I'm always a little confounded by your love of Paul Ryan. To turn his own quip, he's obtained personal success without being interesting or effective.
As a political leader, he did nothing of import even when he had the (voting) numbers to do so. No vision, no accomplishment on any front I can recall. Rather, he quit! Post-Congress, he seems like he's another DC swamp denizen.
I mean, he seems like a nice guy as far as politicians go, but if anything did enormous damage to the "cause" of being a normal, somewhat libertarian politician by getting into a position to have some real influence but then revealing himself as a do-nothing lightweight. In that respect, he might be an accurate icon of libertarians in general. Once it comes to practical governance, they don't seem to have any ability whatsoever.
I'm no fan of anti-liberal conservatism, but Brooks is making a good argument for these NatCon folks:
> The idea that the left controls absolutely everything—from your smartphone to the money supply to your third grader’s curriculum—explains the apocalyptic tone that was the dominating emotional register of this conference
2017, was Paul Ryan's time to shine and the time to cheer for Paul Ryan. 2017 was when Paul Ryan was actively leading the Republican Party specifically on the issue of health care, with a strong voter mandate, control of the Presidency, and majorities in both branches of Congress.
In 2017, Kling, and every other free market health care advocate I read was not the least bit interested in Paul Ryan's health care initiatives. Skimming through Kling's blog archives of 2017 confirms that recollection. Four years later, in 2021, Kling is resurrecting Ryan and trying to paint him as some noble stalwart of fiscal responsible policy.
If Paul Ryan led a brilliant campaign that narrowly failed by a few votes, I'd be sympathetic, but he didn't. Democrats made the predictable charge that Republicans just wanted to take away everyone's health care, and Republicans under Paul Ryan made absolutely no attempt to convince anyone otherwise. Paul Ryan had larger majorities to work with than the Democrats have now, and was able to accomplish much less. He took big election victories and threw them away to deliver nothing.
There is as far as I know no distinction between Paul Ryan and nationalist conservatives on the axis of monetary policy, the debt, etc. Nationalist conservatives instead differ from Paul Ryan by being against foreign military entanglements and in favor of immigration enforcement. Paul Ryan's problem is that he still wants to invade the world and invite the world—in this context, it is secondary whether he would also have us in hock to the world.
Fiscal responsibility means reducing the structural deficit. That is going to include some increases in taxes unless Republicans discover a kind of expenditure to cut.
These are the first years of an intellectual movement that is very diverse. Intellectually some of its manifestations are worse and others are better. But I think that such a "high variance" right will be instrumental in crystallizing positions that even Mr. Kling will come to appreciate. Much depends on how politically effective the "anti-Woke" coalition will be and whether Natcons can shape its course, and, most importantly, which elements within National Conservatism will prove to be most dynamic. I'm betting on the Thiel/Masters/Vance lign. And hope for it.
>>Bovard has the place rocking, training her sights on the true enemies, the left-wing elite: a “totalitarian cult of billionaires and bureaucrats, of privilege perpetuated by bullying, empowered by the most sophisticated surveillance and communications technologies in history, and limited only by the scruples of people who arrest rape victims’ fathers, declare math to be white supremacist, finance ethnic cleansing in western China, and who partied, a mile high, on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express.”
The atmosphere is electric. She’s giving the best synopsis of national conservatism I’ve heard at the conference we’re attending—and with flair! <<
I've long been anti-PC, and anti-Woke, and am becoming proud to be anti-elite - tho it's the Democrat elites, not the (never on the ballot) "Left".
The optimal society will be the one whose laws and customs are optimal for the slightly below average in intelligence people who are, nevertheless, good "Boy Scout" types. Not necessarily the Scout mindset of Galef, which is excellent, but the Boy Scout virtues:
I note these explicitly because so many flabby pundits talk about vague virtues or ideas with too clarity about what they really mean.
You don't need no college, w/ or w/o a diploma, to be a good Scout; Forrest Gump could be one. Blue-collar workers value these virtues more than education. College grads increasingly don't. Funny how I'm so often agreeing now with Freddie deBoer (The Cult of Smart) about the need for dignity for the less educated, and many of his other critiques, while wholly opposing his Marxist solutions.
Yes, Arnold. The ground has shifted: the barbarians are succeeding in taking over your country, a little piece every day. And you don't want to accept it. You prefer to deny them but soon they will finish taking over Montgomery County (I used to live there and I'm not surprised because too many bureaucrats and rent-seekers live there).
I'm always a little confounded by your love of Paul Ryan. To turn his own quip, he's obtained personal success without being interesting or effective.
As a political leader, he did nothing of import even when he had the (voting) numbers to do so. No vision, no accomplishment on any front I can recall. Rather, he quit! Post-Congress, he seems like he's another DC swamp denizen.
I mean, he seems like a nice guy as far as politicians go, but if anything did enormous damage to the "cause" of being a normal, somewhat libertarian politician by getting into a position to have some real influence but then revealing himself as a do-nothing lightweight. In that respect, he might be an accurate icon of libertarians in general. Once it comes to practical governance, they don't seem to have any ability whatsoever.
I'm no fan of anti-liberal conservatism, but Brooks is making a good argument for these NatCon folks:
> The idea that the left controls absolutely everything—from your smartphone to the money supply to your third grader’s curriculum—explains the apocalyptic tone that was the dominating emotional register of this conference
You don't say.
2017, was Paul Ryan's time to shine and the time to cheer for Paul Ryan. 2017 was when Paul Ryan was actively leading the Republican Party specifically on the issue of health care, with a strong voter mandate, control of the Presidency, and majorities in both branches of Congress.
In 2017, Kling, and every other free market health care advocate I read was not the least bit interested in Paul Ryan's health care initiatives. Skimming through Kling's blog archives of 2017 confirms that recollection. Four years later, in 2021, Kling is resurrecting Ryan and trying to paint him as some noble stalwart of fiscal responsible policy.
If Paul Ryan led a brilliant campaign that narrowly failed by a few votes, I'd be sympathetic, but he didn't. Democrats made the predictable charge that Republicans just wanted to take away everyone's health care, and Republicans under Paul Ryan made absolutely no attempt to convince anyone otherwise. Paul Ryan had larger majorities to work with than the Democrats have now, and was able to accomplish much less. He took big election victories and threw them away to deliver nothing.
There is as far as I know no distinction between Paul Ryan and nationalist conservatives on the axis of monetary policy, the debt, etc. Nationalist conservatives instead differ from Paul Ryan by being against foreign military entanglements and in favor of immigration enforcement. Paul Ryan's problem is that he still wants to invade the world and invite the world—in this context, it is secondary whether he would also have us in hock to the world.
Fiscal responsibility means reducing the structural deficit. That is going to include some increases in taxes unless Republicans discover a kind of expenditure to cut.
These are the first years of an intellectual movement that is very diverse. Intellectually some of its manifestations are worse and others are better. But I think that such a "high variance" right will be instrumental in crystallizing positions that even Mr. Kling will come to appreciate. Much depends on how politically effective the "anti-Woke" coalition will be and whether Natcons can shape its course, and, most importantly, which elements within National Conservatism will prove to be most dynamic. I'm betting on the Thiel/Masters/Vance lign. And hope for it.
Rod Dreher's take on David is better, tho a lot longer.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/david-brooks-among-the-national-conservatives/
Rod quotes David about Rachael Bovard's speech:
>>Bovard has the place rocking, training her sights on the true enemies, the left-wing elite: a “totalitarian cult of billionaires and bureaucrats, of privilege perpetuated by bullying, empowered by the most sophisticated surveillance and communications technologies in history, and limited only by the scruples of people who arrest rape victims’ fathers, declare math to be white supremacist, finance ethnic cleansing in western China, and who partied, a mile high, on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express.”
The atmosphere is electric. She’s giving the best synopsis of national conservatism I’ve heard at the conference we’re attending—and with flair! <<
I've long been anti-PC, and anti-Woke, and am becoming proud to be anti-elite - tho it's the Democrat elites, not the (never on the ballot) "Left".
The optimal society will be the one whose laws and customs are optimal for the slightly below average in intelligence people who are, nevertheless, good "Boy Scout" types. Not necessarily the Scout mindset of Galef, which is excellent, but the Boy Scout virtues:
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
I note these explicitly because so many flabby pundits talk about vague virtues or ideas with too clarity about what they really mean.
You don't need no college, w/ or w/o a diploma, to be a good Scout; Forrest Gump could be one. Blue-collar workers value these virtues more than education. College grads increasingly don't. Funny how I'm so often agreeing now with Freddie deBoer (The Cult of Smart) about the need for dignity for the less educated, and many of his other critiques, while wholly opposing his Marxist solutions.
Yes, Arnold. The ground has shifted: the barbarians are succeeding in taking over your country, a little piece every day. And you don't want to accept it. You prefer to deny them but soon they will finish taking over Montgomery County (I used to live there and I'm not surprised because too many bureaucrats and rent-seekers live there).