In a new book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” I argue that Donald J. Trump is the quintessential post-constitutional candidate.
In the “Opening Statement,” titled “Welcome To The Post-Constitutional Jungle,” oldies will recognize a nod to the Guns N’ Roses classic, “Welcome to the Jungle,” as well as to broadcaster Mark Levin’s coinage.
We inhabit what Levin has termed a post-constitutional America. The libertarian (and classical conservative) ideal—where the chains that tether us to an increasingly tyrannical national government are loosened and power is devolved once again to the smaller units of society—is a long way away. Read more
The problem at the moment seems to be that those who consider they “own” the result- the Vote Leave cabal- are in no hurry to strike when the iron is hot and seem to be doing everything to play into the hands of the EUphiles. I fear that the years of impoverishment of the capacities of our ruling class has led to a situation in which nobody is fit to handle this situation. The Labour Party is largely irrelevant anyway, but the Tories (who I despise equally, to be clear) are more interested in weeks of infighting over the leadership. Party before Country. Career before Party. They are a disgrace. Read more
I am using “Progressive” as the label popullarly assigned to the movement, rather than as an adjective. Like conservative and Conservative or gay and Gay.
I think that the meaningful socio-political divide in the Anglosphere, or at least *a* meaningful dichotomy, dates as far back as the Reformation. It can be seen as two approaches to Christianity. One of these is individualist, distinguishes Church and State (moral and secular rules) and so on. This is the liberal side, which we are on. The other interpretation is collectivist and theocratic. There is no division of the moral and secular rule sets. The State and Church are one, and the law is used for moral correction. This is the side of the extreme Protestants such as Calvin (particularly) and thus I refer to this as the Puritan side. Read more
There is in my view one very simple reason for any libertarian to need to vote Out. Or maybe two. I’ll see how I go.
Liberty is an abstraction, but in practical terms fighting for liberty always means fighting some particular authoritarian cabal. It depends on place and time. In the USSR, a libertarian would be working to take down communism. In mediaeval Europe, he would be fighting perhaps the Church, perhaps a Monarchy. In 1930s/40s Germany he would be opposing Nazism. In this sense, libertarianism is always an oppositional movement, since if one has liberty, there is no need to be a libertarian. One would simply get on with life and enjoy one’s liberty. Read more
I have argued that this is because nobody has really analysed properly what is going on. There remains a persistent belief in the power of “reason”, and the implication that one can in some way sit down in a reasonable way and using reason win an argument. The problem (or at least, a problem) with this is that our enemy are not the least interested in such a debate, let alone what “reason” may dictate.
The first step is to understand that we live in a society in which all that matters is the moral high ground. If you have that, you win. If you do not have it, you lose. They have it. We do not. This is because we prize doing the right thing rather than the rational thing. If you were in a lifeboat and could stay alive by devouring a baby, that would be the rational thing, but morally repulsive, and the latter is how you would be judged. To argue otherwise is to side with the devourer of infants, and in a society of high morals, you simply do not do that. And we are a society of high morals, probably the most moral society in our history. Amazingly, most on “the right” persist- in this moralist society- to insist that the enemy are amoralists, or immoralists, one or the other. Read more
This does remind me though of a position which I’ve held for some time now which tends to get me denounced as a socialist. Which is that many libertarians are too ready to join the conservative chorus in blaming all our ills on benefits claimants and the idle underclass, whereas my take is that we have so many people on benefits because the State has “managed” the economy into ruin. Reform needs to be done at the top, not the bottom. If we can free the economy, benefits will naturally fall due to lack of need. Read more
I think it’s a pity that Cameron isn’t being attacked more for being an ideologue divorced from reality. His motivations and ideals are both fantastical (“liberal government for all in Syria”) and motivated by an ideological commitment to “Humanitarianism”. Read more