I don’t agree with this idea as stated, but it may be necessary to spell out such things, if only to see their weakness, or perhaps some strength in other margins that are more unusual or less likely. Here it is:
People, especially “thinkers,” like to believe that they serve all kinds of good purposes in the intellectual infrastructure. But in fact their main effect is to raise or lower the status of prominent people in their society.
Noam Chomsky, for example, has degraded the American elite. That is his long-term effect, not that he recommended sympathizing with the Khmer Rouge. Too many people, for better or worse, are very skeptical of a lot of things because of Chomsky.
The New York Times, by contrast, works tirelessly to elevate the status of some. It tries especially hard to raise the status of the Democratic elite, but it still raises the bar for the most part.
Most “heterodox” thinkers like to think that they promote a narrow understanding of which elites are right and wrong. And that’s really what some of their more discerning readers are taking away. But their most important overall effect is to raise the status of the elite. They make public discussion of issues better and more energetic (one hopes). Therefore, the longer the period ends, the higher the status of the elite. Sorry mate, I know that wasn’t exactly your intention!
If you teach at a high school or Ivy League, your overall effect is to increase the selection rate. Except for a few such people who make terrible mistakes and end up in disgrace. Or in a few cases they may be falsely accused. If not, the simple fact of “smart, successful person with high institutions” is the main message you send.
In previous media systems, it was difficult to do anything to permanently reduce the status of elites. In fact it’s amazing that Chomsky was able to do this, and without (before) the help of the internet.
Today it is very easy to downgrade the status quo, especially because of social media. But even with that help it’s not as easy as you might think. Many times you need the cooperation of the officials themselves in showing their spots to the public, whether they do this consciously or not. They do it a lot actually, a’ la Martin Gurri.
Libertarianism, as it has evolved at the institutional level, greatly elevates the status of elites. It preserves the idea of freedom in public speech. Libertarians, of course, may not intend this as their ultimate outcome, but they are nonetheless happy to keep the libertarian ideology in circulation. Some “Covid Lockdowns” libertarians, however, may be discounting the status quo.
It’s hard to downgrade a leader without downgrading your own status. It’s not just that the officials won’t like you, or they might treat you and your PR badly. You also have to come across as a negative person, and moreover some of the negativity you create for your target will affect you, at least in the eyes of most of your audience. And constant criticism, rather than building, tends to make people stupid.
As much as most elections are really about “one thing,” there are too many intellectual debates, namely whether elites should be high or low.
Rather than classifying intellectuals as left-wing or right-wing, in this (false) theory we should have a taxonomy of “elite” vs. “to lower the status of privileged people.” Can it be said that Richard Hanania is now in the former stage? Matt Stoller, however, downplayed the situation for some. So we can place them in opposing corners of the real-world political spectrum, albeit for different reasons than you might expect.
What kind of genius would you like to be? What is the most likely impact of the overall profit on public trust? Improving social welfare?
If this post were true, how should it persuade you to change your behavior? What about as a consumer of intellectual products?
Source link