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.
...good to see you back JG...the world needs smart people, motivated people, and leaders...good leaders...real leaders...appreciate your perspective...
Huge question is: how to incorporate this, now that we know voters kinda love corn-syrup-like lies and can’t often be bothered to consider depth of any complex issue… that is complex for a reason.
We are in an interconnected world, there are multiple cross-dependent but mutually unhappy cohorts. Classes. Casts.
Everyone votes.
Inflammatory lesions like Yarvinism start to flare up. People scratch that wound, it grows.
How to find that new set of benevolent leaders that have both big heart and strong teeth?
'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.
It seems like we’re a fan of Trump but without liking any of his actual policies because he has taken action towards most of his stated goals. Which is why a lot of the people who like him have continued to like him despite numerous scandals.
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.
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.
Heh, "closeted elitism." I like that.
...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
Agreed on direction.
Huge question is: how to incorporate this, now that we know voters kinda love corn-syrup-like lies and can’t often be bothered to consider depth of any complex issue… that is complex for a reason.
We are in an interconnected world, there are multiple cross-dependent but mutually unhappy cohorts. Classes. Casts.
Everyone votes.
Inflammatory lesions like Yarvinism start to flare up. People scratch that wound, it grows.
How to find that new set of benevolent leaders that have both big heart and strong teeth?
🤔
Post-boomer leadership identification and cultivation...
'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
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.
It seems like we’re a fan of Trump but without liking any of his actual policies because he has taken action towards most of his stated goals. Which is why a lot of the people who like him have continued to like him despite numerous scandals.
Even as a downwardly mobile child of (lower) middle class parents, I relate to this.