1. A brief riff: the American intellectual right was very anti-democratic before mid-1970s (see National Review on Franco) & very anti-democratic since (Thiel being prime example). What was exception was brief window (1970s-2008) when right was relatively pro-democratic
2. The brief pro-democratic interlude on right was largely a result of foreign policy: After Vietnam debacle USA needed new rationale for global hegemony. Cold War liberals who migrated to right (neo-cons) provided that: democracy promotion & human rights.
3. In early cold war, it was almost exclusively liberals who talked about democracy promotion & human rights as arguments against communism. Rightwingers were happy to support Franco & based anti-communism on religion (Godless communism) & culture ("Western Civ")
4. Vietnam debacle and also crude Nixon/Kissinger realpolitic created a crisis on right, which led them to try to revive anti-communist consensus by foregrounding previously liberal arguments. It's only in 1970s that the right started talking about democracy promotion.
5. The rightwing embrace of democracy promotion (and new argument that free markets & democracy went hand in hand) was very useful during Cold War & also post-1991 as tool for legitimizing American global hegemony. It was ideological underpinning of Iraq War.
6. Right-wing democracy promotion was ultimately undermined by Iraq debacle (which discredited neo-conservatism on right) but also of Arab Spring (which showed that actual Middle Eastern democracy would threaten many longtime USA allies).
7. And Obama's two electoral victories (the first time a Democratic presidential candidate won 50%+ of the popular vote twice in a row since FDR) scared conservatives, as did popular support of marriage equality. This was background for right's renewed anti-democratic push.
8. Ultimately, the synthesis Yglesias calls for ("the virtues of free markets were fused with the virtues of political democracy to create humane, sustainable mixed economies") is incompatible with conservatism: any really robust democracy will trend towards social democracy.
9. Really believing in democracy means being willing to give up what you love if it goes against the popular will. Part of the greatness of Tocqueville & JS Mill is that they accepted democracy meant giving up aristocratic high culture & laissez-faire economics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Wall Street keeps hoping Trump will change his mind, realize Tariff Wars are stupid, and pull back. That's why so many fell for that stupid Walter Bloomberg tweet this morning & market had a brief rebound. But change-of-heart not happening. Trump is in YOLO mode. Only path forward is congress.
2. 2. Thinking Trump will change his mind isn't unreasonable: in 1st term he was reined in by moderate GOP. But reality is Trump is in 2nd term, most likely can't run again, this is his last shot to achieve goals: YOLO. And he's had stupid trade deficit fixation since 1980s.
3. Only path forward is congress, which in fact has constitutional power to set tariffs. That was foolishly delegated to president but can be taken back. To do this you'd need 20 GOP senators: so far 7 are on board: so 13 more.
1. Politically, the key thing to understand is tariff crisis is above all else a constitutional crisis. Under USA constitution, power of tariffs belongs to congress, not president.
2. Now, congress has a right to delegate its tariff power to president, which it has done over last few decades. This parallels the shifting of war making power from congress to president and was also done on so-called national security grounds.
3. The argument for delegating tariff power to president -- like broader argument for imperial presidency -- was idea that POTUS was more responsible & security minded (concerned for whole nation's interest) than congress, which represented narrow regional interests.
1. Trump's goal of taking over Gaza (after Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed) is evil and deranged. It's also not going to happen, along with many other similarly crackpot, criminal goals: annexing Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal etc. These absurd goals are evidence of imperial decline
2. Feature of all of Trump's recent trade wars is that he uses hyperbolic threats (annexing Canada, 25% tariffs etc), then reaches an agreement whereby other country concedes little or nothing. Pattern has been seen in Canada, Mexico, Panama, Colombia. Declare war, do nothing, declare victory,
3. Trump's a product of the world of professional wrestling where kayfabe (fake feuds, fake fights) are the norm. He's brought that narrative technique to politics and foreign affairs. Important to both condemn his goals as evil but also at the same time debunk them as kayfabe.
1. One reason why Wall Street has been down only slightly is that they are quite rightly assessing Trump's trade wars as mostly bluster. Trump wants some headlines showing he's fighting foreign foes and its been easy for target nations to diffuse situation with a few symbolic (even non-existent) concessions: Colombia, Panama, Mexico.
2. A few symbolic concessions on both sides & quick de-escalation. Again, Trump wants headlines saying he's strong, nothing more.
3. In Panama as well, conflict defused after they agreed to give up deals with China that had already been suspended years ago. In other words, symbolic gestures that let Trump beat his chest.
1. The idea of USA annexing Canada, Greenland & the Panama Canal might seem like a typical Trump brain fart, but it has deep roots in the far right. MAGA Manifest destiny owes much to Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow & the strange figure of Lee Craig Schoonmaker (a gay rights pioneer turned hate-monger)
2. Trump's America First foreign policy isn't a quirk of his weird personality (altho his thuggish/trollish expression of it is). "America First" is real tradition going back to McKinley, Hoover, Lindbergh & Taft. Miscalled "isolationism" is policy of European disengagement & hemispheric dominance
3. Pre-Trump the immediate manifestation of America First foreign policy was the circle around Pat Buchanan in 1980s/1990s called paleo-conservatives. As against dominant neo-cons faction which at end of Cold War wanted to extend USA global reach, paleo-cons wanted focus on hemispheric dominance.
1. "What a minute," yo might ask, "Isn't Milei a self-proclaimed libertarian, even an anarcho-capitalist who who wants to abolish the state? How can he be using police power to repress free speech & protests?" Well, the history of anarcho-capitalism has the answers.
2. The term anarcho-capitalism was coined by Murray Rothbard, this elfin looking guy, tweaking an earlier formulation by his friend Karl Hess (a Goldwater speechwriter turned anti-war activist). Rothbard was a pioneer in coopting language of anarchy for authoritarianism
3. Rothbard was politically all over the map, at various points allying himself with Robert Taft, Joseph McCarthy, Ayn Rand, William F. Buckley, New Left historical revisionists like William Appleman Williams, the Maoist Peace & Freedom Party, the Koch bros, Pat Buchanan