Culture Wars/Current Controversies

Tucker Carlson’s ‘Law And Order’ Speech Didn’t Go As Planned…

Kyle Kulinski has an interesting rebuttal to Carlson’s Hobbesian-Burkean perspective.

In his more serious and intelligent moments, Carlson is simply making the Hobbesian argument that order must be maintained at all costs in order for civilization to exist with considerations of “justice,” whatever their merit, being a secondary or tertiary concern.  A similar argument could have been made to defend the rule of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi, particularly given what happened to Iraq and Libya post-US/NATO invasion.  Carlson is also making a Burkean argument that whatever the problems with existing institutions, merely burning them down typically makes things even worse. I can respect such arguments even if they’re a bit one-dimensional.

Kulinksi is making the perfectly reasonable observation that the insurrectionists were hardly the ones that started the fight, and that the lumpen violence of the insurrectionists pales in comparison to the institutionalized violence of the power elite. Looting Target is kindergarten compared to killing a million people in the Middle East. But Kyle, unfortunately, falls back on the liberal idealization of the “rule of law.” The law, as anarchists have always pointed out, is primarily an instrument of political, economic, and economic subjugation with the positive benefits of law (like “order”) largely being incidental or geared to serve ruling class interests. OF COURSE, the state is inconsistent in the enforcement of its own laws. Consistency is not the objective. Maintaining power is the objective.

1 reply »

  1. The american revolution led to washington and hamilton’s rank hypocrisy in the whiskey rebellion and later the largest empire in the history of the planet. The french revolution led to the reign of terror and napoleon. The russian revolution led to lenin and stalin. And who wouldn’t rather have qadaffi or hussein in those countries at this point, apart from the people who currently wield power, however tenuously. If this is one dimensional, then I’m a burkean. I share all your critiques of the current state, but whatever comes of this will be worse, and I’m curious as to what your rebuttal to that would be. The american revolution broke up the british empire and i will grant that it gives it some advantages over the other two revolutions named. But as soon as they could get away with it, they executed a secret coup on the articles of confederation, and the constitution created a government more tyrannical than the british colonial government. Carlson won’t take his argument that far for obvious reasons.

Leave a Reply