Toynbee, Hayek, & Counter-Revolution
by Greg R. Lawson
“Civilizations Die by Suicide, Not Murder” – Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History
“In all democratic countries, in the United States even more than elsewhere, a strong belief prevails that the influence of the intellectuals on politics is negligible. This is undoubtedly true of the power of intellectuals to make their peculiar opinions of the moment influence decisions, of the extent to which they can sway the popular vote on questions that differ from the current views of the masses. Yet, over somewhat longer periods, they have probably never exercised as great an influence as they do today in those countries. This power they wield by shaping public opinion.” – F. A. Hayek, The Intellectuals and Socialism
Arnold J. Toynbee’s assertion about civilizations dying by suicide rather than murder takes on new significance as the West grapples with the pervasive influence of cultural Marxist and post-modern infused “wokeism.” Many argue that we are witnessing a form of civilizational self-sabotage.
The rise of “wokeness” can be seen as the culmination of what Antonio Gramsci termed the “long march through the institutions.” This process has seen cultural Marxist and postmodern ideas gradually and then suddenly infiltrate key societal pillars such as education, media, and government. The result has been a significant ideological shift that many view as a threat to the foundations of Western civilization. Critics argue that this “Cultural Revolution,” while not as overtly violent as Mao’s in China, is nonetheless eroding the core values and institutions that have underpinned Western success. The obsession with identity politics that divides society along racial, gender, and other identity lines is inherently self-balkanizing. This ideological transformation is particularly worrisome given the rising geopolitical and technological challenges facing the West and the need for civilizational confidence to create the space for achieving a durable balance of power. The need for a counter-revolution of sorts is clear and urgent.
Such a movement now seems to be emerging with figures such as conservative writer and researcher Christopher Rufo at the vanguard. Whether nascent efforts can or will be successful is a legitimate, open, and essential question.
In considering the prospect of such a counter-revolution, it is instructive to examine Friedrich Hayek’s insights from “The Intellectuals and Socialism.” Hayek argued that intellectuals play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and, by extension, societal direction. He posited that socialist ideas gained traction not through their inherent merit but through the persistent efforts of intellectuals in various fields. Following this logic, any effective counter-revolution would necessitate a similar long-term strategy, focusing on reclaiming intellectual and cultural spaces to reintroduce and reinforce traditional Western values and principles.
Writing in 1949, when his economic libertarian views seemed thoroughly discredited, Hayek outlined just such a strategy for a form of ideological insurgency that would ultimately prove successful. Central to his approach was the recognition that policy flows from the general attitudes and worldviews of what he termed “secondhand dealers in ideas.” These individuals include intellectuals, journalists, teachers, and others who shape public opinion.
Hayek argued that to effect lasting change; one must appeal to these generalist intellectuals rather than focus solely on policy experts or political operatives. He emphasized the importance of offering a comprehensive worldview that could capture the imagination of these idea-disseminators rather than merely proposing technical adjustments to existing systems.
The success of Hayek’s approach became evident over the following decades as neoliberal economic principles gradually gained ascendancy. Their culminating triumph came with the rise of US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. This triumph subsequently influenced an entire generation of economists and public intellectuals.
Despite this Hayekian win in the economic sphere, more radical thinkers like Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and the new thinkers of Critical Theory seem to have had the last laugh in the even more crucial cultural realm.
From the upon high in the Ivory Towers of academia, through the bowels of the federal government, to the Hollywood street of dreams, corporate boardrooms, and even K-12 classrooms, the language of Critical Theory has been simplified into an easily consumable form that can be called “wokeism.” It can reasonably be argued that wokeism has won an ideological battle almost as entirely as Hayek’s heirs had temporarily won theirs a generation ago, except wokeism is a far more expansive ideology than Hayekian libertarianism. It threatens to undo the Hayek revolution and tear down the pillars of Western philosophy and culture, leaving a balkanized and atomized society unable to stand up to internal or external threats.
Augmenting Hayek’s approach is the concept of “cohort change.”
As outlined in a particularly insightful piece from researcher and journalist Tanner Greer regarding long cultural wars, the concept of “cohort change,” as discussed by Robert Putnam, is crucial to understanding the dynamics of long-term cultural change. Putnam argues that cultural shifts often occur not because individuals change their minds but because younger generations with different values replace older ones. This insight helps explain why cultural change typically occurs over a 35-50-year timeframe that spans two to three generations.
Putnam’s research strongly suggests that most “social” or “value-laden” attitudes are established early in life and maintained throughout. The “formative events” of one’s youth indeed are formative, shaping worldviews that persist even after the conditions that created these pressures have long disappeared. This generational aspect of cultural change helps account for the “tempo of social revolutions. Cultural insurgents typically win few converts within their own cohort due to the deeply established views contained in it. Instead, such intellectuals build new systems of ideas and institutions that conserve and refine the ideals they hope future generations will adopt. Accordingly, the actual target of these ideas is not so much their contemporaries but their contemporaries’ children and grandchildren.
So-called Progressives, often inculcated with woke perspectives, have spent decades skillfully leveraging both the Hayekian and Putnam strategies to embed their ideas deeply in Western society over time. While conservatives were busy fighting political battles, these intellectuals and activists wisely recognized that younger generations were more receptive to new ideas and social change. Consequently, they focused on influencing the institutions and media shaping these emerging cohorts’ worldviews. Educational establishments became a key battleground, with progressives working to promote their ideals in schools and universities, further entrenching their ideas in successive generations who would then carry these values into adulthood and various sectors of society.
For years, conservatives and polite society made fun of what they dismissed as bizarre academic ideas and extreme activists with limited reach and influence. Tragically, they failed to understand the long game and ceded most of America’s educational and cultural landscape while enjoying temporary political power. Only recently have they begun to fight back with the tactics long embraced by Leftist thinkers and activists. A critical example is Christopher Rufo.
Rufo’s recent campaign against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies in universities can be seen as a contemporary attempt to apply Hayek’s strategy. By targeting higher education institutions, Rufo focuses on crucial breeding grounds for the “secondhand dealers in ideas” Hayek identified as necessary for cultural change. Rufo’s multi-pronged approach, combining investigative journalism, legal action, and public advocacy, aims to shift public opinion and institutional policies rapidly.
Aside from his efforts to highlight various DEI efforts in universities, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has appointed him to a board leadership position at a college in Florida. Rufo’s goal is to transition the college from being seen as guilty of political indoctrination towards what a university is intended to be —a place of learning and exploration.
Similarly, Rufo’s analysis of President Richard Nixon’s efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy parallels current strategies for institutional reform. Interestingly, Vice Presidential candidate Ohio Senator JD Vance has echoed these themes by discussing the need to transform the federal bureaucracy from continuing as an unelected elite that ignores the democratic will of the voters that elect the president for whom they serve in the Executive Branch. The Rufo strategy of reshaping the federal bureaucracy can be seen as an attempt to accelerate this process of cultural change. By potentially replacing career civil servants with appointees align with the goals of the elected President of the United States, they aim to change the culture and priorities of government agencies.
These contemporary strategies may seem to differ from Hayek’s regarding their timeframe and methods. Yet, like Hayek’s approach to libertarianism, it represents a counter-revolution forming. While Rufo and others in his circles aim for immediate results through confrontation with those dominating contemporary institutions, they no longer step back and cede the majority of cultural ground to the Left.
The efforts of Rufo and other conservative activists further align with Hayek’s ideas by challenging existing orthodoxies. Hayek argued that intellectuals are often drawn to new ideas that critique the status quo. The populist messaging and criticism of established institutions associated with figures like former President Trump, Senator Vance, and many conservative activists are consistent with Hayek’s approach, even if expedited.
Naturally, there is considerable tension between policy change nudges from administrative actions and grassroots cultural shifts. One without the other is unlikely to prove successful in the long run. For example, the Left skillfully and cleverly used both simultaneously by internalizing the Hayekian insight that rapid changes from a single administration or movement are vulnerable to reversal by subsequent governments if not bolstered by a sustainable cultural shift. However, significant changes in the short term can alter the trajectory of cultural evolution by changing the immediate context in which younger generations form their worldviews and the social and financial incentives for doing so.
Hayek rightly saw the complex nature of cultural and political transformation. The impact of counter-revolutions depends not only on their ability to implement changes in the short term but also on how these changes interact with broader societal trends, generational shifts, and the ongoing evolution of ideas in the public sphere.
If allowed to fester within the American body politic, the destructive ideas of wokeism will lead to a form of civilizational suicide. Due to this overall cultural dynamic and the precarious geopolitical environment the US finds itself in, there is little time to be wasted in mounting a counter-revolution combining top-level nudging and grassroots activism and education. This now appears to be in full swing with activists and the rise of the Trump/Vance presidential ticket.
For those who value Western tradition, this ongoing, multi-generational effort to roll back the gains of the woke cultural revolution is the only hope of avoiding Arnold Toynbee being proven prophetic once more.
Greg R. Lawson is a Contributing Analyst with Wikistrat. Send him mail.
Isonomia Quarterly 