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.
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.
Absolutely. It's always stood out to me that most of the Founders abhorred the Jacobins and refused to give them any help. It's a bit dishonerable perhaps, considering that French aid was so pivotal for our own revolution. But when you see the horror that was unleashed and the way they rid themselves of one king only to crown an emperor...the Founders were so spot on. Being "for the people" is not the same as being populist. One is empowering, the other is spiteful and destructive. We should seek to be rationalists, not Jacobins.
...good to see you back JG...the world needs smart people, motivated people, and leaders...good leaders...real leaders...appreciate your perspective...
The founders cared about government being receptive to the needs of its people, but they weren't in any way populist. They were unapologetically elite and wrote many warnings about the dangers of mob rule. They purposefully limited the power of direct elections (a check we have now abandoned). Populism isn't defined by being "for the little guy", though that's always involved. Populism, as you say, is defined by blaming elites for your problems. The Jacobins were populist and our founders wouldn't give them the time of day, even though France had been instrumental in helping us with our own revolution. They knew that people filled with such rage are incapable of building anything or improving anyone's lives. Populists know they need to destroy every source of trust outside themselves. If you believe anyone else then they say it makes you naive, but in reality they are eliminating alternative perspectives to make you more gullible.
'The baton is in our hands. We just have to take it. Be the elite you wish to see.' Well put Jeff.
Populism contains an inherent danger because it offers easy answers that look good to difficult problems. This is inherently dangerous. At the same time, I find it so irresponsible, and dangerous in its own way, that so many call populism fascism. Trump is many things but a fascist is not one of them. When we call every second thing fascist, we will have no words for the real horror when it comes.
As for elites, I like your thoughts on this. In fact, the quality of our elites plays a very large role in how well we do, how well we manage crises, or not, as may be the case.
Just look at FDR. Would that we could find someone of his ilk now.
Astute thinking and engaging analysis Jeff, cheers))
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.
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.
There is something really crass about a progressive left that still thinks it's rebelling against The Man.
It IS The Man. (sarcastic slow clap)
In GenX argot, they are a bunch of posers.
But once you get past that--and by that, I mean simply recognizing it for what it is--by all means be all the elite you can be. Most Americans are probably a lot closer to that than they realize.
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."--Thomas Edison
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.
Jeff, your idea to be the elite you want to see is great and is exactly the ideological basis and hope of our country’s founders when they structured the US Constitution and started our experiment in self government. For example, there’s a discussion about their concept of a “natural aristocracy“ at https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/united-states-constiuttion-declaration-independence-founders-framers-natural-aristocracy-democracy-republicanism/amp) But a better word than aristocracy would be meritocracy, because it had to be real and earned. Madison defined the best rulers as those “who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society.” Unfortunately, that wisdom and virtue has been too often and lacking in our elected officials, partially due to voters’ choices, but also partially due to the lack of better candidates on the ballot at the time people cast their votes.
This is the implicit thesis of Radical Centrist. https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/
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.
Heh, "closeted elitism." I like that.
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.
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.
Absolutely. It's always stood out to me that most of the Founders abhorred the Jacobins and refused to give them any help. It's a bit dishonerable perhaps, considering that French aid was so pivotal for our own revolution. But when you see the horror that was unleashed and the way they rid themselves of one king only to crown an emperor...the Founders were so spot on. Being "for the people" is not the same as being populist. One is empowering, the other is spiteful and destructive. We should seek to be rationalists, not Jacobins.
...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
Completely agree. I wrote something kind of similar back in December, though my argument was more about why Democrats should lean into eliteism instead of trying to win back the populist mantle: https://open.substack.com/pub/letsberealistic/p/elites-should-be-unapologetically?r=h4vef&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
The founders cared about government being receptive to the needs of its people, but they weren't in any way populist. They were unapologetically elite and wrote many warnings about the dangers of mob rule. They purposefully limited the power of direct elections (a check we have now abandoned). Populism isn't defined by being "for the little guy", though that's always involved. Populism, as you say, is defined by blaming elites for your problems. The Jacobins were populist and our founders wouldn't give them the time of day, even though France had been instrumental in helping us with our own revolution. They knew that people filled with such rage are incapable of building anything or improving anyone's lives. Populists know they need to destroy every source of trust outside themselves. If you believe anyone else then they say it makes you naive, but in reality they are eliminating alternative perspectives to make you more gullible.
Great article.
Thanks! I’ll check out your post.
'The baton is in our hands. We just have to take it. Be the elite you wish to see.' Well put Jeff.
Populism contains an inherent danger because it offers easy answers that look good to difficult problems. This is inherently dangerous. At the same time, I find it so irresponsible, and dangerous in its own way, that so many call populism fascism. Trump is many things but a fascist is not one of them. When we call every second thing fascist, we will have no words for the real horror when it comes.
As for elites, I like your thoughts on this. In fact, the quality of our elites plays a very large role in how well we do, how well we manage crises, or not, as may be the case.
Just look at FDR. Would that we could find someone of his ilk now.
Astute thinking and engaging analysis Jeff, cheers))
Thanks Shane!
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.
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!
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 :)
There is something really crass about a progressive left that still thinks it's rebelling against The Man.
It IS The Man. (sarcastic slow clap)
In GenX argot, they are a bunch of posers.
But once you get past that--and by that, I mean simply recognizing it for what it is--by all means be all the elite you can be. Most Americans are probably a lot closer to that than they realize.
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."--Thomas Edison
You mention having read some works in populism? Please say more in this… references? Do you welcome debate or Socratic dialogue in your comments?
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.
Jeff, your idea to be the elite you want to see is great and is exactly the ideological basis and hope of our country’s founders when they structured the US Constitution and started our experiment in self government. For example, there’s a discussion about their concept of a “natural aristocracy“ at https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/united-states-constiuttion-declaration-independence-founders-framers-natural-aristocracy-democracy-republicanism/amp) But a better word than aristocracy would be meritocracy, because it had to be real and earned. Madison defined the best rulers as those “who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society.” Unfortunately, that wisdom and virtue has been too often and lacking in our elected officials, partially due to voters’ choices, but also partially due to the lack of better candidates on the ballot at the time people cast their votes.