"We’re Headed Towards Autocracy, but it’ll be a struggle between autocrats who increase the power of the state versus those who remove power from the state."
Max, I love this framing. If you actually say "Enlightenment liberalism is dead, we're just arguing about what will replace it", you get lots of argument. It's true, but people can't accept it. Your language here captures the same critical idea in a way almost everyone would recognize.
I used that passage in Plato about the ship of state and how democracy is a bunch of drunk sailors mutinying and then arguing over the tiller on my own stack in a series I'm writing on philosophy: https://brianvillanueva.substack.com/i/143784248/rings-of-invisibility It's a great passage. I'm shopping a piece around right now on the subject you're talking about here: the inherent conflict between liberalism and democracy. Dreaming TAC will pick it up -- yeah, right. I can only hope.
"If authoritarianism means trying to take power away from the government, then is authoritarianism really a bad thing?"
I enjoyed your line about George Bush, the painter, so much it disoriented me for awhile. I have been amazed that that man, who caused so much damage and heartache with his lunatic and destructive military and economic policies, has been allowed to slip into a quiet absolution.
Thank you for nailing Trump as a deeply unserious man. Many of us have realized that from the beginning, but as Rod Dreher observes of Trump, at least he doesn't hate me and my affections. I'm white, was born with a penis already attached, and am a Christian. I don't know where I read the following, but somebody who knows him said of the idea of Trump - as - Fascist autocrat that if the concept were explained to him, he'd be taken with it for a few minutes, then some petty annoyance would hijack him into doing what used to be called a tweet storm and he'd forget all about it.
From 2016 on, the whole Trump phenomenon has seemed performative to me, though I think many Trump supporters are indeed the kinds of people you build a country with, and do hope for the best from him. Still, I wonder how many of them have really believed he'd be a genuine threat to the Powers that be. He has always reminded me of Buzz Windrip, the demagogic politician in Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here." Windrip has charisma in such plenitude he could, if it were possible, give some of it away to gray men and still orate himself into the Presidency. When he does become President, however, he hasn't got a clue about what to do with the office.
It's the anti Trump people who have baffled me. Have they really believed he was a threat to them? I can understand their abhorrence of DeSantis or Vance or Cotton because they are serious men, but Trump? I'd like to believe that having been put through what he has from "the Left" ( whatever that even means these days ), he will have found within himself the stirrings of seriousness, but have learned that it rarely pays to be optimistic.
If you've seen the five minutes of Trump at Mar - A - Lago last evening, you realize that Trump at his best can be charming and cogent, almost like a mature man, so who knows?
Yes More did say it it’s in William Roper’s memoir of his father in law. Bolt altered his words but the substance remains the same as does the principle.
Remember the conversation between Sir Thomas More and his son William Roper. (Both were lawyers.) Roper said that he would read down all of the laws of England to get at the Devil. More replied that when you have tiff done all of the laws of England and the Devil turns round on you what do you have left to defend yourself with.
Did More ever say this or was it just the erstwhile communist Robert Bolt putting words in his mouth in A Man for All Seasons? Even if one agrees with the principle, there is a substantial difference in the authority of a martyr and a screenwriter (however talented).
The three big issues as I see them are 1) Trump’s rights were likely violated; 2) the trial being held now—and even being held in the first place—are clearly political decisions; and 3) no other elected official has ever been subjected to this treatment, least of all a president.
What baffles me is the sheer incredulity of folks when it comes to the integrity of the trial. The NYT quoted one of their independent voter focus group panelists as saying she could never vote for a felon, full stop. That she believes wholeheartedly in the justice system and can’t bring herself to entertain the idea of voting for a criminal. But the thought never seems to occur to her: if Trump’s charges get overturned on appeal after the election—which I think is incredibly likely—then her vote will have been based on a bullshit conviction. What then? Will she think she’s been misled? Or is the “convicted felon” label just a mental shortcut to justify snubbing someone she can’t stand for a host of other reasons?
I just want ordinary people to think this through like you do. Trump has tons of baggage and I wish he wasn’t the Republican candidate, but it’s obvious to me this trial is an extralegal way to “get him” for something. I’m firmly in his camp less because I like him and more because I absolutely loathe the powers that be. And I’m absolutely convinced the folks who prattle endlessly about “our democracy” are the ones doing the most to undermine it.
I am outraged by the weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and I think this was a great article on merits (and demerits) of the entire argument.
I am firmly in the Kennedy camp because of his courtroom skills, defeating major corporations like Monsanto and government regulatory agencies like the USDA & FDA. He knows exactly which people need to go to clean up our agencies and start turning this ocean liner of corruption around.
Trump still doesn’t know who to trust and can’t do it himself.
The people who say they can't vote for a convicted felon are the same people who think everyone in prison was someone who had a bad day and had the book thrown at them, were done in by crooked cops, or victims of discrimination. Like Kyle Rittenhouse, Trump is the only person these progressives ever judged the character and actions of
Every other criminal? They totally couldn't help it and imprisoning them "won't work."
I wish he was a Sulla. Maybe if things go really hard and assassination happens, maaaaybe then Baron will be an Octavius/Sulla/Kamehameha. The memes are aligning for something stupendous, huge even, and I really hope its the cool kind of change rather than something like the very last Triumph held in Rome.
"We’re Headed Towards Autocracy, but it’ll be a struggle between autocrats who increase the power of the state versus those who remove power from the state."
Max, I love this framing. If you actually say "Enlightenment liberalism is dead, we're just arguing about what will replace it", you get lots of argument. It's true, but people can't accept it. Your language here captures the same critical idea in a way almost everyone would recognize.
I used that passage in Plato about the ship of state and how democracy is a bunch of drunk sailors mutinying and then arguing over the tiller on my own stack in a series I'm writing on philosophy: https://brianvillanueva.substack.com/i/143784248/rings-of-invisibility It's a great passage. I'm shopping a piece around right now on the subject you're talking about here: the inherent conflict between liberalism and democracy. Dreaming TAC will pick it up -- yeah, right. I can only hope.
"If authoritarianism means trying to take power away from the government, then is authoritarianism really a bad thing?"
This is the essence of postliberalism. Interesting piece that you might like: https://www.postliberalorder.com/p/postliberalism-without-despotism (paywalled, but you can read the preview for free.)
I enjoyed your line about George Bush, the painter, so much it disoriented me for awhile. I have been amazed that that man, who caused so much damage and heartache with his lunatic and destructive military and economic policies, has been allowed to slip into a quiet absolution.
Thank you for nailing Trump as a deeply unserious man. Many of us have realized that from the beginning, but as Rod Dreher observes of Trump, at least he doesn't hate me and my affections. I'm white, was born with a penis already attached, and am a Christian. I don't know where I read the following, but somebody who knows him said of the idea of Trump - as - Fascist autocrat that if the concept were explained to him, he'd be taken with it for a few minutes, then some petty annoyance would hijack him into doing what used to be called a tweet storm and he'd forget all about it.
From 2016 on, the whole Trump phenomenon has seemed performative to me, though I think many Trump supporters are indeed the kinds of people you build a country with, and do hope for the best from him. Still, I wonder how many of them have really believed he'd be a genuine threat to the Powers that be. He has always reminded me of Buzz Windrip, the demagogic politician in Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here." Windrip has charisma in such plenitude he could, if it were possible, give some of it away to gray men and still orate himself into the Presidency. When he does become President, however, he hasn't got a clue about what to do with the office.
It's the anti Trump people who have baffled me. Have they really believed he was a threat to them? I can understand their abhorrence of DeSantis or Vance or Cotton because they are serious men, but Trump? I'd like to believe that having been put through what he has from "the Left" ( whatever that even means these days ), he will have found within himself the stirrings of seriousness, but have learned that it rarely pays to be optimistic.
If you've seen the five minutes of Trump at Mar - A - Lago last evening, you realize that Trump at his best can be charming and cogent, almost like a mature man, so who knows?
Yes More did say it it’s in William Roper’s memoir of his father in law. Bolt altered his words but the substance remains the same as does the principle.
Thank you, I found the memoir to read later. A cursory search had only led to quotes from the fictional work.
Remember the conversation between Sir Thomas More and his son William Roper. (Both were lawyers.) Roper said that he would read down all of the laws of England to get at the Devil. More replied that when you have tiff done all of the laws of England and the Devil turns round on you what do you have left to defend yourself with.
Did More ever say this or was it just the erstwhile communist Robert Bolt putting words in his mouth in A Man for All Seasons? Even if one agrees with the principle, there is a substantial difference in the authority of a martyr and a screenwriter (however talented).
I pretty much agree with you on all counts.
The three big issues as I see them are 1) Trump’s rights were likely violated; 2) the trial being held now—and even being held in the first place—are clearly political decisions; and 3) no other elected official has ever been subjected to this treatment, least of all a president.
What baffles me is the sheer incredulity of folks when it comes to the integrity of the trial. The NYT quoted one of their independent voter focus group panelists as saying she could never vote for a felon, full stop. That she believes wholeheartedly in the justice system and can’t bring herself to entertain the idea of voting for a criminal. But the thought never seems to occur to her: if Trump’s charges get overturned on appeal after the election—which I think is incredibly likely—then her vote will have been based on a bullshit conviction. What then? Will she think she’s been misled? Or is the “convicted felon” label just a mental shortcut to justify snubbing someone she can’t stand for a host of other reasons?
I just want ordinary people to think this through like you do. Trump has tons of baggage and I wish he wasn’t the Republican candidate, but it’s obvious to me this trial is an extralegal way to “get him” for something. I’m firmly in his camp less because I like him and more because I absolutely loathe the powers that be. And I’m absolutely convinced the folks who prattle endlessly about “our democracy” are the ones doing the most to undermine it.
I am outraged by the weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and I think this was a great article on merits (and demerits) of the entire argument.
I am firmly in the Kennedy camp because of his courtroom skills, defeating major corporations like Monsanto and government regulatory agencies like the USDA & FDA. He knows exactly which people need to go to clean up our agencies and start turning this ocean liner of corruption around.
Trump still doesn’t know who to trust and can’t do it himself.
The people who say they can't vote for a convicted felon are the same people who think everyone in prison was someone who had a bad day and had the book thrown at them, were done in by crooked cops, or victims of discrimination. Like Kyle Rittenhouse, Trump is the only person these progressives ever judged the character and actions of
Every other criminal? They totally couldn't help it and imprisoning them "won't work."
I wish he was a Sulla. Maybe if things go really hard and assassination happens, maaaaybe then Baron will be an Octavius/Sulla/Kamehameha. The memes are aligning for something stupendous, huge even, and I really hope its the cool kind of change rather than something like the very last Triumph held in Rome.