I tend to believe Vance's assertion that he was anti-Trump then red-pilled into liking him, because that's what happened to me and so many others. I was horrified when Trump won in 2016 and thought his claim that the media lied was just because he didn't like what they said about him. Then Trump led for four years and he was good, and it became evident that the media are just a bunch of talking heads reading teleprompters with scripts from on high. He won my vote when he banned DEI from federal government. Then Biden reversed every positive accomplishment of Trump's.
I now identify as a MAGA liberal. Trump is a liberal, a Democrat his entire life until he took over the Republican party. He was the only president to come into office pro gay marriage because he didn't look to polls for his stance. As long as he can control the Right from swapping out Left ideology with their own, I welcome his hammer to our woke institutions.
Of course, our national debt might be the end of us no matter who wins. We seem to be past the point of being able to pay it back. We either default and create a global meltdown, or we pay the piper with hyper inflation. The silver lining will be that no one will care about being woke; we'll be too worried about survival.
A "Red-pilled liberal." Many such cases. I think you're correct here re - Vance. He seems genuine about his Trump stance both before and after his red pill, though even genuine beliefs can be formed via incentives. Trump is still a liberal at heart, yes. His pragmatism though, will likely lead to some postliberal policy being enacted. The institutional hammer you mention isn't likely to be strictly liberal because the idea of a "neutral institution" has been well and truly killed by the Woke. We'll see. Only time will tell.
I can't hope for zero bias in all institutions. I must have hope for more neutral institutions. I do have hope for new institutions like University of Austin.
Its the 2016 GOP Primary, and I am ABT (Anyone But Trump) Could not Stand Him! He wins the nomination, and for a week or so I'm Never Trump. Having lunch with a buddy, who tells me he's voting for Trump. WHY would you Do That! 1. You have a choice Trump or Clinton. 2. Imagine who the lefts head will explode if he wins? Can't beat those arguments. Imagine my surprise on fining out he actually was a very good Center/Right Republican president! And I expect him to be even better this time. As Andrew Klavan puts it Trump Learns.
This describes my husband! Red-pilling is a legit thing. The only group I see who is immune to this phenomenon (aka allowing for the acceptance and critique of new information with an open mind) are those too far gone with TDS. All critical thinking skills have been subverted unfortunately.
Trump is a classical Liberal, has been his entire life. In Florida, he fought so that my communities could join the same clubs as the White folk. As POTUS he reversed the damage done by Obama to underserved Black kids...his actions are of a classic Liberal. He's never had a problem with LGBTQ using whatever bathroom they want in his buildings - a Republican wouldn't accept that behavior.
I didn't identify much with the "simmering in the postliberal brew" of ideas you outlined in postliberalism, which probably makes sense because I consider myself to be quite squarely liberal. But I definitely agree with Vance's goal of dismantling the bureaucracy and de-institutionalizing the Left in essentially every place receiving federal funding. However, I don't want to re-institutionalize the Right, unless that just means institutionalizing colorblind meritocracy and a culture of free speech.
You've hit on a salient issue here. MAGA 2.0 will be appealing to a lot of people in your position who see something far more muscular than 'winning in the marketplace of ideas' needs to happen with the institutions that are occupied by Identitarian Wokes, yet don't want abandon the kind of procedural liberalism the Woke subverted to occupy them in the first place. Belief in the possibility of a neutral institution will be a dividing line between major voting blocks ongoing and the postliberals have aimed a lot of intellectual firing power at convincing the world a neutral institution = unicorn. Interesting times, brother. Invest wisely.
I really like the term "procedural liberalism," which is new to me. I am only a mediocre historian, but wasn't the essence of the horror of the French and Russian revolutions the fact that procedure went down the drain?
On a related note Newt Gingrich in his book "Breakout Pioneers of the Future, Prison Guards of the Past, and the Epic Battle That Will Decide America's Fate" (Good Stuff)
Points out Bureaucrats work 9-7 Mon. to Fri. Criminals work 24/7.
___________________________________________
Yes We Need A big Bureaucracy. Because we're a Big very complex nation. BUT...ya know.
"I don't want to re-institutionalize the Right, unless that just means institutionalizing colorblind meritocracy and a culture of free speech."
Broadly speaking That's What We Want. BTW he last time The Right was institutionalized was Calvin Coolidge(?).
My experience has been that Republicans are colorblind while Democrats are always race pimping to me and my communities, constantly telling us that we're victims of the White man. We're not victims. Both parties are hypocrites in the "free speech" arena.
The difference is that rightists will engage and not just unsub. In fairness, with the absolute self-destruction of all institutions regarding trust, we are all more conspiracy-minded than ever before. Understandably so, but not good for the country.
"HillbIlly Elegy secured a breathtaking path through the minefield by appealing to the old economic left’s moral sensibilities while remaining palatable to the Woke Identitarians because Vance appeared to separate the white working class cause from Trumpism. Vance was staunchly anti-Trump throughout the book’s promotional tour, without which he wouldn’t have secured the highly political and prestigious accolade of “New York Times Bestseller,” and Ron Howard wouldn't have found the money to produce the film. It's unclear whether Vance genuinely disliked Trump or if his public stance was a shrewd play to navigate his work and reputation through the complicated cultural machinery. "
THIS says a Great Deal about Hollywood. And None of it good. Fortunately BIG Hollywood is dying (remember when The Oscars mattered?). And A Little Silicon Chip + their Hubris is killing it.
Some interesting points in this essay but what really unites the trad Right and the MAGA Right is the same thing that has always united and motivated the GOP: tax cuts and corporate deregulation.
The rest is just window dressing to get the rubes to vote Republican. In previous years, they used "God, guns and gays" to get the useful idiots to vote for the GOP, now it's anti-woke, "post-liberal" pseudo-intellectualism. At base, it's all about money.
Well Katie bar the door.. will Peter and friends be able to enjoy those moments of shared snark when the conversation touches on that Orange man and his Neanderthal followers?? Has Vance conferred a bit of legitimacy on us mouth breathers? He was late to the party, but all are welcome. While Steve Bannon rots in jail and Trump dodges Crooks bullet and the J6 pipe bomber story seems linked more every day to that the July 13 rally, isn’t it time to rally together before we all are bending the knee to our overlord elites?
To say that MAGA is evolving and coming for the institutions is just jaw-dropping. The left has been marching through the institutions for DECADES, and suddenly they're afraid that someone else might dip a toe into their terrain? Give me a break.
This entire article read like a pearl-clutching fever dream.
Scolded by lefties as they unsubbed in droves after I put this out and now it's a "pearl-clutching fever dream" from rightists in the comments. I guess this analysis, that probably emotes right if anything, has a Rorschach quality.
It's incredible that people so incredibly smart as you are have not matured beyond 90s liberalism. The colorblind meritocracy NEVER existed, it was always just a step on the endless slippery slope. The method of deconstructing former hierarchies (like white primacy) changes over time, but it only gets more incisive.
The only undeniable constant over all these decades is STRUGGLE. For power.
But acknowledging that puts you in a very dangerous place, isn't it?
Just as there is no 3rd sex, there is also no colorblindness, nor meritocracy, just money and power, and the tools to achieve them. Psychopathic? If you or I would do it, yes.
If Elon Musk or Thiel do it, it's "based", all of the sudden.
What would it take for classical liberal types to grow beyond these assumptions, and simply acknowledge objective reality?
I appreciate, and agree with, your thought about cryptocurrency. It seems that what cyrpto wants is government backing/insurance. If they get that, then it's just a shortcut to government bankruptcy, imo.
Let me see if I understand Cryptocurrency. I spend Real money to but Pretend money, in the hope that other people will spend Real money buying Pretend Money, then I can sell my Pretend money to them for Real money.
Why does Ponzi scheme come to mind?
Maybe I've got the whole thing wrong (this has happened before), because I'm not that bright, but this is what I see.
People love to fall for Ponzi schemes, don't they?
Your explanation seems to be the most basic, the easiest to understand. Why don't we hear it more?
People get caught up in the "mining" aspect, for one. They don't understand the "mining," so they think the whole subject is too complicated. Or they understand it, and think it is cool. Then both bypass the Ponzi aspect.
I see it as this... it's all in flux and will be for a while. What meta-modernism is to art and culture, post-liberalism is to life and policy. Both concepts have a few decades of development and implementation before they can truly be defined. The standard belief that meta-modernism is optimistic and post-liberalism is pessimistic feels politically motivated. More discussions need to happen and much more needs to be written about how these two concepts are related. In summary, taking the best of what we know worked from the past 30,000 years of humanity and preserving it while we invent a future that can be built instantaneously, and that we aren't designed to evolve with, is all we can do. It's going to be a wild ride.
I tend to believe Vance's assertion that he was anti-Trump then red-pilled into liking him, because that's what happened to me and so many others. I was horrified when Trump won in 2016 and thought his claim that the media lied was just because he didn't like what they said about him. Then Trump led for four years and he was good, and it became evident that the media are just a bunch of talking heads reading teleprompters with scripts from on high. He won my vote when he banned DEI from federal government. Then Biden reversed every positive accomplishment of Trump's.
I now identify as a MAGA liberal. Trump is a liberal, a Democrat his entire life until he took over the Republican party. He was the only president to come into office pro gay marriage because he didn't look to polls for his stance. As long as he can control the Right from swapping out Left ideology with their own, I welcome his hammer to our woke institutions.
Of course, our national debt might be the end of us no matter who wins. We seem to be past the point of being able to pay it back. We either default and create a global meltdown, or we pay the piper with hyper inflation. The silver lining will be that no one will care about being woke; we'll be too worried about survival.
A "Red-pilled liberal." Many such cases. I think you're correct here re - Vance. He seems genuine about his Trump stance both before and after his red pill, though even genuine beliefs can be formed via incentives. Trump is still a liberal at heart, yes. His pragmatism though, will likely lead to some postliberal policy being enacted. The institutional hammer you mention isn't likely to be strictly liberal because the idea of a "neutral institution" has been well and truly killed by the Woke. We'll see. Only time will tell.
I can't hope for zero bias in all institutions. I must have hope for more neutral institutions. I do have hope for new institutions like University of Austin.
Its the 2016 GOP Primary, and I am ABT (Anyone But Trump) Could not Stand Him! He wins the nomination, and for a week or so I'm Never Trump. Having lunch with a buddy, who tells me he's voting for Trump. WHY would you Do That! 1. You have a choice Trump or Clinton. 2. Imagine who the lefts head will explode if he wins? Can't beat those arguments. Imagine my surprise on fining out he actually was a very good Center/Right Republican president! And I expect him to be even better this time. As Andrew Klavan puts it Trump Learns.
The problem is that it was a century of liberalism that got us into the current mess.
This describes my husband! Red-pilling is a legit thing. The only group I see who is immune to this phenomenon (aka allowing for the acceptance and critique of new information with an open mind) are those too far gone with TDS. All critical thinking skills have been subverted unfortunately.
" now identify as a MAGA liberal. Trump is a liberal,"
Liberal? I say (rhetoric aside) he is a Center/Right Republican. I see a lot of Eisenhower in how he governed.
"Of course, our national debt might be the end of us no matter who wins."
DO NOT get me started!
Trump is a classical Liberal, has been his entire life. In Florida, he fought so that my communities could join the same clubs as the White folk. As POTUS he reversed the damage done by Obama to underserved Black kids...his actions are of a classic Liberal. He's never had a problem with LGBTQ using whatever bathroom they want in his buildings - a Republican wouldn't accept that behavior.
I still Prefer Center/Right Republican.
I didn't identify much with the "simmering in the postliberal brew" of ideas you outlined in postliberalism, which probably makes sense because I consider myself to be quite squarely liberal. But I definitely agree with Vance's goal of dismantling the bureaucracy and de-institutionalizing the Left in essentially every place receiving federal funding. However, I don't want to re-institutionalize the Right, unless that just means institutionalizing colorblind meritocracy and a culture of free speech.
You've hit on a salient issue here. MAGA 2.0 will be appealing to a lot of people in your position who see something far more muscular than 'winning in the marketplace of ideas' needs to happen with the institutions that are occupied by Identitarian Wokes, yet don't want abandon the kind of procedural liberalism the Woke subverted to occupy them in the first place. Belief in the possibility of a neutral institution will be a dividing line between major voting blocks ongoing and the postliberals have aimed a lot of intellectual firing power at convincing the world a neutral institution = unicorn. Interesting times, brother. Invest wisely.
The problem with procedural liberalism is that the leftists have now learned how to subvert procedure.
I really like the term "procedural liberalism," which is new to me. I am only a mediocre historian, but wasn't the essence of the horror of the French and Russian revolutions the fact that procedure went down the drain?
> However, I don't want to re-institutionalize the Right
In other words you liked the "driving off the cliff part" but not the "crash into the canyon floor below" part.
On a related note Newt Gingrich in his book "Breakout Pioneers of the Future, Prison Guards of the Past, and the Epic Battle That Will Decide America's Fate" (Good Stuff)
Points out Bureaucrats work 9-7 Mon. to Fri. Criminals work 24/7.
___________________________________________
Yes We Need A big Bureaucracy. Because we're a Big very complex nation. BUT...ya know.
"I don't want to re-institutionalize the Right, unless that just means institutionalizing colorblind meritocracy and a culture of free speech."
Broadly speaking That's What We Want. BTW he last time The Right was institutionalized was Calvin Coolidge(?).
My experience has been that Republicans are colorblind while Democrats are always race pimping to me and my communities, constantly telling us that we're victims of the White man. We're not victims. Both parties are hypocrites in the "free speech" arena.
The difference is that rightists will engage and not just unsub. In fairness, with the absolute self-destruction of all institutions regarding trust, we are all more conspiracy-minded than ever before. Understandably so, but not good for the country.
"HillbIlly Elegy secured a breathtaking path through the minefield by appealing to the old economic left’s moral sensibilities while remaining palatable to the Woke Identitarians because Vance appeared to separate the white working class cause from Trumpism. Vance was staunchly anti-Trump throughout the book’s promotional tour, without which he wouldn’t have secured the highly political and prestigious accolade of “New York Times Bestseller,” and Ron Howard wouldn't have found the money to produce the film. It's unclear whether Vance genuinely disliked Trump or if his public stance was a shrewd play to navigate his work and reputation through the complicated cultural machinery. "
THIS says a Great Deal about Hollywood. And None of it good. Fortunately BIG Hollywood is dying (remember when The Oscars mattered?). And A Little Silicon Chip + their Hubris is killing it.
Really appreciated this deep analysis, Mike!
Great essay Mike! 👍
Interesting piece with lots to think about. Conservatism has needed to adapt for a long time now.
Great analysis. I need to read this a few more times.
Great writing as always.
Some interesting points in this essay but what really unites the trad Right and the MAGA Right is the same thing that has always united and motivated the GOP: tax cuts and corporate deregulation.
The rest is just window dressing to get the rubes to vote Republican. In previous years, they used "God, guns and gays" to get the useful idiots to vote for the GOP, now it's anti-woke, "post-liberal" pseudo-intellectualism. At base, it's all about money.
How many times have you voted for Republicans?
"Useful idiots to vote for the GOP" hmm....
Well Katie bar the door.. will Peter and friends be able to enjoy those moments of shared snark when the conversation touches on that Orange man and his Neanderthal followers?? Has Vance conferred a bit of legitimacy on us mouth breathers? He was late to the party, but all are welcome. While Steve Bannon rots in jail and Trump dodges Crooks bullet and the J6 pipe bomber story seems linked more every day to that the July 13 rally, isn’t it time to rally together before we all are bending the knee to our overlord elites?
To say that MAGA is evolving and coming for the institutions is just jaw-dropping. The left has been marching through the institutions for DECADES, and suddenly they're afraid that someone else might dip a toe into their terrain? Give me a break.
This entire article read like a pearl-clutching fever dream.
Scolded by lefties as they unsubbed in droves after I put this out and now it's a "pearl-clutching fever dream" from rightists in the comments. I guess this analysis, that probably emotes right if anything, has a Rorschach quality.
It's incredible that people so incredibly smart as you are have not matured beyond 90s liberalism. The colorblind meritocracy NEVER existed, it was always just a step on the endless slippery slope. The method of deconstructing former hierarchies (like white primacy) changes over time, but it only gets more incisive.
The only undeniable constant over all these decades is STRUGGLE. For power.
But acknowledging that puts you in a very dangerous place, isn't it?
Just as there is no 3rd sex, there is also no colorblindness, nor meritocracy, just money and power, and the tools to achieve them. Psychopathic? If you or I would do it, yes.
If Elon Musk or Thiel do it, it's "based", all of the sudden.
What would it take for classical liberal types to grow beyond these assumptions, and simply acknowledge objective reality?
2 other thoughts.
1. Cryptocurrency. When I can go to the store and buy a pack of smokes with cryptocurrency, I'll buy into it. Until then SCAM comes to mind.
2. "old economic left’s moral sensibilities" WTH does that mean? Because to me old economic left’s moral sensibilities = Socialism(ie Communism)
I appreciate, and agree with, your thought about cryptocurrency. It seems that what cyrpto wants is government backing/insurance. If they get that, then it's just a shortcut to government bankruptcy, imo.
Let me see if I understand Cryptocurrency. I spend Real money to but Pretend money, in the hope that other people will spend Real money buying Pretend Money, then I can sell my Pretend money to them for Real money.
Why does Ponzi scheme come to mind?
Maybe I've got the whole thing wrong (this has happened before), because I'm not that bright, but this is what I see.
People love to fall for Ponzi schemes, don't they?
Your explanation seems to be the most basic, the easiest to understand. Why don't we hear it more?
People get caught up in the "mining" aspect, for one. They don't understand the "mining," so they think the whole subject is too complicated. Or they understand it, and think it is cool. Then both bypass the Ponzi aspect.
FOMO on "a sure thing," basic Ponzi, is a key.
I see it as this... it's all in flux and will be for a while. What meta-modernism is to art and culture, post-liberalism is to life and policy. Both concepts have a few decades of development and implementation before they can truly be defined. The standard belief that meta-modernism is optimistic and post-liberalism is pessimistic feels politically motivated. More discussions need to happen and much more needs to be written about how these two concepts are related. In summary, taking the best of what we know worked from the past 30,000 years of humanity and preserving it while we invent a future that can be built instantaneously, and that we aren't designed to evolve with, is all we can do. It's going to be a wild ride.