Here’s a new League post on whether democracies can be liberal—and whether liberalism can survive in democratic regimes: There are much more interesting questions lurking behind the (usually unprofitable) “are we/aren’t we a Christian or Protestant or WASP or plural nation?” debates: Just how much common ground does a liberal democracy need? Is there a point … Continue reading
A while back I wrote this post about George Will’s willful self-confusion (a notch more intentional than self-delusion, I think) on questions of markets. In his column, he argued that progressives “crave social stasis…[while] conservatives…welcome the perpetual churning of society by dynamism.” I complained that his unalloyed appreciation for market dynamism left no room for … Continue reading
Though it’s only been (officially) over for a few days, the autopsy is already underway. Just what did Rick Santorum’s campaign mean for the GOP? For the United States? The going analysis mostly dribbles into the “Can Mitt Romney snag the social conservative vote?” trench. Can he? Probably. Will he? Probably. Will this be enough to win? … Continue reading
It is one of the great canards of American politics that leftists have gotten tarred as “utopian” dreamers. In conservatives’ hands, progressives and liberals alike are cowards who cannot make their own way in life and thus look to government to protect them from tragedy. These latter are weak-kneed social dependents who believe that conflict … Continue reading
George Will’s Post column today is an exercise in loose logic: Today’s primary political and cultural conflict is…between people, mislabeled “progressives,” who crave social stasis, and those, paradoxically called conservatives, who welcome the perpetual churning of society by dynamism. Theodore Roosevelt, America’s first progressive president, thought it was government’s duty to “look ahead and plan out … Continue reading
Lately, I’ve been writing and thinking a lot about the place of uncertainty in modern political life. It’s central to my dissertation—because I’m confident that it’s central to 20th and 21st century politics. I mean something fairly specific by “uncertainty” here. To some degree, “radical pluralism” might be a better term. If you’ve ever found … Continue reading
Further commentary unnecessary: “Must we not remind those who are weak and defrauded and despised that God will avenge the cruelties from which they suffer, but will also not hear the cruel resentment which corrupts their hearts? Must we not say to the rich and secure classes of society that their vaunted devotion to the … Continue reading
I was rereading John Dewey’s “Democracy is Radical” last week in preparation for a lecture, and the opening lines are haunting me: There is comparatively little difference among the groups at the left as to the social ends to be reached. There is a great deal of difference as to the means by which these … Continue reading
Bachmann’s out. Perry’s hanging on by a thread. Santorum is nearing his apogee. Newt Gingrich is vowing to take down the GOP ship on his own. Sigh. Who cares? Here is what I really think: I could be cute and purposefully counter-intuitive. I could be resolutely serious. I could be any number of things, but … Continue reading
You can’t simultaneously be a radical political “localist” and a committed ethical absolutist. You can’t both argue that local communities know best while also arguing that some local positions are out of bounds. Either you’re a localist who tolerates cannibalism and slavery when local institutions choose it—or you are an absolutist who believes that there … Continue reading
