A model for what you seem to be calling for is the New Dealers. The New Dealers when they came to power acting to address the economic concerns of the Populists (once an independent agrarian movement but now a subset of the Democratic party (link 1). Next they addressed the problems of Labor in a way that gained the political support of the working class (link 2), which allowed them to be solidly in control during WW II, when they implemented a pro-worker economic system (link 3). Much more on this sort of thing is what my substack is about.
A new "New Deal" in order to evolve a pro-worker economy once again, can serve some conservative social goals (I note that the New Deal came from the RED party (link 4). One example is the New Deal created "SC" economy was more conducive to marriage and family formation that its successor the "SP" Neoliberal economy (links 5 & 6).
And the self-defeating nature of much anti-elite-ism. Cowen writes:
" Successful societies are based on trust, including trust in leaders, and the New Right doesn’t offer resources for forming that trust or any kind of comparable substitute. As a nation-building project it seems like a dead end. If anything, it may hasten the Brazilianification of the United States rather than avoiding it, Brazil being a paradigmatic example of a low trust society and government.
"I also do not see how the New Right stance avoids the risks from an extremely corrupt and self-seeking power elite. Let’s say the New Right description of the rottenness of elites were true – would we really solve that problem by electing more New Right-oriented individuals to government? Under a New Right worldview, there is all the more reason to be cynical about New Right"
Thanks for referring me to the Cowen piece, which I hadn't seen. He seems to conflate New Rightists and populists, but that's probably fair. This sentence is great: "Under a New Right worldview, there is all the more reason to be cynical about New Right" — so true ha.
Totally right on. I so identify with your direction, I could have written it... written it if I had your command of thought. I'm delighted you are young and have time to make a difference. I hope YOU seize it.
I guess I’m something of an elite, having gone to a Russell-Group University, though isn’t like Stanford. I try to use my talents as a lower-level elite through writing Substack.
You are authorized. :) I consider myself moderate, center-right - which needs its own counter-elite. Thanks for the kind words. Glad you liked the article.
What we call "populism” today is no more than less what was called “jacobinism” during the French revolution and “communism” in XIX-XX century.
Of course, a french little owner had plenty legitimate grievances against French aristocracy, as well as the proles had against industrialists and bourgeois, but when you focus to pars destruens without focusing on pars costruens as well, every outcome would be cathastrophic.
...good to see you back JG...the world needs smart people, motivated people, and leaders...good leaders...real leaders...appreciate your perspective...
Nice to see you back Jeff. What a great distinction and empowering perspective. This applies to so many domains, not just government, but includes any domain of interest or concern, including the governing of oneself. "You are authorized!" I'm letting this sink in! Thank you.
I like that you used the term "leader" instead of "decision maker." I don't know if that was conscious or not, but it made me glad. The label "decision maker" drives me nuts as it divorces the person with power and authority from any responsibility. Decision makers love to say things like "I'm just making a decision based on the data". Computer programs, AI, etc can do the same and better. We need leaders, not decision makers.
A model for what you seem to be calling for is the New Dealers. The New Dealers when they came to power acting to address the economic concerns of the Populists (once an independent agrarian movement but now a subset of the Democratic party (link 1). Next they addressed the problems of Labor in a way that gained the political support of the working class (link 2), which allowed them to be solidly in control during WW II, when they implemented a pro-worker economic system (link 3). Much more on this sort of thing is what my substack is about.
A new "New Deal" in order to evolve a pro-worker economy once again, can serve some conservative social goals (I note that the New Deal came from the RED party (link 4). One example is the New Deal created "SC" economy was more conducive to marriage and family formation that its successor the "SP" Neoliberal economy (links 5 & 6).
1. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-irrelevance-of-todays-left
2. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-the-new-dealers-gained-the-ability
3. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-inequality-reduction-happened
4. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/an-alternate-american-political-spectrum
5. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/two-visions-of-america-bedford-falls
6. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/social-consequences-of-economic-evolution
That's an interesting analog, thank you Mike.
This is the implicit thesis of Radical Centrist. https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/
Wonderful essay that I think can be summed up in a single sentence: "You know better...now act like it."
Thank you. Yes, that's the prompt.
Tyler Cowen's take on the New Right also stresses the inevitability of elites
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/10/classical-liberalism-vs-the-new-right.html
And the self-defeating nature of much anti-elite-ism. Cowen writes:
" Successful societies are based on trust, including trust in leaders, and the New Right doesn’t offer resources for forming that trust or any kind of comparable substitute. As a nation-building project it seems like a dead end. If anything, it may hasten the Brazilianification of the United States rather than avoiding it, Brazil being a paradigmatic example of a low trust society and government.
"I also do not see how the New Right stance avoids the risks from an extremely corrupt and self-seeking power elite. Let’s say the New Right description of the rottenness of elites were true – would we really solve that problem by electing more New Right-oriented individuals to government? Under a New Right worldview, there is all the more reason to be cynical about New Right"
Thanks for referring me to the Cowen piece, which I hadn't seen. He seems to conflate New Rightists and populists, but that's probably fair. This sentence is great: "Under a New Right worldview, there is all the more reason to be cynical about New Right" — so true ha.
Totally right on. I so identify with your direction, I could have written it... written it if I had your command of thought. I'm delighted you are young and have time to make a difference. I hope YOU seize it.
Thanks John!
Great! We need elites on our side.
I guess I’m something of an elite, having gone to a Russell-Group University, though isn’t like Stanford. I try to use my talents as a lower-level elite through writing Substack.
You are authorized. :) I consider myself moderate, center-right - which needs its own counter-elite. Thanks for the kind words. Glad you liked the article.
I'd be a centrist... in an Overton Window created by me. 😝
What we call "populism” today is no more than less what was called “jacobinism” during the French revolution and “communism” in XIX-XX century.
Of course, a french little owner had plenty legitimate grievances against French aristocracy, as well as the proles had against industrialists and bourgeois, but when you focus to pars destruens without focusing on pars costruens as well, every outcome would be cathastrophic.
...good to see you back JG...the world needs smart people, motivated people, and leaders...good leaders...real leaders...appreciate your perspective...
Thanks so much for your support
New JG post, alright!
Great points made here. I think Rick’s comment here says it perfectly: this applies to so many domains. This is a refreshing approach to progress.
Thank you Brandon!
Nice to see you back Jeff. What a great distinction and empowering perspective. This applies to so many domains, not just government, but includes any domain of interest or concern, including the governing of oneself. "You are authorized!" I'm letting this sink in! Thank you.
Thanks Rick! Although this post has a political flavor, it really does apply broadly. Assume the authority. Seize it :)
I like that you used the term "leader" instead of "decision maker." I don't know if that was conscious or not, but it made me glad. The label "decision maker" drives me nuts as it divorces the person with power and authority from any responsibility. Decision makers love to say things like "I'm just making a decision based on the data". Computer programs, AI, etc can do the same and better. We need leaders, not decision makers.
You mention having read some works in populism? Please say more in this… references? Do you welcome debate or Socratic dialogue in your comments?