In Leviathan, Hobbes entertained a thought experiment in which he reduced man to his fundamental essence, so as to reason, free of doctrinal prejudice, from first principles to a coherent theory on how man ought to be governed.   Starting with the now-famous presumption that life for this primitive man was “nasty, brutish, and short,” Hobbes reasoned his way to a benevolent dictator who could ensure that life for most people was pleasanter, kinder, and longer.  The keystone to Hobbes’s conclusion was his underlying (and never satisfactorily justified) presumption that the ultimate “good” of personal and political life was material well-being.   If the Hobbesian answer to the Platonic question is correct, Hobbes’s conclusion is difficult to disagree with, at least at a broad level.

Since then, post-modern philosophy has relegated to a place of scorn the ideas of the fundamental man, first principles, unprejudiced reasoning, coherent theory, and “ought”.    Although post-modern thought denies the validity of nearly all of Hobbes’s presumptions, it ironically reaches precisely the same conclusion.  Making some philosophically small adjustments to bow to the stark reality of the efficacy of capitalism, the progressive heirs of the academic tradition tell us that because material well-being is the ultimate political good, and because many people left to their own devices in a free state do not maximize their material well-being, freedom should be sacrificed to the extent necessary to distribute material goods efficiently for all.

This is sometimes the language used by academics, but rarely by politicians.  They dress up the concept with more palatable words like “aid,” “new deal,” “fair taxation,” “helping Main Street,” “stimulus,” “gun control and violence prevention,” “universal health care,” and a host of other pleasant-sounding initiatives.  Each of these, however, is an application of the same principle–freedom, to the extent it prevents the broadest possible distribution of material acquisition, must be eliminated and replaced with an enlightened power structure to redistribute resources.

From these seeds, the shrubbery of our current government has grown.  Higher taxes, libertine spending, massive wealth-redistribution, open borders, increased direct government dependency, and federal control of every corner of private life not only make sense from this perspective; the policies flow directly from the materialist premise.  Most progressives believe the materialist premise is self-evident–it is not surprising, therefore, that they believe their policy conclusions are similarly self-evident, nor is it surprising that they are baffled when others disagree.  This bafflement was so pronounced in the previous generation of progressives that they took, in all seriousness, to labeling conservative thought as a form of mental derangement.  They didn’t necessarily mean it as an insult.  They meant it as a literal description of the condition of a person who disagrees with a self-evident truth, like a person who truly believes the sky is not blue.

And this is where conservatives in America find themselves today.  Increasingly, the materialist premise is accepted as a “self-evident” truth.  Alternative answers to Plato’s question–answers such as “to secure freedom of conscience,” or “to secure individual liberty generally,” or even “to preserve human dignity” (to the extent ‘dignity’ is defined to mean something entirely non-material) are met by progressives with the same disbelief and shock that a sane man would express at the obscene ravings of a lunatic.

To the extent progressives conclude that the conservative viewpoint is both: (1) self-evidently incorrect; and (2) the product of derangement; they, logically, further conclude that it need not be respected or even accorded serious attention.  There is no harm and much good in a “fairness doctrine” to silence it, thereby restoring some sanity to am radio.  There is no harm in using parliamentary procedure to shut out the voices of those states so backwards as to have elected conservatives to the legislature.  And there is certainly no harm in appointing a host of technocratic benevolent dictators (”czars”) to govern every aspect of individual lives, including what media and opinions the crazy people consume.  It is, after all, for their own good (as self-evidently defined above).

There are two immediately obvious problems with this line of reasoning (aside from the fact that it is both soulless and smug):  (1) the idea of a ’self-evident’ political truth obviates the entire need for a democracy, and its mother concept, the free market of ideas.  To the extent progressives truly believe their conclusions, the American system of limited democratic government is a hindrance that should be eliminated; and (2) The statistical majority of Americans deeply resent a benevolent dictator, even one acting for their own good.

The result is that, the more the tyrants of public opinion demand adherence to their worldview, the more apparent becomes their disdain for the opinions of the majority of their public audience.  Do they think we’re stupid? has become an increasingly common response to the media and our leaders in Washington, particularly in the flyover states.  The answer, of course, is: No, they don’t think you’re stupid.  They think you’re insane.