I'll have to read this. Great write up on someone new to me.
I'm slowly making my way through Tyranny Inc. which is depressing and mediocre writing. But the thought (somewhat Marx-like, I think) occurred to me that one of the functions of the working class is to restrain the upper classes from excesses that harm the common good, through unions and pitchforks and the like. It's tragic to see the categories at play in such horrific fashion in 1848, but it should stand out as an object lesson to anyone in charge. For example, I just watched an interview with Suzy Welch, the final wife of GE's famous CEO Jack Welch, and it was striking how ignorant of her wealth she was, all while trying to understand some of the uncooperative motivations in Gen Z. I would posit that Gen Z's desire to work where their values are aligned and if not that then to at least have a work/life balance are a perfect examples of the peasant classes' warning light flashing. Unfortunately, the well-heeled such as Ms. Welch will miss this and reap what they sow.
I loved this book! Clark seems to think that the only people who read 1848 right were the "professional revolutionaries" (by which he means the Russians not the Germans) who learned that revolution was first and foremost a power-grab and not a program. (He made a 'Talking Politics' appearance that underscored this theme.)
If 1848 is your thing, I recommend (as Clark does) Jonathan Beecher's "Writers and Revolutions", which is (French) 1848 seen through the eyes of eight or nine contemporary writers.
really enjoyed this article! I've not actually read this book yet despite it being on my shelf for a little while. I think it's really interesting that you've made the argument politics is usually an elite affair but the people cannot be ignored. I think this is somewhat true, albeit counterintuitively but not always. I guess if politics becomes a solely elite affair in the realm of ideas and implementation then change which is the one ever constant truth to politics necessarily will emerge from the bottom. It reminds me in some ways of Mosca's history of politics with systems needing a subaltern class to replace elites if they become too stale and lacking in legitimacy.
Is democracy anti-intellectual? The main basis for this claim is mid-19th century peasant revolts in a region with zero established free and fair elections. What does that have to do with early 21st-century America? Democracy, once established, is a pretty conservative affair. It forces those who are ambitious and seeking power to line up a bunch of people in voting booths using all sorts of policy planks and media and rallies. That's what is happening right now, as America's center-right party runs on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy, while America's center-left party runs on elderly benefits, abortion access, and racial justice. Even when we had political riots in 2020, they occurred before and after the ballots were cast. This fact would be remarkable to any 19th century aristocrat in Europe. The parties are both angling for votes and genuinely believe they have issues to their strength. It's not the most intellectual affair, but it makes a good deal of sense. What this has to do with Metternich's reflection on revolutionaries in Imperial Europe is anyone's guess.
I suppose my argument is that politics is usually an elite affair, especially as it pertains to the realm of values and ideas. But the mute “people” can’t be ignored, no matter whether we live in a democracy or not.
Those echoes across time are instructive. They tell us something about what politics is about.
Yes, we have elections. No, most Americans don't trust their legitimacy. (Face it, rigged elections are not an anomaly, here or anywhere.) And if the elections are perceived as illegitimate, then do they really count as elections? Perhaps they serve more to unsettle things than to settle them.
Americans are definitely much less trusting of the government than they were half a century ago. Their mood is more like Americans in the progressive era; deeply wary of private interests and disorganized politics. But that's not really the same thing as institutional illegitimacy, to say nothing of how political decisions were made in 19th century Europe. The reason most political scientists say America has free and fair elections is because they have ways of qualifying that; if it changed, the qualifications would not be met.
But aside from experts (who obviously do get things wrong), we could place a bet here. I predict that a third party candidate (RFK) will not match or exceed Ross Perot's share in 1992, because most American voters will choose one of the two parties. I also predict that party leaders will work across party lines to determine the budget in 2025 if there is no unified trifecta, because of what Congress did in 2023. More broadly, I predict bipartisan bills will take place after this election in 2025 and 2026.
But I noticed you talk of the progressive era as if it is in the past. The progressive era has been running hot and heavy in government, education, science and healthcare. What's making headlines these days is the degree to which it is being challenged. The only way for progressivism to survive the assault is to become totalitarian and dictatorial, which it is doing. And let's not presume that progressivism fits neatly within the borders of the democratic party.
"The reason most political scientists say America has free and fair elections is because they have ways of qualifying that; if it changed, the qualifications would not be met." I'm not sure what you're using as a basis for saying that. Both parties have been cooking the books for as long as there's been parties and books. Voting machines have been accused of being rigged by both parties, long before Trump ever said anything. And in fact, voting machines, like any computer, can be programmed however you want. If there isn't squeaky clean chain of custody of the software and memory cards, all bets are off regarding integrity. Ands mail in ballots are an invitation to fraud. NO chain of custody. NONE. Millions of ballots are floating around out there, and nobody can confirm who received them. That is NUTS.
The Progressive Era had nothing to do with modern progressivism. The capital-P Progressive leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were passionately imperialist, racist, and eugenicist and despised the idea of human equality. Their prescription for feminist girl bloggers would have been lobotomies. Their idea of environmental protection was "conserving" thr western US as a giant game park for the pleasure of rich hunters. Their Palestine position would have been "kill them faster." Many of them were members of the Ku Klux Klan.
It's a great book, but I don't see that democracy comes into the Galician uprising in any way. If anyone had addressed the peasants, asking "What is best for the majority -- in this case, you? And what is the best way to get it -- what is realistically possible?"; and then they'd had a discussion to which everyone could contribute -- then we might speak of democracy. Otherwise, it's just another peasant rebellion, like so many in Chinese history, Indian history, etc. "Democracy" isn't just a catchword -- it means something substantive.
And no, it's not anti-intellectual. Most of the great political philosophers and political intellectuals were democrats.
I'm not sure I said that the Galician uprising was democratic. My goal was to instead bring democratic idealists down a peg in suggesting that all politics shares the dynamics of a peasant rebellion.
There are so few democratic idealists in the world, Damir. Is it really worth the effort to take them down a peg? And why is the fact that most politics, past and present, has been significantly irrational, chauvinistic, selfish, etc. a good reason to give up trying to make them more rational and humane? Most previous societies were racist, patriarchal, hierarchical, etc, but that was not a good argument against trying to diminish racism, sexism, traditional hierarchy, etc.
Maybe it's an unpleasant tic of mine, but I do think there's something healthy and useful about looking for through-lines in human history rather than telling a story about how we have transcended ourselves. And I'd say that most writers tend to look for redemption and progress rather than the opposite.
It's a bit smug and condescending to say "I look for through lines" -- ie, I'm a tough-minded realist -- while others "tell a story about how we have transcended ourselves" -- ie, they're fuzzy-minded utopians making up stories.
No one is denying that (to quote myself a moment ago) "most politics, past and present, has been significantly irrational, chauvinistic, selfish, etc." Democratic idealists are not unaware of this. What makes them democratic idealists is a provisional determination to try and improve on that dismal history. Are you saying that's impossible? Denying that significant progress, in certain respects, has already been made? If not, I don't see either your motive or your standing for taking democratic idealists down a peg.
What about disaggregating "moral progress," so that it's not a global predicate? Surely it's progress that slavery has been abolished in most places and that hereditary aristocracies no longer exercise life-and-death powers over impoverished peasantries. But it's not progress that around a dozen nations have weapons that could kill hundreds of millions of people or that everyone in a developed country is bombarded incessantly with commercial messages?
You're right that undiscriminating optimism is foolish. But so is undiscriminating skepticism.
Just as with the storming of the Capitol, the lesson for Democracy, Politicians and Captains of Industry is that one should beware of going to extremes in p*ssing off the Proletariat. That can be done by generating financial inequality but also with seeking to break down common societal values.
That is therefore not Anti-Intellectual, that is common sense!!!
> Revolutions are never just about the dreams of revolutionaries. They unlock all the tensions and resentments building within a society, not just the progressive ones.
Who said that those resentments weren't progressive ones as well? And that the "peasants" the author despises haven't suffered more direct opression over time on the hands of those local "noblemen", than from the remote Habsburg Emperor - and thus were quite right to target them?
As for the double standard of the moral outrage: the same noblemen would be quite fine with the killings and flailing as long as it happened to those they pointed at, instead of happening to them.
I'll have to read this. Great write up on someone new to me.
I'm slowly making my way through Tyranny Inc. which is depressing and mediocre writing. But the thought (somewhat Marx-like, I think) occurred to me that one of the functions of the working class is to restrain the upper classes from excesses that harm the common good, through unions and pitchforks and the like. It's tragic to see the categories at play in such horrific fashion in 1848, but it should stand out as an object lesson to anyone in charge. For example, I just watched an interview with Suzy Welch, the final wife of GE's famous CEO Jack Welch, and it was striking how ignorant of her wealth she was, all while trying to understand some of the uncooperative motivations in Gen Z. I would posit that Gen Z's desire to work where their values are aligned and if not that then to at least have a work/life balance are a perfect examples of the peasant classes' warning light flashing. Unfortunately, the well-heeled such as Ms. Welch will miss this and reap what they sow.
I loved this book! Clark seems to think that the only people who read 1848 right were the "professional revolutionaries" (by which he means the Russians not the Germans) who learned that revolution was first and foremost a power-grab and not a program. (He made a 'Talking Politics' appearance that underscored this theme.)
If 1848 is your thing, I recommend (as Clark does) Jonathan Beecher's "Writers and Revolutions", which is (French) 1848 seen through the eyes of eight or nine contemporary writers.
Can’t wait to finish this book. All the promise is there.
really enjoyed this article! I've not actually read this book yet despite it being on my shelf for a little while. I think it's really interesting that you've made the argument politics is usually an elite affair but the people cannot be ignored. I think this is somewhat true, albeit counterintuitively but not always. I guess if politics becomes a solely elite affair in the realm of ideas and implementation then change which is the one ever constant truth to politics necessarily will emerge from the bottom. It reminds me in some ways of Mosca's history of politics with systems needing a subaltern class to replace elites if they become too stale and lacking in legitimacy.
Is democracy anti-intellectual? The main basis for this claim is mid-19th century peasant revolts in a region with zero established free and fair elections. What does that have to do with early 21st-century America? Democracy, once established, is a pretty conservative affair. It forces those who are ambitious and seeking power to line up a bunch of people in voting booths using all sorts of policy planks and media and rallies. That's what is happening right now, as America's center-right party runs on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy, while America's center-left party runs on elderly benefits, abortion access, and racial justice. Even when we had political riots in 2020, they occurred before and after the ballots were cast. This fact would be remarkable to any 19th century aristocrat in Europe. The parties are both angling for votes and genuinely believe they have issues to their strength. It's not the most intellectual affair, but it makes a good deal of sense. What this has to do with Metternich's reflection on revolutionaries in Imperial Europe is anyone's guess.
I suppose my argument is that politics is usually an elite affair, especially as it pertains to the realm of values and ideas. But the mute “people” can’t be ignored, no matter whether we live in a democracy or not.
Those echoes across time are instructive. They tell us something about what politics is about.
Yes, we have elections. No, most Americans don't trust their legitimacy. (Face it, rigged elections are not an anomaly, here or anywhere.) And if the elections are perceived as illegitimate, then do they really count as elections? Perhaps they serve more to unsettle things than to settle them.
Americans are definitely much less trusting of the government than they were half a century ago. Their mood is more like Americans in the progressive era; deeply wary of private interests and disorganized politics. But that's not really the same thing as institutional illegitimacy, to say nothing of how political decisions were made in 19th century Europe. The reason most political scientists say America has free and fair elections is because they have ways of qualifying that; if it changed, the qualifications would not be met.
But aside from experts (who obviously do get things wrong), we could place a bet here. I predict that a third party candidate (RFK) will not match or exceed Ross Perot's share in 1992, because most American voters will choose one of the two parties. I also predict that party leaders will work across party lines to determine the budget in 2025 if there is no unified trifecta, because of what Congress did in 2023. More broadly, I predict bipartisan bills will take place after this election in 2025 and 2026.
Happy to wager on any of these.
Only a fool would take any of those bets.
But I noticed you talk of the progressive era as if it is in the past. The progressive era has been running hot and heavy in government, education, science and healthcare. What's making headlines these days is the degree to which it is being challenged. The only way for progressivism to survive the assault is to become totalitarian and dictatorial, which it is doing. And let's not presume that progressivism fits neatly within the borders of the democratic party.
"The reason most political scientists say America has free and fair elections is because they have ways of qualifying that; if it changed, the qualifications would not be met." I'm not sure what you're using as a basis for saying that. Both parties have been cooking the books for as long as there's been parties and books. Voting machines have been accused of being rigged by both parties, long before Trump ever said anything. And in fact, voting machines, like any computer, can be programmed however you want. If there isn't squeaky clean chain of custody of the software and memory cards, all bets are off regarding integrity. Ands mail in ballots are an invitation to fraud. NO chain of custody. NONE. Millions of ballots are floating around out there, and nobody can confirm who received them. That is NUTS.
The Progressive Era had nothing to do with modern progressivism. The capital-P Progressive leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were passionately imperialist, racist, and eugenicist and despised the idea of human equality. Their prescription for feminist girl bloggers would have been lobotomies. Their idea of environmental protection was "conserving" thr western US as a giant game park for the pleasure of rich hunters. Their Palestine position would have been "kill them faster." Many of them were members of the Ku Klux Klan.
It's a great book, but I don't see that democracy comes into the Galician uprising in any way. If anyone had addressed the peasants, asking "What is best for the majority -- in this case, you? And what is the best way to get it -- what is realistically possible?"; and then they'd had a discussion to which everyone could contribute -- then we might speak of democracy. Otherwise, it's just another peasant rebellion, like so many in Chinese history, Indian history, etc. "Democracy" isn't just a catchword -- it means something substantive.
And no, it's not anti-intellectual. Most of the great political philosophers and political intellectuals were democrats.
I'm not sure I said that the Galician uprising was democratic. My goal was to instead bring democratic idealists down a peg in suggesting that all politics shares the dynamics of a peasant rebellion.
There are so few democratic idealists in the world, Damir. Is it really worth the effort to take them down a peg? And why is the fact that most politics, past and present, has been significantly irrational, chauvinistic, selfish, etc. a good reason to give up trying to make them more rational and humane? Most previous societies were racist, patriarchal, hierarchical, etc, but that was not a good argument against trying to diminish racism, sexism, traditional hierarchy, etc.
Maybe it's an unpleasant tic of mine, but I do think there's something healthy and useful about looking for through-lines in human history rather than telling a story about how we have transcended ourselves. And I'd say that most writers tend to look for redemption and progress rather than the opposite.
It's a bit smug and condescending to say "I look for through lines" -- ie, I'm a tough-minded realist -- while others "tell a story about how we have transcended ourselves" -- ie, they're fuzzy-minded utopians making up stories.
No one is denying that (to quote myself a moment ago) "most politics, past and present, has been significantly irrational, chauvinistic, selfish, etc." Democratic idealists are not unaware of this. What makes them democratic idealists is a provisional determination to try and improve on that dismal history. Are you saying that's impossible? Denying that significant progress, in certain respects, has already been made? If not, I don't see either your motive or your standing for taking democratic idealists down a peg.
I am quite skeptical of moral progress, yes. But I try not to pick useless fights with idealists and activists.
What about disaggregating "moral progress," so that it's not a global predicate? Surely it's progress that slavery has been abolished in most places and that hereditary aristocracies no longer exercise life-and-death powers over impoverished peasantries. But it's not progress that around a dozen nations have weapons that could kill hundreds of millions of people or that everyone in a developed country is bombarded incessantly with commercial messages?
You're right that undiscriminating optimism is foolish. But so is undiscriminating skepticism.
Just as with the storming of the Capitol, the lesson for Democracy, Politicians and Captains of Industry is that one should beware of going to extremes in p*ssing off the Proletariat. That can be done by generating financial inequality but also with seeking to break down common societal values.
That is therefore not Anti-Intellectual, that is common sense!!!
> Revolutions are never just about the dreams of revolutionaries. They unlock all the tensions and resentments building within a society, not just the progressive ones.
Who said that those resentments weren't progressive ones as well? And that the "peasants" the author despises haven't suffered more direct opression over time on the hands of those local "noblemen", than from the remote Habsburg Emperor - and thus were quite right to target them?
As for the double standard of the moral outrage: the same noblemen would be quite fine with the killings and flailing as long as it happened to those they pointed at, instead of happening to them.