It's a tough pill to swallow this narrative, because the truth involves admitting our lack of agency in this process. But it happens to be the cold, hard truth.
This essay weaves some deeply thoughtful threads about co-opting political narratives, media platforms, ideological virtues, and populist theater for illiberal power gains. So many concepts resonate with my take on the seismic political realignment that is happening with haste, aided by tools more powerful than any previous society possessed.
The personal insertion of your own framing and the humble searching for how these dynamics play out (maybe it gets better…, or maybe this trap gets worse and endures…) is quite refreshing. Brutal honesty leaves an impression.
The way you frame the awkward effort to protect liberal democracy while missing the policy execution that addresses the pressures of daily economic reality is excellent.
“When people are worried about paying rent, affording healthcare, or maintaining their standard of living, arguments about constitutional norms and democratic processes can seem disconnected from their daily reality.”
I feel pessimistic about oligarchy on the rise. However, I’m not giving up on the chance for an alternate realignment outcome that meets the needs of the middle class and reinvigorates democratic processes. It’s a very heavy lift. It will require unconventional alliances.
Thank you for putting the effort into articulating this assessment of the current political power competition. Seriously, fabulous essay!
I don’t think I’ve read anything more cogent a synthesis of how the world is shifting so radically under our feet politically than this. What is remarkable to me is that as vain and idiotic Trump is, he apparently has enough sense to hand the keys over to these new information oligarchs to take the helm and substitute what you’ve identified as a form of problem-solving legitimacy while he hollows out and takes a wrecking ball to what remains of the liberal order. I’d like to see more biographical information about you because I think you’re a thinker who has crystallized the knot of complex disintegration of the body politic who needs a wide audience.
Well, I meant it. I’m reading a lot of people whose opinions I greatly respect and while many have brought up one or more of these trends, no one has synthesized them in the way you have. I feel like Substack is kind of a poor substitute for the kind of salons found in Paris in early modern France, but it’s better than nothing. Part of the problem you’ve identified is that, while I’m grateful these platforms exist, it’s the splintering of the intelligentsia, whatever remains of it, that will prevent ideas like yours from taking root. It’s simply a lack of leadership for these ideas to coalesce. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m grateful you’re sharing yours.
I often lurk, but I appreciate this. I would like to offer a rebuttal as an average working class Trump voter. Over the 4 years of the last administration I took very seriously the arguments against Trump, populism, and all the rest; curious if my demographic bias was misleading me from an inconvenient truth. I feel like I am and have been able to intuit the ideas you are talking about and ponder them for a while before voting for Trump.
Here’s my conclusion:
There are a few points I think you’re wrong about, but overall, you present valid concerns that should be considered. However, the liberal status quo you hold near and dear has committed so many acts of evil and squandered so many of our rights that I am willing to risk it. I will list a few of them below in order of importance to me. I’d invite you to balance them into your worldview as I have yours.
1. Erosion of freedom of speech. Think Covid era censorship and the politically motivated censorship of the hunter Biden laptop story.
2. Child slave and sex trafficking using my tax payer money. Government funded NGOs were a node in the supply chain for massive child trafficking. Read the Florida grand jury report on it. Sick.
3. Health. We’re killing ourselves with chronic diseases because the pharmaceutical and insurance companies have totally bought the regulatory agencies and scam the tax payer through Medicare and Medicaid.
4. War machine. Liberal politicians have killed millions in the name of protecting democracy
5. Fake democracy. Look at what’s happening in Romania. The liberal establishment has cancelled the election because the wrong candidate was going to win. We don’t believe you when you talk about democracy.
Basically, the liberal establishment lied one too many times and we don’t care anymore. We’ll try out our luck with anything different.
Well, my general point would be that I am a defender of liberalism, not Liberalism. I am a defender of the liberal tradition, but certainty recognize that people, including people who call themselves liberal, can and do engage in illiberal acts. I criticize Liberalism all the time as liberal correctives. So I fail to see how comparisons to Trump are implicated relative to the stance I wrote this essay from. I think liberalism is the best ideology! Our constitution is a liberal document.
Understood. What do you think happened to to liberalism since the 18th century? I’m not super well read on the topic, but my hypothesis is that post modernism changed the course of liberalism to a small degree that has led to a large separation from the enlightenment ideals of the US founding over time.
In my view, enlightenment liberalism viewed individual liberation as freedom to engage with the consequences of their actions whether positive or negative.
However, liberals today seem more interested in freedom from the consequences to their actions.
Both views can say that individual liberty is the focus of the ideology, but ultimately, the government structure to support them are mutually exclusive.
Essentially, I whole heartedly agree that enlightenment liberalism is the best ideology. However, I believe a health exam will reveal that it is dead and has been dead arguably since Roosevelt’s new deal. Sure, people like you and me claim to adhere to it, but what does that mean on a practical level when a massive global administrative state has been built on the post modern view of liberalism that essentially subdues modern liberals with a false sense of security? I think a true liberal revolutionary would be painted as an uncompassionate right winger because of this. Anyways, I’ve been toying around with this a lot and don’t have anyone to bounce it off of so I do appreciate the conversation.
To address your question about what happened to liberalism since the 18th century, I think your hypothesis about postmodernism is intriguing, but I might frame it differently. Liberalism, like any intellectual tradition, is not static—it evolves as it encounters new social, political, and economic realities. The liberalism of the Enlightenment was forged in a world very different from the one we inhabit today: one where industrial capitalism hadn’t yet taken root, where social hierarchies were far more rigid, and where democratic governance was still a radical experiment.
That said, I think you’re right to point out that some strains of liberalism today seem to have drifted from the emphasis on personal responsibility and individual autonomy that characterized its Enlightenment origins. The tension between "freedom to" and "freedom from" has always been present in liberal thought, but modern liberalism sometimes leans too heavily toward the latter—seeking to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions rather than empowering them to navigate those consequences themselves.
I don’t, however, think this is the result of postmodernism. Postmodernism, at its core, is skeptical of grand narratives, including the liberal one, and has been more of a critique from the outside than a force reshaping liberalism from within. Instead, I’d argue that the shift you’re describing is the result of liberalism grappling with unprecedented economic and technological changes, as well as the moral and political challenges of globalization.
Where I might push back is on the idea that this evolution has rendered liberalism "dead." Liberalism isn’t a fixed set of policies or institutions—it’s a framework for thinking about governance and society. It’s an ongoing project, one that involves constant self-critique and adjustment. Yes, there are times when liberal societies stray from their foundational principles, but that doesn’t mean the principles themselves are invalid or irrelevant. In fact, I’d argue that the very critiques you and I are engaging in are part of the liberal tradition—an effort to hold it accountable to its own ideals.
You’re absolutely right that a true liberal revolutionary today might be seen as an uncompassionate right-winger, but the critiques of the right would be just as loud and couched in nativist, traditionalist and in some cases, theological terms. Liberalism has become so associated with certain policies and cultural attitudes that defending its core principles can sometimes feel like swimming against the tide. But I think this is exactly why conversations like ours are so important. By articulating what we mean by "liberalism" and exploring how it can remain relevant in the 21st century, we’re doing the work of keeping it alive. I do want to say, that I'm not just talking about the "far-left" or hyper-identity politics. I direct this towards those on the right too, who claim libertarian or classical liberal views, but I am unable to recognize how to reconcile that with their embrace of Trump, and additionally, the merger of state and corporate power as exemplified by the highly unusual and dare I say unethical—which I have written extensively about—arrangement between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
But I digress.
I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on the administrative state and whether you see any paths for reform that could bring it closer to the Enlightenment ideals you value. I share some of your concerns about the size and scope of modern governance, but I also think there’s a danger in romanticizing the past. The question, for me, isn’t how to return to the liberalism of 1776, but how to adapt its principles to the world we live in now—a world where power is concentrated not just in governments, but in corporations, and where the challenges we face (climate change, technological disruption, global pandemics) require collective action on an unprecedented scale.
Biden was not smart enough or competent enough to resist caving to the whims of the far left wing of his party. He left the Democratic Party in shambles from which it may never recover.
If the remaining party leaders (whoever they might be) were smart (which they are not) they would look closely at at Trump’s many executive orders (EO’s) and maybe find a few popular ones that they could agree with and then use those along with the more popular positions that they currently endorse as the basis for a resurgence in 2026 and 2028.
So what’s currently in their bag that people don’t hate and what can be done with them to make them more salable to a majority.
First, a woman’s right to an abortion is popular but many believe there should be some time limit put on its availability as development proceeds from a single cell ( . ) to a 👶. So consider limiting it to the first trimester except to protect the health of the mother or when the fetus is not viable.
Second, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide reliable energy. The best long term solution is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are located near where electricity is needed. In the meantime we should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
Third, most people support vaccinations when their development is transparent and their use is voluntary. Use that approach to offset the current anti-vaccine rhetoric of the Republicans.
Back to Trump’s executive orders. There are three worth considering supporting.
The first of these EO’s recognizes that open borders are politically unacceptable and that the age of mass migration is over. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here destroys the wages of working class Americans and drives up housing costs when we can't house our own citizens. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their own country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay home and work there to improve their living conditions.
His second important EO addresses the insanity of gender identity which denies the reality of human sexuality and results in men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. Women need and are entitled to privacy from men. Even more diabolical is the mutilation of innocent children (many who would grow up gay) in pursuit of the impossible because you can’t change your birth sex.
Finally his EO that corrects the craziness of DEI which discriminates against whites, Asians and men in attempting to cure past discrimination against others is absolutely the correct approach. Who could believe that creating a new privileged class and a new discriminated against class would provide a solution to the problem? Not to mention that it’s clearly unconstitutional.
Would these actions help the Democrats recover? Who knows, but absent change there is no hope for them.
Thank you for engaging with my essay. I think what's fascinating about our current moment is that it transcends traditional policy debates. Whether we look at border control, energy policy, or social issues, we're witnessing something more fundamental: a transformation in how political authority itself operates and derives its legitimacy.
Take immigration for example—beyond specific policies, we're seeing how control of technological infrastructure (payment systems, surveillance networks, digital identification) shapes the actual exercise of power over borders and movement. The real story isn't about left vs right policy positions, but about who controls these systems and what makes their authority to do so legitimate.
What makes our moment unique isn't just policy disagreements—those have always existed. It's that the traditional channels through which political authority flows are being bypassed by new forms of power based on claims of technical competence rather than democratic process. This affects every issue you've mentioned, but in ways that transcend conventional political frameworks.
I would, without meaning any offense, suggest that you are stuck in an outdated model of understanding the nature of our politics.
Mike: “I would, without meaning any offense, suggest that you are stuck in an outdated model of understanding the nature of our politics.”
No offense taken. Reading your article again and reviewing the comments I feel like a meat and potatoes guy who finds himself looking at the menu of a gourmet restaurant and not recognizing any of the food offerings.
My post mentioned three of Trump’s recent executive orders covering immigration, DEI and gender identity and I am curious what you think about them as public policy or is that just no longer a meaningful question to ask? I probably just need to go find some place where I can get a hot dog.
DEI is actually a perfect illustration of how media bubbles can distort our understanding of complex issues. Many across the political spectrum, including on the left, have criticized aspects of DEI implementation as overcorrecting real problems in ways that can create new ones. The DEI bureaucracies were already declining during the Biden years—something that might surprise people depending on their media diet.
But this gets at my broader point: The really crucial power dynamics aren't in these policy debates, which often function more as cultural theater. The fundamental shifts are happening in who controls the infrastructure through which power itself operates—the platforms where these debates happen, the payment systems that enable or restrict economic activity, the technological systems that increasingly shape our daily lives. That's where all the political power increasingly is. With AI this is a troubling realization.
These cultural battles over things like DEI often distract us from examining how power is being restructured at a deeper level. While we debate policies, technical elites are reshaping the very channels through which political and economic power flows.
In my opinion, if there is only the vote and no accompanying democratic governance structures, whatever form they may take, than there simply is not democratic decision making processes. The United States once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally based around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties. The Democratic Party, as a small "d" democratic institution, and the Republican Party, as a small "r" republican institution, were honest in their naming and functioned within a semi-politically, semi-economically, and semi-scientifically decentralized system. These parties, while far from flawless, allowed for real representation, meaningful participation, and a level of public accountability in both economic and political decision-making.
Many people believe the 1930s New Deal era was a centralized technocratic dictatorship but this is demonstrably false. 1930s America remained thoroughly politically and economically decentralized and the deliberation and decision making architecture of its economy and governmental system remained dominated by a diffused, decentralized, and heterogenous private sector and decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member political parties.
However, due to the dirty deeds of an assortment of powerful special interest groups, our parties have transformed into centralized, exclusionary membership organizations. The so called Democratic Party has become a technocracy party, and the so called Republican Party became a conservative party. Neither really represents their original principles of democracy or republicanism, and they dont offer meaningful access or representation to the public. This shift has been accompanied by a broader centralization of political, economic, and scientific decision making, which has caused the effective loss of most democratic governance structures.
The author writes "we must illustrate how democratic processes lead to tangible improvements in people's lives. We must explicitly connect constitutional processes to economic security and social stability to demonstrate real-world benefits. The challenge for liberals is to show how constitutional democracy, rather than authoritarian efficiency or populist promises, provides the most reliable path to material prosperity and security."
These three sentences basically say the same thing. Demonstrate how democratic processes give votes a better deal than what they get from the alternative.
This is too abstract. Let's look at the only guy who actually did this, FDR. How was he able to provide a path to material prosperity and security for all and *falling* inequality? He *delivered* tangible benefits to millions of working-class voters, that they could see happening to them in real time, and then he went on the radio and told them what he was doing as it was happening to them:
FDR got a lot of help from his predecessor, who created the conditions needed for the New Deal to work, by deflating the financial markets and passing a huge tax *increase* on the rich. Something that absolutely cannot happen today.
We cannot do what FDR did who got to play against a deflationary environment. A Depression is something the authorities can stop from harming financial elites, as Obama and the Fed shows in 2008-2010 and Trump and the Fed showed in 2020. Out ally in this fight will have to be inflation, which has finally appeared after hiding out for forty years.
This is what we need to work on. How to make a potential stagflation work for democracy, unlike what Reagan and Volcker did to put us on the trace to where we are now. Not sure how to proceed here.
Well, it's abstract because the purpose of this Substack is to be a popular political philosophy blog, focusing on correctives to liberalism and analyzing the rise of post-truth authoritarian populism. I recognize that this isn't everyone's cup of tea.
I'm not doing punditry here. I'm trying to do political and moral philosophy in an approachable way—from a liberal standpoint. And philosophy tends to deal in the abstract by its very nature!
Well written. The expansion of higher ed in America was, contrary to what we've been taught, actually a post WW2 consolidation and centralization of many elements of the USA's Old Republic's wide and deep and diversified and variable educational and training sphere(s) (science and engineering wasnt easier, in fact pre computers it was in many cognitive ways more difficult, and a majority were not produced by what we today say is a university, those varying schools track records speak for themselves), it was a huge mistake, it not only degraded much of the capacity in those regards (while significant contributing to the start reductions in diversity in our scientific and engineering ecosystems, and the homogenization of business management practices, and so forth), it also created a nexus through which powerful special interest groups can project themselves, coordinate, and indoctrinate/socialize groups of people, not to mention its market dominance regarding discourse makes it the ultimate pr agency
Perhaps I need to read this more carefully. My initial reaction is to ask why you are sounding the alarm with such urgency when the horses got out of the barn yesterday and are long gone. The only reason Musk seems a more potent threat to “democratic processes” than the “Gnomes of Zurich” (or Davos) is that he makes no pretense about what he is doing …in the middle of the road…and scaring the horses. I suggest the greater challenge for America and the West lies in reinstating classical liberalism and republican ideals as the governing force in their institutions, political, governmental, educational and cultural, which, as history teaches us, become utterly corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical when we are not paying attention.
The more powers government exercises over business, the closer the two become wedded. In free markets businesses cannot manipulate the regulatory agencies after capturing them. Progressives always embrace the lie that regulatory agencies could remain independent of the agencies that do the regulating. Their solutions consist of more government, more regulation, and lead to more big business power. And then ardent progressives propose replacing the distorted capitalist economy with an absolute government monopoly.
The Marxist Kolko described how big businesses used the system in the early 20th century in his excellent The Triumph of Conservatism.
Nothing is more impressive than a person who repudiates his old dorm room philosophy. It means the newer view simply must by the real thing. Like when communists converted to National Socialism after moving out of their dorms.
I personally think I make some pretty important observations about the nature of power and markets, that demand a response to those defending the laissaize-faire view.
Countries with freer markets are richer and have more personal freedom. The sad exception is Hong Kong since the Chinese repossessed it. Why is Mexico still poor while S. Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. have become rich? There is and never will be completely free markets, but the principle I expressed in the first sentence is irrefutable, in dorms or out.
I think the Hong Kong example makes my point pretty strongly actually. If it's a general rule, there shouldn't be exceptions to it. This is basic logic.
Excellent detailed analysis of our current crises in democracy. The imperative to emphasize the increasing income gap between oligarchs and the 98% of us non-millionaires is the defining issue of our times. If we don't help accelerate opposition to this trend, and actively organize against absolute oligarchy, we will lose any hope of overcoming the massive misery of unbridled greed.
Mic drop… the Republic we could not keep!
This essay weaves some deeply thoughtful threads about co-opting political narratives, media platforms, ideological virtues, and populist theater for illiberal power gains. So many concepts resonate with my take on the seismic political realignment that is happening with haste, aided by tools more powerful than any previous society possessed.
The personal insertion of your own framing and the humble searching for how these dynamics play out (maybe it gets better…, or maybe this trap gets worse and endures…) is quite refreshing. Brutal honesty leaves an impression.
The way you frame the awkward effort to protect liberal democracy while missing the policy execution that addresses the pressures of daily economic reality is excellent.
“When people are worried about paying rent, affording healthcare, or maintaining their standard of living, arguments about constitutional norms and democratic processes can seem disconnected from their daily reality.”
I feel pessimistic about oligarchy on the rise. However, I’m not giving up on the chance for an alternate realignment outcome that meets the needs of the middle class and reinvigorates democratic processes. It’s a very heavy lift. It will require unconventional alliances.
Thank you for putting the effort into articulating this assessment of the current political power competition. Seriously, fabulous essay!
Thank you!
I don’t think I’ve read anything more cogent a synthesis of how the world is shifting so radically under our feet politically than this. What is remarkable to me is that as vain and idiotic Trump is, he apparently has enough sense to hand the keys over to these new information oligarchs to take the helm and substitute what you’ve identified as a form of problem-solving legitimacy while he hollows out and takes a wrecking ball to what remains of the liberal order. I’d like to see more biographical information about you because I think you’re a thinker who has crystallized the knot of complex disintegration of the body politic who needs a wide audience.
That is a very kind thing of you to say!
Well, I meant it. I’m reading a lot of people whose opinions I greatly respect and while many have brought up one or more of these trends, no one has synthesized them in the way you have. I feel like Substack is kind of a poor substitute for the kind of salons found in Paris in early modern France, but it’s better than nothing. Part of the problem you’ve identified is that, while I’m grateful these platforms exist, it’s the splintering of the intelligentsia, whatever remains of it, that will prevent ideas like yours from taking root. It’s simply a lack of leadership for these ideas to coalesce. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m grateful you’re sharing yours.
Well, it's early days! I am not without hope that the center can find its mojo. But I am not encouraged by the early signs I'm seeing.
I often lurk, but I appreciate this. I would like to offer a rebuttal as an average working class Trump voter. Over the 4 years of the last administration I took very seriously the arguments against Trump, populism, and all the rest; curious if my demographic bias was misleading me from an inconvenient truth. I feel like I am and have been able to intuit the ideas you are talking about and ponder them for a while before voting for Trump.
Here’s my conclusion:
There are a few points I think you’re wrong about, but overall, you present valid concerns that should be considered. However, the liberal status quo you hold near and dear has committed so many acts of evil and squandered so many of our rights that I am willing to risk it. I will list a few of them below in order of importance to me. I’d invite you to balance them into your worldview as I have yours.
1. Erosion of freedom of speech. Think Covid era censorship and the politically motivated censorship of the hunter Biden laptop story.
2. Child slave and sex trafficking using my tax payer money. Government funded NGOs were a node in the supply chain for massive child trafficking. Read the Florida grand jury report on it. Sick.
3. Health. We’re killing ourselves with chronic diseases because the pharmaceutical and insurance companies have totally bought the regulatory agencies and scam the tax payer through Medicare and Medicaid.
4. War machine. Liberal politicians have killed millions in the name of protecting democracy
5. Fake democracy. Look at what’s happening in Romania. The liberal establishment has cancelled the election because the wrong candidate was going to win. We don’t believe you when you talk about democracy.
Basically, the liberal establishment lied one too many times and we don’t care anymore. We’ll try out our luck with anything different.
Well, my general point would be that I am a defender of liberalism, not Liberalism. I am a defender of the liberal tradition, but certainty recognize that people, including people who call themselves liberal, can and do engage in illiberal acts. I criticize Liberalism all the time as liberal correctives. So I fail to see how comparisons to Trump are implicated relative to the stance I wrote this essay from. I think liberalism is the best ideology! Our constitution is a liberal document.
Understood. What do you think happened to to liberalism since the 18th century? I’m not super well read on the topic, but my hypothesis is that post modernism changed the course of liberalism to a small degree that has led to a large separation from the enlightenment ideals of the US founding over time.
In my view, enlightenment liberalism viewed individual liberation as freedom to engage with the consequences of their actions whether positive or negative.
However, liberals today seem more interested in freedom from the consequences to their actions.
Both views can say that individual liberty is the focus of the ideology, but ultimately, the government structure to support them are mutually exclusive.
Essentially, I whole heartedly agree that enlightenment liberalism is the best ideology. However, I believe a health exam will reveal that it is dead and has been dead arguably since Roosevelt’s new deal. Sure, people like you and me claim to adhere to it, but what does that mean on a practical level when a massive global administrative state has been built on the post modern view of liberalism that essentially subdues modern liberals with a false sense of security? I think a true liberal revolutionary would be painted as an uncompassionate right winger because of this. Anyways, I’ve been toying around with this a lot and don’t have anyone to bounce it off of so I do appreciate the conversation.
Thanks for thoughtful reply.
To address your question about what happened to liberalism since the 18th century, I think your hypothesis about postmodernism is intriguing, but I might frame it differently. Liberalism, like any intellectual tradition, is not static—it evolves as it encounters new social, political, and economic realities. The liberalism of the Enlightenment was forged in a world very different from the one we inhabit today: one where industrial capitalism hadn’t yet taken root, where social hierarchies were far more rigid, and where democratic governance was still a radical experiment.
That said, I think you’re right to point out that some strains of liberalism today seem to have drifted from the emphasis on personal responsibility and individual autonomy that characterized its Enlightenment origins. The tension between "freedom to" and "freedom from" has always been present in liberal thought, but modern liberalism sometimes leans too heavily toward the latter—seeking to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions rather than empowering them to navigate those consequences themselves.
I don’t, however, think this is the result of postmodernism. Postmodernism, at its core, is skeptical of grand narratives, including the liberal one, and has been more of a critique from the outside than a force reshaping liberalism from within. Instead, I’d argue that the shift you’re describing is the result of liberalism grappling with unprecedented economic and technological changes, as well as the moral and political challenges of globalization.
Where I might push back is on the idea that this evolution has rendered liberalism "dead." Liberalism isn’t a fixed set of policies or institutions—it’s a framework for thinking about governance and society. It’s an ongoing project, one that involves constant self-critique and adjustment. Yes, there are times when liberal societies stray from their foundational principles, but that doesn’t mean the principles themselves are invalid or irrelevant. In fact, I’d argue that the very critiques you and I are engaging in are part of the liberal tradition—an effort to hold it accountable to its own ideals.
You’re absolutely right that a true liberal revolutionary today might be seen as an uncompassionate right-winger, but the critiques of the right would be just as loud and couched in nativist, traditionalist and in some cases, theological terms. Liberalism has become so associated with certain policies and cultural attitudes that defending its core principles can sometimes feel like swimming against the tide. But I think this is exactly why conversations like ours are so important. By articulating what we mean by "liberalism" and exploring how it can remain relevant in the 21st century, we’re doing the work of keeping it alive. I do want to say, that I'm not just talking about the "far-left" or hyper-identity politics. I direct this towards those on the right too, who claim libertarian or classical liberal views, but I am unable to recognize how to reconcile that with their embrace of Trump, and additionally, the merger of state and corporate power as exemplified by the highly unusual and dare I say unethical—which I have written extensively about—arrangement between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
But I digress.
I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on the administrative state and whether you see any paths for reform that could bring it closer to the Enlightenment ideals you value. I share some of your concerns about the size and scope of modern governance, but I also think there’s a danger in romanticizing the past. The question, for me, isn’t how to return to the liberalism of 1776, but how to adapt its principles to the world we live in now—a world where power is concentrated not just in governments, but in corporations, and where the challenges we face (climate change, technological disruption, global pandemics) require collective action on an unprecedented scale.
Thanks again for engaging!
Biden was not smart enough or competent enough to resist caving to the whims of the far left wing of his party. He left the Democratic Party in shambles from which it may never recover.
If the remaining party leaders (whoever they might be) were smart (which they are not) they would look closely at at Trump’s many executive orders (EO’s) and maybe find a few popular ones that they could agree with and then use those along with the more popular positions that they currently endorse as the basis for a resurgence in 2026 and 2028.
So what’s currently in their bag that people don’t hate and what can be done with them to make them more salable to a majority.
First, a woman’s right to an abortion is popular but many believe there should be some time limit put on its availability as development proceeds from a single cell ( . ) to a 👶. So consider limiting it to the first trimester except to protect the health of the mother or when the fetus is not viable.
Second, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide reliable energy. The best long term solution is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are located near where electricity is needed. In the meantime we should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
Third, most people support vaccinations when their development is transparent and their use is voluntary. Use that approach to offset the current anti-vaccine rhetoric of the Republicans.
Back to Trump’s executive orders. There are three worth considering supporting.
The first of these EO’s recognizes that open borders are politically unacceptable and that the age of mass migration is over. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here destroys the wages of working class Americans and drives up housing costs when we can't house our own citizens. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their own country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay home and work there to improve their living conditions.
His second important EO addresses the insanity of gender identity which denies the reality of human sexuality and results in men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. Women need and are entitled to privacy from men. Even more diabolical is the mutilation of innocent children (many who would grow up gay) in pursuit of the impossible because you can’t change your birth sex.
Finally his EO that corrects the craziness of DEI which discriminates against whites, Asians and men in attempting to cure past discrimination against others is absolutely the correct approach. Who could believe that creating a new privileged class and a new discriminated against class would provide a solution to the problem? Not to mention that it’s clearly unconstitutional.
Would these actions help the Democrats recover? Who knows, but absent change there is no hope for them.
Thank you for engaging with my essay. I think what's fascinating about our current moment is that it transcends traditional policy debates. Whether we look at border control, energy policy, or social issues, we're witnessing something more fundamental: a transformation in how political authority itself operates and derives its legitimacy.
Take immigration for example—beyond specific policies, we're seeing how control of technological infrastructure (payment systems, surveillance networks, digital identification) shapes the actual exercise of power over borders and movement. The real story isn't about left vs right policy positions, but about who controls these systems and what makes their authority to do so legitimate.
What makes our moment unique isn't just policy disagreements—those have always existed. It's that the traditional channels through which political authority flows are being bypassed by new forms of power based on claims of technical competence rather than democratic process. This affects every issue you've mentioned, but in ways that transcend conventional political frameworks.
I would, without meaning any offense, suggest that you are stuck in an outdated model of understanding the nature of our politics.
Mike: “I would, without meaning any offense, suggest that you are stuck in an outdated model of understanding the nature of our politics.”
No offense taken. Reading your article again and reviewing the comments I feel like a meat and potatoes guy who finds himself looking at the menu of a gourmet restaurant and not recognizing any of the food offerings.
My post mentioned three of Trump’s recent executive orders covering immigration, DEI and gender identity and I am curious what you think about them as public policy or is that just no longer a meaningful question to ask? I probably just need to go find some place where I can get a hot dog.
DEI is actually a perfect illustration of how media bubbles can distort our understanding of complex issues. Many across the political spectrum, including on the left, have criticized aspects of DEI implementation as overcorrecting real problems in ways that can create new ones. The DEI bureaucracies were already declining during the Biden years—something that might surprise people depending on their media diet.
But this gets at my broader point: The really crucial power dynamics aren't in these policy debates, which often function more as cultural theater. The fundamental shifts are happening in who controls the infrastructure through which power itself operates—the platforms where these debates happen, the payment systems that enable or restrict economic activity, the technological systems that increasingly shape our daily lives. That's where all the political power increasingly is. With AI this is a troubling realization.
These cultural battles over things like DEI often distract us from examining how power is being restructured at a deeper level. While we debate policies, technical elites are reshaping the very channels through which political and economic power flows.
In my opinion, if there is only the vote and no accompanying democratic governance structures, whatever form they may take, than there simply is not democratic decision making processes. The United States once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally based around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties. The Democratic Party, as a small "d" democratic institution, and the Republican Party, as a small "r" republican institution, were honest in their naming and functioned within a semi-politically, semi-economically, and semi-scientifically decentralized system. These parties, while far from flawless, allowed for real representation, meaningful participation, and a level of public accountability in both economic and political decision-making.
Many people believe the 1930s New Deal era was a centralized technocratic dictatorship but this is demonstrably false. 1930s America remained thoroughly politically and economically decentralized and the deliberation and decision making architecture of its economy and governmental system remained dominated by a diffused, decentralized, and heterogenous private sector and decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member political parties.
However, due to the dirty deeds of an assortment of powerful special interest groups, our parties have transformed into centralized, exclusionary membership organizations. The so called Democratic Party has become a technocracy party, and the so called Republican Party became a conservative party. Neither really represents their original principles of democracy or republicanism, and they dont offer meaningful access or representation to the public. This shift has been accompanied by a broader centralization of political, economic, and scientific decision making, which has caused the effective loss of most democratic governance structures.
The author writes "we must illustrate how democratic processes lead to tangible improvements in people's lives. We must explicitly connect constitutional processes to economic security and social stability to demonstrate real-world benefits. The challenge for liberals is to show how constitutional democracy, rather than authoritarian efficiency or populist promises, provides the most reliable path to material prosperity and security."
These three sentences basically say the same thing. Demonstrate how democratic processes give votes a better deal than what they get from the alternative.
This is too abstract. Let's look at the only guy who actually did this, FDR. How was he able to provide a path to material prosperity and security for all and *falling* inequality? He *delivered* tangible benefits to millions of working-class voters, that they could see happening to them in real time, and then he went on the radio and told them what he was doing as it was happening to them:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-the-new-dealers-gained-the-ability
FDR got a lot of help from his predecessor, who created the conditions needed for the New Deal to work, by deflating the financial markets and passing a huge tax *increase* on the rich. Something that absolutely cannot happen today.
We cannot do what FDR did who got to play against a deflationary environment. A Depression is something the authorities can stop from harming financial elites, as Obama and the Fed shows in 2008-2010 and Trump and the Fed showed in 2020. Out ally in this fight will have to be inflation, which has finally appeared after hiding out for forty years.
This is what we need to work on. How to make a potential stagflation work for democracy, unlike what Reagan and Volcker did to put us on the trace to where we are now. Not sure how to proceed here.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/summary-of-concepts-involved-in-addressing
Well, it's abstract because the purpose of this Substack is to be a popular political philosophy blog, focusing on correctives to liberalism and analyzing the rise of post-truth authoritarian populism. I recognize that this isn't everyone's cup of tea.
I'm not doing punditry here. I'm trying to do political and moral philosophy in an approachable way—from a liberal standpoint. And philosophy tends to deal in the abstract by its very nature!
Well written. The expansion of higher ed in America was, contrary to what we've been taught, actually a post WW2 consolidation and centralization of many elements of the USA's Old Republic's wide and deep and diversified and variable educational and training sphere(s) (science and engineering wasnt easier, in fact pre computers it was in many cognitive ways more difficult, and a majority were not produced by what we today say is a university, those varying schools track records speak for themselves), it was a huge mistake, it not only degraded much of the capacity in those regards (while significant contributing to the start reductions in diversity in our scientific and engineering ecosystems, and the homogenization of business management practices, and so forth), it also created a nexus through which powerful special interest groups can project themselves, coordinate, and indoctrinate/socialize groups of people, not to mention its market dominance regarding discourse makes it the ultimate pr agency
Perhaps I need to read this more carefully. My initial reaction is to ask why you are sounding the alarm with such urgency when the horses got out of the barn yesterday and are long gone. The only reason Musk seems a more potent threat to “democratic processes” than the “Gnomes of Zurich” (or Davos) is that he makes no pretense about what he is doing …in the middle of the road…and scaring the horses. I suggest the greater challenge for America and the West lies in reinstating classical liberalism and republican ideals as the governing force in their institutions, political, governmental, educational and cultural, which, as history teaches us, become utterly corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical when we are not paying attention.
It's not just Musk, but he’s the most visible negate-crasher.
The more powers government exercises over business, the closer the two become wedded. In free markets businesses cannot manipulate the regulatory agencies after capturing them. Progressives always embrace the lie that regulatory agencies could remain independent of the agencies that do the regulating. Their solutions consist of more government, more regulation, and lead to more big business power. And then ardent progressives propose replacing the distorted capitalist economy with an absolute government monopoly.
The Marxist Kolko described how big businesses used the system in the early 20th century in his excellent The Triumph of Conservatism.
Yeah, I've moved a little bit beyond the dorm room philosophy of libertarian market fundamentalism. In fact, I have critiqued this view quite harshly: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-consensus-liberals
Nothing is more impressive than a person who repudiates his old dorm room philosophy. It means the newer view simply must by the real thing. Like when communists converted to National Socialism after moving out of their dorms.
I personally think I make some pretty important observations about the nature of power and markets, that demand a response to those defending the laissaize-faire view.
Countries with freer markets are richer and have more personal freedom. The sad exception is Hong Kong since the Chinese repossessed it. Why is Mexico still poor while S. Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. have become rich? There is and never will be completely free markets, but the principle I expressed in the first sentence is irrefutable, in dorms or out.
I think the Hong Kong example makes my point pretty strongly actually. If it's a general rule, there shouldn't be exceptions to it. This is basic logic.
What? Hong Kong became rich as a British protectorate with the freest markets in the world. How is that an exception?
It may just be that you have a small reservoir of knowledge.
That’s not the only reason Mexico is poor in comparison to South Korea, Singapore and Hong King
Excellent detailed analysis of our current crises in democracy. The imperative to emphasize the increasing income gap between oligarchs and the 98% of us non-millionaires is the defining issue of our times. If we don't help accelerate opposition to this trend, and actively organize against absolute oligarchy, we will lose any hope of overcoming the massive misery of unbridled greed.