I don't have any parenting advice, but I do have thoughts on what comes first. We shouldn't conflate what comes first with what the point of something is. When we go ziplining, the first thing we do is put on a helmet and listen to a safety lecture. Safety first! But safety isn't the point. When we were deciding what to do today, we didn't say "I really feel like doing something safe. How about ziplining?" If safety was the point, we'd have stayed home. With ziplining, a thrilling experience is the point, even though safety comes first.
With parenting, kids are the point, but parents come first.
I am a subscriber, how do I get the full version in an external podcasting app? I use PocketCasts and link in this post bring up the show feed but the first episode is only a 12 minutes preview.
Hi there! I'm very sorry the full episode isn't showing up in your feed. We're having some back-end issues but they should be resolved shortly and won't happen for future episodes. In the meantime you can listen to the full version on Substack or on YouTube!
It looks like it has resolved on Overcast, PocketCasts, and Spotify and should be showing up on Apple Podcasts shortly. Let me know if you have any issues!
Here's the story I find most compelling. First, anti-liberalism began capturing the political left globally with Marx, expanded through the communist world through violent revolution and through the non-communist world via the Frankfurt school. It then completed its long marched through the institutions with Freire, Foucault, Bell, Davis, Bourdieu, Butler, Goffman, McIntosh, etc.
Along the way, the political right reacted to these illiberalisms with illiberalisms of its own: fascism and autocracy. That story played out in the US and across the developed world.
This story is important because it helps you understand "who shot first" and why Matt spends so much time attacking the left. When you understand that right-illiberalism gets most of its energy from reacting to left-illiberalism you realize one of the quickest ways to get what you want as a left-liberal is to disarm the illiberals in your tent and make it very clear to the liberal majority that (i) you are not beholden to them, and (ii) you actually have a more plausible path to fairness and egalitarian outcomes than they do.
Jerusalem is right to point out that the NatCon movement's illiberalism isn't a reaction to left-illiberalism but is fundamentally a reaction to a certain conception of Kantian liberalism which defines a global state as the only truly just form of government. Fine — but that's not the only kind of liberalism around. You can have a strongly nationalist liberalism that doesn't believe e.g. that open borders are justified.
So what I'd like to see is Jerusalem and the other folks at the argument take two things seriously. First, I'd like to see them really go after left-illiberalism. Second, I'd like to see them really wrestle with alternative forms of liberalism that aren't vulnerable to Hazony's legitimate critiques of its tendency to devolve into imperialism.
I'm not optimistic that they will do either, but I'd still like to humbly ask for it.
For the first challenge perhaps they're not convinced that left-illiberalism is a thing. Or perhaps they don't think it's as much of a fuel for right-illiberalism as I do. Or perhaps they're actually left-illiberals themselves because they just think that "liberal" means "democrat." Most likely story is some combo of all three.
For the second challenge to defend a new form of liberalism against Hazony and against the illiberal left, I'm just not convinced they've got the horsepower. They're good journalists, but this isn't a project that works itself out in think pieces. It's something that requires book-length treatment and probably some professional background in philosophy, economics, history, etc. For folks who want a glimpse of that sort of project, I strongly recommend Joseph Heath's work.
What? Liberalism is foundational to Marx and Engels theories. Marxism doesn't reject markets, commodity exchange (Engels was very critical of protectionism!), democracy, or many of the other core tenants of liberalism. Worker ownership of the means of production isn't "illiberal". You could certainly attempt to achieve it via illiberal means, but you could say the same about literally any political goal.
The idea autocracy was a response to it also makes no sense. The Czar's in Russia held autocratic power for centuries before the Russian revolution happened! France's absolute monarchy was overthrown by a liberal revolution of the middle class.
Above all, the churches of Europe were actively hostile to the very enlightenment that gave birth to liberalism itself. How can right illiberalism post-date left illiberalism when the creation of liberalism itself WAS opposed by conservative traditionalist institutions in Europe? I don't think the catholic church was excommunicating and torturing people for leftwing reasons in the 15th-16th centuries.
My claim isn’t that all autocracy is illiberal — I agree that would be patently false because of any autocracy that preceded liberalism. My claim is just that illiberal autocracy tends to be reactionary to what it takes to be the excesses of left-illiberalism. I agree that illiberal politics onviously preceded Marx. The more interesting question is about the roots of contemporary left-illiberalism.
On Marx, I just think you’re wrong. The thing Marx rejects that makes his project illiberal is the idea that ideological disagreement is ultimately reducible to reasons rather than power relations. You can believe in democracy, markets, and all that and still not be liberal in this key sense.
Marx is illiberal because his project explicitly rejects the core liberal commitment to approach political conflict through persuasion and tolerance flowing from the recognition of one another as political equals. If your adversaries are just in the grip of ideology that fundamentally masks their “false consciousness” and rational persuasion can’t move them to embrace the revolutionary cause, then it becomes much, much easier to justify violence against them.
It is in no way a “hot take” to say Marx was illiberal — that’s just the default view, even among academic marxists. They cling to Marxism because they think it’s the best way to achieve economically egalitarian ends, but are obviously also wrong about that too. Ask your local LLM to explain historical materialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat — this reductionism about political justification is fundamentally incompatible with liberalism, and you cannot understand Marx without understanding that.
I think I should be more precise in my language. Marx and Engels (I'm not sure why you are ignoring him here?) theories are not liberal in the traditional sense, because they are built on top of liberalism. There is a difference between "Liberalism is correct about the fundamental value of human existence and individual worth, but does not sufficiently explain history and relations between classes" and the right wing rejection of the very basis of liberal values of the enlightenment and fundamental inherent rights of all human beings.
Re: Recognition of each other as political equals being a core requirement. This doesn't make any sense to me. Liberal (in the traditional sense) governments when M+E were alive did not extend voting rights, and thus political power to all citizens. I would not use this to say those governments weren't liberal, but they absolutely did not believe that all subjects of the state (citizens) were political equals.
If you mean that M+E recognize that capital owners hold more political power than workers...that just seems like an observation that was quite true at the time and likely still true today (if in different ways). If you mean that applying the lens of class conflict (as you mention historical materialism) implies no persuasion that makes a bit more sense, yet still does not explain why M+E go through such lengths in their writing to discuss how this conflict of material interests results in tragic, unnecessary violence. The entire conceit behind wanting to equalize power between classes (or class abolition if you want to sound more radical) is to allow rational discussion to happen free from being tied down by owner/subject relations.
"Dictatorship of the proletariat" as written in context is about the equalization of power. It sure does sound scary when your throwing around words like dictator, much less so when all it amounts to is "This small capital owning class owns the means of production, this larger non-capital owning class should hold the means of production in common for the betterment of society"
It's fine to disagree with everything M+E believed and wrote! Hell Iv spent a good chunk of my short life reading their works and I don't agree with them on many things. That said, what they theorized is fundamentally built on liberal foundations. There is a difference between leftwing approach to liberalism of "Necessary but insufficient" and the rightwing approach of contesting the very idea of the equality of human existence.
I think Derek especially and others on the panel in discussing the issue of the “they/them vs. you” portion of the discussion basically dismissed or disregarded the real substantive disagreements the majority of Americans (see recent NYT polling) have with real key aspects with pro-trans arguments and positions.
I think if nice liberal people are still unable to acknowledge real disagreement around the issue we aren’t going to get really far.
Imho.
Although the larger point of how salient the issue is to cost of living etc, is more important and a better point overall.
Maybe the way to reframe the anti-monopoly view is to emphasize that NIMBYism, not the homebuilding industry, is the pernicious, anti-democratic concentration of power.
I'm 100% here for The Argument aka The Weeds the reunion tour. Yeah I'm retconning DK into the Weeds because he fits nicely.
This is what I signed up for.
edit: listened. It did not disappoint.
This was so good! Love all of Matt’s answers particularly
I don't have any parenting advice, but I do have thoughts on what comes first. We shouldn't conflate what comes first with what the point of something is. When we go ziplining, the first thing we do is put on a helmet and listen to a safety lecture. Safety first! But safety isn't the point. When we were deciding what to do today, we didn't say "I really feel like doing something safe. How about ziplining?" If safety was the point, we'd have stayed home. With ziplining, a thrilling experience is the point, even though safety comes first.
With parenting, kids are the point, but parents come first.
I love this crew. Thank you all so much!
Loved this. PS: Ezra Klein is practicing politics the right way.
I am a subscriber, how do I get the full version in an external podcasting app? I use PocketCasts and link in this post bring up the show feed but the first episode is only a 12 minutes preview.
Hi there! I'm very sorry the full episode isn't showing up in your feed. We're having some back-end issues but they should be resolved shortly and won't happen for future episodes. In the meantime you can listen to the full version on Substack or on YouTube!
It looks like it has resolved on Overcast, PocketCasts, and Spotify and should be showing up on Apple Podcasts shortly. Let me know if you have any issues!
Hasn't updated on Pocketcasts yet, but will keep checking.
Try this link? https://pocketcasts.com/podcast/the-argument/50efd340-7c87-013e-dd78-02e76e4f8b0f/ezra-klein-matt-yglesias-and-derek-thompson-what-happened-to-liberalism-and-who-shot-first/18b73aeb-f4e0-4ec4-a129-f7efcbc57fc1
I was able to get it sorted. I just had to get the RSS link from the desktop version of the post. I couldn't do it from the app. Thanks!
Hi there. The overcast link isn't working for me. Opens the app and says the feed URL doesn't work.
Hi there! I missed your comment but wanted to check -- is it working for you now?
If you have an Android:
1. Open this page on a browser in your phone.
2. Make sure you're logged in.
3. Click "Listen via."
4. Choose RSS Feed.
5. "Share" the page that opens with your podcast app of choice (this worked for me with Beyondpod).
On desktop, there should be a sidebar on this post that says "Listen on", and below that there's a button that says "Email mobile setup link."
Yup, this did it. I was making the mistake of trying to do this through the mobile app since that's where I got the notification for this post.
What happened to liberalism?
Here's the story I find most compelling. First, anti-liberalism began capturing the political left globally with Marx, expanded through the communist world through violent revolution and through the non-communist world via the Frankfurt school. It then completed its long marched through the institutions with Freire, Foucault, Bell, Davis, Bourdieu, Butler, Goffman, McIntosh, etc.
Along the way, the political right reacted to these illiberalisms with illiberalisms of its own: fascism and autocracy. That story played out in the US and across the developed world.
This story is important because it helps you understand "who shot first" and why Matt spends so much time attacking the left. When you understand that right-illiberalism gets most of its energy from reacting to left-illiberalism you realize one of the quickest ways to get what you want as a left-liberal is to disarm the illiberals in your tent and make it very clear to the liberal majority that (i) you are not beholden to them, and (ii) you actually have a more plausible path to fairness and egalitarian outcomes than they do.
Jerusalem is right to point out that the NatCon movement's illiberalism isn't a reaction to left-illiberalism but is fundamentally a reaction to a certain conception of Kantian liberalism which defines a global state as the only truly just form of government. Fine — but that's not the only kind of liberalism around. You can have a strongly nationalist liberalism that doesn't believe e.g. that open borders are justified.
So what I'd like to see is Jerusalem and the other folks at the argument take two things seriously. First, I'd like to see them really go after left-illiberalism. Second, I'd like to see them really wrestle with alternative forms of liberalism that aren't vulnerable to Hazony's legitimate critiques of its tendency to devolve into imperialism.
I'm not optimistic that they will do either, but I'd still like to humbly ask for it.
For the first challenge perhaps they're not convinced that left-illiberalism is a thing. Or perhaps they don't think it's as much of a fuel for right-illiberalism as I do. Or perhaps they're actually left-illiberals themselves because they just think that "liberal" means "democrat." Most likely story is some combo of all three.
For the second challenge to defend a new form of liberalism against Hazony and against the illiberal left, I'm just not convinced they've got the horsepower. They're good journalists, but this isn't a project that works itself out in think pieces. It's something that requires book-length treatment and probably some professional background in philosophy, economics, history, etc. For folks who want a glimpse of that sort of project, I strongly recommend Joseph Heath's work.
What? Liberalism is foundational to Marx and Engels theories. Marxism doesn't reject markets, commodity exchange (Engels was very critical of protectionism!), democracy, or many of the other core tenants of liberalism. Worker ownership of the means of production isn't "illiberal". You could certainly attempt to achieve it via illiberal means, but you could say the same about literally any political goal.
The idea autocracy was a response to it also makes no sense. The Czar's in Russia held autocratic power for centuries before the Russian revolution happened! France's absolute monarchy was overthrown by a liberal revolution of the middle class.
Above all, the churches of Europe were actively hostile to the very enlightenment that gave birth to liberalism itself. How can right illiberalism post-date left illiberalism when the creation of liberalism itself WAS opposed by conservative traditionalist institutions in Europe? I don't think the catholic church was excommunicating and torturing people for leftwing reasons in the 15th-16th centuries.
Hey thanks for the reply Alex—
My claim isn’t that all autocracy is illiberal — I agree that would be patently false because of any autocracy that preceded liberalism. My claim is just that illiberal autocracy tends to be reactionary to what it takes to be the excesses of left-illiberalism. I agree that illiberal politics onviously preceded Marx. The more interesting question is about the roots of contemporary left-illiberalism.
On Marx, I just think you’re wrong. The thing Marx rejects that makes his project illiberal is the idea that ideological disagreement is ultimately reducible to reasons rather than power relations. You can believe in democracy, markets, and all that and still not be liberal in this key sense.
Marx is illiberal because his project explicitly rejects the core liberal commitment to approach political conflict through persuasion and tolerance flowing from the recognition of one another as political equals. If your adversaries are just in the grip of ideology that fundamentally masks their “false consciousness” and rational persuasion can’t move them to embrace the revolutionary cause, then it becomes much, much easier to justify violence against them.
It is in no way a “hot take” to say Marx was illiberal — that’s just the default view, even among academic marxists. They cling to Marxism because they think it’s the best way to achieve economically egalitarian ends, but are obviously also wrong about that too. Ask your local LLM to explain historical materialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat — this reductionism about political justification is fundamentally incompatible with liberalism, and you cannot understand Marx without understanding that.
Appreciate the civil response blake.
I think I should be more precise in my language. Marx and Engels (I'm not sure why you are ignoring him here?) theories are not liberal in the traditional sense, because they are built on top of liberalism. There is a difference between "Liberalism is correct about the fundamental value of human existence and individual worth, but does not sufficiently explain history and relations between classes" and the right wing rejection of the very basis of liberal values of the enlightenment and fundamental inherent rights of all human beings.
Re: Recognition of each other as political equals being a core requirement. This doesn't make any sense to me. Liberal (in the traditional sense) governments when M+E were alive did not extend voting rights, and thus political power to all citizens. I would not use this to say those governments weren't liberal, but they absolutely did not believe that all subjects of the state (citizens) were political equals.
If you mean that M+E recognize that capital owners hold more political power than workers...that just seems like an observation that was quite true at the time and likely still true today (if in different ways). If you mean that applying the lens of class conflict (as you mention historical materialism) implies no persuasion that makes a bit more sense, yet still does not explain why M+E go through such lengths in their writing to discuss how this conflict of material interests results in tragic, unnecessary violence. The entire conceit behind wanting to equalize power between classes (or class abolition if you want to sound more radical) is to allow rational discussion to happen free from being tied down by owner/subject relations.
"Dictatorship of the proletariat" as written in context is about the equalization of power. It sure does sound scary when your throwing around words like dictator, much less so when all it amounts to is "This small capital owning class owns the means of production, this larger non-capital owning class should hold the means of production in common for the betterment of society"
It's fine to disagree with everything M+E believed and wrote! Hell Iv spent a good chunk of my short life reading their works and I don't agree with them on many things. That said, what they theorized is fundamentally built on liberal foundations. There is a difference between leftwing approach to liberalism of "Necessary but insufficient" and the rightwing approach of contesting the very idea of the equality of human existence.
I think Derek especially and others on the panel in discussing the issue of the “they/them vs. you” portion of the discussion basically dismissed or disregarded the real substantive disagreements the majority of Americans (see recent NYT polling) have with real key aspects with pro-trans arguments and positions.
I think if nice liberal people are still unable to acknowledge real disagreement around the issue we aren’t going to get really far.
Imho.
Although the larger point of how salient the issue is to cost of living etc, is more important and a better point overall.
Maybe the way to reframe the anti-monopoly view is to emphasize that NIMBYism, not the homebuilding industry, is the pernicious, anti-democratic concentration of power.
will a transcript be published?
I would also love a transcript