Matt Yglesias writes (WaPo, paywalled),
By all means, let’s dispense with the frustrating and at times hypocritical meta-debate about “free speech” (in the context of racism) and “cancel culture.” But the newly fashionable anti-racist thinking contains a mix of good ideas and bad ones — including some that are dangerously counterproductive for the people they are intended to help. Bland agreement that “racism is bad” does not suffice when racism is reconceptualized as an abstract attribute of policies and systems, as opposed to bigoted individual behaviors. Understanding complicated social phenomena is difficult. Solving social problems, almost all of which involve race, is contentious. Liberals can’t respond by ceding huge swaths of the political landscape to the hardcore right — or to whichever activist happens to have most loudly proclaimed their own anti-racism.
My thoughts.
1. He doesn’t come out against Critical Race Theory and such with both guns blazing. He is trying to coax his fellow liberals toward a more skeptical point of view. But that means he spends most of the piece gesturing toward liberals, and comparatively little time exposing CRT dogma and emotional blackmail. I cannot help but see this as a sign of weakness.
2. As an analogy with how CRT affects liberals, consider the position in which Mr. Trump puts conservatives. I encourage fellow conservatives to be critical of Mr. Trump’s management capabilities and to reject his “stolen election” stance. On the latter point, I am all for a bipartisan commission to suggest best practices for the conduct of elections, but the 2020 election was over when the states declared it was over.
Still, I did not come out with both guns blazing against Mr. Trump’s abusive behavior toward various people and institutions. And most professional Republican politicians are afraid to go even as far as I have.
I watched on YouTube part of Mr. Trump’s speech at CPAC the other day, in which he displayed his extreme narcissism (every other sentence was “the greatest ever”), bullying (“little Ben Sasse”), and truth-bending. I found the crowd’s response, shouting “We love you!” and the like, to be much more frightening than the Capitol Hill Riot. Sycophants in suits are scarier than crashers in costumes.
All this is something that we should bear in mind when judging Yglesias.
3. Still, I think there is something different about the inability of liberals to deal with CRT. In the case of Republicans and Trump, politicians see a need to avoid appearing to criticize Mr. Trump’s supporters. Not being a politician, I can speak more freely. While I mostly respect Mr. Trump’s supporters, I am not going to pretend to like everything that they do.
I don’t think that is going on with liberals and CRT. It isn’t that liberals are catering to radicals merely in order to hang on to a constituency. I think liberals have a genuine emotional need to affiliate with the radicals. In that regard, Shelby Steele’s White Guilt gets closer to explaining the dynamic. Liberals want to support any cause that marches under the banner of Civil Rights. Like allowing men who identify as female to compete with women in athletic events.
4. Another factor is that conservatives stand with existing institutions. Liberals believe that if rational analysis shows that existing institutions are not perfect, then at the very least they must be reformed and at most they should be torn down altogether and replaced. Hence, conservatism by its nature is against radicalism, while liberalism by its nature treats radicalism with some sympathy. The net result is that conservatives recoiled from the January 6 riot, while liberals did not recoil against the BLM riots. Even though one could make a case that the latter did more lasting and significant damage.
5. I think that liberals’ fear of Mr. Trump and his supporters becomes exaggerated. Building up this fear became the business model of the liberal press. I thought that this fear was hysterical from the very beginning.
6. I do not think that my concerns with the social justice movement are a comparable over-reaction. I think that those concerns are justified. If my perspective is correct, then the Yglesias piece falls short of spelling out to liberals the seriousness of the fire they are playing with.
Bret Stephens (NYT, paywall) writes,
All of this has left many of the traditional gatekeepers of liberal institutions uncertain, timid and, in many cases, quietly outraged. This is not the deal they thought they struck. But it’s the deal they’re going to get until they recover the courage of their liberal convictions.
That comes closer to what I would have liked to see from Yglesias.
Trump’s speech was nothing more than a boring replay of his greatest hits album. He’s been phoning it in for at least the past two years. Would the movement be better served by DeSantis or Noem? I’m thinking yes.
This invites the question, will the aspiring heirs – Hawley, DeSantis, Cotton, etc. – compete with Trump himself in 2024? Trump won in 2016 because, unlike the Democrats, GOP candidates refused to step aside and fall in line behind a candidate. I doubt they’ll step aside for Trump either. But maybe I’m just optimistic. I hope the Trumpiest candidates stay in to the very last and split the ‘Trumpy’ vote, allowing Haley to run off with the nomination. That’s the best case scenario IMO.
Four years is a long time, and a lot will happen. Biden may not make it through his whole term. Trump will be 78 — too old, just like Biden is too old.
But I do see the GOP continuing to become a party of blue collar and low income voters. This trend will be accelerated by a rapid increase in the cost of energy. Lower income people often have older and less efficient vehicles, and may have long commutes to get to work. As the Dems kill fracking, the cost of energy will go up and up. This will work to the GOP’s advantage.
point 4. has been completely reversed in the USA
As far as I can tell, the SJWs pushing CRT are opposed to everything liberals told us they stand for, including tolerance, free speech, and non-violence.
“Don’t judge others by the color of their skin” has morphed into “try to be less white” with nary a peep from our liberal lions.
Just as the GOP will never again be what it was, conventional liberalism will never again be what it was, either.
The book burning on the left is starting to get interesting…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-did-amazon-cancel-justice-thomas-11614727562?st=p0hbqdc3xqbnlo2&reflink=article_copyURL_share
And, of course, there are the six Dr. Seuss books that will no longer be published.
However, existing copies have not been called back for burning.
Sorry. Libraries are yanking copies off the shelves. Might as well be a book burning; it would be more honest.
It was touching the SJWs cancelled Seuss on his birthday.
I once dropped a Ph.D. advisor because he told me: “I don’t want you reading that paper.”
Now Amazon seems to be getting into the business of telling people what they should not read, or view.
“Building up this fear became the business model of the liberal press.”–ASK
There is something even worse going on.
We have not a “left wing” or “liberal” media, but rather an establishment media (NYT, WaPo, major networks, CNN, MSNBC, etc) closely aligned with the Democratic Party, which itself is financed by Wall Street, Big Tech, Hollywood, and which has become enmeshed in the globalist-military-foreign-policy-blob.
Trump, and Trumpians, for all of their flaws, get this.
Is it “left-wing” to bomb Syria? To make nice to Beijing to further statism-globalist-capitalism? To keep troops in Germany 75 years after the end of WWII, or defend the Wuhan labs?
The establishment media has become a political party organ, free of all principles or ideals. The ID politics is window-dressing, for public consumption. The establishment media is not left-wing or right-wing, it is a creature of the owners of media, and they are aligned with the D-Party.
I would not mind reading an honest socialist newspaper and its critiques of Trump, or any other leader. I would disagree, but if the paper was honestly produced, then so be it.
But look at the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Wuhan lab leak story, or the whole Russiagate story. The Brian Sicknick story.
The problem may be the ASK is not cynical enough. He keeps thinking there are self-righteous liberals running the media or the Democratic Party. Oh, some.
But most potently when in service to the D-party.
Very good points.
Thanks for reading. Well, at least I got that off my chest.
There’s a lot of denial on the left that this type of thing is happening. Just a couple of weeks ago, the “Houston Chronicle” ran an op-ed claiming that cancel culture is a myth perpetrated by the right. Some Progressives claim that being “woke” is simply to be aware that there are policies and institutions that have a disparate impact on minorities.
A comment about CRT in elementary schools drew an angry response from a Progressive teacher who declared that no teacher in this country would ever teach her students that all white people are racist. And yet, Christopher F. Rufo reports in “City Journal” that “by fifth grade, students [in Buffalo, NY public schools] are taught that America has created a ‘school-to-grave pipeline’ for black children… In middle and high school… [s]tudents then learn that ‘all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism…’”
https://www.city-journal.org/buffalo-public-schools-critical-race-theory-curriculum
You’d think that even Progressives will eventually have to admit that the phenomenon exists. On the other hand, millions of Americans still believe that Trump won the election.
I think that liberals’ fear of Mr. Trump and his supporters becomes exaggerated. Building up this fear became the business model of the liberal press. I thought that this fear was hysterical from the very beginning.
Agreed, but not just a business model, I would say; it was also a political tactic aimed at least in part at energizing the radical left and legitimizing their tactics and ideology in the minds of well-meaning progressives.
One asymmetry is typical liberals are being motte-and-bailey’ed by the radicals in their party. The motte is “BLM is a simple unobjectionable statement that the lives of black people matter” and the bailey is CRT, “Racism is capitalism”, or anything from Kendi. Oppose the woke crowd and you start to look like a crazy non-liberal racist betrayer for objecting to simple statements promoting racial equality.
By contrast, conservatives can completely reject Trumpism and remain authentic conservatives – rejecting him is standing up for your conservative principles.
As soon as I saw the Yglesias piece this weekend, I knew this blog would comment on it. It says a lot about society’s current state that he felt compelled to write a piece suggesting that people think critically about the narratives they are being told. Although I don’t often agree with his conclusions and suggestions, I appreciate Yglesias’s willingness to think for himself.
Arnold, with respect to the seriousness of the Capitol riots, I’ll say to you what I said to John McWhorter when he downplayed them: you’d be singing a very different tune if the rioters had succeeded in murdering a bunch of members of Congress and giving Trump an excuse to declare a state of emergency and nullify the election result to keep himself in power. And they very nearly did so– they were a few minutes away from getting their hands on their targets in Congress. They’ve thus now shown that it is possible for a mob incited by a would-be autocrat to violently overthrow the government with just a little bit more luck and/or better organization and timing. If you have a case to make that BLM-related rioting came anywhere near that close to doing anything like that kind of damage to our institutions, you should definitely “show your work” on that, as Tyler would say.
More generally, there is a sense in which the media overestimated the danger of Trump: namely, we can now see that all along the probability that he would succeed in destroying the democratic process and making himself a nominally-elected autocrat on the Putin/Orban/Erdogan model was very small. But this was *not* because he didn’t want to do it, nor because he would have any moral scruples about doing it. Rather it was because he was extraordinarily incompetent and got a lot of pushback, including from Republican officials, against his ham-handed attempts. So we should still fear that the authoritarian Right will elevate a more competent autocrat who could succeed where Trump failed. Read Zeynep Tufekci’s articles in the Atlantic on this: her experience with Turkish autocracy gives her relevant insight here.
1) If the Capitol rioters had murdered several members of Congress; and
2) If Trump had then declared a state of emergency; and
3) If Trump had then used his emergency powers to nullify the election results and stay as president,
the riots would then have been really serious. I completely agree.
But 1) did not happen. Even if it had happened, “seriousness” requires 1 to be followed by 2 and 3. I realize that many people think Trump is a power crazed maniac but it is astounding how little power he actually exerted as president. A lot of talk, a lot of insults but kind of amazing how little he got done of what he said he wanted to do. Trump lost a lot in court and he tweeted how awful that was, but he complied with the decisions. He was not Andrew Jackson, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
I think the chances of 1, followed by 2 and 3 were just about zero.
Nor do I “fear that the authoritarian Right will elevate a more competent autocrat who could succeed where Trump failed”, like a Putin or Erdogan. But with Emmanuel Goldstein gone, I suppose there is a need for a new target of the 2 minute hate.
The only “autocrat” the “authoritarian Right” is likely to elevate in place of Trump is . . . one of Trump’s airhead children. Any one of whom is almost certainly less politically competent than the supremely operationally inept Trump himself.
The Left talks openly about gutting the First Amendment, effectively sponsors months of riots throughout the country, leverages their vast advantage in funding and in support from the legal profession and news media to insulate their own election “tactics” from any sort of judicial scrutiny, and actually enacts by executive fiat drastic drastic changes in federal law, opposed by about half the country. And yet, the Left nonetheless still continues to claim that the threat of “authoritarianism” comes from the “Right,” and most of the country believes them. Pretty neat trick.
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-great-coup-of-2021
For example, let’s suppose (I am indebted for this analogy to some Twitter wag, whom I can’t find now) the US Constitution worked like the first-person shooter Halo. If you occupy the center of the Rotunda for more than 90 seconds, you become the Congress. You can pass laws and stuff.
The masters of the law of the land are no longer the Struldbrugs of the committees—you gibbed them all with your plasma rifle 1.5 seconds after you blew down the door. The masters are you, and your buddy @hitler420bongman—who covers you while you legislate—at least, for as long as the two of you can stay alive and on the circle… the Bongman is a 13-year-old kid, you think, from somewhere near Philly… amazing shot…
In this world, occupying the Capitol is indeed a historic threat to the continuity of government. Anyone who makes it past the last bosses to the Rotunda, then can defend the space, has literally interrupted that continuity. In fact, once the circle in the floor turns green, and you can start to legislate, you (and the Bongman) have technically founded America’s Second Republic. (Or, arguably, like its sixth or something.)
What about in real life? What happens in real life, when this happens? What happens is: a formal ceremony is delayed for a couple of hours. As if a water main had broken. In the worst-case scenario—they have to use another building. Or even—Zoom. (Maybe Zoom needs a special option that, instead of a room, starts a temple of democracy.)
Also, there was a tiny bit of violence. Tell me again about how much you hate violence. Neighbor, after 2020, I am all ears on that one.
Nicholas, I wonder if you were “all in” on the Russian collusion nonsense, and whether you learned anything when it all amounted to nothing?
Did it lead you, even a little bit, to question where you were getting your information?
In the case of the Capitol riots, I suggest that you read a bit about the charges filed against the rioters. Here is some reporting by Byron York, who actually read the indictment against the Oath Keepers:
The Oath Keepers are visible in many photos from the riot. They were dressed in military-style outfits and pushed their way up the Capitol steps in what is called a “stack” formation. They were not the ones who initially broke into the building. The indictment shows what they were saying to each other on social media in the days and weeks before the riot. Read together, their social media posts suggest people living in a kind of fantasy world in which they could take the Capitol — while carefully obeying Washington, D.C.’s strict gun control laws and carrying no firearms — and change the course of U.S. history and then head home.
The social media posts suggest that some of the Oath Keepers thought Trump was specifically calling on them to storm the Capitol. For example, on Dec. 19, 2020, when Trump tweeted, “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6. Be there, will be wild!” it appears they took that as Trump telling them specifically to make it “wild” through paramilitary action.
“He wants us to make it WILD that’s what he’s saying,” defendant Kelly Meggs wrote on Facebook on Dec. 22, 2020. “He called us all to the Capitol and wants us tomakeitwild!!!!” (All the quotations from the Oath Keepers’ social media posts include their original punctuation, capitalization and spelling.)
The Oath Keepers discussed among themselves whether they should bring guns to the event. On Dec. 25, Meggs wrote on Facebook: “We are all staying in DC near the Capitol we are at the Hilton garden inn but I think it’s full. Dc is no guns. So mace and gas masks, some batons. If you have armor that’s good.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/byron-york
https://spectator.us/topic/h-r-1-must-be-stopped/
The actual threat to democracy is the reichstag fire decree that Democrats want.
A semantic issue.
All Left Radicals are Radicals, by definition. But not all Radicals are Left. There are Right Radicals also. Nazis and Communists are both Radicals.
True conservativism rejects all radicalism. Old fashioned Liberals (think of Sidney Hook or Scoop Jackson) also reject all radicalism.
But Progressives sympathize with Left Radicalism, not because it is radical but because it is Left. Robert Kennedy Jr once just described a Communist as a liberal in a hurry. That kind of statement makes we wonder if Kennedy is a Pol Pot in the making. Antifa and BLM are the Khmer Rouge of modern America.
Progressives reject Right Radicalism not because it is radical but because it is Right.
Progressives do not have the symmetry on radicalism that conservatives do.
If you put the blather to one side, the raw political power moves resemble the South African trajectory:
“South Africa is starting to reach the end of the road to serfdom. The government is close to embracing full socialism, and seizing all land in the country. The Hate Speech Bill promises to make free speech illegal. And the state is moving to censor the internet.
South Africa is at another precipice, like so many times before it. I doubt there will be a miracle of reason and liberty. I’ve lost all faith in South Africans to do what they need to do. South Africa will burn under civil war or rot under Soviet-style dictatorship.”
https://rationalstandard.com/is-south-africa-approaching-a-civil-war/
Trump was the last hope. There really isn’t anyone who can fill his shoes. All the weasels on offer to replace him have the default integrity deficit that defines the Republican party establishment. They are why we are where now, South Africa’s position.
All big leader of the world types have huge egos.
The Trump Administration was supposed to be the fusion of a mass market media-savvy showman paired with libertarian technocrat expertise.
All Politicians bully each other to compete for power. Is Kling suggesting that other politicians are saintly nice people who are respectful of rivals and compete for power in only the most ethical and gracious of fashions?
Kling offers a charitable interpretation of Yglesias and the political left and a rather uncharitable interpretation of Trump.
There are two factions in the GOP. The politicians and their donors—Never Trumpers, aka The Establishment—and the voters, who are mostly Trump supporters. From my perspective, The Establishment backstabbed and allowed the mail-in fraud and illegal electoral rule changes against Trump because they want to go back to free trade and open borders and whatever corporations want because they serve their donors first and want to get along with the other members of the ruling class. The Establishment have always hated Trump and envy his popularity.
What mail in fraud? What illegal changes?
Constitution says voting laws in states are supposed to be made by the state legislatures. In several states, these laws were changed by non-legislative bodies, in clear violation of the Constitution.
“pass laws criminalizing protests” -> advance laws to quell political violence. I suspect there is no serious efforts to criminalize genuinely peaceful, non-violent protests.
“bar classroom discussions of the New York Times’ 1619 Project” -> keep left-wing political propaganda designed by partisan political activists out of public schools.
wow…
>—-“The net result is that conservatives recoiled from the January 6 riot…”
Really? Is that what you saw on the CPAC video? The question is sincere. I didn’t see the video. The C in CPAC is for conservative, right?
CPAC was chock full of Nazi references and other pro insurrectionist symbols. The WaPo has already confirmed this. 1/6 was just the beginning for us true believers…I’m actively searching for a cheap Viking costume for the next salvo. Some very promising leads over on Etsy (of all places).
(we are done apologizing after having done so millions of times already. you and the sadists need to find a new dog to beat.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/01/cpac-stage-nazi-symbol-hyatt/
I don’t want you to apologize and I agree that the stage shape issue was ridiculous. I am entirely satisfied that you are personally disgusted by the events of Jan. 6 Hans. I am less convinced that this recoiling to those events was in evidence at the CPAC conference. Don’t take it personally.
I’m just asking in all sincerity what evidence this conservative recoiling from Jan. 6 was seen at CPAC?
I’m not saying there wasn’t any. I’m admitting I didn’t see enough of it to know. All I heard about it was that Republicans who were interested in challenging Trump’s version of the these events (which doesn’t involve apologizing for anything) weren’t welcome no matter how conservative they were. Is that wrong?
“I am less convinced that this recoiling to those events was in evidence at the CPAC conference.”
You may find this answer somewhat unsatisfying, but if there was even a whiff of a pro insurrectionist sentiment at CPAC, then the MSM would have told you about it already…and again…and again…and again. That was basically the point of my comment in a roundabout fashion – the only thing that they have to report is a supposed Nazi symbol. So, I think you can probably rest ok knowing that there is nothing to be concerned about. But, I’ll get out of the way now and let others respond.
>—“if there was even a whiff of a pro insurrectionist sentiment at CPAC”
If? Well Trump himself was pro-insurrectionist and my understanding is that he repeated all his lies about the election being stolen (which was the justification for the insurrection) and that the participants reacted like “sycophants” to use Arnold’s description.
Surprised at the lack of some critical self-reflection.
Both the right and the left have their own pathologies. If the left “by its nature treats radicalism with some sympathy”, so does the right treat authoritarianism with some sympathy because they are attracted to authority figures. If the left’s pathologies got reflected in the riots of 2020, the right’s were reflected in 2021.
Almost all of us underestimate the danger posed by their own side and overestimate the dangers of the opposing view ( on the margins they can be correct) but are mostly not. I am a bit disappointed to see it on this site as well.
“Surprised at the lack of some critical self-reflection.”
I agree, with the emphasis on “some.” The post fluctuated between self-reflection and apologia/uncharitability. In short, it gave me some of the best and worst of the host. In my opinion, this is somewhat of an improvement, as I’ve seen a lot more of the later in the past several months. Here’s hoping for a more consistent return to the motto of this blog…..when it channels this motto, it is one of the best spots on the web.
In case it wasn’t clear, I meant this comment to be constructive.
Most Dep Fake liberals anger me so much, so often, I have difficulty reading them, and refuse to listen their News much, Fake and otherwise.
Matt is the most honest one I know (other recommendations welcome!), and subscribe to his free substack (so far quite good). He sends emails from matthewyglesias@substack.com
Like an excellent review of school closing.
The biggest danger in America is Fake Liberal Authoritarianism, which used to be called “Political Correctness” but is now, temporarily, called Wokeness, and shown by CRT.
Fake Liberals believe two Big Lies:
1) Blacks are equal to Whites, and
2) Women are equal to men.
Those who claim to not believe these lies are called racists and sexists, and the Mob tries to cancel such folk.
Enlightenment Liberals, like me, believe Blacks & Whites deserve equal treatment under the law, and should be judged on their character & behavior, not their skin color. Similarly, women and men deserve equal treatment under the law, but their biological differences mean there will be significant differences in a lot of behavior. Still, there should be objective standards for professions, and those who meet the same standards should get the same respect / status / prestige. Black, White; women, men.
Society should attempt to provide “equal opportunity”, but understand that will be unlikely to result in equal outcomes.
CRT is primarily a dishonest scam claiming that unequal outcomes in group averages is proof of racism, similar to radical feminism claiming that sexism is proven the same way.
1. Matt agrees with Democrats; Dems are pushing CRT for power, successfully; Matt may be skeptical of strong CRT but goes along with using it for power. Weak for truth, tho better than those support CRT; reasonable for influence.
[1b. Democrats don’t listen long to any who argue strongly against them, even when they’re wrong, like about 2 years of Russian Collusion Hoax.]
2. Most Trump supporters believe his results are far more important than his tweets or his speeches, or even him firing those he can fire who fail to implement his policies as he wants. “Management capabilities” is lower than results, tho also important.
Claiming to be all for a bipartisan commission to suggest best practices for the conduct of elections, is basically saying, “Yeah, it was stolen, but I’m glad Trump lost so let’s pretend it’s OK enough, but get better”. If Matt is weak on CRT, this is weak on election fraud.
It was stolen (my belief.) Prove me wrong. The facts that all six fraud states certified Biden, who was inaugurated, result in the fact that Biden is the legal President. It doesn’t show there wasn’t fraud. Lots of affidavits of election issues are also all facts. The 7-2 SCOTUS decision to NOT hear the Texas case, looks like they believe there was fraud but don’t want to look at the evidence.
Opinions are different than facts, but too many conflate them.
3. liberals have a genuine emotional need to affiliate with the radicals. Yes. To affiliate with the two Big Lies. Their desire to have a “fair” society, despite the reality that “Life is Not Fair”, has resulted in their believing untruths. If Black-White economic differences were ONLY because of different behavior, zero racism, the average outcomes would still be different and make Black behavior look bad. Too much promiscuity (vast majority, including MLK), and too much crime (many more black criminals per capita than whites or others).
Black criminal behavior is now blamed on society, especially White society, instead of guilty Black criminals choosing to commit crimes.
Sexual promiscuity is hugely promoted throughout the culture, altho most college educated Democrats get married and are mostly monogamous, tho many with serial changes (including Pres. Trump).
4. Very complex now: anti-American First elites control most institutions and are exerting ever greater control, altho ‘conservatives’ prefer to support and reform institutions rather than burn them down. All gov’t Reps condemned the violence of 6 Jan, many Dems were NOT condemning far worse BLM (Burn Loot Murder?) riots thru the summer. Both claim to support peaceful protests. Dems are doing more speech censoring.
5. Dem “fear of Trump” was totally misplaced, and your 2016 anti-Trumpophobe was accurate BUT the purpose of demonizing Trump as “literally Hitler”, was to allow many Dems to violate the law in order to stop him. Which many gov’t workers did, and many election workers did. The purpose of demonization is to support illegal actions by “morally superior” folk. Like Civil Rights activists violating the bad racist laws.
6. There is a third Big Lie – “Hitler was on the Right.” His was Socialist Worker’s Party, he was against civil rights and against individual rights. Yes, he was also a Nationalist, and Nationalist Socialists (authoritarian leftists) were fighting International Socialists (leftist Communist dictators, our WW II allies). The cosmo elite hate “nationalists”, but nations aren’t going away in our lifetimes. National individualists are on the right, and are in favor of individual rights – they’re the current conservatives. The authoritarians are mostly on the left – and the Dems in power are showing their anti-individual tendencies.
“Liberals want to support any cause that marches under the banner of Civil Rights.”
And I suppose it is ironic, that they are now come full circle with their support the imposition of segregation in dorms, meetings, etc. under the banner of Civil Rights.
Alan Dershowitz on his The Dershow podcast made an argument to take back the word liberal from the leftists, etc. who define it nowadays. I wish him success. However, those few liberals still in the Democratic party seem to be failing in the same way the liberals of Europe did in the early 1920s.
Here is Mises, in his 1927 ‘Liberalism’ describing the failure and how the rightest parties came to view the effort.
“Revolutionary ideas had been able to take root and flourish only because of the tolerance they had been accorded by their opponents, whose will power had been enfeebled by a regard for liberal principles that, as events subsequently proved, was overscrupulous. ”
Does anyone believe that liberalism is an effective opposition to socialism these days?
“Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.”
We seem to be right at this point again, but this time with very dilute support for classical liberalism. The word “liberal” having been successfully subverted. But these days libertarians are quick to be over-scrupulous in their defense of social media censorship due to private ownership.
But these days libertarians are quick to be over-scrupulous in their defense of social media censorship due to private ownership.
I suspect that most libertarians feel that any sort of government mandate to enforce “fairness” would do more harm than good.
Better to let people sort it out for themselves by voting with their wallets. For example, I will drastically reduce my use of Amazon to punish them for trying to tell me what I should or should not read.
Excellent quote only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.
but no longer true. Today in America, socialism is promoted by “liberals”.
Individual, Human Rights is the idea that is now opposed to socialism. All socialisms are a form of tribalism, and the individual moral agent is also always party of society, with group responsibilities and connections.
Human rights puts the individual ahead of the group – and socialism puts one group or another ahead of the individual.
To restore individual rights we need to fight, and win, against the elite Woke / socialist lies. Trump fights.
Arnold’s fear of Trump, the man, seems irrational: I found the crowd’s response, shouting “We love you!” and the like, to be much more frightening than the Capitol Hill Riot. It was more like a football rally, “hooray for our side”, we see how others insult you and you fight back (with insults).
When Trump insults some media or gov’t or academic, which Trump haters call “bullying”, I won’t accept it as bullying unless they get fired primarily because of Trump’s insult. Are there any cases like this in the last 4 years? I really don’t recall any.
I recall many cases of Trump supporting professors, and a couple media people, losing jobs because of Trump-hating bullies. Trump is willing to insult anybody who insults him – that’s a valid criticism of him and his too fast twitter insults. But I don’t call that bullying.
Vulgar, low-class, and indecorous, yes. “Beneath the President”? Well, Bush didn’t do it when he was insulted, and that didn’t stop the insults nor correct the untruths told. Not fighting back. Trump fights back, and says “fight!”, just like the Dems. Obama then, and Biden now, have the upper-class media insulting anybody who insults them, so they don’t have to. Trump didn’t have that. He had the upper-class media LYING about him and insulting him, so he insulted back.
I realize that supporting Trump keeps him “in the air”, which allows Dems to continue irrational hatred of him. Until the Democrats can agree on the idea that Trump was not so scary, I don’t see them facing up against CRT.
Nicholas W above is like many Dems:
if the rioters had succeeded in murdering a bunch of members of Congress
Yeah, IF. But the often lying FBI didn’t even find guns of the folks going inside the Capital. They didn’t kill anybody. 3 Trump supporters died of heart attacks or crowd crush issues. One, Ashli, was killed by cops.
Unarmed, illegally trespassing, non-threatening woman killed by an unnamed cop, who didn’t bother to try to arrest her.
One cop, Brian Sicknick, went back to his office and sent a message that he got some pepper spray but was OK, then died the next day.
The NYT was lying about him, claiming he was hit by a fire extinguisher. Where is the video? Any witness? Any name of the “anon law officer”?
FBI Director Wray refuses to release the autopsy, nor explain to the Senate the cause of death – “still under investigation”. (It’s no wonder such an FBI “sees no widespread election fraud”.)
So many Dems are convinced Trump wants to be a dictator but is stopped only by his own incompetence – instead of looking at what he actually does, and actually says. Peaceful Protests.
Give up on “liberal” as a word. Also “gay”, seldom means happy, tho gaily isn’t yet only sexual. I’m a bit angry about the language warping, too.