One odd empirical regularity is that hard-nosed, pessimistic, realist, free-market guys like myself seem to spend more time agreeing with soggy Liberals than with the Conservatives who supposedly share our worldview.
Part of that has to do with the success of the general Libertarian project, as Scott Sumner outlines here. Many free market ideas have now simply become conventional wisdom among wonks of all stripes.
Partially , however, I think it is that many modern Conservatives intuitively base their analysis of the world on a philosophy is that anathema to my worldview. Their view is that if you take a responsible, measured, well-reasoned approach to the world things will work out. Failure is thus a sign that you have not done that.
My sense is that this is fundamentally crap.
First of all things are not going to work out. You are going to die. Your friends and family are going to die. Everything you care about and everything you ever worked for will be destroyed. This story, our story, only has one ending and it is death and destruction.
If you don’t recognize that, you are living in a fantasy world.
Second, even in the short term your plans almost certainly won’t work out. Most ideas are bad ideas and there are infinitely more ways to fuck something up than to get it right.
To wit, clean living is not some form of salvation. Nor, is prudence assurance that that you and your loved ones will be okay. Suffering is inevitable and the best one can say is that it hasn’t happened to me – yet.
Bad things happen because badness is the natural state of the world. If something good ever happens count yourself lucky and be aware that this too shall pass.
Thus, I see our proper mission as easing pain, where we can, to the extent we can, the best we can. This is best done up close and personal where you are mostly likely to quickly notice if your efforts to help are actually doing harm.
It is best done with a respect and reverence for the power of self-organizing systems, spontaneous order and the resilience of natural equilibria.
Its best done slowly, and in baby steps, building upon the wisdom of the past.
And, most importantly it is best done with humility, knowing that in all cases that, “but for the grace of God pure heartless luck, there would go I”
Its this last part that I think many modern Conservatives miss in their conviction that everything would be okay if it were for those meddling Liberals. Everything would not be okay. It never will be. If we do our best it might, and I mean might, be a little bit better.

24 comments
Comments feed for this article
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:16 am
jazzbumpa
You raise some interesting points, and it would take a counter-manifesto that I don’t have time to think through, let alone write, to give it the response it deserves.
In lieu of that, a couple thoughts.
Bad things happen because badness is the natural state of the world.
Two differences between progressives and regressives is that (generally speaking) progressives are optimists, and reality based, while regressives are pessimisic and bound either by ideology or some other reality-denying mindset.
You, as an intellectual progressive, but emotional regressive, don’t fit either camp. So, when you speak of conservatives who should share your world view, you’ll find yourself the odd man out.
Conservatism is based on ignorance, prejudice (don’t take my word for it, this is directly from Russel Kirk), negation of reality (WMD, New Deal denialism, etc) and false characterizations (which might just be a subset of reality negation) – most economic models, frex.
A progressive, like Keynes, when confronted with new data, changes his opinion. A Regressive, when confronted with new data, changes the data. Hence the current regressive attempts at history re-writing, re: the W presidency.
There is not a person in a thousand who arrives at political views via rational though, vs the emotional comfort zone. I sincerely believe that those who do are former conservatives who overcame ignorance to embrace reality.
Which, I guess, is a bit of a manifesto after all.
Cheers! (And welcome to the real world)
JzB
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:23 am
jazzbumpa
P.S.
Your conversion will probably be complete the day you are wiling to give up the myth of free markets.
Also, sorry for the bad proof reading.
Cheers!
JzB
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
blokeinfrance
All true enough, but no basis for existence (something you guys seem very interested in). It might be true that the world is wicked, things don’t work out… blah, blah. However, if we based our behaviour on this we’d all be dead already, as virgins. A bias to optimism is necessary, and (since the alternative is non-existence) even rational.
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
sbk
agree that a bias toward optimism is necessary. optimism is on the plane of the placebo effect and prayer, both with proven increases to quality of life. so if existence is as piss poor a picture that is being painted seems worhtwhile to look on the bright side…don’t take it from me though :
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Wonks Anonymous
I think the word you’re looking for is “meliorism”. Daniel Larison is agin’ it, Reihan Salaam is fer it.
There’s a country song, which I believe is titled “It’s a great day to be alive”. Most of the verse portions detail shortcomings in life without any mention of a lack of virtue (which is not to say it’s denied either). It’s simply that life entails suffering, even if it’s worthwhile and enjoyable on net. John Derbyshire has been pushing pessimism with his book “We Are Doomed”. Albert O. Hirschman reduced the “rhetoric of reaction” to futility, perversity and jeopardy. Sounds pessimistic to me.
In conclusion, I’d like you to quote someone saying things would be all okay (as opposed to merely better than they are now) if it weren’t for their political opponents.
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Apex
“Thus, I see our proper mission as easing pain, where we can, to the extent we can, the best we can.”
Why? What is the point of that? What right does one have to impose that responsibility on others?
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Sister Y
Is human flourishing possible? This answer is almost universally assumed to be yes, but the problem is that the question is almost never asked. Thank you.
One of the most interesting cognitive biases is mortality salience. Acknowledging our own mortality triggers predictable psychological behaviors, and they are most certainly not truth-seeking ones.
We’ve probably all seen the data about how self-deception is correlated with happiness and life satisfaction. What I didn’t know until two days ago is that it’s also correlated with . . . success (winning races, making money, etc.). All of us alive today are the result of generation upon generation of such success. We should look very closely at our own minds, and I think mortality salience/worldview preservation is one of the most important biases to be aware of in our quest to be ethical.
I do not think that any ethical path other than something very close to negative utilitarianism (articulated here) takes suffering seriously. It is never explained why it is okay for some to profit at the expense of others’ nonconsenting suffering.
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Rebecca Burlingame
Even though I was raised Christian, the Christian discipline does not deal with suffering well, for that I studied Buddhism. Because the Christian discipline does not do well with suffering, countless business owners in this country would go down in flames and watch their friends turn their backs, because after all, none of us is supposed to be a failure. And because so much of this country does not dare stare failure in the face and refuse to be afraid of it, we are having a more difficult time starting over now, than we should be, in this Great Recession.
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Robear
“Bad things happen because badness is the natural state of the world.”
The natural state of the world is neutrality. Positive and negative forces are virtually in balance. What you are describing is entropy. And as Keynes said, in the long run, we are all dead. But thank you for the cogent put-down of current conservative thought.
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Consumatopia
The world is, simultaneously, horrifying, yet better than we have any right to expect. I mean, when I look at how stupid we all are, it frightens me, yet it also amazes me that we aren’t all already dead.
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:17 pm
TequilaKid
I agreed with everything you wrote in this note almost up to the end. Then you spoiled everything by blurting out your religious views: “ … respect and reverence for the power of self-organizing systems, spontaneous order and the resilience of natural equilibria.”
Can you Hayekians actually produce any EVIDENCE to support your quaint beliefs? I have never heard of any historical study that tested the hypothesis that all this self-regulating crap actually exists. Although I grant that it’s plausible.
Natural cycles are NOT generally associated with equilibria. Studies comparing the population of owls and mice did not reveal any equilibrium. Instead, there were pronounced fluctuations in the population of the mice (prey), closely followed by parallel fluctuations in the population of the owls (predators).
Furthermore I would like to point out that the way Hayek posits the price system (which I find plausible) as a channel to coordinate economic activity throughout the economy, works just as well in a monopolistic market as it does in a competitive market. So that Hayek’s MODEL OF THE PRICE SYSTEM IS NOT A DEFENSE OF COMPETITIVE MARKETS at all! It’s JUST A DEFENSE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY of the means of production (and not a bad one at that).
Sunday ~ September 5th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
jazzbumpa
@ Tequilakid
. . . the hypothesis that all this self-regulating crap actually exists. Although I grant that it’s plausible.
Plausible, perhaps, in a blind-pigs-and-acorns kind of way.
Ultimately, it is an example of magical thinking, one of the ways the conservative mind negates reality.
Cheers!
JzB
Friday ~ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
aretae
Wow.
Although I’m not very good at being a pessimist, I’m all the way in agreement with this piece. I wish I’d written it. Wow.
Saturday ~ September 4th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Matthew Yglesias » Endgame
[...] A pessimist manifesto (I actually regard this worldview as [...]
Saturday ~ September 4th, 2010 at 8:29 am
bls
I love this post. Thanks. (It used to be conservatives, AFAIK, who held to the “life is nasty, brutish, and short” viewpoint; what happened, I wonder?)
Sunday ~ September 5th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Quote: You are going to die. « My Name Is Legion
[...] A pessimist manifesto: “First of all things are not going to work out. You are going to die. Your friends and family are going to die. Everything you care about and everything you ever worked for will be destroyed. This story, our story, only has one ending and it is death and destruction. [...]
Sunday ~ September 5th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
jazzbumpa
You are going to die. Your friends and family are going to die. Everything you care about and everything you ever worked for will be destroyed. This story, our story, only has one ending and it is death and destruction.
Actually, this is pure Keynes: In the long run, we’re all dead.
Cheers! (sort of)
JzB
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Things Are Not Going to Work Out : Near Earth Object
[...] ahead and read the whole thing. [...]
Thursday ~ September 9th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Days 93 – 100: The Log | In Search of Goodness
[...] in search of goodness because deep down I think goodness is the natural state of things. In The Pessimist’s Manifesto, Karl Smith sees life far differently: Bad things happen because badness is the natural state of the world. If something good ever happens [...]
Saturday ~ September 11th, 2010 at 1:53 am
Pessimism Revisited « Brucetheeconomist's Blog
[...] if awfully dreary post. A Pessimist [...]
Saturday ~ September 11th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Notable readings of the day 09/11/2010 « Pro Bozo Publico
[...] A Pessimist Manifesto « Modeled Behavior <span class="“> – Annotated [...]
Friday ~ September 17th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Great Minds and All That « Modeled Behavior
[...] at least in my use of the term, there is nothing contradictory about being a Pessimist and a Millman Progressive – one who thinks humanity’s best days are yet to [...]
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 11:08 am
marco3x
What? Say it isn’t so!
“First of all things are not going to work out. You are going to die. Your friends and family are going to die. Everything you care about and everything you ever worked for will be destroyed. This story, our story, only has one ending and it is death and destruction.
If you don’t recognize that, you are living in a fantasy world.”
There is a huge, contradictory and hypocritical aspect to your “manifesto.”
I don’t think life is all its cracked up to be, especially human life. Of course, we all die. You would have to be insane to want to live forever. I’m going back to the time before my mother and father copulated. The earth, sun, stars, end. Nothing lasts forever. So? Big deal. Don’t get all bummed about it and speak of endings as being pessimistic. I don’t know if I live in a fantasy world. I just live here a bit of time.
That must be a Realist Manifesto. Don’t worry. It won’t last long.
Tuesday ~ November 15th, 2011 at 2:36 am
I’m glad Caplan is finally saying it « Entitled to an Opinion
[...] favor a much lower time discount rate and more Donner Party austerity than Karl Smith, but ultimately I agree that nothing is sustainable. It’s eventually going to end, almost [...]