Romanticism is the root of all evil. The only that unites the Left and Right is the unshakable conviction that Big is inherently bad: the Right hates Big Government, the Left hates Big Business. Anti-Vaxxers are convinced that Big Pharma is poisoning children with vaccines and everyone believes Big Food is poisoning us all. And that Nature, however red in tooth and claw, is good; that institutions are bad and ‘communities’ are good. That’s the culture. How do you address that? Alexander Hamilton founded my hometown because it was on the fall line so that they could exploit water power to run mills but it was Jefferson, the slave owner, that everyone admired. Hamilton was right.
There’s a Romantic undercurrent in both Left and Right, but what truly unites their radical inclinations isn’t just a distrust of Big—it’s the shared conviction that the present order is beyond saving and must be swept away. Not ‘tinkered’ with.
Radical Leftists dream of a post-capitalist, egalitarian future. Radical Rightists dream of a restored golden age of order, sovereignty, and self-reliance. The Left wants to tear down corporate oligarchs and oppressive hierarchies. The Right wants to dismantle the bureaucratic state and globalist institutions. Both see the status quo as rotten to the core. Both believe their utopia—whether a decentralised agrarian idyll or a high-tech nationalist revival—requires demolition, not reform.
They aren’t pragmatists. They’re revolutionaries. The details of their utopias differ, but the impulse is the same.
Right now, it’s Musk doing the smashing. If the Left had the same chance, they’d stand him up against a wall imo, comrade.
I agree with John Baker about the radicalism (or revolutionary utopianism) of the far left and far right (a pox in both of those houses!) -- but not with H.E. Baber's excoriation of Jefferson. See my own longer comment elsewhere in this thread.
My viewpoint derives from the KKK: Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka! ;-)
Canadian here-- similar dynamic in Canada also drives me crazy. Instead of action, we get the over emphasis of proceduralism and excessive or inappropriate amount of regulation and (my currently old man shaking fist at sky annoyance) inordinate amounts of data collection that small business must deal with from multiple levels of Canadian government. I really appreciated Yasha's asking Dunkelman in the podcast episode with him whether this phenomena was specific to the US or happening broadly in the West. Hopefully the left here in Canada will think about these questions. In our case, I think its too late, but maybe 5yrs from now for us.
Excellent essay. This requires an efficacious Congress, however. Congress has acquiesced a great deal of their power to carry out such reforms. The people who are effective at crafting such legislation and reforms are significant minorities in each respective and are not incentivized to work across the aisles to effect these changes.
A separate question and concern - how are we going to go about such a large scale building project for America when we can’t pay for what we have now and are teetering on a fiscal cliff with regards to major entitlements???
Won't happen. The America that built things is long gone. California can't build an HSR. This is not a particularly partisan point. Things don't get done in red states and in blue states. I have a standard comment on this.
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”
….”or the little Wollman Rink in Central Park (which had to be carried out by a private company when public authorities failed).” Unless my memory fails me the “private company” that finished the Wollman Rink, was in fact either owned by or chosen by Donald Trump. How about a little more transparency? You’re better than this kind of word play.
I’m a bit right of center, but if you lay aside its use in recent American politics, I really like the label Progressive. I’m for progress! I’m for the kind of progress you describe here. I’m not for the violent overthrow of the white colonialist patriarchy. That’s not progress; it’s revolution. Nor am I for conserving our society through political taxidermy. Steady, thoughtful progress: that’s the thing.
The center-right and center-left agree on many things. I would be delighted to be Progressive with you in pursuit of them.
Sorry, but the collectivists, the race-hustlers, and the nonprofit-industrial complex (aka "The Groups") have already hijacked the term "Progressive" -- irredeemably, at least for now.
In any event, a set of principles is involved here; "progress" is merely a by-product. You can proudly (re-)claim the term "Liberal."
Jefferson himself exercised executive authority with the Louisiana Purchase. The difference was that his use of "Hamiltonian" means was focused on achieving Jeffersonian ends (opening space for the spread of a republic of yeoman freeholders).
Indeed, my one quibble with the "abundance" agenda is its proponents' tendency to advocate high-density urbanism.
IMO, we should emulate the former California Governor, Pat Brown, who oversaw the rise of the UC system (much as Jefferson founded the University of Virginia!), the aqueducts, and the building of freeways and suburbs (where today, from places like Milpitas to Houston's [suburban] Chinatown, the most diverse array of mom-and-pop eateries can be found in strip malls [So much for "suburban monoculture"!]). It's "sprawl" only to those who look down on it!
As for the (all-too-readily) reviled Robert Moses? For all the hype around "mass transit" and "walkability scores," I'd gladly abandon the congestion of The Bronx (and the urbanist poodle-walk) to live a short drive from Jones Beach!
As for our residual dense urban environments? Consider the pedestrianized "old towns" in mid-sized European cities like Zaragoza or Montpellier: basically, as theme parks with parking nearby or underground!
Each person's home a castle! A(n electric) car in every garage!
(For more on the same theme, see the writings of Joel Kotkin .)
The main points made here are excellent! I only wish Fukuyama had referred to "liberal" causes rather than progressive ones, since the Progressive wing of the Dems (or of DSA) have their own negative baggage to many (like how to pay for all that free stuff). Another point: for those interested in this issue, see also the newly released book, "Abundance," by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. It is excellent, and has a very similar focus.
Progressives' negative baggage mostly involves arbitrarily classifying individuals as members of "oppressor" or "oppressed" (i.e., "historically marginalized") groups, and then claiming that members of the "oppressor" groups should pay for all the "free stuff."
Ironically, this has been the greatest obstacle to establishing a Scandinavian-style system, where everybody pays (and everybody reaps the rewards)
Francis, it would be nice to read about your thoughts, ideas and views about the size of the US federal government. Do you have a more classical liberal position or a social-democratic one?
I’d like to understand how the abundance agenda fits in with the Trumpian repatrimonialisation moment. Seems like all the abundance folk mount a fair critique about the procedural fetishism that has come to calcify the government and knee-cap its capacity, but it has come too late (itself a product of too slow processes? Instant publishing a year ago might have helped?). Once you start running government processes on the whims of the leader, it’s hard to see how you find your way back to legal-rational processes which you can then try to speed up. People like the appearance of quick action the patrimonial model provides. There is no way to match that speed in any bureaucracy, however much you deregulate it.
Once you have an ossified, self-intereted bureaucracy, it's ALREADY too late. Attempts to streamline the system only end up promulgating an ever-more-intricate set of rules. That's how bureaucracies operate; it's their lifeblood. That's what bureaucrats do.
There are no action heroes in a Kafka novel.
There's no way out, other than to wait for the cycle of history to repeat (and complete) itself. Vico recognized this 300 years ago (as Ibn Khaldun did 400 years earlier). The planet will still be here, but (as was true for Vico and Ibn Khadun) life won't look the same as it does now.
Meanwhile, go easy on the "abundance" folks. Under the circumstances, they'e doing the best they can.
Romanticism is the root of all evil. The only that unites the Left and Right is the unshakable conviction that Big is inherently bad: the Right hates Big Government, the Left hates Big Business. Anti-Vaxxers are convinced that Big Pharma is poisoning children with vaccines and everyone believes Big Food is poisoning us all. And that Nature, however red in tooth and claw, is good; that institutions are bad and ‘communities’ are good. That’s the culture. How do you address that? Alexander Hamilton founded my hometown because it was on the fall line so that they could exploit water power to run mills but it was Jefferson, the slave owner, that everyone admired. Hamilton was right.
There’s a Romantic undercurrent in both Left and Right, but what truly unites their radical inclinations isn’t just a distrust of Big—it’s the shared conviction that the present order is beyond saving and must be swept away. Not ‘tinkered’ with.
Radical Leftists dream of a post-capitalist, egalitarian future. Radical Rightists dream of a restored golden age of order, sovereignty, and self-reliance. The Left wants to tear down corporate oligarchs and oppressive hierarchies. The Right wants to dismantle the bureaucratic state and globalist institutions. Both see the status quo as rotten to the core. Both believe their utopia—whether a decentralised agrarian idyll or a high-tech nationalist revival—requires demolition, not reform.
They aren’t pragmatists. They’re revolutionaries. The details of their utopias differ, but the impulse is the same.
Right now, it’s Musk doing the smashing. If the Left had the same chance, they’d stand him up against a wall imo, comrade.
I agree with John Baker about the radicalism (or revolutionary utopianism) of the far left and far right (a pox in both of those houses!) -- but not with H.E. Baber's excoriation of Jefferson. See my own longer comment elsewhere in this thread.
My viewpoint derives from the KKK: Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka! ;-)
I take strong exception to your excoriation of Jefferson (and Jeffersonianism). See my own longer comment elsewhere in this thread.
My viewpoint derives from the KKK: Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka! ;-)
Canadian here-- similar dynamic in Canada also drives me crazy. Instead of action, we get the over emphasis of proceduralism and excessive or inappropriate amount of regulation and (my currently old man shaking fist at sky annoyance) inordinate amounts of data collection that small business must deal with from multiple levels of Canadian government. I really appreciated Yasha's asking Dunkelman in the podcast episode with him whether this phenomena was specific to the US or happening broadly in the West. Hopefully the left here in Canada will think about these questions. In our case, I think its too late, but maybe 5yrs from now for us.
One editorial detail: NEPA is National Environmental Policy Act
Excellent essay. This requires an efficacious Congress, however. Congress has acquiesced a great deal of their power to carry out such reforms. The people who are effective at crafting such legislation and reforms are significant minorities in each respective and are not incentivized to work across the aisles to effect these changes.
A separate question and concern - how are we going to go about such a large scale building project for America when we can’t pay for what we have now and are teetering on a fiscal cliff with regards to major entitlements???
Won't happen. The America that built things is long gone. California can't build an HSR. This is not a particularly partisan point. Things don't get done in red states and in blue states. I have a standard comment on this.
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”
Of course, I could mention El Salvador…
….”or the little Wollman Rink in Central Park (which had to be carried out by a private company when public authorities failed).” Unless my memory fails me the “private company” that finished the Wollman Rink, was in fact either owned by or chosen by Donald Trump. How about a little more transparency? You’re better than this kind of word play.
I’m a bit right of center, but if you lay aside its use in recent American politics, I really like the label Progressive. I’m for progress! I’m for the kind of progress you describe here. I’m not for the violent overthrow of the white colonialist patriarchy. That’s not progress; it’s revolution. Nor am I for conserving our society through political taxidermy. Steady, thoughtful progress: that’s the thing.
The center-right and center-left agree on many things. I would be delighted to be Progressive with you in pursuit of them.
Sorry, but the collectivists, the race-hustlers, and the nonprofit-industrial complex (aka "The Groups") have already hijacked the term "Progressive" -- irredeemably, at least for now.
In any event, a set of principles is involved here; "progress" is merely a by-product. You can proudly (re-)claim the term "Liberal."
The starting point is to get rid of the 'we are the Good People who do Good Things and they are the Bad People who do Bad Things' mindset.
Jefferson himself exercised executive authority with the Louisiana Purchase. The difference was that his use of "Hamiltonian" means was focused on achieving Jeffersonian ends (opening space for the spread of a republic of yeoman freeholders).
Indeed, my one quibble with the "abundance" agenda is its proponents' tendency to advocate high-density urbanism.
IMO, we should emulate the former California Governor, Pat Brown, who oversaw the rise of the UC system (much as Jefferson founded the University of Virginia!), the aqueducts, and the building of freeways and suburbs (where today, from places like Milpitas to Houston's [suburban] Chinatown, the most diverse array of mom-and-pop eateries can be found in strip malls [So much for "suburban monoculture"!]). It's "sprawl" only to those who look down on it!
As for the (all-too-readily) reviled Robert Moses? For all the hype around "mass transit" and "walkability scores," I'd gladly abandon the congestion of The Bronx (and the urbanist poodle-walk) to live a short drive from Jones Beach!
As for our residual dense urban environments? Consider the pedestrianized "old towns" in mid-sized European cities like Zaragoza or Montpellier: basically, as theme parks with parking nearby or underground!
Each person's home a castle! A(n electric) car in every garage!
(For more on the same theme, see the writings of Joel Kotkin .)
The main points made here are excellent! I only wish Fukuyama had referred to "liberal" causes rather than progressive ones, since the Progressive wing of the Dems (or of DSA) have their own negative baggage to many (like how to pay for all that free stuff). Another point: for those interested in this issue, see also the newly released book, "Abundance," by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. It is excellent, and has a very similar focus.
Progressives' negative baggage mostly involves arbitrarily classifying individuals as members of "oppressor" or "oppressed" (i.e., "historically marginalized") groups, and then claiming that members of the "oppressor" groups should pay for all the "free stuff."
Ironically, this has been the greatest obstacle to establishing a Scandinavian-style system, where everybody pays (and everybody reaps the rewards)
Francis, it would be nice to read about your thoughts, ideas and views about the size of the US federal government. Do you have a more classical liberal position or a social-democratic one?
One important factor to understand is that Canada is more decentralised as a federation compared to the USA
I’d like to understand how the abundance agenda fits in with the Trumpian repatrimonialisation moment. Seems like all the abundance folk mount a fair critique about the procedural fetishism that has come to calcify the government and knee-cap its capacity, but it has come too late (itself a product of too slow processes? Instant publishing a year ago might have helped?). Once you start running government processes on the whims of the leader, it’s hard to see how you find your way back to legal-rational processes which you can then try to speed up. People like the appearance of quick action the patrimonial model provides. There is no way to match that speed in any bureaucracy, however much you deregulate it.
Once you have an ossified, self-intereted bureaucracy, it's ALREADY too late. Attempts to streamline the system only end up promulgating an ever-more-intricate set of rules. That's how bureaucracies operate; it's their lifeblood. That's what bureaucrats do.
There are no action heroes in a Kafka novel.
There's no way out, other than to wait for the cycle of history to repeat (and complete) itself. Vico recognized this 300 years ago (as Ibn Khaldun did 400 years earlier). The planet will still be here, but (as was true for Vico and Ibn Khadun) life won't look the same as it does now.
Meanwhile, go easy on the "abundance" folks. Under the circumstances, they'e doing the best they can.