Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Doctor Hammer's avatar

Excellent essay, that point that the other team gets to control elected power at least half the time, and the left owns unelected powers all the time can't get made enough.

I think what a lot on the right miss is that the left is made of people who want power over others. It is the sole defining thread that runs through their behavior. Many on the right want power as well, but for the left it is the defining feature. As a result they are the ones that go after elected and especially unelected positions of power preferentially, and are willing to sacrifice the most to get them. Hence Conquest's Law that every institution not explicitly right wing becomes left wing over time. So long as there is a position of power, a leftist is going to want it more than anything because power over others is what they want more than anything. Right wing control of powerful positions is impossible long term.

Expand full comment
WoolyAI's avatar

I think this criticism, while accurate, masks the costs to conservatives in the status quo and it's proposed remedies are not convincing. To be clear, I think this criticism is accurate and a real concern, but the alternative (conservatives using the federal government to fight "wokeness") does not have to be perfect, it simply has to be better than the status quo. And the status quo for conservatives on these issues, while there are occasional victories like the Roe v Wade overturning, is generally losing.

Just in terms of words and focus, there's paragraphs of criticism but only one of alternative solutions and those are not terribly persuasive. For example, explicit protections for political speech sounds nice but political affiliation for California workers is a protected class equivalent to race or sexual orientation (1). Does anybody honestly believe that conservative gov bureaucrats in CA are free to express their political stances, either privately or in policy-making discussions? Maybe there's some subtlety in the linked piece I missed but it reads like a rehash of tried and failed policy.

So, because I've heard this libertarian critique of the new right popping up a bit recently, let me ask a clarifying question.

First, the big one, the former Republican president and likely next nominee has been banned off most major platforms, including the most famous social media account in history. How will current conservative/libertarian/deregulatory policies resolve this?

(And, to head off the "Trump is uniquely bad" argument, the most likely successor to Trump is DeSantis, who is a much more explicitly New Right figure and the best likely candidate to execute New Right policies)

For many on the right and center, the status quo is unacceptable. Implicit defenses of the status quo, criticism of the alternative, and half-hearted hand-waves to deregulatory alternatives miss the core of what draws people to the New Right: that the current situation is fundamentally unacceptable. And, like it or not, while the libertarians and classical liberals are correct to criticize the New Right for not having clear plans or personnel to execute their plans, they never point to any realistic political path for their libertarian/classical liberal reforms to be enacted. The Democrats certainly won't and the Republicans will elect either Trump or DeSantis, there are no other credible candidates.

So, summing up,

(1) What is the libertarian/classical liberal plan? How is it substantially different from what's been done in the past?

(2) How will it be enacted? Both practically and politically?

(3) How is this better than the New Right proposals?

(1) https://www.calhr.ca.gov/state-hr-professionals/Pages/Equal-Employment-Opportunity.aspx, the HR handbook for CA state managers/supervisors.

Expand full comment
38 more comments...

No posts