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.
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?
"The major social media companies have a clear left-wing bias. They’re much more likely to deplatform people whose ideas they oppose. Most major corporations, similarly, now push not only woke ideology, but racist and sexist hiring in the name of “diversity and inclusion.” Why not use government power to offset these abuses?"
----
Do you believe that corporations should be immune to Civil Rights Law only in cases where they are discriminating against whites, asians, and/or men?
I know you're too much of a pussy to really try to get rid of Civil Rights Law, so you're essentially just advocating that it be a one sided anarcho tyranny ratchet. How's that working out so far?
"Using Big Government to fight wokeness."
De Santis said we shouldn't teach wokeness and transgender ideology to five year olds in public schools, and responded to political interference from a big company by removing a special economic privilege they have because they wouldn't mind their own business.
Is this what you object to? Do you feel kindergartners should be taught this ideology?
"Why not use industrial policy - tariffs, quotas, and subsidies - to push back?"
I don't believe in industrial policy, but the US had tariffs in the 20%-50% range for pretty much its entire pre-WW2 history. It didn't hinder economic development much based on the results. They were especially high during the Gilded Age when the US economy came to dominate the entire world.
If a foreign producer is really that much more productive, they can probably overcome a modest tariff like that, and the revenue generated can be used to reduce income taxes, which largely replaced the tariff as a revenue source. I'd rather pay a tariff than an income tax.
Or you just don't hire leftist bureaucrats. Or are bureaucracies completely permanent? Is China still run by the Manchu? Is France run by a royalist deep state?
There's a pattern where losers associate with other losers and repeat loser ideas to one another to justify their laziness and fatalism. "I can't get a job because nobody is hiring, I can't quite drugs because nobody ever quits drugs, blah blah blah." Whenever someone tries to pull himself out of the spiral of loserdom, the other losers sneer at him that it's "pointless." They don't want him succeeding and putting the onus on them to face the fact that they, not inevitable fate, are the authors of their misery.
You have entire ideologies of losers, people who might be successful in their personal lives but who, when it comes to using the power of government to achieve their goals, refuse on the basis of fatalistic nonsense. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, they never accomplish their goals because they never bother to try.
Totally agree in principle, but let’s say that enacting deregulation is impossible (you don’t get a filibuster proof majority to support it and a president and veto proof house). What is the next best thing that can be done? Where can we improve things on the margin?
Why not shift agency headquarters around the country - commerce to Nebraska, dept of ed to SC, interior to Wyoming, FBI to Utah, IRS to Alaska (Nome?), Homeland to Alabama, etc…. and put them in small towns in the name of economic developmen (justice?). In other words change the peer effects of the bureaucrats. Perhaps also ban unionization of public employees (at least the feds).
But why is it inevitable that the bureaucrats will be left-wing? Gut the bureaucracy and re-hire ideological allies. Obvs most uni grads are leftists, but as you know education is mostly signalling. We don't need those with credentials. With technology, it's not that hard to be a mid level bureaucrat. There's enough people with enough brains to do the job, who haven't been indoctrinated in a woke madrasah/ educated at an Ivy. Ofc at the v highest rungs of bureaucracy you need v smart individuals with the right managerial skills and traits. But there are right wingers who fit that profile and would do job if offered.
I do not think that the United States Drug Enforcement Administration is left wing, so it may be that the function attracts left wing employees. Maybe only left wingers want to run a welfare or education program but only a person who believes in a drug war wants to run the DEA.
Thanks for the analysis but it makes me wonder that Republicans don't want to work in the day-to-day affairs of running the Gov't... is it possible that they are avoiding at all costs the responsibility of the theft of $billions from the middle class ever since Ronald Raygun began his trickle down affair with BigCorpamerica...
OR... is it possible they're just too busy dreaming up the 'next fleece' ala the former guy...
As far as who will run it - how 'bout we just let Govt Human Resources hire the best candidates whose first priority is honesty, integrity & belief that they are doing what the country needs most... You could always do worse...
"In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." - Warren Buffet
I'm sure a lot of communists around 1975 saw that communism was not producing the outcomes that Max and Engels promised. I'm sure many of them told themselves their "principles" meant that they had to support it regardless.
My message to libertarians is this: libertarianism is not producing the outcomes you want; you see it as well as me. It's okay to change your mind about it. You don't even have to admit to being wrong; you can just create a new account and deny you were ever libertarian in the first place.
The issue is that conservative politicians are incentivized to "do something" now even if it produces unwanted consequences in the future. When the consequences come, their constituents won't blame them for initiating the government power - they'll blame liberal politicians. This outrage against the liberals will further benefit the conservative politicians.
So expanding the scope of government in ways that will probably lead to undesirable results for conservatives is a win-win for conservative politicians.
altough i dont have tons of knowledge on this particular subject, my experience in sweden is that bureaucrats and different officials in various govermunt run places like the Arbetsformedlingen, tend to be at lest centerleft, and usually on the left: i havnt really met any Avowed open Right wing or conservative person in an organization like that
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.
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.
----
"The major social media companies have a clear left-wing bias. They’re much more likely to deplatform people whose ideas they oppose. Most major corporations, similarly, now push not only woke ideology, but racist and sexist hiring in the name of “diversity and inclusion.” Why not use government power to offset these abuses?"
----
Do you believe that corporations should be immune to Civil Rights Law only in cases where they are discriminating against whites, asians, and/or men?
I know you're too much of a pussy to really try to get rid of Civil Rights Law, so you're essentially just advocating that it be a one sided anarcho tyranny ratchet. How's that working out so far?
"Using Big Government to fight wokeness."
De Santis said we shouldn't teach wokeness and transgender ideology to five year olds in public schools, and responded to political interference from a big company by removing a special economic privilege they have because they wouldn't mind their own business.
Is this what you object to? Do you feel kindergartners should be taught this ideology?
"Why not use industrial policy - tariffs, quotas, and subsidies - to push back?"
I don't believe in industrial policy, but the US had tariffs in the 20%-50% range for pretty much its entire pre-WW2 history. It didn't hinder economic development much based on the results. They were especially high during the Gilded Age when the US economy came to dominate the entire world.
If a foreign producer is really that much more productive, they can probably overcome a modest tariff like that, and the revenue generated can be used to reduce income taxes, which largely replaced the tariff as a revenue source. I'd rather pay a tariff than an income tax.
Or you just don't hire leftist bureaucrats. Or are bureaucracies completely permanent? Is China still run by the Manchu? Is France run by a royalist deep state?
There's a pattern where losers associate with other losers and repeat loser ideas to one another to justify their laziness and fatalism. "I can't get a job because nobody is hiring, I can't quite drugs because nobody ever quits drugs, blah blah blah." Whenever someone tries to pull himself out of the spiral of loserdom, the other losers sneer at him that it's "pointless." They don't want him succeeding and putting the onus on them to face the fact that they, not inevitable fate, are the authors of their misery.
You have entire ideologies of losers, people who might be successful in their personal lives but who, when it comes to using the power of government to achieve their goals, refuse on the basis of fatalistic nonsense. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, they never accomplish their goals because they never bother to try.
Correct.
Very true. Outstanding.
You said it twice, but we cannot repeat it too much:
“Leftist politicians will be in command half the time, and leftist bureaucrats will decide day-to-day policy all the time.”
Totally agree in principle, but let’s say that enacting deregulation is impossible (you don’t get a filibuster proof majority to support it and a president and veto proof house). What is the next best thing that can be done? Where can we improve things on the margin?
Why not shift agency headquarters around the country - commerce to Nebraska, dept of ed to SC, interior to Wyoming, FBI to Utah, IRS to Alaska (Nome?), Homeland to Alabama, etc…. and put them in small towns in the name of economic developmen (justice?). In other words change the peer effects of the bureaucrats. Perhaps also ban unionization of public employees (at least the feds).
Just explain how you plan to fight a war with China when you've moved all production there.
It's not just for some silly reasons we worry about the location of production.
But why is it inevitable that the bureaucrats will be left-wing? Gut the bureaucracy and re-hire ideological allies. Obvs most uni grads are leftists, but as you know education is mostly signalling. We don't need those with credentials. With technology, it's not that hard to be a mid level bureaucrat. There's enough people with enough brains to do the job, who haven't been indoctrinated in a woke madrasah/ educated at an Ivy. Ofc at the v highest rungs of bureaucracy you need v smart individuals with the right managerial skills and traits. But there are right wingers who fit that profile and would do job if offered.
I do not think that the United States Drug Enforcement Administration is left wing, so it may be that the function attracts left wing employees. Maybe only left wingers want to run a welfare or education program but only a person who believes in a drug war wants to run the DEA.
One can be against both left-wing and right-wing collectivism at the same time. People who are anti-woke tend to be as right wing wokes.
Conservative dilemma (European meaning) = you defend today what the former generation was opposing
Thanks for the analysis but it makes me wonder that Republicans don't want to work in the day-to-day affairs of running the Gov't... is it possible that they are avoiding at all costs the responsibility of the theft of $billions from the middle class ever since Ronald Raygun began his trickle down affair with BigCorpamerica...
OR... is it possible they're just too busy dreaming up the 'next fleece' ala the former guy...
As far as who will run it - how 'bout we just let Govt Human Resources hire the best candidates whose first priority is honesty, integrity & belief that they are doing what the country needs most... You could always do worse...
"In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." - Warren Buffet
I'm sure a lot of communists around 1975 saw that communism was not producing the outcomes that Max and Engels promised. I'm sure many of them told themselves their "principles" meant that they had to support it regardless.
My message to libertarians is this: libertarianism is not producing the outcomes you want; you see it as well as me. It's okay to change your mind about it. You don't even have to admit to being wrong; you can just create a new account and deny you were ever libertarian in the first place.
The issue is that conservative politicians are incentivized to "do something" now even if it produces unwanted consequences in the future. When the consequences come, their constituents won't blame them for initiating the government power - they'll blame liberal politicians. This outrage against the liberals will further benefit the conservative politicians.
So expanding the scope of government in ways that will probably lead to undesirable results for conservatives is a win-win for conservative politicians.
interesting post
altough i dont have tons of knowledge on this particular subject, my experience in sweden is that bureaucrats and different officials in various govermunt run places like the Arbetsformedlingen, tend to be at lest centerleft, and usually on the left: i havnt really met any Avowed open Right wing or conservative person in an organization like that