The Evolutionary Mystery Of Humor

Posted on April 27, 2026 by Luke Ford

David Pinsof writes in his new paper (and Substack column):

* Human social life is filled with coordination problems: passing each other in a hallway, taking turns talking and listening, differentiating the meanings of “hook up with” and “meet up with,” gathering at the same time and place, etc. But what happens when we suffer a mix-up—for instance, we get stuck dancing back and forth in the hallway, or I casually mention that I “hooked up” with your mother last night? Here, I argue that such mix-ups posed a significant adaptive problem for our ancestors, disrupting cooperation, damaging reputations, fomenting needless conflict, and destroying valuable relationships. Natural selection favored three solutions to this adaptive problem: 1) a sense of humor (i.e., the ability to detect, anticipate, and avoid mix-ups), 2) mutual laughter in response to humor (which creates common knowledge of the mix-up and defuses its costs), and 3) joking as a hard-to-fake signal of one’s ability to detect and avoid mix-ups (and thus one’s value as a coordination partner).

* Many animals have play signals that they use to differentiate play interactions from real interactions. Cetaceans use an open-mouth display (Maglieri et al., 2024), kea parrots use a warble (Schwing et al., 2017), canids use a bow (Bekoff, 1995), and rats use 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations (Kisko et al., 2015). More relevant to our purposes, chimpanzees use a panting sound, uncannily reminiscent of human laughter, during bouts of tickling, chasing, or rough-and-tumble play (Matsusaka, 2004). If we could translate this panting sound into words, it might be something like: “I understand that this is play aggression and not real aggression. I am not mad at you or afraid of you.”

* We can think of the costliness, confusability, and mutual recognition of a mix-up as inputs into an emotional system: mirth or amusement—a system that likely overlaps with neural systems for play (Panksepp et al., 1984). The outputs of mirth might include: 1) an urge to laugh, 2) a heightened sensitivity to others’ laughter, 3) a motivation to reciprocate others’ laughter to the degree that it is sensed, matching the observed intensity, 4) feelings of reward in proportion to the magnitude of the costs defused by the reciprocally emerging laughter, as well as in proportion to the updated value of the coordination partnership, and 5) a deactivation of emotions that process costs, to ensure that the (potential) costs are not incurred or represented by either party, and that the process of common knowledge generation is not disrupted.

* Represented costs spread through the brain like wildfire (Sznycer & Lukaszewski, 2019; Sznycer, 2022), making their mutual defusal a difficult adaptive problem. It is often unclear what all the relevant costs to any mix-up might be (e.g., relational, reputational, physical, hygienic, economic), or all the relevant emotions the costs might feed into. A perceived insult could trigger anger, shame, guilt, sadness, regret, disgust, and fear in either the insulted party, the victim, or third parties, depending on the nature of the insult and its social context—and on what actions or events might be expected to follow from it. Insofar as mirth is well-designed, it might produce a general deactivation of emotions that process costs, in order to stop the wildfire of negative representations from spreading throughout the brain and disrupting the process of mutual cost defusal.

* Mirth can transform a person into something rather frightening. It may deactivate their fear, making them impossible to threaten or deter. It may deactivate their empathy for others’ plights, transforming others’ suffering into a joke. Scowls of disapproval would be all but invisible. Threats of punishment and cries for help would fall on deaf ears. It is nearly impossible to get through to a mirthful individual or negotiate with them for better treatment. The only thing they can do is laugh in our faces.

This might explain why mirth can, if one is not sharing it, feel hostile, creepy, or even terrifying. The best example of the menacing nature of mirth comes from the character of the Joker in The Dark Knight, whose mirthful disposition conveys a sense of fearlessness and heartlessness: he cannot be bought, reasoned with, or negotiated with because he takes nothing seriously. He just wants to watch the world burn, unsaddened by—or perversely delighted by—the sight of a world in flames.

* We can think of the phenomenology of seriousness as the opposite of mirthfulness—a state in which social or physical costs, either potential or actual, are being carefully attended to. If I’m angry with you, then you need to process the costs that I’m threatening to inflict on you (Sell et al., 2017). If something terrible has happened, we need to take that seriously and figure out what to do about it. To take something seriously is to devote non-mirthful attention to it—to be sensitive to its actual or potential costs.

But then what is a ‘serious person?’ It is a person who demands non-mirthful attention—a person who can inflict costs on others, either directly, through reputational or physical attacks, or indirectly, by withholding valuable knowledge or resources. A serious person is someone whose interests must be respected, whose threats must be heeded, whose absence is greatly felt. In the show Succession, Logan Roy tells his children they are not serious people. We can now see why his words cut so deep.

And we can also see why humor is so often political. To laugh at something is to not take it seriously—to turn off our fear in the face of a threat, our anger in the face of a provocation, or our empathy in the face of a suffering victim. Politics revolves around what we ought to take seriously as a society—what problems we must work together to solve—and mirth turns these problems into jokes. Authority is maintained by stern threats of punishment and disapproval, and mirth deflates it like a whoopie cushion. Politicians wield negative emotions as political weapons, and mirth leaves them weaponless. It is therefore unsurprising that people with stronger moral identities are less able to appreciate humor and generate jokes (Yam et al., 2019).

Posted in David Pinsof, Humor | Comments Off on The Evolutionary Mystery Of Humor

Why Do People Call Various Beliefs ‘Cancer’?

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

Alliance Theory treats moral language as coalition technology. Words like “evil,” “racist,” “fascist,” and “cancer” do not primarily describe the world. They mark sides, recruit allies, and coordinate action against enemies. The vocabulary tracks who you stand with more than what you observe.
“Cancer” is a high-grade weapon in this vocabulary.
It forecloses negotiation. You do not debate cancer or seek common ground with it. The metaphor pre-loads the only legitimate response: excision. Once an ideology gets the cancer label, anyone who proposes engagement, reform, or coexistence sounds like a man recommending you live with your tumor.
It medicalizes politics, which puts the speaker in the role of healer. The opponent is no longer a fellow citizen with different interests but a sick growth on the body politic. This raises the speaker’s coalition to physicians and lowers the target to disease.
It recruits bystanders cheaply. Few people defend cancer. The metaphor pulls in third parties who might otherwise stay neutral, since opposing cancer reads as common sense rather than a partisan stand. Pinsof emphasizes how moral talk works by mobilizing audiences, and “cancer” optimizes for that mobilization.
It licenses what is otherwise off-limits. You can do things to cancer you cannot do to opponents. Surveillance, exclusion, firing, criminalization, and violence all become defensible once the target gets reframed as a malignancy threatening the host. The metaphor naturalizes severity.
It binds the in-group through shared enemy. Coalitions cohere around what they oppose more reliably than around what they affirm. Calling the other side cancer gives your coalition a unifying threat and a shared mission of eradication.
The symmetry is the giveaway. The right calls wokeness cancer. The left calls White supremacy cancer. Religious traditionalists call secular liberalism cancer. New atheists called religion a cancer. Hamas calls Zionism cancer. Settlers call Hamas cancer. Every coalition reaches for the same metaphor about its primary enemy, as Pinsof predicts.
Trivers adds that the speaker usually believes the framing. Self-deception makes recruitment more effective, since visible conviction persuades better than calculated rhetoric. The man who calls an ideology cancer rarely thinks of himself as deploying coalition technology. He thinks he sees a tumor.
Becker adds the hero-system layer. Calling something cancer casts the speaker as defender of the body against existential threat. That role supplies meaning, identity, and standing. The metaphor places the user in a heroic story about saving the host from death.

Posted in Alliance Theory | Comments Off on Why Do People Call Various Beliefs ‘Cancer’?

Michael P. Kramer: ‘Critical Narcissism and the Coming-of-Age of Jewish American Literary Studies’ (2004)

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

Janet Burstein wrote in the Forward Sep. 26, 2003:

Critical preoccupation with “the notion of Israel as a sacred homeland to which Jews in diaspora are longing to return” runs like a subtext through several essays by American-born critics who now live in Israel. Equally persistent is the contradictory notion that American Jews see America as “the new Promised Land.” Philip Roth is said to reject Israel and to choose America as a “homeland” for the sake of “freedom” and “security.” Like most American Jews, however, Roth’s novels develop this issue way beyond the polarity of “either/or,” constructing the personal “home” and the collective “homeland” as facets of an awareness as complicated and as fraught as Roth’s sense of Jewish identity.

Finally, American writers’ complex connection to the Jewish past is also reduced to a simple polarity. As novelists here struggle to relate themselves to the Holocaust — which happened elsewhere, to other Jews — American writers are seen “to be caught in a no-win bind. Forget the past and the Jewish component” of identity “falls away. Remember the past and you write European rather than American fiction.” In this perspective, our writers seem to invoke the Holocaust in order to pursue “other, more primary agendas” — notably the agenda of constructing “Jewish identity in the United States.” A work that seemed to an earlier American critic to develop a “strain of reverence toward Jewish historical experience” is understood in this perspective to serve the cause of “identity politics.” Critical attitude, here, bends the work of memory and mourning toward ego gratification.

Today, many American Jewish writers are struggling to recall a distant past, to clarify and to mourn its losses. The integrity, complexity and seriousness of that effort are harder to see from a critical perspective that assumes American writers’ self-serving exploitation of the Holocaust, that considers our language inauthentic and our culture deviant, that continues to ask whether “the story of the American Jew, in order to get itself going, may well have to rid itself of the past that binds it to Jewish realities no longer pertinent or desirable.”

These are first-rate Israeli critics. But their elegant and polished essays suggest that American Jews who have chosen to stay here, to live and write in English, among people who are not Jews, may have become a troubling puzzle to Jews who have made other choices.

The Menken case is the killer. Meyer Waxman, writing in 1940, declared Menken’s poetry “permeated by a deep Jewish spirit” and heard echoes of Kohelet in her secular verses. Renée Sentilles’s biography shows Menken was almost certainly not Jewish. She married a Jewish musician, published a few poems with Jewish content in Wise’s Israelite, plagiarized some of them from Penina Moise, and abandoned the role within three years. Waxman saw a Jewish soul because he needed to. The Saul Bellow case runs the other direction. Bellow kept telling critics that calling him a Jewish writer flattened him, and critics kept doing it anyway, hunting for hidden Jewish messages he had not put there. Both examples show the same operation. The critic’s identification overrides what the writer or the text supplies.
This Janet Burstein piece in the Forward is the trigger Kramer almost names but does not quite. She reviewed the Cambridge Companion to Jewish American Literature, which Kramer co-edited, and accused him and several other contributors of treating American Jewish writing as inauthentic and deviant. She wrote “our language, our culture” to mean American Jewish, and Kramer caught the slide. The essay is his counter. He says the move from “American Jewish writers” to “our language” is the narcissism, and the function of the move is to shut down the critical perspective that would take Jewish American difference seriously. So the essay is not a quiet editorial statement. It is a confrontation. He names Burstein in a footnote and quotes her at length. The editor who placed this in the issue knew what was being done.
Kramer stops at “critical style.” The four diagnostic questions tell you why the style exists. Critics who depend on the Jewish American studies field for status, income, and protection cannot afford readings that displease the coalition that rewards them. The signals of coalition membership include treating Bellow as a Jewish writer over his protests, finding Jewishness in Menken’s verses, naturalizing the Wissenschaft inheritance, and treating accusations of “inauthentic” as a closing move rather than an opening one. What a critic gives up by reading Lazarus through Longfellow, or Menken as a non-Jewish performer of Jewishness, is membership. Kramer is in a position to say this because he has already been read out. He made aliyah, was labeled an “Israeli critic,” and was told his perspective on American Jewish writing was hostile. The essay is partly a defense of his right to read the literature without coalition penalty.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Michael P. Kramer: ‘Critical Narcissism and the Coming-of-Age of Jewish American Literary Studies’ (2004)

David Hollinger: ‘Rich, Powerful, and Smart: Jewish Overrepresentation Should Be Explained Instead of Avoided or Mystified’ (2004)

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

Hollinger writes as if breaking a taboo. He frames the essay as a brave departure from a field that looks away. The opening does the work: a distinguished historian privately suspects the answer is genetic. The reader feels the chill. Hollinger then offers his own answer, which turns out to be the safest available account.
The argument runs on environmental terrain. Diaspora conditions selected for literacy, calculation, abstraction, mobility. These are the skills modernity rewards. Jews entered the modern era already trained for it. The same framework explains the Bolsheviks, the Nobel laureates, the financiers.
The structure is cultural transmission across generations. No biology. No selection effect on heritable traits. No engagement with the work that motivates the distinguished historian’s private suspicion. Hollinger wants to neutralize the genetic question by not engaging it.
That move has costs. The skills he names, calculation, abstraction, language fluency, are the very traits cognitive ability research treats as substantially heritable. If Jewish communities passed these traits along for forty generations through assortative mating within a literate marriage market, the historical and biological accounts converge rather than compete. Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending make this argument explicit two years after Hollinger writes. He could have anticipated it. He chooses not to.
The “same principles of causation” line is his strongest move and the one he does not follow through on. He says we should use the same toolkit for under- and overrepresentation. Fine. The toolkit used to explain Black underrepresentation includes claims about ancestral conditions, about the heritability of the trait, about the persistence of group differences across environments. Apply that toolkit symmetrically and you reach conclusions Hollinger shows no interest in reaching. Method symmetry requires following the explanation wherever it leads. He prefers a one-sided symmetry.
The Bolshevik passage is the bravest section. He names Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Yagoda. He notes the Jewish overrepresentation among the makers of the Revolution and the staffers of the early Soviet state. For 2004 in the Jewish Quarterly Review, this is unusual. Slezkine’s book had just appeared. Hollinger uses it.
But his account treats Bolshevism as a rational career path for ambitious literate outsiders plus a universalist ideology that promised to abolish blood and soil. That is part of the story. The other part, which Slezkine handles with more candor than Hollinger, is that the Pale produced ethnic resentment, and the Revolution gave that resentment institutional expression. Universalist socialism worked among many of its Jewish adherents as a vehicle for tribal grievance against the Christian peasantries that had penned them in. The early Soviet state, among other things, settled old accounts. Hollinger’s framework cannot say this. His skills-and-opportunities account keeps the analysis on safer ground.
The most useful conceptual move comes near the end, when Hollinger separates communal Jewry from descendants of the Diaspora. The expansion lets Jewish studies claim Oppenheimer, Lippmann, Merton, Kuhn, Rand, Albright. He frames the move as methodological honesty: these people were shaped by the conditions, and so the conditions are part of their story.
The move also performs coalition work. It lets Jewish intellectuals talk about Jewish achievement in fields where the achievers did not affiliate. It folds atheist physicists, Cold War liberals, Hollywood moguls, and Republican Secretaries of State into a category that flatters the descent group. The booster reading and the bigot reading both stay on the table. Hollinger wants to escape the booster-bigot trap, but his analytical expansion gives the booster reading a wider field to operate on.
Academic essentialism rarely announces itself directly. It works through framing: which questions count as serious, which sources count as authoritative, which conclusions count as decent. Hollinger frames the essay as anti-essentialist. The framing presents environmental explanation as the brave alternative to mystification. But environmental explanation is the field’s preferred resting place. Mystification is not the alternative he suppresses. The genetic account is. He argues against the wrong opponent.
Alliance Theory points the same direction. The essay does coalition work for a formation of Jewish American liberal academics who want the freedom to discuss Jewish overrepresentation candidly without conceding any ground to the antisemitic right or to the cognitive ability literature. The piece supplies a vocabulary that lets that group hold the topic at the center of its inquiry while keeping the conclusions safe.
Hollinger picks the right target. The avoidance is a problem. The mystification is a problem. His own account replaces them with a more refined avoidance. The questions worth asking after Hollinger are the ones his framework rules out: how much of the Jewish achievement pattern survives controls for cognitive ability, how much of cognitive ability is heritable in the relevant range, what happens to the explanation when Diaspora conditions end and the achievement pattern persists into the third and fourth American generations. Klingenstein’s institutional history, Novick on the consensus school, and Slezkine’s portrait of the Soviet Jewish intelligentsia all bear on these questions. Hollinger gestures toward the territory and stops at the border.
Hollinger uses Coleman Silk to illustrate that family-level cultural capital, not skin color, accounts for educational and professional achievement. The framing flatters the environmental account. But Roth’s novel cuts the other way too. Silk’s success rests on inheriting from a Black family that already had what most Black families did not have: rabbinical-like learning in the father, social solidarity, literacy across generations, commercial experience. Roth uses that family precisely because it is unusual. Hollinger reads the unusual family as evidence that conditions, not biology, do the work. The reading is plausible. It is also the reading that lets him keep the analysis on the side of the question he prefers.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on David Hollinger: ‘Rich, Powerful, and Smart: Jewish Overrepresentation Should Be Explained Instead of Avoided or Mystified’ (2004)

White House Correspondents Dinner Attack (4-26-26)

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

11:00 Emergency Pod: Another Attempt on Trump, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL6ftH2jFUs
13:00 Brian Stelter: ‘An extraordinary moment for America’s media elite is all too ordinary in America’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184546
16:00 Symptoms of Underearning, https://www.underearnersanonymous.org/newcomers-to-underearners-anonymous/symptoms-of-underearning/
36:30 CSPAN Live Coverage of the attack, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HraD2CMHJGI
49:00 The Cartography of Avoidance: Historical Taboos and the Architecture of Intellectual Life, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184528
58:00 Who Is Served And Who Is Hurt By The Frame That Hitler Was The Ultimate Evil?
https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184503
1:03:00 The Great Delusion, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184359
1:14:00 Making Democratic Theory Democratic: Democracy, Law, and Administration after Weber and Kelsen, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=162442
1:16:00 Christopher Caldwell: ‘The Lamps Are Going Out’, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184324
1:20:00 The Varieties of Religious Experience, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184213
1:23:00 The Coalition Will See You Now, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184040
1:34:00 MONTY PYTHON’S CARL SCHMITT (A FOUND FRAGMENT), https://x.com/lukeford/status/2044167769516920937
1:40:00 Platform, Pulpit, Archive: Three Models of MO Rabbinic Self-Presentation in Los Angeles, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=184006

Posted in America | Comments Off on White House Correspondents Dinner Attack (4-26-26)

Brian Stelter: ‘An extraordinary moment for America’s media elite is all too ordinary in America’

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

CNN’s media correspondent writes:

What happened at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night might have seemed extraordinary because President Trump and so many people in the presidential line of succession were in the ballroom when shots were fired outside.

But we need to say out loud that it was actually all too ordinary. In America, this is all too common: a shots-fired moment, a chaotic lockdown, a spasm of violence interrupting a peaceful gathering.

Thousands of media and political elites have now gone through what countless millions of other Americans have experienced in their schools, offices, malls and churches.

And on most of those occasions, there were no Secret Service agents.

Stelter performs a recognizable coalition move. A targeted political assassination attempt against the president and his cabinet becomes a generic story about American gun violence. The shooter wrote a manifesto naming administration officials as targets by rank. He took a train across the country. He attended No Kings protests. He donated to Harris. He belonged to a group called The Wide Awakes. None of that appears in Stelter’s column.
The frame dissolves particulars into a general category. Stelter equates the WHCA dinner experience with what ordinary Americans go through at schools, offices, malls and churches. That formulation does a lot of work. It re-categorizes the event from political violence to ambient gun violence. It performs class solidarity, the elites now know what ordinary people feel. It routes the reader toward a familiar policy conversation rather than an unfamiliar political one.
The Sciutto quote completes the pivot. “There won’t be any substantive discussion about access to weapons, right? There just won’t.” Advocacy disguised as observation. The discussion routes to gun policy and away from the manifesto, the train ride, and the targets.
Test the symmetry. If a Trump supporter had taken a train to a Democratic gathering with a manifesto naming senior Democrats as targets by rank, the framing might not be a story about what ordinary Americans experience at the grocery store. The ideology might be central. The radicalization pathway might be examined. The rhetoric of the broader coalition might be implicated. Stelter might not write a column whose emotional climax is his six-year-old son texting him.
The asymmetry tells you what coalition Stelter sits inside and what tacit rules govern how political violence gets coded when it travels in different directions. Violence from the left gets coded as gun violence. Violence from the right gets coded as political violence and indicts a movement.
Stelter’s hero system runs on the journalist as truthteller-against-power. When the violence comes from his own coalition’s flank, the script breaks. You cannot indict your own side if there are no sides, only Americans and guns.
The closing image of the six-year-old son works as sentiment laundering. It moves the reader from analytical questions, who, why, what does the manifesto say, to the warm bath of parental feeling. By the end of the column you are not thinking about Cole Allen’s politics. You are thinking about your own children.
America has a gun violence problem. America also has a political violence problem. One side’s violence gets coded as ideology. The other side’s violence gets coded as mental illness or ambient cultural sickness.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on Brian Stelter: ‘An extraordinary moment for America’s media elite is all too ordinary in America’

The Cartography of Avoidance: Historical Taboos and the Architecture of Intellectual Life

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

A list of topics historians avoid serves as a map of contemporary moral geography. The scholar who wishes to understand his own profession can learn more from this map than from any methodology textbook. The shape of avoidance reveals where coalitions sit, what those coalitions cannot afford to lose, and how knowledge production depends on social positioning.
The list runs long. Bruce Gilley’s 2017 paper on colonialism’s net effects produced death threats and an editorial mass resignation. Heritability research connecting cognitive traits to historical outcomes draws professional sanctions before peer review begins. African and Arab participation in the slave trade receives a fraction of the attention given to the Atlantic system, even though the Arab trade ran longer and the African political economy supplied much of the human cargo for both. Pre-Columbian human sacrifice on a scale of tens of thousands per year remains a marginal subject. Communist death tolls from the Great Leap Forward, the Holodomor, and the Khmer Rouge sit at perhaps a hundred million, yet comparative atrocity work brings accusations of relativization. The Islamic conquests as a vector of cultural destruction get treated as suspect framing. Demographic replacement in the late Roman west remains taboo because the genetic evidence touches modern migration debates. The Great Divergence, once a live question of culture, institutions, and geography, now shrinks toward the single explanation of Western theft. Jewish overrepresentation in finance, science, and revolutionary leadership cannot be discussed in mixed company without invoking either conspiracy or ban. Biological constraints on the historical sexual division of labor draw the same fire.
Methodological taboos shadow the substantive ones. The origins of Islam, treated by the same secular tools that scholars apply to early Christianity, draw threats and exclusion. Intelligence agency history depends on archives that the agencies control. Pre-Columbian population estimates carry political weight because they set the moral scale of contact. The historical Jesus splits between confessional protection and a small camp arguing for myth, with the academic middle treating both extremes as career hazards. Chinese archives on the Mao era stay closed to scholars who want to count. The Armenian Genocide remains a diplomatic instrument as much as a historical fact. Gender history struggles with presentism, with retroactive identity assignment competing against archival rigor. The post-Roman west still gets called dark because the records vanished, and the archaeology that might fill the gap touches the same population-replacement nerve. Israel-Palestine work gets read for tribal allegiance before content. Holocaust scholarship splits between intentionalists and functionalists, with the latter often reading as moral evasion. Recent history past 2000 sits in the contested zone where journalism and history compete for the same evidence.
This is a long list. The patterns inside the list matter more than the items.
Avoidance clusters where modern moral identity attaches to historical interpretation. The events that anchor the most current political coalitions produce the narrowest range of permissible interpretation. The Holocaust anchors postwar European liberalism, the legitimacy of Israel, and the moral grammar of antiracism. Colonialism anchors postcolonial state legitimacy, reparations debates, and the self-understanding of formerly colonized elites who trained in Western universities. Slavery anchors American racial politics. Each topic carries a settled valence, and the settled valence has become a coalition asset. To question any element of the framing reads as an attack on the coalition that owns the asset, regardless of the evidentiary content of the question.
A second pattern is temporal asymmetry. Avoidance intensifies as the topic approaches the present. The Peloponnesian War invites no protest. The Iraq War invites a great deal. The closer the events sit to people who can punish a scholar, the narrower the acceptable interpretive range. Evidence on the Iraq War sits in fresh archives and live testimony. Evidence on the Peloponnesian War survives in fragments. The asymmetry runs the opposite direction from what evidence alone might predict. The effective constraint is the active stakeholder, not the absent source.
A third pattern is what Stephen Turner calls tacit knowledge. The rules of avoidance are not codified. No journal publishes a list of forbidden topics. Graduate students learn the rules by watching what happens to scholars who break them. The rules transmit through observation, through informal mentorship, through the careful editing that occurs at the dissertation stage. Tacit knowledge transmission of this kind has the property of looking like consensus from inside the profession and like censorship from outside. The participants find the rules natural. The outsider finds them arbitrary. Both are right about their respective vantage points.
A fourth pattern is the logic of coalitions. Alliance Theory fits the data. Scholars depend on networks of journals, hiring committees, grant agencies, donors, and media amplifiers. Those networks share a moral vocabulary, and the vocabulary functions as the coalition’s identifying signal. Work that affirms the vocabulary travels well within the network. Work that violates the vocabulary triggers exclusion regardless of empirical content. The exclusion need not take the form of a tribunal. It takes the form of slow returns on submitted manuscripts, polite passes on conference invitations, hiring committees that score the candidate’s fit lower, and book reviews that emphasize the work’s flaws over its contributions. The aggregate effect resembles censorship, but each individual decision feels like independent professional judgment to the participants. Coalition logic does not require conspiracy. It requires only shared incentives among many actors who never need to coordinate.
A fifth pattern is sacred hierarchy. Some events are treated as morally singular and so cannot be compared. Comparison flattens. Comparison undoes the singularity. A historian who places the Holocaust in a series with other twentieth-century atrocities, even with the most respectful framing, risks accusations of relativization. The sacred status of the event protects the moral lessons that the surrounding coalition has built on top of the event. The lessons cannot survive comparison because comparison reveals them as one possible reading among several. Ernest Becker’s account of hero systems helps here. Coalitions need sacred objects. Sacred objects do not survive analytic flattening. Any historian who flattens threatens the hero system, no matter his motive.
A sixth pattern is selective amplification. The volume of attention given to Western sins exceeds the volume given to non-Western parallels by a wide margin. The rest of the human record gets compressed. Aztec sacrifice, the Arab slave trade, Islamic expansionist violence, indigenous warfare, and Asian imperial cruelties all produced documented death and suffering at significant scale. The scholarly literature on these subjects exists, but the public-facing footprint stays small. The asymmetry suggests that the moral function of historical scholarship has come to overshadow the descriptive function. A profession that wishes to teach lessons must choose its examples to support the lessons. Examples that complicate the lessons get less air.
A seventh pattern is the reputational economy. Publication is not just an act of knowledge production. It is an act of self-presentation. Each piece signals something about the author’s position in the moral order of the profession. Incremental work inside accepted frames signals competence and loyalty. Reframing work signals risk. The system rewards the first and punishes the second, with the result that frame-level innovation tends to come from outsiders, late-career scholars who can absorb the hit, or scholars in adjacent disciplines like economics or genetics where the moral pressures take different shapes. The young scholar inside the field has every reason to defer his most original work until he has tenure, and most reasons to never publish it at all once he has it.
An eighth pattern is the displacement of falsification by moral panic. Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion holds that a claim earns scientific status by submitting to possible refutation. The taboo topics show the inversion. Some claims hold their position because refutation is treated as morally impermissible. The defender of the standard narrative does not need to address the data. The challenger needs to address not only the data but also the moral charges that arise from the challenge. This is how religion works, not how science is supposed to work. Robert Trivers, writing on self-deception, argues that humans deploy moral charges to protect coalition beliefs from inspection. The pattern in academic history matches his account.
These eight patterns share a common substrate. Modern intellectual life sits at the meeting point of inquiry and belonging. The scholar who wants to belong must signal the right loyalties. The scholar who pursues open inquiry must accept some loss of belonging. Most scholars compromise. They signal the approved positions on the live wires and pursue inquiry on the cool ones. This explains why so much excellent work continues to appear on questions safely distant from current coalitions, and why questions close to current coalitions produce thin and predictable scholarship.
The cost of this arrangement falls on several parties. The first cost falls on the public, which receives a curated history shaped by the profession’s avoidance pattern more than by the underlying evidence. The second cost falls on policy, since policy made on a curated history fails when reality contradicts the curation. The third cost falls on the profession’s own credibility, as readers outside the academy come to suspect that the historian’s account serves a coalition rather than the past. The fourth cost falls on scholars who might do work the profession will not reward, and who therefore do something else.
The list of taboo topics tells us what kind of institution the academy has become in the humanities and historical disciplines. It is not a truth-seeking body. It is a moral training body that uses the tools of truth-seeking, in attenuated form, to support the training. The two functions overlap in many cases. They diverge in the cases on the list.
A skeptic might respond that every age has its taboos. Victorian scholars could not write candidly about sex. Cold War scholars wrote about communism with one eye on political risk, and the risk differed by country. The current taboos are not unprecedented. Historical reflection of this kind has a stabilizing effect, since it reminds the reader that the present moment of constraint is not the worst case in the long record.
The skeptic’s response holds, but it understates one feature of the present moment. The current taboos extend further into the methodologically central questions than past taboos did. A Victorian historian could write about politics, war, religion, race, and economics with a freedom modern scholars do not have. He paid for the freedom with the closure of certain other topics. The trade today runs the other way. Modern scholars can write about sex without restraint. They cannot write with equal openness about cognition, group differences, comparative atrocity, or the long question of why some societies advanced faster than others. These are not peripheral matters. They sit near the center of any serious account of human history.
The list, then, does not just mark the edges of polite scholarship. It marks the edges of available understanding. The historian who accepts the constraints accepts a partial picture. He might produce excellent work within the partial picture. He cannot produce a comprehensive picture, because the comprehensive picture requires the questions on the list.
What does the list say about life today? It says that the institutions tasked with producing public knowledge have absorbed the moral commitments of one cultural faction and now produce knowledge filtered through those commitments. It says that the public-facing version of history is a coalition product. It says that the trust the public used to extend to historians, on the assumption that historians follow the evidence, will erode as the public learns to read the filtration. It says that the alternative accounts produced outside the academy, some careful and some reckless, will gain audience share in proportion to the academy’s continued avoidance.
What does the list say about intellectual life? It says that the older picture of disinterested inquiry has receded, and the older picture was always idealized. It says that intellectual courage has become a function of position. The independent writer, the late-career professor, the scholar with outside income, the foreigner trained in a different tradition, all enjoy more room than the credentialed insider in mid-career. The locus of original thought has shifted partly outside the formal institutions because the formal institutions can no longer afford to host it on the most charged questions.
What does the list say about academic life? It says that the apparatus of peer review, hiring, tenure, and grants has come to function as a coalition gatekeeper as much as a quality filter. It says that the people who run the apparatus often cannot see the gatekeeping function from the inside, because each individual decision feels like a quality judgment. It says that reform from within is hard because the people best positioned to reform are also the people most invested in the current arrangement.
The reader who finds this account too dark might consider that pockets of resistance persist. Quantitative historians, economic historians using cliometric methods, evolutionary anthropologists, and scholars in Eastern Europe and parts of Asia operate with more freedom than their counterparts in elite Western humanities departments. The internet permits work to circulate outside the journal system. Some of that work meets high standards. The institutional forms that nourished serious historical work in the past may not be the only ones available, and new forms might develop as the old ones constrict. The forms that emerge may not look much like a university department, but the function will continue, since the human appetite for accurate accounts of the past does not diminish when the accounts grow harder to produce inside official channels.

Posted in History | Comments Off on The Cartography of Avoidance: Historical Taboos and the Architecture of Intellectual Life

Who Is Served And Who Is Hurt By The Frame That Hitler Was The Ultimate Evil?

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

Why is the catalyzing force of Hitler’s antisemitism is treated as a historical ultimate rather than a phenomenon with its own causes in German politics, economic crisis, the Versailles settlement, racial science, and the broader European anti-Jewish current? Those causes are available in the scholarship.
The “historical ultimate” framing serves real interests and exacts real costs, and the interests are not symmetrical.
Take the production conditions of the framing first. Hitler is presented as a metaphysical eruption rather than a political product because three coalitions converge on wanting him presented that way, and because the alternative framing requires intellectual moves each coalition finds costly.
The first coalition is the postwar German political class and its successor generations. Treating Hitler as a singular monster permits Germany to integrate into postwar liberal Europe by externalizing the Nazi period as a discrete pathology rather than as the radicalization of available materials in German political life. Germans benefit because the alternative reading implicates the broader culture, the universities that hosted respected race scientists, the medical establishment that produced eugenic policy, the legal academy that supplied the legal architecture, the bureaucracy that executed the policy, and the millions of ordinary participants whose participation cannot be explained by Hitler’s pathology alone. The singular-monster framing limits the scope of inheritance. It permits the founding of the Federal Republic on a clean break rather than on a continuous reckoning. The framing’s German beneficiaries are not denying what happened. They are organizing what happened so that it remains containable as a discrete episode rather than dispersing into a story about how their grandparents’ professors, doctors, judges, and civil servants made it possible.
The second coalition is the postwar liberal-democratic order more broadly. The Allies needed an account of the war that legitimated the postwar settlement. A framing in which liberal democracy defeated metaphysical evil supports the moral architecture of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Nuremberg principles, and the postwar consensus on minority protections. A framing in which liberal democracy defeated the radicalization of intellectual currents, race-scientific assumptions, and nationalist anxieties present across the entire Western world, including the United States and Britain, complicates the moral architecture. The Tuskegee experiments, the Indian Removal logic, the Jim Crow legal regime, the eugenic sterilization laws upheld by Buck v. Bell in 1927 and explicitly cited by Nazi jurists, the British concentration camps in South Africa, the Belgian conduct in the Congo, and the broad acceptance of race-hierarchical thought across American and European elite institutions of the early twentieth century all become continuous with the materials Hitler radicalized. The singular-monster framing allows the postwar order to draw a sharp line between itself and Nazism. The contextual framing dissolves the line at multiple points and makes the postwar order’s self-understanding harder to maintain.
The third coalition is American Jewish institutional life and its Israeli counterparts. This is the layer Peter Novick (1934-2012) and Norman Finkelstein documented, with Novick’s The Holocaust in American Life doing the more careful work and Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry doing the more polemical version. The Holocaust as singular metaphysical evil supports a particular construction of Jewish identity, security politics, and institutional fundraising that emerged with full force after 1967 and consolidated in the 1970s and 1980s. If the Holocaust is the radicalization of available European materials, it stands in a series of comparable horrors, and the comparative frame opens space for analogies that institutional Jewish life finds threatening. Critics can deploy the analogies against Israeli policy in ways that the singular framing forbids by definition. The singular framing converts the Holocaust from historical event into moral resource and gives the institutional custodians of the resource standing to police its deployment. The custody is real institutional power. The framing supports the custody.
Each coalition has reasons that are not bad faith. Germans want to live as Germans without an inheritance that would unmoor the national project. Postwar liberals want to defend liberal democracy against revivals of fascism, and a clear absolute evil to point at helps the defense. Jewish institutional life wants to prevent another Holocaust and to protect the political and cultural conditions that have allowed Jews to thrive in the postwar West. The framings all serve goals reasonable people can endorse. The framings nevertheless distort historical understanding in ways that have costs.
The costs accrue to several parties, and again the distribution is not symmetrical.
Historical scholarship pays the largest analytic cost. Serious historians of the Nazi period, including Ian Kershaw (b. 1943), Richard Evans (b. 1947), Saul Friedlander, Christopher Browning, and Götz Aly (b. 1947), have long since rejected the singular-monster framing in favor of contextual accounts that integrate the Versailles humiliation, the inflation and depression sequence, the stab-in-the-back myth, the radicalization of nationalist coalition politics, the institutional embedding of race science across European and American universities, and the war-driven escalation from exclusion to deportation to extermination. Their books are taught in graduate seminars and assigned to advanced undergraduates. The popular framing nevertheless persists because the popular framing serves the coalitions named above and the scholarly framing does not. The result is a permanent gap between professional historiography and public understanding that historians have learned to live with by writing for one another in the technical register and accepting that the public will continue to receive the simplified version through films, museums, and political rhetoric.
Comparative genocide studies pay the next cost. The Armenian, Cambodian, Rwandan, and Bosnian cases share structural features with the Holocaust that become legible under contextual analysis and disappear under the singular-monster framing. Scholars who try to draw comparisons face institutional resistance. The resistance is partly principled, since the comparisons can flatten differences that matter, and partly defensive of the singular Holocaust position the institutional Jewish coalition has reasons to protect. The result is that early-warning frameworks for genocide prevention are weaker than they could be, because the most-studied case is institutionally cordoned off from comparative work that might generate transferable insight.
Jewish communities pay a cost the institutional custodians often overlook. Antisemitism existed before Hitler and has continued after Hitler in forms that the Hitler-as-ultimate framing makes harder to recognize. Medieval Christian antisemitism, modern Islamic antisemitism, contemporary leftist antisemitism, the various species of Russian and Eastern European antisemitism, the antisemitism that flourishes inside black nationalist circles and inside white nationalist circles in different forms, all run on architectures the Nazi case does not exhaust. A Jew formed by the Hitler-as-ultimate framing scans the present for swastikas and SS uniforms and misses the antisemitism that does not present in those iconic forms. Ruth Wisse and others have pressed this point against the institutional custodians, mostly without effect, because the institutional custodians have stronger incentives to maintain the singular framing than to refine the warning system.
The general public pays a cost in the loss of structural awareness. The lesson of Hitler-as-ultimate is moral vigilance against monsters. The lesson of Hitler-as-radicalization is structural attention to the conditions that radicalize ordinary politics into catastrophe. The first lesson is satisfying and largely useless because monsters of Hitler’s pathology are rare and usually fail. The second lesson is uncomfortable and operationally useful because the conditions are common, recur in many forms, and produce most of the actual political horrors of the modern period. Public history is dominated by the first lesson because the first lesson is what coalitions wanting the public to learn certain things have institutional reasons to teach.
There is one further cost worth naming. The framing weakens the moral category it claims to protect. When Hitler is the singular evil, every figure to whom Hitler is compared receives some of the moral weight. Every contemporary politician described as Hitler diminishes the term’s cutting force. The over-deployment is not accidental. The category was constructed to be deployable, and once deployable it gets deployed. The custodians of the category complain about the over-deployment without seeing that the construction conditions made the over-deployment inevitable. A category that exists to anchor present moral and political claims will be used to anchor present moral and political claims, and the use will exceed the cases that support the category’s original force.
This brings us to Myers, and the question of whether his career engages this charged terrain.
The short answer is that Myers operates in adjacent territory throughout his career and engages the central question only obliquely. The longer answer requires attention to what he writes about and what he keeps just outside his frame.
His scholarly work treats the production of Jewish historiography in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the German-Jewish thinkers who resisted historicism, the Hebrew University historians who built a Zionist national past, and Hasidic life in postwar America. The Holocaust is the unstated horizon of all of this. The Hebrew University historians wrote partly against and partly toward a catastrophe whose full shape was not yet visible to most of them. The German-Jewish thinkers Myers reconstructs largely escaped the destruction by emigration and lived their later careers in its shadow. The American Hasidim of Kiryas Joel are largely a postwar transplantation of communities the Holocaust nearly extinguished. Myers’s archive is saturated with the catastrophe. His prose is calibrated to keep the catastrophe at the edge of the frame while writing about the materials its arrival reorganized.
This is not evasion. It is professional discipline. Myers is a historian of Jewish intellectual life, not a historian of the Nazi period. The decision to write about the production of Jewish self-understanding rather than about the destruction is a defensible scholarly choice. The choice has consequences. By writing always near the catastrophe and rarely about it, Myers contributes to and benefits from the framing the institutional custodians maintain. He does not have to take a position on whether Hitler is the singular monster or the radicalization of available materials. He writes for an audience that holds the singular framing as background assumption, and his work proceeds inside that assumption without challenging it.
When Myers does engage the Nazi period directly, he tends to engage it through the categories the institutional framing supplies. His public writing on antisemitism focuses on the postwar institutional categories: hatred as social pathology, dialogue as remedy, education as vaccine. The UCLA Initiative to Study Hate, the Dialogue Across Difference Initiative, and the Bedari Kindness Institute all operate inside the framing. They study hatred as something to be combated through understanding, dialogue, and the cultivation of empathy. They do not study hatred as a coalition adaptation that maintains group boundaries, as Sell’s neutralization theory describes, or as a form whose European anti-Jewish version is one regional case of a much broader human pattern. The institutes are constructed inside the framing the institutional custodians of Holocaust memory maintain, and they reproduce the framing in their public-facing work.
Myers does on occasion press at the edges. His work on Brit Shalom, on Rawidowicz, on non-statist Zionism, and on the German-Jewish thinkers who resisted political nationalism opens questions the dominant framing prefers to leave closed. The questions concern what Jewish life might look like if the Holocaust did not function as the unanswerable trump card in every internal Jewish argument about politics, sovereignty, and security. Myers cannot push these questions far without colliding with the institutional custodians, and his career suggests he understands the limits. He pushes far enough to be visible as a critical scholarly voice and not so far that the institutional custodians treat him as a defector. The line is not stated. He has internalized it through forty years of professional life.
His more recent public-facing work on dialogue and kindness operates well within the framing. The framing’s premise is that intergroup hatred is a moral pathology that responsive institutions can address through dialogue, education, and cultivated empathy. Myers’s institutes are built on this premise. The premise becomes harder to sustain if one takes seriously the contextual reading of the Nazi case, which suggests that the materials Hitler radicalized were continuous with mainstream Western intellectual life across multiple disciplines, that the radicalization required specific configurations of crisis and opportunity, and that the prevention of recurrence requires structural attention to those configurations rather than primarily moral attention to hatred as bad attitude. The institutes do moral attention to hatred as bad attitude. They do not do structural attention to the configurations. The framing they operate within forbids the latter, because the latter would implicate the postwar liberal order’s own intellectual genealogies in ways the order’s defenders, of which Myers is one, cannot easily absorb.
So Myers engages the territory throughout his career and engages the central question almost never. His public framing serves the institutional custodianship he is part of. His scholarly work moves inside the territory the framing reserves for nuanced internal debate while leaving the framing’s outer boundary intact. His applied initiatives reproduce the framing in their operational premises. The question of whether Hitler is the singular monster or the radicalization of available European and Western materials is a question Myers does not answer in print, because answering it either way would either commit him to the institutional position more explicitly than scholarly self-respect permits or commit him to a contextual position the institutional position cannot absorb. He works at the edges of a question whose center the institutional structure he serves keeps off the table.
This is the structural condition of an embedded scholar working inside a coalition that has made certain framings off-limits. Turner explains why he cannot see the framing as a framing, since the framing is the medium he works in. McEnerney explains why he cannot write past the framing, since writing past it would lose his audience. Sell explains why the coalition enforces the framing, since the framing serves the coalition’s adaptive interests. Pinsof explains the alliance work the framing performs. The four frameworks converge again, and Myers is again the case that fits all four.
What this answer leaves unsaid is what an honest contextual treatment of the Hitler case would look like in the present academic environment. The honest answer is that it would be hard to publish in the venues most likely to reach lay readers, since those venues are policed by editors and reviewers committed to the singular-monster framing. It would be available in scholarly monographs read by other specialists. It would not be available in the synthetic public-facing register Myers occupies. The custodians have built the institutional architecture to ensure that the contextual treatment stays in the technical literature where it does little public work, while the singular framing dominates the public space the institutes Myers directs are designed to operate in. The arrangement is stable. It will persist until the conditions that produced it change, which is not currently in prospect.
John J. Mearsheimer’s anthropology in his 2018 book The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities dismantles the singular-evil frame at its foundation, not just at its margins. The frame is not just analytically weak under Mearsheimer’s premises. It is incoherent.
The singular-evil frame assumes the very picture of human nature Mearsheimer is rejecting. The frame treats Hitler as an autonomous moral agent who chose evil, the German population as autonomous moral agents who chose to follow him or failed to resist, and the postwar liberal order as the proper response by autonomous moral agents who learned the right lesson. The architecture rests on liberal individualism the way a building rests on its foundation. Remove the foundation and the building does not stand.
Mearsheimer removes the foundation. Humans are social before they are individual, tribal before they are rational, and group-embedded before they are autonomous. The capacity to reason about right and wrong is real but operates downstream of socialization, group loyalty, and innate sentiments that the individual did not choose and cannot easily revise. Most of what a person believes about good and evil arrived in him through processes he did not direct, and most of his moral behavior tracks the demands of the groups he is embedded in rather than universal principles he has reasoned his way to. This is not a flattering picture. It is also closer to what cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and historical anthropology have converged on across the past forty years.
Apply this to the Nazi case and the singular-evil frame becomes a category error.
Hitler is not a moral genius of evil. He is a man whose own socialization in late Habsburg Vienna, postwar Munich, and the trenches of the First World War produced a particular configuration of nationalist resentment, racial-scientific assumption, and apocalyptic political imagination. The configuration was unusual in its intensity and totalizing scope. The materials were not unusual at all. He read what other educated men of his class read. He absorbed what other defeated soldiers absorbed. He took the available racial-hierarchical thought, the available stab-in-the-back narrative, the available anti-Bolshevik panic, the available economic-conspiracy framing of Jews, and combined them with greater coherence and greater willingness to follow them to their conclusions than most contemporaries managed. The combination was distinctive. The ingredients were ordinary.
The German population that supported him is even less explicable on the singular-evil frame and more explicable on Mearsheimer’s. They were not autonomous moral agents who individually chose evil. They were Germans, embedded in a national community whose recent experience of defeat, humiliation, inflation, depression, and political fragmentation had produced an acute identity crisis the Nazi movement promised to resolve. They responded as Mearsheimer’s anthropology predicts groups respond under stress: by hardening boundaries, contracting moral concern to the in-group, accepting a leader who promised collective survival, and defining the threat in terms the available cultural materials made cognitively tractable. The Jewish minority, already coded across European history as outsider, parasite, conspirator, and threat in successive registers, was the available target the existing socialization made legible. The combination of crisis conditions and available targeting materials is what Mearsheimer’s framework would predict to produce something like the Nazi outcome under the right configuration of leadership and opportunity.
This does not exonerate the participants. Mearsheimer is not arguing that humans are unable to act morally because they are tribal. He is arguing that moral action is harder than the liberal frame supposes, that it requires institutional and cultural support the liberal frame underestimates, and that under conditions of group stress the support often fails. The participants in the Nazi project were morally responsible for what they did. The responsibility is just not the kind of pure individual moral responsibility the liberal frame assumes. It is the responsibility of group members whose group went into a configuration that produced the catastrophe, with most participants going along for reasons that have more to do with social embedding than with autonomous moral choice.
The singular-evil frame survives this analysis only as a postwar pedagogical and political device. It is what the liberal order required to maintain its self-understanding after 1945. The order needed an absolute negation to define itself against. The negation could not be located in conditions and materials continuous with liberal modernity, because that location would compromise the order’s claim to be the antithesis of what it defeated. The negation had to be located in a singular figure who represented evil’s intrusion from outside the liberal world, even though the figure had emerged from inside the liberal world and had built his movement from materials liberalism had not been able to keep marginal in its own intellectual life.
The singular-evil framing protects liberal self-understanding from a confrontation the frame’s underlying anthropology would force. The confrontation would require liberalism to acknowledge that its foundational assumptions about human nature are wrong, that humans are tribal and group-embedded in ways the liberal frame cannot accommodate, that liberal institutions work when they do because they channel and constrain tribal sentiments rather than because they elevate humans to a higher level of individuality, and that liberal triumphalism about defeating fascism rests on a misreading of what fascism was and where it came from.
Three further consequences follow.
The first concerns prevention. The singular-evil frame teaches vigilance against monsters. Mearsheimer’s frame teaches structural attention to group stress, identity formation, scapegoating dynamics, and the conditions that produce the configurations under which catastrophe becomes possible. The first lesson misses most of the actual cases because most of the actual cases do not present as monstrous. They present as ordinary politics radicalized by ordinary pressures. The Rwandan genocide, the Bosnian campaign, the Cambodian killing, the Armenian destruction, the various ethnic cleansings of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, all run on the architecture Mearsheimer describes and not on the architecture the singular-evil frame supposes. The first lesson produces moral satisfaction. The second lesson produces analytical traction. The first lesson is what most public Holocaust education delivers. The second lesson is what serious comparative genocide scholarship has been trying to deliver against the institutional headwinds the singular-evil frame has built up.
The second concerns liberalism itself. If Mearsheimer is right, liberalism is a contingent achievement of certain societies under certain conditions, not the default state of human nature. The conditions include strong institutional constraint of tribal sentiments, dense civil society, economic conditions that reduce the salience of zero-sum group competition, and a cultural inheritance that makes individual rights and impersonal procedure intuitive. These conditions can fail. When they fail, the underlying tribal architecture reasserts. The Nazi episode is what failure looks like in a society that had been on the European liberal trajectory and was knocked off it by the conjunction of defeat, economic shock, and political fragmentation. The lesson is not that liberalism is fragile and must be defended against monsters. The lesson is that liberalism is a particular configuration of social arrangements that requires constant maintenance and can fail under stress without producing monsters in the singular-evil sense at all.
The third concerns universalism. The liberal universalist project, the human rights regime, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, the various humanitarian intervention frameworks, all rest on the premise that humans everywhere are individuals with inalienable rights, that violations of those rights by their governments are violations of universal principles, and that the international community has standing to intervene on the basis of those principles. Mearsheimer’s anthropology suggests that this is not how most humans experience themselves, that most humans understand themselves through their group memberships, and that universalist projects imposed from outside on populations whose tribal commitments differ are likely to be received as imperialism rather than liberation. The post-Cold War interventions that disappointed liberal expectations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere are not just operational failures. They are the consequences of an anthropology that does not match the populations on whom it is being imposed. Mearsheimer’s The Great Delusion spends considerable time on this argument, and the Hitler-as-ultimate-evil frame is one component of the broader liberal delusion the book is dismantling.
Returning to the Nazi case with Mearsheimer’s frame in hand produces a different shape of analysis.
Hitler was a man socialized into the available cultural materials of his time and place, who configured those materials with unusual coherence and intensity, and who became the leader of a political movement under conditions that made his particular configuration unusually attractive to a population in acute identity crisis. The movement succeeded because the configuration matched the population’s tribal stress responses with greater precision than its competitors managed. The genocide that followed was the radicalization of the movement under wartime conditions, executed by a bureaucracy whose participants were largely ordinary Germans operating within institutional structures that diffused individual moral responsibility while concentrating practical complicity. The whole sequence is intelligible without recourse to metaphysical categories. The materials were European. The configuration was specifically German given particular postwar conditions. The execution was a bureaucratic catastrophe enabled by total war. The lesson is structural, not moral.
This does not diminish what happened. It changes the conceptual frame within which we understand it. The diminishment is felt only by those whose self-understanding requires the singular-evil frame, which includes the institutional custodians of Holocaust memory, the postwar liberal order, and the German political class that built itself on the discontinuity narrative. Each of these will resist the Mearsheimer reading because each has institutional interests in the singular-evil frame’s maintenance. The resistance is not bad faith. It is the predictable response of coalitions whose self-understanding depends on a particular framing.
The deeper irony is that the liberal anthropology Mearsheimer attacks produces the very conditions under which the catastrophe-prevention work the singular-evil frame ostensibly performs becomes harder. If the frame teaches that monsters are the threat and individual rights are the protection, the frame fails to equip populations to recognize the structural conditions under which their own group might radicalize. The next catastrophe will not present as a man with a small mustache giving speeches at Nuremberg rallies. It will present in whatever cultural register is available in the society that produces it, and the singular-evil frame will identify it only after it has gone too far to stop, because the frame is calibrated to recognize the previous case rather than the structural pattern.
Mearsheimer would say this is what happens when an empirically false anthropology is institutionalized as moral pedagogy. The pedagogy works to maintain the order that produced it and fails to perform the structural function it advertises. The work the singular-evil frame claims to do, which is preventing future catastrophes by teaching moral vigilance, is not the work the frame actually does, which is maintaining the postwar liberal order’s self-understanding by defining its founding negation in a way the order can absorb.
If Mearsheimer is right, the singular-evil frame is not just inaccurate. It is a component of the broader liberal delusion the book is written to dismantle. The frame survives because the order survives. The order survives because its participants have not yet absorbed the anthropology that would force the frame’s revision. Whether the order will absorb the anthropology in time to revise the frame before the next configuration produces the next catastrophe is the open question Mearsheimer’s book leaves on the table without answering, because Mearsheimer’s project is diagnostic rather than prescriptive, and because the prescription would require institutional changes the existing order is structurally incapable of making.
What this leaves us with is an honest acknowledgment that the singular-evil frame has served particular interests well for eighty years, that those interests are not bad faith, that the frame has nevertheless concealed more than it has revealed about what produced the Nazi catastrophe and what might produce future ones, and that the alternative frame Mearsheimer’s anthropology supports is harder to sit with because it implicates ordinary humans, including ourselves, in the architecture that produces such catastrophes when the configurations align. The harder frame is the more accurate one. The easier frame is the more institutionally sustainable one. The gap between accuracy and sustainability is the space the postwar liberal order has occupied for three generations, and the frame is one of the load-bearing structures of that occupation.

Posted in Adolf Hitler, Anti-Semitism, David N. Myers | Comments Off on Who Is Served And Who Is Hurt By The Frame That Hitler Was The Ultimate Evil?

Why Does Steve Sailer Write About Sports & Pop Music?

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Luke Ford

Aren’t these topics low-status? Not anymore. Writing about sports and pop is not low-status for intellectuals and has not been since the 1960s. Pauline Kael, Susan Sontag, Greil Marcus, Roger Angell, and David Halberstam all built careers there. Cultural criticism is a respectable lane. So Sailer’s choice of subject, on its own, signals neither security nor insecurity.
What sets him apart is not that he writes about pop. It is what he brings to pop. He applies race, demographics, IQ, and population genetics to terrain where polite opinion forbids those frames. The column on why Kenyans dominate distance running, or this one on the sub-Saharan pop deficit, works as an empirical wedge for a larger heterodox project. Sports and pop hand him tests where the data are public and the rankings undeniable. You cannot argue away the medal stand or the Billboard chart.
So the security he shows is not philistine slumming. It is willingness to apply forbidden categories to subjects no one can pretend are trivial.
Most intellectuals who avoid Sailer’s kind of pop writing are not avoiding it from snobbery. The snobbery left two generations ago. They avoid it because the racial analysis costs jobs. Sailer pays no such cost because he has no institutional perch to lose. He writes on Substack from his house. His coalition does not gatekeep elite credentials, so he can ask why Burna Boy took so long without losing tenure, a grant, a column, or a dinner invitation he wanted.
His willingness has a structural source as much as a psychological one. He has the freedom independents have, which is also the freedom you have. The Sailer question and the Luke Ford question share a shape: who can write what, and what did they have to give up to keep writing it?
When people talk about a great pop song and an average pop song, what do they mean? I understand greatness in classical music, and I understand the pop songs I love, but I need clarity on what constitutes greatness in pop music.
As I understand it after some AI research, pop greatness is not one thing. It is at least four things that get bundled together, and the confusion comes from people using the same word for different claims.
The first is craft inside a tight form. A pop song has roughly three minutes, a verse-chorus structure, a small harmonic vocabulary, and a need to land fast. Greatness here means doing more inside the constraint than the constraint seems to allow. A hook that locks in on first hearing but does not wear out on the hundredth. A bridge that opens the song into a place the verses did not predict. A chord substitution at the right moment. A drum sound nobody had used that way before. Classical listeners hear this as compositional economy. The Brill Building writers, Holland-Dozier-Holland, Bacharach, McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Prince, Max Martin all work at this level. You can analyze it on paper.
The second is the recording as the work. This has no real classical analog. In pop after about 1965, the song and the recording become the same object. “Good Vibrations” is not a composition that was then recorded. It exists as that recording. Phil Spector, George Martin, Brian Wilson, Dr. Dre, Rick Rubin, Timbaland are great because they made sounds that did not exist before they made them. The greatness lives in timbre, space, compression, the specific snare hit. A cover version of a great record is almost always worse, because the record was the point. Classical music has nothing quite like this. A great Beethoven performance is one rendering of a fixed score. A great pop record is the score.
The third is voice and presence. Sinatra phrases a lyric in a way nobody else can. Aretha enters a song and the song becomes hers. Dylan’s voice should not work and does. Marley sounds like he means it, and most singers do not. This is closer to what classical listeners get from a great soloist, but in pop it fuses with songwriting and persona in a way the classical tradition keeps separate. The singer is often the writer and the icon at once, and the greatness braids these strands together.
The fourth is cultural timing. A great pop song arrives at a moment and names something the audience did not know it was waiting to hear. “Smells Like Teen Spirit” is not greater on the page than fifty other songs from 1991. It became great by detonating. “Respect” was a decent Otis Redding song before Aretha turned it into the sound of a movement. This dimension drives classical critics crazy because it seems to make greatness a sociological accident. But pop is a popular art. Reaching the people at the right moment is part of the form, not external to it.
Most arguments about pop greatness are people weighting these four differently without saying so. A craft-first listener ranks Bacharach high and Nirvana low. A recording-first listener ranks Dr. Dre and Brian Wilson at the summit. A voice-first listener puts Aretha and Sinatra above almost everyone. A timing-first listener cares about what a song did in the world, not what it sounds like in a vacuum.
Bob Marley scores on all four at once. That is rare, and it is why Sailer reaches for him as the standard.
Love collapses the four into one experience. Pulled apart, they are four different kinds of achievement that happen to share a name.
I grew up in a Seventh-day Adventist Australian home where listening to pop music was a sin. How many homes are like that today in the USA?
Very few, and the number has dropped sharply over the last forty years.
The strict no-pop-music position was never mainstream American Protestantism. It lived in a cluster of conservative holiness and adventist traditions: Seventh-day Adventists of the older school, Independent Fundamental Baptists, the Pentecostal Holiness wing, Church of God in Christ in some streams, conservative Mennonites and Amish, Free Methodists, parts of the Wesleyan tradition, and some Reformed Presbyterian groups that sing only psalms. Add conservative Churches of Christ, who oppose instrumental music in worship but vary on home listening.
Estimating households is guesswork, but the brackets are tractable.
Seventh-day Adventists in the United States number around 1.2 million members. The fraction holding the older strict line on pop music is a minority of that, perhaps 15 to 25 percent in the most conservative congregations and homeschool networks. Independent Fundamental Baptists number perhaps 2 to 4 million. The strict music position is more common there, maybe 30 to 50 percent of homes, though it has eroded. Conservative Mennonites and Amish together are around 600,000, and most still restrict pop music. The Holiness Pentecostal stream that maintains the older standard is a small fraction of broader Pentecostalism, perhaps a few hundred thousand. Add scattered conservative Reformed and Church of Christ households.
Adding the conservative slices and adjusting for household size rather than membership, you might land somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000 American households where pop music is treated as sinful or close to it. That is roughly half a percent to one percent of the country’s roughly 130 million households.
That number was much higher in 1970, when my childhood standard was widely shared across conservative evangelicalism, fundamentalist Baptist circles, and most adventist and holiness homes. The collapse came in stages. Contemporary Christian Music in the 1970s and 1980s gave conservative parents a permitted alternative and shifted the argument from “pop music is worldly” to “secular pop music is worldly.” Then praise and worship music in the 1990s adopted pop production wholesale, and the line dissolved further. By the 2000s most evangelical homes had given up the categorical objection. What remained was a much smaller core of separatist communities.
The strict position survives more in homeschool subcultures and in immigrant streams of these traditions than in the suburban congregations the same denominations run. A Filipino or African Adventist family in California today might keep the standard my father kept. A fourth-generation white Adventist family in the same state probably does not.
So my childhood was unusual then and is rare now. The world I was formed in has shrunk to a remnant.

Posted in Pop Music | Comments Off on Why Does Steve Sailer Write About Sports & Pop Music?

The Great Delusion

Posted on April 25, 2026 by Luke Ford

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

If Mearsheimer is right, then the entire edifice of liberal political theory, liberal journalism, liberal education, liberal foreign policy, and liberal institutional self-understanding rests on a fundamental mistake about what humans are. The mistake is not a minor technical error. It is categorical. It produces systematic failures across every domain where the mistake is institutionally operative.
Let me work through what follows if Mearsheimer’s claims are accepted as accurate.
What follows for reason. If reason is the least important of the three ways humans determine their preferences, then political theory that treats reasoned agreement as the foundation of legitimate political order is building on what is actually the weakest foundation humans have. Rawls’s overlapping consensus, Dworkin’s interpretive community of reasonable citizens, Habermas’s communicative rationality, all of these depend on reason doing work it is actually not capable of doing. Reason does not produce the commitments these theorists treat as its products. Reason elaborates and rationalizes commitments that socialization and innate sentiment have already produced.
This does not mean reason is useless. It means reason’s role is different from what liberal theory assigns to it. Reason works within commitments rather than generating them. Reason can extend commitments to new cases, identify contradictions within existing commitments, produce sophisticated articulations of what socialization has already deposited. Reason cannot produce the foundational commitments from scratch through neutral analytical operations. Those commitments arrive through other channels.
What liberal theorists have been doing when they seem to produce political commitments through reason is actually something else. They are articulating commitments their socialization produced in them. The articulation feels like reasoning because they perform it using the vocabulary and procedures of reasoning. The feeling does not change what is actually happening. The commitments preceded the articulation. The articulation elaborates them. The articulation does not generate them.
This means that every liberal political philosopher who has built his system on the assumption that his reasoning could reach universal principles all reasonable people should accept has been doing something other than what he thought he was doing. He has been articulating his specific cultural formation in the vocabulary of neutral reason. His system’s apparent universality reflects the universality of the articulation vocabulary, not the universality of what is being articulated.
What follows for childhood. If humans have a long childhood in which they are exposed to intense socialization before they develop critical faculties, then the critical faculties that later emerge cannot be used to evaluate what the socialization deposited without circularity. The critical faculties themselves reflect the socialization that produced them. They cannot operate from outside the socialization to assess what the socialization did. They can only operate within the framework the socialization established.
This has substantial implications for what philosophy can accomplish. Philosophy has often been understood as the use of critical reflection to evaluate the commitments that ordinary life and culture have deposited in us. The Socratic examined life. The Cartesian methodical doubt. The Kantian critique of pure reason. Each of these presupposes that philosophical reflection can evaluate pre-philosophical commitments from a position that is not itself shaped by those commitments.
If Mearsheimer is right, this presupposition is false. Philosophical reflection cannot operate from outside the socialization that produced the capacities used in reflection. The capacities are themselves products of the formation being examined. Their apparent independence from the formation is illusory. They examine the formation using tools the formation provided. The examination cannot reach conclusions that transcend the formation because the examination operates within the formation’s framework.
This does not make philosophy useless. It means philosophy is something other than what its practitioners typically claim. Philosophy is the articulate working through of commitments from within the formation that produced the philosopher. The articulate working through can produce substantial intellectual work. It cannot produce assessment of the formation from outside the formation. No such outside position is available.
What follows for moral codes. If people have limited choice in formulating moral codes because so much of their thinking comes from inborn attitudes and socialization, then moral progress as liberal theory typically understands it is not what liberal theory describes. Liberal theory typically understands moral progress as the gradual recognition of universal principles through sustained rational reflection. The universal principles are discovered through the reflection. The discovery expands the circle of moral consideration, produces increasingly just institutions, brings human conduct into closer alignment with what reason requires.
If Mearsheimer is right, moral progress is not the discovery of universal principles through rational reflection. Moral progress, to the extent it occurs, is the gradual displacement of some culturally produced commitments by others. The displacement happens through specific social and political processes that include rational elaboration but are not primarily driven by it. The new commitments that displace the old ones are not more rational than the old ones. They are culturally sustained by different conditions that make them institutionally dominant.
This reframing does not mean moral progress does not exist. It means moral progress is something other than what liberal theory claims. Societies can develop commitments that produce better outcomes on various measures than previous commitments produced. The development is not the discovery of universal truth. It is the cultural replacement of one set of culturally produced commitments with another. The replacement can be welcomed or resisted on various grounds. The grounds for welcoming or resisting are themselves culturally produced. There is no neutral ground from which to evaluate the change.
This is destabilizing for liberal self-understanding. Liberal self-understanding treats its moral commitments as the discoveries of reasoned reflection rather than as one cultural formation among others. If the treatment is incorrect, then liberal confidence in the superiority of liberal commitments over alternative commitments cannot be grounded in the way liberal self-understanding assumes. The superiority, to the extent it can be defended, must be defended on other grounds. The other grounds are themselves culturally produced and do not escape the general condition Mearsheimer identifies.
What follows for innate sentiments. If humans are born with innate sentiments that strongly influence how they think about the world, then the blank slate assumption that has structured substantial liberal theorizing is wrong. Humans are not infinitely plastic material that liberal institutions can shape in any direction through sustained training. Humans have genetically transmitted propensities that operate alongside and sometimes against what liberal institutions try to produce.
The propensities are substantial. Evolutionary psychology has documented many of them across varied research programs. In-group preference. Kin favoritism. Male competition for status. Female selectivity about mates. Sexual division of labor in response to differential reproductive costs. Disgust responses to potential contaminants. Group loyalty under threat. The list extends across most of what makes human social life distinctive.
Liberal theory has typically treated these propensities as obstacles to be overcome rather than as constitutive features of what humans are. The overcoming would happen through sustained cultural training that replaces the propensities with universalist commitments to individual dignity, equal respect, and rational cooperation regardless of biological heritage. The training has been attempted across substantial institutional apparatus for decades.
The results have been mixed. The propensities have proved more durable than the training’s ambitions assumed. They re-emerge whenever institutional pressure slackens. They operate through populations that have received substantial training in universalist commitments but revert to in-group preference under stress. They produce political movements that reassert tribal loyalty against the institutional cosmopolitanism liberal training aimed to produce. The reassertions are not temporary setbacks in a steady march toward universalism. They are persistent features of human populations operating through their actual biological constitution rather than through what liberal training tried to install.
If Mearsheimer is right about all of this, then contemporary American politics looks different from what liberal self-understanding assumes it to be. The political conflict is not between those who recognize universal principles and those who remain trapped in tribal commitments. The conflict is between different tribal commitments that have been institutionally packaged differently. Liberal institutional commitments are tribal commitments that have been trained to present themselves as universal. Populist commitments are tribal commitments that present themselves as tribal. The difference is in presentation, not in underlying structure.
This reframing changes what political conflict is about. It is not about whether to accept reason and universal principles. It is about which tribal commitments will be institutionally dominant. The institutional dominance of liberal commitments for several decades was a political achievement, not the triumph of reason over irrationality. The current resurgence of populist commitments is not the regression from reason to irrationality. It is the political reassertion of tribal commitments that liberal institutional dominance had suppressed but not eliminated.
The reframing does not automatically favor populist commitments over liberal ones. It removes the automatic favor liberal commitments have enjoyed through their self-presentation as universal rather than tribal. Both sets of commitments must be defended on grounds other than claims to universality. The grounds are whatever reasons people can offer for preferring one set of commitments over another. The reasons are themselves tribal in the sense that they operate from within specific cultural formations. There is no neutral ground from which to adjudicate. The adjudication happens through political processes that include rational argument but are not primarily determined by it.
If Mearsheimer is right that reason is the least important of the three ways humans determine their preferences, then Mearsheimer’s own argument is itself not primarily the product of reason. It is the articulation of commitments his socialization and innate sentiments produced. His realism in international relations theory reflects specific tribal and cultural commitments rather than neutral assessment of evidence. His critique of liberalism operates from a specific cultural formation that makes the critique possible rather than from trans-cultural assessment.
Mearsheimer would likely accept this. Realist international relations theory does not claim to be the view from nowhere. It claims to be accurate about human nature in ways that liberal theory is inaccurate. The accuracy claim can be evaluated on evidence without requiring that realism transcend cultural formation. The evaluation is itself culturally located. No neutral position is available. What can be asked is whether the evidence supports the realist claims better than it supports the liberal claims. The asking happens from within specific cultural formations that shape what evidence is admitted as relevant and how it is weighted.
If Mearsheimer is right, liberal political theory has been substantially mistaken about humans for the entire period of its institutional dominance. The mistake has produced specific pathologies across American institutional life. The pathologies include the specific failures of American foreign policy Mearsheimer’s book targets. They include the specific inadequacies of mainstream American media to cover political developments that operate outside liberal frameworks. They include the specific failures of American universities to engage substantial portions of the populations that fund them. They include the specific inability of American political theory to address contemporary political developments that do not fit its assumptions.
The pathologies cannot be corrected without acknowledging the mistake. The acknowledgment is resisted by the institutions that have been built on the mistake. The resistance is structural rather than accidental. Acknowledging the mistake would require reconstructing the institutions around different assumptions about what humans are. The reconstruction is difficult and expensive. The institutions have considerable inertia. They tend to persist through accumulating pathologies rather than through acknowledging and correcting the underlying mistake.
This is where contemporary American politics currently stands. The institutions built on the mistake are under sustained pressure from populations whose actual human nature does not fit the institutions’ assumptions. The institutions respond to the pressure in ways that accumulate rather than resolve the pathologies. The responses deepen the divisions rather than healing them. The trajectory continues because no political coalition has both the will and the capacity to reconstruct the institutions around more accurate assumptions.
Democratic peace theory rests on Kantian foundations Doyle and Russett made canonical. Republican governments restrain war because citizens pay the costs and constrain leaders. Shared liberal norms produce mutual recognition between democracies. Both legs assume the individualism Mearsheimer rejects. Citizens identify with their nation before they identify with abstract liberal principles. The peace among Western democracies after 1945 rode on shared tribal alignment against the Soviet Union and on a thin civilizational kinship, not on the rational calculation of cost-bearing voters. India and Pakistan, both democratic at various points, fought along tribal lines that democratic norms could not dampen. Northern Ireland sat inside two democracies and produced thirty years of intercommunal violence. If Mearsheimer is right, the democratic peace rides on prior national alignment, not on liberal institutions or norms. It survives where tribal identities align and dissolves where they conflict.
Liberal institutionalism rests on similar premises. Keohane argued that institutions reduce transaction costs, supply information, and extend the shadow of the future, so cooperation becomes rational for self-interested states. Ikenberry extended the argument: the postwar American-led order binds even the leading power through rule-based commitments. If humans absorb national identity before reason can construct alternatives, institutions cannot transform interests at the deeper layer. They sit on top of national identity during periods when identities point the same direction. The European Union flourished while Western Europeans shared anti-Soviet alignment, postwar exhaustion, and a civilizational kinship none of them said out loud. It strains now: Brexit, the Hungarian and Polish challenges, the German-Greek split during the Eurozone crisis, the migration disputes that have run since 2015. The Trump-era assault on the liberal order looks less like institutional failure and more like American national identity reasserting against the technocratic-cosmopolitan layer riding on top of it.
Cosmopolitan ethics in the Beitz-Pogge-Held-Caney tradition rests on premises Mearsheimer’s view dismantles. These thinkers argue that humans owe moral duties to fellow humans regardless of borders, and that those duties can ground a universal political ethics. The argument requires a moral psychology Mearsheimer denies. Humans must be capable of recognizing distant strangers as moral equals through reason, and that recognition must stay stable enough to override tribal preference. Mearsheimer predicts something different. Cosmopolitan ethics describes the self-understanding of a credentialed Western elite whose tribal markers happen to be universalist talk, foreign travel, and elite education. The universalism is the in-group signal, not a transcendence of in-group thinking. Every refugee crisis, immigration debate, and border standoff shows publics reverting to tribal frames when stakes rise. Even within elite cosmopolitan circles, in-group sorting persists along ideological lines. The cosmopolitan project fails because socialization into a particular people happens long before reason can construct universal commitments, and the particular bonds stay stronger than any abstract ones reason can build later.
In the 2023 book, Making Democratic Theory Democratic: Democracy, Law, and Administration after Weber and Kelsen, George Mazur and Stephen Turner write:

In the decades after John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971) and especially over the past 20 years or so, many books have been published with the same aim: to vindicate and explicate something that is usually called social democracy on philosophical or social science grounds. After the intense ideological rivalries of the twentieth century, this political ideal has become the default position of virtually all academic thinkers in relevant areas. A century that began with the frank acceptance of the irreconcilability of political value choices, and proceeded with extraordinarily intense ideological warfare, ended with a surprisingly broad, though loose, consensus. One could list such works as Philip Pettit (1997), Amartya Sen (2009), and Alan Gewirth (1978) as examples. And in sociology, one could give Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 2008; Wacquant, 2005) and Jürgen Habermas (2001) as more or less full members of this consensus.

How did this happen?
The academic professions transformed demographically after World War II. The GI Bill expanded the universities. The 1960s and 1970s brought a wave of left-leaning entrants who became senior faculty by the 1990s. Hiring committees select for fit, and once a department tilts one way, the tilt reproduces. By the time Pettit, Sen, and Habermas wrote, the relevant departments in philosophy, political theory, and sociology had sorted ideologically. Conservatives and classical liberals had migrated to think tanks like AEI, Heritage, Hoover, and Cato, or to niches at a few institutions: Straussian programs, Catholic natural-law circles, the law-and-economics movement at a few law schools. The mainstream venues no longer had to argue against them.
Rawls did particular work here. A Theory of Justice gave welfare-state liberalism a philosophical apparatus that made it look like the conclusion of rigorous reasoning rather than a political preference. The veil of ignorance and the difference principle let academics derive redistributive conclusions through what looked like neutral procedure. Social democrats no longer had to say they preferred social democracy. They could say reason itself preferred it. Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) was the last libertarian work to get full engagement in mainstream philosophy. By the 1990s the field had moved on.
The collapse of the Soviet Union from 1989 to 1991 closed the revolutionary option. Marxists who had spent careers defending some version of the socialist project now had nowhere to go. Social democracy became the natural home for ex-Marxists and post-Marxists. Bourdieu came from that tradition. So did much of the Frankfurt School lineage Habermas inherited. The convergence of different starting traditions on roughly the same conclusions is the tell. Bourdieu, Habermas, Sen, Pettit, and Gewirth start from incompatible premises: French Marxism, Frankfurt critical theory, welfare economics, neo-republican theory, Kantian rationalism. They arrive at the same destination. Independent reason rarely produces that pattern. Coalition selection does.
Samuel Moyn’s argument about human rights fits here. Human rights discourse filled the vacuum socialism’s collapse left behind. It gave the consensus a universalist moral vocabulary that did not require defending command economies. Social democracy at home, human rights abroad. The package became the default elite position across the West.
Funding flowed in the same direction. Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur, and later Open Society directed substantial resources toward research congenial to the consensus. Conservative funders existed but operated mostly outside the universities. Peer review, citation networks, tenure committees, and conference invitations rewarded work that fit the consensus and quietly punished work that did not. Dissenting books got reviewed in dissenting venues. The consensus rarely had to engage them.
Professionalization tightened the consensus. Earlier political theorists wrote for educated publics. By the 1990s, political theory had become a specialized academic subfield with its own internal markers of competence. Those markers included the Rawlsian apparatus, the Habermasian apparatus, and the language of recognition, deliberation, and capability that grew up around them. A young philosopher who wanted to publish in the leading journals had to speak that language. The language carried social-democratic premises with it.
The end of the Cold War removed the external pressure that had kept some academics defending market institutions against communism. Once communism collapsed, social democracy became the safe middle position. Defenders of markets looked extreme. Critics from the left looked nostalgic. The center moved.
What emerged was less a philosophical consensus than a coalition consensus. The members signal membership through shared vocabulary, shared citations, and shared conclusions. The premises differ. The conclusions converge. The twentieth century ended with one coalition winning the relevant academic institutions.

Posted in John J. Mearsheimer | Comments Off on The Great Delusion