Yet over somewhat longer periods they have probably never exercised so great an influence as they do today in those countries

From Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics by F. A. Hayek.  The particular essay is The Intellectuals and Socialism, first published in the University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, Spring 1949.

The opening lines are especially relevant given developments in academia, social media and mainstream media.

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 no doubt 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 on which they differ from the current views of the masses. Yet over somewhat longer periods they have probably never exercised so great an influence as they do today in those countries. This power they wield by shaping public opinion.

In the light of recent history it is somewhat curious that this decisive power of the professional second-hand dealers in ideas should not yet be more generally recognised. The political development of the Western world during the last hundred years furnishes the clearest demonstration. Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious evil which the interests of that class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their programme.

Intellectuals is too complimentary a term for these individuals and faux-intellectual is too derogatory.  But the latter is closer to the truth than the former.  The English term, chattering class, is perhaps the least derogatory, most descriptive, and closest in truth.  

Twitter has become the primary platform for the chattering class.  Only 20% of the population has a Twitter account and something like 80% of the content is generated by less than 10% of the accounts, with academia and mainstream media dominating that 10%.  It is a magnificent bubble in which the chattering class discuss glittering nonsense ideas.  Ideas with little or no prospect of surviving any contact with the real world.  

Hayek's foresight was astonishing.  We are in a dark world where we cannot define a woman but can imagine children being pansexuals; where it is supposedly non-racist to judge people's moral worth solely by the color of their skin; where all freedoms and property are contingent on the permission of a leviathan state.

To avoid the dark depths of inhumanity towards which these intellectuals' fads lead, we do need to resurrect the ideals of Classical Liberalism - natural rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of self-defense; rule of law; due process; equality before the law; a world knowable through the scientific method; private property, etc  These were radical and fresh ideas a mere two centuries ago and have delivered a world of wondrous prosperity.  They are worth fighting for in intellectual terms, in moral and ethical terms, and in material terms.

As Hayek recommends.

Does this mean that freedom is valued only when it is lost, that the world must everywhere go through a dark phase of socialist totalitarianism before the forces of freedom can gather strength anew? It may be so, but I hope it need not be. Yet, so long as the people who over longer periods determine public opinion continue to be attracted by the ideals of socialism, the trend will continue. If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able to offer a new liberal programme which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical, and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realisation. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realisation, however remote. The practical compromises they must leave to the politicians. Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may arouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere ‘reasonable freedom of trade’ or a mere ‘relaxation of controls’ is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm.

The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote. Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost. The intellectual revival of liberalism is already under way in many parts of the world. Will it be in time?