This article is so, so much less compelling than the article on the virtues of the right. A great deal of hedging and pleading, and much reliance on the flaws of the degenerate movement we call “the right” which is not the same as “conservative”. I have many remaining liberal impulses, and I don’t even recognize them here. There must be better arguments for them than these.
Man, I'm a freaking socialist who attends a Marxist reading group every Sunday, and you've just made a great case for right-wing populism. No, you should not determine your politics based on who has more intellectuals and makes smarter arguments for their "impartial" concerns.
You should determine your politics based on your material interests.
Those who spend their efforts signaling their virtue and holding luxury beliefs do not have high status in general, they hold their status within their narrow, wealthy, generally white social group which identifies itself as vastly superior to the others in the hierarchy of groups in the larger society.
Every coherent group that I have heard of has an internal hierarchy of leaders and followers. One of the most destructive, Antifa, claims to be purely individuals, but somebodies maintain the sites and decides when and where to gather. Pure egalitarianism sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, it’s inconsistent with the reality of human interactions and a block to achievement. Witness the whimpering end to the demonstrations against the 1%; groups sat around with all having an equal voice, resulting in nothing.
Progressives didn’t invent respect for stable borders. I suggest that you read about the Council of Vienna starting in 1815. Or a Pope designating the boundary between Spanish and Portuguese claims post Columbus. No Progressives involved. Both worked for a while.
You generalize that conservatives lack empathy and empirical rigor. True indeed about some. True also about some progressives whose empathy ends at the moment it discommodes their comfortable prejudices. Please note the sudden turn in Sanctuary Cities as the reality of unchecked immigration yields direct costs. I propose that the passionate concern respecting climate change will similarly change should brownouts and blackouts ensue. Was No Child Left Behind instituted without empathy or empirical rigor? Was the opposition of the largely progressive teachers’ unions motivated by anything other than a goal of keeping their membership free of the empirical rigor of accountability?
You assert that the left has more smart people , and that conservatives depend upon the left for arguments against the left. I suggest that smart people, by your definition, can be remarkably stupid outside of their specialties. Most recently we have the professors joining in blind to the evil of the Hamas attack, and supporting Islamist groups that act in ways antithetical to their other claimed beliefs. Or do the smart people have a branch favoring death for homosexuals and blasphemers. It didn’t require Trotskyites to identify the distortions of the 1619 Project, only honest historians who stepped forward. Clearly, it is a multi-racial group of historians pointing out the falsehoods of the 1619 Project, and progressives promoting its racism.
It’s my opinion that you are very forgiving generally of very some stupid narrowness on the left, some of which you acknowledge, and attribute to conservatives generally some very stupid narrowness of a few. I think you forgive too much because of good intentions. I also find many of your positions sensible but often they are those out of step with the progressive left.
Also (Kansas bred here and former Dole constituent), I think he was 100 percent sincere in his advocacy for disability legislation, and that the personal connection made this more meaningful as well as practical. I don’t see this as anything inferior to commitments driven by universal principle. Rather the opposite, as abstract high-mindedness nearly always throws off bad stuff as it is doing today.
It’s a great post, but to nitpick, it’s ironic that you cite the examples of eg Sarah Palin advocating for disabled people when for the past decade we’ve been subjected to “as an XYZ I have the unique burden of access to the perspective of XYZs and hence the obligation to advocate for the needs of XYZs”. I’m sure you’d say that this reflects “right wing” tendencies on the part of the left for that period, but this speaks to some flaws in your original post defining left vs. right.
I suspect that most intelligent people are non-ideological moderates who support evidence-driven policymaking to solve societal problems. In an ideal world, political debates would be about (a) what our key problems are and (b) how best to address them. In practice, the Republican Party has affectively-polarized itself off the deep end and does not believe in empirically-validated solutions to real problems. Intelligent people increasingly find a home in the Democratic Party because it appears to be the party of experts and grown-ups - not because intelligent people have an affinity for Left politics per se.
I don't know if I buy the analysis that this is mostly about signalling that you are virtuous...and not particularly more so than on the right -- there are lots of church-goers who just aren't in the news all the time (I do like the left virtues better than the right ones).
I mean, a huge part of signalling on the left (just as anywhere else) looks a lot more like: I'm willing to say these things which make it super clear I'm part of your tribe even though it's not what people would expect best achieves the ends we are signalling about on even a cursory glance.
I'm not making one of those dumb -- the left is just full of awful hypocrites -- arguments. This is just a general human thing. It's even more prevalent in churches. I mean, what could be more fucking important if you are trying to signal that you really believe, than taking it really fucking seriously like you would a criminal case or a potential investment -- but if you actually do that and start asking questions like you think it really matters that tends to get you ostracized pretty quickly.
I mean overall, I'm on the left, but I just don't think it's right to give the signalling the left uses such a noble gloss. It has some positive externalities but most of it is the same shit we see in every society -- fuck the ideals we claim to be concerned with I need you to show me you're on my side whatever may come.
I think the future is bleak for the left in terms of policy making because most of the political capital will be spent on saving existing programs from cuts. The only kind of reform they can possibly embrace are all based on pro-growth ideas from the right related to deregulation.
As a recent immigrant to the US in 1994 (I was 26 years old then), I started reading Wall Street Journal (as I was working towards an MBA degree). Back in India, I was absolutely left of center (an uncle of mine was even a communist leader in South India). I remember finding the WSJ editorial columns extremely compelling, especially "Think Things Over" column by its Editor-in-Chief at the time, Robert Bartley. Now, I find the WSJ editorial page unconvincing. Is that because my ideology has changed over the years? Or is the quality of conservative thinking diminished?
Matt seems to argue that conservative thinking was always muddled, but I think differently. In the 1980s and 1990s, US was heavily taxed, and, till 1994, the congress had Democratic majority. So, conservative viewpoint was a lot more convincing then. But today, after Bush and Trump tax cuts, the pendulum has swung the other way, and liberals' stances are more convincing. So, conservatives are relying on propaganda to extend their benefits as long as they can.
I agree that the democrats must be strategic and disciplined to win future elections in order to raise taxes (or at least allow tax reduction acts to expire) and smartly leverage US' hydrocarbons to reduce deficit and ensure SS and Medicare are solvent.
I’m trying to get past the idea that there’s no paper on the right like the New York Times. The Wall street Journal doesn’t count? And of course more people watch TV or leave the radio on all day, and conservatives have those more to themselves. So yes, I find large parts of Matt’s argument —non-persuasive— at best.
I think it’s fair to say that the WSJ lacks the scale - along basically any dimension - of the NYT. I wish it did because the NYT drives me nuts. (Not even for its left tilt per se.)
Thanks for the shout-out to chickens, Matt. The worst thing for cruelty to animals, IMO, is that most people think it is "all or nothing." Since being vegan is impossible (and very unattractive) the default is simply "nothing." But we can hugely reduce our support of factory farms by simply not eating factory farmed chickens, full stop. https://www.onestepforanimals.org/about.html
If I had a nickle for every time I've heard Yglesias say that it would be impossible to build a right-leaning version of the New York Times while ignoring the existence of the Wall Street Journal I'd have ten cents. Which isn't a lot, but fifteen cents - now that would be something.
This article is so, so much less compelling than the article on the virtues of the right. A great deal of hedging and pleading, and much reliance on the flaws of the degenerate movement we call “the right” which is not the same as “conservative”. I have many remaining liberal impulses, and I don’t even recognize them here. There must be better arguments for them than these.
Man, I'm a freaking socialist who attends a Marxist reading group every Sunday, and you've just made a great case for right-wing populism. No, you should not determine your politics based on who has more intellectuals and makes smarter arguments for their "impartial" concerns.
You should determine your politics based on your material interests.
Those who spend their efforts signaling their virtue and holding luxury beliefs do not have high status in general, they hold their status within their narrow, wealthy, generally white social group which identifies itself as vastly superior to the others in the hierarchy of groups in the larger society.
Every coherent group that I have heard of has an internal hierarchy of leaders and followers. One of the most destructive, Antifa, claims to be purely individuals, but somebodies maintain the sites and decides when and where to gather. Pure egalitarianism sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, it’s inconsistent with the reality of human interactions and a block to achievement. Witness the whimpering end to the demonstrations against the 1%; groups sat around with all having an equal voice, resulting in nothing.
Progressives didn’t invent respect for stable borders. I suggest that you read about the Council of Vienna starting in 1815. Or a Pope designating the boundary between Spanish and Portuguese claims post Columbus. No Progressives involved. Both worked for a while.
You generalize that conservatives lack empathy and empirical rigor. True indeed about some. True also about some progressives whose empathy ends at the moment it discommodes their comfortable prejudices. Please note the sudden turn in Sanctuary Cities as the reality of unchecked immigration yields direct costs. I propose that the passionate concern respecting climate change will similarly change should brownouts and blackouts ensue. Was No Child Left Behind instituted without empathy or empirical rigor? Was the opposition of the largely progressive teachers’ unions motivated by anything other than a goal of keeping their membership free of the empirical rigor of accountability?
You assert that the left has more smart people , and that conservatives depend upon the left for arguments against the left. I suggest that smart people, by your definition, can be remarkably stupid outside of their specialties. Most recently we have the professors joining in blind to the evil of the Hamas attack, and supporting Islamist groups that act in ways antithetical to their other claimed beliefs. Or do the smart people have a branch favoring death for homosexuals and blasphemers. It didn’t require Trotskyites to identify the distortions of the 1619 Project, only honest historians who stepped forward. Clearly, it is a multi-racial group of historians pointing out the falsehoods of the 1619 Project, and progressives promoting its racism.
It’s my opinion that you are very forgiving generally of very some stupid narrowness on the left, some of which you acknowledge, and attribute to conservatives generally some very stupid narrowness of a few. I think you forgive too much because of good intentions. I also find many of your positions sensible but often they are those out of step with the progressive left.
Forgive the nit pick, especially if it's already been pointed out in the >600 comments to date, but a mild correction: Bob Dole was from Kansas.
Respectfully,
a grandson of South Dakota
Also (Kansas bred here and former Dole constituent), I think he was 100 percent sincere in his advocacy for disability legislation, and that the personal connection made this more meaningful as well as practical. I don’t see this as anything inferior to commitments driven by universal principle. Rather the opposite, as abstract high-mindedness nearly always throws off bad stuff as it is doing today.
It’s a great post, but to nitpick, it’s ironic that you cite the examples of eg Sarah Palin advocating for disabled people when for the past decade we’ve been subjected to “as an XYZ I have the unique burden of access to the perspective of XYZs and hence the obligation to advocate for the needs of XYZs”. I’m sure you’d say that this reflects “right wing” tendencies on the part of the left for that period, but this speaks to some flaws in your original post defining left vs. right.
Oh, how I long for the days of yore, when Republicans were hypocritical about moral behavior. At least then they acknowledged that virtue mattered.
I suspect that most intelligent people are non-ideological moderates who support evidence-driven policymaking to solve societal problems. In an ideal world, political debates would be about (a) what our key problems are and (b) how best to address them. In practice, the Republican Party has affectively-polarized itself off the deep end and does not believe in empirically-validated solutions to real problems. Intelligent people increasingly find a home in the Democratic Party because it appears to be the party of experts and grown-ups - not because intelligent people have an affinity for Left politics per se.
Bob Dole was from Kansas not South Dakota
I don't know if I buy the analysis that this is mostly about signalling that you are virtuous...and not particularly more so than on the right -- there are lots of church-goers who just aren't in the news all the time (I do like the left virtues better than the right ones).
I mean, a huge part of signalling on the left (just as anywhere else) looks a lot more like: I'm willing to say these things which make it super clear I'm part of your tribe even though it's not what people would expect best achieves the ends we are signalling about on even a cursory glance.
I'm not making one of those dumb -- the left is just full of awful hypocrites -- arguments. This is just a general human thing. It's even more prevalent in churches. I mean, what could be more fucking important if you are trying to signal that you really believe, than taking it really fucking seriously like you would a criminal case or a potential investment -- but if you actually do that and start asking questions like you think it really matters that tends to get you ostracized pretty quickly.
I mean overall, I'm on the left, but I just don't think it's right to give the signalling the left uses such a noble gloss. It has some positive externalities but most of it is the same shit we see in every society -- fuck the ideals we claim to be concerned with I need you to show me you're on my side whatever may come.
I think the future is bleak for the left in terms of policy making because most of the political capital will be spent on saving existing programs from cuts. The only kind of reform they can possibly embrace are all based on pro-growth ideas from the right related to deregulation.
As a recent immigrant to the US in 1994 (I was 26 years old then), I started reading Wall Street Journal (as I was working towards an MBA degree). Back in India, I was absolutely left of center (an uncle of mine was even a communist leader in South India). I remember finding the WSJ editorial columns extremely compelling, especially "Think Things Over" column by its Editor-in-Chief at the time, Robert Bartley. Now, I find the WSJ editorial page unconvincing. Is that because my ideology has changed over the years? Or is the quality of conservative thinking diminished?
Matt seems to argue that conservative thinking was always muddled, but I think differently. In the 1980s and 1990s, US was heavily taxed, and, till 1994, the congress had Democratic majority. So, conservative viewpoint was a lot more convincing then. But today, after Bush and Trump tax cuts, the pendulum has swung the other way, and liberals' stances are more convincing. So, conservatives are relying on propaganda to extend their benefits as long as they can.
I agree that the democrats must be strategic and disciplined to win future elections in order to raise taxes (or at least allow tax reduction acts to expire) and smartly leverage US' hydrocarbons to reduce deficit and ensure SS and Medicare are solvent.
I’m trying to get past the idea that there’s no paper on the right like the New York Times. The Wall street Journal doesn’t count? And of course more people watch TV or leave the radio on all day, and conservatives have those more to themselves. So yes, I find large parts of Matt’s argument —non-persuasive— at best.
I think it’s fair to say that the WSJ lacks the scale - along basically any dimension - of the NYT. I wish it did because the NYT drives me nuts. (Not even for its left tilt per se.)
More lefty derangement blather.
One of the best posts in a while Matt!
Thanks for the shout-out to chickens, Matt. The worst thing for cruelty to animals, IMO, is that most people think it is "all or nothing." Since being vegan is impossible (and very unattractive) the default is simply "nothing." But we can hugely reduce our support of factory farms by simply not eating factory farmed chickens, full stop. https://www.onestepforanimals.org/about.html
If I had a nickle for every time I've heard Yglesias say that it would be impossible to build a right-leaning version of the New York Times while ignoring the existence of the Wall Street Journal I'd have ten cents. Which isn't a lot, but fifteen cents - now that would be something.