I don’t think high speed rail and autonomous vehicles particularly compete - they’re in different markets, for intercity travel and local transportation respectively.
The issue with autonomous vehicles is that they could increase the demand for more car infrastructure, and when budgets are limited that means dollars not going to rail infrastructure. Additionally autonomous vehicles don't solve the issue that moving people via cars still takes up much much much more space than say, a tram or subway or bus (you could make the BUS autonomous!)
Local transit can also include trains! When I recently visited Germany I took a HSR train from the airport to mannheim, a local train from mannheim to Heidelberg, and a tram from heidelberg station to my hotel. At no point did I ever need to move on something not running on rails!
I have to assume they decrease demand for parking infrastructure by more than they increase demand for road infrastructure. One assumes that in an AV-first world, car ownership--even in auto dependent areas--plummets as the cost and convenience of calling a daily Waymo beats the value proposition of owning a car that you only drive twice a day. Imagine if the demand for 90% of parking spaces just...vanished.
in theory, autonomous vehicles should reach a point where they alleviate congestion to some degree due to being more competent than human drivers. especially so if some sort of coordination capability is achieved.
a lot of traffic problems are simply due to bad drivers.
I definitely think a significant amount of autonomous vehicles in cities should operate as buses and trains! If the three busiest bus lines in every city could operate on autonomous vehicles, and keep their rush-hour peak schedule running 24/7 due to no need for drivers, that would make a huge difference!
Sure, most reasonable people want Abundance’s goals: more cheaper housing, better infrastructure.
But making your political identity based around it seems to be missing the moment. You’re debating the merits of high speed rail versus supersonic airplanes while the other movement is debating how to achieve your political destruction.
I think the technicality is perhaps not something with mass appeal, but I also think this can be overstated in the other direction. Abundance is exciting because we're actually promising to make people better off.
Do people really want a grand narrative of heroes and villains, or do they want to be $10,000 richer? I assume most people care more about their material well-being than (((globalists))), oligarchy, or anything else.
I agree that material concerns are important. But the material isn’t everything. Like it or not, people do often vote on stories and narratives and not on straight comparison of which policies put more money in their pockets. And you can’t achieve the material without the political. Especially when there is a movement in power seeking your political destruction.
Great summary, but I disagree with the framing of "us" vs. "them". Abundance and liberalism is going to need a big tent, which means splintering off Republicans that are horrified by the blood-and-soil nationalism at NatCon. It will need a blanket of bipartisanship If it is seen as drawing a line in the sand with liberals - woke and centrist - on one side, then we will just be pushing away people that could be potential allies on at least some issues.
It is interesting that the loony left gets amplified by the right-wing propaganda machine - literally Libs of TikTok. But there always seems to be an apprehension of doing the reverse - liberals shining a spotlight on the abhorrent, loony, nutter ideas on the right - "don't platform them!" Sunshine is the best disinfectant and this garbage needs to be exposed so people can realize just how unpopular right-wing ideas are. I've seen many people who were casual Trump voters that were completely unaware of some of the far-right crap his side is pushing.
I don’t think you’re going to win by splintering off committed Republicans or MAGA types. As we’ve seen by steady poll numbers, the vast majority of Republicans are not in fact horrified by this blood-and-soil nationalism. To pick a specific person as an example, I don’t think you’re going to win the next election by finding a reserve population of “Bret Stephens” in the waiting.
Sure, but there are literally thousands of Trump voters that aren't committed Republicans or MAGA types. Even getting a fraction of them can swing an election.
I always find it interesting why paleocons (natcons?) are considered beyond the pale but Mercatus center types are not. Genuinely curious. Seems to me, it is true libertarians don’t hate Black or Brown ppl, they just rlly hate all poor people, regardless of race, and would like to yank away grandmas healthcare and make the lives of poor people materially worse off by taking away their social services. It is beyond a socialist-neoliberal fight, and if libertarians got their way, poors in America would just kind of perish. Obv exaggerating, but just curious.
Mercatus: "We believe the best way to improve the well being of people is to reduce overall government involvement in markets. Here is some research that supports this in targeted areas."
NatCons: "We would like to deport millions of people and grind the economy to a halt. If it could be done with performative cruelty, that would be even better. There is no goal more worthy than being able to call someone slurs on the internet."
There are some differences that may make one an acceptable dinner party guest.
I understand your point, that said, "Reducing government involvement in markets" can lead to just as much harm as what NatCon's propose. You can trace a lot of our societies current problems to government not being more active in regulating things in the market!
Examples:
The explosion in gambling where its now being integrated into literally everything.
Predatory pay day loans
Junk Universities/degree mills.
Social media with algorithms designed to drive conflict and amplify hatred of others
Companies marketing health solutions that at best do nothing but waste peoples money, at worst actively harm people.
AI without safeguards leading to people further withdrawing from society
short term video content optimized around engagement
elon musk (and friends) gathering so much wealth he/they can endlessly spend it on actively destroying our democracy and government
Absolutely, and you could probably engage in a debate with a Mercatus member on any of those topics without them once calling you a slur or suggesting the solution is an abandonment of fundamental rights. That's why we invite each other to dinner.
How bad would it be if we got rid of Obamacare subsidies, SNAP, Medicaid eligibility, child allowance, homeless services, social security for the elderly? That’s Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney for you and imo that is pretty much where Mercatus is. It is true Mercatus supports Abundance but that’s because they want to invest in ensuring abundance wins the factional battle within Dem party as opposed to the Bernie left. It’s the same as Libs supporting Nikki Haley, even if it’s not their first choice. But the actual authentic policy preferences for Mercatus would just be total devastation and emaciation for low income Americans, while the economy grows, and prob some part of it would trickle down.
Again my question actually was not to suggest we should banish Mercatus, it was to ask why paleocons need to be banished but not Mercatus? I’m trying to get at the distinction that parses the badness of the two groups
I think Mercatus has ideological commitments that are beyond empirical technocracy/analysis. They believe in gutting social services for poors as a matter of ideology and values.
The number of people around here who believe the answer to disagreement is to attempt to banish someone from polite society. Someone should really do a survey on that...
When Mercatus starts saying we need to further impoverish the needy, I'll disagree with them. Until then, both sides are useful allies to the other in an intellectual coalition.
My question actually was not to suggest we should banish Mercatus, it was to ask why paleocons need to be banished but not Mercatus? I’m trying to get at the distinction that parses the badness of the two groups
Do you rlly think Mercatus doesn’t support impoverishing the needy in America? Mercatus has consistently advanced policies that would, in effect, further impoverish the needy, even if framed as “reform.” Its scholars argue that government anti-poverty programs trap people in dependency, advocate block-granting or consolidating welfare in ways that typically reduce benefits, call for slowing or cutting Social Security growth for future retirees, and oppose expansive supports. Taken together, these positions amount to weakening the social safety net? Do you think I’m wrong?
The description of "conservative efforts" which "have been rooted in classically liberal principles" is… confusing.
I propose that the ideas published by The Argument would benefit from more precise definitions of terms like "conservative", "liberal", "socialist", and so on. Liberalism is not synonymous with the political left, after all — it refers to a philosophy of individual freedom which has been orthodox in the United States since there has been a United States. Likewise, conservatism is not synonymous with the political right, but refers to a desire to "conserve the status quo", so to say — that is, to keep things the way they are. To preserve orthodoxy. Thus, it's accurate to say that "liberalism is a conservative philosophy in the United States".
Clarity regarding this one distinction alone would catalyze the recognition of so many ambiguities, and apparent self-contradictions…
You’re talking about classic liberalism versus modern liberalism.
But even in the classical liberalism sense, there are elements of our government and society that do not accord with those principles. Like you say conservatism is based around maintaining the status quo. Regardless.
So even in that sense it would be inaccurate to always equate conservatism with liberalism.
Our govt. has always deviated from liberal orthodoxy. The New Deal was socialist in so many of ways, for example. The govt. has also put forward many authoritarian laws and policies, but these deviations don't redefine what is conservative, or not — or what is either progressive, or regressive, or not.
The definition of the United States, insofar as our Constitution defines the place, is of a liberal democracy. This makes liberalism the orthodox political philosophy here. Upholding liberalism in the U.S. is therefore a conservative project.
…
I'm too young to recall just when the misuse of "liberal" began as a euphemism for the political left, but I suspect it may have been during the late 1960s, while individualistic young people (considered leftists then) opposed govt. authority. "Hippie" liberalism has since returned to the center and the left is more socialist now, but the interchangeability of "liberal" and "left" lives on as a false euphemism.
I honestly think we'd do well to reset the definitions of these terms to their intended meanings (OED). "Liberal" is even used as a slur these days, by both the political left and the political right, while the ambiguity of the term is the cause of so much confusion. Confusion — during a time when what we need perhaps most of all is clarity…
I think it’s a stretch to say that the constitution in its original form defined the United States as a liberal democracy. It left a lot of defining of political rights to the states, which, as we’ve seen, has been used to disenfranchise most of its people for the majority of our history. And even at the federal level, it leaves a lot of vagueness about how much protection an individual has from government power, especially when they are not amongst the powerful. And this is a status quo that conservatism has defended.
The reason I believe that liberal now refers to a larger project than just enshrining rule of law, equality before the law, etc., is that these ideas did largely win by the 1960s and 70s. At least in rhetoric. It was really only then that the US started to make a good attempt at being a liberal democracy. So as the liberal project evolved to meet new challenges, the term evolved. Much as conservatism had to evolve after women were granted voting rights and property rights.
Social architecture has moved forward, generally, since 1789. Thankfully. I'd say that individualism has particularly benefitted from the influence of socialism.
Liberalism became more equitable during the 20th century, when out groups demanded, and obtained, socio-economic rights which had been hoarded by the ruling class — who used both the law and financial leverage freely, to express their will to subjugate.
If we've really moved past the urgency to actualize liberalism, it might be best to identify *another* social philosophy, or define a new social philosophy, which describes the terrain of the next project — but more than anything, I feel it's important to standardize our terms around strict definitions. Our communication is too ambiguous, with too many diluent implications, too much meaninglessness, and just… too confusing otherwise. Strict language won't limit us — we can always combine terms to describe new ideas, but strict terms will remove manipulative custom definitions and jargon from our lexicon — forcing us to say what we mean.
I think we should absolutely do this.
We really need to know and understand what we're speaking and writing about in a more precise way…
----------
I actually don't think we've moved past the relevance of liberalism but, separately, I do believe we've outlasted the limits of capitalism.
It's time we picked a new paradigm to describe our social economics. This is a separate topic, but I'd feel much better about referring to our economic system as it now is, as "finaicialization". Capital has been supplanted by *confidence* — the confidence of governments, banks, and of the public — as a new value proposition. The concept of debt has evolved, for example. Predicted adherences to contractual terms are exchanged as commodities. This is not capital. Bitcoin — Bitcoin is not capitalistic: it's financial.
Value, generally speaking, is now defined by our *perception* of value.
So, "financialization". Maybe there's a better, more precise, catchier term — but I think we've got to pick something. We'll get nowhere if we insist on imprecise and obsolescent language…
"Socialism", likewise, opposes "individualism" — although it's paradoxically impossible to achieve individual freedom within a society without a collective structure. Purely liberal societies promote a scramble to hoard resources which trends toward oligarchy, and an utter disregard for the liberty of all non-oligarchs.
Individual freedom therefore requires a balance between liberalism and socialism. The Argument should be made for the advocacy of this approach as a new American orthodoxy. A new American "conservatism".
In a profoundly changed environment, where the perception of reality is far more important than "reality" itself, precision lexical and conceptual semantics are more meaningful than broad characterizations. Our language must be precise: "post-liberal" refers only to what has been abandoned; "illiberal" is descriptive and, as such, far more precise.
*Illiberal* is what the current GOP is now — during this, their "post-liberal" phase…
Anastrophic design and construction are fascinating dives into applied sociology, but far less dramatic than instant de-territorialization — that is, instant destruction. During a moment when the Michael Bay-style melodrama, written for an audience of 14 year-old boys, is the most popular narrative form, performance art politicians (and the media which follow them) are guaranteed to ignore events like Abundance, in favor of a "blood-and-soil" nationalist like Eric Schmitt. Every time.
Unless they're "low energy", that is — people who one "wouldn't bet on"…
Schmitt himself seemed aware of this importance when he dismissed the relevance of all competing ideologies in favor of a blunt, binary "us vs. them" paranoia. Paranoia is inherently "high energy", after all. A "safe bet", so to say…
Gotta say I v much lean towards hsr, especially for demographics/geography in the NE and against autonomous vehicles.
Enjoyed the NatCon anecdotes too.
I don’t think high speed rail and autonomous vehicles particularly compete - they’re in different markets, for intercity travel and local transportation respectively.
The issue with autonomous vehicles is that they could increase the demand for more car infrastructure, and when budgets are limited that means dollars not going to rail infrastructure. Additionally autonomous vehicles don't solve the issue that moving people via cars still takes up much much much more space than say, a tram or subway or bus (you could make the BUS autonomous!)
Local transit can also include trains! When I recently visited Germany I took a HSR train from the airport to mannheim, a local train from mannheim to Heidelberg, and a tram from heidelberg station to my hotel. At no point did I ever need to move on something not running on rails!
in this house we support congestion pricing!
Agreed.
I have to assume they decrease demand for parking infrastructure by more than they increase demand for road infrastructure. One assumes that in an AV-first world, car ownership--even in auto dependent areas--plummets as the cost and convenience of calling a daily Waymo beats the value proposition of owning a car that you only drive twice a day. Imagine if the demand for 90% of parking spaces just...vanished.
in theory, autonomous vehicles should reach a point where they alleviate congestion to some degree due to being more competent than human drivers. especially so if some sort of coordination capability is achieved.
a lot of traffic problems are simply due to bad drivers.
I definitely think a significant amount of autonomous vehicles in cities should operate as buses and trains! If the three busiest bus lines in every city could operate on autonomous vehicles, and keep their rush-hour peak schedule running 24/7 due to no need for drivers, that would make a huge difference!
I really enjoyed this analysis.
Sure, most reasonable people want Abundance’s goals: more cheaper housing, better infrastructure.
But making your political identity based around it seems to be missing the moment. You’re debating the merits of high speed rail versus supersonic airplanes while the other movement is debating how to achieve your political destruction.
I think the technicality is perhaps not something with mass appeal, but I also think this can be overstated in the other direction. Abundance is exciting because we're actually promising to make people better off.
Do people really want a grand narrative of heroes and villains, or do they want to be $10,000 richer? I assume most people care more about their material well-being than (((globalists))), oligarchy, or anything else.
I agree that material concerns are important. But the material isn’t everything. Like it or not, people do often vote on stories and narratives and not on straight comparison of which policies put more money in their pockets. And you can’t achieve the material without the political. Especially when there is a movement in power seeking your political destruction.
I think people will say they prefer the $10k, but in practice/in the ballot box they will take the hero vs villain narrative 10/10 times.
Great summary, but I disagree with the framing of "us" vs. "them". Abundance and liberalism is going to need a big tent, which means splintering off Republicans that are horrified by the blood-and-soil nationalism at NatCon. It will need a blanket of bipartisanship If it is seen as drawing a line in the sand with liberals - woke and centrist - on one side, then we will just be pushing away people that could be potential allies on at least some issues.
It is interesting that the loony left gets amplified by the right-wing propaganda machine - literally Libs of TikTok. But there always seems to be an apprehension of doing the reverse - liberals shining a spotlight on the abhorrent, loony, nutter ideas on the right - "don't platform them!" Sunshine is the best disinfectant and this garbage needs to be exposed so people can realize just how unpopular right-wing ideas are. I've seen many people who were casual Trump voters that were completely unaware of some of the far-right crap his side is pushing.
I don’t think you’re going to win by splintering off committed Republicans or MAGA types. As we’ve seen by steady poll numbers, the vast majority of Republicans are not in fact horrified by this blood-and-soil nationalism. To pick a specific person as an example, I don’t think you’re going to win the next election by finding a reserve population of “Bret Stephens” in the waiting.
Sure, but there are literally thousands of Trump voters that aren't committed Republicans or MAGA types. Even getting a fraction of them can swing an election.
I always find it interesting why paleocons (natcons?) are considered beyond the pale but Mercatus center types are not. Genuinely curious. Seems to me, it is true libertarians don’t hate Black or Brown ppl, they just rlly hate all poor people, regardless of race, and would like to yank away grandmas healthcare and make the lives of poor people materially worse off by taking away their social services. It is beyond a socialist-neoliberal fight, and if libertarians got their way, poors in America would just kind of perish. Obv exaggerating, but just curious.
Mercatus: "We believe the best way to improve the well being of people is to reduce overall government involvement in markets. Here is some research that supports this in targeted areas."
NatCons: "We would like to deport millions of people and grind the economy to a halt. If it could be done with performative cruelty, that would be even better. There is no goal more worthy than being able to call someone slurs on the internet."
There are some differences that may make one an acceptable dinner party guest.
I understand your point, that said, "Reducing government involvement in markets" can lead to just as much harm as what NatCon's propose. You can trace a lot of our societies current problems to government not being more active in regulating things in the market!
Examples:
The explosion in gambling where its now being integrated into literally everything.
Predatory pay day loans
Junk Universities/degree mills.
Social media with algorithms designed to drive conflict and amplify hatred of others
Companies marketing health solutions that at best do nothing but waste peoples money, at worst actively harm people.
AI without safeguards leading to people further withdrawing from society
short term video content optimized around engagement
elon musk (and friends) gathering so much wealth he/they can endlessly spend it on actively destroying our democracy and government
Absolutely, and you could probably engage in a debate with a Mercatus member on any of those topics without them once calling you a slur or suggesting the solution is an abandonment of fundamental rights. That's why we invite each other to dinner.
How bad would it be if we got rid of Obamacare subsidies, SNAP, Medicaid eligibility, child allowance, homeless services, social security for the elderly? That’s Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney for you and imo that is pretty much where Mercatus is. It is true Mercatus supports Abundance but that’s because they want to invest in ensuring abundance wins the factional battle within Dem party as opposed to the Bernie left. It’s the same as Libs supporting Nikki Haley, even if it’s not their first choice. But the actual authentic policy preferences for Mercatus would just be total devastation and emaciation for low income Americans, while the economy grows, and prob some part of it would trickle down.
And I hope that everywhere Mercatus makes those arguments to open ears, there is someone there making arguments like you do right here.
It's not our place to forbid others from making arguments, but it should our place to make sure they don't go unanswered.
And as far as I can tell, "not inviting them to dinner" just results in those arguments going unanswered.
Again my question actually was not to suggest we should banish Mercatus, it was to ask why paleocons need to be banished but not Mercatus? I’m trying to get at the distinction that parses the badness of the two groups
I think Mercatus has ideological commitments that are beyond empirical technocracy/analysis. They believe in gutting social services for poors as a matter of ideology and values.
The number of people around here who believe the answer to disagreement is to attempt to banish someone from polite society. Someone should really do a survey on that...
When Mercatus starts saying we need to further impoverish the needy, I'll disagree with them. Until then, both sides are useful allies to the other in an intellectual coalition.
My question actually was not to suggest we should banish Mercatus, it was to ask why paleocons need to be banished but not Mercatus? I’m trying to get at the distinction that parses the badness of the two groups
Do you rlly think Mercatus doesn’t support impoverishing the needy in America? Mercatus has consistently advanced policies that would, in effect, further impoverish the needy, even if framed as “reform.” Its scholars argue that government anti-poverty programs trap people in dependency, advocate block-granting or consolidating welfare in ways that typically reduce benefits, call for slowing or cutting Social Security growth for future retirees, and oppose expansive supports. Taken together, these positions amount to weakening the social safety net? Do you think I’m wrong?
Yep, one is making an argument (har har) whereas the other one is throwing fists.
The description of "conservative efforts" which "have been rooted in classically liberal principles" is… confusing.
I propose that the ideas published by The Argument would benefit from more precise definitions of terms like "conservative", "liberal", "socialist", and so on. Liberalism is not synonymous with the political left, after all — it refers to a philosophy of individual freedom which has been orthodox in the United States since there has been a United States. Likewise, conservatism is not synonymous with the political right, but refers to a desire to "conserve the status quo", so to say — that is, to keep things the way they are. To preserve orthodoxy. Thus, it's accurate to say that "liberalism is a conservative philosophy in the United States".
Clarity regarding this one distinction alone would catalyze the recognition of so many ambiguities, and apparent self-contradictions…
You’re talking about classic liberalism versus modern liberalism.
But even in the classical liberalism sense, there are elements of our government and society that do not accord with those principles. Like you say conservatism is based around maintaining the status quo. Regardless.
So even in that sense it would be inaccurate to always equate conservatism with liberalism.
Our govt. has always deviated from liberal orthodoxy. The New Deal was socialist in so many of ways, for example. The govt. has also put forward many authoritarian laws and policies, but these deviations don't redefine what is conservative, or not — or what is either progressive, or regressive, or not.
The definition of the United States, insofar as our Constitution defines the place, is of a liberal democracy. This makes liberalism the orthodox political philosophy here. Upholding liberalism in the U.S. is therefore a conservative project.
…
I'm too young to recall just when the misuse of "liberal" began as a euphemism for the political left, but I suspect it may have been during the late 1960s, while individualistic young people (considered leftists then) opposed govt. authority. "Hippie" liberalism has since returned to the center and the left is more socialist now, but the interchangeability of "liberal" and "left" lives on as a false euphemism.
I honestly think we'd do well to reset the definitions of these terms to their intended meanings (OED). "Liberal" is even used as a slur these days, by both the political left and the political right, while the ambiguity of the term is the cause of so much confusion. Confusion — during a time when what we need perhaps most of all is clarity…
I think it’s a stretch to say that the constitution in its original form defined the United States as a liberal democracy. It left a lot of defining of political rights to the states, which, as we’ve seen, has been used to disenfranchise most of its people for the majority of our history. And even at the federal level, it leaves a lot of vagueness about how much protection an individual has from government power, especially when they are not amongst the powerful. And this is a status quo that conservatism has defended.
The reason I believe that liberal now refers to a larger project than just enshrining rule of law, equality before the law, etc., is that these ideas did largely win by the 1960s and 70s. At least in rhetoric. It was really only then that the US started to make a good attempt at being a liberal democracy. So as the liberal project evolved to meet new challenges, the term evolved. Much as conservatism had to evolve after women were granted voting rights and property rights.
Social architecture has moved forward, generally, since 1789. Thankfully. I'd say that individualism has particularly benefitted from the influence of socialism.
Liberalism became more equitable during the 20th century, when out groups demanded, and obtained, socio-economic rights which had been hoarded by the ruling class — who used both the law and financial leverage freely, to express their will to subjugate.
If we've really moved past the urgency to actualize liberalism, it might be best to identify *another* social philosophy, or define a new social philosophy, which describes the terrain of the next project — but more than anything, I feel it's important to standardize our terms around strict definitions. Our communication is too ambiguous, with too many diluent implications, too much meaninglessness, and just… too confusing otherwise. Strict language won't limit us — we can always combine terms to describe new ideas, but strict terms will remove manipulative custom definitions and jargon from our lexicon — forcing us to say what we mean.
I think we should absolutely do this.
We really need to know and understand what we're speaking and writing about in a more precise way…
----------
I actually don't think we've moved past the relevance of liberalism but, separately, I do believe we've outlasted the limits of capitalism.
It's time we picked a new paradigm to describe our social economics. This is a separate topic, but I'd feel much better about referring to our economic system as it now is, as "finaicialization". Capital has been supplanted by *confidence* — the confidence of governments, banks, and of the public — as a new value proposition. The concept of debt has evolved, for example. Predicted adherences to contractual terms are exchanged as commodities. This is not capital. Bitcoin — Bitcoin is not capitalistic: it's financial.
Value, generally speaking, is now defined by our *perception* of value.
So, "financialization". Maybe there's a better, more precise, catchier term — but I think we've got to pick something. We'll get nowhere if we insist on imprecise and obsolescent language…
I bet you're fun at parties
😂😂😂
"Socialism", likewise, opposes "individualism" — although it's paradoxically impossible to achieve individual freedom within a society without a collective structure. Purely liberal societies promote a scramble to hoard resources which trends toward oligarchy, and an utter disregard for the liberty of all non-oligarchs.
Individual freedom therefore requires a balance between liberalism and socialism. The Argument should be made for the advocacy of this approach as a new American orthodoxy. A new American "conservatism".
In a profoundly changed environment, where the perception of reality is far more important than "reality" itself, precision lexical and conceptual semantics are more meaningful than broad characterizations. Our language must be precise: "post-liberal" refers only to what has been abandoned; "illiberal" is descriptive and, as such, far more precise.
*Illiberal* is what the current GOP is now — during this, their "post-liberal" phase…
"Barbarism" is another imprecise descriptive term. Who are the opponents of liberalism, after all, if not "authoritarians"?
Anastrophic design and construction are fascinating dives into applied sociology, but far less dramatic than instant de-territorialization — that is, instant destruction. During a moment when the Michael Bay-style melodrama, written for an audience of 14 year-old boys, is the most popular narrative form, performance art politicians (and the media which follow them) are guaranteed to ignore events like Abundance, in favor of a "blood-and-soil" nationalist like Eric Schmitt. Every time.
Unless they're "low energy", that is — people who one "wouldn't bet on"…
Schmitt himself seemed aware of this importance when he dismissed the relevance of all competing ideologies in favor of a blunt, binary "us vs. them" paranoia. Paranoia is inherently "high energy", after all. A "safe bet", so to say…
Also: Rachel Bovard's remark about "short-term alliances" relates a conspicuous Molotov-Ribbentrop characteristic.
Strategic betrayal seems to be doctrine along the far-right…