What Do Voters Want?

Well. We know what the experts want: they want to issue orders. And we know what the activists want: they want revolution, baby. That is clear from the last three months.

But what do the voters want?

Ah yes, but which voters?

Here's Theodore Dalrymple proposing that the Wokies, of which we've heard tell, are disappointed would-be politicians.

I think it is true that life is much more difficult for young people now than it was when I was a young person. On the one hand they seem to have (and expect) limitless choice and on the other they are facing severe limitations on job opportunities...

The problem is that, back in the day, a university education gave you a pretty good entry ticket into the elite. Back when Calvin Coolidge went to Amherst around 1890 the college knew it was educating future leaders, and many of Coolidge's fellow students went on to high-flying careers.

Of course, we are still carefully taught that a university education is a ticket to ride. Only it isn't.

So maybe it's a good thing that we now teach "activism." Which I would translate as teaching the kiddies how to play-act at revolution, baby.

Of course, the kiddies are not really supposed to burn down the cities. But then the folks that thought all this activism stuff up are not that bright. It's all supposed to keep the deplorable middle class under control. And so it does, in theory.

And what do voters want?

Yes, whatabout blacks and Hispanics? David Catron writes that

The latest Quinnipiac poll, for example, indicates that only 82 percent of African-Americans support Biden — 6 points below the 88 percent Clinton garnered during her failed campaign.

Whatabout Hispanics?

In 2016, Clinton won 66 percent of the Hispanic vote and Trump won 29 percent. Recent polls show Biden ... Biden garner[ing] only 59 percent while Trump w[ins] 39 percent.

So, does the BLM thingy rally black support? And what does it do to Hispanic support?

See, my theory of politics, my reductive Three Peoples theory, says that at some point victim minority groups get into the middle class and then identify with the nation rather than their ethnic group. When President Trump calls the father of a black kid shot by the CHAZ/CHOPpers in Seattle he is saying to African Americans everywhere that they count as Americans. Without the hyphen.

I think that, maybe, blacks and Hispanics are starting to seriously enter the middle class in battalion strength. If they are, then they are going to start voting Republican. And think of themselves as Americans. Because the natural "fake tribe" of the middle class is the nation.

Of courses, then there are educated white women, the ones with the #WeBelieve yard-signs. They are down for the movement, as this piece by a woman having a Satisfying Emotional Experience about Blackness and "corporate racism" attests. Talk to a tech billionaire and dollars to donuts his wife is a liberal.

Oh yeah. Whatabout deplorable white men without advanced degrees? I can't imagine what those voters want.

The President's Bully Pulpit and American Heroes

One thing that the whole George Floyd riots have taught us is that a lot of people don't know much about historee, as the song goes.

So I'd say that President Trump has a golden opportunity to visit a bunch of monuments and tell us why the American hero so honored is important to us. It ought to be pretty simple. Maybe it should be too simple so that liberals and The New York Times and the fact-checkers can amplify the whole thing by contesting the president's words.

First, the political heroes.

George Washington: Statue on Mount Rushmore. He did two important things. After winning the War of Independence, he went home to Mount Vernon. Then, after being elected two terms as President, he went home to Mount Vernon.

Hey President-for-life Xi! Hey President-for-life Putin! Cat got your tongue?

There is nothing more important than for politicians to put in a couple of terms and then go home. You are not that important, geniuses, and if you are stupid enough not to realize that then you are certainly someone that needs to be forced to retire.

Thomas Jefferson: Statue on Mount Rushmore. He wrote the Declaration of Independence. A magnificent proclamation.

Alexander Hamilton: Statue in Washington DC. This guy did so many things, including put an end to the political career of Aaron Burr. But the big thing was to set up the new nation's finances with the creation of the National Debt.

James Madison: Statue in Washington DC. He is considered the "father" of the US Constitution, perhaps the most amazing piece of statecraft ever. Yes, the ideas that went into the Constitution, like the separation of powers, were ideas developed over the previous century. But He Did It -- with the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Andrew Jackson: Statue in Washington DC. President Jackson was the guy that terminated the Second Bank of the United States and plunged the US into financial turmoil for a decade. Not good.

Abraham Lincoln: Statue on Mount Rushmore. He freed the slaves.

Then the ordinary nobodies that invented the modern era:

John D. Rockefeller: He brought safe illuminating oil to the masses and reduced the price of oil by 90 percent.

Andrew Carnegie: He founded the US steel industry and brought the price of steel down by two-thirds. This was particularly important for rails for railroads, since the old cast-iron rails had a way of breaking.

Thomas Edison: Yes, he invented the light-bulb, but also got electric generation off the ground. The importance of electricity to today's world is inestimable.

Wright Brothers: Developed and flew the first powered airplane.

Henry Ford: Brought the cost of personal transportation down to about one year's wages for the average worker. Never before in history had the common man been able to travel around needlessly.

J. Pierpont Morgan: Notable for his work in railroad bankruptcies, Morgan managed the Crash of 1907 and brought the US economy quickly back to life. Unlike the Federal Reserve in 1929.

And that's about where I'd stop. Because once you get to President Wilson, who got us into World War I instead of letting the European powers exhaust themselves into a tie, once you get to President Roosevelt, who got us into World War II by provoking Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, once you get to the post WWII presidents you are talking politics not national heroes.

But I think that President Trump could do a lot worse than stop at the shrines of these heroes and eddicate the young'uns.

Who obviously, despite the expense of over $1 trillion a year on gubmit education, are obviously not well eddicated.

Three Peoples -- Script

Hello I'm Chris Chantrill. Let's look into my reductive theory of humans. I call it my Three Peoples theory.

It is an attempt to simplify human society as much as possible, but no further. I got the idea of the Responsible Self from Robert Bellah in his "Evolution of Religion." I got the idea of the Creative Self from Richard Florida in The Rise of the Creative Class.

I propose that there are three kinds of people in the world:

First, the People of the Subordinate Self. Call them slaves, serfs, workers, clients, marginalized, these are people that do not experience "agency." They are go-along-to-get-along people, villagers under the thumb of the big man, the serfs of the feudal lord, the factory workers of the corporate behemoth, the ward heelers of the precinct captain.  They attach themselves to a powerful patron in return for scraps from the lordly table. 

Next, the People of the Responsible Self. Call them commoners, citizens, middling sorts, "deplorables," these are people that believe they can understand the world and have a responsibility to do something about it. These are people that follow the rules, go to work, and obey the law.

Finally, the People of the Creative Self. These are people that want to live a creative life, maybe as a writer, an artist, a videographer, an activist, a revolutionary. They don't want to follow the rules, they want to discover new rules. They don't just want to go to work, they want to reinvent work. They don't just obey the laws; they want to make new ones. 

Of course, the world is much more complicated that that. But most of the time most people have difficulty imagining anyone different from themselves as anything but an enemy, in a crude "us" and "them" approach to life, religion, and politics. So, my Three Peoples is more sophisticated that the Us and Them world.

Using my Three Peoples theory I maintain that our modern politics is based upon a coalition between the People of the Creative Self and the People of the Subordinate Self against the People of the Responsible Self, in which the People of the Creative Self pose as the defenders and saviors of the People of the Subordinate Self.

The People of the Creative don't quite see it my way. They think of themselves as noble "Allies" of the "oppressed peoples" fighting against the domination and hegemony of the "white oppressors."

So I maintain that my reductive Three Peoples theory encourages people to imagine that, yes, there really are people different from me out there.

And if they are different, maybe they experience the world differently from me, and that's all right.

But let's understand how they experience the world differently, in their religions, up next.

I'm Chris Chantrill, and thanks for watching.

Activism Culture -- Script

Hello, I'm Chris Chantrill. Let's talk about what I call Activism Culture.

I experience the Left not as a glorious progressive movement, but as a lurch back to the past, even to primitivism. 

I take a high tone with "activists," for I regard

activism [as] a return to revolution, rioting for the ruling class, part medieval knight-errantry, and part activisme, or gentry kids putting on a school play for their parents;

Our modern activists are not really revolutionaries fighting for the powerless against the powerful; they are fake revolutionaries, the stooges of the ruling class. The tip-off is the remarkable indulgence that our rulers have for left-wing "peaceful protest." Real revolutionaries get roughed up by the police, and sent to jail or exile.

So I say that today's activists are actors, play-acting revolution for the benefit of the ruling class and helping the ruling class advance its agenda with an AstroTurf version of revolution.

It all makes sense. Your lefty activist goes to college not for an education but a boot camp in Activism. He or she learns how to make non-negotiable demands, and how to organize a "peaceful protest." Hey, the Drill Instructors -- er, professors -- demand that you actually think up and enact a protest, perhaps against some visiting far-right speaker, in order to get your degree.

Thus, I would argue, the university has really become an activism seminary, training young activists to become the priests of the state church of activism. 

This is not remarkable. Back in the day, universities were built by states like Britain to train priests in the state church so they would go out and teach ruling class wisdom. 

And in the United States the marquee colleges like Harvard and Yale were built by the Puritans to evangelize the faith.

It is almost as if there has grown up a literature of activism, like the medieval romances that celebrated the ruling-class knights, rough tough feudal thugs that wanted to be thought of as activists for Jesus Christ. Only now it is ruling-class activists wanting to be thought of as activists for the oppressed.

What’s the difference between an activist and a revolutionary? The activist is building his resume; the revolutionary is burning it.

The wages of Activist Culture is what I call the Great Reaction. The subject of our next exciting episode.

I'm Chris Chantrill, and thanks for watching.

The Wrong Turn -- Script

Hello, I'm Chris Chantrill. Let's talk about why I think that the left -- and indeed most of our educated elite -- has taken a Wrong Turn.

If I am right that we modern humans can best be understood as Three Peoples -- Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates -- each with its own understanding of the Meaning of Life, and if I am right that it is right and proper for each of these Three Peoples to live according to the light of their religion, then what about the left's moral narrative, of "oppressed peoples, allies, and white oppressors?"

In the left's narrative, the oppressed peoples are oppressed by the white oppressors and it is the sacred duty, the calling of the allies, to smash the white oppressors and redeem the oppressed peoples from their bondage.

Notice the basic assumption that the allies have the whole world figured out. There are oppressed peoples and they want to be liberated. There are white oppressors and they ought to be smashed. And the allies. These noble people have no purpose other than to redeem and liberate the oppressed peoples.

Not.

Do you see the problem? The ally narrative interprets the whole human world as a cheap morality play, with the hero and the ingenue and the villain already determined. How do you know, allies? Are you sure? This is real life, not cheap entertainment.

How do the oppressed peoples want to live their lives? Did the allies ever ask them?

Whatabout the white oppressors? After they have been properly stripped of their evil powers, how do they get to live?

And what exactly is the angle of the allies -- after they have set the world to rights and there is no more need for politics and power?

I say that the world view of the educated elite -- the allies, the evolved people -- is a cramped and narrow view of life by, for, and all about the educated elite, and shut up you peasants.

And I call it a Wrong Turn.

German Turn -- Script

Hello, I'm Chris Chantrill. Let's talk about what I call The German Turn.

Ok, you ask, why? Because I think that the way to understand the modern world is through the arc of German thinking, from Kant to Jung.

Some of these Germans were good Germans, some of them were bad. And one or two were just naughty.

Most Anglo-Saxons are proud to believe logic and reason -- and sneer at people led by their feelings. 

But the Germans, prompted by the British David Hume, realized that this was not so. We are all governed by our feelings, including the unconscious feelings that we don't even feel.

With Immanuel Kant, the Germans believed that we cannot know things-in-themselves, but only appearances, appearances that get processed by our brains into a picture of reality.

I maintain that Kant leads directly, do not pass Go, to the modern physics of relativity and quantum mechanics -- developed mainly by Germans and a Dane or two.

I believe that Kant leads directly to German psychology, with Schopenhauer, Freud, and Jung and the theory of the unconscious. 

Guess what? It was Schopenhauer that invented "repression," not Freud.

Then there is Richard Wagner. His operas were all about characters in medieval romances, Tannhauser, Lohengrin, Tristan und Isolde, Parsifal, and a rehash of the Nordic myths in The Ring of the Nibelung. You could say he was digging into the past in order to understand the future. Wagner was a bit of an anti-Semite.

But then there were the bad Germans. I mean guys like rich kid Karl Marx that created an economics of worker "immiseration" on classical economics the day before it was superceded by the marginal revolution of 1870. But enough of them.

Let's talk about Nietzsche: he is my naughty German. Lefties dismiss him as "the Nazis' favorite intellectual." Maybe so, but Nietzsche argued that for guys like him the old God had Died, and this meant a brutal process of decadence -- the dying off of the old order -- followed by nihilism, then the terror of the eternal recurrence -- think Bill Murray and Groundhog Day -- and finally the birth of a new god with the revaluation of all values. 

Nietzsche's man of the future was his egoistic Übermensch, but I think that the new man will be a Sacrificial Hero rather than a Warrior Hero.

Why is that? Because the Good German that came after Nietzsche was Carl Jung. OK, so he was Swiss. And Jung, following Wagner, reckoned that if we wanted to understand human nature it would help to look at the ancient myths in a new light: not as superstitions but as universal human experiences. 

Jung talked about archetypes and the collective unconscious. And one ancient archetype is the Sacrificial Hero, as in Jesus Christ.

After Jung? The Frankfurt School, in particular Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in their Dialectic of Enlightenment. They took the Marxian narrative of bourgeois vs. proletarian and made it bigger: mankind vs. the world. "Enlightenment behaves towards things as a dictator towards men."

Finally, there is Jürgen Habermas. He was a leftist, but he climbed out of the Marxian hell-hole.

For him, humans are not merely rational actors dominating the world with instrumental reason. They also live in a community in the world -- he called it the life-world. Humans live with other humans with whom they communicate and develop moral agreement.

Oh, and don't forget the German Wernher von Braun. He helped America win the race to the moon.

What does it mean that humans live in a life-world animated by a shared experience of archetypes ancient and modern and the mystery of the collective unconscious?

That's what my reductive Three Peoples theory is all about, up next.

I'm Chris Chantrill, and thanks for watching.

Who Said: "Never Trust Experts"

Yeah. Back in the day, there was a politician that said, in a letter to a pal:

No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you never should trust experts. If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.

Right first time. It was Lord Salisbury, three times Prime Minister of Britland. And he actually practiced what he preached, because he acted as his own Foreign Secretary and kept the Brit Foreign Office and Sir Humphrey out of the loop.

But, in the end, I am not sure that keeping the striped-pants boys out of the loop was such a good idea. Because, 13 years after Salisbury gave up the premiership to his nephew Arthur Balfour, Britland got into World War I. Idiots. And I think the main reason for that was that Balfour and the striped-pants boys didn't have a clue.

For a start, they entered into an Entente Cordiale with France that Germany interpreted as an aggressive act against the Second Reich. Great going, guys! Generations of British politicians insisted that Britain should not ally with any continental power because the other powers would feel cornered. So the first thing that genius Balfour did was ally with a continental power.

Well, we know all about experts now, don't we, after the glorious success of the Wu Flu epidemic. They really didn't have a clue, and they recommended to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other blue-state governors that they should unload hospitals of recovering Wu Flu patients and send them into nursing homes.

Except that nursing homes have a ton of elderly patients and the recovering Wu Flu patients infected the elderly and as a result about 50 percent of the Wu Flu deaths have been among the elderly nursing home and retirement home community.

Now I know that everyone wants to blame bossy Karen Cuomo for this, but, hey, did Cuomo ever bother to read a word about Lord Salisbury and his advice about experts? Or, for that matter, the wisdom of another 19th century statesman that was probably not an idiot, Otto von Bismarck, the chap that figured out how to unite Germany in three nice little wars instead of one big one? I doubt it.

So Gov. Cuomo was just ignorant, an idiot like most politicians.

Now, of course, I have a deep philosophical system that addresses the Expert Problem. I understand, from reading The Millionaire Next Door and other works that the natural and physical thing for the scions of the educated Gentry is to become Experts, salaried experts in government and tenured experts in universities. It is much easier than a genuine life of creation, as in creating a new business, or even creating a new political party.

The scion of the educated Gentry loads up on university degrees at selective colleges and internships at well-connected institutions and then gets to work in the bureaucracy that supports the ruling class. In the government and in the university. Good work if you can get it.

And it doesn't matter if you make a complete mess of everything and bring the nation to the brink of disaster. You still got your gubmint pension, don't you Peter Strzok? You still got your tenure don't you, Professor Numbskull? Although, I suppose, things could get a little dicey if you once did a comic turn in blackface.

Now, I believe, according to my Four Laws, that administrative government of the experts cannot work because 1) there isn't enough bandwidth, 2) when you regulate business the regulated end up dominating the regulators, and 3) Government programs cannot work because you can never reform them, public school teachers. And that's to say nothing of the First Law, that socialism -- i.e., any gubmint program -- cannot work because it cannot compute prices.

So you should never trust experts because the only thing you should trust is the market and its prices and the fundamental fact of the market that it forces people to act responsibly and trust-worthily. Not because that is good or bad but because if you are not responsible and trustworthy nobody will want to deal with you.

But our liberal friends rather like the experts, and you can see why. First of all, it means jobs for liberals. Secondly, you can appeal to experts as kings once appealed to tame priests and diviners.

Yeah, funny thing how experts so often propose things that give the government more power. I wonder why that is so? And when the Little Darlings of the ruling class want to go out and protest, why, the experts say it is just fine. But it is not fine for ordinary commoners to go out and socially distance on the beach.

Yep. We live in interesting times. But I wouldn't mind if the present moment ends up giving experts a black eye. It might save these United States from civil war and demolition.