Lots of people get interested in political ideas through political campaigns. Maybe this is because politics forces you to decide who you are and what you believe.
I can vaguely recall when I was very young, perhaps 7 years old, that I discovered that my best friend’s family considered themselves Democratic whereas I was pretty sure that my family was Republican.
I asked someone what that meant and only received hazy answers that concerned seemingly big issues about government. I didn’t think much about it but nonetheless, they were my first thoughts on the thing that would consume my life.
So it is for lots of people: politics is the entry way into taking political ideas seriously. If your interest intensifies, you tend to go one of two ways: wonk or geek. These are terms that applies in many categories of life—Wikipedia gives serviceable definitions of both wonk and geek—but the terms take on new meaning in politics. FULL ARTICLE
{ 11 comments }
Funny thing … I just blogged about wonkery as it relates to the hypocracy of calling for resignations of people like AGAG, rather than firing them directly like an actual executive would.
I tried posting comments on what you would call politically geekery on CNN yesterday on the same topic. In the comments, there’s this squabble going on about democrats playing political games about the fired attorneys, and republicans shrinking from the facts of incompetence etc. My post was basically to the effect of “Be bipartisan — Fire ‘em all (including the attorneys)!” but the editors-that-be quietly killed that particular comment. As the kids say, “Lawl.”
Where do the freaks and dorks fit in?
Freaks are people who feel disenfranchised from the whole thing. I highly recommend Zappa’s Freak Out! album for full sociological discourse.
Dorks are people who come to the party and ask silly questions
Since Wonks and Geeks are both Statists, and Wonks are crafty at making out like they care about you in some way and proffer a veneer of an ideal, how do tell one from the other? Geeks, having some true idealism, don’t squeeze your neck quite as hard to extract their booty? Perhaps they are the ones who take the time to twine a flower around their gun barrel?
——————————————–
Just the other day I was pondering the proto-libertarian me when I, too, was 7 years old (2nd grade). I remember for some reason my mom wanted me to get my thermos rinsed by the lunchroom attendant. On my way to do so I passed a little table plackard warning the kiddies that Christmas was around the corner and that you’d better be good because Santa was watching you, making his list of naughty and nice (I can still remember the sidelong eyes of Mr. Kringle and that broad smile and rosey cheeks – pretty chilling really).
I am not making this up for effect. I remember first being somewhat scared that someone, anyone, had such overarcing power to invade my privacy. Then I remember being pissed off. Is it any wonder I am a staunch libertarian today? I also had some basic dread as I had no idea what constituted naughty or nice by his standards, there was no rule book provided. I didn’t think that was hardly fair either.
I don’t remember coming instantly to this conclusion, but I do remember at some point not long after that Santa could go pound sand as far as I was concerned (it wasn’t another year or two that the neighbor girl, a little older than I, sprung the news about St Nick.) My family wasn’t well off so Christmas presents were on rather the economical side, from Santa or no. And Santa comprised about 20% of the take, so $5-$7 worth of stuff wasn’t in any way worth the 24/7/365 Big Brother treatment.
When a person starts at 7 questioning “authority” and its boundaries, there was only one destination possible. I just wish our culture didn’t soften kids up so easily to be pliant adults. Perhaps there would be more people who object to being treated as we are.
Brad,
Per Jeffrey’s argument, I believe that would make you a geek — not a statist. Anarcho-capitalism is a very non-wonky position, but much more radical. “Don’t change, just go away,” we says to the gummint.
What, is everybody reading my blog this week? I could hardly countenance it, but I had a lengthy theme on the Santa and his purported invasion of privacy at the age of seven just the other day. What a coinkidink!
Argument seems a bit thin. Caesar was hardly a wonk. Dreamed the impossible and overthrew 500 years of roman republican rule killing quite a few “kings” in the process. Was seen in his own time as revolutionary, unstable and having destroyed the status quo. Also, geeks seem, in reality, to never study history and to constantly repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Most welfare statists and left-liberals fall into this category, having no appreciation that the same arguments/ policies were pursued in the 19th century with the same pathetic results.
I agree with Charlie. Being a “geek” is no better than being a “wonk”. The former is prone to fall to endorsing ahistorical, unworkable systems. If I were to place libertarians somewhere I’d create a new category, along the line of “thinkers” or something like that; individuals who both seek to work with the current system and move closer to an ideal system that is fully consonant with man’s nature (rather, than for instance, ignoring scarcity altogether.)
Like the Imps are always saying in World of Warcraft, “Can’t we all just get along?”
We could if we left each other alone. But it appears to be deeply ingrained in human nature to want to rule over other people. Its not even a matter of trying to make other people be good–the rulers would gladly rule in hell rather than serve in heaven.
The whole problem with wonks, geeks, and everyone else is that they have a plan for their neighbors. They think they are smarter than everyone else. Even if its true, it is still a matter of coercing other people for fun and for profit.
The answer is “No we can’t get along because most people won’t leave everyone alone.” So long as that is the case, there will be conflict and war at all levels of society. The City will fine you for an unmowed lawn and the federal government will invade other nations and kill by the millions. Different manifestations of the same mentality.
With regard to the geek/wonk divide in politics, here’s a bit of homely wisdom:
When a politico says “X is too good to be true,” (s)he really means, “X is too good to be used.” This follows from the process-centrism of the typical politico’s thought.
Rome was brought down by geeks?
Clearly, you don’t mean the Republic, since Caesar’s already out there as a wonk (I take it Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Mark Anthony were likewise.)
Which means we’re either talking about western Imperial Rome or eastern Imperial Rome.
Western Rome was sacked in 410 by Alaric, and fell to the Ostrogoths in 476. I assure you, neither group was taking over out of a desire for policy shift. Conquest, straight up (though, yes, they mimicked and developed Roman style afterwards).
Constantinople was sacked in 1204 by Venetians, Frenchmen and Germans. Mostly, the Byzantines were the rich trading rivals of the Venetians, the Germans owed the Venetians some money but had a good number of fighting men, and the Venetians, well, they had a good idea about where the Germans could find some money. So much for the crusade! So, invade Christian ally! Maybe that’s Greek, but I’d hesitate to call it geek.
The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople was far more impressive — they had big guns, a huge army, it took hundreds of years, and it lasted forever. Still, not Geek– conquerer.
Long story short: if you’re conquering something out of self-interest, you might be an idea guy or you might be a fact-of-the-matter guy, but you’re neither Geek nor Wonk.
So Rome wasn’t conquered by either.
Ok, that was probably tautological, but you get my point.
Comments on this entry are closed.