So here’s Anton talking to James Poulos about the need to learn politics from Machiavelli—how to think, how to act. The problem that calls forth the political philosopher Machiavelli is the degeneracy of the papacy, which means Christianity demands control over conduct & thought without being able to rule. An inglorious tyranny of priests follows—neither do the priests manage to moralize the people nor can the people figure out how to rule themselves.
Modernity, after Machiavelli, is a revolution, a restoration of what was degenerate to its origins, which were healthy. Human powers, issuing in arts & sciences, develop again in an astonishing way—this led to the European conquest or domination of the world, the last part of which is American power.
Since the origin of this astonishing power is in human nature liberated from constraints of a moral & theological character, the most important thing to ask is—is it good being human? Politics, Christianity, Progress all answered yes, if for different reasons. But not even Progress is plausible to America or any other people at this point.
So James says, there is an alternative answer—digital technology spreads far & wide our civilizational crisis: Beyond automation, it requires the replacement of human beings with robots, the negation of human nature. Techno-nihilism, perhaps? James reminds us that we are creatures bound by space & time, but the robots seem free of these constraints, “thinking” & “communicating” & “acting” faster, over astonishing distances, even in places that are deadly to us, seemingly without the uncertainties & querulousness we are stuck with. So the affirmation of the goodness of being human today requires fighting both the woke religion & the digital robots that are supposed to enforce it.
Anton likens America’s situation in the 21st c. with Europe’s in the 16th. The “social media” of that time was Catholicism, which led to the religious civil wars of the Reformation—unity was lost catastrophically, but Christianity remained the “social media” of Europe, i.e. the “interface” of politics, society, economics, & technology. The “social media” of our time is Progress, however difficult it is to recognize because of some hideous recent mutilations… Anton focuses on the propaganda aspect of Progress, James on the catechization aspect—together, they take up the politics of Progress.
This is what we’re fighting against if we’re trying to rescue humanity from despotism & tyranny. Some kind of Renaissance or modernity is needed all over again, but it has this strange character: The modernity we have had for centuries transformed over time from mankind’s proudest hope to the bitterest enemy we’re now stuck fighting! We have to learn from Machiavelli among other things how to fight off some of his ideas & their consequences, because he originated modern science, natural & political.
Listen on Apple Podcasts or here’s youtube:
Thoughtful discussion. On our "middle class doctrine" one wonders how sincere Anton is based on the description he gives (near the beginning) of the purposes for the philosopher's turn to politics (i.e., humanitarian problem solver and to protect philosophy). At Claremont, I know Anton learned from Harry Neumann, to say nothing of the other Harry, that the philosopher's turn to politics is driven primarily by the philosopher's need for self-knowledge. Applied to our circumstances, this would mean the philosopher needs to know, for the good of his own soul, why ordinary Americans have become so disposed to technological and administrative control. This goes for the anti-naturalism of our woke enemies too. As POMOCON readers of Strauss and Lawler know, our "highest duty" is to see things as they are, in their greatness AND misery. How to make an effective "long game" political strategy out of this is another matter, but it certainly requires taking equality seriously.
Anton seems to be dedicated to equality as a political proposition--equality before the law, citizenship, in accordance with natural rights teaching. Judged by that standard, he keeps saying, the regime we have now is an oligarchy which treats some citizens as unequal to others, according to its favor.
Anton has talked about his friendship with Jaffa, which seems the closest example he had of a man touched by philosophy. Jaffa was a moralist & very invested in politics. Anton, of course, dedicated himself to studying Machiavelli--than whom almost no philosopher concerned himself more with politics. I think Anton's own spirited concern with politics was involved in loving these kinds of thinkers.
I'm not sure how to suspect his sincerity in re America, not just because of his attachment to the America he grew up in, but because you'd have to suspect the sincerity of his indignation, which is based on attachment to that middle class. Maybe you can say more about what you're thinking?