"It seems to me to be worth trying. And if liberals can’t do that, doesn’t that also implicitly suggest that the radicals kind of have a point?"
This is provocative, even outrageous on an intellectual level and so banal as to be self-evident on a democratic level. Which I think is why the Linker piece is overrated; Bronze Age Pervert doesn't explain much of anything about the 2022 takeover of the House by the GOP. Linker's piece is, plainly, not about democracy. Voter discontent with rising inflation and unpopular asylum law, by contrast, really does explain who wins and loses the latest election. Hence House Resolution 1 and House Resolution 2 of this year passed by the GOP House addressed exactly those things. Deregulating natural gas and mining production while limiting asylum law use are major legislative priorities for the GOP, and it's why they think they won the House of Reps narrowly in the midterm. Not whatever came out of the Claremont think tank.
I'm reminded of a great passage in David Frum's 1994 book Dead Right; politics is about governing, not cultural commentary. I think Linker's essay would be more relevant to democracy and less of an intellectual exercise if it looked at the major things former Speaker McCarthy passed and now Speaker Johnson is expected to pass while fighting Biden over the budget. That is obviously more helpful; a person can wrap their mind around what greater NEPA reform would look like. Or capping Medicare growth to keep corporate income taxes lower for long-run investment looks like. Or cutting legal immigration by 25% for a niche semi-conductor engineer visa looks like.
But you cannot imagine what endorsing 25% of the worldview of an ironic nude gay fascist body builder talking about exterminating all bug people would look like. It's not even quantifiable. It just sounds stupid and it's obviously not worth trying. A lot of readers just aren't terribly interested in reading about legislative policy, so I understand why this stuff gets published more often instead. It's just not clear to me most Republican voters even know who these people are or care about them.
While I do agree pieces like Linker's tend to miss the trees for a forest they can only see from a very long distance, I think you are definitely too focused on some short-term trees and missing anything like the woods. Or maybe I strained the analogy too much, but come on, there is some room for worrying about right-wing radical illiberalism!
I think there is room for worry, and it largely rests in Trump's bad judgement which, when president, accompanied a GOP that was willing to ignore him in policy asks all the time but also entertain conspiracy theories and reckless behavior right up until a riot occurred in our legislature. The simple recurring fact has not changed since 2015. Trump is unfit for the job of the presidency and is primarily an entertainer who has no interest in taking its responsibilities and duties seriously. He should not be put in the job again.
But I insist that if you want to favor democracy over catastrophe, liberals like Linker would benefit from looking into how the democracy (legislature) operates and what people elected to it want to do in policy terms. Democrats are free to change their policy platform or run candidates with disagreements on the platform if they want to win more seats in 2024. That just seems a lot more relevant to democracy than going 25% in with BAP's worldview (which as I established earlier, cannot even be quantified in that way or meaningfully assessed.) Leave crazy intellectual ideas to the intellectuals and democracy to the popularly elected legislature. That would make a lot more sense!
fascinating
it's interesting to see the other side of the aisle
i am writing a rebuttal to Linkler's piece right now, from the right
IMO it inflates the egos of the BAPists and makes it seem as if Claremont just exists to bootlick Trump
"It seems to me to be worth trying. And if liberals can’t do that, doesn’t that also implicitly suggest that the radicals kind of have a point?"
This is provocative, even outrageous on an intellectual level and so banal as to be self-evident on a democratic level. Which I think is why the Linker piece is overrated; Bronze Age Pervert doesn't explain much of anything about the 2022 takeover of the House by the GOP. Linker's piece is, plainly, not about democracy. Voter discontent with rising inflation and unpopular asylum law, by contrast, really does explain who wins and loses the latest election. Hence House Resolution 1 and House Resolution 2 of this year passed by the GOP House addressed exactly those things. Deregulating natural gas and mining production while limiting asylum law use are major legislative priorities for the GOP, and it's why they think they won the House of Reps narrowly in the midterm. Not whatever came out of the Claremont think tank.
I'm reminded of a great passage in David Frum's 1994 book Dead Right; politics is about governing, not cultural commentary. I think Linker's essay would be more relevant to democracy and less of an intellectual exercise if it looked at the major things former Speaker McCarthy passed and now Speaker Johnson is expected to pass while fighting Biden over the budget. That is obviously more helpful; a person can wrap their mind around what greater NEPA reform would look like. Or capping Medicare growth to keep corporate income taxes lower for long-run investment looks like. Or cutting legal immigration by 25% for a niche semi-conductor engineer visa looks like.
But you cannot imagine what endorsing 25% of the worldview of an ironic nude gay fascist body builder talking about exterminating all bug people would look like. It's not even quantifiable. It just sounds stupid and it's obviously not worth trying. A lot of readers just aren't terribly interested in reading about legislative policy, so I understand why this stuff gets published more often instead. It's just not clear to me most Republican voters even know who these people are or care about them.
While I do agree pieces like Linker's tend to miss the trees for a forest they can only see from a very long distance, I think you are definitely too focused on some short-term trees and missing anything like the woods. Or maybe I strained the analogy too much, but come on, there is some room for worrying about right-wing radical illiberalism!
I think there is room for worry, and it largely rests in Trump's bad judgement which, when president, accompanied a GOP that was willing to ignore him in policy asks all the time but also entertain conspiracy theories and reckless behavior right up until a riot occurred in our legislature. The simple recurring fact has not changed since 2015. Trump is unfit for the job of the presidency and is primarily an entertainer who has no interest in taking its responsibilities and duties seriously. He should not be put in the job again.
But I insist that if you want to favor democracy over catastrophe, liberals like Linker would benefit from looking into how the democracy (legislature) operates and what people elected to it want to do in policy terms. Democrats are free to change their policy platform or run candidates with disagreements on the platform if they want to win more seats in 2024. That just seems a lot more relevant to democracy than going 25% in with BAP's worldview (which as I established earlier, cannot even be quantified in that way or meaningfully assessed.) Leave crazy intellectual ideas to the intellectuals and democracy to the popularly elected legislature. That would make a lot more sense!