The Politics of Despair: An Interview with John Derbyshire
When it comes right down to it, we are doomed.
John Derbyshire is a conservative nation unto himself. The longtime National Review columnist and talented radio host has created his own branch of the faith, extolled in his latest book, We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism. A scholar both in politics and mathematics, Mr. Derbyshire is also the author of Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra. As a writer he is prolific and never afraid to question the prevailing orthodoxy. Born in England, he is now an American citizen and has dwelled here since 1985.
BC: Congratulations on the release of your new book, Mr. Derbyshire. Your central theme seems to be: “If we expect too much of people, we’ll be disappointed and our schemes will fail. Heady optimism about human nature leads directly to disaster.” If politicians operationalized your advice, what would our government then look like? Would it mark the beginning of real hope and change?
John Derbyshire: It would be the restoration of self-government and self-support. It would be the end of the nanny state. It would be the end of humongous programs of government expenditure directed mainly to providing indoor relief for otherwise-unemployable graduates in subjects named “[something] studies.” It would be the re-beginning of the American experiment, as the Founders envisaged it — a republic of free citizens.
BC: Is mindless optimism to blame for the triumph of big government over liberty? I ask you this because every time we increase its size we conveniently overlook the Leviathan’s long and inglorious history of incompetence and inefficiency.
John Derbyshire: I wouldn’t place all the blame on mindless optimism. Nothing in history is that simple. Without the cheery optimism of infinite possibility and infinite malleability (i.e., of human nature), however, ever-expanding government would have been a very much more difficult proposition. Optimism was an enabler.
BC: You mention Rousseau. Is it safe to say that many Democrats embrace the regressive policies they do as a means to compensate for acting like elitist snobs on a personal level? I don’t know if you’ve read Roger L. Simon’s Blacklisting Myself but he makes a similar argument in regards to the existence of their “Mini-Me’s.”
John Derbyshire: I haven’t read that. Just Amazon-ed it. Definitely one for my list. I don’t know about that first sentence of yours, though. Steve Sailer, the guiding spirit of my book, says that liberals have two central beliefs: (1) that intelligence is a perfectly meaningless concept, and (2) that they are more intelligent than the rest of us. For sure liberals (which I take to be coextensive with your “many Democrats”) are elitist snobs — see p. 123 of my book. My impression is, though, that they don’t feel much need to compensate for it. They’re pretty happy with it. Liberals are not very much given to self-examination or self-doubt.
BC: The section on religion may make some conservatives uncomfortable. Indeed, some of it was even new to me. Could you outline for readers the proposition that, in America, there’s more evidence of there being a religious left than a religious right?
John Derbyshire: I supply the numbers (pp. 163-4). The most religious Christians — Evangelicals — are currently strong for the GOP … although, as I mention, 30 years ago they were out canvassing for Jimmy Carter. Evangelicals are not reliably conservative — Jeff Hart wrote a good essay about this somewhere. Conservatives should consider them fair-weather friends. Every other religious group in the U.S., including non-Evangelical born-again Christians, including Roman Catholics (Father Pfleger is more representative than the late Father Neuhaus), leans to the Democrats.
BC: What’s a metrocon and does the term have anything to do with men getting their nails done or spending Saturdays at the mall?
John Derbyshire: Metrocons are metropolitan conservatives; a fishy breed, who just barely know which end of a gun the bullet emerges from, think creationism is for yokels, and take NASCAR to be a brand of hair mousse. Their nails, I’m not sure about.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Bernard Chapin wrote Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island, along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
17 Comments
1. RAP:More intellectual confusion from the right. The belief in the fallibility of man was always the justification of the strong state. Otherwise people would do things like destroy the economy with credit default swaps or allow Arabs into the country to take flying (but not landing) lessions. The influence of Rousseau and others led to the craze for small government in the belief that people were naturally good. People who believed this were called liberals. Today people who believe this are neo-liberals not conservatives. Their so called conservatism is really a desire to return to the more pure liberalism of the 19th century. As for modern liberals they have embraced the welfare state but retain Roussian beliefs about criminals, Third World dictators and the benevolence of government bureaucrats.
Sep 20, 2009 - 12:47 am 2. Crass Børsting:Mr. Derbyshire states his case very well. Let’s hope, anyway, that he is wrong, and that the eternal human nature will turn to the eternal consevative values, not just in America but globally.
Sep 20, 2009 - 12:59 am 3. Jack Jolis:Good on Squire Derb “Derb” Derbyshire. The man understands, if not All, then certainly Much.
His money quote here is “A person with a firm belief in human nature is always a conservative”
As the novelist Elizabeth Bowen observed, “Trying to change what you basically are like is like walking north on a deck of a south-bound ship.”
Or, (and more pertinently to us, in these parlous times of historical amnesia), as the historian and author Walter A. McDougall put it, “American history is a tale of human nature set free.”
Sep 20, 2009 - 3:27 am 4. Jack Jolis:Good on Squire Derb “Derb” Derbyshire. The man knows, if not actually All, then certainly Much.
His money quote here is: “A person with a firm belief in human nature is always a conservative.”
The essence of Leftism is first, to try to deny that there is even such a thing as human nature, and, failing that, to try – inevitably unsuccessfully, to change it.
As the novelist Elizabeth Bowen observed “Trying to change what you basically are is like walking north on the deck of a south-bound ship.”
And as, (more pertinently to our current parlous state of apparent historical amnesia), the historian and author Walter A. McDougall put it, “American history is a tale of human nature set free.”
Sep 20, 2009 - 3:41 am 5. Donna V.:The influence of Rousseau and others led to the craze for small government in the belief that people were naturally good.
Hmmm, Rousseau’s belief that people are naturally good leads to a desire for Utopia. If evil is simply a matter of bad social systems,the thing to do is sweep the old system aside (see: French Revolution, Russian Revolution). Throw in Rousseau’s belief on the superiority of emotion to reason and his idealization of primitive socities, and you’ll understand why Rousseau is considered one of the founders of the modern Left. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anybody advance the idea that Rousseau furthered the cause of small government.
Edmund Burke supported the American Revolution and backed the French one until it spiraled into terror. His book, “Reflections on the Revolution in France” is one of the founding documents of modern conservatism.
Thomas Sowell, a great contemporary conservative, once noted that there is a thin crust of civilization seperating humans from savage behavior and that the Left is constantly picking away at that crust. Thank Rousseau for that.
That said, my church teaches that despair is a sin. If I were as pessimistic as Derbyshire, I wouldn’t be able to get out of bed in the morning.
Sep 20, 2009 - 7:48 am 6. huckledude:Love that title. The world is not for sissies, despite the best efforts of two generations of feckless policitans’ and bureaucrats’ best efforts to make it so.
Sorry, RAP. That’s the way it is. Watch a couple of John Wayne flicks and put yourself on the road to recovery.
Sep 20, 2009 - 8:43 am 7. Jack Jolis:As long as the ignoble name of J-J Rousseau is being bandied about, here’s another apt quote, this one from J-JR in 1778, as he was approaching death:
“I think I know man, but as for men, I know them not.” – JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU
It rather nicely illustrates the law that posits: The Left loves “humanity”, but doesn’t actually like, or have much time for, individual human beings.
Sep 20, 2009 - 9:05 am 8. BrainTrust:Thank you for the intelligent, thoughtful posts.
To me, it all comes down to this: the individual or the collective.
Conservatives choose the former …. Progressives/Liberals/Leftists, the latter.
Whichever the philosophical underpinnings, the love and quest for money and power is overriding. Hence the sad fact that our Congress and the Executive have become little more than crimial enterprises.
Sep 20, 2009 - 10:41 am 9. DrBukk:RAP: The belief in the fallibility of man was always the justification of the strong state.
Huh? That belief undermined royalty being “divinely inspired”. It led to checks and balances in the American system. Our constitution anticipated the tyrannical quest for power in some, and so enumerated only the powers granted. It is the basis of R. Reagan’s “trust but verify”.
The left harbors the utopian view that everyone who is poor could be successful if only they had a hand up. But the unintended consequences of their nannying has made it increasingly difficult to earn a living. Two acres used to be enough to survive before liquor-making was seized from the poor. Today, you need a license to cut hair.
Sep 20, 2009 - 10:48 am 10. David Thomson:We are not doomed! The odds are actually on our side. John Derbyshire is a very bright man. Unfortunately, he represents a “sophisticated” conservative mindset of passive surrender to the so-called inevitable forces of history. Derbyshire finds it comforting to sit on the sidelines drinking a glass of wine while the word comes to an inglorious end. He is simply not a leader. Thank goodness there are heroes like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and countless others.
Sep 20, 2009 - 11:10 am 11. John Skookum:The Left loves “humanity”, but doesn’t actually like, or have much time for, individual human beings.
I once heard a good illustration of this as “Everybody wants to save the world; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.”
Sep 20, 2009 - 1:21 pm 12. ricpic:Derbyshire’s “We are doomed!” gusto is perverse.
Sep 20, 2009 - 1:55 pm 13. David Thomson:“Derbyshire’s “We are doomed!” gusto is perverse.”
John Derbyshire is also a pro-abortion secularist. In back of his mind, he may not really want a successful conservative revolution. Derbyshire rightfully senses that Sarah Palin and her allies will be calling the shots. “Moderate” Republicans will have to ask themselves this awkward and uneasy question: how much do I truly value a growing economy and a strong national defense?
Sep 20, 2009 - 2:23 pm 14. Sk8 Punk:Well said, especially, the bit about human nature and a belief in it being the splitting point for liberals and conservatives.
Sure would be nice to have more academic discussions like this on PJ Media
Sep 20, 2009 - 4:08 pm 15. Jerry:I wish Mr. Derbyshire had utilized his mathematical skill to delineate his theories. Otherwise he amounts to no better than talking out of turn.
Naseem Taleeb in “The Black Swan” does a convincing job mathematically of showing why Socialist solutions are so quintessentially irrational. Mind you, he is not a conservative. He is a polymath who shows what is possible and what is not – ever. Predicting the future, even while acting to produce a specific outcome, is a hopeless task. In this regard, I am certain that lawyer Obama never predicted the difficulties he would face in turning America into a place he could be proud of.
Sep 20, 2009 - 10:21 pm 16. Lee Dise:I held a subscription to National Review from the time I was 18 until I was 53. There are several reasons I no longer subscribe, but Derbyshire was the proverbial camel’s back-breaking straw.
Despair, of course, is where his view of human nature naturally leads — if you don’t believe in Christ. If we’re the ones who are in charge, despair is a natural reaction, since humanity is dead in sin (Paul).
Derbyshire’s conservatism is a godless conservatism. Unlike religious conservatives, he doesn’t believe in the Lord’s eschaton, and unlike liberals, he has deduced that man cannot create his own.
It’s a sterile, harsh, and joyless world view.
Sep 21, 2009 - 6:01 am 17. Simon:“The Left loves “humanity”, but doesn’t actually like, or have much time for, individual human beings.”
Indeed so. Invoking an abstracted ‘Humanity’ in the course of pointing up their own tacit moral perfection by decrying the shortcomings of others seems to me a tactic for a form of stealthy competition in a hyper-individualistic milieu, one whose cunning and evil is such that it dare not speak its name.
Oct 20, 2009 - 2:41 pm