18 Comments

So now that I've read the notes to this podcast episode, I wanted to include my criticism and observe how honest the claim is that Classical Liberals, particularly, should approach their criticism with "empathy", as pointed out a number of times in the episode. Personally, I don't believe that this is an honest assessment (my reasons will be evident below), but I am more than willing to see if perhaps we can have a conversation on the subject. After all, generally speaking, when I do offer criticism, it often falls on deaf ears which, ironically, further exacerbates the "problem" with right wing populist elements. So, here goes nothing.

To begin, I want to point out something clearly evident that Aaron Ross Powell (to be abbreviated ARP from here on out) pointed out but here forgot another element. "The mainstream of the American right... looks quite a bit different today than it did 10 years ago." It certainly does. Interestingly enough, so does the mainstream left. After all, I am confident that the mainstream left could easily describe what a woman is 10 years ago, but are utterly incapable of doing so today. Why is that? I'm not sure, there are probably many reasons for this. But the reason I point this out is that it's only natural that the mainstream right would look different (much like the mainstream left) particularly when you point out the utter lunacy that we are witnessing from the mainstream left. Of course, many on the left, ARP included, probably think I'm incorrect in that assessment. This point will come up time and again in this post.

"Both of our projects... are about understanding the forces of illiberalism that appear to be more threatening today." But only from one side, right ARP? After all, I don't see anyone in the Unpopulist criticizing Covid lockdowns, for instance. Not a whole lot more illiberal than that, in my opinion. But no, let's be threatened by people who don't want to be mandated by their jobs or not permitted to eat at restaurants because of their "vaccine status", something now completely arbitrary. And yes, some of these mandates are still in place in many places, particularly my home country of Canada, where I assume much to the dismay of an Open Borders type like ARP, I'm not permitted to flee to the United States, for example, because they won't let me into their country on account of refusing to take a deeply flawed experimental vaccine.

“I guess... you have to move the two parties a little bit closer together before they can really duke it out.” I agree, though judging by the approach here, is it safe to assume that the Classical Liberal (in this case) won’t be the one moving at all, but instead it’s the populist right that must always be the one moving closer to the liberal one? Because it appears to me that it’s always been the case that the “conservative” side is the one that has constantly had to accommodate for the liberal left, to give up some of their stances. But does the liberal left have to? Well, I guess we will have to see if that’s the case. This wouldn’t be that difficult. Maybe a high profile person in the liberal left can tell me what a woman is, for example.

"Empathize with extremists?" To this question, I am forced to ask the honest question, "what's an extremist?" Particularly on the right. For instance, calling people out for grooming activity (drag shows for children, anyone? Teaching children there are hundreds of genders? Teaching children how to masterbate at the age of 6?) is hardly extreme. Though I'd consider having children at drag shows is quite extreme. Or, in keeping with the previous question, is asking questions about what a woman is "extreme"? I'm curious.

"It does seem that the most extreme parts of the right have gained control of the levers of power." Am I safe to assume that ARP has been living under a rock over the last couple of years? I mean, banning people from attending church services and going to restaurants is totally an element of the right. I fail to see how you have reached this conclusion. It's an unsubstantiated claim and it's completely inaccurate. And let's not forget that the most recent appointee to the Supreme Court can't even tell us what a woman is. Unless this is some sort of right wing ploy, I fail to see how the right wields the levers of power. Truly amazing.

Following that section, Damon Linker finally gets to the real meat of the issue. The working class. He pointed out that there's always a question regarding how things affect the working class in Trump's policies. Personally, I fail to see how these policies are "dangerous". Is there something wrong with the working class that I'm unaware of? To further go on, it's only natural that the working class will react in the way that they have over the last ten years, when they have effectively been ignored by previous administrations ad nauseum. The 2008 bailouts of the banks, for example, played a huge role in this. As someone who graduated from university in that year, only to find out that I just blew thousands of dollars on effectively nothing to see its worth go to basically zero since the state needed to bail out the banks, costing taxpayers (ahem... The working class, at least eventually) a lot of money. And what happened when the working class protested? Nothing at all. Furthermore, the policies that led to the 2008 crash haven't changed all that much (that's a criticism of Trump too, might I add), but the state threw a ton of money at the bankers because "too big to fail". Imagine the amount of resentment there is. Tack on a few other things like illegitimate wars that have not benefited American people, and that's exacerbated even more. How this is a dangerous thing is beyond me, but I digress.

"You get the sense, looking back, it's clear there was a boiling pressure building up from the lower classes, from people who are not members of this neoliberal elite consensus of the government is not responding to our anger about these things. You have to listen to us and you have to listen to us and you have to listen to us, saying it over and over again."

That quote was good and true. They gave ignored the lower classes for far too long, and continue to do so. And now, with Joe Biden as president (in name only, because I doubt he's actually making any coherent decisions nowadays), they continue to ignore they lower classes. Instead of addressing issues like homelessness and inflation, it appears that the leftists currently wielding the levers of power are more interested in virtue signaling things like trans rights and BLM, not to mention the Ukraine debacle that has inflicted further hardship on the working classes by exacerbating inflation and fuel prices. As a Canadian, it's a sight to see on my side of the border. While the people are broke and going further into debt and poverty just to buy groceries and gasoline, the elites are concerned about "transphobes" and the green movement. It's like living in a giant clown world. Then again, it's evident that we are.

"We need a more supple understanding of the fringes if it will, that if you don't let some of it in, you risk a more turbulent reaction against the rules that prevent it from getting in."

Agreed. And this is happening. By having people not being able to define what a woman is and then calling anyone that does define a woman accurate as a transphobe is hardly a method to allow people to disagree. And that was, and still is, an issue with the Covid scare. People in power, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, went after people who questioned lockdowns, for instance, and had their names dragged through the mud. What does that behavior do? In the very least, people become incredibly sceptical of the medical establishment, in the worst, people believe that it's a plot to control the masses with information and calling everything else "misinformation". Yet here we are.

"Democrats need to do whatever it takes to prevail. If that means moderating on some social issues, that will alienate some of their more agitated activist base, they should do it for the promise of winning more votes away from the Republicans in the center."

I agree again. And this should be viewed as a good thing. The Democrats have become more extreme in their views, in case you haven't noticed, and as I stated at the start of my post, it's almost always been that the conservative right has had to modify their positions to appeal more to the center, a center that has historically moved leftward. It's good to see that's it's moving back rightward, because otherwise it wouldn't be fair. This has often been a criticism from those in my circle. The question always is, "What have conservatives actually conserved?" Arguably, nothing. Finally, things are shifting and hopefully a Democrat in high position can actually define what a woman is accurately, for example.

Overall, I get the impression that Damon Linker is fair in his assessments. However, I believe that there are some flaws, as pointed out. Aaron Ross Powell, on the other hand, is clearly not willing to budge on these issues that I've addressed, as is evident in his angle of this interview and also judging by his Twitter feed.

P.S. I brought up the issue of defining what a woman is numerous times in my critique, and the reason for that is because it's "the current thing", especially in light of what Josh Hawley shared recently. Forgive me for going on about that subject, but it's fresh in the minds of the masses, and I think it was fair to do so.

Expand full comment

Why do I get the drift that Classical Liberals really just hate people who think differently than they do?

Expand full comment