I've long been a traditional liberal and antiwoke, and honestly I see a lot to like here. The Christianity would be a problem for me. But I'm a believer in strategic alliances, not ideological purity.
I guess for me it depends on how it played out, but I’d consider it as a counterweight to where the left is going. But I’m also pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and mostly live and let live - just keep it to yourself. All this pushing these celebrations of alternative lifestyles really start to annoy me.
But Karen, read carefully. This movement is definitely NOT live and let live. If correctly portrayed here, it opposes individual freedoms in preference to collective orthodoxy.
I don’t think many on the left are live and let live anymore either. There is an irrational, overly-righteous “right think” that I have a hard time tolerating. I think a lot of Trump supporters and religious folk I have interacted with are less strident and more willing to listen and discuss than the many on the new left.
I saw a definition by Wilfred Reilly that I think is useful: "Wokism is the belief that (1) all of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress, (2) all gaps in performance between large groups illustrate this, and (3) the solution is 'equity' - proportional representation w/o regard to performance."
I on the other hand believe in equality before the law, not of equality of outcome aka "equity." I also believe in free speech and due process, two liberal values the woke would like to discard. I could go on but I think this is a good start.
2. One clue is to look at societies where ‘racism’ (the white kind) hasn’t existed for a very long time. The Haitian Revolution was 217 years ago. If ‘white racism’ was really such a powerful force, then Haiti should be highly successful. That does not seem to be the case.
3. The per-capita GDP of Singapore is only 34X of Haiti. The US/white role in each country has been quite small. Both countries are removed from the USA and yet show disparities even larger than found in the USA.
4. In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
5. It turns out that all of the most successful ethnic groups in America are non-white. Some are wildly more successful than white. Some statistics. Median Household income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites.
These numbers are real, but have two major problems. First, Asian households tend to be larger than non-Asian households. Using personal income provides a better measure than household income. Asian personal income is also higher than non-Asian personal income. However, the positive gap is not as large as the household income gap. The second problem is the nature of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Act favored (rightfully so) highly educated immigrants over less educated immigrants. The cliché Indian-American immigrant to the US is a doctor. Of course, that is a cliché. However, it is a cliché because it has some element of truth to it.
6. It turns out the school funding is not equal across the United Sates. New York state spends the most (over $24K per-student, per-year) and Utah spends the least (around $7K per-student, per-year). However, the results almost exactly the opposite of what ‘white racism’ theory predicts. Utah has higher test scores that New York state. Of course, ‘white racism’ theory would predict the Utah would spend more than New York state. That isn’t even remotely true.
7. Police fatalities are not equally distributed by race. In 2019, just 17 Asians were killed by the police. For whites the number was 406, and blacks 259. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain the amazingly low number of Asians shot by police. For a typical factoid, in one year, two Japanese-Americans were arrested for murder. Not 200, or 200,000. Just two.
8. The Asian incarceration rate is 74.5% lower than the white incarceration rate and 95% below the black incarceration rate. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
9. It turns out that schools discipline rates are tracked by race. See Figure 15.3 of “Indicator 15: Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion” (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp). ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
10. That statistics for SAT scores, college enrollment/completion, arrests, etc. are all readily available by race. You can even find COVID-19 vaccination statistics by race. Invariably, you will find racial disparities and invariably Asians will be on top. So much for the mythology of ‘white racism’.
11. It turns out that other groups are almost as unsuccessful in American life as blacks. Of course, these groups have no history of slavery, Red-Lining, Jim Crow, etc. Why are these groups almost as unsuccessful as blacks? The traditional excuses don’t come close to explaining the disparities. For example, according to Pew median family income for the Hmong (in 2015) was just $48,000 vs. $71,300 for white (Pew, 2014). The rather large differences in family income amount Asians are used to claim that the “model minority” status is a “myth”. Its not a myth, but what people sometimes call a fact. Pew (2014) found that average household for Asians was $77,900.
12. The Jussie Smollett case provides yet another proof that ‘systematic racism’ doesn’t exist (at least in the US). If ‘systematic racism’ was real, criminals such as Jussie Smollett wouldn’t need to go around inventing hate crimes, because they would have plenty of actual material to use. The fact that people like Jussie Smollett invent hate crimes is one indication of how rare such things are. Of course, some types of hate crimes do occur. No one talks about them because they aren’t PC.
I agree with you for the most part, but I think Jussie Smollett and a few others who falsely report issues don’t indicative anything beyond their own issues.
His comment said nothing about hoaxes, so I'm not sure what you are even referring to. I find the word "woke" very useful as shorthand to describe what has happened on the left since 2010 or so, regardless of what the origin of the term may have been. Because it is NOT the liberalism I was raised with and have subscribed to my whole life.
I am someone who has been liberal identified/ a member of blue tribe for a long time. What I have seen for myself has appalled me. It is not a boogeyman invented by the alt-right because I have seen it all first hand.
It's weaponized by the right, of course. They would be crazy not to use it - the left is handing them the loaded gun free of charge. I wish it was out of the cultural mainstream of blue tribe world but sadly it isn't. Even right-leaning Murdoch outlets like the NY Post falsely describe biological sex as "assigned at birth" and not an immutable reality that is observed and recorded before birth with the first sonogram. Just to give one example. I have no problem with people living as the opposite gender to their sex, and treating them with respect, but when everyone is forced to pretend biological sex has no reality that is an appalling state of affairs, and there is nothing liberal about it.
"National conservatives... They have fetishized limited government when the times require a stronger government that defends national traditions against cultural revolution, national economic interests against globalization, and national sovereignty against transnational institutions and universal norms."
National conservative governments, they insist, must curb the excesses of the free market by using economic policy to serve the national interest. In specific circumstances this may require protectionism, limits on the activities of transnational corporations, and industrial policies to bolster manufacturing and national defense."
This is just opinion and it is wrong.
First, please, please, please... go back and read up on the concepts of capitalism as conceived of and designed. Capitalism is an economic system that serves a social system. But "free markets" never meant economic anarchy. It also never meant that four large corporations would own all the brands in the supermarket. And capitalism as designed never conceived of a situation where domestic jobs would be exported to low wage countries and then the products sold back to the domestic consumers. The working invisible hand of capitalism does not translate to globalism where jobs are treated like a commodity only to consolidate corporate wealth in the hands of a few multi-billionaires.
Capitalism works when the returns of domestic capital investment are shared by domestic labor. Otherwise, it does not work... but then it isn't really capitalism. It is globalist corporatism.
So we allow the globalist corporatists and their ivory tower elites to export our working class economic opportunity to China and Mexico and other countries while we import their poverty. And then to protect the great wealth the cabal has accumulated, they buy up all the media to get their puppet POTUS elected and then repeat that those that oppose this are fascists and a threat to democracy. They ramp up the young to oppose capitalism and to demand socialism, no-work and free everything.
News flash... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXAMPLES OF ANTI-CAPITALIST SOCIALISM WORKING ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND AT ANY TIME! It always leads to abject misery and suffering of the population before it turns murderous to try and hold only power as the people starve and rebel.
If you disagree, prove it. Provide examples of that utopian model we should aspire to. If you lack a model, it does not exist. If you still demand that it does, you are a hazard and should stop voting from self-diagnosed ignorance.
So National Conservatism is to prevent that fatal destructive crash. National Conservatism is a movement against the political establishment, the globalist corporatists, the billionaire boys club and the woke Marxist radicals that support the former for reasons that they, the woke radicals, don't even understand.
National Conservatives don't want larger government. They want constrained and controlled smaller government. They want efficient government. They want to get the government out of collusion with big business with the goal of gaining their personal wealth instead of a goal of serving the citizens.
And if getting this done means flexing the Constitution as intended, and being bold to use the power of law to fix what is broken... that is a movement to save democracy and to fix what is broken with our capitalist system. The Bidens can move to China if they don't like it... and take all their friends.
And there is no aversion to libertarianism except the left-leaning type. In fact, this best represents the National Conservative ethos from an ideological perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism
The reality is that 'wokeness' has rejected everything that Western Civilization is based on. To the 'woke', 2 + 2 = 4 is just a statement of 'white supremacy'. Pronouns are mandatory and the sexual binary does not exist (actual Biologists might not agree). If you doubt this, go read 'A Pathway to
Equitable Math Instruction' (the basis for California's new math framework). 'White racism' is the 'real' problem and actual math is irrelevant. The California DOE (Department of Education) framework actually states 'We Reject Ideas of Natural Gifts and Talents'. Of course, they have no evidence to support this nonsense. But rejection of the enlightenment is a religious dogma on the left and the insanity does not stop at the California border.
I have been ahead of my time on this... seeing the need more than 15 years ago. Christopher DeMuth absolutely covers my previous epiphanies that left drift was toward nihilism, and not the old liberal progressive vs conservative tug of war that had sustained the politics of the nation since not long after its founding. Something was broken in my liberal friends, and I could see it. They were developing into monsters well before Trump.
There are many components of contributing cause to the situation we find ourselves in now. But the primary one I blame is that the Republicans played the media popularity game instead of fighting to preserve conservative values. We elected the same brand of rent-seeking charlatans in the GOP party that played a part but really lacked the conviction to serve the principles of their party.
So the radicals grew and spread and have taken over most of the institutions of power and influence. Now, because the GOP establishment failed to fight the old battles on the field, we are having to wage a new war from a grassroots beginning.
The first step is to purge those from the old GOP establishment unless they take a firm stand against the radicals.
There is another hope I see. The young people and minorities need to wake up that they continue to support the political establishment that colludes with the corporate oligarchs that are both pursuing their own wealth generation at the expense of working economic opportunity for the rest. The reason that the GOP is not beating that message into the people is that the GOP is still filled with those same establishment rent-seekers... AND since the media is controlled by the corporate oligarchs... getting that message out takes a collaborative resolve from all members of the GOP.
It seems though like the tide is turning. The Democrats are so out of radical control that voters are waking up anyway. Even with a terribly incompetent GOP political machine, their best performance is simply to let the Democrat keep sinking into more radical absurdity and destruction.
National Conservatism is a rearguard action that does not have an effective philosophy for governing a healthy constitutional-democratic-republic. It is too exclusionary to have the consent of those it would attempt to govern. However, how healthy is our democratic-constitutional-republic?
The Germans were sold on the concept of a "German People" instead of a bunch of different groups speaking versions of the German language. In the United States, we share cultural traditions, but you would be hard pressed to identify a majority identifying as the "American People".
The most salient point that should leap out at us is this inclination by National Conservatives toward government imposed religious tyranny. Former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo, made a sage comment in 1989 when he said that it is a contradiction for the religious right to preach to us about limited government and then turn around and try to tell us, the American people, what God to believe in how to apply the judgment of that God to our bodies and to our bedrooms.
How far would these people go? Would they allow a Christian majority in a given region to be able to legally force LGBTQ people to move out of the area? Could atheists who argue against the existence of a supreme being by way of public speaking and writing be prosecuted under now enforceable blasphemy laws?
The Founders were clear that the number one priority is the defense of freedom conscience for everyone, believer or nonbeliever. Do these National Conservatives really want to abandon the notion of limited government by allowing the police power of the state into the bedroom?
"replaced by a new absolute and unfettered autonomy"
Yeah that's the problem with a progressive woke utopia, too much autonomy. Come on. Ask the Christian bakers, dissenting professors, school choice supporting parents, about all that autonomy. Before even getting to covid lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccine passports.
It's a big problem that conservatives are souring on liberalism but misrepresenting or downplaying the illiberal behemoth on the left doesn't help.
(Good summary though and thank you, other than that characterization)
I can respect the Benedict option as an alternative to overt promotion of conservative Christianity in the public sphere. If people who (for valid and natural reasons) wanted to maintain old fashioned lifestyles within a secular society took the approach of “leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone,” that would be a wonderful counter to the intolerant kind of progressivism that bashes crisis pregnancy centers and thinks kids know perfectly well what gender they “really” are.
Sadly, that kind of approach (retreat from the world instead of trying to change it) doesn’t seem to have much support. Even Dreher seems to be all in on the aggressive counter-woke approach. A movement pushing its brand of Christianity onto nonbelievers is no less of a threat than leftists doing the same with their beliefs.
This is simply false: 'When the American left was liberal and reformist, conservatives played our customary role as moderators of change ... But today’s woke progressivism isn’t reformist. It seeks not to build on the past but to promote instability, to turn the world upside-down'.
Most of us on the left are not interested in turning the world upside down but in leveling the playing field and promoting genuine equality of opportunity through good government.
'National conservatives also want to bolster traditional institutions such as the nuclear family with pro-natalist policies, including economic support for childrearing'
Count me out on that too--if, as I suspect, the subtext of 'economic support for child rearing' means support for women to stay home to take care of their kids at least temporarily rather than support for childcare so that women who have children, as I do, can hire others to take care of them.
If the values articulated in this piece are what Persuasion stands for I'm cancelling my subscription. That is not to say I want Persuasion 'cancelled'--no way. I support diversity of opinion and free speech. I just oppose these policies and do not want to support Persuasion if this is the agenda. Count me out.
Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I didn't interpret this article as an endorsement of "national conservatism." Rather, it struck me as an even-handed account of what the movement, broadly understood, stands for. And for providing this overview, Persuasion deserves praise rather than condemnation.
TW, Of course, you are correct. W. Galston is describing 'National Conservatism' and towards the end condemning it. However, for some people, every single word has to be pure condemnation or they see advocacy.
I am not ‘condemning’—just saying that it’s looking increasingly likely that Persuasion does not represent my views. I don’t condemn condemn Presbyterianism but I don’t go to the local Presbyterian church because it does not represent my views. Most Republicans hereabouts don’t condemn the Chula Vista Democratic Club but don’t belong to it because it doesn’t represent their views.
Like most of us on the left, I have no sympathy for CRT or the whole business of ‘wokeness’. I signed on to Persuasion and joined other organizations ostensibly devoted to supporting freedom of speech and to critiquing all the rubbish that I, as an academic, have to cope with—which is generated by a small, loud minority. But, behold: when I’ve gotten into these groups and sniffed around I start seeing more and more that, for all the ostensive neutrality, they are de facto pitched to a conservative clientele. Among the things I’m seeing here that makes me wonder is the assumption that we on the left are into CRT, Maoism, or whatever.
Ditto. I’m usually on the center left, with an intense dislike of identitarian politics and much of what is called « wokism ». In searching for a middle road, I was happy to find Yascha Mounk and Persuasion. Only to find a rowdy crowd of right wing flame throwers who seem to hold wildly different views from those of the editors.
I've always viewed Persuasion as providing thoughtful insights to various topics. This article is just such a piece. I see this article by Mr. Galston as a critique of national conservatism. To me, he is showing that this is a development to watch as a threat to our liberal democratic republic. He is certainly not endorsing it. Persuasion is a part of Jonathan Rauch's "Constitution of Knowledge" by presenting ideas, and engendering a debate about those ideas.
The statement 'Most of us on the left are not interested in turning the world upside down but in leveling the playing field and promoting genuine equality of opportunity through good government.' may or may not be true. However, the people running the left are fanatically committed to 'equity', not 'equality'. CRT is the dominant ideology with respect to race. Of course, CRT is anti-reality, but when has that has been an obstacle to the American version of Maoism?
By the way, even previous lefty socialist Sweden appears to now have a majority of right-leaning leadership. I think the Swedes looked across the pond and said aldrig!
I will count you out. Hopefully out of political relevancy. Your ideas are toxic to the ongoing success of the country. And if you disagree, please point us to your model of utopia that the American population should "progress" to.
No surprise that you would cancel your subscription. That is what leftist do. Shrink to their groupthink ideological bubble where they an imagine a word that only shares their ideas and thinks the same way.
I subscribe to several lefty newsletters, read and comment. I am always open to logic. There is little of that in the lefty newsletters. About half of what I read in Persuasion is logical. The rest is primarily like the lefty sources... emotional reactions wrapped in pseudo intellectual rhetoric that is primarily just political propaganda. However, there are certainly conversations I have to rational people on the left and I always learn something. I may not agree, but I learn something about a different perspective.
A very good and accurate analysis in general. Right-wing collectivism is anti-liberal and anti-cosmopolitan. The thing is that national-conservatism is already used and applied in even moderate right-wing organisations as The Conservatives in the UK or Christian Democrats in Sweden. So its ideas will continue to grow in different right-wing organisations in Europe and America
Best refutation of the pernicious drivel remains Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785, when Virginia was considering establishing Episcopal Church
This is deeply reverent argument: that state sponsorship or patronage corrupts belief and practice and encourages hypocrisy
Not witty Voltairean aphorisms: those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities
Rather, insistence that one’s debt to Creator is PRIOR to civil society or political contract and must be matter of individual conscience
Some measure of how crazy the dominant left is, is provided by Keith Olbermann. He has described Joe Rogan and Elon Musk as f!@#$%^ fascists (literally, not figuratively). In real life, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are left/far left of center.
This is most disturbing. An attack on liberalism (in its original meaning, not its « leftist » connotation in US politics) is, in fact, a challenge to what Americans have believed our country is dedicated to forever. And as a gay man who definitely understands the problems with wokism and the transagenda (I dislike both), I think this is a dangerous movement for people like me. Peter Thiel, the gay man who gave the opening speech obviously feels shielded from the worst implications of the movement, but I think he is playing with fire. Viktor Orban is no friend to gays, and I’m sure the Southern Baptist Convention would gladly send us all to hellfire. And the writer is right to feel threatened as a Jew. This is exactly the sort of movement that can turn at any moment on anyone not considered « traditional ». Even the name evokes its similarity to another authoritarian « national » movement in Germany circa 1920-45.
I've long been a traditional liberal and antiwoke, and honestly I see a lot to like here. The Christianity would be a problem for me. But I'm a believer in strategic alliances, not ideological purity.
I guess for me it depends on how it played out, but I’d consider it as a counterweight to where the left is going. But I’m also pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and mostly live and let live - just keep it to yourself. All this pushing these celebrations of alternative lifestyles really start to annoy me.
Same
But Karen, read carefully. This movement is definitely NOT live and let live. If correctly portrayed here, it opposes individual freedoms in preference to collective orthodoxy.
I don’t think many on the left are live and let live anymore either. There is an irrational, overly-righteous “right think” that I have a hard time tolerating. I think a lot of Trump supporters and religious folk I have interacted with are less strident and more willing to listen and discuss than the many on the new left.
I saw a definition by Wilfred Reilly that I think is useful: "Wokism is the belief that (1) all of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress, (2) all gaps in performance between large groups illustrate this, and (3) the solution is 'equity' - proportional representation w/o regard to performance."
I on the other hand believe in equality before the law, not of equality of outcome aka "equity." I also believe in free speech and due process, two liberal values the woke would like to discard. I could go on but I think this is a good start.
In real life 'widespread bias and prejudice' don't exist in our society. Of course, bias against whites and Asians is indeed widespread. A few notes.
1. The US and Canada have very different racial histories. However, the black/white income gap is remarkably similar. See “Black Canadians and Black Americans: Racial income inequality in comparative perspective” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233008532_Black_Canadians_and_Black_Americans_Racial_income_inequality_in_comparative_perspective).
2. One clue is to look at societies where ‘racism’ (the white kind) hasn’t existed for a very long time. The Haitian Revolution was 217 years ago. If ‘white racism’ was really such a powerful force, then Haiti should be highly successful. That does not seem to be the case.
3. The per-capita GDP of Singapore is only 34X of Haiti. The US/white role in each country has been quite small. Both countries are removed from the USA and yet show disparities even larger than found in the USA.
4. In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
5. It turns out that all of the most successful ethnic groups in America are non-white. Some are wildly more successful than white. Some statistics. Median Household income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites.
These numbers are real, but have two major problems. First, Asian households tend to be larger than non-Asian households. Using personal income provides a better measure than household income. Asian personal income is also higher than non-Asian personal income. However, the positive gap is not as large as the household income gap. The second problem is the nature of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Act favored (rightfully so) highly educated immigrants over less educated immigrants. The cliché Indian-American immigrant to the US is a doctor. Of course, that is a cliché. However, it is a cliché because it has some element of truth to it.
6. It turns out the school funding is not equal across the United Sates. New York state spends the most (over $24K per-student, per-year) and Utah spends the least (around $7K per-student, per-year). However, the results almost exactly the opposite of what ‘white racism’ theory predicts. Utah has higher test scores that New York state. Of course, ‘white racism’ theory would predict the Utah would spend more than New York state. That isn’t even remotely true.
7. Police fatalities are not equally distributed by race. In 2019, just 17 Asians were killed by the police. For whites the number was 406, and blacks 259. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain the amazingly low number of Asians shot by police. For a typical factoid, in one year, two Japanese-Americans were arrested for murder. Not 200, or 200,000. Just two.
8. The Asian incarceration rate is 74.5% lower than the white incarceration rate and 95% below the black incarceration rate. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
9. It turns out that schools discipline rates are tracked by race. See Figure 15.3 of “Indicator 15: Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion” (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp). ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
10. That statistics for SAT scores, college enrollment/completion, arrests, etc. are all readily available by race. You can even find COVID-19 vaccination statistics by race. Invariably, you will find racial disparities and invariably Asians will be on top. So much for the mythology of ‘white racism’.
11. It turns out that other groups are almost as unsuccessful in American life as blacks. Of course, these groups have no history of slavery, Red-Lining, Jim Crow, etc. Why are these groups almost as unsuccessful as blacks? The traditional excuses don’t come close to explaining the disparities. For example, according to Pew median family income for the Hmong (in 2015) was just $48,000 vs. $71,300 for white (Pew, 2014). The rather large differences in family income amount Asians are used to claim that the “model minority” status is a “myth”. Its not a myth, but what people sometimes call a fact. Pew (2014) found that average household for Asians was $77,900.
12. The Jussie Smollett case provides yet another proof that ‘systematic racism’ doesn’t exist (at least in the US). If ‘systematic racism’ was real, criminals such as Jussie Smollett wouldn’t need to go around inventing hate crimes, because they would have plenty of actual material to use. The fact that people like Jussie Smollett invent hate crimes is one indication of how rare such things are. Of course, some types of hate crimes do occur. No one talks about them because they aren’t PC.
I agree with you for the most part, but I think Jussie Smollett and a few others who falsely report issues don’t indicative anything beyond their own issues.
His comment said nothing about hoaxes, so I'm not sure what you are even referring to. I find the word "woke" very useful as shorthand to describe what has happened on the left since 2010 or so, regardless of what the origin of the term may have been. Because it is NOT the liberalism I was raised with and have subscribed to my whole life.
I am someone who has been liberal identified/ a member of blue tribe for a long time. What I have seen for myself has appalled me. It is not a boogeyman invented by the alt-right because I have seen it all first hand.
It's weaponized by the right, of course. They would be crazy not to use it - the left is handing them the loaded gun free of charge. I wish it was out of the cultural mainstream of blue tribe world but sadly it isn't. Even right-leaning Murdoch outlets like the NY Post falsely describe biological sex as "assigned at birth" and not an immutable reality that is observed and recorded before birth with the first sonogram. Just to give one example. I have no problem with people living as the opposite gender to their sex, and treating them with respect, but when everyone is forced to pretend biological sex has no reality that is an appalling state of affairs, and there is nothing liberal about it.
"National conservatives... They have fetishized limited government when the times require a stronger government that defends national traditions against cultural revolution, national economic interests against globalization, and national sovereignty against transnational institutions and universal norms."
National conservative governments, they insist, must curb the excesses of the free market by using economic policy to serve the national interest. In specific circumstances this may require protectionism, limits on the activities of transnational corporations, and industrial policies to bolster manufacturing and national defense."
This is just opinion and it is wrong.
First, please, please, please... go back and read up on the concepts of capitalism as conceived of and designed. Capitalism is an economic system that serves a social system. But "free markets" never meant economic anarchy. It also never meant that four large corporations would own all the brands in the supermarket. And capitalism as designed never conceived of a situation where domestic jobs would be exported to low wage countries and then the products sold back to the domestic consumers. The working invisible hand of capitalism does not translate to globalism where jobs are treated like a commodity only to consolidate corporate wealth in the hands of a few multi-billionaires.
Capitalism works when the returns of domestic capital investment are shared by domestic labor. Otherwise, it does not work... but then it isn't really capitalism. It is globalist corporatism.
So we allow the globalist corporatists and their ivory tower elites to export our working class economic opportunity to China and Mexico and other countries while we import their poverty. And then to protect the great wealth the cabal has accumulated, they buy up all the media to get their puppet POTUS elected and then repeat that those that oppose this are fascists and a threat to democracy. They ramp up the young to oppose capitalism and to demand socialism, no-work and free everything.
News flash... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXAMPLES OF ANTI-CAPITALIST SOCIALISM WORKING ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND AT ANY TIME! It always leads to abject misery and suffering of the population before it turns murderous to try and hold only power as the people starve and rebel.
If you disagree, prove it. Provide examples of that utopian model we should aspire to. If you lack a model, it does not exist. If you still demand that it does, you are a hazard and should stop voting from self-diagnosed ignorance.
So National Conservatism is to prevent that fatal destructive crash. National Conservatism is a movement against the political establishment, the globalist corporatists, the billionaire boys club and the woke Marxist radicals that support the former for reasons that they, the woke radicals, don't even understand.
National Conservatives don't want larger government. They want constrained and controlled smaller government. They want efficient government. They want to get the government out of collusion with big business with the goal of gaining their personal wealth instead of a goal of serving the citizens.
And if getting this done means flexing the Constitution as intended, and being bold to use the power of law to fix what is broken... that is a movement to save democracy and to fix what is broken with our capitalist system. The Bidens can move to China if they don't like it... and take all their friends.
And there is no aversion to libertarianism except the left-leaning type. In fact, this best represents the National Conservative ethos from an ideological perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism
The reality is that 'wokeness' has rejected everything that Western Civilization is based on. To the 'woke', 2 + 2 = 4 is just a statement of 'white supremacy'. Pronouns are mandatory and the sexual binary does not exist (actual Biologists might not agree). If you doubt this, go read 'A Pathway to
Equitable Math Instruction' (the basis for California's new math framework). 'White racism' is the 'real' problem and actual math is irrelevant. The California DOE (Department of Education) framework actually states 'We Reject Ideas of Natural Gifts and Talents'. Of course, they have no evidence to support this nonsense. But rejection of the enlightenment is a religious dogma on the left and the insanity does not stop at the California border.
I have been ahead of my time on this... seeing the need more than 15 years ago. Christopher DeMuth absolutely covers my previous epiphanies that left drift was toward nihilism, and not the old liberal progressive vs conservative tug of war that had sustained the politics of the nation since not long after its founding. Something was broken in my liberal friends, and I could see it. They were developing into monsters well before Trump.
There are many components of contributing cause to the situation we find ourselves in now. But the primary one I blame is that the Republicans played the media popularity game instead of fighting to preserve conservative values. We elected the same brand of rent-seeking charlatans in the GOP party that played a part but really lacked the conviction to serve the principles of their party.
So the radicals grew and spread and have taken over most of the institutions of power and influence. Now, because the GOP establishment failed to fight the old battles on the field, we are having to wage a new war from a grassroots beginning.
The first step is to purge those from the old GOP establishment unless they take a firm stand against the radicals.
There is another hope I see. The young people and minorities need to wake up that they continue to support the political establishment that colludes with the corporate oligarchs that are both pursuing their own wealth generation at the expense of working economic opportunity for the rest. The reason that the GOP is not beating that message into the people is that the GOP is still filled with those same establishment rent-seekers... AND since the media is controlled by the corporate oligarchs... getting that message out takes a collaborative resolve from all members of the GOP.
It seems though like the tide is turning. The Democrats are so out of radical control that voters are waking up anyway. Even with a terribly incompetent GOP political machine, their best performance is simply to let the Democrat keep sinking into more radical absurdity and destruction.
National Conservatism is a rearguard action that does not have an effective philosophy for governing a healthy constitutional-democratic-republic. It is too exclusionary to have the consent of those it would attempt to govern. However, how healthy is our democratic-constitutional-republic?
The Germans were sold on the concept of a "German People" instead of a bunch of different groups speaking versions of the German language. In the United States, we share cultural traditions, but you would be hard pressed to identify a majority identifying as the "American People".
The most salient point that should leap out at us is this inclination by National Conservatives toward government imposed religious tyranny. Former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo, made a sage comment in 1989 when he said that it is a contradiction for the religious right to preach to us about limited government and then turn around and try to tell us, the American people, what God to believe in how to apply the judgment of that God to our bodies and to our bedrooms.
How far would these people go? Would they allow a Christian majority in a given region to be able to legally force LGBTQ people to move out of the area? Could atheists who argue against the existence of a supreme being by way of public speaking and writing be prosecuted under now enforceable blasphemy laws?
The Founders were clear that the number one priority is the defense of freedom conscience for everyone, believer or nonbeliever. Do these National Conservatives really want to abandon the notion of limited government by allowing the police power of the state into the bedroom?
Excellent analysis of National Conservatism, a movement that is downright scary to me, personally!!
An entirely predictable response from the right to leftist extremism. The question is, where is the center?
"replaced by a new absolute and unfettered autonomy"
Yeah that's the problem with a progressive woke utopia, too much autonomy. Come on. Ask the Christian bakers, dissenting professors, school choice supporting parents, about all that autonomy. Before even getting to covid lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccine passports.
It's a big problem that conservatives are souring on liberalism but misrepresenting or downplaying the illiberal behemoth on the left doesn't help.
(Good summary though and thank you, other than that characterization)
I can respect the Benedict option as an alternative to overt promotion of conservative Christianity in the public sphere. If people who (for valid and natural reasons) wanted to maintain old fashioned lifestyles within a secular society took the approach of “leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone,” that would be a wonderful counter to the intolerant kind of progressivism that bashes crisis pregnancy centers and thinks kids know perfectly well what gender they “really” are.
Sadly, that kind of approach (retreat from the world instead of trying to change it) doesn’t seem to have much support. Even Dreher seems to be all in on the aggressive counter-woke approach. A movement pushing its brand of Christianity onto nonbelievers is no less of a threat than leftists doing the same with their beliefs.
No thank you. Count me out.
This is simply false: 'When the American left was liberal and reformist, conservatives played our customary role as moderators of change ... But today’s woke progressivism isn’t reformist. It seeks not to build on the past but to promote instability, to turn the world upside-down'.
Most of us on the left are not interested in turning the world upside down but in leveling the playing field and promoting genuine equality of opportunity through good government.
'National conservatives also want to bolster traditional institutions such as the nuclear family with pro-natalist policies, including economic support for childrearing'
Count me out on that too--if, as I suspect, the subtext of 'economic support for child rearing' means support for women to stay home to take care of their kids at least temporarily rather than support for childcare so that women who have children, as I do, can hire others to take care of them.
If the values articulated in this piece are what Persuasion stands for I'm cancelling my subscription. That is not to say I want Persuasion 'cancelled'--no way. I support diversity of opinion and free speech. I just oppose these policies and do not want to support Persuasion if this is the agenda. Count me out.
Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I didn't interpret this article as an endorsement of "national conservatism." Rather, it struck me as an even-handed account of what the movement, broadly understood, stands for. And for providing this overview, Persuasion deserves praise rather than condemnation.
TW, Of course, you are correct. W. Galston is describing 'National Conservatism' and towards the end condemning it. However, for some people, every single word has to be pure condemnation or they see advocacy.
I am not ‘condemning’—just saying that it’s looking increasingly likely that Persuasion does not represent my views. I don’t condemn condemn Presbyterianism but I don’t go to the local Presbyterian church because it does not represent my views. Most Republicans hereabouts don’t condemn the Chula Vista Democratic Club but don’t belong to it because it doesn’t represent their views.
Like most of us on the left, I have no sympathy for CRT or the whole business of ‘wokeness’. I signed on to Persuasion and joined other organizations ostensibly devoted to supporting freedom of speech and to critiquing all the rubbish that I, as an academic, have to cope with—which is generated by a small, loud minority. But, behold: when I’ve gotten into these groups and sniffed around I start seeing more and more that, for all the ostensive neutrality, they are de facto pitched to a conservative clientele. Among the things I’m seeing here that makes me wonder is the assumption that we on the left are into CRT, Maoism, or whatever.
And now it’s back to the day job…
I don't see Persuasion as "...pitched to a conservative clientele." But perhaps that's simply because we define "conservative" differently.
And I subscribe because I want to read things that challenge my views.
Ditto. I’m usually on the center left, with an intense dislike of identitarian politics and much of what is called « wokism ». In searching for a middle road, I was happy to find Yascha Mounk and Persuasion. Only to find a rowdy crowd of right wing flame throwers who seem to hold wildly different views from those of the editors.
I've always viewed Persuasion as providing thoughtful insights to various topics. This article is just such a piece. I see this article by Mr. Galston as a critique of national conservatism. To me, he is showing that this is a development to watch as a threat to our liberal democratic republic. He is certainly not endorsing it. Persuasion is a part of Jonathan Rauch's "Constitution of Knowledge" by presenting ideas, and engendering a debate about those ideas.
The statement 'Most of us on the left are not interested in turning the world upside down but in leveling the playing field and promoting genuine equality of opportunity through good government.' may or may not be true. However, the people running the left are fanatically committed to 'equity', not 'equality'. CRT is the dominant ideology with respect to race. Of course, CRT is anti-reality, but when has that has been an obstacle to the American version of Maoism?
By the way, even previous lefty socialist Sweden appears to now have a majority of right-leaning leadership. I think the Swedes looked across the pond and said aldrig!
I will count you out. Hopefully out of political relevancy. Your ideas are toxic to the ongoing success of the country. And if you disagree, please point us to your model of utopia that the American population should "progress" to.
No surprise that you would cancel your subscription. That is what leftist do. Shrink to their groupthink ideological bubble where they an imagine a word that only shares their ideas and thinks the same way.
I subscribe to several lefty newsletters, read and comment. I am always open to logic. There is little of that in the lefty newsletters. About half of what I read in Persuasion is logical. The rest is primarily like the lefty sources... emotional reactions wrapped in pseudo intellectual rhetoric that is primarily just political propaganda. However, there are certainly conversations I have to rational people on the left and I always learn something. I may not agree, but I learn something about a different perspective.
A very good and accurate analysis in general. Right-wing collectivism is anti-liberal and anti-cosmopolitan. The thing is that national-conservatism is already used and applied in even moderate right-wing organisations as The Conservatives in the UK or Christian Democrats in Sweden. So its ideas will continue to grow in different right-wing organisations in Europe and America
Thanks to Persuasion for this timely warning
Best refutation of the pernicious drivel remains Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785, when Virginia was considering establishing Episcopal Church
This is deeply reverent argument: that state sponsorship or patronage corrupts belief and practice and encourages hypocrisy
Not witty Voltairean aphorisms: those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities
Rather, insistence that one’s debt to Creator is PRIOR to civil society or political contract and must be matter of individual conscience
That is and must remain our tradition!
Some measure of how crazy the dominant left is, is provided by Keith Olbermann. He has described Joe Rogan and Elon Musk as f!@#$%^ fascists (literally, not figuratively). In real life, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are left/far left of center.
This is most disturbing. An attack on liberalism (in its original meaning, not its « leftist » connotation in US politics) is, in fact, a challenge to what Americans have believed our country is dedicated to forever. And as a gay man who definitely understands the problems with wokism and the transagenda (I dislike both), I think this is a dangerous movement for people like me. Peter Thiel, the gay man who gave the opening speech obviously feels shielded from the worst implications of the movement, but I think he is playing with fire. Viktor Orban is no friend to gays, and I’m sure the Southern Baptist Convention would gladly send us all to hellfire. And the writer is right to feel threatened as a Jew. This is exactly the sort of movement that can turn at any moment on anyone not considered « traditional ». Even the name evokes its similarity to another authoritarian « national » movement in Germany circa 1920-45.