"They are not merely paid for process not outcome, they are paid for processes that continue, or even increase, the worse outcomes actually are."
And indeed the reverse in that if they actually solve a problem their jobs, grants etc. go away. The make their money managing problems rather than solving them. In fact they have nothing in their mental toolbox to help them actually solve issues. Hence we see people like 2Tier Keir completely failing to actually do anything about the issues affecting the UK such as immigration. Neither he nor any of his underlings know how to
The peculiar case of Keir Starmer is quite fascinating, as he represents the eventual outcome of all this absurd politics. He exemplifies the process man. He has risen to the of the political heap in Britain without having rhe slightest political sense. He appears to be an anti-politician, as well as being quite mad. Everything he touches turns to shit. He is universally despised by the publluc, his colleagues...everybody. He appears to quite literally not be human. Describing him as "robotic" does a disservice to robots.
How can this be? Perhaps because all the social systems we rely on have become corrupted by stupid, toxic ideas that defy reality, so now we end up being led by stupid, toxic corrupt people who also defy reality.
I think that Albanese and his vile crew of Orcs and Goblins in the ALP are not far behind Starmer and British Labour in their harmful effects here in Australia.
Hopefully we'll be able vote our way out of this cesspit. The recent elections offer a flicker of hope.
Maybe we should abandoned the idea once and for all, that prevailing attitudes are determined by ideological capture. Moral panics are a much better explanation. And all share a general underlying anxiety that revolutionary new forms of communication force to the surface, leading to more anxiety. Anti-racism or anti-Zionism - it´s all pretty much the same thing.
There was a time when once it had become clear that a leader had lost the support of the public as demonstrated by election results and polling, he would feel obliged to do the honorable thing and resign. No more; Starmer intends to hang on as long as possible, and as Farage has suggested, his doing so will benefit Reform. UK Labour came in on fewer votes than in previous losing elections because Reform had split the vote with Tories in many constituencies. Having only come to office on this fluke of the first past the post system, their legitimacy to pursue highly unpopular policies is obviously questionable. New elections in the UK are clearly called for, but the many Labour incumbents who know they would be ousted will oppose it for all their worth.
The "core of Marxian believers" notion is probably right, but this kicks the can down the road, as far as explanations go.
When I hinted at alternative outcomes ("rightist-hysterical" as a placeholder), I had something in mind which I'll expand a little bit on: I was thinking specifically of the enduring right-wing streak in French academia, in particular in Law Schools (and their faculty). Law studies have been traditionally known as a "bastion" of the Right in France (the standard cliche), and even of the militant far-Right. There's a complicated history there, with the most current manifestations being literally reactionary to the general takeover by the Left from 1968 on. But going back farther, there were strong catholic-conservative, anti-republican and antisemitic streaks among its faculty and of course, its graduates. The legal profession was broadly supportive of Petain's regime and was accordingly somewhat discredited after WWII, with a commensurate rise of the presence and prestige of communists. But it seems that the right-lean never went away.
So, how do we explain its permanence and vitality? In addition to self-selection (youngsters from conservative milieus go to Law School), the teaching of Law in France is inherently geared towards Law and order - and shouldn't it? But somehow, these forces do not seem to apply in the Anglosphere, at least not in the US as far as I can tell. In sum, contingent factors remain important.
Part of France never reconciled itself to the French Revolution.
In the UK, the 1688 Glorious Revolution settlement in the UK never fully consolidated its hold until after the failure of 1745 Jacobite Rebellion.
The US had the advantage of all its unreconcileds left to Canada—the American Revolution actually generated more emigres than the French Revolution from a much smaller population. The US Civil War was a fight between inheritors of the Revolutionary settlement, not for and antis. Yes, it is a continuation of divides that go back in Anglo-US history, and whose modern versions we can still see (Kevin Phillips Cousins’ Wars point) but the relevant Revolutionary Settlements eventually fully consolidated their holds.
France, that never fully happened. It partly did under de Gaulle, but only partly. So, Anglo-America never had a strong throne-and-altar, or equivalent, conservatism. If Burke—a Whig, not a Tory—is your icon of conservative thought, you are not very conservative and do not have a strong conservative (as distinct from prudential liberal) tradition.
Anglo-America is also more prone to universalist delusions, simply because it is around 500 million people protected by oceanic moats. So, while its electoral politics was much less influenced by Marxism, meditations on Marxism ironically found it easier to pervade its academy.
Another ambitious and thought-provoking piece, though the logical thread is long and can sometimes thin out a bit.
For instance, how one gets from "non-accountability" (a useful concept, that) in academia to a systematic posture of "hating on" social success (with the result being the prevalence of inverted moral hierarchies and of the omnicause) is not satisfactorily accounted for.
Your articulation here is that, *since we live in successful societies, moral grandstanding must make an enemy of social success* (I paraphrase). But this doesn't seem to adequately cover the leftist bend of academia and of its spin-offs. To review: non-accountability in academia (especially in the "soft disciplines") encourages "status games" (check); "status games", in turn, encourage a politics of moral purity (check). But something's missing in the middle: why *leftist* (i.e. self-hating and antisocial) purity? One could imagine an alternative universe (or perhaps a period in history if one looks) where the outcome might be a "rightist-hysterical" academia - could one not?
Thus, there are probably other factors at play - in addition to those you skillfully outlined. Perhaps a historical accident, e.g. a one-time take-over of academia and of opinion-shaping industries in the 1970s that has become self-perpetuating? That too is not quite satisfying, I admit.
The key underlying link is there were always a core of Marxian believers who kept perpetuating themselves within academe. Since that sense of grand moral urgency was so attractive, there was selection for what resonated. Hence the ability to develop ways of laundering the underlying oppressor/oppressed template—thus performative antipathy to existing society and its heritage—into forms not contaminated by the failures of Communism proper. The Critical Theory model turned out to be replicable across disciplines (Critical Pedagogy) and identity groups (Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, etc).
The real breakthrough was turning into a status strategy within academe and then, via graduates, across the wider society. A breakthrough that rested both on the adaptation of French Theory and inferring from civil rights struggles that equal outcomes across social groups was to be morally expected and was morally proper.
Paid-by-process is a great way to put it.
"They are not merely paid for process not outcome, they are paid for processes that continue, or even increase, the worse outcomes actually are."
And indeed the reverse in that if they actually solve a problem their jobs, grants etc. go away. The make their money managing problems rather than solving them. In fact they have nothing in their mental toolbox to help them actually solve issues. Hence we see people like 2Tier Keir completely failing to actually do anything about the issues affecting the UK such as immigration. Neither he nor any of his underlings know how to
As usual, it is impossible to avoid quoting nearly every sentence from Lorenzo.
Marvellous analysis, as usual.
The peculiar case of Keir Starmer is quite fascinating, as he represents the eventual outcome of all this absurd politics. He exemplifies the process man. He has risen to the of the political heap in Britain without having rhe slightest political sense. He appears to be an anti-politician, as well as being quite mad. Everything he touches turns to shit. He is universally despised by the publluc, his colleagues...everybody. He appears to quite literally not be human. Describing him as "robotic" does a disservice to robots.
How can this be? Perhaps because all the social systems we rely on have become corrupted by stupid, toxic ideas that defy reality, so now we end up being led by stupid, toxic corrupt people who also defy reality.
I think that Albanese and his vile crew of Orcs and Goblins in the ALP are not far behind Starmer and British Labour in their harmful effects here in Australia.
Hopefully we'll be able vote our way out of this cesspit. The recent elections offer a flicker of hope.
Consider these lines from Kipling. I think people in Starmer´s position have it playing in their heads all the time.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
Ah yes, I am sure he just may! Dunning and Kruger agree.
This is superb.
“….Whether this can be translated into genuine policy solutions in the face of enormous institutional resistance, we shall see.”
I’m deeply skeptical.
Maybe we should abandoned the idea once and for all, that prevailing attitudes are determined by ideological capture. Moral panics are a much better explanation. And all share a general underlying anxiety that revolutionary new forms of communication force to the surface, leading to more anxiety. Anti-racism or anti-Zionism - it´s all pretty much the same thing.
There was a time when once it had become clear that a leader had lost the support of the public as demonstrated by election results and polling, he would feel obliged to do the honorable thing and resign. No more; Starmer intends to hang on as long as possible, and as Farage has suggested, his doing so will benefit Reform. UK Labour came in on fewer votes than in previous losing elections because Reform had split the vote with Tories in many constituencies. Having only come to office on this fluke of the first past the post system, their legitimacy to pursue highly unpopular policies is obviously questionable. New elections in the UK are clearly called for, but the many Labour incumbents who know they would be ousted will oppose it for all their worth.
The "core of Marxian believers" notion is probably right, but this kicks the can down the road, as far as explanations go.
When I hinted at alternative outcomes ("rightist-hysterical" as a placeholder), I had something in mind which I'll expand a little bit on: I was thinking specifically of the enduring right-wing streak in French academia, in particular in Law Schools (and their faculty). Law studies have been traditionally known as a "bastion" of the Right in France (the standard cliche), and even of the militant far-Right. There's a complicated history there, with the most current manifestations being literally reactionary to the general takeover by the Left from 1968 on. But going back farther, there were strong catholic-conservative, anti-republican and antisemitic streaks among its faculty and of course, its graduates. The legal profession was broadly supportive of Petain's regime and was accordingly somewhat discredited after WWII, with a commensurate rise of the presence and prestige of communists. But it seems that the right-lean never went away.
So, how do we explain its permanence and vitality? In addition to self-selection (youngsters from conservative milieus go to Law School), the teaching of Law in France is inherently geared towards Law and order - and shouldn't it? But somehow, these forces do not seem to apply in the Anglosphere, at least not in the US as far as I can tell. In sum, contingent factors remain important.
Part of France never reconciled itself to the French Revolution.
In the UK, the 1688 Glorious Revolution settlement in the UK never fully consolidated its hold until after the failure of 1745 Jacobite Rebellion.
The US had the advantage of all its unreconcileds left to Canada—the American Revolution actually generated more emigres than the French Revolution from a much smaller population. The US Civil War was a fight between inheritors of the Revolutionary settlement, not for and antis. Yes, it is a continuation of divides that go back in Anglo-US history, and whose modern versions we can still see (Kevin Phillips Cousins’ Wars point) but the relevant Revolutionary Settlements eventually fully consolidated their holds.
France, that never fully happened. It partly did under de Gaulle, but only partly. So, Anglo-America never had a strong throne-and-altar, or equivalent, conservatism. If Burke—a Whig, not a Tory—is your icon of conservative thought, you are not very conservative and do not have a strong conservative (as distinct from prudential liberal) tradition.
Anglo-America is also more prone to universalist delusions, simply because it is around 500 million people protected by oceanic moats. So, while its electoral politics was much less influenced by Marxism, meditations on Marxism ironically found it easier to pervade its academy.
Profound wisdom!
Another ambitious and thought-provoking piece, though the logical thread is long and can sometimes thin out a bit.
For instance, how one gets from "non-accountability" (a useful concept, that) in academia to a systematic posture of "hating on" social success (with the result being the prevalence of inverted moral hierarchies and of the omnicause) is not satisfactorily accounted for.
Your articulation here is that, *since we live in successful societies, moral grandstanding must make an enemy of social success* (I paraphrase). But this doesn't seem to adequately cover the leftist bend of academia and of its spin-offs. To review: non-accountability in academia (especially in the "soft disciplines") encourages "status games" (check); "status games", in turn, encourage a politics of moral purity (check). But something's missing in the middle: why *leftist* (i.e. self-hating and antisocial) purity? One could imagine an alternative universe (or perhaps a period in history if one looks) where the outcome might be a "rightist-hysterical" academia - could one not?
Thus, there are probably other factors at play - in addition to those you skillfully outlined. Perhaps a historical accident, e.g. a one-time take-over of academia and of opinion-shaping industries in the 1970s that has become self-perpetuating? That too is not quite satisfying, I admit.
To some extent I cover the gap in my review of Musa al-Gharbi’s ‘We Have Never Been Woke’.
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/great-analysis-dreadful-framing
The key underlying link is there were always a core of Marxian believers who kept perpetuating themselves within academe. Since that sense of grand moral urgency was so attractive, there was selection for what resonated. Hence the ability to develop ways of laundering the underlying oppressor/oppressed template—thus performative antipathy to existing society and its heritage—into forms not contaminated by the failures of Communism proper. The Critical Theory model turned out to be replicable across disciplines (Critical Pedagogy) and identity groups (Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, etc).
The real breakthrough was turning into a status strategy within academe and then, via graduates, across the wider society. A breakthrough that rested both on the adaptation of French Theory and inferring from civil rights struggles that equal outcomes across social groups was to be morally expected and was morally proper.
Excellent piece, thanks much.
If I have any disagreement, it’s calling any of it “conservative “. It’s nonsense.
The way I would put it is that the status quo conservative response to the nonsense has been a failure.
Yes, better.