This is all from an anonymous reader, not me, but I won’t back down:
“Hello Tyler,
I enjoyed your post – I’m tired of this – and I wanted to respond to you as I think what you wrote is about two important things happening in politics today.
1 – Separation of High and Low
First of all the examples of stupid tribal behavior you mentioned remind me of the idea that was first presented by Tom Chivers about the difference between high decouplers – people who are free to separate and separate ideas from actions, and low decouplers – people who see ideas as inseparable. from their broader contexts. –
I would say that to this day low differentiation (and the ever-present sin of motivated thinking) has been the cultural norm in politics for over a century, if not more, and much of what we see in political discourse and business affairs. spread throughout the Western world can be explained by everyone who must conform to the trend if they want to succeed.
I would argue that we are seeing now because of Twitter (and especially its inspired feature of social notes) is the first proper challenge in dividing the cultural norm and the space that is developing due to the fact that more people see (and criticize) politicians who agree. in it. Indeed while the internet may never forget anything, until Elon took over twitter the internet was nothing more than a toothless old dog.
How will this change from the bottom division change the political discourse? I suspect it will make the debate elitist and inaccessible to ordinary people because the arguments will have to be complex and require some level of involvement to understand. This will probably make political discussions seem awkward to many people because of the analytical and strong style as opposed to the short snappy sentences of today. because political actors will know they are “owned” or dismissed as “fake news” if they are shown using spin or overly simplistic arguments. Counter-intuitively (for those who don’t pay attention) and I think that the decline of the lower classification will see the death of “fact-checking” due to the growing skepticism about this movement and the increasing appreciation of the fact that there is an inherent bias underlying those who check. facts and that they tend to present their answers in emotional and low-class ways.
It’s important to say that I don’t think this change will change everyone’s behavior but it doesn’t have to. If you change the behavior of just 10-20% of people who take a medium to high interest in politics (and it is very important for political change) then this will change the conversation even if the remaining 80% are still there and the main decouplers are low on political issues. But this change will go hand in hand with the broader changes we are seeing in politics and that is another point I want to highlight.
2 – Political restructuring
Now going back to your post, what’s most interesting is the substance of what you said, especially your defense (less inclusive) of the new right. It could be argued that the Straussian reading of this implies that despite where you thought you would be in the new political regime you keep finding yourself in a different position and find this reality uncomfortable. I think it shouldn’t be like that. It’s just that the current framework for redirection is flawed and based on an outdated understanding of the forces involved.
Now in the established case the new reoriented politics should pit conservative economic nationalists against cosmopolitan socially liberal centrists (and leftists). And for liberals/classical liberals the argument of many has been that the best position for liberalism/classical liberalism is toward the cosmopolitan end of the spectrum because of the alleged shared values of open societies. However, I actually do not agree with this explanation as it is a good theory and does not correspond to the reality of what has happened or is actually happening in western politics.
A liberal cosmopolitan nation may be about a commitment to open societies and liberal values but the truth is there and I would argue that continuing to be (due to the need to include radical leftists in this division) a commitment to equality and social democracy (left liberal) is a poorly developed political code of conduct on the Internet , rich Western countries with many ethnic groups.
These principles have led to tolerance of government corruption and inefficiency “how dare you criticize teachers”, “how dare you criticize the NHS”, “how dare you criticize the EU/Federal government” and the promotion of the cancellation of those who leave. against established narratives on issues such as the speed/scope/direction of Net Zero, advocating for women’s rights against trans ideology or criticizing the current model of immigration/integration.
Cosmopolitan liberals make no secret of all these problems. And why? Because they as a political unit represent the situation, and what we are seeing now is the beginning of the end of the rule of democracy in 1945. 2020-21 I would argue, with the twin pillars of big state control on the pretext of COVID and the cultural dominance of the BLM/Woke movement, was Western social democracy at its peak and long term that model of holdover will mostly rust. and wither into a Robespierre-esque focus on equality, or else degenerate into deep green nihilism, which will kill it as a force anyway. This is why Emmanuel Macron now seems out of his depth, why Trudeau continues to fail, and why the European Union continues to stagnate – they are the status quo and they have run out of ideas.
So what do I think will replace it. However, one political wing definitely wants to maintain the status quo and the other wing wants to overthrow it and if we look at the opinions surrounding the camp of political activists/rightists/nationalists we can already see emerging trends. Now I will warn you that it will take time for these to develop intellectually, there is no fertile “home” for this faculty (exclusion from academia and generally all intelligent and compassionate people are shunned/rejected/cancelled but the masses seem to be growing. the way “good” intellectuals can work and get paid to be intellectuals And those intellectuals will not they drank from the empty pool and if we look at the expected intellectual influences it is difficult for the liberals / libertarians to pretend that they are not sympathetic to this movement.
Now in a previous comment you mentioned that you think religious geniuses will be the core of intellectual development going forward but what I see is that the core maths will actually be 5 absurd maths ie; Roger Scruton, Elinor Ostrom, Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell and Lee Kuan Yew. Together these five provide a philosophical foundation, an economic analysis and a political road from which western rights groups can seek guidance. I’m having trouble thinking of 5 other thinkers who might have more relevant ideas at this point in time. If I can call the ideology that is named in this collection of thought, I will not call it populism or even national conservatism but State Capacity Localism (icicii), or as a slogan, Politics to develop the oikos.
And looking at the current trends and the discussions that are already happening within politics you can clearly see the influence of the 5th in the way the discussions on the right are starting to reveal possible policies;
-
To improve the power of the state by killing the wood of the state by burning down/eliminating the idea of wetlands.
-
Nationalization was reduced to deregulation – perhaps a better compromise than what we have today.
-
Local/community decision-making on controversial topics is focused on finding solutions over the current problem-solving model (forced by the national government with the threat of a national decision if a local solution is not found)
-
Integration of multiculturalism as a concept and assimilation is at the heart of all debates about immigration and racial/cultural integration. Combine this with the growing debate about which countries have achieved the highest trust in multiracial communities (spoiler – Singapore) I expect we will see a resurgence of national support, an absolute need to learn the country’s language for employment and government services, and zero tolerance for ethnic or religious politics.
-
Strict laws and organizational policies focus on objective outcomes over cultural contexts. President Bukele (and Gavin Newsom when Xi visited) proved it can work.
-
Reclaiming aesthetics as a political analysis method – nice houses and pleasant neighborhoods and that’s an effort to improve everywhere in the country, especially the rust belts/flyover country.
-
The introduction of world value taxes – which is literally the opposite of international politics in a way that encourages its formation by design.
-
Focusing on high standards, individual responsibility and the respect and encouragement of outstanding people regardless of the broad aspects. Alongside that will be the focus on repealing “hate” speech laws and enshrining freedom of speech, the first amendment, into the laws of many countries.
-
Ultimately and I expect as a response to the extremism from the awakened movement we will see (over time) the return of shame as a cultural norm.
And finally we get right to the core of social democracy – a bureaucratic welfare state that knows the current model is unsustainable and yet cosmopolitan liberals at best tinker or at worst do nothing about it – because their leftist part does not want a change in higher wages. . And we know as a certainty that it will need to be changed but what are the effective solutions I think that each social situation can go in two ways; a) in an alternative based on mutual aid (perhaps to see the restoration of friendly societies?) and public ownership, or b) a new good deal for the welfare state of Hayeki as envisioned by Sam Bowman back in 2015. None of these match up well. in the box of international freedom as they need some scholars, they need to think domestically and not internationally and it would require a discussion about who and what is included and not included in social provision – a discussion about the extent to which society is closed to others. .
And just thinking about these bullet points doesn’t make it clear that there are many opportunities for cultural liberals/libertarians to engage with the right end and influence the conversation and direction of the debate. What does national liberal politics offer – zero zero in 2045 or 2050? DEI officers at all workplaces?
A soft feeling of warmth because the New York Times tolerates your presence.
Looking to the future I think that we as western societies are faced with a choice, but it is not between Heaven or Hell (as the press on both sides would have it) or as some liberals / libertarians would see it is between the hipster type. Reaganism and reactionary Corbynism. I think the choice western societies face is between being the new Argentines or the new Singaporeans (and since last December Argentina has chosen Singapore) and that is why many (like you Tyler) find themselves on a different political side than they expected. The establishment failed throughout the West; it’s just that we keep forgetting the establishment of the cosmopolitan left. “
Source link