I don’t think the correlation between the growth of megacities necessarily implies that people come to be liberal and wanting more goverment. It depends on how you define big city, but suburbs are a big part of that equation that you may have overlooked. In a lot of cases, the city proper is not always where people or usually settle. You would tend to live there in your 20′s but eventually you move out during the later seasons of life. When you’re younger you want a vibrant place with a lot of diversity. But the expense and lack of good schooling makes it harder to stay there. Suburban voters are not as interested in government intervention. Especially because as you get older and get a job with one of the dreaded corporations you tend to appreciate the salary they offer. You don’t want the yard, kids, and work situation to be mucked up by a liberal overzealous central government.

The current system is simply unsustainable. The electorate may want to get everything without paying anything, but they can’t have it. I doubt social security won’t cause multiple crises over the next decade.

There were and are one ancient class of elites that considered themselves tourists in this world: The Saints.

In the Philippines, Marcos fell to Nuns and the people.

We forget that – for all your breaks for Easter and iconic pictures – God is really in control, Christ is risen, and our first duty is to him, at least if we have no king but Jesus.

When the new towers of babel fall, honor and integrity will be back and only the honorable will be popular. When materialism is both operational and ascendant, people don’t care about cheating as they are benefiting. When a stab in the back becomes fatal instead of inconvenient, promises will need to be kept.

Go up on the hill, let the light shine, and wait for darkness to descend on the USA. Do the right thing and let the people see and decide for themselves (like the Ron Paul Campaign) that the only non-negotiable is honor.

In my argument, the “addict” isn’t “reformed”. He talks about “smallness” and yet draws a check and health care from a gigantic, corporate, “cosmopolitan” university in a cosmopolitan center (not just you, but I’m not naming other names). He talks about “limits” of sustainability and geography and writes on an unlimited medium for an unlimited audience. He decries mobility and visits towns and cities near and far to spark interest in and sell his books. He talks about the value of “place” and earns his bread from writing, a profession that can be done from anywhere while castigating people who try to transcend their “place” to earn their living. So yeah; I would pay attention to a former alcoholic about not drinking so much, but not if the guy was higher than a Georgia pine when he was saying so.

The Internet is a “place” where “like-minded people can communicate easily” and discuss their like-minded ideas. And yet, like-minded college graduates and post-grads congregating in “cosmopolitan”, socially liberal cities where everybody likes Obama, gay marriage, and organic food instead of going back to the suburbs and small towns they came from is somehow different than this and should be decried. Except…it’s the same thing, see? These Obama-lovin’ young graduates want to be around “like-minded people” with whom they can “communicate easily”, so they move to the nearest “cosmopolitan” city upon graduation instead of going back to some broken down Rustbelt town where more than one person thinks Obama is a Muslim and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are revered intellects. It makes a monoculture- so does the Internet, apparently, where “like-minded” people seem to congregate to like-minded blogs and their like-minded links.

“I don’t know what wealthy think tanks you think there are…”

None; but the point was that I suspect these folks would choose “advancement” over “place” if pressed. Given that some folks have moved states to attend more prestigious universities than existed in their local “place”, I’m guessing those folks would also move states if they could advance themselves through one of these non-local institutions (say, a major newspaper or major magazine), all the while saying how great “place” was and how unedifying upward mobility turned out to be. That’s speculation, of course, but I haven’t seen too many bios of right-wing-decentralizers that “stay put” rather than take news jobs/university positions in other states.

“Caleb Stegall lives on his farm in the same state settled by his ancestors over a century and a half ago.”

Yes, he is a tough case. Very tough, indeed. After reading Stegall’s “Tractor Pull” article a few weeks ago in which he publicly criticizes his neighborhood and his neighbors, one wonders if it really is “place” he’s loyal to…Hard to tell over the Internet, I guess. But yes; he’s a difficult case. Very difficult.

One problem with American politics historically is its tendency towards imbalanced thought. To be consistent, people are expected to be all-one-thing or the other, with no cross communication, cross-polination, or respect for a balanced outlook. As Deneen’s article tries to make clear, it’s possible to have both a strong federal government with social democratic values, and a strong respect for local autonomy and the need to preserve local culture and values. It’s also possible for a conservative to support local unions and for a liberal to oppose federally imposed wide-open economic poliices that destroy local economies.

I see nothing wrong with leaving one’s locality to pursue a wider eduction and experience not possible at the local level. This doesn’t mean that one isn’t “walking the walk”. It means one is living in the real world. And like you say, it’s one of the best ways to learn that the rootless world of modern society is not all it’s cracked up to be.

What I would wish you’d address is the issue of larger government. Seeing as you acknowledge that larger government is coming regardless of what one says or does to oppose it, doesn’t it make more sense to yoke larger government to conservative, local values, the kinds of things that are actually more popular on the left these days than on the right, than to oppose large government with advocacy of the very economic laissez-faire which is destroying local culture and creating a monolithic homogenity throughout the country, and the world? Whether it succeeds electorally or not, at the very least it creates a political movement which can have a genuinely positive effect, and allow politicians from both parties to compete at hanging their hats on this set of values, which has far greater meaning than the tired, worn cliches of “secual liberalism” and “gay agenda”. Conservatives at this point are fighting cultural and political wars over empty symbolism, rather than actual meaningful realities that shape the world they live in.

“If place is so great, why are they communicating about it on the placeless Internet with their placeless Internet readers?”

For one thing, the Internet may be placeless, but it allows relatively easy communication between likeminded people, who are offering their perspectives on how the places where they live shape them and define them. If a person believes that being rooted in a place is a vital and good thing, and he sees that most of his fellow citizens have lost or are losing that vital and good thing, doesn’t he have some responsibility as a citizen to say so? Do we mock the penitent and the reformed addict, or do we pay attention to what their experience can teach us?

I see what the meritocracy and the hyper-mobile society demand, and by and large I don’t find it edifying. No one who hasn’t lived it could fully appreciate Lasch’s indictment of the elite’s engaging with the world as tourists. Are people who have participated in the meritocracy forever required to pay it homage and ignore its flaws? Aren’t we especially obliged to draw on our own experience to identify what is wrong with it? This is why I always push back against the charge that our position is a weak or precarious one, or that ours is just another fad or choice in a multitude of choices. The conditions we are critiquing wouldn’t cease to exist if we stayed silent, and some recognition that constant mobility and the regular uprooting of people are not conducive to a stable, sane way of life ought to be regarded as being more significant coming from people who have nothing to gain by saying this. I don’t know what wealthy think tanks you think there are out there that reward preaching against “creative destruction,” globalization *and* individual autonomy from a conservative and/or religious perspective, but I can assure you that they have not yet contacted me.

“And until there are actual people living like this, creating actual local institutions that function, as you point out, this is all a bunch of wistful talk from the highly mobile, hyper-educated twenty-to-thirty-somethings who, presented with an opportunity to advance themselves in a think tank or university, etc., move cross-country and then proceed to say why that is bad.”

Well, there are actual people living like this, and some of them do write for FPR. Caleb Stegall lives on his farm in the same state settled by his ancestors over a century and a half ago. I don’t know the full story on everyone writing there, but my guess is that there are a fair few who walk the walk and who do so better than I do. Obviously, Bill Kauffman is a writer, and he writes for a living, but he does it from his ancestral home in upstate New York. Ditto, I believe, Kate Dalton. There are probably others. I suppose we could all be extremely localist and eschew all forms of communication other than letters delivered by hand, but then no doubt someone would say we are living in the dark ages and want to make everyone live in mud huts.

I have seen Deneen’s post. A Christian democratic synthesis of left-conservative and paleo arguments may be inevitable in the future, and I am more open to language and policies of social solidarity and support for the rights of labor than some of my friends, but I don’t know how sustainable such a synthesis would be.

http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-i-saw-in-europe.html

Deneen makes the point that Germans, despite have a large “socialist” government, have used it to create and preserve local communities in a fashion that is very “conservative” in the cultural and local sense. My thought is that, given your correct assessment that people do indeed want big government, health care, SS, and government help for many things, why not create a conservative party that steers all this inevitable big government towards conservtive ends, as seems to be the case in Germany.

Yes, this is throwing in the towel on one aspect of the “means” American conservatives have been advocating for acheiving their goals, but isn’t this a confusion of the means with the ends, and of overvaluing the means at the expense of the ends? If a conservatism of locality and culture can be acheived by big government, what really is the problem with supporting big government, so long as it is directed towards those ends? Shouldn’t conservatives be less dogmatically attached to their means (low taxes, small federal government, free trade, economic laissez-faire) than the actual ends they aim for – cultural preserveration and frreedom from hegemonic monoculture? If big government can be used to create or preserve human-sized communities that can actually promote conservative cultural values, shouldn’t big government be embraced, and directed towards this end, rather than anathematized and thus allowed to be used by others to promote a different and less conservative end?

This would take a big adjustment, I’m sure, but it seems to me to be the best way to combine paleo-conservative values with the incontraverible public desire for big government. And who knows, it could actually prove electorally practical. Any thoughts on this issue?

Well, this post nails it on the head; for all the talk of this stuff, there really is no constituency for it- not even these right-wing decentralists have “stayed put”. How many times have you moved, Larison? Lots of times, and you’re young… and you’re not the only one. I’d bet none of those “Front Porch Republic” folks are living where they grew up, with their folks down the block from them, and maybe their grandparents across the street. And until there are actual people living like this, creating actual local institutions that function, as you point out, this is all a bunch of wistful talk from the highly mobile, hyper-educated twenty-to-thirty-somethings who, presented with an opportunity to advance themselves in a think tank or university, etc., move cross-country and then proceed to say why that is bad.

I don’t want to name particular names, but reading posts on localism and “place” from various people on your blogroll who’ve attended multiple gigantic universities in different states and draw paychecks to this day from those HUGE corporate institutions that employ HUGE numbers of people makes me roll my eyes.

I loved this post. Thank you for pointing out the uncomfortable truth.

One of the more absurd column’s by Douthat before he got on board the NYT was a post that mocked Whole Foods eating liberals in favor of sinewy, muscular farmers. He missed the point that both need each other far more than they need NASCAR watching movement conservatives, as its the yuppie liberals who purchase all the artisan cheeses small producers make, the local microbrewery beer, and the fresh, not farmed, seafood. The reasons for these consumer choices might be silly, or centered around environmentalism, etc etc., but the economics are there.

But the reality is that it takes effort to build community and culture, one that cannot be substituted by electoral politics, though it can be benefited or harmed by larger macro factors. While I live in a modest size Southern capital (Columbia, SC) we haven’t managed to avoid the bullet of absolute cultural destruction because of luck; its because people poured money and effort into small businesses, cultural and community organizations, and our city government has not totally wrecked things. If half of the blogs about localism actually talked about useful things about how to organize functions, meeting halls, etc., instead of weird philosophical ramblings, I think people would be far better off.