The Art Of Spiritual Warfare

Over on the Dems Launch On Catholic Church thread commenter Frank provided a link and some commentary regarding an article by Michael Anton:

The Art of Spiritual War

Anton has a very interesting background. He served for many years in the belly of the beast, so to speak, but then came out as a major supporter of Trump--bridging the gap between the Orange Man and highbrow conservatives of the Claremont Review ilk. This will give you an idea of his background, including the essay than made him famous:

Michael Anton (born 1969) is an American conservative essayist, speechwriter and former private-equity executive who was a senior national security official in the Trump administration. Under a pseudonym he wrote "The Flight 93 Election", an influential essay in support of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Anton was Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications on the National Security Council under Trump. He is a former speechwriter for Rupert Murdoch, Rudy Giuliani, and Condoleezza Rice, and worked as director of communications at the investment bank Citigroup and as managing director of investing firm BlackRock.

I found this essay somewhat short on specific recommendations. However, there was one passage that appealed to me, because he identified specific movements usually considered "allies" of conservatism, but which in fact have been very much part of America's problems. FWIW, here is that passage:

Liberalism, Religion, Tyranny

Earlier today I was reading a couple of articles that fall, more or less, into the category of political philosophy. However, the implications of these articles go beyond the merely theoretical--they have a lot to say about our current crisis.

Both articles start from the phenomenon of what we could call the crackup of liberalism--the clear descent of liberalism into tyranny. Sohrab Ahmari, an editor for the NYPost, sets the terms of the discussion well in an article for the The Spectator US:

Tyranny is the inevitable consequence of liberalism

Ahmari begins with a simple question: "Are citizens of liberal societies permitted to question liberalism?" In theory the answer should be as simple as the question: Of course citizens can question liberalism--that's the whole point of liberalism! The open marketplace of ideas. And yet that's not the reality of America--not really. Much of the energy of liberal opinionating is expended in attempts to shut down all discussion that strays beyond whatever the current liberal orthodoxy happens to be. This is usually done by a process of demonizing all dissenters from the liberal orthodoxy--a tactic that has become familiar over many decades. As Ahmari observes:

Such tolerance is rarely in evidence in practice, however — a reality illustrated in hilarious fashion by a writer for a Washington magazine who recently decried ‘cancel culture’ even as he insisted that: ‘It’s absolutely necessary to de-platform public intellectuals who object to liberal democracy.’

As an historical matter, the liberal ideology arose as a supposed solution to the intolerance of religious quarrels, which had led Europe into seemingly endless wars. Separation of Church and State was supposed to lead to tolerance in society, a live and let live culture. 

Church and state have long been separated. The ideal is that a new liberal order ushers in a new, rational, tolerant and secular regime: cleaving apart day-to-day politics from religion and metaphysics. So instead of enshrining any one orthodoxy, a liberal neutral ground would be created, one that could be contested by rival accounts of the good life. The religious would be able to live happily beside the unbelievers, with all minorities protected. In this way, the advent of liberalism would — once and for all — put an end to the persecutions of the past.

Not only has this not turned out to be true now, but it arguably has never been true. Liberalism has everywhere shown its true colors, its true religious nature. Its claims to to establish a promised land of enlightened tolerance turn out to have been a ploy. The claim that any society could live and thrive without a philosophical narrative of the good life, of the common good, was always transparent bunk. Liberalism has never been neutral, and as it has gained the ascendancy its essential, inevitable, intolerance has become apparent to all:

Briefly Noted: Michael Jordan On Politics, Race

I just read this: Michael Jordan: Playing Above the Rim. Here's the part that caught my attention:

In the Netflix series The Last Dance, MJ opens up about his views on politics and activism during his playing days, and comments, “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” It occurred during the 1990 U.S. Senate race in North Carolina, when his mother wanted him to support a candidate running against incumbent Republican, Jesse Helms. Michael wisely told her he would not get involved with someone he didn’t know.

On the road with two teammates, Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen, off camera, he made the remark about Republicans and his biographer exposed it. Jordan claims it was not a formal statement, but I think it reveals qualities that appear absent in the modern NBA. Was Michael a sell out? If he was, so was every other Capitalist. Wasn’t he just saying all lives matter?

Michael described “a country that has provided my family and me the greatest of opportunities. The problems we face didn’t happen overnight and they won’t be solved tomorrow.” He also said, “I never thought of myself as an activist, I thought of myself as a basketball player.” Additionally, “I wasn’t a politician," he noted. "I was playing my sport. You know, I was focused on my craft. Was that selfish? That’s where my energy was.”

Equality? Unfairly talented? 

UPDATED: Paradox For The Day - With Bonus Paradox!

Catching up on Twitter. Nice to see a WH reporter reading serious authors: 

"Some call it a paradox of equality: the more equality one wants to introduce, the more power one must have; the more power one has, the more one violates the principle of equality..."

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) March 6, 2021

But does this suggest a problem at the heart of Classical Liberalism with it's talk of "equality". As previously discussed, "equality" makes sense in a universe based on a realist philosophy that upholds objective knowledge of an objective human nature created by God. However, in the ideology of tolerant diversity of views such objective knowledge is excluded. In a society that embraces that ideology "equality" then takes on a dissolvent quality with regard to all societal standards and institutions. We've been on a slippery slope for a long time and we're seeing the results.

Bonus paradox:

“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.” -P.J. O'Rourke

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) March 6, 2021

UPDATE: To expand just a bit. When a society and its government sees the imposition of "equality"--which is a condition that simply does not and never will exist within the human race--as a legitimate and desirable goal of government, the logical outcome is tyranny to one degree or another. It is driven by an anti-realist ideology, an effort to impose an concept upon the recalcitrant reality of actual human nature and human beings. We have seen the evolution in that direction everywhere Classical Liberalism has been adopted. That's the thought behind what Legutko is saying and its the thought that also makes sense of O'Rourke's witticism. That is NOT to say that some other form of government is perfect--perfection is not attainable in a necessarily imperfect world. But a government and society based on an ideology that is in principle opposed to the order of creation and of nature is headed for big trouble. Limited government in such an ideological environment will never remain limited, will never be content to leave individuals alone to rise or fall to their own level of human thriving. This is why the whole dynamic in American history is the movement from Liberal Democracy to Progressive forms of tyranny.

On the other hand, a society and its government that is grounded in a realist philosophy of objective human nature is readily able--at least on principle--to address problems of fairness and justice among its citizens and institutions in ways that take into account individual differences. This doesn't guarantee outcomes that are fair and just, but it does allow for rational discussion of what is good or bad for human nature and for individual humans, without proposed policies for attaining human happiness being forced to conform to the artificial mold of "equality."

Class Warfare

That's the reality of America, as Glenn Harlan Reynolds describes it today:

America’s elites are waging class war on workers and small bizAmerica’s elites are waging class war on workers and small biz

The question, of course, is: What's behind this class war?

Reynolds starts with the economic rationale--and there's little doubt that this is a very real and conscious motive at the level of corporations and their enablers:

In America, class warfare is often disguised as culture war, and culture war is often cloaked by talk of race. But underneath it all, the class warfare is still there. Whether accidentally or intentionally, America’s upper classes seem to wind up harming the working class and small businesses, always in the name of some high-minded cause.

On immigration, for example, the go-to move is to call people who object to open borders racists and nativists. But what’s behind it? As Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein commented: “A tight job market pressures employers to boost wage offers . . . One equally surefire way to short-circuit this useful dynamic is to turn on the immigrant spigot every time some group’s wages go up.” Immigration as a way of keeping working-class wages down.

Strangely, Reynolds fails to mention the role of outsourcing in this. The outsourcing of American manufacturing and jobs is all about boosting profits by suppressing the biggest portion of the cost of goods sold--wages and related expenses. The gradual forcing of the working class onto the government dole in various forms (guaranteed income?) is supposed to make up for that and insure a docile populace. But it won't substitute for the meaningful life that all normal humans seek. It will fail.

This Dem Has Been Reading Voting Data

I lifted this lengthy quote from a NYMag interview of David Shor from Steve Sailer. The title of the interview is David Shor on Why Trump Was Good for the GOP and How Dems Can Win in 2022. The part I've selected is focused mostly on Why Trump Was Good For The GOP. 

I was reading and thinking about this when Tom Verso commented at Have Dems Been Reading The Polls?:

The Democrats would be worried if they thought that the Republicans will use the issues in these polls to challenge them.

But, we have a de facto (de jure?) one party government, so we can expect the Republicans to run on cliché platitudes.

Consider the speech of the Govener of South Dakota at the CPAC convention. 

It was all about “Love of liberty” and the ‘Founding Fathers” and the “Declaration of Independence”. 

Not one of the poll items cited above was a part of her speech; unless she picked up on them after I stopped listening about 2/3 of the way through. 

That capsulized in a lot of ways exactly what Shor is talking about. It also suggested what I've been talking about, that the GOP needs to move beyond Classical Liberal ideology to a philosophy that empowers Trumpian populism. Trump himself did that by appealing to those who still have a lingering cultural Catholic sensibility--which appeals to religious voters of many stripes, as well as to generally cultural conservatives. And so I responded:

Good point, Tom. Those are "platitudes" that tend to appeal to ideological Libertarians--Classical Liberals. The appeal there is to so called "movement conservatives." Those are not, in fact, Trumpian talking points and those weren't the talking points that got Trump elected or got him that huge increase in votes-including from minority voters.

Read these excerpts from Shor with those observations in mind. My takeaway is that what will empower the GOP is not more Libertarian slop about liberty as the major talking points--although I hasten to add that personal freedom does play into the conservative mix. A not very well understood factor in the Trump phenomenon is his pointed attacks on Prog/PC ideology. Conservatives need to follow Trump down that road, while avoiding the ideological Scylla and Charybdis of overt Libertarianism (a turnoff to many women and minorities as well as thinking conservatives) and the inchoate squishiness of Compassionate Conservatism. They need something masculine that also appeals to women. I say the answer is a populism that frames for the masses the realistic philosophy of human nature that is the Western tradition. A perennial philosophy of human thriving and happiness.

Shor:

Briefly Noted: Professions In A Woke Society

Red State today picks up a story from the Daily Wire about an education major at SUNY. Here's the Red State link:

'A Man is a Man and a Woman is a Woman': Student Suspended for Violating Students' Dignity 'Til He Completes a 'Remediation Plan'

Here's the full statement that the young man made on Instagram:

“Hey, everybody. I’m gonna double down on this point right now. I wanna make myself very clear, so hear what I’m saying. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man. A man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a man. If I’m a man and I think I’m a woman, I’m still a man. If I’m a woman who thinks I’m a man, I’m still a woman. Regardless of what you feel on the inside, [it’s] irrelevant to your biological status. It doesn’t change the biology. The biology is very clear. It’s very, very, very clear. And it’s binary and easy. You fall into either Man or Woman. And if you’re intersex, you either become a man or woman eventually. And that is such a small…group of people that it makes no sense to justify that as statistically significant and apply that to our definition of gender. It wouldn’t make any sense.”

According to the Daily Wire: