American a job isn’t that nobody has been fighting for them, the problem with getting every American a job is that getting 100% employment in a modern economy is a really hard problem.
Donald Trump not only has no solution to that problem, he doesn’t even understand the question. He lives in a world where there is no such thing as intelligence, only loyalty. If we haven’t solved all of our problems yet, it’s because the Department of Problem-Solving was insufficiently loyal, and didn’t try hard enough. His only promise is to fill that department with loyal people who really want the problem solved.
I’ve never been fully comfortable with the Left because I feel like they often make the same error – the only reason there’s still poverty is because the corporate-run government is full of traitors who refuse to make the completely great, no-downsides policy of raising the minimum wage. One of the right’s great redeeming feature has been an awareness of these kinds of tradeoffs. But this election, it’s Hillary who sounds restrained and realistic, and Trump who wants the moon on a silver platter.
If you think waving a flag with a pure heart can solve a problem like rising inequality, or the Syrian civil war, go ahead and vote for Trump. But if you think solving hard problems requires careful thought, long deliberation, and hard work, you have only one choice in this election: Hillary.
"If you think waving a flag with a pure heart can solve a problem like rising inequality,"
-A whore of the unequal can never "solve" inequality. And rising inequality is not a problem.
"or the Syrian civil war,"
-Which Secretary of State created that again?
"go ahead and vote for Trump."
"But if you think solving hard problems requires careful thought, long deliberation, and hard work, you have only one choice in this election: Hillary."
-No. Solving hard problems requires two things: will and good motivations. Clinton has neither. Trump may have both. There is no evidence Clinton is even remotely capable of thought as careful as Trump's. And Trump has built his business up through long deliberation and hard work. What has Her accomplished?
This description of yours, John, is just inane.
Post a Comment