It’s a fascinating sit-down with a very wise man.
Around the 13:30 mark, there’s a very good summation of why the anointed intellectuals believe what they do so firmly, and reject the contrary. There’s a huge ego component to it.
If you believe in free markets and traditional values and so forth, there’s no exultation that comes with it. You’re just someone who believes in free markets and traditional values. … But if you believe in social justice and saving the environment, you are really something. People with that viewpoint have a huge ego stake. Empirical evidence is like gambling all of that on a roll of a dice.
History often proves the anointed intellectual leftist wrong, so they ignore it or rewrite it. That’s why they get into education. When science proves them wrong, science becomes subject to modification, and opinion trumps evidence – and any evidence that must be fabricated or changed to support the cause is completely acceptable. Easy examples are Rathergate and Climategate.
By contrast, it’s difficult to be a cause-head who says “I don’t know what’s best for you, you do.” It’s difficult to motivate people to a righteous cause of non-intervention in other’s lives. If you’re out to save them from themselves, you have mission that lends itself easily to a holy crusade. If you’re out to shrink the size of government and interference in their life so they can make the best decisions that their experience leads them to, you have a much more sophisticated argument, and a much more difficult job to motivate people – something that doesn’t lend itself to the same kind of political action.
You can’t do “fired up/ready to go” chants for that very well.
Eight – seven – six – five! Everyone lead your own lives!
Four – three – two – one! Let’s leave everyone alone!