To return to my previous post, Rawls argues that ones sympathetic, liberal tendencies should lead one to encourage inequalities in our society. Obviously, not all inequalities are useful. Especially in our current political climate, this may or may not have anything to do with voting Republican. One historical example of useful inequality would be Hamilton's early monetary policies which encouraged the uneven accumulation of wealth in the country's (northern) merchant class. Such an accumulation actually spurred economic growth and efficiency since it formed an investor class that the financial wherewithal to build the factories that would propel America through the early 19th century. Basically, Bryan, I would have no qualms about tossing off the idea of equality.

However, somehow I feel you're not complaining about a lack of economic inequality. The real threat to great ambition instead seems to be the mythology of equality. Nietzche once said that all great artists were men of the right. Is there something intellectually inhibiting about the ideology of liberalism? Even the quintessential liberal, J.S. Mill was more conservative in his elitism than his lesser utilitarian precursor Bentham. Though America's intellectual A-team may not have much on the likes of Heidigger, Nietzche, Cioran, Wagner and Pound (who rightly considered himself European), I for one am glad that a group of different and lesser men share the writing credits for the Federalist.

posted by Matthew Schmitz   [1:06 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML