Harris’ speech was so articulate and inspiring that it can be easy to underestimate the complexity of how deftly she threads the needle on certain issues.
Most people don’t realize how difficult it is to be a staunch advocate for liberal principles and policies in a way that doesn’t alienate people who wrongly believe that liberalism has failed them and see government as the cause of their problems instead of a tool to redress them.
Republicans have been feeding their voters on this false narrative for decades. Trump just took it to its most extreme (but logical) conclusion. That’s what populists do and it’s why populism is, well, so popular! The inability to decouple populism from illiberalism is a very plausible explanation for why Democrats and moderate Republicans have had such a difficult time counteracting the appeal of someone as comically incompetent, pathologically dishonest and shamelessly corrupt as Trump.
I’m glad the Harris and her team seem to have learned this lesson from the past 9 years and figured out how to use it to their advantage.
Tjanks for writing this incredibly insightful and eye-opening piece!
>how deftly she threads the needle on certain issues.
And easy to forget - if you're the forgetful type - how brazenly she ignores others. This election has Trump insanity on the one side, and - to say the word no one seems to want said - "trans" insanity on the other. The Democratic Party seems to be hoping that studiously avoiding this subject and repeating "joy" like a mantra will make everyone forget that. It may work on some - she may win. May.
The UK Labour Party has banned unscientific genderist pseudomedicine for minors. The lawsuits over this malpractice here are just getting started. Where is our Keir Starmer?
It took Keir Starmer some time to arrive at his current position on this issue. I expect it will take Democrats time as well, but I would expect (or hope) those who read the Cass report will see sense and go with the evidence. Like Keir, Kamala is a lawyer. Perhaps then she is America’s Starmer.
The good thing about having lived through these populist regimes, one realizes that journalists were always in favor. There is no one who has the profile of a dictator of a banana republic more than Harris. She is ineffective in everything, a liar, she did not even win the elections to be the leader of her party. All the media (purchased) in their favor, the basic discourse of "we are good and don't ask me anything else." They are wrong, she is much more dangerous than Trump.
I think it’s important to notice that Harris is defending domestic progressivism with some few benefits internally, but her foreign policy is rootedly militaristic and anti-progressive. Trumpers don’t win; the military - industrial complex wins bigly. The « understructure » of the U.S. remains unchanged and unchallenged. She will continue to promote empire. And the USS Titanic will continue full speed ahead toward the iceberg of Israel.
I, and I'm sure others, find the word "illiberal" mystifying -- what does it mean? I think we need to come up with a belter/different word or phrase that will speak better to what the idea being communicated is. Anyone's thoughts?
There used to be a time in America when conservatives believed in a more classical or economic liberalism that advocated for limited government and laissez faire economics while liberals/progressives used to believe in a more regulated mixed economy where government played a more active role in social liberalism.
However, both parties still believed in all the tenets of *liberalism* as laid out in that Wikipedia entry (eg individual rights, freedom of speech, rule of law, etc.) these were just considered common sense universal truths - like “owning other human beings is immoral” or “women should have the same rights as men” (even though neither of these has *always* been considered a common sense, universal truth).
I think this is why people have a difficult time understanding why any sane person would support illiberal ideas. It seems as strange and unlikely as saying that lots of people think slavery is a good idea.
Except, that’s exactly what Trump and his cronies (and many of his supporters) do believe!
They don’t really think elections are “rigged”. If they did, they would also question the validity of results from the same election where their candidate ended up winning. Nope, the truth is that they fundamentally don’t believe in democracy or free and fair elections.
They don’t want January 6th insurrectionists to be pardoned because they legitimately think that breaking and entering, destroying property and violently attacking police officers should not be punishable crimes. If they did, then they would also demand pardons for BLM rioters or pro-Palestine protestors found guilty of similar charges. Nope, the truth is that they fundamentally don’t believe in the rule of law.
And perhaps most difficult to wrap one’s head around (at least for me) is that they don’t think that the “fake news” media is lying or exaggerating when they say that Trump admires dictators. They don’t actually think his conceit about “being a dictator on day one” is just a joke.
I can’t post pictures here, but if you click on this bulwark piece by JVL and scroll down to the photos of Trump supporters proudly wearing T-shirts unironically referring to Trump as “Dear Leader”, it’s because the truth is that these folks actively desire an authoritarian leader who has zero qualms about jailing his opponents, shutting down media outlets that criticize him or forcibly suppressing non-violent protesters.
I can think of no better definition of the word “illiberalism” than this disgraceful visual display.
No. Democrats or at least no major Democratic leaders are calling for pardoning either BLM rioters convicted of crimes OR January 6th rioters or insurrectionists convicted of crimes.
On the other hand, the Republican Candidate for President used a loophole to deploy the National Guard during largely peaceful blm protests while refusing to deploy them while an armed mob was actively breaching the Capitol and threatening congressmen.
He has called the people arrested for crimes on January 6th “hostages” and “patriots” and said that he would pardon them if he is elected President. No major Republicans leader that I know of has publicly called out this behavior as disgraceful - not to mention a blatant disregard for the rule of law. I don’t remember Trump doing anything remotely similar to “celebrate” or pardon the people arrested for crimes committed during the BLM riots. If I’m missing something, let me know.
At any rate, my point was that liberalism requires a *consistent* application of liberal principles. If you’re only interested in justice and the rule of law when it supports your agenda, that’s illiberal.
« Illiberal « means « intolerant. » Alternatives to « classical liberalism « (free market, atomized individuals) are socialism, communism, totalitarianism, social democracy, fascism, theocracy, mercantilism, and tribalism. There are probably more. One must be very careful with one’s terminology.
Harris’ speech was so articulate and inspiring that it can be easy to underestimate the complexity of how deftly she threads the needle on certain issues.
Most people don’t realize how difficult it is to be a staunch advocate for liberal principles and policies in a way that doesn’t alienate people who wrongly believe that liberalism has failed them and see government as the cause of their problems instead of a tool to redress them.
Republicans have been feeding their voters on this false narrative for decades. Trump just took it to its most extreme (but logical) conclusion. That’s what populists do and it’s why populism is, well, so popular! The inability to decouple populism from illiberalism is a very plausible explanation for why Democrats and moderate Republicans have had such a difficult time counteracting the appeal of someone as comically incompetent, pathologically dishonest and shamelessly corrupt as Trump.
I’m glad the Harris and her team seem to have learned this lesson from the past 9 years and figured out how to use it to their advantage.
Tjanks for writing this incredibly insightful and eye-opening piece!
>how deftly she threads the needle on certain issues.
And easy to forget - if you're the forgetful type - how brazenly she ignores others. This election has Trump insanity on the one side, and - to say the word no one seems to want said - "trans" insanity on the other. The Democratic Party seems to be hoping that studiously avoiding this subject and repeating "joy" like a mantra will make everyone forget that. It may work on some - she may win. May.
The UK Labour Party has banned unscientific genderist pseudomedicine for minors. The lawsuits over this malpractice here are just getting started. Where is our Keir Starmer?
It took Keir Starmer some time to arrive at his current position on this issue. I expect it will take Democrats time as well, but I would expect (or hope) those who read the Cass report will see sense and go with the evidence. Like Keir, Kamala is a lawyer. Perhaps then she is America’s Starmer.
The good thing about having lived through these populist regimes, one realizes that journalists were always in favor. There is no one who has the profile of a dictator of a banana republic more than Harris. She is ineffective in everything, a liar, she did not even win the elections to be the leader of her party. All the media (purchased) in their favor, the basic discourse of "we are good and don't ask me anything else." They are wrong, she is much more dangerous than Trump.
I think it’s important to notice that Harris is defending domestic progressivism with some few benefits internally, but her foreign policy is rootedly militaristic and anti-progressive. Trumpers don’t win; the military - industrial complex wins bigly. The « understructure » of the U.S. remains unchanged and unchallenged. She will continue to promote empire. And the USS Titanic will continue full speed ahead toward the iceberg of Israel.
She should have not certified him that is what the 14th Amendment is for!!!
Thank you, The New Republic.
TRUMP will win or the country will crumble under Harris type communism.
I, and I'm sure others, find the word "illiberal" mystifying -- what does it mean? I think we need to come up with a belter/different word or phrase that will speak better to what the idea being communicated is. Anyone's thoughts?
Well here is the standard definition of “liberalism” from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
There used to be a time in America when conservatives believed in a more classical or economic liberalism that advocated for limited government and laissez faire economics while liberals/progressives used to believe in a more regulated mixed economy where government played a more active role in social liberalism.
However, both parties still believed in all the tenets of *liberalism* as laid out in that Wikipedia entry (eg individual rights, freedom of speech, rule of law, etc.) these were just considered common sense universal truths - like “owning other human beings is immoral” or “women should have the same rights as men” (even though neither of these has *always* been considered a common sense, universal truth).
I think this is why people have a difficult time understanding why any sane person would support illiberal ideas. It seems as strange and unlikely as saying that lots of people think slavery is a good idea.
Except, that’s exactly what Trump and his cronies (and many of his supporters) do believe!
They don’t really think elections are “rigged”. If they did, they would also question the validity of results from the same election where their candidate ended up winning. Nope, the truth is that they fundamentally don’t believe in democracy or free and fair elections.
They don’t want January 6th insurrectionists to be pardoned because they legitimately think that breaking and entering, destroying property and violently attacking police officers should not be punishable crimes. If they did, then they would also demand pardons for BLM rioters or pro-Palestine protestors found guilty of similar charges. Nope, the truth is that they fundamentally don’t believe in the rule of law.
And perhaps most difficult to wrap one’s head around (at least for me) is that they don’t think that the “fake news” media is lying or exaggerating when they say that Trump admires dictators. They don’t actually think his conceit about “being a dictator on day one” is just a joke.
I can’t post pictures here, but if you click on this bulwark piece by JVL and scroll down to the photos of Trump supporters proudly wearing T-shirts unironically referring to Trump as “Dear Leader”, it’s because the truth is that these folks actively desire an authoritarian leader who has zero qualms about jailing his opponents, shutting down media outlets that criticize him or forcibly suppressing non-violent protesters.
I can think of no better definition of the word “illiberalism” than this disgraceful visual display.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/the-old-man-who-saved-american-democracy?r=298xbr&utm_medium=ios
Lots to agree with here, but doesn’t the point about January 6 vs. BLM cut both ways if the charges are, as you say, similar?
No. Democrats or at least no major Democratic leaders are calling for pardoning either BLM rioters convicted of crimes OR January 6th rioters or insurrectionists convicted of crimes.
On the other hand, the Republican Candidate for President used a loophole to deploy the National Guard during largely peaceful blm protests while refusing to deploy them while an armed mob was actively breaching the Capitol and threatening congressmen.
He has called the people arrested for crimes on January 6th “hostages” and “patriots” and said that he would pardon them if he is elected President. No major Republicans leader that I know of has publicly called out this behavior as disgraceful - not to mention a blatant disregard for the rule of law. I don’t remember Trump doing anything remotely similar to “celebrate” or pardon the people arrested for crimes committed during the BLM riots. If I’m missing something, let me know.
At any rate, my point was that liberalism requires a *consistent* application of liberal principles. If you’re only interested in justice and the rule of law when it supports your agenda, that’s illiberal.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-barr-used-loophole-deploy-national-guard-u-s-cities-ncna1236034
https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2021-01-08/a-blm-protest-brought-thousands-of-national-guardsmen-to-d-c-in-june-where-were-they-wednesday
Yes.
« Illiberal « means « intolerant. » Alternatives to « classical liberalism « (free market, atomized individuals) are socialism, communism, totalitarianism, social democracy, fascism, theocracy, mercantilism, and tribalism. There are probably more. One must be very careful with one’s terminology.