A lovely piece that feels completely irrelevant to me. No where was Citizens United discussed; nowhere were the lies, underhanded and even criminal manipulations on the Right discussed. Liberalism wasn’t misunderstood or misapplied, it was assaulted by
by all our congressmen
who were bought and paid for by corporatists and billionaires.
The Right (including Project 2025, and the Curtis Yarvin technocrats) have been illegally refusing to certify Supreme Court justices ( too close to elections, then they certify Barrett right before the election) and have been questioning legitimate votes and lying to their constituents. The Democrats have complacently failed to fight against these illegal and/or underhanded tactics.
Liberals need to fight fire with fire or Liberalism will simply be erased from our world. The forces aligned against it are overwhelming—most of the wealth of the world is held by billionaires and oligarchs, who also control the most advanced AI systems,which are being trained to surveil, and they also control weaponized drones which are being used to kill people in Ukraine and Gaza. The technocrats also now control most of the media, both news and social media. The only thing the people have is vast numbers. GenZers globally are rising up against authoritarian governments because they understand this is a desperate fight to hold onto individual rights and freedoms. The planned authoritarian system will be
Russia on steroids. It is time for action, not philosophical discussions.
The problem with some -- not all -- of the youth in response to the crises is a failure to recognized the health of the tensions Brock well-describes. I see phrases like "It's easier to foresee the end of the world than the end of capitalism" celebrated by folks who believe we must end capitalism first if we're to save the world, not respecting that only properly-steered and constrained capitalism has hope of saving it. Likewise, there's a drifting towards anarchic ideals as if merely dissolving current governments would allow "the people," rather than the oligarchs, to take power through new civic organizations -- which in reality might only be sufficient if they rise to the level of being governments, as none less will have the power to constrain the oligarchs -- as if there's time to totally replace our governments, or the expertise in designing governments to do so not just quickly, but better.
The kids really need philosophy. Naive ignorance will not get us there. On the other hand, the sooner there's a national strike, the better.
I agree with Mike Brock and William Hackman, action without philosophy is too often fruitless or even self-defeating. Both current parties in the U.S. are descended from Liberalism at some point. Yet both have lost their way. Read what Brock has written as a guide not to today’s parties, but to the Liberal tradition that both parties seem to have forgotten, or worse abandoned.
I agree enthusiastically with the points you make, but disagree perhaps about nomenclature. Or at least, I want to insist on the difference between your "consensus liberals" and the Liberal Consensus. The former are no doubt intellectual descendants of the latter, and in particular the technocratic paternalism that settled in late to the New Deal as practiced at the federal level. But your Consensus Liberals played a supporting role in ending the New Deal, and those policies were at the heart of the Liberal Consensus.
I appreciate that distinction—and you’re absolutely right to draw it. I’m doing public philosophy here, so I make a conscious choice to break from academic conventions in order to focus on the conceptual pedagogy of these ideas. The piece I’m finishing for tomorrow, “Why I’m Not a Socialist,” commits a few more of those same sins—but I try to flag them when I do.
"They [consensus liberals] began treating any state action to check private power as a step toward communism." And in the process, forgot that lack of state action to check private power is a step toward authoritarianism. They forgot that the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith wrote of (and that Tom Tomorrow mocks so very well from time to time) requires a certain amount of necessary and just regulation from the government, even according to Smith himself. I am so glad to see someone bring out this point, which is fundamental to the decline and fall of America.
Of course, the consensus liberals were greatly assisted by the conservatives constantly fear-mongering about "communism" and "socialism", twisting the real meaning of those words to fit Soviet-style authoritarianism, and driving America into a whole different form of capitalist, monopolist, and oligarchical authoritarianism. In a sense, the Soviet Union won.
Operational, intellectual, informational, and other procedural democratic processes already exist to counter the accumulated power of MAGA and its protofascist coalition. The existential question is whether these democratic processes can be adequately (if not fully) realized, understood, and revitalized before too much ground has been lost, before the critical mass of authoritarian acceptance and inevitability has been reached.
I wish I could feel anything like the optimism you display here. One objection I would offer is that you treat the American situation in isolation. But liberal democracy is teetering around the world. France is near collapse. The AfD is gaining ground in Germany. Italy has a fascist-aligned prime minister. I could go on: Israel, India, Hungary, the UK. "Western hegemony" is collapsing, for better and for worse, and taking liberal democracy with it. China is now calling the shots and will dominate much of the rest of this century. Sure, some form of liberalism might emerge from the rubble in the long run. But, as Keynes noted, in the long-run, were all dead.
William, though I agreed with your other comment, I cannot agree with your abject pessimism here. I think Mike is correct in saying nothing is “determined” but that we must determinedly fight to hold a center that allows us a chance against both the moneyed interests and the power hungry. The Liberal tradition can only remain if we accept differences that must inform our common welfare and collective interests.
I agree wholeheartedly. We must indeed fight. But, as I said to some other folks I was exchanging thoughts with recently, I have a left, activist side that is ready to struggle for what I believe is right and just; and a "historical realist" side that looks at the state of the world and concludes that we are in the midst of a world-historic transformation that none us of quite understands. And I think that the short-term kooks quite grim, for the reasons I alluded to in my comment. So I fall back on the motto, usually attributed to Gramsci but in fact originating with Romain Rolland: "Pessimism of the intellect; optimism of the will."
Thank you, Bill. Some folks say something similar as, “prepare for the worst, but hope for the best.” Actually, I suppose we see things pretty similarly. I, too, have studied history enough to be very aware of the dangers we face. I only hope the signs that Mike sees and some of the responses of our fellow citizens point toward a possibility of our Republic once again overcoming its worse angels.
Dare I note that, until we eliminate rentierism, properly identifying it through proper democratic statistics, rerouting privilege to the democratic will, and taxing it to death, these corruptions will continue to return, zombie-like, to challenge us again. And mind you, this is no small task nor permanently achievable result, as we're literally working against the entire world's wealth on paper. Delete it, in favor of democratic finance.
Brilliant. Your voice of renewal and hope matters.
A lovely piece that feels completely irrelevant to me. No where was Citizens United discussed; nowhere were the lies, underhanded and even criminal manipulations on the Right discussed. Liberalism wasn’t misunderstood or misapplied, it was assaulted by
by all our congressmen
who were bought and paid for by corporatists and billionaires.
The Right (including Project 2025, and the Curtis Yarvin technocrats) have been illegally refusing to certify Supreme Court justices ( too close to elections, then they certify Barrett right before the election) and have been questioning legitimate votes and lying to their constituents. The Democrats have complacently failed to fight against these illegal and/or underhanded tactics.
Liberals need to fight fire with fire or Liberalism will simply be erased from our world. The forces aligned against it are overwhelming—most of the wealth of the world is held by billionaires and oligarchs, who also control the most advanced AI systems,which are being trained to surveil, and they also control weaponized drones which are being used to kill people in Ukraine and Gaza. The technocrats also now control most of the media, both news and social media. The only thing the people have is vast numbers. GenZers globally are rising up against authoritarian governments because they understand this is a desperate fight to hold onto individual rights and freedoms. The planned authoritarian system will be
Russia on steroids. It is time for action, not philosophical discussions.
The problem with some -- not all -- of the youth in response to the crises is a failure to recognized the health of the tensions Brock well-describes. I see phrases like "It's easier to foresee the end of the world than the end of capitalism" celebrated by folks who believe we must end capitalism first if we're to save the world, not respecting that only properly-steered and constrained capitalism has hope of saving it. Likewise, there's a drifting towards anarchic ideals as if merely dissolving current governments would allow "the people," rather than the oligarchs, to take power through new civic organizations -- which in reality might only be sufficient if they rise to the level of being governments, as none less will have the power to constrain the oligarchs -- as if there's time to totally replace our governments, or the expertise in designing governments to do so not just quickly, but better.
The kids really need philosophy. Naive ignorance will not get us there. On the other hand, the sooner there's a national strike, the better.
I agree with Mike Brock and William Hackman, action without philosophy is too often fruitless or even self-defeating. Both current parties in the U.S. are descended from Liberalism at some point. Yet both have lost their way. Read what Brock has written as a guide not to today’s parties, but to the Liberal tradition that both parties seem to have forgotten, or worse abandoned.
"It is time for action, not philosophical discussions." It's not either/or. One without the other is useless.
Mike listen to the latest episode of the podcast HiddenBrain. Research that teaches and implement exactly what you are advocating for.
Glory Hallelujah!
When Canaan's hosts are scattered,
And all her walls lie flat,
What follows next in order?
The Lord will see to that
We'll break the tyrant's sceptre,--
We 'll build the people's throne,--
When half the world is Freedom's,
Then all the world's our own
To Canaan, to Canaan
The Lord has led us forth,
To sweep the rebel threshing-floors,
A whirlwind from the North.
I agree enthusiastically with the points you make, but disagree perhaps about nomenclature. Or at least, I want to insist on the difference between your "consensus liberals" and the Liberal Consensus. The former are no doubt intellectual descendants of the latter, and in particular the technocratic paternalism that settled in late to the New Deal as practiced at the federal level. But your Consensus Liberals played a supporting role in ending the New Deal, and those policies were at the heart of the Liberal Consensus.
I appreciate that distinction—and you’re absolutely right to draw it. I’m doing public philosophy here, so I make a conscious choice to break from academic conventions in order to focus on the conceptual pedagogy of these ideas. The piece I’m finishing for tomorrow, “Why I’m Not a Socialist,” commits a few more of those same sins—but I try to flag them when I do.
"They [consensus liberals] began treating any state action to check private power as a step toward communism." And in the process, forgot that lack of state action to check private power is a step toward authoritarianism. They forgot that the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith wrote of (and that Tom Tomorrow mocks so very well from time to time) requires a certain amount of necessary and just regulation from the government, even according to Smith himself. I am so glad to see someone bring out this point, which is fundamental to the decline and fall of America.
Of course, the consensus liberals were greatly assisted by the conservatives constantly fear-mongering about "communism" and "socialism", twisting the real meaning of those words to fit Soviet-style authoritarianism, and driving America into a whole different form of capitalist, monopolist, and oligarchical authoritarianism. In a sense, the Soviet Union won.
Operational, intellectual, informational, and other procedural democratic processes already exist to counter the accumulated power of MAGA and its protofascist coalition. The existential question is whether these democratic processes can be adequately (if not fully) realized, understood, and revitalized before too much ground has been lost, before the critical mass of authoritarian acceptance and inevitability has been reached.
I wish I could feel anything like the optimism you display here. One objection I would offer is that you treat the American situation in isolation. But liberal democracy is teetering around the world. France is near collapse. The AfD is gaining ground in Germany. Italy has a fascist-aligned prime minister. I could go on: Israel, India, Hungary, the UK. "Western hegemony" is collapsing, for better and for worse, and taking liberal democracy with it. China is now calling the shots and will dominate much of the rest of this century. Sure, some form of liberalism might emerge from the rubble in the long run. But, as Keynes noted, in the long-run, were all dead.
William, though I agreed with your other comment, I cannot agree with your abject pessimism here. I think Mike is correct in saying nothing is “determined” but that we must determinedly fight to hold a center that allows us a chance against both the moneyed interests and the power hungry. The Liberal tradition can only remain if we accept differences that must inform our common welfare and collective interests.
I agree wholeheartedly. We must indeed fight. But, as I said to some other folks I was exchanging thoughts with recently, I have a left, activist side that is ready to struggle for what I believe is right and just; and a "historical realist" side that looks at the state of the world and concludes that we are in the midst of a world-historic transformation that none us of quite understands. And I think that the short-term kooks quite grim, for the reasons I alluded to in my comment. So I fall back on the motto, usually attributed to Gramsci but in fact originating with Romain Rolland: "Pessimism of the intellect; optimism of the will."
(Also, you can call me Bill.)
Thank you, Bill. Some folks say something similar as, “prepare for the worst, but hope for the best.” Actually, I suppose we see things pretty similarly. I, too, have studied history enough to be very aware of the dangers we face. I only hope the signs that Mike sees and some of the responses of our fellow citizens point toward a possibility of our Republic once again overcoming its worse angels.
Dare I note that, until we eliminate rentierism, properly identifying it through proper democratic statistics, rerouting privilege to the democratic will, and taxing it to death, these corruptions will continue to return, zombie-like, to challenge us again. And mind you, this is no small task nor permanently achievable result, as we're literally working against the entire world's wealth on paper. Delete it, in favor of democratic finance.