Why I Debated Curtis Yarvin at Harvard - Danielle Allen oped WSJ (scary ideas)

[question everything]

(snip)

Mr. Yarvin argues that for most of human history people have believed in a hierarchy of races and lived under absolute monarchies. He thinks this combination has served people well by generating efficient governments with missions that are “the same as the mission of a company: to maximize the value of its capital.” Since capital for a state is its land and people, and since Mr. Yarvin believes in a hierarchy of races, maximizing the value of capital means not being afraid of racial cleansing.

In his telling, our age, beginning in the early 20th century, is founded on lies: that human beings are equal and that self-government by free and equal citizens is possible. DNA, he argues, disproves the former; our current political situation disproves the latter. We don’t govern ourselves—because we have become a weak and frivolous people, and because an oligarchy has captured our institutions, including universities, the media and the professions. These figures operate a “ministry of truth” to keep people under control. Because their lies are now foundering on reality, Mr. Yarvin maintains, the time has come for regime change—for an absolute monarch.

(snip)

Mr. Yarvin believes the monarch is Donald Trump, and the time has arrived for consolidation of his power. He writes: “The key question of a 21st-century Caesarism in America or Europe is whether our moribund democracy has enough of a spark left to replace oligarchy with monarchy. Most objective observers would say it obviously doesn’t. But there are always tricks . . . generally involving not commitment, but cohesion. People these days do not cohere well automatically—but a lot can be done with the Internet.”

Why is his argument attractive to so many? He is right that our political institutions are failing. He is also right that their members have failed to see the depth of our governance problems and their own contributions to them through technocracy and political correctness. The ability to unmask the hypocrisies of priests has always won adherents. But Mr. Yarvin leads them astray with his vision of absolute monarchy and racial cleansing.

(snip)

The principle of equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence was meant so seriously that it grounded the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Vermont before the end of the Revolutionary War, and in Rhode Island even before the Declaration. The Confederacy’s own declaration of secession was explicitly a rejection of the founding Declaration. America’s history has always reflected this inconsistency, but the egalitarian principle has been there from the beginning. It isn’t a weak-minded invention of the 20th century.

(snip)

We don’t need his regime change. We need democracy renovation and renewed seriousness about our lives as citizens. This means reconnecting to our civic power, experience and responsibility. This requires civic practice and education. It also means redesigning institutions so they reward participation and deliver effective governance. We need to understand why and how separation of powers, checks and balances, due process, and a national legislature that functions are necessary to protect human freedom.

More..

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-i-debated-curtis-yarvin-at-harvard-democracy-monarchy-race-hierarchy-9860aade?st=AAijp3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

free