Suicide of the West - Book Summary

The allure of unraveling the Western miracle

Consider a time in England during the seventeenth century when life was far from pleasant — fraught with violence, scarcity, and societal strife. Then, suddenly, a miraculous transformation unfolded. The wheel of fortune turned favorably, marking the end of the dismal epoch that philosopher Thomas Hobbes once bleakly portrayed as "nasty, brutish, and short." A new era dawned, heralding wealth, innovation, and peace — indeed, the future gleamed with unprecedented optimism.

This sudden change wasn't conjured from thin air. It was the product of enlightened liberal institutions that kept in check the darker, tribalistic side of human nature. The impact of this transformation was profound and far-reaching. It found a champion in the United States, a nation whose founding fathers prized the sanctity of life, liberty, and property. This code became the secret formula for the West's ascent.

However, the legacy of the West, its miraculous rise, now teeters on the edge of collapse. Tribalism is creeping back into our societies, fueled by left-wing identity politics, the surge in Trumpian nationalism, and the public's increasing disdain for liberal institutions. The miracle of modernity now stares at an impending doom from all quarters.

What can be done to counter this looming catastrophe? It's essential to revisit and understand what made the West ascend to its zenith. And that's exactly where this narrative takes you. Brace yourselves for a captivating exploration that sheds light on:

- How the philosophies of Locke and Rousseau continue to shape the modern world,

- The role of individualism in fortifying civil society, and

- The power of institutions, steeped in liberal rights, in subduing the baser instincts of human nature.

Unraveling the mystery of modernity’s miracle

Most of human history paints a bleak picture, where poverty and violence were the standards of existence. Indeed, life in the past, as aptly described by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, was "nasty, brutish, and short." However, around the turn of the seventeenth century, an extraordinary shift occurred that upended this grim narrative — a miracle of sorts.

Before we delve into that, let's turn the clock back and examine the early epochs of humanity.

The Homo sapiens of yore were nomadic apes, primitive hunter-gatherers subsisting on whatever they could catch or scrounge. This status quo, however, underwent a radical change approximately 15,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture. This paradigm shift fostered rapid development, sparking the dawn of the earliest human societies. This wasn't the miracle we're speaking of, but it was indeed a miraculous turn of events.

The true miracle unveiled itself later, more precisely towards the late seventeenth century. Humanity, once again, revolutionized the way it functioned and organized itself.

Gauging the enormity of this change after 1700 isn’t challenging if we look at the economic data. Before the eighteenth century, the average individual survived on roughly a dollar a day. The post-1700 era, however, saw a steep rise in income. After enduring centuries of economic stagnation, the global GDP per capita started climbing, with no end in sight.

But the transformation wasn’t just economical — it reshaped the human mindset too. Western societies, from the late seventeenth century onwards, started toying with groundbreaking ideas about government and societal structures.

Consider, for example, the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In a dramatic coup, William of Orange stormed England and dethroned King James II. Yet, this wasn't your typical power grab. William didn’t just fortify his reign, he instituted radical reforms. The introduction of the Bill of Rights was revolutionary. It restrained the monarchy's power and substantially bolstered parliament's role in governance. This was a momentous occasion in history, signifying one of the first instances of parliamentary representatives being granted the right to rule in the people's name.

Understanding this miracle and its implications is the key to preserving its gains. That's the journey we will embark on together through the unfolding of this narrative.

The miracle found a hospitable home in England

The miracle's genesis has always been a topic of vigorous debate among scholars, with no two experts completely agreeing on the specifics. However, one consensus stands — the miracle first flourished in England. But why England? Well, as noted by British writer and conservative politician, Daniel Hannan, England offered an exceptionally conducive environment for the miracle to firmly root itself.

A critical factor in this was England's common law system, which formed the bedrock of the nation's rule of law. Unlike civil law that governed most of Europe, the common law significantly curtailed the power of monarchs. This was possible because common law upheld precedents — previously adjudicated legal cases and verdicts — which judges could reference in their rulings.

This becomes clearer with an illustrative example. Imagine a scenario where both France and England enact a law compelling all shipowners to surrender their ships to the king. A French judge, under civil law, would only seek to verify if the defendant owned the ship. If affirmative, the judge would mandate the ship's surrender to the king. An English judge, on the other hand, would consider the new law in the context of common law. With property rights firmly embedded in common law, the English judge could potentially rule that the defendant wasn't obligated to relinquish his ship to the king!

Another facilitating factor was England's geographical location. As an island nation, it enjoyed a natural barrier against potential invaders. Consequently, unlike their mainland European counterparts, English rulers didn't need to maintain large standing armies. This resulted in a society that was less focused on military power and more inclined towards liberalism.

The third critical factor that nourished the miracle was the spirited English civil society and its active citizenry. This was a phenomenon that Alexis de Tocqueville, the renowned French diplomat, and historian observed with fascination. "The spirit of individuality," he noted, "is the basis of the English character. Association is a means of achieving things unattainable by isolated effort." Tocqueville implied that individualism paved the way for free association among equals, forming the pillars of a robust civil society.

In summary, it was a combination of the rule of law, an energized civil society, and governments not dependent on military strength, that allowed the miracle to take hold in England.

The miracle prevailed over the innately human tendencies of violence and suspicion

Why is this transformative event referred to as a "miracle?" Well, for one, it managed to overcome the inherent traits of human nature, a feat nothing short of miraculous when you delve into studies on infants and traditional societies that reveal violence and exclusion are deeply ingrained in the human psyche.

This isn't to say that we are incapable of moral conduct. In fact, there is abundant evidence indicating that morality is a deeply innate attribute. But so too is the distrust of those unknown to us.

Consider the work of psychologist Paul Bloom. His research indicates that babies, as young as six months old, possess a rudimentary moral compass. He came to this conclusion after conducting an experiment with infants aged between six and ten months using a puppet play. As one puppet tried to climb a hill, another puppet either helped or hindered it. When the infants were given a choice to play with either the "nice" or the "mean" puppet, nearly all of them chose the former.

However, that's just one aspect of the coin. On the flip side, humans are inherently tribal. When viewed from an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. Tribes serve as effective platforms for coordinating efforts towards survival and successful gene propagation. But at its darkest, tribalism paves the way for heinous acts — fueling wars and genocides.

This darkness becomes evident when we examine traditional societies that have resisted modernization. In the absence of modern institutions to restrain it, violence runs rampant.

Take the case of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon. He lived amongst the Yanomamö tribe in the Amazon from the 1960s to the 1990s. Chagnon's research shows that around 44 percent of all men aged over 25 had participated in a killing, and one-third of all adult male deaths resulted from violence. But this widespread violence wasn't driven by a competition for scarce resources. As Chagnon observed, violence was a deeply embedded part of Yanomamö culture and a source of significant pride.

Among the miracle's most remarkable accomplishments has been its ability to curb human cruelty. As psychologist Steven Pinker notes, violence today is at its lowest ever. To truly comprehend the magnitude of this shift, consider this staggering statistic from Pinker's research: had the rates of violence prevalent in prehistoric societies persisted in the twentieth century, the death toll would not have been a 100 million but a mind-numbing two billion!

Enlightenment philosophers disagreed on modernity, forming factions of optimists and pessimists

The new societies that emerged post-miracle weren't met with unanimous approval. The most eminent Enlightenment philosophers often locked horns over the issue. The divide between John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau serves as a perfect example. Their fundamental disagreement revolved around the state's role. While Locke perceived states as protectors of property, Rousseau believed their function was to safeguard the collective.

Locke postulated that the modern state was a solution to what he referred to as the "state of nature," — a condition where individuals constantly battle one another for self-protection, and conflicts are resolved by brute force rather than a higher authority. He believed that states were formed by individuals to safeguard their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property — aspects nature fails to protect.

These arguments deeply influenced the founding fathers of the United States. They adapted Locke’s idea of a property right in the Declaration of Independence, altering the phrasing to the pursuit of happiness. This slight modification, nevertheless, remained true to Locke's intentions. After all, for him, property was synonymous with happiness.

Rousseau, however, didn't buy into this reasoning. In his view, the state's role wasn't to protect individual rights but to champion the collective interests of society. The reason? He believed that humans are inherently good, but societal influences corrupt them. This belief is encapsulated in his famous quote from his essay on education, Emile: “Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things, everything degenerates in the hands of man.”

Rousseau’s aversion towards society could be traced back to his personal experiences. Having relocated from his native Geneva to Paris in pursuit of fame as a philosopher and a ladies' man, he allowed fame to get to his head. As a victim of societal corruption, he presumed that others had met the same fate!

However, since recreating the state of nature was unrealistic, he argued that the state should control society. Rousseau advocated for individuals to subjugate their personal interests to the General Will — the collective societal interest. Robespierre infamously employed Rousseau’s ideas to justify his harsh dictatorship following the French Revolution.

Though these ideological battles may seem like relics from the past, they hold critical relevance even today. How much we prioritize individual rights over collective interest will determine the miracle's fate in our current age.

While aristocracy can be natural and essential, it must be kept under a leash

There's a growing sentiment against the establishment across the West. A bitter distaste has set in among the public, and elites find themselves on the chopping block. And this is a serious issue. Defying popular opinion, elitism is not inherently bad.

Interestingly, even aristocracies can encompass meritocracy. Take the term itself for instance. It's derived from ancient Greek and translates to "rule by the best." In a true aristocracy, it's not your title but your demonstrated excellence that earns you power. Essentially, an aristocrat is a member of an elite group chosen based on capability.

Such a real aristocracy can prove beneficial to society. Look at Cornelius Vanderbilt, the renowned American business magnate responsible for laying the country’s first railroads. The creation of a nationwide transportation network significantly drove down the prices of basic commodities like flour. Vanderbilt amassed one of the largest fortunes in American history, but it’s hard to argue that his personal wealth and influence did not favor the nation as a whole.

The real issue with elites arises when they grow too potent and lack the appropriate checks and balances. This precisely sums up what happened to aristocratic societies such as the Republic of Venice, a state devoted to “rule by the best.”

On paper, Venice operated as a meritocracy. Its supreme authority, the Great Council formed in 1171, was receptive to emerging talent. Its constituents were chosen annually from a pool of randomly selected nominees. But reality painted a different picture. By 1286, the ruling elite had grown wary of the rising power of a group of young merchants and passed a law instituting hereditary rule, thus putting an end to Venice's meritocratic experiment.

This move proved detrimental to Venice. Why? Because a true rule by the best requires a robust system of checks and balances. John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, deduced this from historical instances such as Venice's. “Every government,” he wrote, “is an aristocracy in fact” but the “great secret of liberty” is figuring out a way to control the "passions" of the aristocrats.

Adams meant that the whims of the elites needed to be regulated. Hence, the founders of the nation were insistent on dividing the United States government into three branches – the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. The plan was to empower each branch sufficiently to prevent the others from abusing their power. For instance, if the legislature passed a bill that contradicted the constitution, the judiciary branch could immediately veto it.

Unfortunately, the system of checks and balances implemented by the Founding Fathers has been significantly undermined in modern times, leading to America's ruling class becoming less meritocratic over the years.

The rise of the administrative state is fueling the West's downfall

What point in history marks the start of the downfall in the United States? A crucial year could be 1913, the year when President Wilson introduced a fourth branch of government — the administrative state. Intended to provide social services and bridge the income inequality gap, it turned out to be fundamentally undemocratic, illiberal, and greatly contributing to America's descent.

Its most glaring defect is its creation of a class of individuals who exist above the law. The administrative state isn't elected; it's populated by bureaucrats appointed by the president who are nearly impossible to dismiss. In the words of USA Today, "Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat" to job tenure in the administrative state.

Shockingly, these unelected bureaucrats enjoy exemptions that ordinary citizens and businesses do not. If a corporation contaminated a river, it would be heavily penalized. But when a public agency commits a similar offence, it suffers no consequences. This was the exact scenario in 2015 when the Environmental Protection Agency escaped liability after discharging toxic waste into the Animas River in Colorado.

Moreover, the administrative state stifles innovation and inadvertently widens the gap of income inequality due to its escalation of workforce regulations. Consider licensing. Back in 1950, a mere 5 percent of all workers needed a government license to work. Today, that figure has ballooned to approximately 30 percent.

Licensing is reminiscent of another system that hindered innovation: the medieval European guild system. A guild essentially monopolized access to various trades. Without a guild license, you were barred from working in a specific field, enabling the ruling classes to manipulate commerce to their advantage.

Take the instance of James Watt, the Scottish inventor of the steam engine, who was denied a license by the corporation of Glasgow. Were it not for his unwavering determination, his groundbreaking invention might have never seen the light of day.

Licensing also hinders low-skilled workers from entering the labor market. Take for example the craft of hair-braiding, a profession that doesn't require any specific chemicals or specialized tools. Today, you need a license to be a professional hair-braider in 13 US states. This means a skill traditionally passed down from generation to generation now demands a staggering 2,100 hours of study and a cost of twenty thousand dollars!

This flagrant disregard for democratic accountability and economic growth has political ramifications as well — just consider the disillusioned working class of America who voted for Trump!

Identity politics poses a serious risk to the miracle

The cornerstone of the American dream is the belief that anyone who cherishes liberty can achieve success. Today, this paradigm is on the brink of collapse. The culprit is straightforward. The United States has capitulated to identity politics, a formidable menace to one of the most vital principles of the miracle: equality.

Consider the issue of race. The concept of being color blind is witnessing an increasing amount of opposition, which is as far removed from American values as possible. After all, being color blind is fundamental to a meritocracy — the belief that success should be solely dependent on merit, irrespective of skin color. This was the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. fought for. His dream was that his children would "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

However, the contemporary Left is waging a battle against the principle of color-blind equality. Browse through newspapers like the British Guardian, and you'll quickly encounter headlines such as, "When you say you don’t see race, you’re ignoring racism, not solving it." The Left is intent on accentuating racial and gender differences.

This leads to two repercussions. First, it essentializes identity, reducing individuals to merely one aspect of their being. Second, it breeds tribalism, rendering political discourse increasingly divisive and exclusionary. The adoption of identity politics is what led some feminists to deny Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate in 2008, as a true woman solely because she was a conservative. Feminist academic Wendy Doniger claimed Palin’s "greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

But the perniciousness of identity politics doesn't stop at being misguided; it harbors dangerous fallout as well. Look at Donald Trump. Many of his supporters crafted their own white identity as a counter to identity politics.

The irony lies in the fact that most white Christian Americans are not overly concerned about race. Their primary focus is on government overreach and the degradation of democracy. Nevertheless, the Left has ascribed to these voters a new identity, and it's beginning to resonate. An increasing number of marginalized Americans are identifying as white. In 2016, white working-class citizens who felt they were "strangers in their own country" were 3.5 times more likely to cast their vote for Trump.

As we've observed, tribalism is deeply ingrained in human nature. Keeping such primal impulses at bay was one of the greatest achievements of the miracle. Yet today, fueled by identity politics, tribalism is making a resurgence.

Rekindling the foundational values is key to preserving Western civilization

While tribal tendencies might be woven into human nature, tribalism can be kept at bay under the right circumstances. Our challenge lies in curbing the negative tribal instincts to ensure that principles like liberty, individualism, and property rights can triumph.

One of the primary ways to accomplish this is by empowering the family unit — a fundamental safeguard against tribalism. Parents form the initial defense against the more destructive aspects of human nature. Their responsibility is to impart knowledge to their children, guiding them towards the "unnatural" yet miraculous principles of liberalism and capitalism.

The cultural and political climates are equally significant. While the miracle was more or less a coincidence in England, there’s a nation where it was an intentional decision — the United States.

The Founding Fathers saw the Constitution as the optimal method of preserving the miracle. They believed that as long as people were dedicated to maintaining the values enshrined in the Constitution, our inherent human nature could be controlled. That’s why they not only established a written Constitution but also made it challenging to pass amendments — both then and now, two-thirds of both legislative houses must endorse an amendment for it to become law.

Even though this is a high benchmark, it might not be sufficient to safeguard the miracle on its own. After all, in spite of these constitutional protections, Wilson was able to establish the administratively heavy anti-miracle state. At the end of the day, the Constitution's preservation rests on the commitment of everyday Americans to uphold its ideals.

And that’s critically important. The American Constitution immortalized the principles of liberty, equality, and capitalism for all future generations. The establishment of the United States marked a victory of political innovation and societal organization. However, there are alternatives. If we don’t shield the miracle, we might find ourselves in an alternate scenario where the West becomes its own executioner.

Final takeaway

The core message in this content:

The emergence of liberal, prosperous and free societies in the Western world towards the late seventeenth century was nothing short of a miracle. This transformation occurred almost incidentally in England, but there is one nation where this miracle was a deliberate choice - the United States of America. Like England, the United States rose to prominence by adhering steadfastly to its foundational principles. Today, however, new challenges are surfacing. Populist and undemocratic forces are eroding its most critical institutions. If we intend to counter these threats and safeguard the advancements of the miracle, we must first comprehend the forces that made it possible.