As you may know the word “utopia” was coined by Thomas More. It is from the Greek and literally means “a good place”. The opposite of utopia is dystopia and recently we’ve been treated to a rash of dystopian future both in works of fact and fiction.
In his New York Times column David Brooks paints a picture of the present and the very near future that I find dystopian in the extreme. Here’s a snippet:
Two great belief systems are clashing here. The older liberals tend to be individualistic and meritocratic. A citizen’s job is to be activist, compassionate and egalitarian. Boomers generally think they earned their success through effort and talent.
The younger militants tend to have been influenced by the cultural Marxism that is now the lingua franca in the elite academy. Group identity is what matters. Society is a clash of oppressed and oppressor groups. People who are successful usually got that way through some form of group privilege and a legacy of oppression.
The big generational clashes generally occur over definitions of professional excellence. The older liberals generally believe that the open exchange of ideas is an intrinsic good. Older liberal journalists generally believe that objectivity is an important ideal. But for many of the militants, these restraints are merely masks for the preservation of the existing power structures. They offer legitimacy to people and structures that are illegitimate.
When the generations clash, the older generation generally retreats. Nobody wants to be hated and declared a moral pariah by his or her employees. Nobody wants to seem outdated. If the war is between the left and Trumpian white nationalism, nobody wants to be seen siding with Trump.
Plus, the militants have more conviction. In the age of social media, virtue is not defined by how compassionately you act. Virtue is defined by how vehemently you react to that which you find offensive. Virtue involves the self-display of a certain indignant sensibility, and anybody who doesn’t display that sensibility is morally suspect.
He then turns to the generation gap on the right and it’s equally depressing if not more so.
Let me offer my own dystopian prediction. I think that in the coming years we’ll be seeing an increasing number of young people in Europe and North American converting to Islam. It provides the certitude and stability presently lacking in other belief systems.
Most imams in the United States are Saudis. If you like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, you’ll love what is coming.
I think Brook’s description demonstrates that he’s operating from the elite social media bubble, comprised of a tiny minority of Americans, albeit powerful and influential Americans. But this group of courtiers is also disconnected from most of the country and his two “belief systems” are, at most, substantially different from the proles if not completely alien.
Utopia means “nowhere” or “no place.”
Eutopia would mean “good place.”
Agree with Andy. Also, dont really widespread conversion to Islam. Takes too much self-denial for most people. OTOH, I could see a Billy Graham type revival movement. Once the Trump voters figure out he isn’t going to give them jobs like they had in the 50s they will look for something else. A turn to fundamentalist Christianity would work, especially now that those Christians tolerate divorce and pre-marital sex (as long as there is no gay sex).
Steve
For a guy whose generation is so individualistic and virtuous, he sure dos slap on a collective judgement and group identity with ease.
Sounds like someone has forgotten the late 60’s to mid 70’s. However, would agree increased anomie causes retreats into groups that provide structure and validation whether its antifa, cowboy Christianity, Sufism or biker gangs.
Brooks’ entire class have a well-documented history of conformity and group-identity, while accusing everyone else of those sins. This was a perfect example of the élite binary lens through which they view the universe.
Two great belief systems are clashing here.
There are at least four.
The older liberals tend to be individualistic and meritocratic. A citizen’s job is to be activist, compassionate and egalitarian. Boomers generally think they earned their success through effort and talent.
This reads like it was written by a fourteen-year old. “Older liberals are individual. Boomers are meritocratic. A citizen’s jobs is x thing that sound good to focus groop. The dog is brown. The cat says meow.”
The younger militants tend to have been influenced by the cultural Marxism that is now the lingua franca in the elite academy. Group identity is what matters. Society is a clash of oppressed and oppressor groups. People who are successful usually got that way through some form of group privilege and a legacy of oppression.
And this is the exemplar of what the Times pays Brooks to do: write an unsupported, fact-free, unsourced inner monologue of his personal biases and insecurities.
“Young people are dumb. Old are smart. Young all are group. Old are not group. Cultural Marxism (which doesn’t exist) is awful.”
The big generational clashes generally occur over definitions of professional excellence.
Brooks has in no way demonstrated any generational clash now or in the past. But there sure does seem to be an effort by pundits to make people think there’s one.
The older liberals generally believe that the open exchange of ideas is an intrinsic good.
This is exactly why journalism has ceased to exist. There isn’t a single voice on the Times op-ed page that is critical of capitalism or liberalism. Not a single Burkean conservative, not a Jeffersonian anarchist, not a mutualist, not a communist, not an anarcho-syndicalist. Older liberals believe in open exchange of ideas so long as we don’t get to hear most of them.
Older liberal journalists generally believe that objectivity is an important ideal.
The Iraq War.
But for many of the militants, these restraints are merely masks for the preservation of the existing power structures. They offer legitimacy to people and structures that are illegitimate.
Whoah! I thought we were for open ideas and invidualism. But only a few sentences later we hear that Brooks has deemed certain people and organizations “illegitimate”, of course without naming them.
When the generations clash, the older generation generally retreats.
Who is and isn’t in these generations, and exactly how are older people “retreating”? Because last I checked Donald Trump’s base was pretty old, and they don’t appear to be retreating. In fact there’s no mention in Brooks’ column that his generation is exactly why Trump is president.
Nobody wants to be hated and declared a moral pariah by his or her employees. Nobody wants to seem outdated. If the war is between the left and Trumpian white nationalism, nobody wants to be seen siding with Trump.
What the fuck does this mean? He wants to make it comfortable for people like himself to side with Trump? What’s stopping him?
Plus, the militants have more conviction. In the age of social media, virtue is not defined by how compassionately you act.
What compassion has Brooks ever shown? I don’t see him writing on children in Alabama living in their own filth because the municipality decided they weren’t worth a functional sewage system.
Virtue is defined by how vehemently you react to that which you find offensive.
Love me, looove me, love me, I’m a liberal…
Virtue involves the self-display of a certain indignant sensibility, and anybody who doesn’t display that sensibility is morally suspect.
This guy has written op-ed after op-ed about how Trump is horrible because he won’t behave in a dignified manner.
A nice description of Brooks. My lack of comfort with Brooks stems from a) he represents an extremely rarified segment of American society and rarely moves beyond it and b) he’s just a journalist with little else to bring to the party. He doesn’t really know much about history, politics, science, economics, or much of anything else.