The fight you have undertaken is tough as many of the comments here would show. Many of the Modi supporters in India are worried that Kamala Harris will not be friendly to India's interests. But I tell them Kamala Harris win over Trump is important for survival of the world because America Matters we like it or not.
America does matter because it is the most powerful country in the world based on liberal institutions (even if those institutions are currently in a state of neglect and disrepair). I think electing Harris is a necessary but insufficient step in restoring liberalism. If she is victorious in November, we will still have a great deal of work ahead of us.
Part of this work will require abandoning the destructive, isolationist, "America First" policies that have resurfaced under Trumpism, without retreating to the equally destructive pragmatism of Realpolitik. This will be one of the more challenging tasks we face because I don't think America has ever had a solely principle-based foreign policy. By this, I mean a foreign policy that reshapes the meaning of "American interest" to include:
1. A greater focus on the long-term consequences of our actions, and
2. An understanding that America is just one nation (albeit the most powerful and important one) *in an increasingly interconnected world* and an appreciation for everything that entails.
In my opinion, a genuine, principle-based foreign should automatically force our leaders to re-evaluate American interests in the broader context of *the long-term best interest of the world as a whole*. Initially, this sounds either misguided or impossible because we're accustomed to believing that American interests are "fundamentally in conflict" with the interests of other nations. But a true understanding of the principles I've outlined above requires grappling with the idea that every nation, including India, is also "a nation in the world" so anything that is in the long-term best interests of the world, will also be in the long-term best interests of India (and all other nations).
The other reason this seems impossible or misguided is because, like America, the leaders of other nations are also accustomed to believing that their country's national interests are in conflict with other nations. In order to account for this, we need to consider not just what other nations *believe* is in their best interests but rather what is *actually* in their best interests (ie what is in the long-term best interest of every citizen of that country)
This brings up an issue I'm curious about. Do you actually think Modi represents what's in the *actual* best interests of India or only *his personal belief* about what's in the best interest of India? Why?
And we in this part of the world are also watching with interest if the USA would have a woman as President for the first time in history. I don't know why Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burns and India accepted women as leaders while America the most powerful democracy is still to do this.
I encountered "The UnPopulist" a few years ago when it was referenced by other writers I subscribe to on Substack. Those articles stood out for their insight and nuance but it was only recently that I discovered the full scope of your content. I enjoyed hearing about your origin story. Congratulations on turning three and many milestones you've achieved in this short time. I appreciate your commitment to reviving liberalism in America and look forward to seeing this much-needed imitative grow and flourish. Thank you!
We currently have two options before us: A Harris Presidency or a Trump one. Putting aside any deficits you may perceive "in the Harris-Walz agenda", which of those two options do you think would be more favorable to the principle of Freedom of Speech?
The one you think might be overly restrictive in moderating online content? Or the one headed by a man who has:
1. Publicly expressed approval for "terminating the Constitution"
2. Called the media "the enemy of the people"
3. Seemed upset that he couldn't ask the national guard to just "shoot protestors" who were peacefully protesting a cause he didn't support
4. Threatened state officials who refused to lie and say that he won a free and fair election
I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. If you genuinely value "Freedom of Speech", it should be abundantly clear which candidate poses the greatest threat to the First Amendment.
Like all never trumpers, they are a gaggle of directionless retards, with no positive politic, But rather a mere reflexive aversion to whatever is proposed by the right. This is because they are fundamentally true conservatives,at least in the pejorative sense, that is, people who yearn for a fictitious version of a real life past that itself is not attainable.
They, like the buckleys cheneys and romneys that they suck up to, are perpetually 3 years behind.
I don’t know how you can call the Reagan-era GOP “decent” with a straight face when Reagan instigated Iran-Contra, enhanced executive power via presidential signing statements, had a cabinet rivaling Grant’s in corruption (Allen, Deaver, Nofziger, Meese, Ill Wind, Pierce, Donovan, Lavelle, etc.), fought pornography & obscenity in violation of the First Amendment & ramped up the racist War on Drugs (Huebert 2010; Eland 2014, 2017); I’ll grant the he was better than Trump, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a self-described liberal publication to have higher standards.
Wow! Tom Shull, you are so liberal that you thoughts and pov are distorted. You create an “us and them” America . Please balance your editors. This is like listening to NPR. 88 liberal journalists and not one conservative American.
One benefit of a Trump win is that it will relegate you and other sub-humanas like your fellow the unpopular writer Cathy Young into the curb of history, far far away from any political power
I support the UnPopulist's goals for the present and future.
I must ask this question, though. What do you mean when you write in this piece, 'We are not oblivious to the murderous sprees that the left is capable of in the name of helping the underdogs in society.' Please clarify the emotion laden wording with specificity for me.
Oh, I am concerned. It's not so much that they are seeking to destroy, as it is, they just don't know better. Often, they feel they are doing right. Unfortunately they remain close minded. Confucius said, "Find me someone willing to learn, teach him. Find me someone who thinks they know, shun him"
If it’s a great question, isn’t it worth investigating? If I thought half the people in this country were consciously seeking to destroy it, I would definitely be concerned.
There is no America. There is just real land on which real folks really live. That is all.
The right wing and the left wing are just wings of the same bird: progressiveness.
Progressives are folks who think that using a framework that empowers folks to rob folks to finance assaults by folks against folks, is the proper way to address their own discomfort at other folks' behaviour on real estate to which the uncomfortable folks have no individual claim. Progressives ascribe to this structure superior social status over that of individuals. Most folks call this structure government.
Punitive progressives think that folks are evil and that the structure empowers some folks to punish, through using up to lethal force, other folks for being human, that is, for being evil. Other folks, (and these progressives) call them(selves) conservatives.
Palliative progressives think that folks are good and that the structure empowers some folks to punish, through using up to lethal force, other folks for being human, that is, for not being good enough. Other folks, (and these progressives) call them(selves) liberals.
Socialism is a method that folks use to manage folks behaviour through reward and retribution. It is based an illusion that a structure manages anything, or that a few power-lusting folks are smart enough to manage most other folks.
Socialism is just a way to advance progressives' objectives:
Interesting use of the word “folks”. Fear-mongering against socialism in America is a straw-man argument, a logical fallacy. America never has embraced, and likely never will embrace, socialism. I personally believe that socialized healthcare and retirement are good for the people and we should continue to allow collectivity in these areas. But other than those two carveouts, America, the land of rugged individualism and bootstraps is never going to embrace socialism.
A nation without government might sound like a utopia to some, but it sounds like a dystopian hell to me. Without government, who’s to protect the people from an out of control capitalism that will poison our water, our air, and the earth in which we grow food? Capitalism has yet to self-regulate.
Social norms are good, but they rely on good faith actors; for stability and safety, rule-of-law is necessary to protect citizens against the bad faith actors who seem to be proliferating.
“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Congratulations on making it three years! Great work having an enduring impact, going back much further than that.
Thank you!
The fight you have undertaken is tough as many of the comments here would show. Many of the Modi supporters in India are worried that Kamala Harris will not be friendly to India's interests. But I tell them Kamala Harris win over Trump is important for survival of the world because America Matters we like it or not.
America does matter because it is the most powerful country in the world based on liberal institutions (even if those institutions are currently in a state of neglect and disrepair). I think electing Harris is a necessary but insufficient step in restoring liberalism. If she is victorious in November, we will still have a great deal of work ahead of us.
Part of this work will require abandoning the destructive, isolationist, "America First" policies that have resurfaced under Trumpism, without retreating to the equally destructive pragmatism of Realpolitik. This will be one of the more challenging tasks we face because I don't think America has ever had a solely principle-based foreign policy. By this, I mean a foreign policy that reshapes the meaning of "American interest" to include:
1. A greater focus on the long-term consequences of our actions, and
2. An understanding that America is just one nation (albeit the most powerful and important one) *in an increasingly interconnected world* and an appreciation for everything that entails.
In my opinion, a genuine, principle-based foreign should automatically force our leaders to re-evaluate American interests in the broader context of *the long-term best interest of the world as a whole*. Initially, this sounds either misguided or impossible because we're accustomed to believing that American interests are "fundamentally in conflict" with the interests of other nations. But a true understanding of the principles I've outlined above requires grappling with the idea that every nation, including India, is also "a nation in the world" so anything that is in the long-term best interests of the world, will also be in the long-term best interests of India (and all other nations).
The other reason this seems impossible or misguided is because, like America, the leaders of other nations are also accustomed to believing that their country's national interests are in conflict with other nations. In order to account for this, we need to consider not just what other nations *believe* is in their best interests but rather what is *actually* in their best interests (ie what is in the long-term best interest of every citizen of that country)
This brings up an issue I'm curious about. Do you actually think Modi represents what's in the *actual* best interests of India or only *his personal belief* about what's in the best interest of India? Why?
And we in this part of the world are also watching with interest if the USA would have a woman as President for the first time in history. I don't know why Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burns and India accepted women as leaders while America the most powerful democracy is still to do this.
I encountered "The UnPopulist" a few years ago when it was referenced by other writers I subscribe to on Substack. Those articles stood out for their insight and nuance but it was only recently that I discovered the full scope of your content. I enjoyed hearing about your origin story. Congratulations on turning three and many milestones you've achieved in this short time. I appreciate your commitment to reviving liberalism in America and look forward to seeing this much-needed imitative grow and flourish. Thank you!
Clearly this site is afraid to attack Harris-Walz despite their anti-free speech agenda. https://www.thetruthfairy.info/p/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-and-our?r=3rgcb&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
We currently have two options before us: A Harris Presidency or a Trump one. Putting aside any deficits you may perceive "in the Harris-Walz agenda", which of those two options do you think would be more favorable to the principle of Freedom of Speech?
The one you think might be overly restrictive in moderating online content? Or the one headed by a man who has:
1. Publicly expressed approval for "terminating the Constitution"
2. Called the media "the enemy of the people"
3. Seemed upset that he couldn't ask the national guard to just "shoot protestors" who were peacefully protesting a cause he didn't support
4. Threatened state officials who refused to lie and say that he won a free and fair election
I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. If you genuinely value "Freedom of Speech", it should be abundantly clear which candidate poses the greatest threat to the First Amendment.
I wasn't writing about Trump, I was writing about the Democratic Party and Harris-Walz.
If the best you can do for Harris-Walz is to say "Trump is worse," then you concede the point.
Like all never trumpers, they are a gaggle of directionless retards, with no positive politic, But rather a mere reflexive aversion to whatever is proposed by the right. This is because they are fundamentally true conservatives,at least in the pejorative sense, that is, people who yearn for a fictitious version of a real life past that itself is not attainable.
They, like the buckleys cheneys and romneys that they suck up to, are perpetually 3 years behind.
I don’t know how you can call the Reagan-era GOP “decent” with a straight face when Reagan instigated Iran-Contra, enhanced executive power via presidential signing statements, had a cabinet rivaling Grant’s in corruption (Allen, Deaver, Nofziger, Meese, Ill Wind, Pierce, Donovan, Lavelle, etc.), fought pornography & obscenity in violation of the First Amendment & ramped up the racist War on Drugs (Huebert 2010; Eland 2014, 2017); I’ll grant the he was better than Trump, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a self-described liberal publication to have higher standards.
Wow! Tom Shull, you are so liberal that you thoughts and pov are distorted. You create an “us and them” America . Please balance your editors. This is like listening to NPR. 88 liberal journalists and not one conservative American.
Just curious, how would you define conservative?
Pro America
Ok. I’m assuming by that, you’re implying that liberals are anti-American. If that’s true, I guess the logical question is:
Why would liberal Americans, who are, let’s remember, citizens of America, NOT want what’s best for the country they live in?
One benefit of a Trump win is that it will relegate you and other sub-humanas like your fellow the unpopular writer Cathy Young into the curb of history, far far away from any political power
I support the UnPopulist's goals for the present and future.
I must ask this question, though. What do you mean when you write in this piece, 'We are not oblivious to the murderous sprees that the left is capable of in the name of helping the underdogs in society.' Please clarify the emotion laden wording with specificity for me.
I was thinking historically as in Robespierre's France. The left's hatred of the "oligarchs" has led to some very grim results in the past.
Mao and Stalin come to mind.
Oh, I am concerned. It's not so much that they are seeking to destroy, as it is, they just don't know better. Often, they feel they are doing right. Unfortunately they remain close minded. Confucius said, "Find me someone willing to learn, teach him. Find me someone who thinks they know, shun him"
Again, a great question. Why wouldn’t liberals want what is best for the country? I don’t know, but that’s how they act and vote.
If it’s a great question, isn’t it worth investigating? If I thought half the people in this country were consciously seeking to destroy it, I would definitely be concerned.
@Shikha Dalmia and Landry Ayres
There is no America. There is just real land on which real folks really live. That is all.
The right wing and the left wing are just wings of the same bird: progressiveness.
Progressives are folks who think that using a framework that empowers folks to rob folks to finance assaults by folks against folks, is the proper way to address their own discomfort at other folks' behaviour on real estate to which the uncomfortable folks have no individual claim. Progressives ascribe to this structure superior social status over that of individuals. Most folks call this structure government.
Punitive progressives think that folks are evil and that the structure empowers some folks to punish, through using up to lethal force, other folks for being human, that is, for being evil. Other folks, (and these progressives) call them(selves) conservatives.
Palliative progressives think that folks are good and that the structure empowers some folks to punish, through using up to lethal force, other folks for being human, that is, for not being good enough. Other folks, (and these progressives) call them(selves) liberals.
Socialism is a method that folks use to manage folks behaviour through reward and retribution. It is based an illusion that a structure manages anything, or that a few power-lusting folks are smart enough to manage most other folks.
Socialism is just a way to advance progressives' objectives:
The subjugation of many and the death of others.
Interesting use of the word “folks”. Fear-mongering against socialism in America is a straw-man argument, a logical fallacy. America never has embraced, and likely never will embrace, socialism. I personally believe that socialized healthcare and retirement are good for the people and we should continue to allow collectivity in these areas. But other than those two carveouts, America, the land of rugged individualism and bootstraps is never going to embrace socialism.
A nation without government might sound like a utopia to some, but it sounds like a dystopian hell to me. Without government, who’s to protect the people from an out of control capitalism that will poison our water, our air, and the earth in which we grow food? Capitalism has yet to self-regulate.
Social norms are good, but they rely on good faith actors; for stability and safety, rule-of-law is necessary to protect citizens against the bad faith actors who seem to be proliferating.
That’s rich when government itself is the biggest polluter of all: https://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-number-one-worst-polluter-on-earth-is-the-u-s-federal-government
There is no America. There is just real land on which real folks really live. That is all.
There is no America but there aren't any nations either. Just swaths of DNA circulating around the planet in endless recombination.
There's no real land just real estate, actually.
There are no real folks just owners and non-owners.
There is no left wing or right wing and no progressives No socialism or any other ism.
There are just those who have power and those who don't.
No progress just an endless repetition of similar circumstances that groups of people try to negotiate through to the next turn of the screw.
After reading the first 2 lines, I thought this was a sarcastic criticism of the OP but as a sincere expression of nihlism, it's quite disturbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leoBccWOZfo
There is an America. But it has nothing to do with land. It may be situated on land, but America is first and foremost *an idea*.
and what is that idea?
“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
You could be correct....maybe