Brilliant post. You can also see this with other 'idea-based communities' like companies, which are usually replaced by other companies, rather than reforming themselves to deal with a new business paradigm. I think that Tove Karlsson (Wood From Eden)'s work on madness is helpful for understanding this.
Definitely. And when you look into any case, there were always some people calling for change, but stronger forces opposing it. Tove does some great stuff, haven’t read the ones on madness though, will check them out.
Great analysis. It’s very useful to establish historical precedents. The question of why the establishment refuses to recognise the obvious is of particular interest to me because it’s causing me genuine alienation from my society. I think the answer lies somewhere among the following, none of it especially original:
Political parties across Europe have converged in the bland centre - i.e. the uni-party. Without ideological diversity, there’s no mechanism for change. At the same time, they’re dependent on a progressive civil service and have given away power to various agencies and international bodies. All of that inevitably leads to inertia.
Separately, progressivism has been extremely successful over the last few decades at imbedding its values in society. I have belatedly come over to the dark side, but five years ago, the thought of being immigration-sceptical was revolting to me. That and the cognitive dissonance I have felt over the last few years attest to the extraordinary taboo that exists around immigration and anything that smacks of racism. There’s no social penalty for being a left wing radical, but being opposed to immigration is among the most disreputable things you can be.
And on the point about people inhabiting an idealised political world, I’m increasingly convinced that most people form their politics based on which tribe they admire and which they hate (an instinct that is deeply submerged, of course). It’s an aesthetic judgment. There are policies that the left once championed that the right now does, and vice versa, but what matters aren’t the principles but who is espousing it. This makes people impervious to argument. If you try to change their mind about immigration, then you are by definition from the bad tribe and can be dismissed out of hand.
Taken together, we can’t be surprised that even conservative politicians eventually conform to the consensus. When an astronomical body passes a star it can’t help but be deflected.
Great analysis Will. One of the great advantages of democracies is their ability to course‑correct and reverse errors made by previous administrations. Britain used to be able to do this for example, in the turmoil over the Corn Laws in the 19th century or the abandonment of the Gold Standard in the 1930s. One of the defining features of modern progressive ideology —e specially post‑1997 —has been the outsourcing of British democratic levers to courts, quangos, and NGOs, all three of which are fiercely hostile to changing course on migration for ideological and moral reasons.
Britain increasingly reminds me of the Austro‑Hungarian Empire before 1914. If you read Stefan Zweig’s wonderful memoir The World of Yesterday, you can see how the Empire was already crumbling—from deep ethnic rivalries to its inability to adopt new technologies and industries. Yet the Habsburg court remained so deeply rooted in the traditions and beliefs of the 18th and 19th centuries that it refused to make meaningful concessions, living instead in its own reality bubble. When the great crisis came, an empire and monarchy that had lasted a thousand years—and seemed permanent to its people—vanished forever.
Today, we have an intellectual and political class that still wishes to live in the world of 1998 and simply closes its ears to all criticism. I fear they will not confront reality until it is imposed upon them by events.
Great article but in all the cases mentioned, including the current Western situation, there is a strong emotional factor. Namely a self styled elite believes that their Shi'ite smells incredibly sweeter than that of the hoi poloi and need this destructive policy as a status marker.
"...that elite groups will often hold to a failing ideology right until the end." Any visitor to Paris these days will be slapped right across the face with this situation.
Very nice post and historical examples. The American Confederacy one seems at odds with the others, however: less an entrenched elite opinion than an attempt at radical reform (including seceding from the old elites!) that backfired.
This makes me nervous about cherry-picking. It is certainly the case that sometimes, elites resisting reform leads to bad outcomes, but it is also the case that sometimes, reforms that should have been resisted happen anyway and lead to bad outcomes. It's unclear to me that the historical record shows a bias towards either of these two possibilities.
I think the Confederacy was an entrenched elite opinion in that they wanted to keep the old system of slavery and a loose confederation, e.g. a sort of Thomas Jefferson vision of the US
Simple and clear explanation of the position. One might wonder why progressives are so attached to a an ideology which is clearly ersatz when measured against who they actually are and the answer must be various forms of self enrichment and empowerment. That which expands the state (as most broadly defined to include eg universities) happens.
Brilliant post. You can also see this with other 'idea-based communities' like companies, which are usually replaced by other companies, rather than reforming themselves to deal with a new business paradigm. I think that Tove Karlsson (Wood From Eden)'s work on madness is helpful for understanding this.
Definitely. And when you look into any case, there were always some people calling for change, but stronger forces opposing it. Tove does some great stuff, haven’t read the ones on madness though, will check them out.
All the more impressive to read accounts of companies managing a turnaround, e.g. Google catching up with AI
Great analysis. It’s very useful to establish historical precedents. The question of why the establishment refuses to recognise the obvious is of particular interest to me because it’s causing me genuine alienation from my society. I think the answer lies somewhere among the following, none of it especially original:
Political parties across Europe have converged in the bland centre - i.e. the uni-party. Without ideological diversity, there’s no mechanism for change. At the same time, they’re dependent on a progressive civil service and have given away power to various agencies and international bodies. All of that inevitably leads to inertia.
Separately, progressivism has been extremely successful over the last few decades at imbedding its values in society. I have belatedly come over to the dark side, but five years ago, the thought of being immigration-sceptical was revolting to me. That and the cognitive dissonance I have felt over the last few years attest to the extraordinary taboo that exists around immigration and anything that smacks of racism. There’s no social penalty for being a left wing radical, but being opposed to immigration is among the most disreputable things you can be.
And on the point about people inhabiting an idealised political world, I’m increasingly convinced that most people form their politics based on which tribe they admire and which they hate (an instinct that is deeply submerged, of course). It’s an aesthetic judgment. There are policies that the left once championed that the right now does, and vice versa, but what matters aren’t the principles but who is espousing it. This makes people impervious to argument. If you try to change their mind about immigration, then you are by definition from the bad tribe and can be dismissed out of hand.
Taken together, we can’t be surprised that even conservative politicians eventually conform to the consensus. When an astronomical body passes a star it can’t help but be deflected.
Great analysis Will. One of the great advantages of democracies is their ability to course‑correct and reverse errors made by previous administrations. Britain used to be able to do this for example, in the turmoil over the Corn Laws in the 19th century or the abandonment of the Gold Standard in the 1930s. One of the defining features of modern progressive ideology —e specially post‑1997 —has been the outsourcing of British democratic levers to courts, quangos, and NGOs, all three of which are fiercely hostile to changing course on migration for ideological and moral reasons.
Britain increasingly reminds me of the Austro‑Hungarian Empire before 1914. If you read Stefan Zweig’s wonderful memoir The World of Yesterday, you can see how the Empire was already crumbling—from deep ethnic rivalries to its inability to adopt new technologies and industries. Yet the Habsburg court remained so deeply rooted in the traditions and beliefs of the 18th and 19th centuries that it refused to make meaningful concessions, living instead in its own reality bubble. When the great crisis came, an empire and monarchy that had lasted a thousand years—and seemed permanent to its people—vanished forever.
Today, we have an intellectual and political class that still wishes to live in the world of 1998 and simply closes its ears to all criticism. I fear they will not confront reality until it is imposed upon them by events.
Great article but in all the cases mentioned, including the current Western situation, there is a strong emotional factor. Namely a self styled elite believes that their Shi'ite smells incredibly sweeter than that of the hoi poloi and need this destructive policy as a status marker.
"...that elite groups will often hold to a failing ideology right until the end." Any visitor to Paris these days will be slapped right across the face with this situation.
Very nice post and historical examples. The American Confederacy one seems at odds with the others, however: less an entrenched elite opinion than an attempt at radical reform (including seceding from the old elites!) that backfired.
This makes me nervous about cherry-picking. It is certainly the case that sometimes, elites resisting reform leads to bad outcomes, but it is also the case that sometimes, reforms that should have been resisted happen anyway and lead to bad outcomes. It's unclear to me that the historical record shows a bias towards either of these two possibilities.
I think the Confederacy was an entrenched elite opinion in that they wanted to keep the old system of slavery and a loose confederation, e.g. a sort of Thomas Jefferson vision of the US
That’s a defensible interpretation
Simple and clear explanation of the position. One might wonder why progressives are so attached to a an ideology which is clearly ersatz when measured against who they actually are and the answer must be various forms of self enrichment and empowerment. That which expands the state (as most broadly defined to include eg universities) happens.