Really like the definitions of liberalism presented. This essay cuts straight to the most difficult aspects of living in a pluralistic society. Excited to see where this publication goes!
Liberal young person here. I think you're really fighting the good fight with this publication! I see a lot of people around me (understandably, I think) cynical about liberalism because they look around and see so much bad stuff in our history and our present. And so I'm totally on board with your mission—we need more people uncynically articulating an updated vision of liberalism, showing, among other things, that believing in liberalism isn't about maintaining the status quo and doesn't have to mean sweeping a bunch of history under the rug.
Agreed. But if you subscribe to the Substack, you can at least read the essays in email (so long as she keeps within the email length limit) and that eliminates the green-background problem.
Really glad that you're starting this project. A lot of what you've written here is how I think about liberalism and why I'm happy to think of myself as a liberal.
Hey, this is all well and good, we can all smell the great paradigm shift in the air. So what is liberalism's take on civilly "arguing," the genocide which started it all?
Your founding contributor, Mr. Yglesias, says, "Leftists don't really care about the issues they talk about, whether it's Palestine or anything else, the whole goal is to build factional power over the long term." Really? Those seem more like smears than "big L" Liberal arguments? Is that the slop this publication will push out?
Do you engage with his point at all? That Palestinian activism in the US has largely only accomplished (or help accomplish) things ( Donald Trump ) that have made the situation materially worse for the people of Gaza?
It’s easy to say “well I advocated for a good outcome for Palestinians!” But what if that advocacy actually lead to a worse outcome?
What does this even mean? Quite a few of this publication's founding contributors keep parroting this same line, so it is only natural that I have the pleasure of it getting vomited on me in the comments here.
When normal, non focus-group-brained humans read the above statement, they see it for what it is: like a child screaming at climate activists because ocean temperatures continue to rise. It makes absolutely no sense, besides bash the left (we all know these guys will embrace the right wing - just watch).
So again I ask, is that the slop my $9 /month will help push out to the people?
I have many maga family members and have not cut them off, nor particularly felt any need to. But I don't know anyone else's situation. I don't think I have the knowledge to advise or judge how other people choose to deal with their families, nor is it really any of my business.
I'd think it depends on what exactly you mean by "maga family members". Like, it seems totally reasonable to me for a queer kid to simply refuse to talk to family members who refuse to understand that they are voting for people who want to withdraw queer folks' basic civil rights. I'd encourage them to keep the conversation going in the hopes of getting through, but as Dan Savage says, really the big lever you have to change the behavior of your parents, once you grow up, is your presence. And at some point I think it's fair to decide that you don't want to tolerate being effectively treated as a second-class citizen, even if they're smiling at you the whole time they do it.
I meant more like eg: would it be a failure of duty (maybe prefer softer terms) as a lib to cut off your sister who voted trump but is generally LGBT neutral
Liberalism is an enlightenment term and a believer in “natural rights”. The country since TR has been drifting to more government programs and the need in troubled times for the government to act. Protecting at all cost transgender right is not liberal but radical. But in the abstract the term liberal is a code word.
first essay I’ve seen this year that isn’t afraid of the m dash
We must reclaim it from Chatgpt and the other LLMs.
Great essay, great vision. I'm very excited to see where this goes!
Really like the definitions of liberalism presented. This essay cuts straight to the most difficult aspects of living in a pluralistic society. Excited to see where this publication goes!
Hearing someone express this sentiment so intelligently and clearly is cathartic
Liberal young person here. I think you're really fighting the good fight with this publication! I see a lot of people around me (understandably, I think) cynical about liberalism because they look around and see so much bad stuff in our history and our present. And so I'm totally on board with your mission—we need more people uncynically articulating an updated vision of liberalism, showing, among other things, that believing in liberalism isn't about maintaining the status quo and doesn't have to mean sweeping a bunch of history under the rug.
Extremely excited for this. But PLEASE do something about the green background. It hurts my eyes.
Agreed. But if you subscribe to the Substack, you can at least read the essays in email (so long as she keeps within the email length limit) and that eliminates the green-background problem.
Really glad that you're starting this project. A lot of what you've written here is how I think about liberalism and why I'm happy to think of myself as a liberal.
Let's do this!
Appreciate you. Keep preaching pluralism, the power of immigration, the beauty of diversity, and the prosperity of globalism.
Hooray!
Extraordinary work. I am looking forward to reading more from you and your contributors.
This is terrific. We have been losing respect for (and understanding of) pluralism for a long time now. My 2 cents on this issue (in the context of climate and energy policy) here - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t7xocnwp8w96s5h65oe0s/Spence-Climate-of-Contempt-Introductory-Chapter.pdf?rlkey=24yfxs7nlnznr08f4eu67816q&st=ccdcv834&dl=0
Hey, this is all well and good, we can all smell the great paradigm shift in the air. So what is liberalism's take on civilly "arguing," the genocide which started it all?
Your founding contributor, Mr. Yglesias, says, "Leftists don't really care about the issues they talk about, whether it's Palestine or anything else, the whole goal is to build factional power over the long term." Really? Those seem more like smears than "big L" Liberal arguments? Is that the slop this publication will push out?
Do you engage with his point at all? That Palestinian activism in the US has largely only accomplished (or help accomplish) things ( Donald Trump ) that have made the situation materially worse for the people of Gaza?
It’s easy to say “well I advocated for a good outcome for Palestinians!” But what if that advocacy actually lead to a worse outcome?
What does this even mean? Quite a few of this publication's founding contributors keep parroting this same line, so it is only natural that I have the pleasure of it getting vomited on me in the comments here.
When normal, non focus-group-brained humans read the above statement, they see it for what it is: like a child screaming at climate activists because ocean temperatures continue to rise. It makes absolutely no sense, besides bash the left (we all know these guys will embrace the right wing - just watch).
So again I ask, is that the slop my $9 /month will help push out to the people?
What do you mean by "started it all"?
The current rift within the Democratic Party which necessitates creating this publication to buttress centrist arguments.
That seems like a very odd reading of why this publication was created. Notably, it doesn't seem to appear in the creators’ own description.
I am shocked! Shocked, I say! Shocked that Ms. Demsas' gorgeously written welcome essay would leave that out. How is that possible!?!
I think it's most likely the Occam's razor explanation that your wild speculation about the origin story of the publication is simply incorrect.
Ezra Klein's podcast has been modelling talking about that conflict, giving good representation to a variety of views, for the last year.
okay.
What is the "liberalism-pilled" take on people who cut off maga family members (assuming for no reason other than maga)?
I have many maga family members and have not cut them off, nor particularly felt any need to. But I don't know anyone else's situation. I don't think I have the knowledge to advise or judge how other people choose to deal with their families, nor is it really any of my business.
I'd think it depends on what exactly you mean by "maga family members". Like, it seems totally reasonable to me for a queer kid to simply refuse to talk to family members who refuse to understand that they are voting for people who want to withdraw queer folks' basic civil rights. I'd encourage them to keep the conversation going in the hopes of getting through, but as Dan Savage says, really the big lever you have to change the behavior of your parents, once you grow up, is your presence. And at some point I think it's fair to decide that you don't want to tolerate being effectively treated as a second-class citizen, even if they're smiling at you the whole time they do it.
I meant more like eg: would it be a failure of duty (maybe prefer softer terms) as a lib to cut off your sister who voted trump but is generally LGBT neutral
Do it! Vamanos! I believe in you!
Haha this isn't personal to me. Just talking hypothetically
Liberalism is an enlightenment term and a believer in “natural rights”. The country since TR has been drifting to more government programs and the need in troubled times for the government to act. Protecting at all cost transgender right is not liberal but radical. But in the abstract the term liberal is a code word.