This piece was beautifully articulated. You voiced the very same concerns that i have had with the movement in our culture and institutions that calls the very foundations of our wonderful heritage and unprecedented freedoms into question by re-framing everything good as bad, inverting reality and ignoring how amazing our system truly is. Thank you.
We need a renewal from the center, built from the ground up; not motivated by a particular policy or a particular person, but simply the restoration of the foundational principles that have made the American experiment the best thing in the(political) history of the world. And we must start in the place where real citizens have a competitive advantage: Actual conversations, in person, face to face, with other human beings. Slow, yes. Annoying, yes. But also effective, also humane, and also totally beyond the reach of the powerful.
Your article is eloquent, and well intended. Makes lots of excellent points. I don't support Rs, Ds, or any political party, and I agree with your characterization of the extremes in each.
But this is where noble intent splits from practical reality--essentially all the drivers of change embrace force and coercion as the means to fix their version of the problems. And that (even they don't realize it) is THE problem.
There is no one advocating for a live and let live approach to approach to life. It's OK to have our differences about nearly anything, as long as we are free to pursue our own life, liberty, and happiness. I wish any policy maker embraced this as the solution.
But it seems that everyone driving the conversation wants to impose their version of "happiness" on everyone else. That middle ground or nuance where most people reside, is not where the narrative for any public policy resides.
There has never been a moment in human history where the majority rose up together for anything. It is the committed minority that wins every battle and shapes every part of history. That great silent middle is largely content to do nothing, much like it has for all of human history.
And with those extremes being the respective minorities shaping the future, who is left to advance a pluralistic view of the world? Classic liberalism, the driving force for the greatest expansion of peace and prosperity through time, is not embraced by anyone--not Rs, Ds, left, right, or whatever popular label you want to apply. Yes, the average human intuitively embraces those principles, but not those who seek change.
The founding of the US was a radical and insane departure from the status quo because that tireless minority that effectuated the change created a society rooted in the protection of individual rights. This was not the great middle at the time. They were extreme and unique in their views. They were a fringe. They were a minority. They did not represent the mainstream world.
We were all very lucky that was an extreme that was right in how they approached the construction of a society, so that their extreme became the norm over time and we benefitted in a wonderful way.
But none of the extremes and active minorities of today are advocating for a return to this classically liberal approach to society. They don't want a world free from despotism. They want to be despots that know what is best for everyone. To steal a line from Hayek, it's their "fatal conceit." They believe if their perfect dictator could be in charge with the right knowledge and power, they would get it right and fix everything.
Summary: yes, the great middle has far more in common, but they aren't the drivers of change. No one driving the change has a view of the world that advances the pluralistic and classically liberal vision that brought us the peace and prosperity we enjoy. They don't even realize they seek to tear it all down. They are the destroyers, and they don't even know it.
This piece was beautifully articulated. You voiced the very same concerns that i have had with the movement in our culture and institutions that calls the very foundations of our wonderful heritage and unprecedented freedoms into question by re-framing everything good as bad, inverting reality and ignoring how amazing our system truly is. Thank you.
We need a renewal from the center, built from the ground up; not motivated by a particular policy or a particular person, but simply the restoration of the foundational principles that have made the American experiment the best thing in the(political) history of the world. And we must start in the place where real citizens have a competitive advantage: Actual conversations, in person, face to face, with other human beings. Slow, yes. Annoying, yes. But also effective, also humane, and also totally beyond the reach of the powerful.
Nice piece.
Happy Independence Day to you as well, Denis
Your article is eloquent, and well intended. Makes lots of excellent points. I don't support Rs, Ds, or any political party, and I agree with your characterization of the extremes in each.
But this is where noble intent splits from practical reality--essentially all the drivers of change embrace force and coercion as the means to fix their version of the problems. And that (even they don't realize it) is THE problem.
There is no one advocating for a live and let live approach to approach to life. It's OK to have our differences about nearly anything, as long as we are free to pursue our own life, liberty, and happiness. I wish any policy maker embraced this as the solution.
But it seems that everyone driving the conversation wants to impose their version of "happiness" on everyone else. That middle ground or nuance where most people reside, is not where the narrative for any public policy resides.
There has never been a moment in human history where the majority rose up together for anything. It is the committed minority that wins every battle and shapes every part of history. That great silent middle is largely content to do nothing, much like it has for all of human history.
And with those extremes being the respective minorities shaping the future, who is left to advance a pluralistic view of the world? Classic liberalism, the driving force for the greatest expansion of peace and prosperity through time, is not embraced by anyone--not Rs, Ds, left, right, or whatever popular label you want to apply. Yes, the average human intuitively embraces those principles, but not those who seek change.
The founding of the US was a radical and insane departure from the status quo because that tireless minority that effectuated the change created a society rooted in the protection of individual rights. This was not the great middle at the time. They were extreme and unique in their views. They were a fringe. They were a minority. They did not represent the mainstream world.
We were all very lucky that was an extreme that was right in how they approached the construction of a society, so that their extreme became the norm over time and we benefitted in a wonderful way.
But none of the extremes and active minorities of today are advocating for a return to this classically liberal approach to society. They don't want a world free from despotism. They want to be despots that know what is best for everyone. To steal a line from Hayek, it's their "fatal conceit." They believe if their perfect dictator could be in charge with the right knowledge and power, they would get it right and fix everything.
Summary: yes, the great middle has far more in common, but they aren't the drivers of change. No one driving the change has a view of the world that advances the pluralistic and classically liberal vision that brought us the peace and prosperity we enjoy. They don't even realize they seek to tear it all down. They are the destroyers, and they don't even know it.
Hah, sounds like you're a piece of shit. Good to know. Unsubscribe.