Excellent essay, that point that the other team gets to control elected power at least half the time, and the left owns unelected powers all the time can't get made enough.
I think what a lot on the right miss is that the left is made of people who want power over others. It is the sole defining thread that runs through their behavior. Many on the right want power as well, but for the left it is the defining feature. As a result they are the ones that go after elected and especially unelected positions of power preferentially, and are willing to sacrifice the most to get them. Hence Conquest's Law that every institution not explicitly right wing becomes left wing over time. So long as there is a position of power, a leftist is going to want it more than anything because power over others is what they want more than anything. Right wing control of powerful positions is impossible long term.
I did write "Many on the right want power as well, but for the left it is the defining feature."
I don't know how widespread the belief among the right is that the right to suicide is to be curtailed. It doesn't really come up much that I can tell. I would personally agree that one owns oneself, and so can dispose of oneself as they see fit. Maybe I am an aberration and don't realize it.
I think the point remains sound that in a competition for power between two groups, one who really loves power and one who doesn't love it so much, the ones that really love it will get it, and thus the group that wants less government power used overall needs to push for less government power, period. Just trying to keep power is a losing proposition, because the other side will always end up with it.
I think this criticism, while accurate, masks the costs to conservatives in the status quo and it's proposed remedies are not convincing. To be clear, I think this criticism is accurate and a real concern, but the alternative (conservatives using the federal government to fight "wokeness") does not have to be perfect, it simply has to be better than the status quo. And the status quo for conservatives on these issues, while there are occasional victories like the Roe v Wade overturning, is generally losing.
Just in terms of words and focus, there's paragraphs of criticism but only one of alternative solutions and those are not terribly persuasive. For example, explicit protections for political speech sounds nice but political affiliation for California workers is a protected class equivalent to race or sexual orientation (1). Does anybody honestly believe that conservative gov bureaucrats in CA are free to express their political stances, either privately or in policy-making discussions? Maybe there's some subtlety in the linked piece I missed but it reads like a rehash of tried and failed policy.
So, because I've heard this libertarian critique of the new right popping up a bit recently, let me ask a clarifying question.
First, the big one, the former Republican president and likely next nominee has been banned off most major platforms, including the most famous social media account in history. How will current conservative/libertarian/deregulatory policies resolve this?
(And, to head off the "Trump is uniquely bad" argument, the most likely successor to Trump is DeSantis, who is a much more explicitly New Right figure and the best likely candidate to execute New Right policies)
For many on the right and center, the status quo is unacceptable. Implicit defenses of the status quo, criticism of the alternative, and half-hearted hand-waves to deregulatory alternatives miss the core of what draws people to the New Right: that the current situation is fundamentally unacceptable. And, like it or not, while the libertarians and classical liberals are correct to criticize the New Right for not having clear plans or personnel to execute their plans, they never point to any realistic political path for their libertarian/classical liberal reforms to be enacted. The Democrats certainly won't and the Republicans will elect either Trump or DeSantis, there are no other credible candidates.
So, summing up,
(1) What is the libertarian/classical liberal plan? How is it substantially different from what's been done in the past?
(2) How will it be enacted? Both practically and politically?
(3) How is this better than the New Right proposals?
"First, the big one, the former Republican president and likely next nominee has been banned off most major platforms, including the most famous social media account in history. How will current conservative/libertarian/deregulatory policies resolve this?"
Why does that need a resolution? Who cares? Does Trump really lack the ability to broadcast his views? And inasmuch as he does, the primary beneficiary is probably Trump himself, as quieting his microphone at a moment when his ravings would have probably alienated more swing voters, than attracted them, while also making him a martyr to fire up his base, seems like a win for him.
Ignoring that a lot of people really liked Trump's Twitter, whether your party's presidential candidate can use mass media to get his message out is kinda of central to modern political parties. If the Republican candidate for president was banned off network television 50 years ago, or off radio 100 years ago, everyone would understand it's importance. A political party's ability to get it's message out is central to, well, being a political party. Anything which interferes with that is a critical threat.
If Trump, as seems likely, becomes the Republican party's nominee for 2024, will he be unbanned off Twitter or will Truth Social be unbanned from Android phones (1)? Will DeSantis or other future candidates also face banning? These aren't just questions for Trump but for Republicans. The Republican party and base has a clear and obvious interest in ensuring that no entity has veto power over its candidate's access to mass media.
This doesn't really address Bryan's point. New regulations on businesses meant to protect Republicans will probably *end up* being used against them, even if they provide some desirable outcomes to them in the short term.
I'd like for him to address the specific laws in Florida and Texas and explain exactly how they will backfire.
It's notable that the wokists are all opposing them, as are the big tech companies.
Suppose that an electoral reform was supported by most of the Orange Party and opposed by most of the Yellow party. It's possible it would benefit the Yellow Party regardless, but that's not the way to bet.
I accept his point, he's correct, new regulations on businesses to protect Republicans will *probably* backfire. What's his alternative?
If the goal is to make it impossible for the Republican presidential candidate to be banned from major mass media, and the odds of this happening with "anti-woke" legislation are 20% and the odds if they do nothing are 10%, then pointing out that the odds of legislation working are really low is relevant but not really persuasive. Unless there's a better option on the table, people will go with the best one they have.
Which is my fundamental issue. I think all Caplan's criticisms are correct but his alternative proposals are an afterthought, both in persuasiveness and word count.
Edit: Obviously there's a lot more the new right wants than the specific issue of Trump bannings. I just think it's helpful to focus down on specific, actionable issues instead of leaving everything theoretcial.
"The major social media companies have a clear left-wing bias. They’re much more likely to deplatform people whose ideas they oppose. Most major corporations, similarly, now push not only woke ideology, but racist and sexist hiring in the name of “diversity and inclusion.” Why not use government power to offset these abuses?"
----
Do you believe that corporations should be immune to Civil Rights Law only in cases where they are discriminating against whites, asians, and/or men?
I know you're too much of a pussy to really try to get rid of Civil Rights Law, so you're essentially just advocating that it be a one sided anarcho tyranny ratchet. How's that working out so far?
"Using Big Government to fight wokeness."
De Santis said we shouldn't teach wokeness and transgender ideology to five year olds in public schools, and responded to political interference from a big company by removing a special economic privilege they have because they wouldn't mind their own business.
Is this what you object to? Do you feel kindergartners should be taught this ideology?
"Why not use industrial policy - tariffs, quotas, and subsidies - to push back?"
I don't believe in industrial policy, but the US had tariffs in the 20%-50% range for pretty much its entire pre-WW2 history. It didn't hinder economic development much based on the results. They were especially high during the Gilded Age when the US economy came to dominate the entire world.
If a foreign producer is really that much more productive, they can probably overcome a modest tariff like that, and the revenue generated can be used to reduce income taxes, which largely replaced the tariff as a revenue source. I'd rather pay a tariff than an income tax.
> I know you're too much of a pussy to really try to get rid of Civil Rights Law, so you're essentially just advocating that it be a one sided anarcho tyranny ratchet.
Who do you think you're talking to? Bryan is an avowed anarchist who convinced Richard Hanania that civil rights laws are responsible for woke dominance of corporations.
What is Bryan doing to end Civil Rights Law? Beyond making a blog post?
Is he campaigning against Civil Rights Law?
Is he endorsing a political party or movement to end Civil Rights Law?
Is he even willing to endorse people who will enforce Civil Rights Law equally and fairly (which would itself probably reduce its salience and reach)?
His signature policy, Open Borders, will almost assuredly turn Civil Rights Law into overdrive. Obviously there is the direct effect of increasing the political power of the Democratic Party. But also, every single multi-ethnic society becomes a war of all against all with each tribe trying to grab its slice by any means necessary. We can see this in the US, and there are many historic examples as well.
I prefer the stance of an actual statesmen, who got into the muck and built something, Lee Kuan Yew. He understood this dynamic and prevented Singapore from falling into it. He learned from but didn't embrace libertarianism.
In Singapore:
1) Race pandering (by all races, not just some races) is illegal.
2) Meritocracy, chips fall where they may, is the policy.
3) A pragmatic mix of ethnic autonomy and interaction is public policy
4) Immigration policy is *strictly* set to keep a 75% Han Majority that dominates politics
Or you just don't hire leftist bureaucrats. Or are bureaucracies completely permanent? Is China still run by the Manchu? Is France run by a royalist deep state?
There's a pattern where losers associate with other losers and repeat loser ideas to one another to justify their laziness and fatalism. "I can't get a job because nobody is hiring, I can't quite drugs because nobody ever quits drugs, blah blah blah." Whenever someone tries to pull himself out of the spiral of loserdom, the other losers sneer at him that it's "pointless." They don't want him succeeding and putting the onus on them to face the fact that they, not inevitable fate, are the authors of their misery.
You have entire ideologies of losers, people who might be successful in their personal lives but who, when it comes to using the power of government to achieve their goals, refuse on the basis of fatalistic nonsense. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, they never accomplish their goals because they never bother to try.
Are you planning on applying for a job at a government bureaucracy? Do you know of any libertarians who are itching for a job at a government bureaucracy?
Police aren't bureaucrats. The type of person who wants to be a cop leans right. There's a different type of person who wants to work for a regulator or bureaucracy, and not many Ron Swansons.
That explains why every bureaucracy in human history has been woke, from ancient Persia to the Saudi religious police to East German Stasi.
Really, this is just loser fatalism. You should take it further. You are right, but nobody will ever be convinced by anything you write. Don't bother. Throw up your hands.
I don't see many Republicans trying to change the partisan makeup of the bureaucracy, I only see them talking about the two points mentioned in the post. How exactly would you go about changing the ideological makeup of the sprawling bureaucracy anyway? There are millions of employees and so many agencies that people have completely lost track of them. Try looking up how many there are and you'll be astonished to find that nobody even knows. Why not just abolish a bunch of them and fire the employees instead? Seems much more straightforward to me.
Red States are engaging in a mixture of defunding and taming the bureaucracy.
Arizona just enacted K-12 funding freedom. Texas might follow after the election. That's a pretty big win. These states are already low tax, low spend havens.
In Florida De Santis flipped several school boards including the left leaning Miami-Dade. They have rejected woke indoctrination in schools.
This mix of defunding and political banishment is a model to export.
I am definitely a fan of the school choice movement, but I don't see how it eliminates bureaucracy unless you completely privatize the system. I've seen some really bad school choice proposals which even increase bureaucracy by having new groups of bureaucrats vet which schools can and cannot qualify for vouchers and such.
DeSantis also tried to enact the "Stop WOKE Act", which definitely violates the first amendment. But just for fun let's say it somehow became law. I'm sure you can now think of a million ways leftists would censor speech in their own favor using the same standards of that bill. While I agree with him that the corporate CRT training is counterproductive and ineffective I don't think that's the best way to get rid of it. I think a better way is to abolish every government institutions that is inducing corporations to do it in the first place.
I would also note that the federal bureaucracy is literally millions of people. It's going to be impossible to weed out everyone by ideology and implement some sort of ideological hiring standard.
"DeSantis also tried to enact the "Stop WOKE Act", which definitely violates the first amendment."
There's no first amendment right to force employees to attend struggle sessions. And even if that was the original intent of the founding fathers, one could just appoint justices who will "creatively interpret" that part away.
No of course it doesn't say you can't mandate struggle sessions in the work place. It does say that the government can't censor speech though, and the act censors what is allowed to be said in mandatory training sessions. That's a pretty clear violation.
Listen, I hate the training sessions and hate wokeness. I'm with you. I just don't think this is a good solution.
"It does say that the government can't censor speech though, and the act censors what is allowed to be said in mandatory training sessions. That's a pretty clear violation."
Employers have the right to say anything they want. They don't have the right to fire employees who don't want to listen to their political rants.
It's similar to how freedom of religion means you preach any religious belief you want, but you can't fire your workers for refusing to listen to your religious preaching, as that would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
Totally agree in principle, but let’s say that enacting deregulation is impossible (you don’t get a filibuster proof majority to support it and a president and veto proof house). What is the next best thing that can be done? Where can we improve things on the margin?
Why not shift agency headquarters around the country - commerce to Nebraska, dept of ed to SC, interior to Wyoming, FBI to Utah, IRS to Alaska (Nome?), Homeland to Alabama, etc…. and put them in small towns in the name of economic developmen (justice?). In other words change the peer effects of the bureaucrats. Perhaps also ban unionization of public employees (at least the feds).
But why is it inevitable that the bureaucrats will be left-wing? Gut the bureaucracy and re-hire ideological allies. Obvs most uni grads are leftists, but as you know education is mostly signalling. We don't need those with credentials. With technology, it's not that hard to be a mid level bureaucrat. There's enough people with enough brains to do the job, who haven't been indoctrinated in a woke madrasah/ educated at an Ivy. Ofc at the v highest rungs of bureaucracy you need v smart individuals with the right managerial skills and traits. But there are right wingers who fit that profile and would do job if offered.
I do not think that the United States Drug Enforcement Administration is left wing, so it may be that the function attracts left wing employees. Maybe only left wingers want to run a welfare or education program but only a person who believes in a drug war wants to run the DEA.
Thanks for the analysis but it makes me wonder that Republicans don't want to work in the day-to-day affairs of running the Gov't... is it possible that they are avoiding at all costs the responsibility of the theft of $billions from the middle class ever since Ronald Raygun began his trickle down affair with BigCorpamerica...
OR... is it possible they're just too busy dreaming up the 'next fleece' ala the former guy...
As far as who will run it - how 'bout we just let Govt Human Resources hire the best candidates whose first priority is honesty, integrity & belief that they are doing what the country needs most... You could always do worse...
"In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." - Warren Buffet
I'm sure a lot of communists around 1975 saw that communism was not producing the outcomes that Max and Engels promised. I'm sure many of them told themselves their "principles" meant that they had to support it regardless.
My message to libertarians is this: libertarianism is not producing the outcomes you want; you see it as well as me. It's okay to change your mind about it. You don't even have to admit to being wrong; you can just create a new account and deny you were ever libertarian in the first place.
The issue is that conservative politicians are incentivized to "do something" now even if it produces unwanted consequences in the future. When the consequences come, their constituents won't blame them for initiating the government power - they'll blame liberal politicians. This outrage against the liberals will further benefit the conservative politicians.
So expanding the scope of government in ways that will probably lead to undesirable results for conservatives is a win-win for conservative politicians.
altough i dont have tons of knowledge on this particular subject, my experience in sweden is that bureaucrats and different officials in various govermunt run places like the Arbetsformedlingen, tend to be at lest centerleft, and usually on the left: i havnt really met any Avowed open Right wing or conservative person in an organization like that
Excellent essay, that point that the other team gets to control elected power at least half the time, and the left owns unelected powers all the time can't get made enough.
I think what a lot on the right miss is that the left is made of people who want power over others. It is the sole defining thread that runs through their behavior. Many on the right want power as well, but for the left it is the defining feature. As a result they are the ones that go after elected and especially unelected positions of power preferentially, and are willing to sacrifice the most to get them. Hence Conquest's Law that every institution not explicitly right wing becomes left wing over time. So long as there is a position of power, a leftist is going to want it more than anything because power over others is what they want more than anything. Right wing control of powerful positions is impossible long term.
Please, elaborate. Tell us more.
I did write "Many on the right want power as well, but for the left it is the defining feature."
I don't know how widespread the belief among the right is that the right to suicide is to be curtailed. It doesn't really come up much that I can tell. I would personally agree that one owns oneself, and so can dispose of oneself as they see fit. Maybe I am an aberration and don't realize it.
I think the point remains sound that in a competition for power between two groups, one who really loves power and one who doesn't love it so much, the ones that really love it will get it, and thus the group that wants less government power used overall needs to push for less government power, period. Just trying to keep power is a losing proposition, because the other side will always end up with it.
I think this criticism, while accurate, masks the costs to conservatives in the status quo and it's proposed remedies are not convincing. To be clear, I think this criticism is accurate and a real concern, but the alternative (conservatives using the federal government to fight "wokeness") does not have to be perfect, it simply has to be better than the status quo. And the status quo for conservatives on these issues, while there are occasional victories like the Roe v Wade overturning, is generally losing.
Just in terms of words and focus, there's paragraphs of criticism but only one of alternative solutions and those are not terribly persuasive. For example, explicit protections for political speech sounds nice but political affiliation for California workers is a protected class equivalent to race or sexual orientation (1). Does anybody honestly believe that conservative gov bureaucrats in CA are free to express their political stances, either privately or in policy-making discussions? Maybe there's some subtlety in the linked piece I missed but it reads like a rehash of tried and failed policy.
So, because I've heard this libertarian critique of the new right popping up a bit recently, let me ask a clarifying question.
First, the big one, the former Republican president and likely next nominee has been banned off most major platforms, including the most famous social media account in history. How will current conservative/libertarian/deregulatory policies resolve this?
(And, to head off the "Trump is uniquely bad" argument, the most likely successor to Trump is DeSantis, who is a much more explicitly New Right figure and the best likely candidate to execute New Right policies)
For many on the right and center, the status quo is unacceptable. Implicit defenses of the status quo, criticism of the alternative, and half-hearted hand-waves to deregulatory alternatives miss the core of what draws people to the New Right: that the current situation is fundamentally unacceptable. And, like it or not, while the libertarians and classical liberals are correct to criticize the New Right for not having clear plans or personnel to execute their plans, they never point to any realistic political path for their libertarian/classical liberal reforms to be enacted. The Democrats certainly won't and the Republicans will elect either Trump or DeSantis, there are no other credible candidates.
So, summing up,
(1) What is the libertarian/classical liberal plan? How is it substantially different from what's been done in the past?
(2) How will it be enacted? Both practically and politically?
(3) How is this better than the New Right proposals?
(1) https://www.calhr.ca.gov/state-hr-professionals/Pages/Equal-Employment-Opportunity.aspx, the HR handbook for CA state managers/supervisors.
"First, the big one, the former Republican president and likely next nominee has been banned off most major platforms, including the most famous social media account in history. How will current conservative/libertarian/deregulatory policies resolve this?"
Why does that need a resolution? Who cares? Does Trump really lack the ability to broadcast his views? And inasmuch as he does, the primary beneficiary is probably Trump himself, as quieting his microphone at a moment when his ravings would have probably alienated more swing voters, than attracted them, while also making him a martyr to fire up his base, seems like a win for him.
Ignoring that a lot of people really liked Trump's Twitter, whether your party's presidential candidate can use mass media to get his message out is kinda of central to modern political parties. If the Republican candidate for president was banned off network television 50 years ago, or off radio 100 years ago, everyone would understand it's importance. A political party's ability to get it's message out is central to, well, being a political party. Anything which interferes with that is a critical threat.
If Trump, as seems likely, becomes the Republican party's nominee for 2024, will he be unbanned off Twitter or will Truth Social be unbanned from Android phones (1)? Will DeSantis or other future candidates also face banning? These aren't just questions for Trump but for Republicans. The Republican party and base has a clear and obvious interest in ensuring that no entity has veto power over its candidate's access to mass media.
(1) https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/01/google-blocks-truth-social-from-the-play-store-will-apple-be-next/
Trump will be back on twitter as of Friday.
This doesn't really address Bryan's point. New regulations on businesses meant to protect Republicans will probably *end up* being used against them, even if they provide some desirable outcomes to them in the short term.
I'd like for him to address the specific laws in Florida and Texas and explain exactly how they will backfire.
It's notable that the wokists are all opposing them, as are the big tech companies.
Suppose that an electoral reform was supported by most of the Orange Party and opposed by most of the Yellow party. It's possible it would benefit the Yellow Party regardless, but that's not the way to bet.
I accept his point, he's correct, new regulations on businesses to protect Republicans will *probably* backfire. What's his alternative?
If the goal is to make it impossible for the Republican presidential candidate to be banned from major mass media, and the odds of this happening with "anti-woke" legislation are 20% and the odds if they do nothing are 10%, then pointing out that the odds of legislation working are really low is relevant but not really persuasive. Unless there's a better option on the table, people will go with the best one they have.
Which is my fundamental issue. I think all Caplan's criticisms are correct but his alternative proposals are an afterthought, both in persuasiveness and word count.
Edit: Obviously there's a lot more the new right wants than the specific issue of Trump bannings. I just think it's helpful to focus down on specific, actionable issues instead of leaving everything theoretcial.
----
"The major social media companies have a clear left-wing bias. They’re much more likely to deplatform people whose ideas they oppose. Most major corporations, similarly, now push not only woke ideology, but racist and sexist hiring in the name of “diversity and inclusion.” Why not use government power to offset these abuses?"
----
Do you believe that corporations should be immune to Civil Rights Law only in cases where they are discriminating against whites, asians, and/or men?
I know you're too much of a pussy to really try to get rid of Civil Rights Law, so you're essentially just advocating that it be a one sided anarcho tyranny ratchet. How's that working out so far?
"Using Big Government to fight wokeness."
De Santis said we shouldn't teach wokeness and transgender ideology to five year olds in public schools, and responded to political interference from a big company by removing a special economic privilege they have because they wouldn't mind their own business.
Is this what you object to? Do you feel kindergartners should be taught this ideology?
"Why not use industrial policy - tariffs, quotas, and subsidies - to push back?"
I don't believe in industrial policy, but the US had tariffs in the 20%-50% range for pretty much its entire pre-WW2 history. It didn't hinder economic development much based on the results. They were especially high during the Gilded Age when the US economy came to dominate the entire world.
If a foreign producer is really that much more productive, they can probably overcome a modest tariff like that, and the revenue generated can be used to reduce income taxes, which largely replaced the tariff as a revenue source. I'd rather pay a tariff than an income tax.
> I know you're too much of a pussy to really try to get rid of Civil Rights Law, so you're essentially just advocating that it be a one sided anarcho tyranny ratchet.
Who do you think you're talking to? Bryan is an avowed anarchist who convinced Richard Hanania that civil rights laws are responsible for woke dominance of corporations.
What is Bryan doing to end Civil Rights Law? Beyond making a blog post?
Is he campaigning against Civil Rights Law?
Is he endorsing a political party or movement to end Civil Rights Law?
Is he even willing to endorse people who will enforce Civil Rights Law equally and fairly (which would itself probably reduce its salience and reach)?
His signature policy, Open Borders, will almost assuredly turn Civil Rights Law into overdrive. Obviously there is the direct effect of increasing the political power of the Democratic Party. But also, every single multi-ethnic society becomes a war of all against all with each tribe trying to grab its slice by any means necessary. We can see this in the US, and there are many historic examples as well.
I prefer the stance of an actual statesmen, who got into the muck and built something, Lee Kuan Yew. He understood this dynamic and prevented Singapore from falling into it. He learned from but didn't embrace libertarianism.
In Singapore:
1) Race pandering (by all races, not just some races) is illegal.
2) Meritocracy, chips fall where they may, is the policy.
3) A pragmatic mix of ethnic autonomy and interaction is public policy
4) Immigration policy is *strictly* set to keep a 75% Han Majority that dominates politics
Or you just don't hire leftist bureaucrats. Or are bureaucracies completely permanent? Is China still run by the Manchu? Is France run by a royalist deep state?
There's a pattern where losers associate with other losers and repeat loser ideas to one another to justify their laziness and fatalism. "I can't get a job because nobody is hiring, I can't quite drugs because nobody ever quits drugs, blah blah blah." Whenever someone tries to pull himself out of the spiral of loserdom, the other losers sneer at him that it's "pointless." They don't want him succeeding and putting the onus on them to face the fact that they, not inevitable fate, are the authors of their misery.
You have entire ideologies of losers, people who might be successful in their personal lives but who, when it comes to using the power of government to achieve their goals, refuse on the basis of fatalistic nonsense. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, they never accomplish their goals because they never bother to try.
Are you planning on applying for a job at a government bureaucracy? Do you know of any libertarians who are itching for a job at a government bureaucracy?
I'm not a libertarian. It would depend on the job and salary being offered.
Many "bureaucracies" are full of non-liberals; the police are the most notable example.
Police aren't bureaucrats. The type of person who wants to be a cop leans right. There's a different type of person who wants to work for a regulator or bureaucracy, and not many Ron Swansons.
That explains why every bureaucracy in human history has been woke, from ancient Persia to the Saudi religious police to East German Stasi.
Really, this is just loser fatalism. You should take it further. You are right, but nobody will ever be convinced by anything you write. Don't bother. Throw up your hands.
I don't see many Republicans trying to change the partisan makeup of the bureaucracy, I only see them talking about the two points mentioned in the post. How exactly would you go about changing the ideological makeup of the sprawling bureaucracy anyway? There are millions of employees and so many agencies that people have completely lost track of them. Try looking up how many there are and you'll be astonished to find that nobody even knows. Why not just abolish a bunch of them and fire the employees instead? Seems much more straightforward to me.
Red States are engaging in a mixture of defunding and taming the bureaucracy.
Arizona just enacted K-12 funding freedom. Texas might follow after the election. That's a pretty big win. These states are already low tax, low spend havens.
In Florida De Santis flipped several school boards including the left leaning Miami-Dade. They have rejected woke indoctrination in schools.
This mix of defunding and political banishment is a model to export.
I am definitely a fan of the school choice movement, but I don't see how it eliminates bureaucracy unless you completely privatize the system. I've seen some really bad school choice proposals which even increase bureaucracy by having new groups of bureaucrats vet which schools can and cannot qualify for vouchers and such.
DeSantis also tried to enact the "Stop WOKE Act", which definitely violates the first amendment. But just for fun let's say it somehow became law. I'm sure you can now think of a million ways leftists would censor speech in their own favor using the same standards of that bill. While I agree with him that the corporate CRT training is counterproductive and ineffective I don't think that's the best way to get rid of it. I think a better way is to abolish every government institutions that is inducing corporations to do it in the first place.
I would also note that the federal bureaucracy is literally millions of people. It's going to be impossible to weed out everyone by ideology and implement some sort of ideological hiring standard.
"DeSantis also tried to enact the "Stop WOKE Act", which definitely violates the first amendment."
There's no first amendment right to force employees to attend struggle sessions. And even if that was the original intent of the founding fathers, one could just appoint justices who will "creatively interpret" that part away.
No of course it doesn't say you can't mandate struggle sessions in the work place. It does say that the government can't censor speech though, and the act censors what is allowed to be said in mandatory training sessions. That's a pretty clear violation.
Listen, I hate the training sessions and hate wokeness. I'm with you. I just don't think this is a good solution.
"It does say that the government can't censor speech though, and the act censors what is allowed to be said in mandatory training sessions. That's a pretty clear violation."
Employers have the right to say anything they want. They don't have the right to fire employees who don't want to listen to their political rants.
It's similar to how freedom of religion means you preach any religious belief you want, but you can't fire your workers for refusing to listen to your religious preaching, as that would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.
Correct.
Very true. Outstanding.
You said it twice, but we cannot repeat it too much:
“Leftist politicians will be in command half the time, and leftist bureaucrats will decide day-to-day policy all the time.”
Totally agree in principle, but let’s say that enacting deregulation is impossible (you don’t get a filibuster proof majority to support it and a president and veto proof house). What is the next best thing that can be done? Where can we improve things on the margin?
Why not shift agency headquarters around the country - commerce to Nebraska, dept of ed to SC, interior to Wyoming, FBI to Utah, IRS to Alaska (Nome?), Homeland to Alabama, etc…. and put them in small towns in the name of economic developmen (justice?). In other words change the peer effects of the bureaucrats. Perhaps also ban unionization of public employees (at least the feds).
Just explain how you plan to fight a war with China when you've moved all production there.
It's not just for some silly reasons we worry about the location of production.
But why is it inevitable that the bureaucrats will be left-wing? Gut the bureaucracy and re-hire ideological allies. Obvs most uni grads are leftists, but as you know education is mostly signalling. We don't need those with credentials. With technology, it's not that hard to be a mid level bureaucrat. There's enough people with enough brains to do the job, who haven't been indoctrinated in a woke madrasah/ educated at an Ivy. Ofc at the v highest rungs of bureaucracy you need v smart individuals with the right managerial skills and traits. But there are right wingers who fit that profile and would do job if offered.
I do not think that the United States Drug Enforcement Administration is left wing, so it may be that the function attracts left wing employees. Maybe only left wingers want to run a welfare or education program but only a person who believes in a drug war wants to run the DEA.
One can be against both left-wing and right-wing collectivism at the same time. People who are anti-woke tend to be as right wing wokes.
Opportunism, double standards, lacking of principles is very much connected to collectivist behaviours and politics
Conservative dilemma (European meaning) = you defend today what the former generation was opposing
Thanks for the analysis but it makes me wonder that Republicans don't want to work in the day-to-day affairs of running the Gov't... is it possible that they are avoiding at all costs the responsibility of the theft of $billions from the middle class ever since Ronald Raygun began his trickle down affair with BigCorpamerica...
OR... is it possible they're just too busy dreaming up the 'next fleece' ala the former guy...
As far as who will run it - how 'bout we just let Govt Human Resources hire the best candidates whose first priority is honesty, integrity & belief that they are doing what the country needs most... You could always do worse...
"In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." - Warren Buffet
I'm sure a lot of communists around 1975 saw that communism was not producing the outcomes that Max and Engels promised. I'm sure many of them told themselves their "principles" meant that they had to support it regardless.
My message to libertarians is this: libertarianism is not producing the outcomes you want; you see it as well as me. It's okay to change your mind about it. You don't even have to admit to being wrong; you can just create a new account and deny you were ever libertarian in the first place.
The issue is that conservative politicians are incentivized to "do something" now even if it produces unwanted consequences in the future. When the consequences come, their constituents won't blame them for initiating the government power - they'll blame liberal politicians. This outrage against the liberals will further benefit the conservative politicians.
So expanding the scope of government in ways that will probably lead to undesirable results for conservatives is a win-win for conservative politicians.
interesting post
altough i dont have tons of knowledge on this particular subject, my experience in sweden is that bureaucrats and different officials in various govermunt run places like the Arbetsformedlingen, tend to be at lest centerleft, and usually on the left: i havnt really met any Avowed open Right wing or conservative person in an organization like that