"The health of the state is the health of the state"

This excellent essay (H/t to the VT Trad) about the nature of conservatism in ISI's First Principles journal makes the oft-heard point about the extent to which the growth of the modern managerial state is linked to a transfer of allegiance originating in times of warfare.

"World War II shaped a generation by giving it a reason to be patriotic, organizing isolated men and women into a cohesive military force, infused them with esprit, and demonstrated how collective action could achieve great deeds. Not only did they return to civilian life accepting what the state can do for them, they lived longer than previous generations and dominated American politics until the defeat of George Herbert Walker Bush by William Jefferson Clinton. This generation has not yet passed from the scene, and they constitute an important cheering section for another war, the wholesale invasion of personal communications, limitations placed on opening new bank accounts, talk of renewal of universal conscription, creation of a national police force that arrogantly protects us from terrorists when we travel, additional passport requirements, and the constant war chants emanating from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, mass media Talk Radio, and jingoistic essays in supposedly “conservative” publications.

All this suggests that not only is the legal apparatus of the bureaucratic state in very good health but also the spirit that drives its appetite for new freedoms to devour is very much alive."

I've long held to a form of modified political darwinism (inspired by this chap, who also coined the term 'postmodern feudalism') which states that the modern state evolved entirely due to the selective pressures imposed by advances in military technology. What I'm no longer so sure about is my former belief that further changes in military technology which render a selective advantage to small, decentralized groups will necessarily lead to the collapse of the modern state. My newfound pessimism stems from two sources:

1) Richard Weaver, particularly his book "Ideas have Consequences."

2) Edward Banfield, particularly "The Unheavenly City."

Let's take the Banfield example first, as it's a little more unusual. One of the major theme's of Banfield's book is the establishment of a strong distinction between the "working class" and the "lower class", the former being upwardly mobile and the latter trapped in a dead-end culture. Banfield asserts that the fundamental distinction between the two is in their conception of time, with the "lower class" heavily discounting future goods.

Cue a conversation with this guy, during a 10-hour wait in the Ljubljana train station, who pointed out that from the perspective of a psychologist, the "lower class" attitude towards time is a healthy adjustment or defense mechanism in the face of an oppressive system. The trouble is that after that oppression is lifted, the now self-destructive pattern of memes and behaviors can become self-perpetuating, even when the conditions that led to its creation have vanished.

Weaver reinforces this point by showing how the chief product of the managerial state is the kinds of people who clamor for the attentions of the managerial state. The implications for political darwinism are that even when the state-as-war-machine has become obsolete (something which I remain convinced will happen in the near-future), the geist and apparatus of the military state will remain; short of an open conflict between small, decentralized actors and the nation-state system itself.

How best to proceed then? My biggest problem with John's superb cover-story in TAC is that the kind of social and cultural regeneration which both he and Weaver seek to accomplish will be extremely difficult given the raw, human material with which they have to work. To use the cooking example, in nearly every generation before my own, children were taught to cook and to have an appreciation for food by their parents. The current-generation of 20-somethings, however, has much less in the way of basic cooking skills than any of our forebears. Something really enormous in the way of information loss occurred in the 80's and 90's, and the result is that people my age are much more likely to run screaming to the frozen-food section of a supermarket, with all the consequences (ably documented by John and by Michael Pollan) which that entails.

Cultural regeneration in the face of a political/economic system which actively opposes that regeneration runs into all sorts of difficulties, but attempts to change the political/economic system without some sort of cultural regeneration are bound to founder in a system of popular government. The only remaining option seems to be to "Starve the Beast!". If one of the consequences of the laws of mathematics is that it becomes impossible to levy anything beyond property taxes, then I've probably picked the right major.