Adam Sieff, Staff Writer
Ideology: Liberal | Writing From: Columbia University

Two weeks ago, I lamented the demise of California on account of the state’s decayed social character. In particular, I attributed its gradual disintegration and present constitutional dysfunction to the fact that Tocquevillian communitarian mores have been largely eroded during the course of the twentieth century. This was a result I attributed to the state’s inherently individualistic emigrant population.

While I stand by my argument, it seems in hindsight somewhat myopic in its derivation of inviolable individualism. My previous treatment simply correlated the attitude to a state of character inclined towards risk-taking, as demonstrated by a willingness to absorb the costs of emigration without any guaranteed prospects for gain.

But, from a broader perspective, inviolable individualism seems to be derivative of a much larger process that Max Weber, writing about European civilization at the turn of the twentieth-century, observed as “rationalization”—the result of which is the indulgence of arbitrary and subjective aesthetic impulses.

To Weber, rationalization meant a historical drive towards a world in which “one can, in principle, master all things by calculation.” The process has three parts.

First, “intellectualization,” which he described as the systemization of vast means-ends causal relationships that ultimately lead to the creation of a fully integrated logical system capable of predicting decision outcomes.  Second, “objectification,” which involved the reduction of qualitative inputs (i.e. humans) into quantitative variables (i.e. statistics) that can be calculated along with other inputs in the integrated logical system above. Third, “control,” which, derived from the first two parts, can be summarized as the total sublimation of the individual to the rationalist system.

Weber extensively evaluated Calvinism and argued that the faith’s emphasis on industriousness and predestination precipitated rationalization in the 19th century as a means for believers to more effectively honor God and confirm their own salvation. In other words, the process of rationalization was initially value-creating.

Soon, however, Weber observed that the complex web of rationalized institutions came to stand without the support of religious doctrine, which was necessarily discarded as irrational and mystic. Consequently, the value-creating function of rationalization vanished and the systematized social environment became an “iron cage” of bureaucratic petrifaction and limited agency.

Science, the engine for rationalization, provided only a brief illusion of value-creation, but its self-defeating logic of discovery and experimental challenge made it a false prophet for value-starved moderns. Confined to a cage in the absence of systemized value-creation, the indulgence of aesthetic taste became the only meaningful activity available to the modern individual.

Leo Strauss, who was heavily influenced by Weber, argued similarly. Strauss believed that modern liberal democracy, because of its egalitarian spirit, inherently tends toward extreme relativism where meaningfully coordinated value-creation is not possible. This in turn leads to a state of hedonism and “permissive egalitarianism” (i.e. arbitrary indulgence of aesthetic impulse) that threatens social stability.

Now, these are gross simplifications of Weber and Strauss’ philosophies, but they nonetheless portend as both empirically and theoretically relevant in 2009. It would indeed seem that the rationalization of all spheres—including now the Internet—has led to the utter destruction of coordinated value-creation, leaving only the atomized and petty indulgence of aesthetic impulses as a means of living meaningfully.

Politically in a democratic society, this means that politicians operate on the whims of the self-indulgent masses, which have more or less direct control of the Political depending upon their specific circumstances. For example in California, this control is of the most vulgar and direct type. In the United States, shameless hedonism, though to a lesser extent, nevertheless reigns supreme.

True neo-conservatives argue that the solution is a dissemination of Platonic “noble lies” to pacify the masses, create order and stabilize the Political so that decisions about justice can later be assessed. The recently passed Irving Kristol, for example, was a staunch advocate of propagating nationalist myths and encouraging religious piety as instruments for social stability.

He was half-right. The problem with true neo-conservatism is two-fold.

First, the noble lies early neo-conservatives offered the American people were foolhardy and injurious to American interests. While encouraging general civil association may have been wise, fomenting religious fervency has never been conducive to stability. Moreover, indoctrinating the public with American triumphantism was liable to produce an aggressive war-mongering public inflamed with passion and prone to violence, sentiments that do not seem to favor stability, either nationally or internationally.

Second, the propagators came to believe their own propaganda. Whereas Strauss (and to a lesser extent Kristol) argued for ideological social manipulation, their immediate successors actually believed the gross lies about American exceptionalism and religiosity. In doing so, these second generation neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Richard Perle genuinely pursued policies under Reagan and Bush that drained American power and risked American stability.

Because of their folly, the word “neo-conservative” has come to mean true belief in the noble lies envisioned by Strauss and Kristol. That populist demagogues like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann now dare to call themselves neoconservatives is perhaps the greatest bastardization of the phrase yet, a complete and foul inversion of everything Strauss and Kristol had intended.

But Strauss and Kristol were also half right. Absent a prudent noble lie to unite the disenchanted masses, we will slowly devolve into disorder, dysfunction and collapse. For proof, we need only look at California, whose troubles have already been sufficiently catalogued in Part I.

Alternatively, of course, we can opt to construct a charismatic noble leader (like Pericles) to sate the crowd. In Barack Obama the country would seem to have one, but modern democratic politics simply make maintaining a seductive platform impossible to defend against the relentless barrage of vulgar demagoguery.

The moral vacuum in which we find ourselves avails too much to too many and every day we fail to invent a new moral order, we crawl nearer to that great pit of fallen civilizations crumbling beneath.

A new neo-conservatism must rise.  One that is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in their modern meanings, but which fundamentally understands that stability precedes justice. It must rise to destroy the injurious and foolishly fabricated moralities eviscerating our civilization, and it must construct new ones in their stead. That is the real challenge of this generation, and history will surely judge it so.

Who now dares to rise?