Perhaps it is worth recognizing the work done by writers at places like Quillette that have been sounding alarm and taking up this fight for several years now. It is good and laudable that cultural figures with significant institutional backing are now taking this situation seriously enough to organize against it but some gratitude to those who sounded the alarm on this (often thanklessly and from positions of far greater vulnerability) would be appreciated.
Absolutely. Im sure people here's views on Quillette (and National Review, the Nation, etc) will differ but personally its coverage of illiberalism rising helped get me here.
First, bravo! I’m very excited for what you’ve started Yascha. And in the spirit of picking up your call for a space for discussion and community, I’ll offer one reaction to your first post.
In your short history of the traditional liberal institutions, which I recognize for purposes of this intro was necessarily abbreviated, I think you leave out a rather large third shortcoming: that these institutions promoted “meritocracy” on a basis that was often misleading and at times corrupt. This is basically the thesis of Chris Hayes’ excellent Twilight of the Elites, a book I think any analysis of why these “gatekeeper” institutions have been/are being torn down has to reckon with.
And indeed I think the conundrum of the gatekeeper function is one this community also needs to wrestle with, if not solve for. On the one hand, as Levitsky and Ziblatt wrote in How Democracies Die, the role of gatekeeper institutions has been important in preserving democratic stability. And indeed the dismantling of American Party machines as gatekeepers gave us Trump. And on the other hand, these gatekeeper institutions are almost always mechanisms by which one order is preserved, and alternative orders oppressed. They have been used as tools of the powerful for self protection, as you note often along race, gender and other discriminatory lines, including especially along financial lines.
A core question to me, and you allude to this in your intro here, is how do we revive the beneficial elements of gatekeeper institutions in the intellectual space (i.e., I think we largely would agree we want a media with journalistic standards around facts and truth, an academia that promotes racial equity and rejects things like eugenics) without the harmful elements. Indeed, we need a solution that may go further and help undo the harms of the past. That seems to me a primary challenge for this sort of liberal endeavor.
1. Is this kind of project not an inherently exclusive association of self-selecting individuals? I assume many of us who have joined this community have a disproportionate sense of urgency in these matters. While I’m sure a significant majority of people believe in liberal values, and perhaps even believe they are under threat, I‘m skeptical of the idea that there are large socioeconomically diverse groups of the people in the United States who believe, as we do, that our society is increasingly threatened by the flouting of these values and that some kind of action is warranted to defend them. For instance, how many people would naturally refer to themselves as a “philosophical liberal”? A diverse society like ours here in the United States will inevitably have a mix of people with drastically different human needs and motivations depending on their position within society. It’s my hunch that this plays a significant role in how inclusive communities can be. I agree, however, that we should challenge ourselves and think of ways to make this a more naturally inclusive community.
2. To that end, I think we philosophical liberals have to do a better job of demonstrating the benefits of liberal values on the material and spiritual well-being of all people, and especially the historically opposed and marginalized.
The most self destructive thing we could do would be to represent or speak for
"the historically opposed and marginalized". These people and groups need
empowerment and autonomy and the opportunity to integrate their needs and demands into the larger society of those dedicated to free speech and inquiry, and to cultural freedom. Speaking out and acting for special interest groups no matter how progressive or just their aims will undercut the unity of focus and purpose that we need and undermine the very unity of principles and purpose we seek. It is the broad general principles of freedom and justice that need attention and in turn
Thanks for your thought-provoking comment, Lorna. I agree with you from a rhetorical perspective, and I’m inclined to agree with you on substance. I intuitively understand that by focusing on particular groups of individuals by class, race, religion, we lose sight of universal principles and values that serve to unite us. But I’m concerned that by focusing on general principles in the abstract and neglecting to examine the consequences of these principles on society—particularly on people’s material well-being—we won’t understand a potentially significant reason why these principles lose their appeal with the general public. That’s not to say that the public wouldn’t agree with these principles in the abstract, but much like today, they wouldn’t truly understand what these principles demand of their own actions when engaging in public debate and political action.
As you can probably guess, my hunch is that this is part of the reason why liberal principles have lost their sway on the left today (I’m not sure this applies to the illiberalism on the right). The ascendant social justice warriors believe that liberal principles and ideals just keep economic and political power in the hands of those who already have it. And this balance of power only seems to benefit an increasingly smaller share of society. I think it’s incumbent upon those of us who believe in the power of liberal principles and ideals to create a more fair and just society to concern ourselves with these critiques and to openly and honestly grapple with the questions that arise when examining the practical consequences and effects of liberal values.
Wouldn’t this then necessitate some kind of focus on the historically oppressed and those being left behind? (That’s an honest question…)
What I did not discuss was this: I believe more than a desire for political and economic power motivates the SJW, BLM and their allies. It is their blanket rejection of Enlightenment values, of western culture, of history, of the arts and essentially of the institutions that support the rule of law and equality. This is not to say our system is perfect, but an honest reading of history and activism demonstrates that the U.S.A. has made huge progress in achieving social justice and economic opportunity, thanks to our Constitution (which is also being categorically and stupidly rejected). This wholesale rejection of essentially all of western culture and society is at the root of the resistance of the poor, the minorities and the disenfranchised. The whole premise of these resistance groups - that liberal principles only perpetuate illegitimate and regressive power - is completely wrong but this dogma is what fires them up and helps to rationalize their radical objectives. It also shores up their authoritarianism no less than it did in the Soviet Union or China. Their position is therefore inflexible, unrealistic and
necessarily violent to one degree or another. As long as they abhor western civilization and misrepresent liberal democracy for ideological purposes, they have no claim to any kind of virtue.
I think that could very well be true for some. But let’s presume there are at least some who mainly desire economic and political power so that they can address some of the income and wealth inequalities in our society. What then? What’s the answer to those who believe there is an alarming lack of social mobility and an unacceptable level of income and wealth inequality in our society? What’s the answer to those who believe (rightly) that progress in the aggregate hasn’t meaningfully improved the material well-being of poor, minority, and working/middle class individuals and families in particular? Surely our answer can’t simply be, “But progress…” or “These principles will help you, eventually…”.
How will those left out and left behind actually be empowered and gain autonomy? I presume based on your first comment that you believe this is a legitimate question. So, I ask again, doesn’t this necessitate some focus on individual groups of people? Doesn’t this necessitate some focus on people who are not beneficiaries of “progress”? And again, I’m asking honestly in case I’m missing something.
This is a response to the comment that followed the one above and responded to mine. There is a difference between addressing economic needs and political
empowerment as a major focus of organizing, legislation and policy, and selecting out one particular group as the beneficiaries. It is the general and universal (i.e. national) policies and laws and institutions that need reform, which will if enacted properly, will benefit specific groups. I believe that speaking or acting on behalf of a group's needs is divisive and risks too narrow a focus for reform. But addressing national policies and laws is much broader and will necessarily be of benefit to all citizens...as citizens, not as members of a group. The concept of group rights is not only distasteful but in violation of the universal values we profess to support. Members of a minority or "oppressed" group are entitled to equal rights with everyone else, not just those in their group. The regressive and divisive Identity Politics we are suffering under today is precisely the result of regarding people only as members of a group. Neither our forefathers nor our Constitution nor human rights groups function to protect group rights, only individual rights. ID is arguably the most anti democratic concept today, one which makes any kind of political
unity or agreement completely impossible and sets up one group against another.
It must be challenged at every turn and abolished.
Again, I generally agree with your instincts here to avoid the particulars that serve to divide us and focus on the universals that can unite us. But if you implement policies designed for the whole and they fail to empower the historically marginalized, how do you address the policy failure?
My point is that I think the policy failures will necessitate a focus on individual groups. It doesn’t mean that one should necessarily propose group-specific policies (that’s debatable, and I’m personally inclined against it). But it does mean that the data will lead you to individual groups, and then the question will necessarily be, “Why did the policy fail this particular group?”
This is also a principal concern of mine. I am especially wary of tying things like commenting on forums to cash subscriptions. Hopefully we can develop more democratic and meritocratic ways to promote good engagement and discourage superficial or bad-faith engagement.
I am excited for y'all and that there is a place for thoughtful discussion on the American identity, which has been maladapted and disguised or revered by many incredulous actors. I am so glad and humbled to be apart of this network. I can't wait to hear from Professor Haidt and Dr. Anne Applebaum. Phenomenal academics are here to lead. 👏🏼
Thanks so much for taking the lead and the time to begin this initiative. As soon as I heard your call, I was on board - as you say, the need for a community such as you are creating / facilitating extends beyond the US. I’m in Australia and want to ensure the illiberal left and right do not overwhelm the liberal institutions we enjoy
Probably because it's a) focused on the US and b) focused on the last 50 years. The economist is British and has been an institution there since the 19th century (IIRC). I don't think he mentioned any non-american publications.
There is a great song by the 1970's singer songwriter Harry Chapin called "I wonder what would happen to this world." which fits this mission perfectly. The first lines are, "Now, if a man tried to take his time on Earth and prove before he died what one man's life could be worth, I wonder what would happen to this world."
The policy failure may lead you to where the policy failed but that only indicates that the policy was badly formulated or dishonest or token or unfairly implemented, or a combination of these. Then there are the unmentionable and politically incorrect problems that arise from specific cultural and social problems in a community, which unfortunately are often connected to race (or religion or gender). These have to be addressed of course (drugs, prison, guns, single parent household, etc.) In some cases addressing poverty and education, and enforcing existing laws, will deal with these. But not always. And it is very easy to simply blame
"systemic racism" for these. And that is the situation we have today. Under these circumstances it is in fact an easy way out of a situation where you dont want to address anything in an honest matter because it might require discussion of race. It becomes much easier to just blame the whole capitalist or patriarchal or white-controlled system.
Enjoyed this introduction and looking forward to this new online publication site. A few thoughts. First, I'd never considered AEI to be a "libertarian" entity per se, but perhaps it was before I began to consume their work in the 1990s. Second, the phrase at the end is "chomping" at the bit (sorry for the pedantry). Congratulations on a successful launch and thank you for doing this.
I also would not consider AEI libertarian. The Cato Institute is by far the leading libertarian think-tank who has been doing incredible work for over 40 years.
Thank you Yascha. I'm excited to be a part of this and hope this catches an ideologically wide net united by these common values and (fruitfully) divided by much else.
Thanks for starting this "movement." Having been led to Persuasion by Jennifer Rubin's comment in today's WaPo, and already planning to use Yascha's "The People vs. Democracy" in a course I am teaching to local retirees in the Hanover, NH area, I wanted to see what he was doing. My course will give space to populist predecessors, to show that this phenomenon is not merely current. (See p. 181 of his book.) Best Wishes.
Perhaps it is worth recognizing the work done by writers at places like Quillette that have been sounding alarm and taking up this fight for several years now. It is good and laudable that cultural figures with significant institutional backing are now taking this situation seriously enough to organize against it but some gratitude to those who sounded the alarm on this (often thanklessly and from positions of far greater vulnerability) would be appreciated.
Absolutely. Im sure people here's views on Quillette (and National Review, the Nation, etc) will differ but personally its coverage of illiberalism rising helped get me here.
Absolutely! I was hoping for this too. Quillette, Areo Magazine, Arc Digital, etc. have all done an outstanding job.
First, bravo! I’m very excited for what you’ve started Yascha. And in the spirit of picking up your call for a space for discussion and community, I’ll offer one reaction to your first post.
In your short history of the traditional liberal institutions, which I recognize for purposes of this intro was necessarily abbreviated, I think you leave out a rather large third shortcoming: that these institutions promoted “meritocracy” on a basis that was often misleading and at times corrupt. This is basically the thesis of Chris Hayes’ excellent Twilight of the Elites, a book I think any analysis of why these “gatekeeper” institutions have been/are being torn down has to reckon with.
And indeed I think the conundrum of the gatekeeper function is one this community also needs to wrestle with, if not solve for. On the one hand, as Levitsky and Ziblatt wrote in How Democracies Die, the role of gatekeeper institutions has been important in preserving democratic stability. And indeed the dismantling of American Party machines as gatekeepers gave us Trump. And on the other hand, these gatekeeper institutions are almost always mechanisms by which one order is preserved, and alternative orders oppressed. They have been used as tools of the powerful for self protection, as you note often along race, gender and other discriminatory lines, including especially along financial lines.
A core question to me, and you allude to this in your intro here, is how do we revive the beneficial elements of gatekeeper institutions in the intellectual space (i.e., I think we largely would agree we want a media with journalistic standards around facts and truth, an academia that promotes racial equity and rejects things like eugenics) without the harmful elements. Indeed, we need a solution that may go further and help undo the harms of the past. That seems to me a primary challenge for this sort of liberal endeavor.
Great comment, Ian! I have two thoughts here:
1. Is this kind of project not an inherently exclusive association of self-selecting individuals? I assume many of us who have joined this community have a disproportionate sense of urgency in these matters. While I’m sure a significant majority of people believe in liberal values, and perhaps even believe they are under threat, I‘m skeptical of the idea that there are large socioeconomically diverse groups of the people in the United States who believe, as we do, that our society is increasingly threatened by the flouting of these values and that some kind of action is warranted to defend them. For instance, how many people would naturally refer to themselves as a “philosophical liberal”? A diverse society like ours here in the United States will inevitably have a mix of people with drastically different human needs and motivations depending on their position within society. It’s my hunch that this plays a significant role in how inclusive communities can be. I agree, however, that we should challenge ourselves and think of ways to make this a more naturally inclusive community.
2. To that end, I think we philosophical liberals have to do a better job of demonstrating the benefits of liberal values on the material and spiritual well-being of all people, and especially the historically opposed and marginalized.
The most self destructive thing we could do would be to represent or speak for
"the historically opposed and marginalized". These people and groups need
empowerment and autonomy and the opportunity to integrate their needs and demands into the larger society of those dedicated to free speech and inquiry, and to cultural freedom. Speaking out and acting for special interest groups no matter how progressive or just their aims will undercut the unity of focus and purpose that we need and undermine the very unity of principles and purpose we seek. It is the broad general principles of freedom and justice that need attention and in turn
these will contribute to the advancement of the
"historically opposed and marginalized".
Thanks for your thought-provoking comment, Lorna. I agree with you from a rhetorical perspective, and I’m inclined to agree with you on substance. I intuitively understand that by focusing on particular groups of individuals by class, race, religion, we lose sight of universal principles and values that serve to unite us. But I’m concerned that by focusing on general principles in the abstract and neglecting to examine the consequences of these principles on society—particularly on people’s material well-being—we won’t understand a potentially significant reason why these principles lose their appeal with the general public. That’s not to say that the public wouldn’t agree with these principles in the abstract, but much like today, they wouldn’t truly understand what these principles demand of their own actions when engaging in public debate and political action.
As you can probably guess, my hunch is that this is part of the reason why liberal principles have lost their sway on the left today (I’m not sure this applies to the illiberalism on the right). The ascendant social justice warriors believe that liberal principles and ideals just keep economic and political power in the hands of those who already have it. And this balance of power only seems to benefit an increasingly smaller share of society. I think it’s incumbent upon those of us who believe in the power of liberal principles and ideals to create a more fair and just society to concern ourselves with these critiques and to openly and honestly grapple with the questions that arise when examining the practical consequences and effects of liberal values.
Wouldn’t this then necessitate some kind of focus on the historically oppressed and those being left behind? (That’s an honest question…)
What I did not discuss was this: I believe more than a desire for political and economic power motivates the SJW, BLM and their allies. It is their blanket rejection of Enlightenment values, of western culture, of history, of the arts and essentially of the institutions that support the rule of law and equality. This is not to say our system is perfect, but an honest reading of history and activism demonstrates that the U.S.A. has made huge progress in achieving social justice and economic opportunity, thanks to our Constitution (which is also being categorically and stupidly rejected). This wholesale rejection of essentially all of western culture and society is at the root of the resistance of the poor, the minorities and the disenfranchised. The whole premise of these resistance groups - that liberal principles only perpetuate illegitimate and regressive power - is completely wrong but this dogma is what fires them up and helps to rationalize their radical objectives. It also shores up their authoritarianism no less than it did in the Soviet Union or China. Their position is therefore inflexible, unrealistic and
necessarily violent to one degree or another. As long as they abhor western civilization and misrepresent liberal democracy for ideological purposes, they have no claim to any kind of virtue.
I think that could very well be true for some. But let’s presume there are at least some who mainly desire economic and political power so that they can address some of the income and wealth inequalities in our society. What then? What’s the answer to those who believe there is an alarming lack of social mobility and an unacceptable level of income and wealth inequality in our society? What’s the answer to those who believe (rightly) that progress in the aggregate hasn’t meaningfully improved the material well-being of poor, minority, and working/middle class individuals and families in particular? Surely our answer can’t simply be, “But progress…” or “These principles will help you, eventually…”.
How will those left out and left behind actually be empowered and gain autonomy? I presume based on your first comment that you believe this is a legitimate question. So, I ask again, doesn’t this necessitate some focus on individual groups of people? Doesn’t this necessitate some focus on people who are not beneficiaries of “progress”? And again, I’m asking honestly in case I’m missing something.
This is a response to the comment that followed the one above and responded to mine. There is a difference between addressing economic needs and political
empowerment as a major focus of organizing, legislation and policy, and selecting out one particular group as the beneficiaries. It is the general and universal (i.e. national) policies and laws and institutions that need reform, which will if enacted properly, will benefit specific groups. I believe that speaking or acting on behalf of a group's needs is divisive and risks too narrow a focus for reform. But addressing national policies and laws is much broader and will necessarily be of benefit to all citizens...as citizens, not as members of a group. The concept of group rights is not only distasteful but in violation of the universal values we profess to support. Members of a minority or "oppressed" group are entitled to equal rights with everyone else, not just those in their group. The regressive and divisive Identity Politics we are suffering under today is precisely the result of regarding people only as members of a group. Neither our forefathers nor our Constitution nor human rights groups function to protect group rights, only individual rights. ID is arguably the most anti democratic concept today, one which makes any kind of political
unity or agreement completely impossible and sets up one group against another.
It must be challenged at every turn and abolished.
Again, I generally agree with your instincts here to avoid the particulars that serve to divide us and focus on the universals that can unite us. But if you implement policies designed for the whole and they fail to empower the historically marginalized, how do you address the policy failure?
My point is that I think the policy failures will necessitate a focus on individual groups. It doesn’t mean that one should necessarily propose group-specific policies (that’s debatable, and I’m personally inclined against it). But it does mean that the data will lead you to individual groups, and then the question will necessarily be, “Why did the policy fail this particular group?”
Am I missing something?
This is also a principal concern of mine. I am especially wary of tying things like commenting on forums to cash subscriptions. Hopefully we can develop more democratic and meritocratic ways to promote good engagement and discourage superficial or bad-faith engagement.
This mission is so wonderful, and I’m going to do everything I can to support it.
I am excited for y'all and that there is a place for thoughtful discussion on the American identity, which has been maladapted and disguised or revered by many incredulous actors. I am so glad and humbled to be apart of this network. I can't wait to hear from Professor Haidt and Dr. Anne Applebaum. Phenomenal academics are here to lead. 👏🏼
Thanks so much for taking the lead and the time to begin this initiative. As soon as I heard your call, I was on board - as you say, the need for a community such as you are creating / facilitating extends beyond the US. I’m in Australia and want to ensure the illiberal left and right do not overwhelm the liberal institutions we enjoy
Curious as to why The Economist is not mentioned? Genuine question.
Probably because it's a) focused on the US and b) focused on the last 50 years. The economist is British and has been an institution there since the 19th century (IIRC). I don't think he mentioned any non-american publications.
Thanks Yascha, this is so needed.
There is a great song by the 1970's singer songwriter Harry Chapin called "I wonder what would happen to this world." which fits this mission perfectly. The first lines are, "Now, if a man tried to take his time on Earth and prove before he died what one man's life could be worth, I wonder what would happen to this world."
The policy failure may lead you to where the policy failed but that only indicates that the policy was badly formulated or dishonest or token or unfairly implemented, or a combination of these. Then there are the unmentionable and politically incorrect problems that arise from specific cultural and social problems in a community, which unfortunately are often connected to race (or religion or gender). These have to be addressed of course (drugs, prison, guns, single parent household, etc.) In some cases addressing poverty and education, and enforcing existing laws, will deal with these. But not always. And it is very easy to simply blame
"systemic racism" for these. And that is the situation we have today. Under these circumstances it is in fact an easy way out of a situation where you dont want to address anything in an honest matter because it might require discussion of race. It becomes much easier to just blame the whole capitalist or patriarchal or white-controlled system.
Thanks a lot Yasha. Congratulations on such a positive response.
Thank you for your work, Yascha!
Enjoyed this introduction and looking forward to this new online publication site. A few thoughts. First, I'd never considered AEI to be a "libertarian" entity per se, but perhaps it was before I began to consume their work in the 1990s. Second, the phrase at the end is "chomping" at the bit (sorry for the pedantry). Congratulations on a successful launch and thank you for doing this.
Sorry, not to be even more pedantic, but champing and chomping are both correct, just champing is an older version. https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/champ-or-chomp-at-the-bit
Thx - have never heard "champing" before...
Hmmm ... interesting. I'd always assumed "champing" was just an oft-repeated mistake.
I also would not consider AEI libertarian. The Cato Institute is by far the leading libertarian think-tank who has been doing incredible work for over 40 years.
Thank you Yascha. I'm excited to be a part of this and hope this catches an ideologically wide net united by these common values and (fruitfully) divided by much else.
Thank you Yascha, that was well said.
Excited to join!
Thanks for starting this "movement." Having been led to Persuasion by Jennifer Rubin's comment in today's WaPo, and already planning to use Yascha's "The People vs. Democracy" in a course I am teaching to local retirees in the Hanover, NH area, I wanted to see what he was doing. My course will give space to populist predecessors, to show that this phenomenon is not merely current. (See p. 181 of his book.) Best Wishes.