The Smart Man's Stupid

Read Julian Sanchez in gonzo delight mode regarding Lee Harris' ultraburkean play for justified ignorance:

the particular spin put on the old argument here—the dangers of wanting to seem smart—is a little bit rich coming from Lee Harris, whose signature is an almost comically desperate effort to give his essays a patina of erudition. Like some hungover freshman at midterms regurgitating every scrap he recalls from his Western Civ survey course, Harris peppers one turgid thumbsucker after another with Cliffs Notes–level nods to hoary figures from the Western canon. So we get such gems as:

Their stupidity, as many of them no doubt hazily realized, was their best defense against the inroads of clever madmen intent on turning their world upside down—men like John Stuart Mill, for example, to whom tradition meant nothing, and who was willing to throw out the solid heritage of the past in the pursuit of the latest fad, dubbed by him "experiments in living."

This is not, appearances the contrary, a summary of the argument offered in On Liberty.

Too true!  Though if more of us wanted to seem smart these days, I think we'd all benefit. No, the bigger problem today -- one I think Harris et. al. want to get at, but can't quite nail -- is that the systemic pressures created by equality, manifest in state and market alike, are actually changing the terms of smartness such that 'pursuit of the latest fad' is rational. In a world where libertarians are utterly doomed on the political front and turned loose with glee instead on the culture, the flattening out of local, particular political power -- the inevitable result of sovereign individuality -- drives prideful, envious democratic souls to the rational recognition that therapeutically throwing themselves, and one another, into the headlong pursuit of trivial novelties is the only way to enjoy life under the advanced logic of equality and social freedom (without opting for the unpopular hermit route).

Yet again my big prob with libertarians these days is their unwillingness to make this analytical distinction. As bluntly as I can phrase it, with the condition of the west today as the independent variable, cultural libertarianism actively destroys political libertarianism, and unless we figure out a way to do political libertarianism first, we may be in for some serious pink police state action.

But there is a wrinkle. Fighting cultural libertarianism by political means -- the basic platform of 'social conservatives' as they are crudely/nationally understood -- will only hurry on despotism and further erode political liberty while doing little to choke off the mass consumption of experimental lifestyle experiences that provide our busy, stressed-out, pleasure-loving people with the feeling of aristocratic release from the tense and feverish confines of socially democratic life.

You tell me whether this all is or isn't a brief for Ron Paul.

Comments

[Sameer]

"the mass consumption of experimental lifestyle experiences that provide our busy, stressed-out, pleasure-loving people with the feeling of aristocratic release from the tense and feverish confines of socially democratic life."

What *should* the masses be seeking, then? Most people don't find fulfillment in dedicating their lives to the philosophical examination of the good life.

I've only been reading your blog for a few weeks, so perhaps your earlier posts have made it abundantly clear what you believe the answer is. If so, I apologize, but would still love to hear it.

[Kevin Jones]

"Fighting cultural libertarianism by political means -- the basic platform of 'social conservatives' as they are crudely/nationally understood -- will only hurry on despotism and further erode political liberty while doing little to choke off the mass consumption"

Which socio-con policies do you have in mind? The drug war? The unlikely Human Life Amendment? Anti-obscenity regulations for television and the internet?

[James]

Sameer, welcome, and no apologies needed. You're right that neither 'the masses' nor even a majority of good citizens can or should be philosophers. I'd be generally in favor of permitting anything that inculcates an ethic of restraint nowadays, but, specifically, people should be spending more time on a practical examination of the good life. My gamble is that if they could conceive of a working alternative to the typical tradeoffs and sacrifices of upward mobility they would at least give it a shot. Not very groundbreaking but there it is.

Kevin, yes, at the national level, those are exactly the things I have in mind. I like the spirit behind those policies, but I'm convinced they only make matters worse. Though some drugs and some kinds of abortions and some kind of broadcasts may be so horrible that federal legislation is inevitable. It's a question of pushing an agenda versus not pushing it, mostly.