Phew! That was a lot of reading... and worth the slog. Being a stubborn dyslexic, I fought my urge to give up. So, you had me when I got to:
"The question is: “Should people govern themselves, or should experts manage them?”
People want to feel like citizens. They don’t want to be managed. The American experiment is an experiment in self-government. Technocracy says, “Vote for the best philosopher kings.”
Bingo. I got it and didn't feel stupid any more. I actually felt good that in my own way, you and I were in many ways on the same page!
My midwest, (fly-over-state) values focus on simple, common language, in-person (more kinesthetic, less virtual), steeped in nature. Not exactly your post's focus... and, not out of your focus, either :)
Thanks so much for your thoughtful, insightful and wake-up perspectives. Good Thanksgiving feast for thoughts!
This might be one of the most beautiful comments I’ve ever received in response to my work. I mean that. And I am grateful you found value in persevering through my prose.
Thank you very much for this, Mike. It really helped me understand why the first impulse of all these "reasonable liberals" when they lose an election is to try to decide which disfavored group they can throw to the wolves. This time around it seems to be trans people, because Trump made a hullabaloo about demonizing them and he won, so the optimal choice is to dial away from giving them dignity and agree they're the problem. And so you get the Gavins and the Petes triangulating towards the exact amount of rights we're willing to let them have without scaring off the white working class or whatever, rather than just maintaining the value that all people deserve dignity and a chance to contribute to society.
“The phenomenon driving populism isn’t material deprivation—it’s social dispossession.”
I think this is one of the most important essays I’ve read this year. I cherish your insight and ability to step back and objectively parse through what many would consider air-tight thought-processes. I think you are absolutely correct here, and you surprised me by going down a completely different path than I was expecting after reading the title. I am gratefully enlightened.
By the way, Pauline Borsook, who wrote “Cyberselfish” in the early ‘90’s says:
“Silicon Valley … thought people could be, and indeed should be, programmed just like a computer. “Techno-libertarianism,” had no time for the messy realities of being human.”
I think that describes how people like Teixeira think.
The paternalistic worldview and patronizing answers of those in power is nauseating. It’s so clear why the dispossessed have-nots are attracted to both Bernie and Trump. To “everyday” people the power brokers are just far away and superfluous.
Yes, it seems like those inclined towards technocracy are simply focused on learning how to sound populist. One worry I have is that technocratic systems may, ironically, further incentivize the masses to be steered by rhetoric, identity, and loyalty—rather than enabling the majority to question evidence and posit their own lines of reasoning. It's one thing when qualified experts gatekeep by sharing their evidence-backed arguments, but it's another thing when they push others' voices out of the discussion merely because those individuals lack credentials or the same expertise. It is harder to control/sway people who are aware of logical fallacies and rhetorical persuasion tactics, and easier if the epistemic responsibilities are given to a smaller group of people. Ideally, we'd make a stronger effort to improve the epistemic skills of our society as a whole.
Also, piece reminded me of an article I read by Steven Aoun on a Joe Rogan debate, which looks at a similar problem from the media side, on what happens when discourse becomes mainly performative, and persuasion from authority tries to replace actual understanding. I found it to be an interesting take:
Haven't yet suppressed my gag reflex to read Teixera's new book, but remember that his earlier book on the demographics of immigration leading to a permanent democratic majority was so monumentally wrong on so many things that he sounds a lot like the neocon architects of the Iraq war who still pontificate on foreign policy and still believe they're the only serious thinkers around. You are one of the first people I've read who starts to actually explain the mindset of this useless centrist consutant class to me. You are admirably balanced--for me Teixera's past failures are utterly disqualifying.
I really like this analysis, and the way you link those three essentially Antidemocratic streams of thought together, Thank you for putting the effort into writing like this. I will say that Classical Liberal Democracy, though superior to every other form of political organization, does have tradeoffs. There are large concentrations of common belief that can make it difficult for those who do not share the belief to accept the outcome of the deliberative democratic process. I live in a very red county in NC, with a large population of people who support the preservation of the Confederate Monument in front of our County Government building that I don't support. That being said, I would not support any attempt to remove this monument unless a majority of County Commissioners were elected on a platform of removing the monument, which is unlikely. Someone I know who is right leaning and lives in a very blue city expressed similar frustration. We have to be willing to help people accept these tradeoffs.
“There are large concentrations of common belief that can make it difficult for those who do not share the belief to accept the outcome of the deliberative democratic process.”
Excellent, thoughtful, totally on point. Straight to my great writing folder. I wish there were people like you in charge, discussing these issues, instead of figuring out how to bankroll a dead 90's movie franchise.
how much of this is Billionaire bet hedging? the Know your enemy podcast has done a few episodes on how billionaire money backed think tanks, such as the Manhattan Institute, have catapulted obscure people, such as Charles Murray, into the spotlight. We know how Peter Theil and others launched JD Vance's career, and via the Claremont Institute, many others, including Charley Kirk. Reporting indicates how one billionaire, Robert Shilman, has launched Tommy Robinson into the UK mainstream. Is it a stretch to think that these same billionaires fund Technocrats like the people at Persuasion, Rudy Teixiera, Ezra Klein, etc to shift their support to when Far Right Populism becomes too unpalatable to the average voter?
Teixeira and the rest of the crew at Persuasion claim to be liberals, but their platform positions, such as they are, suggest to me that they would have been more comfortable among Republicans until Trump took over the party. With no traction on the right, they now seem to think they can make more progress toward power by taking over the Democratic party. Once I realized what they really are, I simply wrote them off as boring and long-winded enemies of me and my people and I promptly unsubbed, but I fear they may find the party's leadership is much more open to their ideas than I am. Your critique of Teixeira's piece has helped me place Persuasion's noise in a more general context of technocratic authoritarianism, which is very clarifying and helpful. Thank you for your work here to dissect and dispatch them.
I would be somewhat more charitable than you. I still recognize these people as fellow liberals. I share their values and I am having a disagreement about method. Nothing I have said here should be interpreted as impugning the moral status of Teixeira or Persuasion. I wrote this in the liberal spirit of the pursuit of truth towards liberal values. Towards a greater good.
Mike - when you said that Teixeira has been advising the democrats on how to win elections I stopped reading-because he is obviously part of the problem-the reason that the democrats keep losing elections is because they rely on so-called “genius consultants” to tell them what to do as a opposed to Mamdani who went out and talked to people and tailored his messaging to solve their problems-
if the democrats want to start winning elections they need to shit-can their “genius consultants” and listen to their constituents!
I don’t believe Technocracy has to be authoritarian and supplant Democracy. Rather, it can be a tool of Democracy. Call it Democratic Technocracy, or better yet Democratic Techno-Socialism. In other words Technocracy used to serve the interests of the entire population rather than just the 1% on the Technocratic Right or the WEF Elite on the Technocratic Left , the latter of which see most of us as rats needing control and the former who see us as human capital or useless eaters
After 20 years of Democratic control of the White House with FDR/Truman beating the Depression and winning WWII, the Republicans needed a way to come back. Getting Eisenhower to run was key but how to govern? Ike wanted the old Conservatives to step away. He wanted to show competent, steady leadership, a prosperity pledge. Basically, technocracy. A step away from the sky high, controversial liberal ideas.
Indeed, when the right lurched back with Goldwater in 1964, they were soundly defeated. But the turmoil of the Sixties cast LBJ and the Silent Majority elected Nixon.
Then, after the disaster of the 1968 nomination, the Democrats opened their nomination process and elected McGovern. Who lost 49 states to Nixon, a man who had been a washed up joke just a few years earlier.
In 1976, the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter, a moderate, who took on the competent manager role from the Republicans. The Republicans countered by lurching again to the Right, this time under Ronald Reagan, who abandoned his fiery rhetoric for a more friendly, paternal tone. Then 4 years later another man who had been a washed up joke just a few years ago won 49 states AGAIN.
Two historic cataclysmic losses for the Dems left the Democrats not just questioning their skills at winning but questioning whether their IDEAS had lost appeal. Even if they were on the right side of the issues, the Republicans had been so good at SALESMANSHIP they stared questioning if they could EVER win.
Enter Bill Clinton’s New Democrats. The scandals of Iran/Contra and the recession made America hungry for change. Clinton posed himself as the reasonable Centrist, like a new Eisenhower, that could get rid of the erratic Conservative leadership.
With his success, a new paradigm had been set for the Dems:
* Run to the Center.
* Paint Republicans as unreasonable.
* Hush up the Base, Convince them that even speaking too left meant certain annihilation.
Of course, this just let Republicans shift the Overton Window out of control. But the Dems had no back up plan. They had to be seen as Reasonable change, at let far Right lunacy speak for itself.
Which left them completely unprepared to deal with Fascism when it arrived at our door.
Rather than new left versus old left - How about replacing the 'old / current left' term with the / as the current democrat party? For me, overall, a version/conversion into a 'uni-party', of sorts, between the current dominant parties.
Phew! That was a lot of reading... and worth the slog. Being a stubborn dyslexic, I fought my urge to give up. So, you had me when I got to:
"The question is: “Should people govern themselves, or should experts manage them?”
People want to feel like citizens. They don’t want to be managed. The American experiment is an experiment in self-government. Technocracy says, “Vote for the best philosopher kings.”
Bingo. I got it and didn't feel stupid any more. I actually felt good that in my own way, you and I were in many ways on the same page!
My midwest, (fly-over-state) values focus on simple, common language, in-person (more kinesthetic, less virtual), steeped in nature. Not exactly your post's focus... and, not out of your focus, either :)
Thanks so much for your thoughtful, insightful and wake-up perspectives. Good Thanksgiving feast for thoughts!
This might be one of the most beautiful comments I’ve ever received in response to my work. I mean that. And I am grateful you found value in persevering through my prose.
Thank you very much for this, Mike. It really helped me understand why the first impulse of all these "reasonable liberals" when they lose an election is to try to decide which disfavored group they can throw to the wolves. This time around it seems to be trans people, because Trump made a hullabaloo about demonizing them and he won, so the optimal choice is to dial away from giving them dignity and agree they're the problem. And so you get the Gavins and the Petes triangulating towards the exact amount of rights we're willing to let them have without scaring off the white working class or whatever, rather than just maintaining the value that all people deserve dignity and a chance to contribute to society.
So true. It’s rather simplistic thinking, isn’t it?
Thanks Mike - very important
“The phenomenon driving populism isn’t material deprivation—it’s social dispossession.”
I think this is one of the most important essays I’ve read this year. I cherish your insight and ability to step back and objectively parse through what many would consider air-tight thought-processes. I think you are absolutely correct here, and you surprised me by going down a completely different path than I was expecting after reading the title. I am gratefully enlightened.
By the way, Pauline Borsook, who wrote “Cyberselfish” in the early ‘90’s says:
“Silicon Valley … thought people could be, and indeed should be, programmed just like a computer. “Techno-libertarianism,” had no time for the messy realities of being human.”
I think that describes how people like Teixeira think.
This is one of your best. Though I’m somewhat optimistic that the technocrats of the left are more hated by the rank and file than they realize.
The paternalistic worldview and patronizing answers of those in power is nauseating. It’s so clear why the dispossessed have-nots are attracted to both Bernie and Trump. To “everyday” people the power brokers are just far away and superfluous.
Yes, it seems like those inclined towards technocracy are simply focused on learning how to sound populist. One worry I have is that technocratic systems may, ironically, further incentivize the masses to be steered by rhetoric, identity, and loyalty—rather than enabling the majority to question evidence and posit their own lines of reasoning. It's one thing when qualified experts gatekeep by sharing their evidence-backed arguments, but it's another thing when they push others' voices out of the discussion merely because those individuals lack credentials or the same expertise. It is harder to control/sway people who are aware of logical fallacies and rhetorical persuasion tactics, and easier if the epistemic responsibilities are given to a smaller group of people. Ideally, we'd make a stronger effort to improve the epistemic skills of our society as a whole.
Also, piece reminded me of an article I read by Steven Aoun on a Joe Rogan debate, which looks at a similar problem from the media side, on what happens when discourse becomes mainly performative, and persuasion from authority tries to replace actual understanding. I found it to be an interesting take:
https://stevenaoun.substack.com/p/fear-factor?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Or… in the case of Thiel, learning how to sound religious.
Ha! 👍
Haven't yet suppressed my gag reflex to read Teixera's new book, but remember that his earlier book on the demographics of immigration leading to a permanent democratic majority was so monumentally wrong on so many things that he sounds a lot like the neocon architects of the Iraq war who still pontificate on foreign policy and still believe they're the only serious thinkers around. You are one of the first people I've read who starts to actually explain the mindset of this useless centrist consutant class to me. You are admirably balanced--for me Teixera's past failures are utterly disqualifying.
I really like this analysis, and the way you link those three essentially Antidemocratic streams of thought together, Thank you for putting the effort into writing like this. I will say that Classical Liberal Democracy, though superior to every other form of political organization, does have tradeoffs. There are large concentrations of common belief that can make it difficult for those who do not share the belief to accept the outcome of the deliberative democratic process. I live in a very red county in NC, with a large population of people who support the preservation of the Confederate Monument in front of our County Government building that I don't support. That being said, I would not support any attempt to remove this monument unless a majority of County Commissioners were elected on a platform of removing the monument, which is unlikely. Someone I know who is right leaning and lives in a very blue city expressed similar frustration. We have to be willing to help people accept these tradeoffs.
“There are large concentrations of common belief that can make it difficult for those who do not share the belief to accept the outcome of the deliberative democratic process.”
Yes, well put.
Excellent, thoughtful, totally on point. Straight to my great writing folder. I wish there were people like you in charge, discussing these issues, instead of figuring out how to bankroll a dead 90's movie franchise.
how much of this is Billionaire bet hedging? the Know your enemy podcast has done a few episodes on how billionaire money backed think tanks, such as the Manhattan Institute, have catapulted obscure people, such as Charles Murray, into the spotlight. We know how Peter Theil and others launched JD Vance's career, and via the Claremont Institute, many others, including Charley Kirk. Reporting indicates how one billionaire, Robert Shilman, has launched Tommy Robinson into the UK mainstream. Is it a stretch to think that these same billionaires fund Technocrats like the people at Persuasion, Rudy Teixiera, Ezra Klein, etc to shift their support to when Far Right Populism becomes too unpalatable to the average voter?
Teixeira and the rest of the crew at Persuasion claim to be liberals, but their platform positions, such as they are, suggest to me that they would have been more comfortable among Republicans until Trump took over the party. With no traction on the right, they now seem to think they can make more progress toward power by taking over the Democratic party. Once I realized what they really are, I simply wrote them off as boring and long-winded enemies of me and my people and I promptly unsubbed, but I fear they may find the party's leadership is much more open to their ideas than I am. Your critique of Teixeira's piece has helped me place Persuasion's noise in a more general context of technocratic authoritarianism, which is very clarifying and helpful. Thank you for your work here to dissect and dispatch them.
I would be somewhat more charitable than you. I still recognize these people as fellow liberals. I share their values and I am having a disagreement about method. Nothing I have said here should be interpreted as impugning the moral status of Teixeira or Persuasion. I wrote this in the liberal spirit of the pursuit of truth towards liberal values. Towards a greater good.
Mike - when you said that Teixeira has been advising the democrats on how to win elections I stopped reading-because he is obviously part of the problem-the reason that the democrats keep losing elections is because they rely on so-called “genius consultants” to tell them what to do as a opposed to Mamdani who went out and talked to people and tailored his messaging to solve their problems-
if the democrats want to start winning elections they need to shit-can their “genius consultants” and listen to their constituents!
If you stopped reading there, you may have missed some important points.
I read the whole article (whew) and glad I did - as always very thoughtful commentary
I’ll read the whole article in the morning 😉
I don’t think they should be shit-canned, but they shouldn’t be the only advisors and their input shouldn’t be elevated above all others.
I don’t believe Technocracy has to be authoritarian and supplant Democracy. Rather, it can be a tool of Democracy. Call it Democratic Technocracy, or better yet Democratic Techno-Socialism. In other words Technocracy used to serve the interests of the entire population rather than just the 1% on the Technocratic Right or the WEF Elite on the Technocratic Left , the latter of which see most of us as rats needing control and the former who see us as human capital or useless eaters
After 20 years of Democratic control of the White House with FDR/Truman beating the Depression and winning WWII, the Republicans needed a way to come back. Getting Eisenhower to run was key but how to govern? Ike wanted the old Conservatives to step away. He wanted to show competent, steady leadership, a prosperity pledge. Basically, technocracy. A step away from the sky high, controversial liberal ideas.
Indeed, when the right lurched back with Goldwater in 1964, they were soundly defeated. But the turmoil of the Sixties cast LBJ and the Silent Majority elected Nixon.
Then, after the disaster of the 1968 nomination, the Democrats opened their nomination process and elected McGovern. Who lost 49 states to Nixon, a man who had been a washed up joke just a few years earlier.
In 1976, the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter, a moderate, who took on the competent manager role from the Republicans. The Republicans countered by lurching again to the Right, this time under Ronald Reagan, who abandoned his fiery rhetoric for a more friendly, paternal tone. Then 4 years later another man who had been a washed up joke just a few years ago won 49 states AGAIN.
Two historic cataclysmic losses for the Dems left the Democrats not just questioning their skills at winning but questioning whether their IDEAS had lost appeal. Even if they were on the right side of the issues, the Republicans had been so good at SALESMANSHIP they stared questioning if they could EVER win.
Enter Bill Clinton’s New Democrats. The scandals of Iran/Contra and the recession made America hungry for change. Clinton posed himself as the reasonable Centrist, like a new Eisenhower, that could get rid of the erratic Conservative leadership.
With his success, a new paradigm had been set for the Dems:
* Run to the Center.
* Paint Republicans as unreasonable.
* Hush up the Base, Convince them that even speaking too left meant certain annihilation.
Of course, this just let Republicans shift the Overton Window out of control. But the Dems had no back up plan. They had to be seen as Reasonable change, at let far Right lunacy speak for itself.
Which left them completely unprepared to deal with Fascism when it arrived at our door.
Rather than new left versus old left - How about replacing the 'old / current left' term with the / as the current democrat party? For me, overall, a version/conversion into a 'uni-party', of sorts, between the current dominant parties.
Overall, though, excellent thoughts / writing.