Thank you for writing this. I have been continuously frustrated by the notions (put out by even the most well intentioned publications and public figures) that men like Hawley are simple opportunists with a deep need for individual power, fame, and adulation. It has seemed obvious to me for years that he, Cruz, Rubio and others are primarily motivated by a drive to use government to force "Real AmericaTM's" mores, religion, and recreational proclivities down everyone else's throats.
I'm dubious that the video puts any dent at all in Hawley's ambitions. Trumpistas wave away much more severe facts about their hero, I think that they will do the same for Hawley when he takes up that mantle.
Thank you for the illuminating insights onto Josh Hawley. I continue to grapple with 2 questions: 1) what type of person/aberrant personality believes that their perspective on a country is not only the sole correct one, but the end justifies the means because his belief system (above all others) is the right one? and 2) why do his constituents believe that a man who not only has never walked in their shoes (but is the product of an elite education and doesn't even live in Missouri) understand and advocates for them, even though he's never put forth a proposal that would enhance their health, savings, pay, retirement, family leave, children, etc?
The norm of most people is that Josh Hawley should be the sole arbiter of their belief system? He's essentially establishing himself as a god. My question was how someone could view themselves in this manner.
I understand that their priorities differ, which is fine, but I don't understand why they place no value at all on their actual situation and that of their children and grandchildren.
They would ask the same of you. They see society as disintegrating, and a strong leader like Trump or Hawley (not necessarily one of these two, and a strong leader is not a "god") as necessary to stop and then reverse the disastrous course it is on. They believe this reversal is essential for the future well being of their children, and that it is FAR more important than things like how big a health care subsidy they get from the gubmint (which they believe is immoral in the first place: people should take care of themselves, and if they can't, through no fault of their own, they should fall back on voluntary charity from friends and neighbors).
You may not like or agree with this worldview (I don't like or agree with it), but I also don't think that it is very hard to understand. And failure to understand it makes it much harder to oppose effectively.
Regarding your first question: is this not exactly what's going on right now with the liberal left? They're constantly telling people who think differently than them that they need to adhere to their view of the world or else.
Take Twitter, Facebook, etc. Something that ARP calls "the chief mechanism by which America’s cosmopolitan spirit and culture—a by-product of its classical liberal commitments—develops and spreads." They banned everyone who questioned the covid narrative (as one example among many). Is that really the mechanism that... Classical liberal commitments adheres to? Banning people for wrongthink? I don't understand how big tech is the chief mechanism by which America's cosmopolitan spirit spreads. Is banning people for wrongthink essential to maintaining liberty? Basically unpersoning them. I seem to believe this is a contradiction in terms.
Are you suggesting that your response would be a word salad of endless grievance?
BTW, the appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reasoning. I'm confident that both you and I are capable of critical thinking and articulating those views. But I digress.
I think there's a fundamental difference between private social media companies deciding what content to publish on their spaces, and using the organs of the state to impose your singular idea of the common good.
That is until those social media companies basically run your government and start pushing for hate speech laws and outlawing other private companies because they promote hate speech (allegedly).
Look what they did with parler. Look what they did to gab.ai. Often times, instead of trying to use the law to get them out, they use financial prowess to get them out. Great "free" market there, bud.
I mean, what's your alternative? Have the government force companies to carry content? If companies don't want to associate with alt-right fever swamps, that's their choice.
Big tech is more than just social media, and it’s about more than just the culture war, and liberty can flourish a million ways online.
Hawley wants to shape the online world on governmental whim. Video games are bad, and Loot box’s in them are bad, so he wants government to ban loot boxes and hurt an industry he doesn’t like. Pornography is bad, so he cheered when Mastercard stopped processing pornhub payments, and he introduced legislation to harm online porn purveyor and creator businesses because it’s bad. He’s specifically looking to use government to hurt things he doesn’t like in broad ways.
Do you think video games and pormography are NOT part of the culture war?
Because I'd argue that it really is.
As a Canadian, I don't think I should have to tell you the things that "liberals" are doing regarding the internet in my country. To go after one guy on the right should not be giving Leftists the freedom to do what they will with the internet. Interestingly, I doubt I'll hear anything about that from anyone here, after all, Justin Trudeau is basically opening our borders to anyone. I mean, if he's doing that, classical liberals seem to be more than happy to turn a blind eye to all of the other attacks on liberty that they do. Covid restrictions being another example.
If I may point out another issue with your argument, I would like to see someone tell me why pormography is a social good. Though I'm sure I'll get a lot of "more ways to make money" because that's all that seems to really matter to these folks anyway, right?
- Have fascist style views on the individual and family life
- Are not focusing on "conserving" but on changing and reconstructing institutions and societies even if that results in violence, wars, dictatorship, crimes against humanity etc
This is quite the succinct summation of Hawley's authoritarian populist vision, and that of the broader movement of National Conservatism. One could almost divide the NatCons into three camps---those who wish to take us back to the 1950s; those who wish to take us back to the 1850s, and those who want to take us back to the 1150s. It's s common belief that the principles of liberal democracy cannot be trusted to ensure their vision of the common good, so it must be undone.
Not much doubt in my mind that Hawley was one of the Senators Trump called during the 187 minutes he sat & watched in the WH private dining room while the Capitol was under attack.
By aligning himself with the insurrection mob largely made up of non thinking , poorly educated thugs, he has defiled any philosophical legitimacy he may have pretended to espouse. A cheap, self-aggrandizing Trampian.
Thank you for writing this. I have been continuously frustrated by the notions (put out by even the most well intentioned publications and public figures) that men like Hawley are simple opportunists with a deep need for individual power, fame, and adulation. It has seemed obvious to me for years that he, Cruz, Rubio and others are primarily motivated by a drive to use government to force "Real AmericaTM's" mores, religion, and recreational proclivities down everyone else's throats.
I'm dubious that the video puts any dent at all in Hawley's ambitions. Trumpistas wave away much more severe facts about their hero, I think that they will do the same for Hawley when he takes up that mantle.
Thank you for the illuminating insights onto Josh Hawley. I continue to grapple with 2 questions: 1) what type of person/aberrant personality believes that their perspective on a country is not only the sole correct one, but the end justifies the means because his belief system (above all others) is the right one? and 2) why do his constituents believe that a man who not only has never walked in their shoes (but is the product of an elite education and doesn't even live in Missouri) understand and advocates for them, even though he's never put forth a proposal that would enhance their health, savings, pay, retirement, family leave, children, etc?
(1) is not aberrant, it is the norm in the vast majority of people.
(2) because their priorities are not the things you list: their priorities are Hawley's priorities, which were well explained in the post.
The norm of most people is that Josh Hawley should be the sole arbiter of their belief system? He's essentially establishing himself as a god. My question was how someone could view themselves in this manner.
I understand that their priorities differ, which is fine, but I don't understand why they place no value at all on their actual situation and that of their children and grandchildren.
They would ask the same of you. They see society as disintegrating, and a strong leader like Trump or Hawley (not necessarily one of these two, and a strong leader is not a "god") as necessary to stop and then reverse the disastrous course it is on. They believe this reversal is essential for the future well being of their children, and that it is FAR more important than things like how big a health care subsidy they get from the gubmint (which they believe is immoral in the first place: people should take care of themselves, and if they can't, through no fault of their own, they should fall back on voluntary charity from friends and neighbors).
You may not like or agree with this worldview (I don't like or agree with it), but I also don't think that it is very hard to understand. And failure to understand it makes it much harder to oppose effectively.
Thank you, I appreciate your insights.
Regarding your first question: is this not exactly what's going on right now with the liberal left? They're constantly telling people who think differently than them that they need to adhere to their view of the world or else.
Take Twitter, Facebook, etc. Something that ARP calls "the chief mechanism by which America’s cosmopolitan spirit and culture—a by-product of its classical liberal commitments—develops and spreads." They banned everyone who questioned the covid narrative (as one example among many). Is that really the mechanism that... Classical liberal commitments adheres to? Banning people for wrongthink? I don't understand how big tech is the chief mechanism by which America's cosmopolitan spirit spreads. Is banning people for wrongthink essential to maintaining liberty? Basically unpersoning them. I seem to believe this is a contradiction in terms.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
I'll wait for the author to respond, since I'm seeking an informed response vs a word salad of endless grievance.
Are you suggesting that your response would be a word salad of endless grievance?
BTW, the appeal to authority is a fallacy for a reasoning. I'm confident that both you and I are capable of critical thinking and articulating those views. But I digress.
I think there's a fundamental difference between private social media companies deciding what content to publish on their spaces, and using the organs of the state to impose your singular idea of the common good.
That is until those social media companies basically run your government and start pushing for hate speech laws and outlawing other private companies because they promote hate speech (allegedly).
Look what they did with parler. Look what they did to gab.ai. Often times, instead of trying to use the law to get them out, they use financial prowess to get them out. Great "free" market there, bud.
I mean, what's your alternative? Have the government force companies to carry content? If companies don't want to associate with alt-right fever swamps, that's their choice.
Big tech is more than just social media, and it’s about more than just the culture war, and liberty can flourish a million ways online.
Hawley wants to shape the online world on governmental whim. Video games are bad, and Loot box’s in them are bad, so he wants government to ban loot boxes and hurt an industry he doesn’t like. Pornography is bad, so he cheered when Mastercard stopped processing pornhub payments, and he introduced legislation to harm online porn purveyor and creator businesses because it’s bad. He’s specifically looking to use government to hurt things he doesn’t like in broad ways.
Do you think video games and pormography are NOT part of the culture war?
Because I'd argue that it really is.
As a Canadian, I don't think I should have to tell you the things that "liberals" are doing regarding the internet in my country. To go after one guy on the right should not be giving Leftists the freedom to do what they will with the internet. Interestingly, I doubt I'll hear anything about that from anyone here, after all, Justin Trudeau is basically opening our borders to anyone. I mean, if he's doing that, classical liberals seem to be more than happy to turn a blind eye to all of the other attacks on liberty that they do. Covid restrictions being another example.
If I may point out another issue with your argument, I would like to see someone tell me why pormography is a social good. Though I'm sure I'll get a lot of "more ways to make money" because that's all that seems to really matter to these folks anyway, right?
A very short-sighted fool embracing the worst elements in our otherwise great country.
Basically, the guy is a right-wing collectivist.
Note that nationalist conservatives are :
- Similar to socialists regarding economy
- Have fascist style views on the individual and family life
- Are not focusing on "conserving" but on changing and reconstructing institutions and societies even if that results in violence, wars, dictatorship, crimes against humanity etc
This is quite the succinct summation of Hawley's authoritarian populist vision, and that of the broader movement of National Conservatism. One could almost divide the NatCons into three camps---those who wish to take us back to the 1950s; those who wish to take us back to the 1850s, and those who want to take us back to the 1150s. It's s common belief that the principles of liberal democracy cannot be trusted to ensure their vision of the common good, so it must be undone.
Not much doubt in my mind that Hawley was one of the Senators Trump called during the 187 minutes he sat & watched in the WH private dining room while the Capitol was under attack.
By aligning himself with the insurrection mob largely made up of non thinking , poorly educated thugs, he has defiled any philosophical legitimacy he may have pretended to espouse. A cheap, self-aggrandizing Trampian.