We’re muggles, not wizards. Conservatism, in my mind, means creating a society that is most pleasant for ‘the average man’, while modern progressivism is focused on the exceptional and unusual, who are both disproportionately found among people in the media, and among hard-luck cases caught up by otherwise good systems.
A big disadvantage is that modern conservatism is, by definition, a sort of agnosticism. It’s oppositional. Progressivism offers a vision, a moral certainty; it asserts that its worldview is the correct one, and that people who disagree are fundamentally bad people; it invents and popularises morally-loaded terms with an impressive prolificacy. This is what many of us dislike about the post-new Left, but it’s attractive to vast numbers of people who fall into line.
Which got me thinking that a disadvantage for conservatism is that it seeks to preserve a social order against the natural tendency of all systems to tend towards entropy. A house quickly falls into a state of general disorder if one avoids the effort of cleaning and tidying it etc. And humans will tend to avoid that because (a) cleaning and tidying takes effort; and (b) the making of that effort does not feed the ego. In contrast progressivism tells people that to clean the house is to both submit to oppression and to thwart self realisation (which in old money is just feeding the ego). Ironically, if England win the Euros it will be because they submitted to a SINGLE culture of rules and discipline. But that’s not going to be the story, is it?
A "make haste slowly" reformist conservatism is a possibility. Burke leaned that way, and Disraeli governed in that fashion. The problem is that conservatism is often captured by the vested interests of a society and they have zero interest or willingness for reform. This is emphatically true of Reaganism in the US, which succeeded in reducing the working class to drudges and has rejected all and any measures of reform.
Speaking of Indian movies distaining un-feminine women, there is actually a stock character called "crazy girl" used in Tamil cinema: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loosu_ponnu
The Arabs came as a new ruling class (as is common with invading conquerors) They left the existing population in place, only gradually assimilating them over the course of centuries.
Why not "Saturday West"? Seriously, a really good round-up.
I was fascinated by the Scott Alexander post, which does a good job of explaining why and how, in the past couple of decades, political alignment has replaced matters of mere taste as a badge of elite membership and a mechanism for social advancement. Now you have to show you're sound on race and gender, whereas sixty years ago, you could demonstrate that you were a member of the elite by preferring Beethoven to the Beatles; forty years ago, by holidaying in Tuscany rather than on Majorca; twenty-five years ago, by cooking with olive oil instead of butter.
It's notable that all of these aesthetic preferences were imbued with a kind of moralistic cast - the first two via the assumption that certain kinds of art and travel were instructive or improving, while others weren't; the last on health grounds. These (like Alexander's example of the orphans) helped to conceal their status as social sorting mechanisms and the bases for a "backscratchers' club".
Nevertheless, these moral elements were secondary to the rule of taste itself, which (despite its potential for snobbery) I can't help feeling was a rather good thing. A society in which taste rather than ideology is a badge of elite membership is likely to be much conducive to open debate and peaceful co-existence, because, after all, civil wars don't start over Mozart.
What we have now is akin to the way in which historic elites were necessarily members of an established church and non-membership created significant social stigmas and barriers to advancement. In a very real sense, it's a return to a pre-modern situation. Admittedly, the privileging of ideology in this context is not unprecedented in modern times: for instance, in the 1930s members of the liberal elite worried about Spain in the way that their 2020s equivalents worry about Palestine. But I think it's unhealthy, and we'd be much better off if the elite returned to virtue signalling over Shakespeare or sun-dried tomatoes.
"I couldn’t think of a better name than Sunday West so I just decided on the ‘Wrong Side of History newsletter’ – catchy!"
I thought you'd sent it out without replacing the "placeholder" title with a realsies one. I'm sure it's nice: maybe I'll have time to read it tomorrow. It's camp staff time here in the Southern U.S., when older ladies bake in the sun all day teaching kids (and adults) to do archery.
Re: ‘In a short little window between 1991 and 1998, religion [in America] changed dramatically. Among 18-35 year olds: The share who were Christian dropped 14 points. The share who were non-religious rose 12 points. All in just a seven year span.’
Wow. That's the first I've seen this (yes, I just read the linked piece). I wonder what drove that? I was in my 20s at the time and I can't recall that trend being particularly visible, or any accelerant in politics, the economy or popular culture that conduced to such a thing. Ironically it was in that period, 1995-1996 to be precise, that I felt drawn back to church and away from a vaguely "spiritual but not religious" lifestyle that allowed me to go out partying till all hours on Saturdays. I joined the Orthodox Church in 1996.
Ed, immigration might be driving force for populism in Europe, but I'm not sure that's the case here in America. I think we could perfectly seal the borders and right-wing populism would remain.
I think that a hatred of the cultural Left is the real driving force in America. Chris Caldwell did a lecture called "The Roots of our Cultural Discord" that touches on this.
America is a nation of immigrants so I think it’s different - there is also a particular correlation between populist vote and share of Muslim immigrants. America’s Muslims are much smaller relatively, wealthier and better integrated
I was aware of it, mostly in connection with Elizabeth's boy-toy the Earl of Essex, who seems to have been incompetent at anything he set his hand to, other than flattering an aged queen. When James came to the English throne he and Philip III of Spain both had the great good sense to bring an end to the running war between their countries, which brought glory to neither side. even the original Armada from Spain was defeated more by the weather and the screw-ups of it leaders.
Strange, because I don't think I've heard a single mention of the Spanish Armada in the last decade that didn't come with an appended what-they-didn't-teach-you-at-school 'revelation' about the Armada of 1589.
It's usually, not always mind you, attended by a sort of 'It's A Lovely War' snarking tone.
As if the miraculous defeat of the Spanish Armada by a tiny, sparsely populated, isolated England defended only by a hastily assembled flotilla of privateers, patriots and eccentric peers (assisted by the Protestant Wind) was somehow any less of a biblical deliverance - becuse it was followed up failed expedition against the largest Empire in the world.
that's interesting, I must be a bit older than you. the only time I remember really learning about it was for the 400th anniversary when I would have been ten.
I can't remember learning about it at secondary school although I imagine most of the teachers there would have had mixed feelings.
Ed's articles are always worth a second read.
We’re muggles, not wizards. Conservatism, in my mind, means creating a society that is most pleasant for ‘the average man’, while modern progressivism is focused on the exceptional and unusual, who are both disproportionately found among people in the media, and among hard-luck cases caught up by otherwise good systems.
A big disadvantage is that modern conservatism is, by definition, a sort of agnosticism. It’s oppositional. Progressivism offers a vision, a moral certainty; it asserts that its worldview is the correct one, and that people who disagree are fundamentally bad people; it invents and popularises morally-loaded terms with an impressive prolificacy. This is what many of us dislike about the post-new Left, but it’s attractive to vast numbers of people who fall into line.
Which got me thinking that a disadvantage for conservatism is that it seeks to preserve a social order against the natural tendency of all systems to tend towards entropy. A house quickly falls into a state of general disorder if one avoids the effort of cleaning and tidying it etc. And humans will tend to avoid that because (a) cleaning and tidying takes effort; and (b) the making of that effort does not feed the ego. In contrast progressivism tells people that to clean the house is to both submit to oppression and to thwart self realisation (which in old money is just feeding the ego). Ironically, if England win the Euros it will be because they submitted to a SINGLE culture of rules and discipline. But that’s not going to be the story, is it?
A "make haste slowly" reformist conservatism is a possibility. Burke leaned that way, and Disraeli governed in that fashion. The problem is that conservatism is often captured by the vested interests of a society and they have zero interest or willingness for reform. This is emphatically true of Reaganism in the US, which succeeded in reducing the working class to drudges and has rejected all and any measures of reform.
Speaking of Indian movies distaining un-feminine women, there is actually a stock character called "crazy girl" used in Tamil cinema: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loosu_ponnu
I wonder what an Aramaic or Greek speaker in the Levant of the 630s would think of the invading Arab armies and "settler colonialism".
I think many Lebanese have quite strong opinions of this still!
The Arabs came as a new ruling class (as is common with invading conquerors) They left the existing population in place, only gradually assimilating them over the course of centuries.
Why not "Saturday West"? Seriously, a really good round-up.
I was fascinated by the Scott Alexander post, which does a good job of explaining why and how, in the past couple of decades, political alignment has replaced matters of mere taste as a badge of elite membership and a mechanism for social advancement. Now you have to show you're sound on race and gender, whereas sixty years ago, you could demonstrate that you were a member of the elite by preferring Beethoven to the Beatles; forty years ago, by holidaying in Tuscany rather than on Majorca; twenty-five years ago, by cooking with olive oil instead of butter.
It's notable that all of these aesthetic preferences were imbued with a kind of moralistic cast - the first two via the assumption that certain kinds of art and travel were instructive or improving, while others weren't; the last on health grounds. These (like Alexander's example of the orphans) helped to conceal their status as social sorting mechanisms and the bases for a "backscratchers' club".
Nevertheless, these moral elements were secondary to the rule of taste itself, which (despite its potential for snobbery) I can't help feeling was a rather good thing. A society in which taste rather than ideology is a badge of elite membership is likely to be much conducive to open debate and peaceful co-existence, because, after all, civil wars don't start over Mozart.
What we have now is akin to the way in which historic elites were necessarily members of an established church and non-membership created significant social stigmas and barriers to advancement. In a very real sense, it's a return to a pre-modern situation. Admittedly, the privileging of ideology in this context is not unprecedented in modern times: for instance, in the 1930s members of the liberal elite worried about Spain in the way that their 2020s equivalents worry about Palestine. But I think it's unhealthy, and we'd be much better off if the elite returned to virtue signalling over Shakespeare or sun-dried tomatoes.
I’d have gone with West Scribed Story tbh.
Perhaps Ed could produce an evening edition: As the Sun Sinks Slowly in the West
Yeah it explains a lot - Alexander’s brain is working on a totally different level to the rest of us.
Ed. This is such a great newsletter. I’m going to toast you with a flat white and a packet of Monster Munch. God bless us all!
Thank you!
I’m literally drinking a latte right now
"I couldn’t think of a better name than Sunday West so I just decided on the ‘Wrong Side of History newsletter’ – catchy!"
I thought you'd sent it out without replacing the "placeholder" title with a realsies one. I'm sure it's nice: maybe I'll have time to read it tomorrow. It's camp staff time here in the Southern U.S., when older ladies bake in the sun all day teaching kids (and adults) to do archery.
When are you coming to Charlotte?
Hopefully soon! Trying to sort out a US trip
Excellent!
Surprised you didn't mention-re Gender
https://twitter.com/Alkibiades_/status/1811128532892025022
The Skincare girls who have gone viral.
I haven’t worked up the morale to watch that video yet
Re: ‘In a short little window between 1991 and 1998, religion [in America] changed dramatically. Among 18-35 year olds: The share who were Christian dropped 14 points. The share who were non-religious rose 12 points. All in just a seven year span.’
Wow. That's the first I've seen this (yes, I just read the linked piece). I wonder what drove that? I was in my 20s at the time and I can't recall that trend being particularly visible, or any accelerant in politics, the economy or popular culture that conduced to such a thing. Ironically it was in that period, 1995-1996 to be precise, that I felt drawn back to church and away from a vaguely "spiritual but not religious" lifestyle that allowed me to go out partying till all hours on Saturdays. I joined the Orthodox Church in 1996.
I heard the other day that religious faith in France dropped very suddenly in just two years in the 1960s I think 63-65 but would need to read more.
Ed, immigration might be driving force for populism in Europe, but I'm not sure that's the case here in America. I think we could perfectly seal the borders and right-wing populism would remain.
I think that a hatred of the cultural Left is the real driving force in America. Chris Caldwell did a lecture called "The Roots of our Cultural Discord" that touches on this.
America is a nation of immigrants so I think it’s different - there is also a particular correlation between populist vote and share of Muslim immigrants. America’s Muslims are much smaller relatively, wealthier and better integrated
I must confess, I have never heard of the ill-fated "English Armada"!
The Roman equivalent of a memory-holed battle that could have saved the empire would definitely be the Battle of Cape Bon in 468!:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOpWdSu3QsY&pp=ygUTbWFpb3JpYW51cyBjYXBlIGJvbg%3D%3D
It’s like the 100 years war, back when people still had historical knowledge - it just sorts of fades out after agincourt
Yes - people (including me back in the day) tend to think that Joan of Arc was part of an entirely different conflict.
English Armada is mentioned in the Elizbaeth 1st mini series with Helen Mirren Essex rides up to the walls of Lisbon and challenges everyone
There is a large fleet sent to Ireland in 1596. Which is lost in a storm.
I was aware of it, mostly in connection with Elizabeth's boy-toy the Earl of Essex, who seems to have been incompetent at anything he set his hand to, other than flattering an aged queen. When James came to the English throne he and Philip III of Spain both had the great good sense to bring an end to the running war between their countries, which brought glory to neither side. even the original Armada from Spain was defeated more by the weather and the screw-ups of it leaders.
Strange, because I don't think I've heard a single mention of the Spanish Armada in the last decade that didn't come with an appended what-they-didn't-teach-you-at-school 'revelation' about the Armada of 1589.
It's usually, not always mind you, attended by a sort of 'It's A Lovely War' snarking tone.
As if the miraculous defeat of the Spanish Armada by a tiny, sparsely populated, isolated England defended only by a hastily assembled flotilla of privateers, patriots and eccentric peers (assisted by the Protestant Wind) was somehow any less of a biblical deliverance - becuse it was followed up failed expedition against the largest Empire in the world.
that's interesting, I must be a bit older than you. the only time I remember really learning about it was for the 400th anniversary when I would have been ten.
I can't remember learning about it at secondary school although I imagine most of the teachers there would have had mixed feelings.