Amish & CC Elitism
[NRO Staff  03/01 08:12 PM]

Noah Millman e-mails:

Rod:

I think you're missing the key to your emailer Jeff's point. "They want to be 'apart' except for when they don't" - that's the key. Jeff's annoyed that (in his view) the Amish are saying that they have a better style of life, but that style is parasitic on the larger society that they disapprove of: the consumers who buy their products, the people who give them rides, etc. In other words, the Amish have not come up with a better way of living that we can all emulate; they have elected themselves an elite and are willing to ride on the backs of their lessers when that makes sense for them, even if it undermines their independence. You can see something of the same dynamic in the way that secular Israelis - and some religious Israelis, too - object to the ultra-Orthodox who spend their lives studying in yeshivah and living on the public dole and not serving in the army. These people have certainly dedicated themselves to a higher ideal, and sacrificed creature comforts for it. But they can't survive without the support of the larger society, and they expect the larger society that does *not* share those ideals to support them for their dedication. You can see why that would be resented.

I think an honest crunchy should admit to being, in a substantial way, elitist. If we had laws strictly regulating against factory farming, for example, the price of meat would go up substantially, and some people at the lower end of the economic spectrum would eat less meat. Strict environmental laws raise the cost of fuel, land, etc. At the margins, someone as a consequence will not be able to afford a car, or a house. If the crunchy position is honest, the proper response is: thems the breaks. You, the marginal individual or family who doesn't have meat, a car, or a home, are paying for a better society, one that treats animals better, keeps the air clean, reduces traffic congestion, etc.

In the Middle Ages, guilds strictly regulated prices and quality standards for most products. The consequence was relatively high quality (guild members could still compete on quality, though not on price) but restricted quantity. So you had high-quality linen for the elite and rough homespun for the plebes. You also had the great Gothic cathedrals, while most people lived in hovels. This, again, is not a point about technology; lots of technological innovation went on in the Middle Ages - those Gothic cathedrals were a technological marvel. It has to do with how technology was used. It was not used, primarily, to satisfy the wants and needs of most people.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with espousing an elitist philosophy that says: society should prefer that fewer people enjoy better (or higher) things rather than many people enjoying worse (or lesser) things. And classically, though not so much in the American conservative tradition, conservatism is elitist, and frankly so. I myself am frankly elitist on all sorts of matters. I'm not sure there is anyone who is truly, consistently a preference utilitarian, trying to maximize the preference satisfaction of the most people today and not worrying about tomorrow. But I'm not sure I've heard you articulate things in this way, and say, frankly, that crunchy conservatism is elitist. It knows what the higher things are, and it wants to make all of us pay for them, even if we don't appreciate them or get the opportunity to enjoy them. Am I wrong?

-Noah