Hot Air's Mark Judge draws on Ryszard Legutko's
The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, to
push back on the notion of some sort of Progressive Arc to History.
Legutko argues that both liberal democracy and communism have a similar concept of time. Both view history as moving inexorably towards a utopia of perfect egalitarianism, health and tolerance, and that it’s the job not just of politicians but of all right-thinking people to facilitate that bright tomorrow: “What the enemy of progress defended was by definition hopelessly parochial, limited to one class, decadent, anachronistic, historically outdated, and degenerate; sooner or later it had to give way to something that was universal, necessary, and inclusive for of the whole of humanity.”
This move toward utopia has meant greater and greater intrusion into private life and traditional institutions.
Underlying that claim is a tension between continuing the institutions and traditions that work and encouraging improvements thereto. We could do worse, dear reader, than
consider how innovations in the visual and performing arts come to be.
[W]hat is the proper balance between freedom for the avant-garde and continuity of the stable society that makes the avant-garde possible? And what happens when, as many German voters perceived during the Weimar era, and many U.S. voters currently perceive, the avant-garde is monopolizing the institutions of higher learning, of the performing arts, and of the entertainment in ways that are destabilizing the society?
That is where Mr Judge leads us, only generalizing to movements in politics.
Liberals love to quote the phrase that America is moving toward “a more perfect union” because it then allows them to claim we have not gotten there. There will always and forevermore be work to be done. Yet there are times in life when we feel sated, satisfied, and even touched by the grace of God.
That's the tension between stability and improvements.
We've been there before.
It's not so much slipping into "social reform" as it is sliding into generalized incoherence that conservatives ought be pushing back against. "The social destruction that erupted in the 1960s began with the premise that the machinery of prosperity would always be working, no matter how outrageous the mockery of the avant-garde or the hippies or the race hustlers was. Woodstock could always coexist with moon shots." The institutions the avant-garde own? Not so much.
Thus, in generational morphology, sometimes the
avant-garde have more cultural power, and sometimes the squares do. Because of those tussles between selection and mutation,
there is adaptation, but
no Progressive Arc of History.
Nor is that a bad thing.
[T]he new values regime is a response to the contradictions inherent in the old values regime, and in the Strauss and Howe approach, there is no remorseless Hegelian dialectic under which all the contradictions can be ground out for once and for all, and no Vanguard to Lead the People to The Glorious Future. (In Strauss and Howe, that's actually desirable, as the Inexorable March of Progress inevitably sacrifices all generations before the Glorious Future becomes the Glorious Present on the Altar of Progress. Never mind that the Romans had the saeculum but they didn't have steam locomotives or smart 'phones.)
We now have the smart 'phones, but the jury is still out on the extent to which they represent Progress. Mr Judge suggests that change for its own sake is not always desirable. "There are in fact times in our lives when we feel satiated, when we feel loved by our spouse or by God, when we look at children with joy and love or are stunned by a world of art. When life is good and we don’t need an arc to 'bend towards' anything." Yes, or when the Progressive Thinkers are
offering changes that are
evolutionary dead ends. Who knows, maybe the real dialectic involves
taking unalienable rights seriously. "The tussle, however, is one in which the next step forward in individual autonomy is wresting power from the philosopher kings who supplanted the hereditary kings."
Which might not be a bad thing. "That does not preclude extinction for the maladapted. Including the legacy political parties and their court intellectuals and their talking points."