Mounk and Singal are lying to themselves, and believing their own lies.
L Liberals believe in Rule of Law.
Illegal aliens violate the law, so should be deported/ punished In Accordance to the Law.
Most Dems oppose enforcement of border laws, thus are not in support of rule of law.
The label “Liberal” has been degraded to mostly mean Democratic Party supporters.
Arnold is correct that they are in a tough spot—but it is because their self deception is becoming clear to those interested in T truth, and willing to look. They do have some good critiques of the system, yet are totally unable to name anybody with better ideas than Trump.
"If Democrats want to win elections, they will need a different ideology — something more akin to the liberalism of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton than to the progressivism of Zohran Mamdani."
This is probably the most wrong thing I have read in 2025.
AOC or Mamdani will be the candidate for the democrats in 2028. I am taking bets 50/50 on any size.
I agree that the Mamdani wing is ascendant, but others have informed me that he is Constitutionally ineligible to run, having been born outside the country.
You say some things but none of them is a concrete step.
Let me write some concrete steps (That Government can take) for you:
1. Government stop to fund Non-Profits and outsourcing core-functions . All of them. If GOV wants to do something, it can do it by itself. This would mean a bigger Gov, but more accountable.
"Warby points out that social justice radicals flourish in non-profit sectors. This means that they are accountable neither to customers nor to reality."
What does it mean to not be accountable to reality. They still face the reality of having to convince people to donate to them, and people donating overwhelmingly make their money out in reality. What are these non-profits doing that's so persuasive that people are willingly handing over money and not even for a good or service? I don't think it's anymore against reality than a firefighter fundraising ball.
The price of the center is you cannot hold , you will be betrayed by allies and mocked by enemies.
As an enemy of the Left allow me to mock.
As the center is yesterday’s Left wing arsonists their fear of monsters rising from the ashes is correct, they should have thought of that when they were young and playing with matches…
Ezra Klein is in the same bind with his notion of abundance. The side of politics he identifies with are institutionally and ideologically opposed to any such project as it will require massively shrinking the authority and claims over resources of the unaccountable classes who are the institutional base of the Democratic Party. (That the abolition of USAID may be adversely affecting the finances of the DNC being a particularly dramatic case in point.)
“I think those accusations have lost their bite with Trumpists. I doubt that they have lost their bite in the Washington Post newsroom or on the Harvard campus.”
I think this is correct, and the 2nd sentence a good and important point, but the use of “Trumpists” in the first sentence is too narrow.
It should be replaced by “anyone not on the left”, or at minimum “anyone on the right.”
“But do not give college graduates any entitlement relative to non-graduates. To attain status in law, journalism, management, or other professions, they have to earn it. People who have not taken the college path may turn out to be at least as qualified, and selection systems must allow for this. Above all, college graduates are not entitled to be in charge of social norms or political institutions.”
Shout it from the rooftops!!!!
And towards this noble and just end, let’s celebrate the ending of the vile and corrupt abomination that was the federal entry “outstanding scholar” entry level hiring authority (https://www.opm.gov/employ/luevano.asp ) that allowed appointments (largely pure patronage) into the career federal service without competitive examinations for decades leading to the filth and squalor that characterizes the civil service today.
On Friday, August 1, the Department of Justice put an end to this travesty.
““For over four decades, this decree has hampered the federal government from hiring the top talent of our nation,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division. “Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit—not race.”
One is hard pressed to imagine a more important step toward restoring the integrity of federal institutions and reining in the corrupt influence of the higher education industry.
Congratulations to the Trump Administration on a significant step towards making America great again.
Reducing the current 40%+ figure for high school grads going to college to 5% is radical and unreasonable, implying a cutoff IQ of about 125. It might be OK for non-vocational studies, but I expect that we need more future physicians, lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, and so on than this figure would admit. It would be a mistake to silo such students into specialized institutes stripped of liberal education. And of course if you put the liberal education back in then presto, they're colleges.
Your statement: "People who have not taken the college path may turn out to be at least as qualified, and selection systems must allow for this." is correct and actually works in a free market system where the selection is by the market when the elite doesn't rig it. Centralized planning is captured by the elite and used as a method of preventing markets from making their own decisions.
Higher education limited to the top 5%? Really? What sort of higher education would this be? Would it be irrelevant to entry into legal or medical training? Would it exclude practical subjects like engineering? Would the science programs only be intended for selection for PhD programs?
I certainly agree that fewer students should attend college, that it should be less expensive, and less funded by the government.
I also agree that the nonprofit sector should be smaller, with much lower salaries. But how to achieve it? A great part of the nonprofit sector is self-perpetuating foundations funded by enormous endowments from people long dead. Another great part has fit into the institutional ecosystem, getting funding from corporate-sponsored sources like the United Way (to gather and funnel individual contributions) and direct corporate contributions. Can you think of a strategy to get to the objective?
The northern Democrats have historically diverted public resources to benefit themselves and their supporters. Graft is the essence of urban machine politics.
George W. Plunkitt separated graft into what he called “honest” and “dishonest”. In “honest” graft, contracts and concessions go to politicians and their supporters, but the taxpayer supposedly still gets their money’s worth. In “dishonest” graft, they do not.
Nowadays government workers, including teachers, are a major constituency of the Democratic Party. They have begun openly interfering with elections.
The Republican Party rhetoric about reducing the size of government directly threatens ‘this interest group.
There should be a third way - people who see institutions restored to their original purpose and put inside the banks and levees that originally restrained them. 'For profit' colleges? Great. But no government loans, and you pay taxes.
State 'land grant' schools? Wonderful, no federal dollars and under firm voter control.
City schools funded by city taxes? Wonderful. No federal or state funding.
Religious institutions, run by churches? Great. No tax dollars, but also tax exempt. Free exercise.
Research grants to faculty? No. Contracts? Sure, as long as there are firm deliverables and free and open competition, with best value and accountability for the contracting officers, as well as regular audits by DCMA.
Military academies? Fine - but also in competition with private military schools. Some of the only educational institutions that can get federal tax dollars in any form.
Vannevar Bush saw some connections but got causality wrong and on such a time delay that he did irreparable damage; whole institutions need to be rolled back and rescoped.
Yes, a bit of a DoD-centric comment, but this is the sort of thing that separates free pork from legitimate work for the government.
Note I didn't say DCAA. That organization does a different kind of audit; about the organization being effectively auditable (having sound financial systems, for example) and is very important for 'cost plus' type contracts. DCMA is important for contract administration, making sure that the products received are quality, etc.
I think it's stacking the deck to use those labels. There's an important distinction between those who are, on the one hand, 'conservative' defenders of existing institutions in their current or recent form, who think if there is a problem it is mostly a 'failure to conserve' i.e., lack of fidelity to those traditional arrangements and ideals (cf 'originalists'), and those on the other hand, who believe those former structures have not just been thoroughly corrupted, compromised, and captured, but been revealed to have fundamental security vulnerability which means they cannot be restored or merely strengthened or tweaked because they will always just get hacked and gamed in the same way over and over. There is an analogy to cybersecurity. It's not that one is against having a security system, but there comes a point when it is revealed that the old system has a critical vulnerability that is a direct consequence of its fundamental design, and that the bug cannot be patched, and one has no choice but to discover new, superior approaches and recode those libraries from scratch.
Mounk and Singal are lying to themselves, and believing their own lies.
L Liberals believe in Rule of Law.
Illegal aliens violate the law, so should be deported/ punished In Accordance to the Law.
Most Dems oppose enforcement of border laws, thus are not in support of rule of law.
The label “Liberal” has been degraded to mostly mean Democratic Party supporters.
Arnold is correct that they are in a tough spot—but it is because their self deception is becoming clear to those interested in T truth, and willing to look. They do have some good critiques of the system, yet are totally unable to name anybody with better ideas than Trump.
"If Democrats want to win elections, they will need a different ideology — something more akin to the liberalism of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton than to the progressivism of Zohran Mamdani."
This is probably the most wrong thing I have read in 2025.
AOC or Mamdani will be the candidate for the democrats in 2028. I am taking bets 50/50 on any size.
Fair point, then it will be AOC. I think people haven't yet come to terms with how the internet is reshaping the world and especially politics.
I agree that the Mamdani wing is ascendant, but others have informed me that he is Constitutionally ineligible to run, having been born outside the country.
You say some things but none of them is a concrete step.
Let me write some concrete steps (That Government can take) for you:
1. Government stop to fund Non-Profits and outsourcing core-functions . All of them. If GOV wants to do something, it can do it by itself. This would mean a bigger Gov, but more accountable.
2. Tax all contribution to Charity.
3. Stop loans for High Education.
How many of those steps do you actually support?
"they seem to me to wish that social justice activists would confess their sins and sin no more. But I may be uncharitable."
Why is it unreasonable to want this? Obviously it isn't going to happen, but it would be the ideal result.
I thought it was unreasonable *because* obviously it isn't going to happen
"Warby points out that social justice radicals flourish in non-profit sectors. This means that they are accountable neither to customers nor to reality."
What does it mean to not be accountable to reality. They still face the reality of having to convince people to donate to them, and people donating overwhelmingly make their money out in reality. What are these non-profits doing that's so persuasive that people are willingly handing over money and not even for a good or service? I don't think it's anymore against reality than a firefighter fundraising ball.
You can flatter donors or obtain Federal funding without accomplishing anything useful.
The price of the center is you cannot hold , you will be betrayed by allies and mocked by enemies.
As an enemy of the Left allow me to mock.
As the center is yesterday’s Left wing arsonists their fear of monsters rising from the ashes is correct, they should have thought of that when they were young and playing with matches…
Ezra Klein is in the same bind with his notion of abundance. The side of politics he identifies with are institutionally and ideologically opposed to any such project as it will require massively shrinking the authority and claims over resources of the unaccountable classes who are the institutional base of the Democratic Party. (That the abolition of USAID may be adversely affecting the finances of the DNC being a particularly dramatic case in point.)
“I think those accusations have lost their bite with Trumpists. I doubt that they have lost their bite in the Washington Post newsroom or on the Harvard campus.”
I think this is correct, and the 2nd sentence a good and important point, but the use of “Trumpists” in the first sentence is too narrow.
It should be replaced by “anyone not on the left”, or at minimum “anyone on the right.”
“But do not give college graduates any entitlement relative to non-graduates. To attain status in law, journalism, management, or other professions, they have to earn it. People who have not taken the college path may turn out to be at least as qualified, and selection systems must allow for this. Above all, college graduates are not entitled to be in charge of social norms or political institutions.”
Shout it from the rooftops!!!!
And towards this noble and just end, let’s celebrate the ending of the vile and corrupt abomination that was the federal entry “outstanding scholar” entry level hiring authority (https://www.opm.gov/employ/luevano.asp ) that allowed appointments (largely pure patronage) into the career federal service without competitive examinations for decades leading to the filth and squalor that characterizes the civil service today.
On Friday, August 1, the Department of Justice put an end to this travesty.
““For over four decades, this decree has hampered the federal government from hiring the top talent of our nation,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division. “Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit—not race.”
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/justice-department-dismisses-race-based-44-year-old-consent-decree
One is hard pressed to imagine a more important step toward restoring the integrity of federal institutions and reining in the corrupt influence of the higher education industry.
Congratulations to the Trump Administration on a significant step towards making America great again.
Reducing the current 40%+ figure for high school grads going to college to 5% is radical and unreasonable, implying a cutoff IQ of about 125. It might be OK for non-vocational studies, but I expect that we need more future physicians, lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, and so on than this figure would admit. It would be a mistake to silo such students into specialized institutes stripped of liberal education. And of course if you put the liberal education back in then presto, they're colleges.
Ken
I agree.
AK is directionally correct, without doubt, but 5% is far too small - and unnecessary - a cutoff.
Your statement: "People who have not taken the college path may turn out to be at least as qualified, and selection systems must allow for this." is correct and actually works in a free market system where the selection is by the market when the elite doesn't rig it. Centralized planning is captured by the elite and used as a method of preventing markets from making their own decisions.
Higher education limited to the top 5%? Really? What sort of higher education would this be? Would it be irrelevant to entry into legal or medical training? Would it exclude practical subjects like engineering? Would the science programs only be intended for selection for PhD programs?
I certainly agree that fewer students should attend college, that it should be less expensive, and less funded by the government.
I also agree that the nonprofit sector should be smaller, with much lower salaries. But how to achieve it? A great part of the nonprofit sector is self-perpetuating foundations funded by enormous endowments from people long dead. Another great part has fit into the institutional ecosystem, getting funding from corporate-sponsored sources like the United Way (to gather and funnel individual contributions) and direct corporate contributions. Can you think of a strategy to get to the objective?
The northern Democrats have historically diverted public resources to benefit themselves and their supporters. Graft is the essence of urban machine politics.
George W. Plunkitt separated graft into what he called “honest” and “dishonest”. In “honest” graft, contracts and concessions go to politicians and their supporters, but the taxpayer supposedly still gets their money’s worth. In “dishonest” graft, they do not.
Nowadays government workers, including teachers, are a major constituency of the Democratic Party. They have begun openly interfering with elections.
The Republican Party rhetoric about reducing the size of government directly threatens ‘this interest group.
There should be a third way - people who see institutions restored to their original purpose and put inside the banks and levees that originally restrained them. 'For profit' colleges? Great. But no government loans, and you pay taxes.
State 'land grant' schools? Wonderful, no federal dollars and under firm voter control.
City schools funded by city taxes? Wonderful. No federal or state funding.
Religious institutions, run by churches? Great. No tax dollars, but also tax exempt. Free exercise.
Research grants to faculty? No. Contracts? Sure, as long as there are firm deliverables and free and open competition, with best value and accountability for the contracting officers, as well as regular audits by DCMA.
Military academies? Fine - but also in competition with private military schools. Some of the only educational institutions that can get federal tax dollars in any form.
Vannevar Bush saw some connections but got causality wrong and on such a time delay that he did irreparable damage; whole institutions need to be rolled back and rescoped.
DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency?
Yes, a bit of a DoD-centric comment, but this is the sort of thing that separates free pork from legitimate work for the government.
Note I didn't say DCAA. That organization does a different kind of audit; about the organization being effectively auditable (having sound financial systems, for example) and is very important for 'cost plus' type contracts. DCMA is important for contract administration, making sure that the products received are quality, etc.
I think it's stacking the deck to use those labels. There's an important distinction between those who are, on the one hand, 'conservative' defenders of existing institutions in their current or recent form, who think if there is a problem it is mostly a 'failure to conserve' i.e., lack of fidelity to those traditional arrangements and ideals (cf 'originalists'), and those on the other hand, who believe those former structures have not just been thoroughly corrupted, compromised, and captured, but been revealed to have fundamental security vulnerability which means they cannot be restored or merely strengthened or tweaked because they will always just get hacked and gamed in the same way over and over. There is an analogy to cybersecurity. It's not that one is against having a security system, but there comes a point when it is revealed that the old system has a critical vulnerability that is a direct consequence of its fundamental design, and that the bug cannot be patched, and one has no choice but to discover new, superior approaches and recode those libraries from scratch.
"Note: Noah Smith disagrees. He makes the “nowhere else to go” argument. But he concludes on a pessimistic note for center-leftists."
He also mentions a wsj poll that found people trust congressional Republicans more than Democrats on most major issues.