Tom Klingenstein recently interviewed political philosopher* Glenn Ellmers about the state of the West today. In one of his responses, Ellmers gives what I think is a good summary of the current political division not only the in the US but in the West in general. I don't think there's much here that's new to the regulars here, but the clear summary of a division that is often put in more vague and ambiguous terms is worthwhile, I think.
There is a long and interesting story about how the Left got to this point, which can be traced to modern philosophy becoming more and more radical. Again, it is extremely useful, practically speaking, to study these matters. The point is that, apart from the apolitical or undecided people in the middle, we have two diametrically opposed factions in the United States today — whose differences are basically theological. One side still believes in traditional morality and the importance of the family, in the founder’s Constitution, and the idea that we are born into a world we didn’t create and can’t completely control. That is a world governed by the laws of nature and nature’s God, which means we are limited and guided by human nature, which is fixed.
The woke Leftists reject all that in the name of complete individual freedom and total personal autonomy, without any limits imposed by God or nature or anything else. The role of the government, for them, is to facilitate the ability of everyone to meet their own subjective view of personal fulfillment. The whole architecture of racial grievances, group preferences, and white privilege is directed to removing the barriers imposed by racism, western colonialism, toxic masculinity, etc., which stand in the way of complete personal autonomy.
This deep, theological division is not confined to the United States. Look at the recent opening ceremony at the Paris Olympics. It included a mockery of the Last Supper, with drag queens and transvestites standing in for Jesus and the Apostles. And there was a rider “on a pale horse” — a clear celebration of death from the Book of Revelation. This had nothing to do with sports or athletics, so what was the point? Why do the Olympics have to become a celebration of radical sexual autonomy?
How you respond to this will depend on which basic view of the world you have. And this division — between the older morality and the new celebration of unbounded personal expression — can be seen all over the world. There is an emerging global elite, motivated by a radical ideology, that wants to eliminate the rule of the people in every nation. This is the great battle of our time.
It's interesting that he sees it as a conflict between theologies. He doesn't explain what he means by that, and I wonder how he defines theology.
*Update: I tried to find an email address for Ellmer and discovered his PhD was in political science. I think I just inferred he was a philosopher from the topics he writes about.
7 comments:
Dad29 here.....
The conflict he describes--accurately--was first activated in Eden, when Eve decided that she could be like unto God were she to munch on the forbidden fruit.
It's VERY theological, and has had re-runs and echoes throughout the centuries in the West whenever man decides that he's smarter than, or in no more need of, God.
It's interesting too that he describes this as a motive of extreme individual freedom, but one that aims at the elimination of rule by the people. That's close to a logical contradiction: each person should decide his/her/their fate, but the people shouldn't be allowed to self-govern.
The referenced description omits the viewpoint and active role of a third, Islamic, community among the Western traditionalist and progressive factions. I'm not sure how the tensions -- torsions? -- can be relieved.
Dad29, you make a good point, but they still seem more naturally to fit into the category of philosophies to me. I should probably just email Ellmers and ask him. I'm sure he used the term deliberately with a particular meaning in mind.
J, you're right, but I think Islam in the West is primarily a tool of the libertine faction. They are using Islamic immigration as a tool against traditionalists, and they probably think they can control it once the traditionalists have lost.
Grim, that is interesting. It is reminiscent of Marx's writings. His ultimate communist society was anarchic. As he told it, as society became increasingly communist, there would be less and less need for government and government would gradually wither away to nothing. Each individual would be completely free to live his best or most desirable life. However, to get there, there needed to be revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and etc.
Exactly.
I don't really think most of the left ever really "thinks" about issues- mostly they regurgitate what they are told to think- at least none I have ever talked to seem to have any unified set of principals, as evident by the about face on almost any issue depending on who supports it. More like a starling murmuration than active reasoning.
If God is the greatest/most important thing that exists, then perhaps your beliefs about that constitute your theology? I don't see how the totalitarian ideologies can be anything other than idolatrous.
There does seem to be a little conflict between the notion of the supremacy of the individual and individual choice, and the supremacy of the collection of individuals. If the individual is the greatest thing we can see, the only thing that could be greater than the individual's choice is "The things we choose to do together" as somebody defined government (somewhat naively)--which would make the state, and whatever manipulates the state (the Party) the supreme thing. Something has to enforce the individual autonomy, right?
So if there are conflicts, I suppose the only thing to do is pick and choose--which aspects of individual choice take precedence? One of the more obvious conflicts between leftmorality and tradmorality is with sex, which is also where our choices can have an outsized impact on others. Leftmorality set up "consent" as the rule--to not hurt anyone--and defined away the baby, and then had to start hedging and reinforcing "consent" with extra rules for who can and who's pressured, and so on. And "pressuring" someone is bad, unless it's for optimizing the sexual choices of the ... um ... which? The boss pressuring the subordinate for sex is bad, unless it somehow liberates an "oppressed" group ... It's a can of worms.
Maybe it's foolish to expect consistency from rejection.
Post a Comment