I think of the institutional failure of Congress that potentially necessitates authoritarianism in terms of the framework made by North, Wallis, and Weingast in Violence and Social Orders. They argue that advanced societies can function as open-access orders when elites compete for power within a system of clearly defined rules. When institutional trust declines and rent-seeking behaviors are not constrained, societies revert to limited-access orders, or what the authors call "the natural state," in which a smaller group of elites must collectively share power to maintain state capacity. Without Congress, it is hard to see how America's open access order doesn't devolve into the natural state. It is an interesting contrast that the federal government is increasingly executive-dominated, with no functional legislature, while many states still retain functional legislatures. This was a very timely post. Rod Dreher coincidentally wrote a post today about this exact issue and how the rise of an American Caesar is what will probably break the gridlock eventually.
"why do liberals sanctify The Process so much? Because everyone, even educated liberals, need to believe in something greater than themselves."
The effect here does not derive from the cause you've stated. "They consistently sanctify is procedure. Outcomes don’t matter." This tendency long predates modern liberalism.
I've mentioned before that Locke's liberal theory ended fights over the common good (the sacred) by focusing on procedure over outcomes. It was intentional, a way out of the European wars of religion. That was the "chaos and disorder" he was trying to avoid. I summarize Locke with my students as: "let's stop arguing about rival views of God and focus on making money."
And it worked! Modern states don't go to war over infant baptism or doctrines of the Trinity. Exchanging meaning (telos) for material prosperity (mammon) bought us a couple of centuries of good times. But as you say, every society needs something sacred, a "common good" of some kind. "Philosophical compromise" is impossible without it. (You already you know this, but a great many seem not to.)
BTW: Thank you very much for pointing out our oligarchic roots. The founders were wary of mass democracy. It has an even worse track record today.
I suspect our options at this point are a woke tyranny, a non-ideological Caesar who will keep the peace and the lights on (think Franco or Bukele), or a renewed oligarchy. I hope for the third. I expect the second. I would fight the first, precisely because it stands diametrically opposed to my true King.
"the Founders were very much aristocrats."
John Stuart Mill was also classist and aristocratic: "despotism is appropriate when dealing with barbarians." Modern liberals tend to ignore everything about Mill except his Harm Principle though.
"The irony of democracy is that it ends up like a tyranny." Ohhh, Max. Shivers up my spine. I'm stealing that one! :-)
If The Process is a ritual, then liberalism is definitely a religion. Communion is a ritual and it's treated as sacrosanct in Christianity. Looks like liberals are as religious as us ignoramuses. I often observe that every time a criminal, especially from a protected class like blacks or illegal immigrants, kills someone, it effectively amounts to human sacrifice. The eventual court proceedings where they're found unfit to stand trial or all but let off amount to religious rituals where they connect with whoever their higher power is and achieve communion.
Like I always say, the thought we don't have a choice is more frightening than the fact we don't. Liberals castigate religion (almost exclusively Christianity) because they say it's all fear-based, but so is democracy. Everyone wants to believe they have a choice because to be denied autonomy is the moral failure to end all moral failures.
If I had an hour to lecture a room full of liberal Americans on anything, it'd be that democracy isn't sacrosanct and that it's not part of America's DNA. The radicalism of democracy isn't because it threatens the prevailing social order, but because it doesn't work.
Liberal policies have made far too many places virtually unlivable. I no longer believe this is the outcome of incompetence. The plan is orchestrated collapse and it's working.
Watching the No Kings protestors who cannot even explain what they are protesting is just more proof that there will simply be no reasoning with these people.
And that is really a shame because what's coming sure as hell won't be romantic.
Lippincott is spot on in his critique. I've had the same thoughts about congress, filibusters, gov't shutdowns and the like. I don't feel confident making predictions about how things will go in near future, but I think we're entering a new era at least in terms of many long tenured GOPers getting the heave ho. Cornyn in TX is a prime example, but it applies to McConnell too. In the case of Paxton vs. Cornyn, i'd prefer Paxton if i were a Texan. Like Lippincott says, Cornyn has been there since '02 - deficits/debt are worse, illegals are way more numerous, Congress' basic functions don't work anymore WRT budgets, war powers, and simply keeping gov't open. It's not all Cornyn's fault, but in a job like a senator, you're judged by results and his are bad. I'd take a flaky unproven guy over a proven team playing loser any day.
Another thing, I don't get the GOP reluctance on filibuster. It's not like the Senate is the only body involved here. There are 3 bodies - House, Senate, President. If Dems take a majority in '28 and try to pass statehood for DC/PR/Haiti and Liberia, Trump will veto. You'd have to lose all 3 to be vulnerable and even then, there'd be reluctance on Dems part to do such a thing and enormous backlash among GOP and public that would make Obamacare "repeal and replace" pledges sound downright civil.
More importantly, the Dems have already said they'll do it as soon as they have the trifecta. So I see no reason to delay. We may as well get the advantage instead.
I must respectfully disagree about Paxton v. Cornyn. While Cornyn has been a bit of a squish on some issues, he's a decent man. Paxton is a flat out crook. Texas has been overrun with supposed MAGAites, but who are only in it for their own grift. Paxton is the leader of the pack. Odds are he'll be our next senator; better odds are we'll be regretting that choice.
Max, you should probably check out “The Revolt of the Public: The Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium” by Gurri, and a book Gurri recommends, called “Invertebrate Spain”. I think it will nicely dovetail with the premise you’re talking about.
I wonder if first we might not see state kings (isn't Federalism great?!) California, let's say, continues it's descent into craziness and something big and really bad happens (major earthquake). The current state government is then overwhelmed, a Katrina writ large. The federal government then has no choice but to send somebody to sort out the mess under martial law - and maybe that person does such a good job (sorry about all those dead looters) that the people want him to stick around. Possible?
Living here, it was really obvious that Newsome really enjoyed his monarchical powers during COVID. The daily (Pravda) press conferences. The ruling by decree. I suspect this catalyzed his more serious interest in the presidency, jealously watching Trump wield the EO pen and remembering when he could do that too.
It's possible. Probable is another matter. I'm a big believer in that everything reverts to the status quo ante-. That said, historically, governors have been powerful executives. They were supposed to be more powerful than the president, honestly. There's a reason why the states are called "states."
I think of the institutional failure of Congress that potentially necessitates authoritarianism in terms of the framework made by North, Wallis, and Weingast in Violence and Social Orders. They argue that advanced societies can function as open-access orders when elites compete for power within a system of clearly defined rules. When institutional trust declines and rent-seeking behaviors are not constrained, societies revert to limited-access orders, or what the authors call "the natural state," in which a smaller group of elites must collectively share power to maintain state capacity. Without Congress, it is hard to see how America's open access order doesn't devolve into the natural state. It is an interesting contrast that the federal government is increasingly executive-dominated, with no functional legislature, while many states still retain functional legislatures. This was a very timely post. Rod Dreher coincidentally wrote a post today about this exact issue and how the rise of an American Caesar is what will probably break the gridlock eventually.
Who's my king? Christ. That's easy.
"why do liberals sanctify The Process so much? Because everyone, even educated liberals, need to believe in something greater than themselves."
The effect here does not derive from the cause you've stated. "They consistently sanctify is procedure. Outcomes don’t matter." This tendency long predates modern liberalism.
I've mentioned before that Locke's liberal theory ended fights over the common good (the sacred) by focusing on procedure over outcomes. It was intentional, a way out of the European wars of religion. That was the "chaos and disorder" he was trying to avoid. I summarize Locke with my students as: "let's stop arguing about rival views of God and focus on making money."
And it worked! Modern states don't go to war over infant baptism or doctrines of the Trinity. Exchanging meaning (telos) for material prosperity (mammon) bought us a couple of centuries of good times. But as you say, every society needs something sacred, a "common good" of some kind. "Philosophical compromise" is impossible without it. (You already you know this, but a great many seem not to.)
BTW: Thank you very much for pointing out our oligarchic roots. The founders were wary of mass democracy. It has an even worse track record today.
I suspect our options at this point are a woke tyranny, a non-ideological Caesar who will keep the peace and the lights on (think Franco or Bukele), or a renewed oligarchy. I hope for the third. I expect the second. I would fight the first, precisely because it stands diametrically opposed to my true King.
"the Founders were very much aristocrats."
John Stuart Mill was also classist and aristocratic: "despotism is appropriate when dealing with barbarians." Modern liberals tend to ignore everything about Mill except his Harm Principle though.
"The irony of democracy is that it ends up like a tyranny." Ohhh, Max. Shivers up my spine. I'm stealing that one! :-)
If The Process is a ritual, then liberalism is definitely a religion. Communion is a ritual and it's treated as sacrosanct in Christianity. Looks like liberals are as religious as us ignoramuses. I often observe that every time a criminal, especially from a protected class like blacks or illegal immigrants, kills someone, it effectively amounts to human sacrifice. The eventual court proceedings where they're found unfit to stand trial or all but let off amount to religious rituals where they connect with whoever their higher power is and achieve communion.
Like I always say, the thought we don't have a choice is more frightening than the fact we don't. Liberals castigate religion (almost exclusively Christianity) because they say it's all fear-based, but so is democracy. Everyone wants to believe they have a choice because to be denied autonomy is the moral failure to end all moral failures.
If I had an hour to lecture a room full of liberal Americans on anything, it'd be that democracy isn't sacrosanct and that it's not part of America's DNA. The radicalism of democracy isn't because it threatens the prevailing social order, but because it doesn't work.
As a non-American, I found this essay more illuminating and educational than I had expected. Thanks. A candidate for NRP reads-of-the-week IMO.
In many places we are already in a state of complete chaos.
https://truthonthestreets.substack.com/p/organized-street-crime-in-plain-sight
Liberal policies have made far too many places virtually unlivable. I no longer believe this is the outcome of incompetence. The plan is orchestrated collapse and it's working.
Watching the No Kings protestors who cannot even explain what they are protesting is just more proof that there will simply be no reasoning with these people.
And that is really a shame because what's coming sure as hell won't be romantic.
Lippincott is spot on in his critique. I've had the same thoughts about congress, filibusters, gov't shutdowns and the like. I don't feel confident making predictions about how things will go in near future, but I think we're entering a new era at least in terms of many long tenured GOPers getting the heave ho. Cornyn in TX is a prime example, but it applies to McConnell too. In the case of Paxton vs. Cornyn, i'd prefer Paxton if i were a Texan. Like Lippincott says, Cornyn has been there since '02 - deficits/debt are worse, illegals are way more numerous, Congress' basic functions don't work anymore WRT budgets, war powers, and simply keeping gov't open. It's not all Cornyn's fault, but in a job like a senator, you're judged by results and his are bad. I'd take a flaky unproven guy over a proven team playing loser any day.
Another thing, I don't get the GOP reluctance on filibuster. It's not like the Senate is the only body involved here. There are 3 bodies - House, Senate, President. If Dems take a majority in '28 and try to pass statehood for DC/PR/Haiti and Liberia, Trump will veto. You'd have to lose all 3 to be vulnerable and even then, there'd be reluctance on Dems part to do such a thing and enormous backlash among GOP and public that would make Obamacare "repeal and replace" pledges sound downright civil.
The fact that a two-thirds majority of both bodies of Congress is not needed to admit a state into the union is the stupidest thing in Article IV.
More importantly, the Dems have already said they'll do it as soon as they have the trifecta. So I see no reason to delay. We may as well get the advantage instead.
I must respectfully disagree about Paxton v. Cornyn. While Cornyn has been a bit of a squish on some issues, he's a decent man. Paxton is a flat out crook. Texas has been overrun with supposed MAGAites, but who are only in it for their own grift. Paxton is the leader of the pack. Odds are he'll be our next senator; better odds are we'll be regretting that choice.
Max, you should probably check out “The Revolt of the Public: The Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium” by Gurri, and a book Gurri recommends, called “Invertebrate Spain”. I think it will nicely dovetail with the premise you’re talking about.
Franco and Pinochet were far better for Spain and Chile than the elected Communists they crushed.
We are not yet at the point where we need something like that in the U. S. But we are too close for comfort.
I wonder if first we might not see state kings (isn't Federalism great?!) California, let's say, continues it's descent into craziness and something big and really bad happens (major earthquake). The current state government is then overwhelmed, a Katrina writ large. The federal government then has no choice but to send somebody to sort out the mess under martial law - and maybe that person does such a good job (sorry about all those dead looters) that the people want him to stick around. Possible?
Living here, it was really obvious that Newsome really enjoyed his monarchical powers during COVID. The daily (Pravda) press conferences. The ruling by decree. I suspect this catalyzed his more serious interest in the presidency, jealously watching Trump wield the EO pen and remembering when he could do that too.
I expect California and Illinois to go bankrupt. At that point, I would like to see them being taken over by the Feds and made non-voting territories.
Hey, one can dream.
It's possible. Probable is another matter. I'm a big believer in that everything reverts to the status quo ante-. That said, historically, governors have been powerful executives. They were supposed to be more powerful than the president, honestly. There's a reason why the states are called "states."