This article gets the diagnosis right but, like so many other liberal publications, fails to articulate any path forward. I don’t really blame the author; no one alive and in the workforce today remembers a time before professions were commonplace.
The difference between a job and a profession is that professionals hold one another accountable to maintain the trust of their institutions. As an example, lawyers determine what other lawyers are allowed to practice via the BAR. Liberal governance, broadly speaking, can be thought of as a coalition of professional institutions.
What we’re dealing with here is *illiberalism*, which has been a mostly foreign concept to modern America. It does not believe in the idea that people have some amount of independent power; illiberalism is based in the idea that power is only gifted to you from “chosen” elites and that your station in society is defined by the relationship with your patrons.
The great problem with professionals dealing with illiberal actors is that professionals think they can win illiberals over with some kind of rational dialogue. Illiberals do not care about rational dialogue. You are not a peer. You are a tool, and the moment you disagree is the moment you stop being useful. To put the mindset in context- would you argue with a hammer? Because that is all a professional is to the illiberal.
The correct way to deal with illiberals is to frustrate their efforts through actively withholding your knowledge/participation and taking efforts to show those who hold hard power (i.e. capital and military) the dangers of cooperating with these people. Illiberals, if given quarter, will subsume any faction that aligns with them. There is no independence in illiberal frameworks.
So, more candidly:
1. Stop treating the WH admin like they are legitimate professionals.
2. Communicate with those in government who are not part of the admin and convince them to stop cooperating.
3. Do not entertain illiberal factions in your local governments.
1 Comment
This article gets the diagnosis right but, like so many other liberal publications, fails to articulate any path forward. I don’t really blame the author; no one alive and in the workforce today remembers a time before professions were commonplace.
The difference between a job and a profession is that professionals hold one another accountable to maintain the trust of their institutions. As an example, lawyers determine what other lawyers are allowed to practice via the BAR. Liberal governance, broadly speaking, can be thought of as a coalition of professional institutions.
What we’re dealing with here is *illiberalism*, which has been a mostly foreign concept to modern America. It does not believe in the idea that people have some amount of independent power; illiberalism is based in the idea that power is only gifted to you from “chosen” elites and that your station in society is defined by the relationship with your patrons.
The great problem with professionals dealing with illiberal actors is that professionals think they can win illiberals over with some kind of rational dialogue. Illiberals do not care about rational dialogue. You are not a peer. You are a tool, and the moment you disagree is the moment you stop being useful. To put the mindset in context- would you argue with a hammer? Because that is all a professional is to the illiberal.
The correct way to deal with illiberals is to frustrate their efforts through actively withholding your knowledge/participation and taking efforts to show those who hold hard power (i.e. capital and military) the dangers of cooperating with these people. Illiberals, if given quarter, will subsume any faction that aligns with them. There is no independence in illiberal frameworks.
So, more candidly:
1. Stop treating the WH admin like they are legitimate professionals.
2. Communicate with those in government who are not part of the admin and convince them to stop cooperating.
3. Do not entertain illiberal factions in your local governments.