Democrats have an opportunity to champion a confident, forward-looking market liberalism given that the GOP has fully returned to its reactionary roots
Michael Wood is the type of Democrat I could enthusiastically get behind. His overview of the current political landscape is deadly accurate and his values align closely with my own. I fear most Democrats don't see it that way - please prove me wrong.
While many "progressive" Democrats aren't aligned with Michael, consider me: I likely would not have voted for Bush, McCain, or Romney, but in the case of McCain and Romney, I saw some good and bad in all the candidates (Obama, McCain, Romney) and just preferred Obama more. I'm reminded of the last season of The West Wing, when the Democrat still won* ― but both candidates were genuinely good people who would both make good presidents. Previously such people would be on opposite sides of the aisle; today they'd be on the same side.
One of my favorite blogs is Matt Yglesias, a moderate (abundance) Democrat who would probably get along well with Michael Wood. I don't know what Michael thinks of abortion, or welfare, or universal health care, or immigration. But it barely matters to me as long as he can help win an election against the Republicans' new "crank coalition" of illiberal weirdos.**
Though if you think humans don't cause global warming, Michael (*wags finger*), you and I need to have a thoughtful discussion mmkay? I know what I'm talking about in that area.
* he won due to a highly unrealistic Deus Ex machina involving a nuclear power plant that had a meltdown *without any explanation or trigger*. This couldn't happen in real life, betraying a pretty silly 2000-era Democrat anti-nuclear bias, but I digress.
** Well, I would hope that Michael-the-newly-Democrat has *popular* rather than unpopular positions, so as to win the next election afterward too. And I'm weird myself btw, just in a way that is the polar opposite of Trump and co.
Democrats like Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren - yes, but also Republicans who favor industrial policy and market interference - which seems to be nearly the entire MAGA world. I do credit Trump for his foreign policy (at least until he makes some bizarre swerve) and for beating back wokeism, as crude as his methods were.
Approaching elections on the East and West coasts will reveal which direction the Democratic Party is going. First, California's gubernatorial election; second, New York City's mayoral election. Compare how they treat the issue of housing and its cost. The Californians are generally trying to relax regulation which drives up the cost of housing and limits its supply. The leading mayoral candidate in NYC, Mamdani, wants even more rent control and wants the city itself to build housing. If both the California and New York City Democrats win and apply their proposals as policy, the next question will be which approach to housing and its fiscal implications will be adopted by Democrats in other states like Illinois and Massachusetts.
I'm not a free market radical but there is a big hole in Mamdanis housing plan. You can't bankrupt landlords that won't work, you just end up with abandoned property and blight. More housing needs to be built.
Calling Bernie Sanders an unserious radical grossly downplays his appeal to a large section of the population. Is it radical to say that everyone in America should receive healthcare if they pay their taxes? Is it radical to say that billionaires and large corporations have a responsibility to pay more into the system than the poor? If so, then there are a lot of people who agree with and embrace this "radicalism." It's possible to support these kinds of common-sense reforms while embracing the free market at the same time. People need something to aspire to, the common good of the country and their fellow Americans. A philosophy focused around worshiping the free market without a social component will not inspire people to come together for their country. We need something more holistic.
Agree. People who point to radical left political policies don't give any examples I consider way out. It used to be that the main differences between the parties was spending priorities. Social issues always were the problem, I guess.
There are HUGE holes in this analysis. To start, the author does not even mention the oligarchy that is driving and supporting Trumpism as it has Putinism. The all-purpose and increasingly meaningless term “populism” is stretched to paper over the reality of billionaires like the one in the White House, the one who drove DOGE and all the ones in the background of Trump’s inauguration happy to get their massive tax cuts while the populace they sell their phony “populism” to gets their health care, food stamps and infrastructure slashed. The only “populism” this regime is selling is the cultural kind, e.g., small town jealousy of big city, college educated folks sippng lattes, which is mostly just a distraction from the billionaires robbing us blind. I have nothing against the abundance discussion, which can be useful, but not if we close our eyes to the ugly class realities driving the Trump/Fox fascist propaganda machine.
I did not say that. But the pay for play mentality has never been as naked as it is in this administration. Big Oil gave $500 million to Republicans and are getting clean energy programs gutted on cue. Foreign policy decisions are being made based on who buys Trump's crypto coins or gifts Trump a private jet - Qatar, hello? No other president gained this sort of personal profit while in office - Jimmy Carter famously sold his peanut farm to avoid any legume-related conflicts of interest.
You can play "both sides" "whataboutism" until the cows come home but it's a frankly lazy analysis to just say everyone is the same instead of digging into the facts. Just look at which party favored extending massive tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting health care to the rest of us vs. which party opposed it. You don't need "partisan glasses" to see and admit reality.
Of course, and it’s up to all of us to constantly push our leaders to do better - that’s how democracy works and it requires all of us getting off our butts, going to town hall meetings, sending tons of emails and making lots of calls, giving money to the best candidates, etc.
Everyone on the Left who ignores the authoritarian actions of those on the Left and only points their fingers at the Right can't be taken seriously.
And election 47 proves it.
Without true accountability for shortcomings, there can be no rehabilitation of the Democratic party. Even Trump is acting VERY differently this term than he was the last, but the Dems seem to be blowing the same horn for a decade now.
I think the critical element that is not acknowledged often by republicans or those who proselytize for "free markets" as though this is something the left opposed, is the almost total market capture by entrenched corporate interests, exercised through lobbying, political donation, revolving door hiring practices. Capitalism and free markets, to bring the benefits that I also believe are inherent in their functioning, MUST be undergirded by the ability to enable new industries to emerge - and outdated ones to die off. At present, "conservatives" side with clearly outmoded industries like coal, which are simply no longer necessary or viable, and put roadblocks in the way of industries like renewables, and other emerging technologies that are inherently more suited for current conditions - and which market forces are driving to prominence. Further, they rail again at the FTC's recent attempts to redefine/better understand monopolistic behavior and prevent market capture by those with the most cash - disregarding the enshittification process that such anticompetitive behavior enables once companies buy up all their rivals . 'True' stakeholder capitalism would be welcome to most on the left. But this corrupted and captured market, obsessed with C-suite and shareholder profit alone, and refusing to innovate or due in the face of change, is too destructive a model to embrace.
Free market is what you have when the government is restricting to its proper function which is to protect rights. To protect rights, the government's job is to run the courts, the police, and the armed forces. The rest is handled by the market. This is what it means to be liberal.
Under such conditions lobbying won't exist since the government will not be able to do anything with regards to private enterprises, and we'll have the best possible products and highest possible standard of living.
I love the diversity of perspectives we get here in this newsletter!
I also very much appreciate Mr. Wood's offering here.
I am however skeptical of the ability for many Democrats to come to the rescue of our market economy because they may dislike what is being done by the reactionaries they deep down wish they had the power to attain the their own agenda.
The culture war aspects of the conflict between these polar populisms really are a distraction. The Right's war on woke and the Left's defense of everything DEI diverts attention away from the devastating consequences they would on the economy.
The Right populists want to liberate the oligarchs from any shred of social responsibility and the Left populists want to eat the oligarchs for breakfast.
Whenever Democrats start talking about "Medicare for All" it seems like they really believe that they can by the sheer power of political will transform 14% of the American economy from one paradigm to another. Imagine the other political and economic interests that would need to be crushed in order to achieve just that item on their agenda. I think only a Blue Caesar could pull it off. As long as a significant portion of the Democratic Party thinks this way about governing I don't see them as leading the cause of defending the market economy.
In the end I think that 21st Century Fascism is pretty much here to stay because enough American voters are sick of politics and yearn to be liberated from the responsibility of the serious work of democracy. They are disillusioned by politicians of all parties over promising and under delivering.
When the dictator comes they may not like what he does but they appreciate that he takes action and actually DOES things.
"...both major parties in the postwar era operated within a broadly shared consensus that was pro-market, pro-freedom, supportive of international engagement, and committed, however unevenly, to a welfare state."
But this is a big contradiction. I don't think you can be both "pro-market, pro-freedom" and committed to a welfare state. The former requires support for rights-protection, the latter requires rights violation.
IOW, both parties were largely politically illiterate and left-wing, slowly but surely spiraling to the more overt authoritarianism we have today.
Far from having a "liberal realignment," today politics is completely overrun by those who don't know the first thing about it.
I think liberalism is indeed the way, but it doesn't look like anyone can even define it correctly. Until we get politically literate experts into politics, those who can advocate for individual rights and rights-protecting government in politics, which will mean capitalism in economics, things are only going to deteriorate.
I also think trying to advocate liberalism without even having a correct definition is only helping authoritarians win by default.
market + freedom + social safety net is just a typical mixed-market economy, and whatever contradiction you see isn't something you have explained. Perhaps it involves the catchphrase "taxation is theft!" but it's interesting that you didn't say so.
I did explain the contradiction in this bit: "The former requires support for rights-protection, the latter requires rights violation."
This contradiction of partly protecting rights, and partly violating rights, (mixed market as you call it) is the spiral of bad politics that has led us to where we are today and will take us to complete authoritarianism real soon.
I think what's needed more urgently than ever are voices in the mainstream that are advocating the actual liberal position: rights-protecting government (in politics), which means capitalism (in economics).
No mixed markets, which is just a slippery slope towards authoritarianism.
So your response avoids endorsing the catchphrase while.... apparently endorsing it. Also interesting. Why use this tortured rhetorical style instead of just saying what you mean?
Anyway, until you solve the problem of negative externalities, as laid out, for example, in section 2.1 of the non-libertarian FAQ[1], you don't have anything close to a viable alternative to the usual mixed-market economy.
I read Atlas Shrugged and summarized it.[2] Wasn't impressed. I think she was more or less cheating by constructing her story in a way that avoids addressing any hard problems.
Well, I thought it makes more sense to speak in basic political theory instead of vapid catch phrases. But yes, I support that catchphrase.
I wasn't evading it; I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt ;)
"Mixed market" is just a transition stage towards authoritarianism, and we are approaching the end of the that journey.
The reality is that you can either accept your imaginary "negative externalities" in a world of unprecedented prosperity, or you get to enjoy authoritarianism, where "negative externalities" will be the least of your problems.
Sadly, it seems that most people today want the latter. Can't have "negative externalities" you see, so we got to have authoritarianism, I guess.
The fish farm scenario is impossible? Is that what you mean by "imaginary"? And I suppose similar concepts like smog, or greenhouse gases affecting Earth's surface temperature, must also be impossible/imaginary, because otherwise it would challenge your ideology. I suppose that's why Atlas Shrugged doesn't address any hard problems either, as they simply don't exist.
Also, do you come over to the UnPopulist expecting anyone at all to accept whatever bizarro-world definition of authoritarianism you are using here?
"If the Democratic Party hopes to once again become the governing party of a dynamic, prosperous nation, it must become more comfortable with the free market—not only in policy, but in rhetoric and temperament." Well, that would require embracing individualism which goes against what Democrats are (collectivists).
"If a liberal pro-growth consensus is to take shape in the aftermath of Trumpism, it will require the Democratic Party to rediscover something that once defined the American tradition at its best: a belief that freedom and progress, both material and moral, are mutually reinforcing." So the Democrats will need to go against multiple decades of Democratic thinking in which material freedom (ie Capitalism) was viewed as immoral?
"The emerging coalition around housing and permitting reform and energy infrastructure suggests an embryonic politics of progress is emerging." What...? The Democrats remain the party of anti-life policies that directly restrict energy and building dependent human progress!
I don't disagree that the US needs a political party that embraces the free market. In fact, I wholeheartedly support that as a necessity for the future. You are most certainly right in your assessment that the Republicans are certainly NOT the free market party it used to (claim to) be but to propose and suggest that it is the Democratic party that is more likely to be the party to become these champions is absurd. It goes against everything that the Democrats have embraced since the Progressives over a century ago.
I think the bigger issue is that it also reverses the causal relationships between political parties and the ideas that are dominant in the culture.
Forming a political party that embraces free markets is not going to win any elections in a culture of collectivists, so it would be a waste of time. Even most "liberals" want the state to control every aspect of our lives, from education, to healthcare, to energy, etc.
No one would vote for such a party.
It's the culture that needs to change, and that requires competent, and politically literate, commentators. Once the culture shifts more towards individual rights, rights-protecting government, and capitalism, then the *existing* parties will shift too, if for no other reason than to win elections.
Political parties are downstream of the culture, and it's the culture that needs to change.
Agreed that being collectivist is the path to popularity at the moment. More likely (and unfortunately), that culture will only actually change once it is impossible to ignore that collectivist policies have driven us into the ground. A good example of that is Milei and Argentina. Nobody could argue that Argentina was anything but on its knees and his pro-individual, pro-capitalism stance was able to win. Sadly, the forces of collectivism are strong and despite what has to be a painful journey back to reality might be derailed just as it is getting going.
The concept of "liberal" usually includes a right to life.
Certainly a huge and heinous crime kicked off the war on October 7, 2023, when the Terrorists killed 1,195 people. This was about 300 soldiers and well over 800 civilians.
However, if the attack had been a military battle, it would imply that the Terrorists had a dramatically lower rate of “collateral damage” than IDF forces in the subsequent war. I don't mind calling it a terrorist attack ― but then, that still leaves the question of what to call the events afterward.
The pattern had been in place since before Netanyahu took power in 2009: every time the Terrorist government killed a citizen of the Democracy, the Democracy would kill perhaps 40 to 100 on the other side and then say something about 'human shields'.” I kind of can see how, to someone who doesn’t think, the right way, and the only way, to defeat terrorists is to *kill all of their human shields*, plus their homes and businesses. But it feels like a stretch.
I think those who have polluted foreign policy with ideas that have led to warfare being approached the same way one might approach a peacetime legal dispute are the ones not thinking the right way about things.
Failing to destroy the Taliban, Hamas, Iranian Mullahs, etc, etc, by any means necessary are all example of inexplicable and total failure of Western foreign policy. I mean, the current approach doesn't even establish deterrence, let alone make any victory possible.
I think we have a very real lack of expertise in politics, foreign policy, and related fields.
Michael Wood is the type of Democrat I could enthusiastically get behind. His overview of the current political landscape is deadly accurate and his values align closely with my own. I fear most Democrats don't see it that way - please prove me wrong.
While many "progressive" Democrats aren't aligned with Michael, consider me: I likely would not have voted for Bush, McCain, or Romney, but in the case of McCain and Romney, I saw some good and bad in all the candidates (Obama, McCain, Romney) and just preferred Obama more. I'm reminded of the last season of The West Wing, when the Democrat still won* ― but both candidates were genuinely good people who would both make good presidents. Previously such people would be on opposite sides of the aisle; today they'd be on the same side.
One of my favorite blogs is Matt Yglesias, a moderate (abundance) Democrat who would probably get along well with Michael Wood. I don't know what Michael thinks of abortion, or welfare, or universal health care, or immigration. But it barely matters to me as long as he can help win an election against the Republicans' new "crank coalition" of illiberal weirdos.**
Though if you think humans don't cause global warming, Michael (*wags finger*), you and I need to have a thoughtful discussion mmkay? I know what I'm talking about in that area.
* he won due to a highly unrealistic Deus Ex machina involving a nuclear power plant that had a meltdown *without any explanation or trigger*. This couldn't happen in real life, betraying a pretty silly 2000-era Democrat anti-nuclear bias, but I digress.
** Well, I would hope that Michael-the-newly-Democrat has *popular* rather than unpopular positions, so as to win the next election afterward too. And I'm weird myself btw, just in a way that is the polar opposite of Trump and co.
No I don't, not unless you can make tinkle down work better, not just for the overlord class and their minions.
Maybe you like him because what he is proposing is about 180 degrees from what a Democrat is?
Democrats like Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren - yes, but also Republicans who favor industrial policy and market interference - which seems to be nearly the entire MAGA world. I do credit Trump for his foreign policy (at least until he makes some bizarre swerve) and for beating back wokeism, as crude as his methods were.
He needs to do a better job against pooty .
Wow. Such a thoroughly thoughtful piece with clear, concise, and ultimately winning arguments! I’m going to share this across all my feeds!
Excellent essay.
Approaching elections on the East and West coasts will reveal which direction the Democratic Party is going. First, California's gubernatorial election; second, New York City's mayoral election. Compare how they treat the issue of housing and its cost. The Californians are generally trying to relax regulation which drives up the cost of housing and limits its supply. The leading mayoral candidate in NYC, Mamdani, wants even more rent control and wants the city itself to build housing. If both the California and New York City Democrats win and apply their proposals as policy, the next question will be which approach to housing and its fiscal implications will be adopted by Democrats in other states like Illinois and Massachusetts.
I'm not a free market radical but there is a big hole in Mamdanis housing plan. You can't bankrupt landlords that won't work, you just end up with abandoned property and blight. More housing needs to be built.
Calling Bernie Sanders an unserious radical grossly downplays his appeal to a large section of the population. Is it radical to say that everyone in America should receive healthcare if they pay their taxes? Is it radical to say that billionaires and large corporations have a responsibility to pay more into the system than the poor? If so, then there are a lot of people who agree with and embrace this "radicalism." It's possible to support these kinds of common-sense reforms while embracing the free market at the same time. People need something to aspire to, the common good of the country and their fellow Americans. A philosophy focused around worshiping the free market without a social component will not inspire people to come together for their country. We need something more holistic.
Agree. People who point to radical left political policies don't give any examples I consider way out. It used to be that the main differences between the parties was spending priorities. Social issues always were the problem, I guess.
Yup.
thank you!
came to say this - thank you :)
100 percent agree.
There are HUGE holes in this analysis. To start, the author does not even mention the oligarchy that is driving and supporting Trumpism as it has Putinism. The all-purpose and increasingly meaningless term “populism” is stretched to paper over the reality of billionaires like the one in the White House, the one who drove DOGE and all the ones in the background of Trump’s inauguration happy to get their massive tax cuts while the populace they sell their phony “populism” to gets their health care, food stamps and infrastructure slashed. The only “populism” this regime is selling is the cultural kind, e.g., small town jealousy of big city, college educated folks sippng lattes, which is mostly just a distraction from the billionaires robbing us blind. I have nothing against the abundance discussion, which can be useful, but not if we close our eyes to the ugly class realities driving the Trump/Fox fascist propaganda machine.
Are you stating that there are NO Dems operating in the 'ogilarchy'?
As if big money is not washing their hands on the Left? All of this 'bogey man is around the corner' sensationalism is now just empty and hollow.
Didn't they dump over $1BIL into Kamala's campaign?
Did you hear about how much the spaces cost in the Democratic convention in Chicago?
Let's stop with all of the partisan glasses and start realizing that it's not a 'one party problem'.
I did not say that. But the pay for play mentality has never been as naked as it is in this administration. Big Oil gave $500 million to Republicans and are getting clean energy programs gutted on cue. Foreign policy decisions are being made based on who buys Trump's crypto coins or gifts Trump a private jet - Qatar, hello? No other president gained this sort of personal profit while in office - Jimmy Carter famously sold his peanut farm to avoid any legume-related conflicts of interest.
You can play "both sides" "whataboutism" until the cows come home but it's a frankly lazy analysis to just say everyone is the same instead of digging into the facts. Just look at which party favored extending massive tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting health care to the rest of us vs. which party opposed it. You don't need "partisan glasses" to see and admit reality.
Sure thing, the trumpers are the most corrupt but can't we Democrats do better ?
Of course, and it’s up to all of us to constantly push our leaders to do better - that’s how democracy works and it requires all of us getting off our butts, going to town hall meetings, sending tons of emails and making lots of calls, giving money to the best candidates, etc.
Yeah the upper echelons of both parties are populated with self serving crooks.
Both parties were committed to a robust welfare state ? You must be thinking about pre 1980 .
Everyone on the Left who ignores the authoritarian actions of those on the Left and only points their fingers at the Right can't be taken seriously.
And election 47 proves it.
Without true accountability for shortcomings, there can be no rehabilitation of the Democratic party. Even Trump is acting VERY differently this term than he was the last, but the Dems seem to be blowing the same horn for a decade now.
I think the critical element that is not acknowledged often by republicans or those who proselytize for "free markets" as though this is something the left opposed, is the almost total market capture by entrenched corporate interests, exercised through lobbying, political donation, revolving door hiring practices. Capitalism and free markets, to bring the benefits that I also believe are inherent in their functioning, MUST be undergirded by the ability to enable new industries to emerge - and outdated ones to die off. At present, "conservatives" side with clearly outmoded industries like coal, which are simply no longer necessary or viable, and put roadblocks in the way of industries like renewables, and other emerging technologies that are inherently more suited for current conditions - and which market forces are driving to prominence. Further, they rail again at the FTC's recent attempts to redefine/better understand monopolistic behavior and prevent market capture by those with the most cash - disregarding the enshittification process that such anticompetitive behavior enables once companies buy up all their rivals . 'True' stakeholder capitalism would be welcome to most on the left. But this corrupted and captured market, obsessed with C-suite and shareholder profit alone, and refusing to innovate or due in the face of change, is too destructive a model to embrace.
Free market is what you have when the government is restricting to its proper function which is to protect rights. To protect rights, the government's job is to run the courts, the police, and the armed forces. The rest is handled by the market. This is what it means to be liberal.
Under such conditions lobbying won't exist since the government will not be able to do anything with regards to private enterprises, and we'll have the best possible products and highest possible standard of living.
Thank you for this important note!
I love the diversity of perspectives we get here in this newsletter!
I also very much appreciate Mr. Wood's offering here.
I am however skeptical of the ability for many Democrats to come to the rescue of our market economy because they may dislike what is being done by the reactionaries they deep down wish they had the power to attain the their own agenda.
The culture war aspects of the conflict between these polar populisms really are a distraction. The Right's war on woke and the Left's defense of everything DEI diverts attention away from the devastating consequences they would on the economy.
The Right populists want to liberate the oligarchs from any shred of social responsibility and the Left populists want to eat the oligarchs for breakfast.
Whenever Democrats start talking about "Medicare for All" it seems like they really believe that they can by the sheer power of political will transform 14% of the American economy from one paradigm to another. Imagine the other political and economic interests that would need to be crushed in order to achieve just that item on their agenda. I think only a Blue Caesar could pull it off. As long as a significant portion of the Democratic Party thinks this way about governing I don't see them as leading the cause of defending the market economy.
In the end I think that 21st Century Fascism is pretty much here to stay because enough American voters are sick of politics and yearn to be liberated from the responsibility of the serious work of democracy. They are disillusioned by politicians of all parties over promising and under delivering.
When the dictator comes they may not like what he does but they appreciate that he takes action and actually DOES things.
"...both major parties in the postwar era operated within a broadly shared consensus that was pro-market, pro-freedom, supportive of international engagement, and committed, however unevenly, to a welfare state."
But this is a big contradiction. I don't think you can be both "pro-market, pro-freedom" and committed to a welfare state. The former requires support for rights-protection, the latter requires rights violation.
IOW, both parties were largely politically illiterate and left-wing, slowly but surely spiraling to the more overt authoritarianism we have today.
Far from having a "liberal realignment," today politics is completely overrun by those who don't know the first thing about it.
I think liberalism is indeed the way, but it doesn't look like anyone can even define it correctly. Until we get politically literate experts into politics, those who can advocate for individual rights and rights-protecting government in politics, which will mean capitalism in economics, things are only going to deteriorate.
I also think trying to advocate liberalism without even having a correct definition is only helping authoritarians win by default.
market + freedom + social safety net is just a typical mixed-market economy, and whatever contradiction you see isn't something you have explained. Perhaps it involves the catchphrase "taxation is theft!" but it's interesting that you didn't say so.
I did explain the contradiction in this bit: "The former requires support for rights-protection, the latter requires rights violation."
This contradiction of partly protecting rights, and partly violating rights, (mixed market as you call it) is the spiral of bad politics that has led us to where we are today and will take us to complete authoritarianism real soon.
I think what's needed more urgently than ever are voices in the mainstream that are advocating the actual liberal position: rights-protecting government (in politics), which means capitalism (in economics).
No mixed markets, which is just a slippery slope towards authoritarianism.
So your response avoids endorsing the catchphrase while.... apparently endorsing it. Also interesting. Why use this tortured rhetorical style instead of just saying what you mean?
Anyway, until you solve the problem of negative externalities, as laid out, for example, in section 2.1 of the non-libertarian FAQ[1], you don't have anything close to a viable alternative to the usual mixed-market economy.
I read Atlas Shrugged and summarized it.[2] Wasn't impressed. I think she was more or less cheating by constructing her story in a way that avoids addressing any hard problems.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/
[2] https://david.loyc.net/misc/Atlas-Shrugged-summary
Well, I thought it makes more sense to speak in basic political theory instead of vapid catch phrases. But yes, I support that catchphrase.
I wasn't evading it; I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt ;)
"Mixed market" is just a transition stage towards authoritarianism, and we are approaching the end of the that journey.
The reality is that you can either accept your imaginary "negative externalities" in a world of unprecedented prosperity, or you get to enjoy authoritarianism, where "negative externalities" will be the least of your problems.
Sadly, it seems that most people today want the latter. Can't have "negative externalities" you see, so we got to have authoritarianism, I guess.
The fish farm scenario is impossible? Is that what you mean by "imaginary"? And I suppose similar concepts like smog, or greenhouse gases affecting Earth's surface temperature, must also be impossible/imaginary, because otherwise it would challenge your ideology. I suppose that's why Atlas Shrugged doesn't address any hard problems either, as they simply don't exist.
Also, do you come over to the UnPopulist expecting anyone at all to accept whatever bizarro-world definition of authoritarianism you are using here?
Yes, most of that is imaginary, but authoritarianism would not be the solution to any problems anyway, real or imagined.
And I come over to the Unpopulist because it advertises itself as "liberal," though I don't see any evidence of that.
But a better question is: why are authoritarians like you on a site claiming to be liberal though?
"If the Democratic Party hopes to once again become the governing party of a dynamic, prosperous nation, it must become more comfortable with the free market—not only in policy, but in rhetoric and temperament." Well, that would require embracing individualism which goes against what Democrats are (collectivists).
"If a liberal pro-growth consensus is to take shape in the aftermath of Trumpism, it will require the Democratic Party to rediscover something that once defined the American tradition at its best: a belief that freedom and progress, both material and moral, are mutually reinforcing." So the Democrats will need to go against multiple decades of Democratic thinking in which material freedom (ie Capitalism) was viewed as immoral?
"The emerging coalition around housing and permitting reform and energy infrastructure suggests an embryonic politics of progress is emerging." What...? The Democrats remain the party of anti-life policies that directly restrict energy and building dependent human progress!
I don't disagree that the US needs a political party that embraces the free market. In fact, I wholeheartedly support that as a necessity for the future. You are most certainly right in your assessment that the Republicans are certainly NOT the free market party it used to (claim to) be but to propose and suggest that it is the Democratic party that is more likely to be the party to become these champions is absurd. It goes against everything that the Democrats have embraced since the Progressives over a century ago.
I think the bigger issue is that it also reverses the causal relationships between political parties and the ideas that are dominant in the culture.
Forming a political party that embraces free markets is not going to win any elections in a culture of collectivists, so it would be a waste of time. Even most "liberals" want the state to control every aspect of our lives, from education, to healthcare, to energy, etc.
No one would vote for such a party.
It's the culture that needs to change, and that requires competent, and politically literate, commentators. Once the culture shifts more towards individual rights, rights-protecting government, and capitalism, then the *existing* parties will shift too, if for no other reason than to win elections.
Political parties are downstream of the culture, and it's the culture that needs to change.
Agreed that being collectivist is the path to popularity at the moment. More likely (and unfortunately), that culture will only actually change once it is impossible to ignore that collectivist policies have driven us into the ground. A good example of that is Milei and Argentina. Nobody could argue that Argentina was anything but on its knees and his pro-individual, pro-capitalism stance was able to win. Sadly, the forces of collectivism are strong and despite what has to be a painful journey back to reality might be derailed just as it is getting going.
You mention that there is one party that supports state ownership, and that it's not the Dems. Which party is it? Should I read more carefully?
The concept of "liberal" usually includes a right to life.
Certainly a huge and heinous crime kicked off the war on October 7, 2023, when the Terrorists killed 1,195 people. This was about 300 soldiers and well over 800 civilians.
However, if the attack had been a military battle, it would imply that the Terrorists had a dramatically lower rate of “collateral damage” than IDF forces in the subsequent war. I don't mind calling it a terrorist attack ― but then, that still leaves the question of what to call the events afterward.
The pattern had been in place since before Netanyahu took power in 2009: every time the Terrorist government killed a citizen of the Democracy, the Democracy would kill perhaps 40 to 100 on the other side and then say something about 'human shields'.” I kind of can see how, to someone who doesn’t think, the right way, and the only way, to defeat terrorists is to *kill all of their human shields*, plus their homes and businesses. But it feels like a stretch.
I think those who have polluted foreign policy with ideas that have led to warfare being approached the same way one might approach a peacetime legal dispute are the ones not thinking the right way about things.
Failing to destroy the Taliban, Hamas, Iranian Mullahs, etc, etc, by any means necessary are all example of inexplicable and total failure of Western foreign policy. I mean, the current approach doesn't even establish deterrence, let alone make any victory possible.
I think we have a very real lack of expertise in politics, foreign policy, and related fields.