This is an interesting analysis. Thank you. However, I strongly object to the word « illiberal « for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. That word means « intolerant , » which would be an unfair and inaccurate description of economic progressivism. If you are distinguishing « progressive « from « classically liberal « economic policy, then say so clearly and accurately. Don’t use slurs. Also « statist « is a strange word to use, as it invokes authoritarian figures like Stalin. You would be more accurate to say something like « regulatory « or « government -centered » as these terms are more descriptive. Given that you use two terms for the left that are problematic, even derogatory, I have to conclude you are biased and not a trustworthy source on this issue. That saddens me, as I think you are addressing something important that warrants solid analysis.
Point taken! Your distinction between liberalism and illiberalism is correct and we should have been more careful. But I do think statist fits because policies such as blanket price controls rely on the heavy hand of the state.
You are so right. This is a very skewed analysis even though it highlights the ways Big Finance and Corporate America have always been able to create disarray in progressive/populist movements. Whenever anybody prattles about “Free Markets” they either don’t know what they are talking about or they just happen to have a vision of a change in regulations that would benefit their narrow interests. Markets are pretty much created by government protections and regulation though the needs for those protections and regulations are always changing because the economy is always changing due to demography, technology, culture, etc. Regulations are always necessary BUT are almost always lagging with regard to the needs and injustices they will be instituted to address. That said, there is a legitimate way of looking at a “Free” market which is one where the regulations are not changed haphazardly or too nakedly in favor of predatory interests.
I'm glad the US Left has abandoned the "liberal" moniker in favor of "progressive". As the author points out so well, there's a large and lately dominant faction that is decidedly not liberal.
And frankly the comparison to 20th Century communists is not unfair given prominent figures like Pramila Jayapal and Ilhan Omar have decided that "(i)t’s time to re-engage with Cuba."
Your choice of examples indicates that the pro-market side has already lost. YIMBY includes a bunch of things, from removal of various restrictions to expansion of public housing. BIG WIRES is more interventionist than not. If you really thought the DLC faction was still viable, you'd be talking about the Dems who are opposing Biden's industrial policy, denouncing teacher unions, criticising Lina Khan and so on.
That's not to say the Dems have become socialists. But neoliberalism of the type exemplified by Bill Clinton and the (now defunct) DNC is done for, and the abundance agenda won't change that.
It is NOT illiberal to decry the way mega multinational corporations skew markets and the broader economy for narrow short sighted profit interests. It is not illiberal to have learned what a horrible mistake it has been to dismantle the regulations that protected the Main Street economy from the predations of Wall Street Finance barons. It is not illiberal to recognize what a disaster it has been to whittle down the progressive income tax that also once served to help prevent the accumulation of vast wealth into the clutches of an irresponsible, unaccountable, and non productive tiny 0.1% minority. It is not illiberal to wonder if there might be a better way to provide health insurance for all that does not require the financial sector (insurance companies) to Hoover up a rake off for practically every dr’s visit, hospital stay, or prescription fulfilled.
The more I read the UnPopulist, the likelier I am to believe that it is a reactionary enterprise that does not value the aspects of liberalism that protect minority interests. Maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today . . .
Maybe. But I’m trying to think about how liberalism is not pure, just as democracy is not. Also trying to think about how though liberalism and democracy may be inseparable (if either is to survive), they each stem from distinct human impulses and are often in tension with (if not antagonistic) to each other.
Yes, liberalism has, as ONE of its core ideas, the demand that individual and minority rights be protected, but the minority and the individuals liberals tend to think of FIRST are themselves: the well educated, the well connected, and the notionally accomplished who have somehow distinguished themselves from “the masses”, from “superstition” and “irrationality” and who have forged a sense of dignity and worth not totally dependent of wealth, power, or even religious affiliation.
The liberal stance to “the masses” who seem less educated is sometimes indulgent, sometimes condescending, often manipulative, and sometimes abjectly horrified. This can seem a bit reactionary when someone like James Madison had to be both pragmatic and self serving when he specifically mentioned the “opulent” as one of the minorities whose rights must be protected by a sustainable constitutional republic which also, from the start, accommodated a certain amount of democracy. Suspecting liberalism to be elitist (and therefore sometimes uncomfortable with democracy - especially “economic democracy”) is more forcefully justified by classical liberal writers who are as often rewarded for celebrating capitalism as for highlighting its failures and injustices.
Forget about the ability to write… the ability to orate or “communicate” (whether you are Martin Luther King, Fanny Lou Hamer, Michael Moore, John Lennon, Norman Rockwell, Leni Riefenstahl, Pablo Picasso etc.) will create changes in an individual in how they deal with their thoughts and feelings and ideas about their “self” in relation to others whether those others ignore, appreciate, fetishize, trivialize, or vilify their expressions.
Liberalism may be more about understanding and dealing with structures. Much of those structures may be about corralling, channeling, focusing, or inhibiting democracy, though many of the same structures also may thwart other forms of tyranny. Democracy (or populism) is less related to structures than to passions, needs, desires, and hopes. Democracy and liberalism need each other because they represent two aspects of humanity that most of would want to preserve. Democracy and liberalism need each other because, despite the tensions, they make each other more meaningful and useful to the broadest human needs which go well beyond “liberty”.
The title of this blog may be inevitably and unfortunately stupid because “populism” is a name for democracy when it threatens to burst through the structures liberalism continues to try to enforce upon it. Some of those structures are necessary so that democracy does not destroy itself. Some of those structures are holdovers from when “justice’ and the “rule of law” were tools of oppression used by tiny minorities against the majority. Some of those structures were devised in reaction to the fact that tiny minorities can and WILL manipulate and abuse the majority. But we can’t just go by names, titles, and labels.
Then there are the very disparate groups of “thinkers” who are clumped together under the bulging label of “post liberal”….
Why have I never heard a pitch for deregulation that acknowledges that regulation per se is not illegitimate? When politicians rail against regulations, why do they never address the reasons the rules were enacted in the first place and make cogent cost-benefit arguments on a case by case basis? Why does it seem that when legislative bodies are in a regulation-slashing frame of mind, the advocates for the regulation seldom seem to have the opportunity to make an effective case for the rules in the forum of public opinion?
I have witnessed that in Oregon, where our progressive and generally ineffectual governor Tina Kotek declared a housing emergency at the beginning of her term and ginned up a housing plan that has yet to yield any significant results more than 18 months in.
Rather than roll up her sleeves and strike deals with developers, builders, suppliers, lenders and prospective buyers, Kotek took a command-economy approach that put the onus on municipalities to do away with perceived barriers to new construction without having an inkling whether that would produce any new houses. The state reserved the right to punish municipalities if their measures produced inadequate results.
What did happen, though, was a feeding frenzy for the developer and builder lobby. They had had decades' worth of pent-up animus toward land-use regulations and building codes that protected the quality of life within new developments and ensured municipalities and homeowners were not disproportionately burdened with the costs of the infrastructure required by the development. God only knows what the damage will be to the public welfare once industry has had its way with the regulatory scheme at the Governor's invitation.
Are today's opponents of regulation within the Democratic party DINOs who are harkening back to the 1950s when corporate America waged an explicitly Hayekian propaganda war against the very concept of regulation ("The Road to Serfdom")?
It should not be controversial among Democrats on either side of the divide discussed in this piece to acknowledge that regulations are necessary to protect the public from the harmful externalities of business activity and to further the common good.
I think this is pretty normal and consistent with a 2 party system. In a parliamentary coalition system the lines are clearer and the party alliances are not all or nothing on either side.
There was a time where even Republicans were dominated by an economic ideology but found room for liberals who were less hostile to the New Deal in its entirety. Aside from tax cuts today's GOP has no coherent economic policy and is also divided by a new "statist vision" of corporate control of the market and those preferring a free market.
As an independent conservative I expect to differ with many things a Harris administration might do but that is a return to normal. For a time authentically conservative positions may be on the losing side. But any failure to reach bipartisan agreement on important issues will not be caused by the leftist demands of Democratic progressives but by the feckless Republicans.
If mainline Democrats and Republicans would come together they could reduce the influence of the extremists on both sides.
But before any of this can happen Trump must be removed and his influence on the Congressional Republicans mitigated.
Lol. As usual, lefties gaslight themselves the hardest about how illiberal & undemocratic they are, worrying about Trump (what’s new) on the eve where they’re anointing someone with ZERO actual votes, after couping their own president, and waging ceaseless lawfare against all of their oppositions at every turn (& after 3 straight election cycles of insider elites stacking primaries against their own voters). Democracy? The dems wouldn’t know or care about it if it hit them in the face 😂😂😂
I think divisions within the party are inevitable given the two party system. The Democratic party is a conglomeration of various interests and demands, by necessity as dictated by the American political process. We will greater priority placed on policy positions over time but there will always be competition and factions.
There also exist other divisions among Democrats that are more difficult to see, because one of the sides isn't allowed on stage at all. On one particular issue, one side supports adherence to the principles of scientific medicine - this is the side that isn't allowed on stage - and the other side favors - shall we put it lightly - "postmodern medicine." As theirs is the only perspective permitted in Democratic circles presently, you won't hear any discussion of the subject one way or the other.
The name of the gorilla in the room is gender identity.
It is anathema among Democrats at all levels to question scientifically baseless claims that are being made about gender by so-called queers and trans rights advocates and their allies. Likewise, there is zero tolerance among Democrats for the position that sex is immutable and binary and that men cannot become women and vice versa.
If self-censorship doesn't keep dissidents quiet, outright censorship is commonplace. Good luck getting frank sex-realist comments accepted by The Washington Post. If some get through, otherwise good liberals completely lose their bearings and direct savage criticism against ideas they've come to understand are beyond the pale. We really are just better dressed monkeys.
Some of the methods that are used to silence dissent are not unlike those used in the Soviet system. Medical associations where policymaking has been captured by a radical few manipulate their rules of governance to silence dissidents by preventing them from bringing challenges before the membership.
Many Democrats - and I count myself among them - are sex realists who oppose the capture of our institutions by the myths of gender identity and who oppose the harm that is being done to children, teens, young adults and older adults by unproven and irreversible gender medicine interventions.
I have skin in the game, because if I were the sissy, gender nonconforming little boy today that I was in the late 50s and early 60s, the odds are good that trans allies in my life would have decided I was better off as a little girl. Since I, like most gender nonconforming youth who escape gender ideology, discovered in adolescence that I am gay, being transitioned would have been a horrific tragedy.
This is an interesting analysis. Thank you. However, I strongly object to the word « illiberal « for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. That word means « intolerant , » which would be an unfair and inaccurate description of economic progressivism. If you are distinguishing « progressive « from « classically liberal « economic policy, then say so clearly and accurately. Don’t use slurs. Also « statist « is a strange word to use, as it invokes authoritarian figures like Stalin. You would be more accurate to say something like « regulatory « or « government -centered » as these terms are more descriptive. Given that you use two terms for the left that are problematic, even derogatory, I have to conclude you are biased and not a trustworthy source on this issue. That saddens me, as I think you are addressing something important that warrants solid analysis.
Point taken! Your distinction between liberalism and illiberalism is correct and we should have been more careful. But I do think statist fits because policies such as blanket price controls rely on the heavy hand of the state.
You are so right. This is a very skewed analysis even though it highlights the ways Big Finance and Corporate America have always been able to create disarray in progressive/populist movements. Whenever anybody prattles about “Free Markets” they either don’t know what they are talking about or they just happen to have a vision of a change in regulations that would benefit their narrow interests. Markets are pretty much created by government protections and regulation though the needs for those protections and regulations are always changing because the economy is always changing due to demography, technology, culture, etc. Regulations are always necessary BUT are almost always lagging with regard to the needs and injustices they will be instituted to address. That said, there is a legitimate way of looking at a “Free” market which is one where the regulations are not changed haphazardly or too nakedly in favor of predatory interests.
I'm glad the US Left has abandoned the "liberal" moniker in favor of "progressive". As the author points out so well, there's a large and lately dominant faction that is decidedly not liberal.
And frankly the comparison to 20th Century communists is not unfair given prominent figures like Pramila Jayapal and Ilhan Omar have decided that "(i)t’s time to re-engage with Cuba."
Your choice of examples indicates that the pro-market side has already lost. YIMBY includes a bunch of things, from removal of various restrictions to expansion of public housing. BIG WIRES is more interventionist than not. If you really thought the DLC faction was still viable, you'd be talking about the Dems who are opposing Biden's industrial policy, denouncing teacher unions, criticising Lina Khan and so on.
That's not to say the Dems have become socialists. But neoliberalism of the type exemplified by Bill Clinton and the (now defunct) DNC is done for, and the abundance agenda won't change that.
It is NOT illiberal to decry the way mega multinational corporations skew markets and the broader economy for narrow short sighted profit interests. It is not illiberal to have learned what a horrible mistake it has been to dismantle the regulations that protected the Main Street economy from the predations of Wall Street Finance barons. It is not illiberal to recognize what a disaster it has been to whittle down the progressive income tax that also once served to help prevent the accumulation of vast wealth into the clutches of an irresponsible, unaccountable, and non productive tiny 0.1% minority. It is not illiberal to wonder if there might be a better way to provide health insurance for all that does not require the financial sector (insurance companies) to Hoover up a rake off for practically every dr’s visit, hospital stay, or prescription fulfilled.
The more I read the UnPopulist, the likelier I am to believe that it is a reactionary enterprise that does not value the aspects of liberalism that protect minority interests. Maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today . . .
Maybe. But I’m trying to think about how liberalism is not pure, just as democracy is not. Also trying to think about how though liberalism and democracy may be inseparable (if either is to survive), they each stem from distinct human impulses and are often in tension with (if not antagonistic) to each other.
Yes, liberalism has, as ONE of its core ideas, the demand that individual and minority rights be protected, but the minority and the individuals liberals tend to think of FIRST are themselves: the well educated, the well connected, and the notionally accomplished who have somehow distinguished themselves from “the masses”, from “superstition” and “irrationality” and who have forged a sense of dignity and worth not totally dependent of wealth, power, or even religious affiliation.
The liberal stance to “the masses” who seem less educated is sometimes indulgent, sometimes condescending, often manipulative, and sometimes abjectly horrified. This can seem a bit reactionary when someone like James Madison had to be both pragmatic and self serving when he specifically mentioned the “opulent” as one of the minorities whose rights must be protected by a sustainable constitutional republic which also, from the start, accommodated a certain amount of democracy. Suspecting liberalism to be elitist (and therefore sometimes uncomfortable with democracy - especially “economic democracy”) is more forcefully justified by classical liberal writers who are as often rewarded for celebrating capitalism as for highlighting its failures and injustices.
Forget about the ability to write… the ability to orate or “communicate” (whether you are Martin Luther King, Fanny Lou Hamer, Michael Moore, John Lennon, Norman Rockwell, Leni Riefenstahl, Pablo Picasso etc.) will create changes in an individual in how they deal with their thoughts and feelings and ideas about their “self” in relation to others whether those others ignore, appreciate, fetishize, trivialize, or vilify their expressions.
Liberalism may be more about understanding and dealing with structures. Much of those structures may be about corralling, channeling, focusing, or inhibiting democracy, though many of the same structures also may thwart other forms of tyranny. Democracy (or populism) is less related to structures than to passions, needs, desires, and hopes. Democracy and liberalism need each other because they represent two aspects of humanity that most of would want to preserve. Democracy and liberalism need each other because, despite the tensions, they make each other more meaningful and useful to the broadest human needs which go well beyond “liberty”.
The title of this blog may be inevitably and unfortunately stupid because “populism” is a name for democracy when it threatens to burst through the structures liberalism continues to try to enforce upon it. Some of those structures are necessary so that democracy does not destroy itself. Some of those structures are holdovers from when “justice’ and the “rule of law” were tools of oppression used by tiny minorities against the majority. Some of those structures were devised in reaction to the fact that tiny minorities can and WILL manipulate and abuse the majority. But we can’t just go by names, titles, and labels.
Then there are the very disparate groups of “thinkers” who are clumped together under the bulging label of “post liberal”….
Why have I never heard a pitch for deregulation that acknowledges that regulation per se is not illegitimate? When politicians rail against regulations, why do they never address the reasons the rules were enacted in the first place and make cogent cost-benefit arguments on a case by case basis? Why does it seem that when legislative bodies are in a regulation-slashing frame of mind, the advocates for the regulation seldom seem to have the opportunity to make an effective case for the rules in the forum of public opinion?
I have witnessed that in Oregon, where our progressive and generally ineffectual governor Tina Kotek declared a housing emergency at the beginning of her term and ginned up a housing plan that has yet to yield any significant results more than 18 months in.
Rather than roll up her sleeves and strike deals with developers, builders, suppliers, lenders and prospective buyers, Kotek took a command-economy approach that put the onus on municipalities to do away with perceived barriers to new construction without having an inkling whether that would produce any new houses. The state reserved the right to punish municipalities if their measures produced inadequate results.
What did happen, though, was a feeding frenzy for the developer and builder lobby. They had had decades' worth of pent-up animus toward land-use regulations and building codes that protected the quality of life within new developments and ensured municipalities and homeowners were not disproportionately burdened with the costs of the infrastructure required by the development. God only knows what the damage will be to the public welfare once industry has had its way with the regulatory scheme at the Governor's invitation.
Are today's opponents of regulation within the Democratic party DINOs who are harkening back to the 1950s when corporate America waged an explicitly Hayekian propaganda war against the very concept of regulation ("The Road to Serfdom")?
It should not be controversial among Democrats on either side of the divide discussed in this piece to acknowledge that regulations are necessary to protect the public from the harmful externalities of business activity and to further the common good.
I think this is pretty normal and consistent with a 2 party system. In a parliamentary coalition system the lines are clearer and the party alliances are not all or nothing on either side.
There was a time where even Republicans were dominated by an economic ideology but found room for liberals who were less hostile to the New Deal in its entirety. Aside from tax cuts today's GOP has no coherent economic policy and is also divided by a new "statist vision" of corporate control of the market and those preferring a free market.
As an independent conservative I expect to differ with many things a Harris administration might do but that is a return to normal. For a time authentically conservative positions may be on the losing side. But any failure to reach bipartisan agreement on important issues will not be caused by the leftist demands of Democratic progressives but by the feckless Republicans.
If mainline Democrats and Republicans would come together they could reduce the influence of the extremists on both sides.
But before any of this can happen Trump must be removed and his influence on the Congressional Republicans mitigated.
Lol. As usual, lefties gaslight themselves the hardest about how illiberal & undemocratic they are, worrying about Trump (what’s new) on the eve where they’re anointing someone with ZERO actual votes, after couping their own president, and waging ceaseless lawfare against all of their oppositions at every turn (& after 3 straight election cycles of insider elites stacking primaries against their own voters). Democracy? The dems wouldn’t know or care about it if it hit them in the face 😂😂😂
I think divisions within the party are inevitable given the two party system. The Democratic party is a conglomeration of various interests and demands, by necessity as dictated by the American political process. We will greater priority placed on policy positions over time but there will always be competition and factions.
There also exist other divisions among Democrats that are more difficult to see, because one of the sides isn't allowed on stage at all. On one particular issue, one side supports adherence to the principles of scientific medicine - this is the side that isn't allowed on stage - and the other side favors - shall we put it lightly - "postmodern medicine." As theirs is the only perspective permitted in Democratic circles presently, you won't hear any discussion of the subject one way or the other.
The name of the gorilla in the room is gender identity.
It is anathema among Democrats at all levels to question scientifically baseless claims that are being made about gender by so-called queers and trans rights advocates and their allies. Likewise, there is zero tolerance among Democrats for the position that sex is immutable and binary and that men cannot become women and vice versa.
If self-censorship doesn't keep dissidents quiet, outright censorship is commonplace. Good luck getting frank sex-realist comments accepted by The Washington Post. If some get through, otherwise good liberals completely lose their bearings and direct savage criticism against ideas they've come to understand are beyond the pale. We really are just better dressed monkeys.
Some of the methods that are used to silence dissent are not unlike those used in the Soviet system. Medical associations where policymaking has been captured by a radical few manipulate their rules of governance to silence dissidents by preventing them from bringing challenges before the membership.
Many Democrats - and I count myself among them - are sex realists who oppose the capture of our institutions by the myths of gender identity and who oppose the harm that is being done to children, teens, young adults and older adults by unproven and irreversible gender medicine interventions.
I have skin in the game, because if I were the sissy, gender nonconforming little boy today that I was in the late 50s and early 60s, the odds are good that trans allies in my life would have decided I was better off as a little girl. Since I, like most gender nonconforming youth who escape gender ideology, discovered in adolescence that I am gay, being transitioned would have been a horrific tragedy.