After about 150 years of secular decline, barbarism has been on the increase for most of the twentieth century. In this respect I understand “barbarism” to mean two things.
First, the disruption and breakdown of the system of rules and moral behavior by which all societies regulate the relations among their members and, to a lesser extent, between their members and those of other societies.
Second, I mean, more specifically, the reverse of what we may call the project of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, namely, the establishment of a universal system of such rules and standards of moral behavior, embodied in the institution of states dedicated to the rational progress of humanity.
==Totalitarianism, Globalization, Colonialism: The Destruction of Civilization since 1914 (Redner, Harry)
In 2012, according to the College Fix, 99 percent of the faculty and staff at Princeton University who donated to presidential candidates gave to Barack Obama. In 2016, 91 percent of Harvard’s faculty donations went to Hillary Clinton.
The bedrock of contemporary progressivism can only be described as quasi-religious. In sum, secularist progressivism today is less a political movement than a church. Progressivism today does not regard the traditional Judeo-Christian moral code as simply passé. Thanks to evolving doctrine about the sexual revolution, that code is seen instead as the equivalent of evil.
==It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies (Eberstadt, Mary)
The late Andrew Breitbart is credited with the statement that “politics is downstream of culture.” Since Breitbart made that memorable assertion, Red State, Daily Caller and other Republican websites have expressed the same view. By now this remark has risen to the status of an axiom. Too bad it’s simply wrong as a description of contemporary Western societies! Clearly, those repeating Breitbart’s statement have not read my work on the managerial state and its changing ideological justifications. Having spent decades trying to demonstrate the power of modern democratic states over moral attitudes and social practices, I’ve noticed that no one of journalistic importance has considered my arguments.
Let me begin by noting that modern public administration and its judicial and educational arms should not be equated with any government at any time. A specifically modern Western state has behind it vast coercive power and the capacity to socialize its subject-citizens. Moreover, since elections are scheduled at regular intervals and since rotation is supposed to take place between two parties or party blocs, citizens assume that government operates “democratically.” Never mind that entrenched parties and politicians by their presence and activities serve to strengthen the status quo or that representation becomes more distant and vaguer as both population and bureaucratic centralization continue to grow. Despite occasional complaining, most of the population take on face value what is presented as “democratic” representation. Being free to manage their lives matters less to them than other things, such as not giving actionable offense in the workplace, making sure that government provides social services and not having to fork over “too much” to other state clients.