What makes Gramsci's ideas work is the natural tendency of those with Sowell's "unconstrained vision" to gravitate toward those positions in society -- academia, the media, education, etc. -- where they can "lead" and "influence," and by so doing make the world a better place (in their eyes). It was inevitable that having succeeded so wildly, this cohort of influencers -- who have brought our society to the brink of moral collapse with their 'vision of the anointed'-- would one day run dry of ideas and become what Hanson describes here -- a bunch of tired old leftists trapped in their own rhetoric... a would-be (and one-time) cultural elite now widely despised by the culture they once led. Nothing has changed amongst those of the constrained vision that would now make them seek these positions. We are not going to see a flood of conservative activists moving into the media, into education, etc., to take the place of these fallen, and now discredited, leftists. No, they are far more likely to be replaced -- in due course -- with some different sort of leftists. It is leftists who are drawn to these positions, and while we might have some period during which our Influential Social Institutions appear to have gone apolitical, some new leftist ideology will appear and when it does we will witness another Gramscian March through our institutions by its adherents. This interregnum might be a good time to install some "diversity quotas" in these institutions, to prevent the emergence of another leftist Gramscian monopoly once the new-and-improved leftist ideology arrives. For surely it will. |
We need to be careful about this. What Hanson is describing is the swan dive that is about to be taken by the Gramscian Left. That's all well and good, but it does not follow that what replaces it will be better.
No mercy.