Synopsis: On Various Political Ideologies and Worldviews

This is an overview with short summaries of my posts relating to various political ideologies and worldviews. I will keep it updated as I go along.

• Libertarianism and Representative Democracy: My main contention here is that libertarianism has always been weak when it comes to defending liberal representative democracy. Often not just weak, but hostile to the concept. I am fine with discussing anarchism, but if you are a libertarian and you are unsure whether you should defend liberal representative democracy against authoritarianisms of various kinds, I would say something is deeply wrong with your take. — You can find an overview of all my posts on libertarianism and its shortcomings here that I keep updated.
• The 19th Century Also Provides Some Lessons: This is introductory. My main claim is that the 19th century is in many ways more interesting for our times than the extreme 20th century. There are many similarities, and many ideologies and worldviews that are still with us began at the time.
• The Malthusian Worldview: Thomas Malthus published his “Essay on the Principle of Population” in 1798. As I argue in a series of posts, the theory had no merit from the start. Still the Malthusian argument has had a tremendous impact over the past two centuries and still has. My explanation for this is that it comes with an associated worldview that is by now deeply embedded in our culture. — Here is an overview over the whole series of posts on the Malthusian argument that I keep updated.
• The Liberal Order — An Explanation: In my previous post “Libertarianism and Representative Democracy” (see above), I used the term the “liberal order,” which is not self-explaining because there can be different interpretations. I explain mine here. Basically, I view it as an order that turns around fundamental principles like Universality, Equality, Individualism, and Liberty. There are several political ideologies that are descended from what I call an old Liberalism: liberalism, (revisionist) social democracy, and conservatism in a pre-Trump-Bannon sense. My argument is to stress what these directions have in common and defend it against ideologies that reject fundamental principles of the liberal order. — You can find an overview of all my posts on libertarianism and its shortcomings here that I keep updated.
• Worldviews, Narratives, and Ideologies: My usage of the terms “ideology” and “worldview” is idiosyncratic, so I try to explain it here in preliminary form (more posts to follow). I call a “worldview” an intuitive understanding of how the world works, and an “ideology” a set of political ideas that are meant to appeal to the rational side of our minds. Distinguishing the two and realizing that they can diverge, can explain many phenomena that are otherwise hard to comprehend if you only look at the ideological side, eg. surprising interconnections across the political spectrum.
• More on the Malthusian Worldview: This is a follow-up post on my post “The Malthusian Worldview” (see above) where I flesh another aspect of it out. — Here is an overview over the whole series of posts on the Malthusian argument that I keep updated.
• Pavlov’s Dogs and Sudden Conversion: Ivan Pavlov is known for his research on “classical conditioning” (the bell and food thing). But he did also other research that is very interesting, namely on sudden changes in behavior under extreme pressure. Here is my take and how it relates to sometimes rapid change for worldviews: conversion experiences.
• March to the Right: The National Liberals (Introduction): This is an overview to an series on the National Liberal Party in Germany, which was founded in 1866/67. Initially the party had a classical liberal program, but over the next two decades it drifted ever more to the Right. By 1887, it formed a “cartel” for the Reichstag [national parliament] elections with the Conservatives and Free Conservatives, unthinkable at the start. The National Liberals also developed a worldview that retained traces of classical liberalism, but gave them a completely new meaning. They were strong supporters of imperialism, power politics, jingoism, an arms race, especially for the navy, and sometimes also anti-Semitism although there were also opponents of it in the party. — You can find an overview of all my posts on libertarianism and its shortcomings here that I keep updated.
• A Defense of the Term “Populism”: It has been claimed, eg. by Anne Applebaum, that the term “populism” is overused and useless. Maybe overused. But if you stick with a precise definition as a worldview with certain elements, it is a very good term to capture what various populist movements have in common. Basically, it is a Rousseauean view that the “people” should rule directly and “elites” have to be removed to make it happen. Since there is no way to realize the program that goes essentially beyond liberal representative democracy, populisms pave the way for authoritarianims of various kinds despite their pretensions to let the “people” rule directly. I muse about how this works.
• The Fast Track to a Secular Society: A Petty and Oppressive State Religion: I have seen many Americans wonder why European societies are much more secular. I here explain how it went in Germany. Basically, the attempt to ram religion down people’s throats, especially educated people, caused a reaction already in the 19th century. In addition, the alignment of politics and religion tainted religion by associating it with the staus quo, its pettiness and oppression. Most people who were in the opposition became little religious or even hostile towards religion. Similar developments occurred also in other countries: France, the forerunner, Italy or Spain.
• Were the Nazis “Socialists?”: This is a question that lends itself to many facile claims. My answer is: It depends on what you mean. What many Americans miss is that there was a long “State Socialist” tradition on the Right in Germany that developed independently from that on the Left. There were fundamental differences, but also connections. While the Nazis mostly stuck with the State Socialist program, in practice their attitudes were confused and not as clear-cut as many people think. And no, you cannot prove the point in the affirmative by pointing to the “Socialist” in National Socialists.
• Sorry, Cornucopianism is Silly: A popular argument against Malthusianism is what has been termed “Cornucopianism.” It is basically the contention that the problem with the Malthusian argument is that food production can outpace exponential population growth and that is what’s happened. As I show here, the argument doesn’t work. I view Cornucopianism as a worldview that only tries to put an optimistic twist on the Malthusian argument, but essentially buys into it. I also sketch where to look for a refutation to the Malthusian argument: The claim about exponential population growth is wrong. Human populations, and probably those of many other species, can stabilize of their own accord. Once the “population pressure” is gone, there is no need for unfounded optimism about human ingenuity. — Here is an overview over the whole series of posts on the Malthusian argument that I keep updated.
• Three Types of Conservatism: I discuss different definitions of the term “Conservatism” and argue for one that captures what different such political ideologies have in common although differences can be huge. I then distinguish three general types that I call “Actual Conservatism,” “Reactionary Conservatism,” and “Revolutionary Conservatsm,” and also supply examples for these categories.
• Power Tends to Corrupt: My reading of Lord Acton’s famous words: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — My take is that the meaning is intellectual and moral corruption, a hollowing out of a sense that there are an objective truth and objective morals that cannot be changed by human will. I analyze ways how power tends to produce the result.
• Both Hayek and His Opponents Were Wrong: Perhaps the central thesis in Friedrich von Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom,” published in 1944, is that a liberal representative democracy with a welfare state almost inevitably degenerates into a fully planned economy and an authoritarian state. I show that this prediction was wrong, and supply a tentative explanation why that was so. My take is that welfare states expand during times of fast economic growth when it is politically easy to do this. However, with lower economic growth from the 1970s on that came to an end. Welfare have stagnated at a share of perhaps 45% to 50% plus or minus, ie. way below 100% as predicted. The mechanism here is liberal democracy where constituencies arise that keep the welfare state at such a level. This is baffling for followers of Hayek. But they are not alone: Also his opponents on the Left expected a welfare state to develop into a fully planned economy. Only they saw it as positive. I trace how that happened. — You can find an overview of all my posts on libertarianism and its shortcomings here that I keep updated.
• Everyone Has a Worldview: When I write that someone has a worldview, this does not mean that something is wrong. We all have one, so this is no slam-dunk argument against what someone claims. The problem can only be that worldviews tend to have a rather sloppy standard of evidence. That’s why you have to be careful. But then you have to first address the argument itself. Only if is wrong, and perhaps in a patently obvious way, is it in order to ask whether a worldview is responsible for a disconnect between a weak logic and great confidence with a writer.
• The Eugenic Nightmare: One of the offshoots of the Darwinian argument was Eugenics, which was very popular not on the political Right, but also on the Left. I analyze the eugenic message in H. G. Wells’ “The Time Machine,” published in 1895, here. What may seem like an innocuous adventure story is actually a vision based on the biological theories of E. Ray Lankester. Both he and Wells were committed Socialists, and as I show their political views were intertwined with their support for Eugenics.