You’re right to call this ‘work’ — as in work-in-progress, the kind where we admit we don’t yet have the answers for how capital, taxation, labor, and ownership should be rearranged. That uncertainty is unsettling for those who want to control the outcome. And when you don’t fit neatly into left or right pigeonholes, people get uncomfortable — because open debate and critical thinking move in directions that those benefiting from the status quo can’t script.
Yes the uncertainty is unsettling. Also there's a common belief that there has to be a single rule, a unifying theorem, and unless whatever the proposal is is that, it's a disaster and effort is useless. Furthermore, people believe the single unifying rule should, once in place, work smoothly without any effort or input needed, and it should account for all possible human behaviors or else it isn't a valid solution.
Of course that's just silly and indicates that the person saying doesn't understand people at all. One thing we can count on is, there will always be someone who looks at any new rule or system of rules, and innovates a way to exploit its gaps or unconsidered side effects. That's how people are. That's also how collections of rules are: they don't ever work perfectly together and there's always a combination of conditions that wasn't thought of, or was thought of but it's too unwieldy or loses too much opportunity, to mess around trying to solve for it in advance.
In fact there should be different rules for individuals vs small groups vs the larger groups we think of as corporations. And this requires responding to the facts on the ground and not trying to theorize ahead of time how every single rule needs to be. We need principles. Like the ones in the Declaration of Independence. And the one that says, your right stops where real harm or loss to me begins. And the one that recognizes that mining the commons is a crime. And so on.
I don't follow. Who says they're neutral? They are clearly not. They simply have a belief that they want to promote.
On a related note: I am very frustrated by how the meanings of words are just assumed. What does liberalism mean? Progressivism? Elite?
I like the classics: "The most well-established meaning of liberalism is as a political and moral philosophy centered on individual rights, liberty, consent of the governed, political and legal equality, and the protection of private property. Liberalism advocates for a society in which individuals can freely pursue their interests and are protected from arbitrary authority or oppression."
I dunno... that's what I want and it's the basis of Western civilization. If the Argument wants to promote that, I say, more power to 'em.
Good — Evelyn and others who (rightly) want to criticize the Argument should be precise about the object of their critique. Distinguish between political liberalism (i.e. the democratic left in the United States) and philosophical liberalism (what you described above). When invoking neoliberalism, define it — and give at least two examples of how your target systematically fits that definition.
Progressivism could mean many things, but in Evelyn’s context I suspect it refers to the American political movement that has evolved from philosophically liberal-egalitarian to philosophically marxist-egalitarian.
Elitism in Evelyn’s context probably means a combo of: top decile by wealth and income, association with high status institutions, managerial positions in publicly traded companies, home ownership in tier 1/2 cities, etc.
Crucially, these definitions should capture not just the politicians, political consultants, and mega-donors. It should also capture the small-dollar donors with 6-7 figure net worth, and their adult children waiting for down payment assistance. Which is to say — it should capture the folks who largely now make up the democratic party’s base: the yard sign NIMBY’s.
Tbh: I don’t quite understand the message here. What’s the kind of neutrality you wish for if it isn’t the one that philosophical liberalism can offer? I’ve read the article “How do we live together?”. This was a strong argument for tolerance and neutrality regarding the deep pluralism we find in every society. What’s dogmatic about that? And what exactly are the beliefs you once held but gave up and which seemed to make you unfree? More specifically: which parts of philosophical liberalism would you like to get rid of?
She doesn’t have an answer for you. The writer had a bad falling out with her former employer. Her worldview boils down to getting retribution against those in her elite professional circle. Smug, childish and small minded.
The trilateral commission, the powell memo followed by the volcker shock and the election of Reagan reinstated capital back in the driver seat. The plutonomy memo and the Rand report citing 50 trillion taken by the malefactors of great wealth shows that from the 1970's till the present there is no doubt that a class war has been waged by the economic elites. The Plutonomy memo explicitly states that the only threat the wealthy have to fear is the ballot box.
You perfectly articulated my vague misgivings when reading the initial announcement and description. Although, you have to wonder how influential the new project is likely to be over and above those writers' existing audience already.
"the publication makes no apologies for being a defender of liberalism"
Whatever they're defending, it is in no way "liberalism" as classically defined.
Wikipedia: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law."
Re "equality before the law": Do they oppose race-based preferences over at the Argument? Do they endorse the SCOTUS decision banning them in college admissions?
Absolutely no one in the PMC Dem class has said so out loud, and I kinda doubt that the Arg crew is gonna be the first to take that plunge.
So whatever they're arguing for there (continued control of everything by them and those they like seems to be the actual goal), it sure ain't liberalism.
My take away: Through the eyes of a liberal -- if you are a conservative then you are far right; if you are center-right then you are far right; if you lean right then you are far right; if you are a centrist then you are likely far right; if you are a white male and over 50 then you most likely are far right; if you are none of the above then you are neutral. There is no left. There certainly is no far left — that is simply unheard of in their neutralized world. The Overton Window (in their minds) starts with their position and only slides to the left of the screen. Www.reynolds.com for more
Why would anyone think that any ruling ideology is neutral. Every ideology has limits and has to be protected to keep its monopoly power. Liberalism may be more inclusive than any other ideology, but it still has its limits.
Also, what is the alternative to liberalism? If you don't have one, and you don't know your own ideology well, you cant effectively discredit liberalism. Most people are just critical of Neoliberalism and are social democrats themselves which is just a left wing version of liberalism.
A socialist like me can, however, effectively discredit both Liberalism and Social Democracy.
This piece is awesome. I touched on some of these points in this post I wrote a while back https://cracksinpomo.substack.com/p/talk-to-people-you-dont-agree-with?utm_source=publication-search
You’re right to call this ‘work’ — as in work-in-progress, the kind where we admit we don’t yet have the answers for how capital, taxation, labor, and ownership should be rearranged. That uncertainty is unsettling for those who want to control the outcome. And when you don’t fit neatly into left or right pigeonholes, people get uncomfortable — because open debate and critical thinking move in directions that those benefiting from the status quo can’t script.
Yes the uncertainty is unsettling. Also there's a common belief that there has to be a single rule, a unifying theorem, and unless whatever the proposal is is that, it's a disaster and effort is useless. Furthermore, people believe the single unifying rule should, once in place, work smoothly without any effort or input needed, and it should account for all possible human behaviors or else it isn't a valid solution.
Of course that's just silly and indicates that the person saying doesn't understand people at all. One thing we can count on is, there will always be someone who looks at any new rule or system of rules, and innovates a way to exploit its gaps or unconsidered side effects. That's how people are. That's also how collections of rules are: they don't ever work perfectly together and there's always a combination of conditions that wasn't thought of, or was thought of but it's too unwieldy or loses too much opportunity, to mess around trying to solve for it in advance.
In fact there should be different rules for individuals vs small groups vs the larger groups we think of as corporations. And this requires responding to the facts on the ground and not trying to theorize ahead of time how every single rule needs to be. We need principles. Like the ones in the Declaration of Independence. And the one that says, your right stops where real harm or loss to me begins. And the one that recognizes that mining the commons is a crime. And so on.
I don't follow. Who says they're neutral? They are clearly not. They simply have a belief that they want to promote.
On a related note: I am very frustrated by how the meanings of words are just assumed. What does liberalism mean? Progressivism? Elite?
I like the classics: "The most well-established meaning of liberalism is as a political and moral philosophy centered on individual rights, liberty, consent of the governed, political and legal equality, and the protection of private property. Liberalism advocates for a society in which individuals can freely pursue their interests and are protected from arbitrary authority or oppression."
I dunno... that's what I want and it's the basis of Western civilization. If the Argument wants to promote that, I say, more power to 'em.
Good — Evelyn and others who (rightly) want to criticize the Argument should be precise about the object of their critique. Distinguish between political liberalism (i.e. the democratic left in the United States) and philosophical liberalism (what you described above). When invoking neoliberalism, define it — and give at least two examples of how your target systematically fits that definition.
Progressivism could mean many things, but in Evelyn’s context I suspect it refers to the American political movement that has evolved from philosophically liberal-egalitarian to philosophically marxist-egalitarian.
Elitism in Evelyn’s context probably means a combo of: top decile by wealth and income, association with high status institutions, managerial positions in publicly traded companies, home ownership in tier 1/2 cities, etc.
Crucially, these definitions should capture not just the politicians, political consultants, and mega-donors. It should also capture the small-dollar donors with 6-7 figure net worth, and their adult children waiting for down payment assistance. Which is to say — it should capture the folks who largely now make up the democratic party’s base: the yard sign NIMBY’s.
Tbh: I don’t quite understand the message here. What’s the kind of neutrality you wish for if it isn’t the one that philosophical liberalism can offer? I’ve read the article “How do we live together?”. This was a strong argument for tolerance and neutrality regarding the deep pluralism we find in every society. What’s dogmatic about that? And what exactly are the beliefs you once held but gave up and which seemed to make you unfree? More specifically: which parts of philosophical liberalism would you like to get rid of?
She doesn’t have an answer for you. The writer had a bad falling out with her former employer. Her worldview boils down to getting retribution against those in her elite professional circle. Smug, childish and small minded.
The trilateral commission, the powell memo followed by the volcker shock and the election of Reagan reinstated capital back in the driver seat. The plutonomy memo and the Rand report citing 50 trillion taken by the malefactors of great wealth shows that from the 1970's till the present there is no doubt that a class war has been waged by the economic elites. The Plutonomy memo explicitly states that the only threat the wealthy have to fear is the ballot box.
Well said!
You perfectly articulated my vague misgivings when reading the initial announcement and description. Although, you have to wonder how influential the new project is likely to be over and above those writers' existing audience already.
With how openly MAGA does the MAGA thing right now, I’m completely fine with Libs Libbing out right now!
"the publication makes no apologies for being a defender of liberalism"
Whatever they're defending, it is in no way "liberalism" as classically defined.
Wikipedia: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law."
Re "equality before the law": Do they oppose race-based preferences over at the Argument? Do they endorse the SCOTUS decision banning them in college admissions?
Absolutely no one in the PMC Dem class has said so out loud, and I kinda doubt that the Arg crew is gonna be the first to take that plunge.
So whatever they're arguing for there (continued control of everything by them and those they like seems to be the actual goal), it sure ain't liberalism.
My take away: Through the eyes of a liberal -- if you are a conservative then you are far right; if you are center-right then you are far right; if you lean right then you are far right; if you are a centrist then you are likely far right; if you are a white male and over 50 then you most likely are far right; if you are none of the above then you are neutral. There is no left. There certainly is no far left — that is simply unheard of in their neutralized world. The Overton Window (in their minds) starts with their position and only slides to the left of the screen. Www.reynolds.com for more
Why would anyone think that any ruling ideology is neutral. Every ideology has limits and has to be protected to keep its monopoly power. Liberalism may be more inclusive than any other ideology, but it still has its limits.
Also, what is the alternative to liberalism? If you don't have one, and you don't know your own ideology well, you cant effectively discredit liberalism. Most people are just critical of Neoliberalism and are social democrats themselves which is just a left wing version of liberalism.
A socialist like me can, however, effectively discredit both Liberalism and Social Democracy.