home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |
  An American Manifesto
Saturday October 25, 2014 
by Christopher Chantrill Follow chrischantrill on Twitter

TOP NAV

Home

Blogs

Opeds

Articles

Bio

Contact

BOOK

Manifesto

Sample

Faith

Education

Mutual aid

Law

Books

ROAD TO THE

MIDDLE CLASS

Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Bibliography

Chapter 14:
The Problem of Power

| (1) | 2 | 3 | 4 | next>> |print view

There are manifold relations of power that permeate, characterize and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implimented without... a discourse. —Michel Foucault

THE PROJECT OF RESTORING the road to the middle class is not just a question of ideas, but of assembling and using political power to implement ideas.  The goals of this project are substantial.  We want to smash the war on religion.  We want to break the back of the welfare state monopolies in family-substitution and in education.  And we want to curb the imperial judiciary’s war on middle-class culture and mores.  That is what we need in order to clear the road to the middle class of all the barriers and blockages that have piled up over the twentieth century.   But we also want to recognize the needs of the non-middle class: the creatives and the communitarians who want to transcend the simple rules and purpose of the road to the middle class.  We want them to get what they want.  We just draw the line at replacing the road to the middle class with the mass- transit system of the welfare state that demotes ordinary people from the role of driver into passive passenger.

The war on religion, the creaking monopolies of the welfare state, and the war on conventional middle-class morality did not just happen.   We were, as Eeyore complained to Winnie-the-Pooh, Pushed.   The war on religion comes from a world-view that sees organized religion as a superstition wedded to the past.  The welfare state monopolies are the consequence of elite belief that the root cause of poverty is a lack of material resources needed for a decent life.  The attack on conventional morality comes from those who believe that people should create their own authentic life- style rather than blindly follow someone else’s rules. 

This war on the middle class is all part of a grand, if often inchoate, vision.  Necessarily, this grand vision has a program of education to guide people into its ways, and for those that are not amenable to sweet reason there are the instruments of shame and the sinews of power.  Those that do not conform to its policy on race are shamed as racists, those that do not support its program of gender equality are shamed as sexists, those that do not support its class war are shamed as classists, and those that do not support its attack on marriage are shamed as homophobes.  In addition, of course, the vast monopolies of the welfare state in education, in health care, and in superannuation all support the program with the blunt encouragement of taxation and political power.

The great obstacle to removing the obstructions from the road to the middle class is the narcissism and pride of the world’s creative classes.  They experience their culture of creativity and universal compassion as a new world vision that must inevitably replace the primitive regime of power and corruption that has obtained up to now.  But the All Quadrant/All Level matrix shows this world-view to be defective.  It shows that though the creative classes have developed important ideas and visions of the future they have also built a culture of narcissistic self-congratulation, a Whig history that experiences themselves as the culmination of history.  Their worldview rests upon the assertion that the blue purposive consciousness of the bourgeoisie is illegitimate and inauthentic, and a threat to the development of a new culture based on soulfulness and creativity.  To say that this attitude is widespread among the creative classes is almost to miss the point.  It goes beyond attitude to the level of reality, an unconscious reality that is accepted without question or the need for justification.  It is natural for such a believer, even a moral duty, to work to marginalize the middle-class culture of purpose and respectability in the building of the new era of creativity and universal community. 

But the AQAL matrix challenges this whole worldview.  Against the bigoted marginalization of middle class culture, it naturally calls for a culture of tolerance in the enlightened and the highly evolved, a culture that can respect and tolerate the struggles of those who have not yet reached the high estate of full enlightenment.  It specifically warns the creative classes of their error.  They must stop persecuting the middle class with their attack on its religion and its respect for the rules.  The AQAL matrix demands their tolerance and forbearance, and it is the destiny of the conservative movement to teach our creative elites about tolerance for the ordinary middle class.  The conservative destiny is not, perhaps, as grand as the destiny of the liberal elite that, in the middle of the twentieth century, taught white Americans to curb their discrimination against the American Negro.   But it is an honorable and worthy task that needs to be done.

But can a strategy of recommending tolerance succeed?  Probably not.  That is why it is necessary to augment the high road of education with a low road of shame, appealing not just to the better angels of the enlightened, but shaming them into understanding the monstrous acts of exploitation and repression they have committed in the name of compassion and diversity.

We must make it shameful to marginalize religion.  Right now, any writer for The New York Times feels free to load up the old coon gun left behind by the Southern racists and fire off both barrels at any traditional religious target her coon dog has treed (except a Moslem).  And her shameful feature floats up through the layers of 43rd Street editing to eventual publication without a discouraging word from the famously tolerant cultural elite.  We want bigots like her cowering in the same hole as the redneck racists. 

We must make it shameful to marginalize people who go to work, follow the rules, pay their taxes and obey the law.

The question is: how?  How do we end this monstrous bigotry?  The answer is: one bigot at a time.  In the 1980s and 1990s the left managed to mount a successful campaign of political correctness that effectively banned, particularly in the university, the expression of opinion with which they disagreed.  They made it shameful to express opinions about race, class, gender, and homosexuality with which they disagreed.  Their campaign came out of nowhere, rose to power, and now seems to be fading away as conservatives have begun to fight back.  We wish to do the same, only we have a very limited agenda and our cause is just.  We only wish to make it shameful to marginalize religion.  And we already have the means to achieve it.  Our conservative blogosphere is already spoiling the acoustics in the liberal echo chamber.  

The campaign of shame against the anti-religious bigots will have the three components articulated in this book.  Each of the themes is a plea for tolerance.  First of all there is the practical advice of Plato, advising his enlightened one to go easy on the prisoners when he returns to the cave.  All the talk of walls and fires and sunlight mean nothing to a man chained to the ground, and whose entire reality amounts to the dancing shadows on a wall.  If you disturb him too much, he will kill you.  This is the argument of prudence.  Go easy on the man who doesn’t understand your brilliant evolution into enlightenment.  If he can’t understand your brilliant aper├žus he will think you mad.  Perhaps he will kill you.  Then there is the argument from history.  When the bourgeoisie burst onto the world stage in full glory in the nineteenth century, the progressives demanded that the bourgeoisie treat the struggling working class with compassion and understanding.  They demanded that the bourgeoisie restrain its power over the working class and tax itself to help them, in education and in social insurance.  Whether from a practical instinct for self-preservation or from actual compassion, the bourgeoisie did so.  It made allowances for the struggling working class.  Today, we make the same demand, only we make the demand of the creative class that they tolerate and subsidize the lower-middle class that is struggling to make it into the middle class.  Then there is the argument of Eric Voegelin.  He demolishes the traditional opposition of “my truth” versus “your superstition” by constructing a worldview that represents old ways as compact knowledge and belief and that understands new ways as differentiated knowledge and belief.  Tolerance of other peoples’ ideas becomes, in Voegelin’s world, not just patronizing indulgence, but practical common sense.  It helps, no doubt, to be a Kantian, and to accept that the world is experienced as appearance only, and that “things-in-themselves” can never be experienced directly.  Finally, there is the argument developed by Clare Graves and his adepts Don Beck and Ken Wilber.  They experience human consciousness is a layered or spiral entity.  When you develop a “higher” level of consciousness, you do not replace the “lower” level; you merely develop the ability to repress the lower level in certain circumstances.  They amplify the warning of Freud.  If you try to crush out a lower level, they warn, you will not merely suffer from Freudian neurosis; you will regress to the level immediately below the level you have repressed.


| (1) | 2 | 3 | 4 | next>> |print view

 

Click for Chapter 15: The Worldwide Explosion of Pentecostalism

 

Buy the ebook: Road to the Middle Class: only $0.99.

 

Your comments are welcome. Please e-mail to Christopher Chantrill at mailto:chrischantrill@gmail.com, and take the RMC test here.

 TAGS


Responsible Self

[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.


Taking Responsibility

[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050


Civil Society

“Civil Society”—a complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churches—builds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust


What Liberals Think About Conservatives

[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. “Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists,” she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican


Liberal Coercion

[T]he Liberal, and still more the subspecies Radical... more than any other in these latter days seems under the impression that so long as he has a good end in view he is warranted in exercising over men all the coercion he is able[.]
Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State


Moral Imperatives of Modern Culture

These emerge out of long-standing moral notions of freedom, benevolence, and the affirmation of ordinary life... I have been sketching a schematic map... [of] the moral sources [of these notions]... the original theistic grounding for these standards... a naturalism of disengaged reason, which in our day takes scientistic forms, and a third family of views which finds its sources in Romantic expressivism, or in one of the modernist successor visions.
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self


US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism


Society and State

For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008


Faith and Politics

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable... [1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006


Never Trust Experts

No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.
Lord Salisbury, “Letter to Lord Lytton”


 

©2007 Christopher Chantrill