Ace, Hayek, Hoffer, Sowell

Posted on | July 1, 2014 | 81 Comments

A few months ago, Ace of Spades pissed me off — entirely by accident, I’m sure — when he recommended Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have been recommending for years. (In 2003, I actually wrote Neil Postman’s obituary in a freelance article for the Guardian.) Of course, there was no logical reason for me to be pissed at Ace, and my sense of proprietorship over Postman — his leading advocate in the conservative blogosphere — was utterly irrational. In a situation like that, however, you feel as if you have been cheated out of a hat-tip; alternately, if your frequent writing on a particular subject has been so overlooked that your friends didn’t even notice it, you feel a sense of futile insignificance.

One must be proactive and future-oriented to maintain the crucial sense of psychological agency necessary to good mental health. Therefore deeming it necessary to preempt any further erosion of my self-esteem, I took notice when Ace wrote this yesterday:

It occurs to me that the Left is attempting to create a system wherein there are two different classes of citizenship, one fully possessed of its right to speak and act politically, the other whose rights in this regard are sharply curtailed. . . .
The Left, were it to have its way, would forbid anyone who is not primarily in the business of politics (or working for the government or university) from exercising their full political rights.
If you work in any other industry, your rights are substantially reduced. . . .
The only people who would be permitted to speak on political issues, or at in accordance with their social/cultural/religious/political principles, would be the Political Class Itself, which is of course largely “progressive.”

Read the whole thing. The truth of Ace’s observations is indisputable and, of course, nobody has a copyright on truth. But this idea, that the Left desires to constitute itself as an elite with special privileges, is not new. Nor is Ace the first one to observe that the Left is different from the Right in terms of both its motives and purposes. Therefore, let me get ahead of the game with some recommended reading:

Friedrich Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism” — Everybody knows Hayek for The Road to Serfdom, but this 1949 essay — a mere 14 pages long, packed with brilliant insights — answers rather definitively the enduring question of why intellectuals almost invariably ally themselves with the Left. The short version: There is simply more work for scholars and writers to do in the imagining of a new scheme of things than there is in conservatism. Explaining and defending an existing traditional way of life against its critics can be an extraordinary intellectual feat at times, but is inherently less “creative” than the business of the Left, i.e., dreaming up untried social, economic and political experiments. The claim that conservatives are “anti-intellectual” can be understood as arising from this factor; because intellectuals are so naturally inclined toward idealistic experimental Progress, their predominant leftist orientation makes it appear that all the Smart People are in agreement, despite the fact that other equally intelligent people — though less numerous, and less celebrated within the academia/media axis — make strong arguments against them.
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements — Anyone who is interested in understanding the psychology of politics simply must read this 1951 classic. Written at a time when memories of the Third Reich were very fresh, and when the menace of Communist aggression was the greatest threat facing the world, Hoffer analyzed the personal and emotional facts that attract misfits and malcontents to what he called “mass movements.” Hoffer’s insights in this matter have universal application. There are certain types of personalities who, dissatisfied with Ordinary Life, seek psychological satisfaction in the pursuit of an Ideal World. Do yourself a favor: Buy a copy of The True Believer and put it on your nightstand for bedtime reading (or, perhaps, in your bathroom) so that you can just pick it up and re-read it from time to time. It will help you remember that progressives are suffering from a kind of mental disorder, and do not deserve to be answered as if they were entirely sane.
Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy — This is the book that I most often recommend as the best one-volume analysis of liberalism ever published. What Sowell demonstrates is that liberals pursue certain “crusades” in order to prove to themselves their own moral superiority — the Politics of Narcissism, essentially. The fact that the policies resulting from these liberal crusades actually harm the people they were supposedly undertaken to help? Oh, never mind that, and also never mind any data which prove the harmfulness or futility of liberal policies. Sowell has an entire chapter called “The Irrelevance of Evidence,” wherein he demonstrates how no liberal can ever accept factual proof of liberalism’s errors.

So there’s three very valuable recommendations, and if Ace starts quoting or name-checking these works in the near future when discussing the progressive Political Class, the lack of a hat-tip won’t inflict such a wound on my fragile psyche. This is not to say that the whole point of exercising influence is to obtain recognition for that influence. However, the feeling that one’s influence is being wrongly ignored — however irrational that feeling may be — can become a wound that festers unless it is recognized for what it is. Having seen what untreated cases of butt-hurt can do to vulnerable minds, concern for my own mental health requires this confession.

Blogger Mood Disorder is a persistent problem in this business. Readers can help treat this disorder: Hit the freaking tip jar.

<br />

Category: Ace of Spades, Intellectuals

Comments

81 Responses to “Ace, Hayek, Hoffer, Sowell”

M. Thompson
July 1st, 2014 @ 11:25 am

Question on the Granuiad: How much did they pay you?

Also, as a broke college student, I can’t afford to hit the tip jar here.
RKae
July 1st, 2014 @ 11:33 am

On Hayek’s observation of intellectuals: That’s the entire reason I’m a conservative. I believe that there is indeed a destination; an end; a satisfactory life for humans; a way to live that is “done” and needs no modification. It’s not a never-ending quest to reinvent the economy and the culture over and over.

The inability to be satisfied is not genius. It’s just delusional.
robertstacymccain
July 1st, 2014 @ 11:46 am

Oh, the Guardian paid quite nicely. As I recall, the fee was over $200, although the check was denominated in pounds, and I had difficulty getting it accepted at my bank.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 1st, 2014 @ 12:02 pm

In a situation like that, however, you feel as if you have been cheated out of a hat-tip; alternately, if your frequent writing on a particular subject has been so overlooked that your friends didn’t even notice it, you feel a sense of futile insignificance.

I feel your pain sometimes!
Luis Gutierrez: Obama can ‘heal’ undocumented | Batshit Crazy News
July 1st, 2014 @ 12:04 pm

[…] TOM: Hitting the tip jar can help treat Blogger Mood Disorder! […]
gastorgrab
July 1st, 2014 @ 12:20 pm

I believe the left creates a new “oppressed victim” group every 3.9 seconds for the purpose of one day putting into law the “protected” status of the entire Democratic party.

As I was typing this, 4 brand new progressive minorities have just been discriminated against by the evil “white male establishment”.
Earl Scruggs
July 1st, 2014 @ 12:20 pm

It’s funny, AOSHQ has been at the top ranks of the conservative blogosphere for a while, but it seems like ace has only recently awakened to the bad faith of the Left.
ConsAreDeath
July 1st, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

No, progressives are not mentally ill, nor is any person who wants a more, dare I say, “collective” form of social organization. The collective of form of social organization is the original form of social organization when people relied on one another, in the form of a tribe(or family), for survival. What conservatives want is a form of survival dependent solely on the magic tickets(MONEY) which creates alienation from the family(ironic that you’re the family values party!), and the rest of society, and leaves the individual in solitary, abject terror, cut off from any help, and in constant fear for his own survival. Ironically you call this “logical”, and even worse, “freedom”. And then on top of that you advocate that a few select alphas should have the right to hoard all the magic tickets to themselves thereby decreasing the chances of survival for the majority of people.
WrongCon
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:03 pm

To paraphrase Ludwig Von Mises, intellectuals hate capitalism because they feel they are superior to the business man, or woman, and deprived of the social ranking, and wealth, that has been bestowed upon them. This has been the case for hundreds of years, and ever since the free enterprise system has seen the ascendancy of the merchant class over the scientists, artists, intellectuals, and clergy. Truth be told, the merchant class, are generally crude philistines, and because of their slavish devotion to money above all else have debased culture. You want a group of people to blame for the sexualized, debauched nature of American life then look no further than the business community.
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:19 pm

I value you, RSM!
(my esteem and $1 will buy you a Coke anywhere in town!)
John_LC_Silvoney
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:21 pm

It’s lefty sockpuppet -palooza !!
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

Aztecs used to sacrifice humans, before Cortés nicely did away with them.
So not only did the Aztecs have “originalism,” they also had the added cachet of the tribal, indigenous people.
Do you want to bring human sacrifice back? Or do you agree that “originalism” is a poor basis for a policy?
paulzummo
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:33 pm

You know, I could waste several minutes responding to this “argument,” but really this just about sums it up for me.
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

And by the way, you have abjectly FAILED the Ideological Turing Test. Come back again when you’ve learned how to accurately represent conservative positions.
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:39 pm

Damned foreigners and their Monopoly money!
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:42 pm

“…crude philistines…their slavish devotion to money above all else…”
Good thing Bill, Hillary!, and Chelsea don’t care at all about money.
Why, they’re just like us “regular people!”

…and then there’s Al Gore, George Soros, Tom Steyer, Barak Obama (worth over $10 million, earned in “public service”)…
Gunga
July 1st, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

mmmmmm…I think you missed an HT to Ladd Ehlinger in there somewhere…
Also, gotta love the commenter equating collectivism with the family. It makes me wonder about his/her/its family…purely on the basis that my family never sent me to a forced labor camp for disagreeing with their politics, never stole my property, and never forced me to replace God with their current Dear Leader. Also, I love Willy Wonka references.
ConsAreDeath
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:21 pm

Ad hominem. Try again, jerk-off. And you’re telling me the conservative position isnt to leave people in the street when they’re down economically, or deny them basic healthcare? Really? We must be arguing with phantoms all these years, or you, and you’re representatives can’t adequately verbalize their positions.
ConsAreDeath
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:24 pm

Oh, really? Your position isn’t if you’re out of a job, and money to sleep in your car, beg for change, be called a loser, and cut off from any form of social services? We must have you confused with progressives then? Own your beliefs, idiot. And yeah, because we wont a more fair distribution of resources, and a safety net, we want human sacrifice, too. sad, that you don’t feel even dumber asking such a question.
WrongCon
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:26 pm

I wouldnt vote for Hillary Clinton, so keep blabbing if you feel like it, but stop projecting your rigid adherence to party on others.
JeffWeimer
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:27 pm

Actually, it’s not. That’s a strawman you’ve been wrestling with. It would help if you actually considered our arguments from our perspective instead of making up our motivations for us.
ConsAreDeath
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:29 pm

Originalism is a poor basis for policy? HUH? Weird that you’re a conservative because “originalism” is how you interpret the constitution, and why women can’t get basic contraception through their healthcare. You’ll blab that it’s about religious freedom, but the instinct, and primal motivation is you dont like seeing women have freedom.
Moonbat to English translation
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:44 pm

“Dammit, you ratted us out! No faiiiiiir! You’re not allowed to accurately call us out! We’re supposed to keep lying to maintain our grasp on power over you peasants!”
Moonbat to English translation
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:45 pm

“I’m just going to keep burning these strawmen to deflect from the fact that I got exposed. I’m a tactical GENIUS!”
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

Are you a guy or a girl ConsAreDeath?
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

1) Thanks for telling me what I believe. I’m sure you know that better than I do.
2) Considering the massive number of deaths from liberalism in general and environmentalism in particular, yes…you do wont [sic] human sacrifice.
Idiot.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:51 pm

Did you type that post one handed? Come on, tell us the truth!
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:53 pm

She’s kinda shrill, isn’t she? And not very likeable.
I’m glad we can agree on something.
Gavrila Derzhavin
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:54 pm

A collective form of social organization works in small bands and tribes, such as those of our ancient ancestors.

That world ended about 2,000 years ago.
Gavrila Derzhavin
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:55 pm

As Lenin asked:

Who decides what is fair for whom?
Mike G.
July 1st, 2014 @ 2:59 pm

Now that’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are!
Mike G.
July 1st, 2014 @ 3:03 pm

After reading this “comment”, there’s three seconds of my life I’ll never get back.
Gavrila Derzhavin
July 1st, 2014 @ 3:04 pm

Today’s liberalism is basically a primitive, foreign, hostile, counter-Christian religion.
Shia LaBeouf to Cop, ‘Do You Know Who The F**k I Am?’ | Regular Right Guy
July 1st, 2014 @ 3:13 pm

[…] Ace, Hayek, Hoffer, Sowell […]
Randy_Rager
July 1st, 2014 @ 4:06 pm

I do believe we have a winner for this year’s Dog’s Breakfast Ramblebabble!
Adjoran
July 1st, 2014 @ 4:13 pm

This is simply not true.

Everything you “know” is wrong.
Adjoran
July 1st, 2014 @ 4:13 pm

Trans-something or other. Oh – transtroll?
Adjoran
July 1st, 2014 @ 4:16 pm

Ah, there’s the good old butt-hurt McCain we used to know!

Have a tissue, Nancy!

Seems like old times . . .
paulzummo
July 1st, 2014 @ 5:57 pm

“Ad hominem. Try again, jerk-off. ”

First off, strictly speaking, it’s not an ad hominem. Second, whining about ad hominem (incorrectly) and then delivering an ad hominem is cute.

As for the rest of your, umm argument, all I can say is “drugs are bad, mmmkay.”
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 6:09 pm

I think there’s some linguistic confusion on your part (a common mistake with lefties). So let me explain that for you:

“Originalism” in terms of Constitutional jurisprudence means adhering to the original intent of the founders. Conservatives agree with this approach because they agree with the timeless principles upon which the founders based the Constitution.

“Originalism” in terms of your post merely refers to systems or philosophies that came earlier in time. In fact, earliest. As a temporal matter, it makes no reference to principles upon which these systems were based.

You’ll note, there was no mention of God above.
kilo6
July 1st, 2014 @ 6:35 pm

Lol, suggest you try reading the words of the people who envisioned and discussed the “collectivism” you’re talking about. Hint, it’s neo feudal one world government.
Your statements are quite foolish in light of 100+ years of people writing about this topic.

See- Arnold Toynbee

George Soros

Cecil Rhodes

Zbigniew Brzezinski

various Rockefeller family members

Carroll Quigley

Also John Taylor Gatto’s books on the origins of our public schools mass indoctrination centers are quite comprehensive and touch this issue.

— just a few names that come to mind aside from what RSM already mentioned, not a comprehensive list.

Guess what sparky, ALL of us end up on the shit end of this system as envisioned. The only irony is you seem to be eager for the enslavement of yourself and your descendants
Bob Belvedere
July 1st, 2014 @ 7:08 pm

That’s why he’s not on my daily ‘Must Read’ list, like TOM and Protein Wisdom are.
cmdr358
July 1st, 2014 @ 7:30 pm

Want to ask the residents of the former USSR about the “collective”?
How about Cubans? (I mean real Cubans not the Miami type)
The list goes on and on.
The problem with the collective society that you are enamored with is that there are still people at the top of the so-called collective. Those people tell you what role they’ve chosen for you, how much of your money they’re going to confiscate, where you are going to live , etc.

Now me, I’m just a working stiff. I go out every morning rain or shine to work on the railroad. I make a good living, live in a modest home and enjoy time with my gal on my days off. I live a good life because my parents instilled me with some good values. I earn what earn and live within my means. Don’t want a handout from you and don’t want to hand you or anybody else my earnings.

I suspect that what your really after is less responsibility and less accountability in your life. You’re willing to share your pain and your money with me as long as the government is making sure that I’m sharing mine with you. Hey! We can all be miserable together…that’s only fair right?

If you want to live in a collective, go live in one. There’s plenty of them all over the country. Seriously, more power to you.

Just let me live my life okay? I don’t want any of your stuff and I can’t really afford to part with anymore of mine. No offense.
cmdr358
July 1st, 2014 @ 7:40 pm

Serious question here okay?

Why should I have to pay for basic contraception for a woman that I don’t know?

This isn’t a “women’s health” issue.
Not anymore than abortion is a woman’s health issue.( BTW I am and always have agreed with a woman’s right to choose)
I don’t agree with abortion. I think it’s an outrage as a matter of fact. The thing is, I’ve got this thing about not being told how to live my life by complete strangers and so I try my best not to do it to others.

You want contraception- get it yourself.
Want an abortion? If you feel that you must….

But why should anyone be required to pay for what you want? Please explain your rational in wanting to reach into my pocket to pay for your pills?
cmdr358
July 1st, 2014 @ 7:43 pm

“You’ll note, there was no mention of God above.”

Heathen!
I denounce you!
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

I denounce myself.
cmdr358
July 1st, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

ConsAreDeath would probably like to see the establishment of a governmental agency responsible for all denunciations ( to keep it fair, of course).
Until then we’ll just have to depend upon the honor system and the TOM collective.
Wombat_socho
July 1st, 2014 @ 8:05 pm

Probably the best of the bon mots about this is “We’ll get our laws off your ovaries as soon as you get your vagina out of my wallet.”
Matt_SE
July 1st, 2014 @ 8:07 pm

Well, of COURSE a government agency; there’s paperwork to be filled out, in triplicate. And it’s not like it’s going to fill ITSELF out!
cmdr358
July 1st, 2014 @ 8:09 pm

Do you really believe that conservatives actually have an agreed upon policy that is to screw people over or hold them back from reaching their full potential?

Do you think there’s some clandestine meeting that we all attend and consciously decide “yeah, who are we going to fu¢k over next?

Didn’t you start out here by stating that progressives are not mentally ill? You really ought reevaluate one of those positions.