This may be the best political book I’ve read in a decade. The book leads with a excerpt from the 1932 Democratic Party platform. This would be the platform upon which FDR was elected. It would also be a platform that would be entirely unrecognizable in the policies of his 12 year presidency. Burnham asks us what we should make of these words, which obviously veered so far from reality. From there, he takes us on a deep dive into Dante Alighieri’s political treatise, De Monarchia, and gives us a summary of Dante’s formal argument, advocating a strong Roman Emperor in charge of man’s earthly happiness. Burnham, however, reveals the backstory. Dante and his allies, having failed in their political conquests and now exiled, have no recourse but to seek alliance with the Roman Emperor. Dante’s entire formal meaning of De Monarchia, we are told, is a propagandistic rationalization of Dante’s own self-interest. From there, we are introduced to the Machiavellians, who provide us the tools to approach political analysis somewhat scientifically, so that we can understand the true political dynamics at play.

Burnham then gives us a summary of why Machiavelli is to be admired as a political analysis. To keep it short, he claims Machiavelli’s methods are scientific, in nature, though he predates any formal understanding of the scientific method. Burnham then explores four notable Machiavellians and their contribution to a logical, empirical analysis of politics. These are Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel, Robert Michels, and especially, Vilfredo Pareto. A common characteristic of each of these thinkers is their political understanding all centers around an understanding of a ruling or elite class. Many of the models they present in their writings model current politics with shocking fidelity. The book presents a guide to realpolitik, a skepticism of the ideals of Democracy, an explanation of the ever recurring patterns of Bonapartism, and above all, that the key to the preservation of freedom is checks on power.

Not unity but difference, not the modern state but whatever is able to maintain itself against the state, not leaders but they unyielding opponents of leaders, not conformity with official opinion but persisting criticism, are the defenses of freedom (pg. 251)

I wouldn’t rate this book very highly overall. This is another example of a great essay (or short series of essays) that drowns its most important ideas in social theory speak to try to reach publisher’s recommended book length. The few important ideas, though, are quite good and relevant to our current broader popular and political culture. Hubbs over-arching message is that middle-class culture is dominant and that it is mostly defined in its opposition to working class culture. As a result, middle-class culture and its cultural expressions are often understood through the lens of the middle-class which has a real interest in differentiating it negatively from its own culture. Hubbs points out the very common middle-class answer about musical taste: “anything but country.” She also points out that we even have a genre of country music that is acceptable to middle-class audiences, Americana. I felt seen with so much Uncle Tupelo in my playlist. The dominant culture seems to project an expectation of non-sophistication and superficiality onto country music even when other more acceptable genres of music demonstrate no more lyrical, musical or thematic complexity. Similarly, you seem similar misunderstandings in politics where the middle-class accuse working class voters of voting against their own self interest (i.e. Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas?). Hubbs goes onto explore this same phenomenon as it relates to homophobia. Working class culture and country music are, as you might expect, generally considered homophobic. Like the other observations discussed above, reality is a bit more nuanced and is more a reflection of middle-class expectations (perhaps even desire) to find simple people of a lesser culture. Hubbs makes apt comparisons of the reception of Foo Fighter’s Keep it Clean (Hot Buns) and David Allen Coe’s Fuck Aneta Bryant. The Foo Fighters would be celebrated as standing up to homophobia (which assumes a somewhat sophisticated satire) whereas Coe’s bold denunciation of Anita Bryant was largely ignored. The general point is well taken, but of course, these songs were released into totally different environments and circumstances. Hubbs' analysis of working class views of LGBT issues is interesting and important but, again, it should have been a second essay following on to her earlier points. The book just tries to cover too much ground. I love what Hubbs has to say in this book and I wish it was not so obscured by social theory filler. Arguably, though, the target audience was intended to be those who care an awful lot about how Bourdieu applies.

I feel I need to start by explaining why I read this book. One night as I was browsing YouTube, I was recommended a clip of Tim Pool interviewing Ammon Bundy. In the clip, Bundy suggested that the dispute over grazing rights that would eventually lead to the Bunkerville Standoff was more complicated than had been reported. He intimated that his family had historic claims to grazing and water rights. This is a claim that I had not heard. I suspected it was bullshit (it was) but was curious to know more about the facts surrounding the standoff. Secondly, the history and policy tradeoffs of American public lands have remained a curiosity of mine since reading Mark Kenyon’s That Wild Country and John Clayon’s Natural Rivals: John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and the Creation of America's Public Lands. Though the book appealed to my broader interests, my expectations were low. The average quality of topical books tends to be low and I began the book on a car ride with the expectation that I might switch books after my Bundy curiosities were satisfied. I was wrong.

The book begins with Joseph Smith and demonstrates how the history of Mormonism, in particular the oppression the pioneers faced on their trek across America in search of Zion, created a rugged and self reliant people. The Mormons faced hostilities in search of the land that God had reserved for their use. They found it but their entitlement to the land continues to keep them at odds with the United States government, which holds the majority of the lands in the area as public lands. Despite cracking the occasional joke about Mormon’s magic underwear, I knew so little about the history of the religion. More importantly, though, I never really understood the influence that Mormon’s have held and still seem to hold in the West (see the Lee-Hamblin family). I had never realized the accomplishment that was the pioneer trek, nor the ruthless nature of Mormon champions like Brigham Young. Young, as it turns out, was onto the “deep state” as early as 1861.

Is the form of the Government ruined? Has its form become evil? No; but the administrators of the Government are evil. As we have said many times, it is the best form of human government man ever lived under; but it has as corrupt a set to administer it as God ever permitted to disgrace his footstool.
Journal of Discourses 8:321

The book did answer the question that had originally compelled me to pick it up. The historic grazing rights to which Ammon Bundy referred were likely based on a Mormon belief that the pioneer trek had rewarded his people with a divine mandate to the land. So, yes, it was bullshit. This book, though, turned out to be an absolute treat. I did not switch books. I listened straight through. Had Quammen had the discipline to write a book in 2020 without the requisite Trump hand wringing, it would have been even better.

In his appearance on the Justin Amash Podcast, Kmele Foster cites The Law as being one of his first libertarian influences. He described it as a shock to the system and calls out the fist line (which is his copy was apparently in all caps).

THE LAW PERVERTED!

Bestiat’s essay is, indeed, a powerful and beautiful appeal to a first principles minimization of the law to the protection of one’s person, one’s property, and one’s liberty and nothing more. Anything more, he says, and the whole affair begins to unravel because anything more will require a loss of liberty. The law he says is nothing more than our natural right to self defense voluntarily turned collective. This he repeatedly asserts is the sole reason for the law.

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force—which is only the organized combination of the individual forces—may lawfully be used for the same purpose; that it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.

But it is plunder that threatens this simple enterprise. “Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. … And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.”

All measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

Unfortunately, the law itself provides the greatest opportunity for plunder, legal plunder. By co-opting the law, the plunderers pervert the law to the opposite of its intended purposes. Quite interestingly, Bestiat calls out the original plunders explicitly, “Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.” When it comes to legal plunder, he says, we have three available solutions.

1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody else.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.

He declares his intent to fight for 3 until his dying breath, which sadly, would come within a year after he wrote it. This is a beautiful timeless essay and certainly one that libertarians seem to rightly embrace. Justin Amash claims to have handed out copies when he was in Congress. I can see why libertarians embrace this work of art, it’s simple, poetic and inspirational. At the end one is inclined to agree that we should, indeed, “try liberty”.

Like many works, I was motivated to read this after hearing multiple references to it. The first reference came by a way of a good friend with an eccentric uncle who is prone to delightful libertarian rants within his family newsletter. Kaczynski’s “manifesto” was featured prominently in the family newsletter some time back and it prompted a fascinating conversation with my good friend and what struck me most was the summary was not bananas as I would have expected from a mad man who would go to jail for sending bombs to university professors. The next reference reached me via the problems sighted podcast interview with Riva Tez. She talks about wavering between technology optimism captured in Cybernetics and the pessimism that Kaczynski captured in Industrial Society and Its Future. Every time Riva’s name comes up in conversation, a debate ensues about whether she is a crank or not, but either way, I find her public persona interesting. Hearing her place the article as a counter point to cybernetics seemed obvious but it also gave it more legitimacy as a work worth reading than I would have assumed given Kaczynski’s history. I decided to read it. In the worst case, it would give me great content for a delightfully entertaining family newsletter.

The manifest begins with a rant condemning the psychology of the modern leftist. You could replay this rant verbatim in any conservative or libertarian circle today and it would land as if it had just been written yesterday. This section is the least interesting. The interesting parts are when Kaczynski defines what he calls the “power process” and suggests that we’re all being forced to satisfy this psychological need via “surrogate activities” as technology has made the essentials for life trivial to satisfy. Here he is explaining these two concepts.

33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the “power process.” This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42–44).

37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

39. We use the term “surrogate activity” to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito’s studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn’t know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)

This is a thought-provoking and reasonable take on the psychological struggle of modern man and I’m kind of alarmed by the degree to which it resonates with me. The article goes on to claim that technological development is at odds with a classical liberal view of human freedom. In short, he believes that technological advancement drives immense population growth which requires that “the system” be regulated in order to maintain the increasingly advanced society. This upward spiral, he posits, requires conformity to “the system” over an allegiance to freedom since, I presume, lack of participation (the exercise of freedom) is a threat to the edifice of advanced civilization.

The entire article is thought provoking and, to a limited degree, I agree with the struggles he identifies. I do not, however, believe that technology intrinsically trades off against freedom. Historically, technology has created a churn in freedoms, some are gained and some are lost. Humans aversion to loss, however, will always ensure the loss does not go unnoticed. And to be very clear, that would never give one license to engage in a bombing campaign, an undeniable and extreme violation of another's freedoms.

I have far more to say about this book than is worth reading. Alma, the town of the author’s birth, is less than two hours of back road driving from my home town. Yet, I had never heard of Harry Crews. Last month, though, a friend of mine sent me a link to a New Yorker article, “A Childhood” is One of the Finest Memoirs Ever Written. The New Yorker review is outstanding and Crews’ memoir deserve the treatment. Crews’ Dickenesque characters are perfect, yet grotesque and also very authentically South Georgian in their nature. In fact, I have heard similar stories my entire life but told without the poetic flare. I think one thing that Crews does so well is to capture the unpredictable juxtaposition of both caring and cruelty that typifies the Southern male character. It is not uncommon for a truly inspirational mentor to also be a man regarded for his capacity for great cruelty. The place, and Crews reiterates the importance of the place in shaping the characters, seems to reject those with no sins to atone. The tapestry of broken humans is forever the backdrop of our lives and their presence is inexplicably appreciated. A Childhood really is one of the finest memoirs ever written and I think the following paragraph is a good representation of what it offers. Here crews is reflecting on having just heard stories about his father, who died when Crews was very young, from older men in Bacon County.

Listening to them talk, I wondered what would give credibility to my own story if, when my young son grows to manhood, he has to go looking for me in the mouths and memories of other people. Who would tell the stories? A few motorcycle riders, editors, half-mad karateka, drunks, and writers. They are scattered all over the country, but even if he could find them, they could speak to him with no shared voice from no common ground. Even as I was gladdened listening to the stories of my daddy, an almost nauseous sadness settled in me, knowing I would leave no such life intact. Among the men with whom I have spent my working life, university professors, there is not one friend of the sort I was listening speak to my daddy there that day in the back of the store in Bacon County. Acquaintances, but not friends. For half of my life I have been in the university, but never of it. Never of anywhere, really. Except the place I left, and that of necessity only in memory. It was in that moment and in that knowledge that I first had the notion that I would someday have to write about it all, not in the convenient and comfortable metaphors of fiction, which I had been doing for years. It would have to be done naked, without the disguising distance of the third person pronoun. Only the use of I, lovely and terrifying word, would get me to the place where I needed to go.