An open-minded libertarian on campus, thoroughly immersed among progressives, might willy nilly become competent at the ideological Turing Test for Ph.Ds.
But few on campus will pass the ideological Turing Test for any stripe of populism.
The rise of Trump basically blew up a significant portion of the TLP paradigm as it relates to conservatism. Sadly, the added brokenism dimension proposed here doesn’t seem to accurately portray the goals of conservative populism as it relates to domestic matters or foreign policy. The conservatives are tearing down institutions to restore civilization and protect us from barbarism? That doesn’t seem quite right, but that’s what the updated paradigm wants us to believe.
The problem, as I see it, is that the original three axes explained *why* people feel morally justified. Brokenism isn't a moral core - it's merely a belief about the state of our institutions. A brokenist still *needs* a *moral axis* to decide what to build after the old system is torn down. For conservative populists, it is the moral axis that has shifted to other moral preferences and nothing else.
On the other hand, the rise of AOC and democratic socialism has distilled and solidified the progressive side to such an extent that it is self-parodying (e.g. see Libs of TikTok). The brokenism of the progressive side appears to align quite nicely with the oppressor/oppressed axis and is therefore completely unnecessary as an axis.
Long story short, the brokenism band aid used here to update the TLP paradigm from its 2013 roots leaves me hoping for something better.
Trump is not significantly attached to conservatism. They are very different things. It's just that many once-upon-a-time conservatives are now attached to Trump.
Right. But, MAGA now owns the right and traditional conservatives that didn’t get on board with Trump are now left in the wilderness in organizations like the Lincoln Project. In short, conservatism as we once knew it no longer exists to any significant extent. It has been replaced by conservative populism.
Now that we have that out of the way, the TLP no longer holds its *explanatory power* on the conservative axis that it once did precisely because of the realignment I described above. And, adding the brokenism element into the mix doesn’t really help to repair that fault.
The literal interpretation of the revised TLP is that the conservative populists want to destroy the broken institutions to protect civilization from the barbarians. Sorry, but that makes no sense in describing the goals of the conservative populists.
"conservatism as we once knew it no longer exists"
It exists. Its voice is weak and its power is weaker but it exists.
Trump leads a movement. Conservatism is philosophy. Don't confuse the two. They are very different things.
There are a lot of things that "Three Languages" doesn't explain. It doesn't explain the infinite variations of populism. It doesn't really explain socialism/communism. Or fascism. None of that detracts from what it does explain.
The TLP is unable to explain the present without reverting to mental gymnastics because it’s too simplistic. For that reason, I don’t find it particularly interesting like I did back in 2013.
The TLP relies heavily on the six moral foundations from Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, which Kling appears to have borrowed heavily and boiled down to three. The shortcomings of that distillation process are now clear. The revised patched-together paradigm feels unsatisfying as compared to the more robust offering from Haidt.
No doubt there are similarities.. Given Haidt never even mentions libertarians, I find your take a bit puzzling and I find them both useful. Sorry you don't.
You know how easy it is to fact-check these days, right?
In Jonathan Haidt’s "The Righteous Mind”, the word libertarian (and derivatives) appears around 80 to 90+ times in total across the book.
In “Chapter 8: The Liberty/Oppression Foundation," Haidt introduces the 6th moral foundation (Liberty/Oppression). He explores how libertarians prioritize individual liberty and freedom from coercion/interference over all other moral foundations…
I could be wrong, but would assume that the differences in outlook on AI have more to do with mundane economics than with cultural philosophies. The initial wave of AI is coming after white collar jobs and the service economy more generally. The Chinese population is far less exposed to the risks associated with that disruption. When only 35% of the workforce is in white collar jobs vs. 65% in the U.S., there is a lot less to be concerned about.
Don’t discount cultural philosophy, not to mention there has already been government action taken and policies enacted to protect jobs where the government wants them protected. Still plenty of problems to go around, but here ain’t like there.
Just the same, far from all Americans are "freaked out" by AI. And I suspect there is a significant number of Chinese who are, even if the percentages are quite different.
It's worth noting one difference that probably plays into this is not cultural. When the difference in per capita gdp is more than 6x, there's a good chance workers see productivity enhancers/worker replace a little differently.
As someone who has been working with Claude continuously for the last few weeks, including making several slide decks, I would have been able to tell straight away that this was Claude at work. That doesn't imply anything about quality, I'm only using it myself because I am satisfied the quality is high, but it shows that there is enough of a pattern there that will get spotted.
I found it useful to develop a skill with Claude about how I like slide decks to be built that I then used repeatedly. It still needs work but it built in the fundamental rules that I like to stick to.
"The progressive knows that colorblindness is really cover for preserving hierarchy. The conservative knows that climate policy is really cover for controlling people. The libertarian knows that everyone else’s compassion is really a lust for power."
Apparently conservatives and libertarians know what is wrong with progressives but nobody has a complaint against libertarians.
The complaint both progressives and conservatives have against libertarians is they deem any attempt to come up with the kind of rules, procedures, and policies necessary to manage a population bigger than a Dunbar-ish number as coercion.
Kling doesn't think they are nobodies. I don't think they are nobodies. Everything about this substack suggests they aren't nobodies. Beyond that, I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong.
There are not 3 axes, or even 4. There is only individualism vs statism; both Progressives and Conservatives believe the only protection against their particular evil (oppressors and barbarians) is an all-powerful State, and the only difference between brokenists and institutionalists is whether to replace or reform the State.
All assume the old mantra of "this time will be different" because their men are angels and everyone else are devils. All want to inhibit the liberty and flexibility which created yesterday's status quo, which they want to lock in because change would allow their villains an opening. All know what is best for everybody else. None believe in progress or individuals.
The only thing they have right is that anarchy leads to gangs and government, but all are scared spitless that any weakening of State power will lead to anarchy.
Perhaps you didn't read "anarchy leads to gangs and government". Sorry about that, I won't bury the lede next time for people with short attention spans.
You also didn't address my claim that Progressives and Conservatives are subsets of Statists, thus not needing their own axes. I apologize for leaving that to the second half of the second sentence.
I'm wondering about metrics for measuring political results. GDP? Happiness? Tech progress?
Each side will claim they have the sauce to maximize the goods. And if the results don't appear, it is because the Plan wasn't tried hard enough.
But I like to think a disinterested party, orbiting the planet, could look down and draw some tentative conclusions. Migration patterns reflect people voting with their feet; seems that would indicate relative success. But if the migrants end up sterilized and alone, maybe it was just a Siren's call. Much fraught-ness in these things.
An open-minded libertarian on campus, thoroughly immersed among progressives, might willy nilly become competent at the ideological Turing Test for Ph.Ds.
But few on campus will pass the ideological Turing Test for any stripe of populism.
This is a must read!
It's a curiosity where some things fit within the three categories.
Marxism does not fit nicely with Progressive.
Nazi does not really fit with Conservative.
Anarchy does not fit with Libertarian.
Islam is a political system all its own.
I suppose to introduce politics in a classroom, the three types is a good start, though.
Question is where does Catholic social teaching with its twin pillars of Subsidiarity and Solidarity fit in?
The rise of Trump basically blew up a significant portion of the TLP paradigm as it relates to conservatism. Sadly, the added brokenism dimension proposed here doesn’t seem to accurately portray the goals of conservative populism as it relates to domestic matters or foreign policy. The conservatives are tearing down institutions to restore civilization and protect us from barbarism? That doesn’t seem quite right, but that’s what the updated paradigm wants us to believe.
The problem, as I see it, is that the original three axes explained *why* people feel morally justified. Brokenism isn't a moral core - it's merely a belief about the state of our institutions. A brokenist still *needs* a *moral axis* to decide what to build after the old system is torn down. For conservative populists, it is the moral axis that has shifted to other moral preferences and nothing else.
On the other hand, the rise of AOC and democratic socialism has distilled and solidified the progressive side to such an extent that it is self-parodying (e.g. see Libs of TikTok). The brokenism of the progressive side appears to align quite nicely with the oppressor/oppressed axis and is therefore completely unnecessary as an axis.
Long story short, the brokenism band aid used here to update the TLP paradigm from its 2013 roots leaves me hoping for something better.
Ho ho! Like I said, Conservatives and Progressives are both Statists, and there is no need to make them separate axes.
Trump is not significantly attached to conservatism. They are very different things. It's just that many once-upon-a-time conservatives are now attached to Trump.
Right. But, MAGA now owns the right and traditional conservatives that didn’t get on board with Trump are now left in the wilderness in organizations like the Lincoln Project. In short, conservatism as we once knew it no longer exists to any significant extent. It has been replaced by conservative populism.
Now that we have that out of the way, the TLP no longer holds its *explanatory power* on the conservative axis that it once did precisely because of the realignment I described above. And, adding the brokenism element into the mix doesn’t really help to repair that fault.
The literal interpretation of the revised TLP is that the conservative populists want to destroy the broken institutions to protect civilization from the barbarians. Sorry, but that makes no sense in describing the goals of the conservative populists.
"conservatism as we once knew it no longer exists"
It exists. Its voice is weak and its power is weaker but it exists.
Trump leads a movement. Conservatism is philosophy. Don't confuse the two. They are very different things.
There are a lot of things that "Three Languages" doesn't explain. It doesn't explain the infinite variations of populism. It doesn't really explain socialism/communism. Or fascism. None of that detracts from what it does explain.
The TLP is unable to explain the present without reverting to mental gymnastics because it’s too simplistic. For that reason, I don’t find it particularly interesting like I did back in 2013.
The TLP relies heavily on the six moral foundations from Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, which Kling appears to have borrowed heavily and boiled down to three. The shortcomings of that distillation process are now clear. The revised patched-together paradigm feels unsatisfying as compared to the more robust offering from Haidt.
No doubt there are similarities.. Given Haidt never even mentions libertarians, I find your take a bit puzzling and I find them both useful. Sorry you don't.
"Given Haidt never even mentions libertarians"
You know how easy it is to fact-check these days, right?
In Jonathan Haidt’s "The Righteous Mind”, the word libertarian (and derivatives) appears around 80 to 90+ times in total across the book.
In “Chapter 8: The Liberty/Oppression Foundation," Haidt introduces the 6th moral foundation (Liberty/Oppression). He explores how libertarians prioritize individual liberty and freedom from coercion/interference over all other moral foundations…
A great Substack read on why Americans are freaked about AI and Chinese aren't....
https://www.oldnorthwhale.com/p/why-the-west-fears-ai-and-china-doesnt?r=286fkw&utm_medium=ios
I could be wrong, but would assume that the differences in outlook on AI have more to do with mundane economics than with cultural philosophies. The initial wave of AI is coming after white collar jobs and the service economy more generally. The Chinese population is far less exposed to the risks associated with that disruption. When only 35% of the workforce is in white collar jobs vs. 65% in the U.S., there is a lot less to be concerned about.
Don’t discount cultural philosophy, not to mention there has already been government action taken and policies enacted to protect jobs where the government wants them protected. Still plenty of problems to go around, but here ain’t like there.
"Here ain't like there."
No doubt.
Just the same, far from all Americans are "freaked out" by AI. And I suspect there is a significant number of Chinese who are, even if the percentages are quite different.
It's worth noting one difference that probably plays into this is not cultural. When the difference in per capita gdp is more than 6x, there's a good chance workers see productivity enhancers/worker replace a little differently.
As someone who has been working with Claude continuously for the last few weeks, including making several slide decks, I would have been able to tell straight away that this was Claude at work. That doesn't imply anything about quality, I'm only using it myself because I am satisfied the quality is high, but it shows that there is enough of a pattern there that will get spotted.
I found it useful to develop a skill with Claude about how I like slide decks to be built that I then used repeatedly. It still needs work but it built in the fundamental rules that I like to stick to.
"The progressive knows that colorblindness is really cover for preserving hierarchy. The conservative knows that climate policy is really cover for controlling people. The libertarian knows that everyone else’s compassion is really a lust for power."
Apparently conservatives and libertarians know what is wrong with progressives but nobody has a complaint against libertarians.
The complaint both progressives and conservatives have against libertarians is they deem any attempt to come up with the kind of rules, procedures, and policies necessary to manage a population bigger than a Dunbar-ish number as coercion.
In this piece? I reread and see none of that here. Please quote it.
Libertarians aren't in power. Why should the statists target them?
I don't see who is in power as relevant to this conversation.
Why waste their time targeting nobodies?
Kling doesn't think they are nobodies. I don't think they are nobodies. Everything about this substack suggests they aren't nobodies. Beyond that, I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong.
It's a simple proposition: resources are scarce. Why waste resources on a political party which doesn't win elections?
Please continue misunderstand basic English. In practical politics, libertarians are nobodies.
Reread my previous comment.
Great article-compliments to you and Claude. How about a revision of TLP to include the 4th axis?
It's better than the recent series on American history, but I can still tell it's not you.
Really really good, better than great. (Like?) Arnold at his best: insightful, important, clear, brief.
Particularly important is how every axis has the victim & the villain, and all are against the villains of each axis.
Plus open to the possible new brokenist axis.
There are not 3 axes, or even 4. There is only individualism vs statism; both Progressives and Conservatives believe the only protection against their particular evil (oppressors and barbarians) is an all-powerful State, and the only difference between brokenists and institutionalists is whether to replace or reform the State.
All assume the old mantra of "this time will be different" because their men are angels and everyone else are devils. All want to inhibit the liberty and flexibility which created yesterday's status quo, which they want to lock in because change would allow their villains an opening. All know what is best for everybody else. None believe in progress or individuals.
The only thing they have right is that anarchy leads to gangs and government, but all are scared spitless that any weakening of State power will lead to anarchy.
So sez I :-)
The view from mountain top. Assume no neighbors, assume perfectly rational being. Assume no nuisances, assume no hostiles,
“There is only individualism vs statism“
Stated like a true libertarian with his ideological blinders firmly ensconced.
If you are unable to see the possible downsides of your preferred axis, then you have pretty much proven Arnold’s and Haidt’s formulations.
Perhaps you didn't read "anarchy leads to gangs and government". Sorry about that, I won't bury the lede next time for people with short attention spans.
You also didn't address my claim that Progressives and Conservatives are subsets of Statists, thus not needing their own axes. I apologize for leaving that to the second half of the second sentence.
The slide deck is attached at the end of the post.
I couldn't find the slide deck. I'd like to see the whole thing.
Thanks
Nice.
I'm wondering about metrics for measuring political results. GDP? Happiness? Tech progress?
Each side will claim they have the sauce to maximize the goods. And if the results don't appear, it is because the Plan wasn't tried hard enough.
But I like to think a disinterested party, orbiting the planet, could look down and draw some tentative conclusions. Migration patterns reflect people voting with their feet; seems that would indicate relative success. But if the migrants end up sterilized and alone, maybe it was just a Siren's call. Much fraught-ness in these things.
Tangential - does anyone know of good introductions to socratic dialogues for children (8yo)?