A counterpoint to Mr. Goldman’s piece on China is Karl Zinsmeister’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, “American Society Was Built for Populism, Not Elitism”. I agree with much but not all of what he has to say:
Political, economic and cultural power have become concentrated in recent decades. Public-health officials, activists, tech executives and others press everyday Americans to let “experts” and “authorities” control decisions that affect all of society. Technology allows unprecedented monitoring and steering of civilians’ actions.
Throughout U.S. history there have been periodic backlashes against potentates attempting to hoard influence. In 1968 presidential candidate George Wallace said Americans were fed up with “pseudointellectuals lording over them . . . telling them they have not got sense enough to know what is best for their children.” This won Wallace nearly 10 million votes and shocked grandees of the Boston-Washington corridor who thought they had foreclosed arguments over who should run America.
Ronald Reagan recognized that Americans were chafing against intellectual authoritarianism. His administration collected mounds of evidence that bureaucratic central planning was having disastrous results. He pumped the brakes on impositions from Washington and discredited its manipulations of economy and culture.
Reaganism proved most effective as an economic force. Its cultural victories were rarer and didn’t last. A monolith of liberal activists, judges, educators, entertainers and media continued to overshadow our public square. The range of “acceptable” worldviews narrowed dramatically from 1988 to 2024.
Read the whole thing.
Where I disagree with Mr. Zinsmeister is that I think that the United States since its very inception has been a paradoxical combination of plutocracy and populist state. They are in tension, uncomfortable equilibrium with one another. And in every country whether China or the United States, every government at every level once it has reached a size above that of a neighborhood association is necessarily a bureaucracy and the behavior of bureaucracies is well-known. Bureaucracies don’t accomplish things; they grow.
Our system, too, has certain strengths and weaknesses. We should ignore those who long for the United States to be China or France or Germany or Denmark and deal with the United States as it is.
“Public-health officials, activists, tech executives and others press everyday Americans to let “experts” and “authorities” control decisions that affect all of society. ”
Combination straw man and confused statement. Of course activists try to control or sway people. That happens with populism too. Public health officials only want to name recommendations about public health after studying it. Other govt officials actually have to act on what they recommend and it’s largely at the state level. Tech executives mostly want to not have any limits on what they do with their own businesses, although like finance people they always think they are the smartest ones in the room so some of them individually want to rule the country indirectly or by directly buying politicians. That stuff also happens with populism or any other kind of govt. The rich people always think they know best.
I voted for Reagan twice. There was nothing like the anti-intellectualism we see now. What intellectualism that did exist then was rejecting intellectuals who were venturing out of their lane, and just because they were smart wanted to be in charge of everything. AFAICT, they were never really all that successful. What we have now are people preferring the expertise of unknown people on YouTube with no relevant education or experience telling people what they should do about public health issues, or whatever the issue of the day is. It’s the kind where people try to sound smart by talking about stuff they dont understand, that is convincing to others but to people who have some real experience sounds stupid. Its people quoting science or medical articles never having read them or if they did not knowing how to evaluate the statistical analysis.
Steve
Like the line from Fiddler on the Roof: “If you’re rich they think you really know.”
My sense is that normal people are happy to let elites run things until the elites drift too far from the mainstream, or screw things up. Then, if there isn’t a course-correction, populism will inevitably grow.
Andy- But they then elect other elites to run things.
Steve
“Andy- But they then elect other elites to run things.”
Yet another call to limit the size, scope and power of government……,,always and everywhere. However, From everything I’ve ever seen you write, that’s your view, unless they are politicians and policies you agree with……that’s “different,” you see.
Yes, I agree to the idea of limiting govt spending, except in areas where I think it is merited. I will agree life is a lot simpler if you just brainlessly support or oppose all govt spending.
Steve