Category: Uncategorized

In an article in New York Magazine that everyone should read, Jonathan Chait lays out a theme espoused by the New Right that apparently is gaining plenty of traction in the GOP mainstream. The gist of it is that the left has been quietly, but doggedly seeking control of all of America’s institutions over the past 50 years or so, and has succeeded. As a result, it is necessary for the right to take over and use the powers of government in order to restore our society to the way it was in the good old days. Chait, who obviously has some familiarity with Chinese history, calls this theory “The Long March.”

Based on Chait’s analogy, the logical questions you should ask are:

1. Who was the American version of Mao?
2. What was the American equivalent of the Chinese Communist Party?

There is no plausible answer to these questions, of course. “The left,” which extends roughly from me to Bernie Sanders, contains a wide range of opinions. “The left” had little money (at least, compared to “the right”), no plan, no organization capable of secretly infiltrating institutions, and no leader. To the extent that American political and cultural institutions reflect liberal thought, it is due to two things: self-selection; and the general, if belated, understanding that women and minorities in America got a raw deal over the last few centuries. In other words, “the left” won the hearts and minds of America by making it aware of past injustices, and the reactionaries want to use political power to overturn that victory.

I will be discussing the state of various elements of the supposedly corrupt liberal establishment over the next few days.

Ross Douthat has always had religion; now he wants to find history, too. That’s my field, not his. Having traveled to the UK and read a book or two, he thinks there is a direct line connecting the Jacobites to today’s right-wing populists. Is he right?

No, for two reasons:

1. The current dichotomy between the reactionary countryside and the progressive city has no relationship to Jacobitism. The Country Party arose in opposition to the Stuarts, not in support of them.
2. There was never any meaningful support for Jacobitism in England; it was a Scottish and Irish phenomenon based on nationalism. Is Scottish nationalism truly analogous to the battle between disgruntled white retirees and supposedly woke corporations and intellectuals? I don’t think so.

The historical analogy I would suggest to Douthat is between his friends in the New Right and the Ultras in the time of Louis XVIII and Charles X. Look it up.

The new indictment is clearly intended to legally advance the narrative of Trump’s threat to liberal democracy while avoiding questionable claims and unnecessary delays. That makes sense. On balance, I agree with the way Smith is handling the issue.

But this is the third indictment. Appalling as it will seem a few years from now, the drill is depressingly familiar to us. Trump will portray himself as the victim of the vengeful deep state; he will successfully make use of the indictment as a fundraising tactic; and there will be lots of GOP screaming about the politicization of the judicial system and vows of retribution.

And we know there is a fourth one in the offing. I’m becoming uncomfortably numb to the new routine. My guess is that the rest of America feels the same way.

The prominent culture warrior and DeSantis supporter Christopher Rufo had a column in the NYT a few days ago which made the following points:

1. His objective is to eliminate cancel culture in state universities and restore freedom of thought, not to enforce reactionary ideology on the students and faculty; and
2. It is appropriate for state governments to use their political and legal powers to make sure that state universities reflect the values of the voters.

Are his arguments plausible? Here is what I think:

1. The overall record in Florida makes it crystal clear that the ultimate objective is to stifle left-wing opinion, not just to create safe spaces for conservatives. DeSantis believes in a veto for reactionary hecklers, not freedom of inquiry.
2. While Rufo’s argument that educational systems should reflect the values of the voters makes sense, it raises questions that he doesn’t bother to answer. Why should the will of state voters control over both national and local voters, particularly in the case of secondary education? Should the financial power of the federal government be used to overturn the values of either blue or red state voters? What happens to education when the apparent opinions of the voters change? Aren’t the employees of educational institutions entitled to some say as to how they are run? If not, as a practical matter, how are all of them going to be kept in line and replaced, as necessary?

In short, these issues are far more complicated than Rufo would have you believe.

Having listened to me (LOL), DeSantis released an economic policy package yesterday. Having actually not listened to me, it is a collection of standard GOP talking points added to mindless attacks on China, woke corporations, and universities. It basically tells the donor class that he will leave them alone if they shut up, and it tells struggling reactionary workers that he has nothing to offer them. It is neither aggressively populist nor an imaginative effort to help business. In short, it is an opportunity lost.

DeSantis also told the world he thought abortion restrictions should be left to the states. In isolation, that is a perfectly reasonable position to take; in context, it is suicide. DeSantis needs the rabidly anti-abortion crowd in Iowa to vote for him; now, they will vote for Pence or Scott. He will be attacked from the left for signing a draconian abortion bill in Florida, and from the right for not supporting a national ban. Tactically, it makes no sense.

I think this is the end for DeSantis. I just don’t see how he can recover from this. Even his wife can’t save him now.

One of Trump’s greatest “accomplishments” was to change the electoral model for GOP candidates. Before him, the typical candidate ran hard to the right during the primaries, but moved to the center to pick up swing votes during the general election; Trump, on the other hand, argued that electoral success required nonstop pandering to the base, with no pivot during the general election. The Trump model failed in 2018, 2020, and 2022, but most Republicans still adhere to it. What does that mean for the PBPs?

It means the GOP will assume they have nowhere else to go and take their votes for granted in 2024. And it means, if they want to be heard, they need to unite behind a candidate other than Trump or DeSantis who will take their concerns seriously, and stop talking so much about retribution and wokeness.

Clarence Thomas is a Catholic. So is Samuel Alito. So is Ron DeSantis. So are Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermeule, Ross Douthat, and Michael Anton. Rod Dreher used to be one. What else do these men have in common? They are all prominent reactionaries, of course. They are intellectual leaders of the New Right; their opinions will matter to the next Republican president; and they don’t have much respect for American liberal democracy.

Is that a coincidence? It would be absurd to argue that most Catholics are reactionaries, or that most reactionaries are Catholics, but the answer is no. The Catholic Church is authoritarian by design, and has a history of behaving despotically that predates the Declaration and the Constitution by centuries. Its leaders admire Thomas Aquinas, not Thomas Jefferson. Anyone who completely embraces its intellectual traditions and political pretensions is going to have a hard time reconciling them with the checks and balances inherent in liberal democracy.

The practical problem for Catholic reactionary leaders is that only a very small percentage of Americans (including Catholic voters) accept their opinions. They don’t even speak for a majority of reactionaries–the numbers favor right-wing Protestants, whose very different governing style was largely created in opposition to Catholic authoritarianism. As a result, the American Catholic theocracy they really want is never going to happen. The best they can possibly hope for is a loose united front with reactionary evangelical Protestants aimed at suppressing non-believers in which the evangelicals will hold most of the power.

C: The debates are scheduled to start in about a month. How would you assess the campaign so far?

S: Great!

M: Terrible!

C: Let’s start with you, Sebastian. Why are you so happy about the way things are going?

S: Because Trump is way ahead in the polls. He’s kicking DeSanctus ass all over the place. DeSanctus will be back in Florida crying his eyes out in a few months. He’s toast.

C: Why do you prefer Trump to DeSantis?

S: Because he was owning the libs long before DeSantis ever thought of it. Because DeSantis owes him his job. And because Trump is determined to burn it down. I know I can trust him on that. With DeSanctus, who knows? He’d probably just sell me out.

C: Aren’t you impressed with DeSantis’ record on wokeness?

S: I don’t even know what that means. It doesn’t have anything to do with my life. Trump is going to punish the people I hate–that’s all I need to know.

C: Mark, why do you say the campaign has been terrible?

M: Because nobody is talking about the issues that I care about. Trump just wants to burn it down and stick it to the people he hates–including me, I suppose. He doesn’t even pretend to have a program to make my life better; it’s all about him and revenge. And all DeSantis talks about is wokeness. What does that mean to me? Not a damn thing.

S: At least we agree on something.

C: You don’t think uprooting wokeness will improve your life?

M: I’m a car dealer. I’m worried about labor costs, taxes, and regulations. I don’t have any trans employees, and I doubt I have any trans customers. It just doesn’t matter to me.

C: How is your business?

M: We’re doing well, thank you. We’re not selling as many cars as we used to, but with the price increases, we’re making more money than ever before.

C: Some people call that greedflation.

M: I call it the free enterprise system. If you don’t like it, move to China.

C: Do you have a candidate at this point?

M: Not really. Maybe Tim Scott. I just want someone to start talking about the economy in a way that makes sense. The other stuff is less important.

C: Let me change topics completely at this point. Did either of you see “Barbie?”

M: My wife went. She loved it. I stayed home and watched sports.

S: Hell will freeze over before I would go to that movie.

C: Why?

S: All that crap about the patriarchy. The Bible says men are supposed to rule over women. God is a man. That’s all I need to know.

C: Do you think Barbie is a feminazi?

S: Absolutely! Women have way too much power in this country. That’s why we’ve gone completely soft. In my day, that movie wouldn’t even have been made, because nobody would have watched it. That’s why we need Trump–to take us back where we were when we were great.

M: My wife would disagree with you on that.

S: Who cares what she thinks? Or what you think, you RINO?

M: I’m out of here.

Vox failed to meet expectations in the Spanish election, and the reactionaries lost control of the UK when Boris left town, but elsewhere, things are looking up. A reactionary is the PM of Italy; a reactionary will probably go into the next French presidential election as the favorite; the German reactionary party could be in the next government; and, of course, the most dangerous reactionary of all is the presumptive GOP nominee for president in the US. Right-wing populism is a European as well as an American phenomenon. Why?

Europe and the US have three things in common:

1. The replacement of a manufacturing-based economy with one based on services and knowledge, which devalues the strengths of men and consequently threatens their social and economic status relative to women;
2. Large amounts of illegal immigration; and
3. Decreasing numbers of Christians, which troubles the devout greatly.

These issues aren’t going away any time soon, so neither are the reactionaries.

Most extreme right-wingers view Trump as the ideal instrument to burn it down; his anger and narcissism, which are liabilities to most politicians, to them are guarantees that he will stop at nothing to destroy American liberal democracy in his and their interest. Let’s assume they’re right. What happens next? What is the reactionary scheme for America after liberal democracy is dead?

As far as I can tell, there are three separate visions:

1. RETURN OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION: This is the essence of the “national divorce” recommended by MTG. I discussed the logical and practical issues with it in a previous series, but it has the advantages of being grounded in American history and leaving the blue states more or less alone.
2. RULE OF THE TECH BROS: Musk and Thiel have allied themselves with reactionaries in the hope of sweeping away regulations and giving themselves complete freedom to do whatever they want. It is a bargain that is likely to end badly for them, given the nature of the people on the other side of the deal, but they call themselves geniuses, so what do I know?
3. NATIONAL THEOCRACY: Christians will regain the absolute right to govern America as they see fit. We will have a 21st century Test Act and lots of new federal statutes discriminating against non-Christians; the First Amendment as we have known it will cease to exist. The Catholic reactionary leaders of the movement would probably prefer to exclude evangelicals from the ruling class (see a future post), but that will prove impossible, so they will continue their alliance of convenience until an opportunity to break it presents itself.

Which of these visions is the most plausible? I would have to vote for #1.

As far as I can tell, Ron DeSantis viewed Jack Smith as his deus ex machina. He could campaign without laying a glove on Trump and still win, because the GOP electorate would never nominate someone who was under federal indictment. He could stand strong with the base, attack the deep state, unite the party, and have the nomination simply fall into his hands. It was perfect.

Except it wasn’t, because the base isn’t appalled by the indictments, which it views, regardless of the evidence, as more proof of the depravity of the deep state. As a result, Trump is way ahead in the polls. In addition, DeSantis is finding that his laser focus on wokeness is too abstract and remote from the everyday concerns of GOP voters to move them much. So what does he do now?

Plan B, logically, would be an economic plan that sets him apart from the other candidates and actually promises to make the lives of GOP voters better. This could take one of two completely different forms: either a populist-friendly focus on reactionary workers over capitalists; or a dramatic attempt to suck up to the donor class by offering some sort of radically regressive change to the tax system, such as a flat tax. The former has never been tried by any GOP presidential candidate in my lifetime; the latter has been proposed many times, and has always flopped miserably.

Will DeSantis choose one of these two options, or stick with the existing plan and watch his campaign go down the drain? We’ll see.

She said, “Your debutante just knows what you need, but I know what you want.”

—————-Dylan

The Democrats are a coalition of minorities, the well-educated, young people, and women. In an age of identity politics, is it any surprise that they really want a presidential nominee who looks like them: young; charismatic; black or racially mixed; and female or metrosexual? Someone like Barack Obama?

Biden clearly isn’t any of those things, which is why the party is, in Dylan’s words, “stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again.” In spite of his mostly impressive record, millions of Democratic voters don’t really want him to run again. But Biden is the perfect foil for Trump. As an old white guy with a record of moderation, he can’t be credibly accused of being woke or socialist. No one else in the Democratic party has those advantages.

In the end, it is the view of the Rolling Stones that prevails here. You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.

By what right do Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg set the rules for speech in America? For Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham, the answer is clear–none. They have proposed to create a new independent, bipartisan agency that would rein in the power and excesses of big tech. Is that a good idea?

It sounds like it, until you consider the following:

1. First Amendment rights are currently adjudicated by an allegedly apolitical body–the Supreme Court. How’s that working for you these days?
2. The new agency sounds a good deal like the FEC, which is completely impotent due to ongoing partisan wrangling.
3. Lindsey Graham’s favorite golfing buddy has already made it clear that he wants to put our existing independent agencies under presidential control pursuant to the unitary executive theory. If you add the legislative proposal to Trump’s ambitions, you are setting the stage for a GOP Secretary of Internet Censorship.

The bottom line here is that the Warren/Graham proposal would only work in a society in which there is general agreement about what is and isn’t protected speech. Without that agreement, leaving the issues to tech giants, while hardly a perfect solution, is probably the least unsafe way to deal with censorship questions.

Spain’s Socialist government had a pretty good argument to make to the electorate: unemployment was low; the economy was growing; and issues with the Basque and Catalonian nationalists were under better control. Nevertheless, the polls indicated that the government was going to lose badly. A right-wing government was a virtual certainty.

Sanchez made the election a referendum on right-wing extremism. It paid off; in spite of his low popularity ratings in the polls, the voters basically supported the status quo.

Does this bode well for Biden, who figures to run a similar campaign under similar circumstances? You bet it does.

If you wanted to describe DeSantis’ ideology in one short phrase, it would be “freedom for me, but not for thee.” The first part of this is libertarian, and plays well in blue states like New Hampshire; the second is reactionary, and is designed to appeal to social conservatives in red states, such as Iowa. As far as I can tell, DeSantis is trying to emphasize the first part in his campaign appearances in New Hampshire, but his war on wokeness is drowning out the pitch to libertarians. Is there anything he can do to fix this?

He needs to understand that his path to the nomination runs primarily through the blue states, and that his message should be calibrated accordingly. Trump is going to win a majority of the reactionary vote no matter what he does; trying to be crimson to Trump’s scarlet is a waste of time and money. If he has any sense, he will spend less time on wokeness and more on freedom.