A Simple Theory of Which Thinkers Support the Elites, or Not
3rd September 2024
I don’t agree with this theory as stated, but it can be worth spelling such things out, if only to see their weaknesses, or perhaps some strengths at some of the more unusual or less likely margins. Here goes:
People, especially “thinkers,” like to believe they serve all sorts of noble purposes in the intellectual infrastructure. But in reality their main effects are either to raise or lower the status of the elites in their society.
Noam Chomsky, for instance, has lowered the status of American elites. That is his net long-run effect, not that he drummed up sympathy for the Khmer Rouge. A lot more people, for better or worse, are more skeptical of a bunch of things because of Chomsky.
The New York Times, in contrast, works hard to raise the status of elites. It tries especially hard to raise the status of Democratic elites, but still it is raising the status of elites for the most part.
Most ‘thinkers’ are in love with thinking, and spend little time thinking about whether what they’re thinking has any connection to reality. Usually they think of ‘connection to reality’ as a bug, not a feature
It is hard to lower the status of elites without lowering your own status as well. It is not just that the elites will not like you, or may treat you and your PR harshly. You also have to come across as quite negative, and furthermore some of the negativity you create for your targets will rub off on you, at least in the eyes of much of your audience. Plus being too relentlessly critical, rather than constructive, tends to make people stupider.
I can live with it. Most people will grow stupider over time all by themselves; I am happy to help that process along pro bono publico. Think of it as evolution in action.