Palantir was founded in 2003. It has 4,000 employees and $3B of revenues using technology to make the military more effective. It is valued at more than $300B, the 30th most valuable company in the world! Yes, 100X revenues (not 8X or 25X) and $75M per employee (not $3M-10M). The founder, Alexander Karp, has written a book about what’s wrong with the US and what to do about it, in his spare time. The book jacket says he earned his doctorate in “social theory” from Goethe University in Frankfurt.
The 218-page book is rambling, with an extra 66 note pages. The bottom line is that everyone should be like the author, a hard charging owner engineer, focused on technical results AND deeply interested in the social, political and economic success of the nation. Hence, it crosses political boundaries!!!! A majority of the book castigates “the left”. About a quarter criticizes the shallow market right. However, the author raises great questions about what is required for success by the US that should not be discounted by either side of the political spectrum, IMO.
On specific policy questions, the author wants freedom for his firm to grow and succeed. Define some guardrails for AI. Don’t worry about personal freedom versus facial recognition. Invest in science. Prioritize science and technology. Honor leaders and leadership. Support the founder and ownership culture. Value science above finance and consulting. Adopt hard power, hawkish, deterrence foreign policies. Prioritize economic growth. Embrace best business practices. Validate rational trade-offs.
Skeptical, opposing any beliefs, deconstructing all.
Opposing any national, community or political identity!
Uninterested in defining “the good life”.
Opposing the use of technology in support of the goals of the state or society.
Opposing the legitimization of the state via economic growth.
Uninterested in using the capabilities of technology for key industries.
Promoting neutral, rudderless values in the nation’s elites.
Prioritizing “woke” AI controls.
Restricting free speech.
Complacent about international threats.
Seduced by the lure of global peace, values and organizations.
Overly idealistic, unable to consider pragmatic trade-offs.
Unwilling to hold allies accountable.
Enamored with the role of trade alone in preventing national disputes.
Lost in the controlling ideology of “the oppressor vs. oppressed”.
Bereft of core values.
Vindictive, punishing opponents.
Unwisely emphasizing the pure moral character and actions of public office holders.
Ignorant of the role of culture in managing society.
Prioritizing individual rights at the expense of community.
Anti-Western culture and civilization.
Anti-community, of any kind.
Anti-shared, objective values or morality, especially by society’s elites.
Universalist, idealist, cosmopolitan opposed to practical and local values.
Anti-religious.
Unworried that the “separation of church and state” undermines belief.
Promoting tolerance and pluralism in order to undermine any objective truth.
Highlighting legal compliance and individual rights at the expense of “the good” and true justice.
Defining a realm of acceptable “liberal” values and prohibiting other values.
Opposing any benefits from historical civilizations.
Mostly interested in reviewing the oppressive roles of colonial empires.
Uninterested in objective physical or moral truths.
Uninterested in problem solving.
Certain of its moral superiority versus political and class opponents.
Opposed to conventional, objective, scientific knowledge.
OK with a “thin” moral world of market efficiency and legal freedoms.
Mostly interested in “performative discourse” instead of critical thinking.
Committed to a martyr’s idealism in political performance.
Opposed to recognizing the key role of great leaders.
Uninterested in the moral dimension of life.
Actively opposed to the moral and practical advances of Western Civilization.
Ambivalent regarding any objective notion of objective truth or beauty.
Opposed to the “great man” concept of history, replacing it with social pressures alone.
Committed to the self-evident progress of man through science, alone.
The extreme claims are mostly self-refuted by any neutral reader. Karp inappropriately commingles postmodernism, classical liberalism, liberal institutions, interest groups, the Democratic Party and its supporters. It is unclear whether he is an advocate employing the strawman technique or really doesn’t understand the differences between the many groups in the leftist coalition. He generally defines the most extreme, exaggerated, indefensible examples for criticism. He ignores the differences between philosophers and real people. He does quite a bit of name calling. He portrays his opponents as simpletons, unaware of tradeoffs. He generalizes leftists as pure feeling, intuitive beings rather than mixed constructive thinkers. He fails to recognize any of Jonathan Haidt’s morality flavors as being essentially important to left and right.
The Right is Not Blameless
The market pays finance/consulting folks more than engineers.
In the end, idealism is more important than pragmatism!
The neoliberal philosophy that elevates the market above religion is clearly wrong.
The pure market, pragmatic philosophy undermines any ultimate ends.
The commercial world is uninterested in “the good life”.
Criticism of “the state” undermines its valid role and what technology can do.
The state must be perceived as legitimate. An extreme distribution of wealth and income must be addressed in the political process.
A meritocratic, secular world alone cannot generate consensus values.
Growing international trade alone is not enough to avoid conflicts.
A commercial society does not require its managerial elites to engage in the political process.
The “productization” of life, the rise of instrumental logic, places humanity at risk and threatens any sense of cultural community or values.
The default hierarchical structure of large bureaucratic organizations is inherently less efficient and effective in the long run.
The most valuable, effective employees require freedom from rules and obedience.
Key government roles are valuable and should be compensated accordingly.
Inclusivity is required for firm effectiveness.
Firms are artificial entities. Like citizens, they should be obligated to support the nation.
Real Problems/Challenges/Opportunities
As a nation, we don’t have generally agreed upon priorities, values, and ideals.
Since we don’t have priorities, we don’t effectively apply our rich resources as a nation.
We don’t have a consensus that other values trump market values.
We don’t appreciate the critical role of the nation. We have lost our patriotism.
We don’t have a dream, story, history, myth, image of a great nation. Without some constructive narrative we won’t have a civilization.
Lacking a national identity, we are rootless, anxious, listless, worried, adrift.
Nationalism is replaced by globalism or secularism as an organizing structure.
In post-Vietnam, Watergate, 1960’s world, skepticism is the default world view, undercutting the development, acquisition, promotion or application of any serious moral, social, cultural, religious or political belief.
Skepticism is a self-reinforcing worldview. The lack of “belief” undermines interpersonal trust, institutions, community, politics and patriotism.
Skepticism undermines belief in objective moral, physical and aesthetic truths. A relativist, subjective philosophy elevates tolerance, social distance, safety, and conflict avoidance as leading social values.
The neo-liberal market philosophy has resulted in economic efficiency, market values and instrumental logic quietly dominating moral, social, cultural, religious and political views for many. Results matter but can be overdone.
Criticism of government roles and performance has undermined the core expectation and demand that government deliver results, respond to citizens and operate effectively and efficiently. Government and science are not enemies. Government and industry are not enemies.
We observe the positive results that can be delivered by entrepreneurial, founder, owner, responsible organizations but have not found solid ways to ensure that this approach impacts all industries, especially the government sector. Results matter but can be overdone.
The neoliberal “free market” political philosophy of Milton Friedman justifies corporations to ignore the nation or community as a valid stakeholder. It encourages corporations to treat all decisions as opportunities to maximize economic returns, undermining other valid political, social and moral responsibilities. Results matter but can be overdone.
Effective organizations relentlessly focus on final results, structuring their plans, systems, and resources with reinforcing feedback loops and expectations. Less effective organizations and industries waste resources. Global or local market competition, anti-trust regulation, tax structures, industrial policy, education, effectiveness audits, best practices sharing, outsourcing, benchmarking, etc. can be used to improve. Results matter but can be overdone.
All industries contribute to a healthy economy and society. None should be allowed to be ineffective.
Lacking a national culture, mass media, effective political parties, or shared religious views, the socialization of students and young adults is critical. Education matters. In a meritocracy, the role of suburban high schools and leading universities is essential.
Solid and exceptional talents and leadership matter to organizations and nations. Our political systems mostly fail to use these capabilities. We apply idealistic “oughts” to our political processes rather than reasonable incentives for participation and results.
We apply unrealistic ideals to political candidates instead of evaluating their effectiveness. This attracts “talking heads” and repels effective candidates. We should judge politicians as we judge other professionals, managers and leaders. Politics and governing are messy businesses, like sales, purchasing, negotiations, mergers and acquisitions in business. We need to set proper expectations and ignore how the sausage is made.
Cultural and social expectations matter. They should not be set by politicians. Historically, social, economic, intellectual and leadership elites informally shaped, refined and enforced these commonly held views. In our radically individualistic culture, we have not found an effective replacement for the old approaches.
In national and international politics, we need to evaluate both hard and soft power approaches. We need to consider ideals and pragmatic factors. Trade-offs are often required.
Leadership matters. In a complex world, firm and political leaders require great skills to be effective.
Karp’s Solutions
A stronger central government to make better choices.
Industrial policies and government funding.
Overhaul political incentive systems to get better candidates.
Revise laws to align corporations with national priorities.
Provide incentives to better use the founder/ownership model for firms.
Fund scientific research.
Defeat the “far left” views and policies of “progressive”, new left, postmodernist Democrats.
Elevate the nation as the primary social/community vehicle for society.
Promote the Teddy Roosevelt “man in the arena” view of society, politics, institutions and leadership.
Promote the Teddy Roosevelt “speak softly and carry a big stick” view of international relations. Increase hard power, especially for technological areas.
Use the resources of science, technology, IT and business to improve society.
Summary
Karp argues that “the technological republic” can address the problems he has identified. His primary solutions are technocratic ones. I think that the “neutral” problems he has identified are important. I don’t think his “solutions” really fix them. The solutions are mainly focused on using firms and talents like his in supporting the government’s military capabilities.
Greater nationalism is one approach to the core problems, but strong nationalism has a mixed history and may not be a widely supported solution in the modern or postmodern world. Individualism is too strong. Religious and political views are diverse. Racial, ethnic, regional and class groups are diverse.
Trump focuses only on win/lose. If the US earns $1 trillion from trade and the rest of the world (ROW) earns $1.2 trillion, he sees this as a $200 billion loss. The ROW is winning, taking advantage of the USA and its unenlightened deal makers. If the US earns $500 billion from trade and the ROW earns only $400 billion then we are winning by $100 billion. Trump sees the second scenario as far superior to the first. Relative winnings (win/lose) are the bottom line rather than actual winnings (win/win). This is a fundamental flaw.
The Wrong Measure
Trump only sees costs; he doesn’t consider benefits. Net benefits, benefits minus costs is the right measure.
The Wrong Timeframe
Trump only looks at the short-run. He ignores the long-run. He believes that he can always renegotiate any situation.
International Relations is Complicated
Trump only sees dollar signs. The trade balance can be measured. It is positive or negative. The cost of defense can be measured. Either we pay or others pay. We trade goods and services. Defense/security benefits matter. We care about immigration, crime, taxes, personal security, climate, health, economic development, investments, rule of law, intellectual property, labor, the environment, etc. Other countries care about all of these dimensions. We must too.
International Relations is Irrational
Citizens have an irrational commitment to their nations. They are willing to die for them. Nations have sovereignty. Each has certain minimal rights. Politicians respond to these irrational beliefs. Ignoring this reality is irrational, even though it is very frustrating.
Alliances are Cheaper than Empires
The US learned from European, Japanese and American experiences. Empires are very costly to establish and maintain. Nations can be enticed into becoming reliable allies at a fraction of the cost. They are rationally willing to evaluate costs and benefits, risks and rewards, short-term and long-term, labor and capital, sovereignty and influence, security and opportunity. Trump is right to negotiate, but wrong to discount this basic approach.
Global Agencies are Cheaper than Individual Deals
The US has greatly benefited from the post-1945 system of global governance, finance, economic development, health and trade. Global deals designed by the global leaders provide a framework for low-cost transactions. Trump believes that the strongest nations can extract even more net value through individual deals. Too many countries. Too much complexity to negotiate all of these topics effectively.
Single Deal or Repeated Deals?
Trump comes from the real estate world where each deal is “one off”. International relations and trade are repeated deals. The optimal strategy is different when the “tit for tat” strategy can be used. Firms and nations will punish any bully, even at a significant cost to themselves. The strongest players must consider the weaker players’ strategies. When firms or nations find that they cannot trust someone the total costs go up significantly.
Playing Chicken
There are many strategies in the game of chicken. The strongest player does not automatically win. Bluffing matters. Posturing matters. Resources matter. The ability to endure losses and pain matter. Allies matter. Insurance matters. Flexible resources matter. Capacity matters. Creativity matters. Credibility matters. Non-negotiable factors matter. Trump seems to confuse simple economic might with certain winning.
Comparative Advantage
Trump does not understand David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage from 200 years ago. You can be better than someone else in everything, at least in theory. You cannot have a comparative advantage in every production process. Between any two individuals, firms, states or nations, there will be differences in relative productivity. This is the basis for trade and specialization. The U.S. cannot be better in every industry. We can be relatively better in many industries, but not in all. As our incomes and standard of living increase, we will be relatively less competitive in those activities that can use lower cost labor. This is an unavoidable fact. We can choose to subsidize low skilled manufacturing employment, but we are fighting against very strong market forces.
Dealmaking Strategy
Trump focuses on simple short-term one-time win/lose. The best negotiators know that the greatest value comes from “growing the pie” in the long-run (win/win). They don’t assume a fixed-sum game. They cooperate to grow the pie, perhaps at the expense of suppliers, competitors, labor, investors or customers. They exploit comparative advantages to lower overall costs, lower risks and increase benefits. They share or signal their relative priorities. They fulfill their commitments. They create incentives for sustained cooperation. They cooperate to build market power. They manage customer expectations. They under promise and over deliver. They manage the government. They build shared cultural expectations and priorities. They build personal relationships. They manage large risks. They manage and coordinate supply chains. Modern business is complex. The real winners understand and deal accordingly.
Summary
Trump’s dealmaking approach fails on every critical dimension. It is a losing approach for almost all firms and for all countries. His supporters need to understand that he cannot win with his approach and force him to change. His opponents need to highlight these failures. The United States has too much at risk from Trump’s losing strategies.
Not a pretty picture. Trump is all about spin and sophistry. Plato, Huxley, Orwell and Eisenhower warned us. We have failed to invest in the education, regulation and leadership required for our complex civilization. Let’s get going.
Some of the commentary is merely “sour grapes” after losing the election. For some articles, you can “consider the source” and disregard them. However, it is very clear, IMHO that President Trump, this time, is going to fulfill his election promises, including implementing the whole Project 2025 agenda, retribution on his “enemies”, and a complete disregard for legal and political “checks and balances”. He views the election as a mandate and believes he has the right to implement all of his policies as if he won victory in a “winner takes all” parliamentary system. President Trump does not support our historical system of government that greatly limits the impact of any one actor, even one who earned just 49.8% of the votes and just 31.6% of eligible voters. Non-voters won the race with a 36.6% share. Vice president Harris came in third with 30.7%.
Military generals, career civil service, FBI, DOJ, inspector generals, independent agencies. These agencies have a distinguished track record of fighting for their independent roles. The first month indicates that Trump understands they are a formidable opponent to be undermined.
Federal Judiciary
Lawyers belong to a proud and left-leaning profession. Federal judges belong to a two-century legacy of judicial independence. Most “conservative” judges use the originalist theory to limit the application of laws that restrict the free market or traditional cultural actions. Many of President Trump’s initiatives fall outside of these two areas. Federal judges may use their powers to retain the commonsense version of existing laws and reinforce the principle of maintaining precedents.
Brett Cavanaugh is less conservative than he is perceived to be. Supreme Court justices treasure their independence. Chief Justice John Roberts is relatively neutral and strongly supports the independence of the court and his legacy.
There are two dozen congressional seats held by Republicans in districts where they have a real chance of facing a competitive Democratic opponent. These individuals face strong pressures from Trump, national, state and local Republicans to fully support the president on all matters. They can have their funding cut off, lose congressional assignments and lose party staff support, but they don’t have to worry much about being “primaried” from the right.
Senate
Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski and Maine senator Susan Collins voted to impeach Trump. The other 4 Republican senators who did so are no longer in the Senate (Romney, Sasse, Burr and Toomey). Pennsylvania senator Dave McCormack and Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson join Collins as representing states with mixed party senators. In addition to Murkowski, 5 senators have a history of bipartisan activities: John Cornyn (TX), Jerry Moran (KS), Todd Young (IN), (the ageless) Chuck Grassley (IA), and Shelley Capito (WV). That makes 10 Republican senators who are more likely to consider the good of the country than their own or their party’s if “push comes to shove” on preserving our democracy. Mitch McConnell would never undermine the power of the Republican Party that he built over 4 decades, but he will not tolerate foolishness from President Trump. The U.S. Senate also has a long tradition of independence from the other branches of government. Each senator sees themselves as a base of power, representing their state, their party and the nation. Senators face political pressure to conform to their party and their party’s President, but they face elections only every 6 years and have a long history of personal support in their states.
Sometimes a speech, a question, an op-ed, a campaign slogan, a court brief, a story, an analogy can change the frame of reference for public opinion. When Joe McCarthy was asked “Have you no sense of decency?” he was finished.
Canada, Mexico and the EU are not going to accept Trump’s unilateral threats. They will respond strategically, irrationally, emotionally, patriotically, politically, even at a net economic cost to their people in order to protect their sovereignty. This will provide political pressure on Trump from his domestic supporters.
Big Business
American business has done very well for the last 75 years with free trade, globalization, international institutions and American dominance through alliances. Trump’s promise of lower taxes and regulation and threats of intervention for non-supporters will lead many to accept his approach, but some corporations and industries will be devastated by his trade wars. These corporations and others may see that the threat to the whole system is too large to ignore.
Governors
5 of 27 Republican governors have strong reasons to oppose any overreach by President Trump. Brian Kemp (GA), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Mike DeWine (OH), Phil Scott (VT) and Glenn Youngkin (VA). 7 of the 23 Democratic governors have national aspirations and will use their powers to aggressively thwart anti-democratic measures. Gavin Newsom (CA), Jared Polis (CO), Andy Beshear (KY), Wes Moore (MD), Gretchen Whitmer (MI), Kathy Hochul (NY), and Josh Shapiro (PA).
Trump was good for business in his first term. He will be great for business in his second term. Journalists and media firms have lost their interest in providing “balanced” coverage and stretching to find a way to interpret Trump policies, actions and statements within traditional frameworks. They are more willing to directly and repeatedly say that he is lying, that his actions break the law and norms, that his actions are inconsistent with American history. They more quickly fact check and place his actions within the context of US and global history. They challenge his wording and stories. They attempt to prioritize the news of the day and not become distracted by all of his noise.
Churches
Evangelical Christians have supported President Trump because he has delivered on his promise to appoint judges who oppose abortion and support socially conservative positions. They have rationalized that his imperfect personal character is a case of God using him for good purposes. Younger and idealistic people are leaving these churches because of this strange alliance. Some leaders now speak out against Trump. Trump has “punted” on national abortion policies, arguing that they should be resolved in each state. Actions which threaten historical American norms on politics may be “the straw which breaks the camel’s back”. Liberal churches have chosen to stay out of national politics for many decades. Trump’s cold-hearted approach to issues may lead them to oppose him from the pulpit. Protestant churches generally agree to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, but the generally unchallenged German Nazi situation remains as a stain on their conscience. Churches are much less influential than they once were, but certain transgressions may spring them into action.
Although we are polarized politically, there is a large middle one-third of Americans that consider themselves “independent”. They may lean left or right, but they pride themselves on being pragmatic and not buying into the unfounded claims of politicians on either side. The American people, even most diehard Republicans, will not accept actions that undermine our government or society. Trump is expendable. There is a Republican vice president who can take his place, as necessary.
Summary
President Trump’s first 2 weeks indicate that he will test the limits of our democracy. He strongly believes that his personal views are right, and that the country has provided him with a mandate to implement them quickly and permanently. Our political system provides the president with well-defined limited powers. He will “cross the line”. There are a dozen institutions that can and will push back.
I believe that our society has adopted a radically individualist perspective without being aware that “it” has made these choices and transmitted its choices though our culture. Historically, conservatives have been the main promoters of the “community” complement to individualism, but I don’t see any possibility for our current conservative party to effectively fulfill this role in its populist, nationalist, xenophobic, capitalist, commercialist, elitist, authoritarian, transactional state. Liberals have not been exceptionally strong promoters of “community” or community organizations other than the central state historically, but I will argue that 6 core liberal objectives require strong communities and community organizations for success. I have broached this subject in 3 other recent articles.
Strong economic agents often have the ability to misuse their economic resources in all dimensions. They can shape political, governmental, judicial and administrative choices. They can use their power to obtain greater than market returns/rates from labor, suppliers, competitors, lenders, investors, partners, universities, not for profits, professional, managerial and executive staff, nations, non-governmental organizations, immigrants, children, minorities, women, disabled and other low power groups. Strong players can treat other agents purely as means and ignore their humanity. Strong players can shape products, product markets, delivery channels, advertising, marketing and communications to take advantage of human weaknesses in making economic decisions. Radical liberals argue that these abuses are inherent and extreme. Most liberals point to the evidence of historical abuses to support their concerns about concentrated power and advocate for controls, laws, checks and balances, counterweights, information, regulation, expectations, legal opportunities, etc.
Community plays a major role in politics through political parties, unions, community organizations, interest groups, industry associations, professional organizations, government employee organizations, journalist associations, media associations, universities, teachers’ organizations, PTO’s, legal associations, social services organizations, community foundations, churches, civic organizations, social organizations, veterans’ organizations, etc. Individuals who have experience as members, volunteers, funders, leaders and beneficiaries of organizations are likelier to participate in other organizations and believe that organizations make a difference in the political process at all levels.
Community organizations and select industries also play a crucial role in shaping the implicit political, economic, social and moral beliefs of our society. Capitalism, free markets, democracy, liberty, progress, America, opportunity, God, federalism, government, regulation, rule of law, entrepreneurship, free trade, unions, populism, presidential power; the list of concepts and their proper roles is long. Education, university education, churches and religion, mainstream media, other media, entertainment industry, arts, music, professions, industries, youth and college organizations, political communications, etc. The list of influencers is long. Groups, organizations and community matter.
Most importantly, community experience shapes our beliefs regarding the relationship between the individual and the community. We currently emphasize the economic, social, personal development and political rights of individuals. We de-emphasize the rights of communities and organizations and the responsibilities of individuals who “belong” to these organizations. We emphasize individual choice, tolerance, rights and “limited liability” commitments.
The modern right has embraced the “pure” capitalist system as the primary defender of all individual rights, liberties and freedoms. Natural “laissez faire”. Social Darwinism. Anti-communism. Anti-totalitarianism. Anti-government. Anti-regulation. Anti-centralization. Entrepreneurship. Road to Serfdom. Job creators. Greed is good. Wealth is good. Lives of the rich and famous. Horatio Alger. These stories, ideologies, politics, myths, principles, policies, science, and beliefs are centrally important to individuals adopting a view of the role, risks and control of economic power.
Liberals tend to point towards the universal, abstract dimension. The nation. Global humanity. The rational view points towards the highest level as the most effective way to outline or solve problems. The national community is suspect because of fascist risks. Perhaps a proper national community could be used to support liberal views. Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy embraced the nation. The global community may be useful for religious or abstract politics, but it is seen as highly important by only a very small slice of our citizens.
Communities of interest are more important. These organizations shape both political activity and the underlying views of the people.
(2) Abuse of Political or Cultural Power
“Liberals” have mostly discounted the risks of state power, even after the many examples of totalitarian atrocities on the left and right. Yet philosophically this concern was at the heart of “classical liberalism”, which created the relatively low power American national government (even on the second try). The power of the state, the military, the draft board, the DOJ, the FBI, the police, the courts, the national guard and the imperial president were major concerns for liberals in the 1960’s. The power of “the state” to monitor the activities of ordinary citizens was also an issue in the 1960’s and 1970’s as the actions of the CIA and Nixon’s government were revealed. In the second Trump administration many liberals are once again wisely worried about centralized political power.
The use of community organizations in politics is critical as noted above.
Liberals are generally much more concerned about the role that culture can play in indoctrinating individuals to support and comply with a single view of citizenship, politics, religion, culture, law and life. The 1950’s (!) and 1960’s cultural revolution or counterculture was largely about protecting the individual from the forces of conformity to the nation, big business, commercial society, small towns, and religion.
Following Rousseau, liberals believe that individuals have great potential for personal growth and creativity. This expression of individual potential holds a mystical, infinite, divine quality. Forces that constrain this journey should be opposed. Those who support the use of human possibilities must be supported.
I think this is a critical point to reconsider. Government, religion and cultural institutions do have the power to overreach in favor of the views of the powerful actors in society. They can support pure capitalism, nationalism, populism, elitism, religious conformity, commercialism, pragmatism, materialism, etc. They can also support the liberal world view: balance, true individual rights, justice, opportunity, equality, peace, diversity, global community, progress, improvement, human rights. Community, organizations and institutions are tools. They can be used by any political, moral, economic, pragmatic, interest or social group to advance their interests.
As noted in the prior section, organizations are essential to the political process. There is a risk that political and cultural organizations will align to support conservative political views, even the most extreme, fundamentalist, literalist, constraining, oppressive, unequal, static, wasteful, impersonal ones that liberals oppose.
Undermining the role of “community”, of local organizations, of communities of interest, does not help to oppose the ongoing march of conservatives towards a highly structured system that supports the rule by the successful over the rest. The existence of a wide variety of healthy organizations is essential to provide a counterbalance against a single worldview becoming dominant and oppressive.
Historically, philosophical conservatives were MOST concerned about society, the nation, God, tradition, community, family, race, history, avoiding disaster, etc. They wanted to preserve the positive aspects of the inherited society. The individualist, rationalist views of the “Enlightenment” were not embraced. … Until it became clear that the kings, church, nobility, and landed aristocracy were going to be replaced by the new elites of capitalism, trade, ownership, law, university, and denominations. Then, the conservatives “changed horses” to the new winners in modern society. The individualistic strain of economic life in capitalism became supreme. The true “community” dimension of religion, local community, guild, union, charity, service, parish, precinct, tradition, protection, festivals, saints, colleagues, heroes, handicrafts, debt forgiveness, tithes, noblesse oblige, leadership, extended family, common law, music, art, food, dress, language, etc. became much less important. Daniel Bell argued that the “cultural contradictions of capitalism” made it impossible for any society based on pure capitalism to survive or thrive.
There is an inherent conflict between social and economic conservatism. The first elevates community. The second elevates the individual. Ronald Reagan was able to combine both strands into a single loosely defined worldview. He argued that traditional American social values are consistent with “free market” economics. Republicans through Trump have managed to maintain the same conglomeration of incompatible views.
Republicans have managed to win the political wars. Democrats have managed to win the culture wars. The Republican cultural counteroffensive is alive today. Anti-trans rights. Public choice education. Anti-mainstream media. Anti-elite. Anti-university. White nationalism. So-called Christian nationalism.
Cultural values are transmitted through communities, organizations, government, laws, businesses, work experience, political experience, family, friends, and colleagues. Democrats would be wise to invest resources in developing and communicating community supporting world views.
Liberals worry about the ability of conservatives to use “human nature” to manipulate citizens. Consider Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory. Humans inherently respond to moral, political and religious calls based on loyalty, authority, purity, honor and ownership. Liberals highlight care, fairness, and equality and some degree of liberty and proportionality. They believe that Western civilization has moved beyond the other 5 values and that politicians who appeal to citizens on these dimensions are merely hucksters. They worry about the framing of issues, groupthink, victimhood, low education, low information, selfish citizens.
Liberals worry about a “least common denominator” world view, and its use by politicians. Fundamentalist, legalistic, fixed religion. Simple slogans. Survival. No change. Polarization. Unthinking either/or. Local/provincial. Commercial. Conventional. Bourgeoisie. Selfish. Self-interested. Unquestioning. Following. Cheering. Uncritical. Short-term. Blindly following “experts” or leaders. Blindly individualistic. Elevating history and personal experience. Family, clan and tribe. They believe that every individual is capable of personal growth and seeing a broader, more abstract perspective of life. Rousseau once again. Infinite possibilities for all. Individuals who do not pursue the great possibilities of life are seen as living a false consciousness. This is most explicit in Marxism and postmodernism but part of mainstream liberal thought.
Liberals tend to embrace the abstract, idealistic views of Plato, Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx and Kant. They believe that a single well-defined worldview must be right. They struggle with the messy applied views of Aristotle, Jesus, Hume and Dewey. Normal humans are nearly all on the applied, analog, pragmatic, complex, unfinished, uncertain end of the spectrum.
In all of these areas, culture is transmitted through community. A very small share of people study, or even sample philosophy, theology, sociology, economics or political science. Fewer yet study literature, history, art or the humanities.
“Cultural conservatives” have highlighted the importance of community organizations in transmitting culture. Now, they want to politicize previously neutral or secular institutions. Public schools, libraries, judges, FBI, DOJ, BMV, sheriffs, public health, emergency preparedness and response, private schools, election boards and officials. Moderates and liberals must evaluate and respond to these initiatives. How do we preserve important institutions as truly neutral? What political effort is needed for those that must be politicized?
Until Trump-times, liberals did not need to worry about the basic structure of the American government. The rule of law. Political norms. Objectivity. Facts. Logic. Conscience. Character. Historical traditions. Bipartisan American foreign policy. Voting rights. Civil rights. Freedom of the press. Freedom of religion. Checks and balances. Pride of the Senate. Independent judiciary. Protected federal workers. Nonpartisan military. Independent agencies like Federal Reserve Board. American commitment to allies. American commitment to treaties. In a flash, Trump has used the skepticism of Descartes, Hume, Nietzsche, the existentialists and postmodernists to propose a truly radical world of only “might makes right” without any constraints. Hegel to the infinite power. A portion of the electorate and one party and that party’s leadership and key supporters have embraced this worldview, perhaps without understanding everything that it implies.
We have important cultural beliefs to consider. Strong, dynamic, engaged, tense, battle tested, creative, robust, forward-thinking groups of citizens are needed to formulate alternative views and oppose these challenges to the progress of modernity, Western civilization and classical liberalism.
(3) A Broken Political System
Our government does not deliver its core services. Government is not efficient or effective compared with private sector firms and industries. Government fails to reflect the will of the people, even when it is strong and clear. The political system has been captured by politicians who have structured the rules to highlight politicians’ re-election and power. The political system has been captured by influential interest groups. Political competition is based on communications rather that content. The political system does not encourage or reward participation by the people. Political parties seek their own best interests rather than the nation’s best interests. The political system strongly favors the status quo. The political system strongly favors the interests of the powerful, wealthy and well organized versus the popular will. Strong forces are able to shape administrative implementation of laws.
Our two-party system is broken. Our media system is broken. Trust in the government at all levels and in all functions has been systematically undermined as a deliberate strategy by one political party.
Community institutions are required to overcome this situation. Political parties, interest groups, churches, community organizations, social welfare organizations, not for profits, professional organizations, industry organizations, states, counties, metro areas, global organizations, environmental organizations, patriotic organizations, veterans’ organizations, civil rights organizations, lifestyle organizations, local charities and United Ways, children’s organizations, youth organizations, fraternities, sororities, civic organizations …
Western civilization improved the opportunities and results for its citizens and the whole world from 1500 through 1914. The world wars, fascism, communism, totalitarianism and the great depression undermined public and intellectual confidence in “progress”. The post-WWII era recovered confidence in slow, sustained global progress based on the “western consensus” of mixed-market capitalism, democracy and international trade. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, the market failure based great recession, the rise of China’s state-oriented system, political polarization, mixed lessons from a global pandemic, rogue Russia, Iran and North Korea, global warming/climate change threats, and BREXIT withdrawal from the European dream have once again undermined our sense of progress. We face challenges, big challenges. Is our political system up to the challenge?
Historically, America has responded to global or conceptual challenges with revised political structures. We seem to be stuck in a trap. Only community organizations that aim to recover the principle of the government reflecting the general will of the people can lead the way. As Americans, we believe in manifest destiny and American exceptionalism. We can do whatever it takes to succeed. That is our history and our calling.
(4) Loss of Human Dignity
Our culture today focuses on personal growth, development, creativity and possibilities. Yet all individuals have an intense need to be validated for both their performance and their selves. Our society provides many ways to support the results of personal growth but only a few that embrace the individual directly.
A market economy requires us to fill the role of economic man as a specialized producer, employee, investor, property owner, trader and consumer. The economic value of the role is recognized. Only for those in the “creative class” is the individual even partially seen as a human being rather than merely “human capital”. Consistent compliance with the various economic roles is required, so they tend to “crowd out” other ways of thinking.
The market determines the “value” of all things in purely economic terms. The meritocracy funnels us into the highest “value added” activities which don’t often match our talents, personalities or interests. We set aside those other dimensions of ourselves. We start to view all choices as economic choices, pushing aside personal, social, political or spiritual factors.
We practice instrumental rationality in our decision making in business, science and law. We seek of optimize means for given ends. We balance costs and benefits, risks and rewards, short-term and long-term. This habitual way of thinking is reinforced through our “personal productivity” tools. We optimize our writing, data, reports, calendars, projects, processes, teams and schedules. We adopt this optimizing efficiency and effectiveness perspective. We become more like our computers and machines.
We face challenges of scale. Huge bureaucracies in business, government, and nonprofit organizations. They are large and process driven. Most have systematized, automated and optimized their “user interfaces” to the point where connecting with another human is nearly impossible. Some organizations do invest in making “self-service” easier, but the net effect is that we become “cogs in the machine” in order to transact our required daily activities. This is not new, but the pervasiveness, complexity and lack of options accumulates.
Organizations struggle to make individual choices with individual customers, employees, partners or suppliers. In general, a standard process is more effective, less risky and approved by the legal department. A decision-tree outlines all possibilities. Front-line employees, even highly paid professionals, are less empowered to make “business decisions” based upon all factors. This undercuts both the former decision makers and their partners.
Our meritocratic culture highlights the best, the winners, the exceptional, the superb, the most creative or unusual, the leaders, those who have overcome adversity. The focus is mainly on the end results of the few, rather than the common human experience of all. The demands of the meritocracy cause all human activities to be evaluated for resume and career building. No time for the person, the spirit, community, friends, art, health or fun.
We measure everything. What gets measured gets done. Helpful human measures are rare.
Our culture provides very weak philosophical answers. A secular age. Pure materialism. Skepticism, agnosticism, atheism. Pure subjectivism and radical tolerance. Utilitarian, calculating measures of pleasure and pain. Mainly scientific, instrumental, transactional psychologies. Anxiety revealing existentialism and postmodernism. Universities and public intellectuals that have undermined religion.
Our politics has devolved into simple red versus blue tribe allegiances, discouraging efforts at innovation, finding common ground, understanding, empathizing, communicating, or cooperating. Many feel their identities as men or women, whites or blacks, rich or poor as being imposed upon them rather than being chosen.
That’s pretty depressing. Fortunately, we humans are tough. We find some community and validation at home, school, work and other organizations. We use our tools. We squeeze in “real life”. We “check out” from the structures. Overall, we don’t get as much affirmation as we desire, especially in a word focused on personal growth.
There are solutions to address our situation. Legislation and social pressures for human, labor, consumer and patient rights. Traditional and experiential education on community, decision making, spirituality, consumer economics, personal finance, team building, leadership, multiple intelligences, talents, wisdom, creativity, goal setting, planning, leadership, boundaries. A more complex, structured, incentive slanted world requires individuals to understand their situation and what they can do to survive and thrive.
These are classic “liberal” priorities. Protected and well-educated individuals are best positioned to combat the intrusion of external forces that impinge on their humanity. Improved forms of community are needed to support a political party that is focused on the needs of all individuals. New forms of community education and experience are required for the “lifelong learning” needed to build so many competencies, frameworks, tools, insights and wisdom.
I believe that most demographic, class, philosophy and interest groups within the conservative tent have these same experiences with modern life. They hope for a return to an earlier age when the existing institutions were better prepared to help with this most important dimension of human life. I think most really understand that there is no “going back” to the 1950’s exactly as it was. We need to upgrade our institutions and communities to make life better. This is an area where creative bipartisan efforts can deliver great value.
(5) A Feeling of Weakened Security and Opportunity
The classical liberal emphasis on human rights, from the “bill of rights” through the recognition of minority rights in the last century is at risk. The “rule of law”, independent judiciary, political norms, civil service, career service, military, agencies, property and other structural components of our political system are at risk in a society that has lost the memory of the wars against fascism and communism. Modern “liberals” allowed “conservatives” to ensure that schools, civic clubs, youth organizations and editorialists would reinforce this critical component. Today, we need a “coalition of the willing” from both parties to protect these guardians of our security.
Post-Reagan America grudgingly accepts a government funded patchwork social safety net. Since 1981, the economy has become more dynamic, specialized, competitive and international. Employees have lost their informal “rights” to lifelong employment, fixed benefit pensions, stakeholder influence, seniority, respect for tribal knowledge, camaraderie, etc. Firms, factories, offices, roles and contracts “come and go”. Firms outsource, import and contract as required. Americans approved the “Reagan Revolution” two generations ago. The social safety net has not been adjusted to match the reality of employment insecurity today. Community organizations that once provided important parts of the “safety net” now play a much smaller part. All employees feel insecure. George W. Bush opened the door for both parties to embrace conservative means to liberal ends with the outline of “compassionate conservatism”. Liberals might find this compromise solution more effective than the current political stalemate that creates a widening gap between personal insecurity and social solutions.
Overall, our economy continues to provide opportunities for employment and ownership. Political parties argue about equal opportunity for different groups, changes in opportunities and the right degree of opportunities.
Our culture offers mixed messages about opportunity. We highlight those who succeed from all backgrounds. We celebrate innovation, creativity, output and entrepreneurship. We support change management as a required part of a dynamic economy. We celebrate American exceptionalism and the growth of opportunity, liberty, and prosperity. We tell our children that they can become anything that they want to be. We have been a confident society.
The politics of equal opportunity has highlighted the real challenges for those who possess less economic, family, neighborhood, education, language, confidence, communications or cultural assets in a competitive world. Slower economic growth for the bottom and middle thirds of the economy for 50 years has dented confidence. Polarized politics makes the economy and other national contexts more negative when the other party is in power. The replacement of a religious culture with a secular culture makes the economy the dominant or only factor in assessing the future. There is a “victimhood” strand within our culture that disconnects many fellow citizens when they experience difficult times. Our media driven world highlights the negative, simple and exceptional stories, overshadowing the long-term progress that continues to be made in most areas of life. The post-1960’s, Vietnam, Watergate mind is ironic and skeptical. We find it difficult to “believe” in progress, institutions or trust. The increased scale of society leads some individuals to doubt that they have any agency whatsoever. Some individuals find cultural, political and business support for “diversity” a threat to their personal opportunities.
Liberal leaders enjoy taking the critic’s role. In this case, we need to define, promote, communicate, implement and sustain a renewed confidence in our society, politics, economy and personal lives. Liberals need to be advocates and promoters. The message has to be based on reality and believable. We have strengths in our society and can develop new ones. This core socialization function is naturally provided through universities, opinion leaders, media, schools, civic organizations, churches, youth organizations, neighborhoods and local governments.
(6) Destroying the Great Vampire Squid of Unbridled Capitalism
The power and influence of a truly “laissez faire” capitalist system is the root cause of the 5 liberal issues above. (1) Unconstrained economic agents use and abuse their power. Competitive markets are strong forces. Large firms are stronger, smarter, more creative and enduring. (2) The individualist, commercial “free enterprise” system inherently undermines “community” as a force to conserve culture. (3) Economic interests tend to capture the political system and eventually undermine its basic operations. (4) The mature technological economic system undermines our humanity. (5) The fully empowered economic system threatens human rights, security and opportunity.
The root cause of these problems is that a pure market system, unconstrained by law, politics, regulators, religion, culture, history, options, unions, cooperatives grows too strong. There is no limit to corporate size and rewards but the incentives for growth remain. There is no limit to market share without anti-trust laws and enforcement. There are no limits to opportunities from political capture without spending and lobbying regulations. There are no limits to judicial and election manipulation. There are no limits to supplier, labor and customer squeezes. There are no feedback mechanisms to constrain the beast once it has overcome political and cultural/social limits.
There are even more negative consequences that we see today.
The economic system becomes so dominant that it simply excludes all competitors. We see a “race to the bottom” of countries, states and municipalities lining up to incentivize powerful firms to do business by cutting taxes and regulations, reducing labor and environmental burdens and offering subsidies. Employees lose union rights and then even basic employee rights as they become reclassified as contractors. Firms squeeze suppliers down to marginal cost pricing. They collect fees for the “right” to do business with them.
The large scale integrated economic system becomes so dominant that alternatives are eliminated. Everyone must use the banking system. Small scale firms must use the main economic system for supplies, services, logistics, and distribution. Only a small number of suppliers remain for each product or service. Individuals find it difficult to disconnect from the grid.
The system also comes to dominate the culture philosophically. Individualism and commercialism undermine institutions and community. Instrumental, scientific, objective cost-benefit reasoning comes to dominate thinking and become the default way of seeing the world. Utilitarianism, libertarianism, materialism, pragmatism, existentialism and atheism become attractive philosophies. Philosophical conservativism is replaced by winning.
The threat of losing in a meritocratic system with weak safety nets and the need for public affirmation of winners leads to lives devoted to economic success and the exclusion of all else.
Extreme views like “social Darwinism” return. Greed is good. A “winners are good, losers are bad and deserve to lose” view becomes socially acceptable. “Every man for himself” is considered wisdom. All relations become transactional. The pursuit of self-interest is honored. “The end justifies the means” is accepted as valid in all spheres of life. The “great man” theory of history and leadership is adopted. All relations are considered win/lose, even when win/win options are obvious. “Might makes right” is seen as self-evident in all arenas.
In 1992 Francis Fukuyama confidently proclaimed the “end of history” and the permanent victory of Western capitalism and democracy. In the last 30 years Western capitalism has continued to grow, manage technical revolutions and dominate the global economy while other nations have also grown significantly, driving the greatest reduction of poverty in human history. We have not seen the “end of history”. The powerful economic system systematically undermines those who confront it and usually wins. The results for society are mixed, unacceptable and unstable.
I don’t believe that the powerful interests of unchecked capitalism can be overcome by political tactics or specific reforms alone. I think that they can only be offset when a majority of Americans understand, in some fashion, the threat which this radical ideology and extreme, revolutionary political force poses to our nation and society. It requires a credible political alternative. It requires a groundswell of support for rule by the people interpreted as a solid majority of 60%. It requires idealistic liberals to embrace this centrist bias for the good of society.
We live in the greatest economic society in history. We have the ability to grow, trade, solve global problems and provide greater economic opportunities for all and a more effective safety net without reducing the incentives that drive the economic machine.
To reach these goals, we need to gain broad consensus on the need for balance in our politics. We have 6 political camps in the US: far left, center-left, center, center-right, far right and undecided. We can turn this into dozens by looking at economic, cultural, military, international and philosophical dimensions. We’re not going to get 60% to the left or to the right in the US, even by its relatively conservative political standards compared with other developed countries. We are stuck with each other. We are blessed to live in the first country that embraced the “classical liberal” political system with its “checks and balances” approach. This is an inherently cautious, socially and economically conservative system, but it allows for change when it must occur.
We are at one of those times in history. We must find another “New Deal” that preserves the economic goose that lays the golden eggs, while taming the goose so that she does not become the golden goddess. To do this, we need leadership. We need conversations and interaction. We need trust. We need “liberals” to embrace community and culture as important and valid shapers of public opinion. We need to agree on a revised political system. We need to support community institutions that shape, reinforce and reward cultural beliefs. Laws and education are not enough. Real people learn by experience, examples, stories, friends, neighbors and community leaders who they trust. There is no great leader, communications, tagline, brand, flag, music, framing, research, program or legal shortcut.
Summary
I think that radical individualism is the curse of our time. “A pox on both your houses”. Liberals have over promoted social individualism while conservatives have over promoted economic individualism. Unbridled capitalism is the root cause of many of our society’s challenges. I encourage liberals to overcome their historical suspicion of “community” as merely an agent of the Church, priests, kings, lords, landlords, capitalists and merchants. The “classic liberal” political model only supports a “thin” set of moral values promoting the state, separation of church and state and tolerance. That is not enough to offset the power of wealth in the modern capitalist economic system. The financial stakes are much too high in a $27 Trillion economy with 20 million millionaires. Large financial interests will always win and expand to infinity … unless we have some kind of broader agreed upon framework. I believe we can embrace such a framework only if we leverage communities to send, consider and support such a message.
Historically, liberals have welcomed change, considered new ideas, experimented, innovated, broken idols, destroyed sacred cows, valued reason and confidently believed in a better future. Finding a way to make “community” a central part of our politics, economics and society is a new opportunity to apply those values.
Daniel Bell was a sociologist and public intellectual throughout the post WW II era. His views on the emergence of the “Radical Right” as exemplified by Joseph McCarthy’s unexpected influence and impact are worth quoting extensively. Their pointed relevance to recent history is apparent. The quotes are from chapter 6 of “The End of Ideology”, 1960 which republished the first chapter of the earlier book.
America in mid-century is in many respects a turbulent country. Oddly enough, it is a turbulence born, not of depression, but of prosperity. … brings in its wake new anxieties, new strains, new urgencies.
One important reason is the restraining role of the electoral system. These factors of rigid electoral structure have set definite limits on the role of protest movements, left and right, in American life. [until the Tea Party]
The “common man” is the source of ultimate appeal if not authority. Harrison won [in 1840], and the lesson was clear. Politics as a skill in manipulating the masses became the established feature of political life. The upper classes withdrew from direct participation in politics. The lawyer, the journalist, the drifter, finding politics an open ladder for advancement, came bounding up from the lower middle classes.
But while sectional politics has somewhat diminished, class politics has not taken its place. Instead, there has been the spectacular rise of pressure groups and lobbies. The multiplication of interests and the fractioning of groups … make it difficult to locate the sources of political power in the United States. … Does not mean, however, that all interests have equal power. This is a business society.
These lines of thought do not help us … to explain the emergence of the new American right wing, the group that S. M. Lipset has dubbed the “radical right” — radical because it opposes traditional conservatism, with its respect for individual rights, and because it sought to impose new patterns in American life. All this is dramatized by the issue of McCarthy and the communists. … It is difficult to explain the unchallenged position so long held by Senator McCarthy. It still fails to take into account the extensive damage to the democratic fabric that McCarthy and others were able to cause. … Reckless methods disproportionate to the problem. … compulsive Americanism … loyalty oaths … wild headlines … the suspicion and miasma of fear that played so large a role in American politics.
Calling him a demagogue explains little. McCarthy’s targets were intellectuals, especially Harvard men, Anglophiles, internationalists, the Army. Important clues to the right-wing support … a strange melange … soured patricians … whose emotional stake lay in a vanishing image of a muscular America defying a decadent Europe … the “new rich” — the automobile dealers, real estate manipulators, oil wildcatters — who needed the psychological assurance that they … had earned their own wealth, rather than (as in fact) through government aid, and who feared that “taxes” would rob them of that wealth … the rising middle class strata of various ethnic groups.
The central idea of the status politics conception is that groups that are advancing in wealth and social position are often as anxious and politically feverish as groups that have become declasse. … Seek more violently than ever to impose on all groups the older values of a society which they once represented. This rise takes place in periods of prosperity. These political forces, by their very nature, are unstable.
There are several consequences to the changed political temper in American life, most notably the introduction on a large scale of “moral issues” into political debate. By and large, this is new. Throughout their history, Americans have had an extraordinary talent for compromise in politics and extremism in morality. In matters of manners, morals and conduct – particularly in the small towns – there has been a ferocity of blue-nose attitudes unmatched by other countries. The sources of the moralism are varied. There has been a middle class culture. Moral indignation … characteristic of religions that have abandoned otherworldly preoccupations and concentrate on thisworldly concerns. Piety gives way to moralism.
This moralism, itself not unique to America, is linked to an evangelicalism that is unique. … the peculiar evangelicalism of Methodism and Baptism, with its high emotionalism, its fervor, enthusiasm, and excitement, its revivalism, its excesses of sinning and high-voltage confessing, has played a much more important role. The revivalist spirit was egalitarian and anti-intellectual. The evangelical churches wanted to “improve” man, whereas the liberals wanted to reform institutions. This moralism … would be imposed with vehemence in areas of culture and conduct – in the censorship of books, attacks on “immoral art”, etc., and in the realm of private habits; yet it was rarely heard regarding the depredations of business or the corruption of politics.
The moralizing temper had another consequence: the reinforcement of the “populist” character of American society. While in American culture the small town has been “defeated”, in American politics it has still held sway. So long as world experiences could be assimilated into the perceptions of the small town … the dichotomy of politics and moralism could prevail. But with the growth of international ideologies, the breakdown of market mechanisms, the bewildering complexities of economic decisions … the anxieties of decision-making became overwhelming.
Americans, in their extraordinary optimism, find it hard to stand defeat. The cry of betrayal and charge of conspiracy is an old one in American politics. These men were “terrible simplifiers”. All politics was a conspiracy, and at the center of the web were the “international bankers” and “the money changers”.
An unsettled society is always an anxious one and nowhere has this been truer than in the United States. In an egalitarian society, where status is not fixed … the acquisition of status becomes all important, and the threats to one’ status anxiety provoking. The socio-psychological attitude that [Gunnar] Myrdal discerned in the South has been equally characteristic of the immigrant pattern in American life. As each successive wave of people came over, they grouped together and viewed the next wave with hostility and fear. In the 1890’s …there was an effort to create a ‘high society’ with its own protocol and conventions.
But the fact that the arena of politics [1950’s] was now foreign policy allowed the moralistic strains to come to the fore. While domestic issues have been argued in hard-headed, practical terms … foreign policy has always been phrased in moralistic terms.
Political debate, therefore, moves from specific clashes of interest, in which issues can be identified and possibly compromised, to ideologically tinged conflicts which polarize the various groups and divide society. The tendency to convert concrete issues into ideological problems, to invest them with emotional color and high emotional charge, is to invite conflicts which can only damage a society. It has been one of the glories of the United States that politics has been a pragmatic give-and-take rather than a series of wars-to-the-death.
Democratic politics means bargaining between legitimate groups and the search for consensus. This is so because the historic contribution of liberalism was to separate law from morality.
1955 Recap
American politics between 1870 and 1950 mostly focused on classic economic interests and ideologies. Mainly conservative dominance in the 19th century, interrupted by some “progressive” reforms at the turn of the century, a return to business rule and then two decades of FDR’s “New Deal”. Americans embraced democracy and modestly regulated capitalism, rejecting socialism/communism and totalitarianism/fascism. Bell argued in the 1950’s that we had reach the “end of ideology”, much like Fukuyama argued we had reached “the end of history” 40 years later. The Soviet communist option had been discredited in many ways. Politics and intellectuals would adapt to find new dimensions of differences. The “radical right” was one option that Bell described as new, different than the core conservative politics of the last 75 years but clearly leveraging existing factors in American politics.
Bell’s key insight as a sociologist is that groups of people have social, political and economic interests and pursue them. Marx’s simplistic economic determinism had proven to be unfounded, and his solutions had been disasters. Yet … individuals and groups of individuals are often driven by “status” first, not power or wealth. He highlighted the role of groups with new, unstable, threatened or declining status as very important.
The international economic competition revolution of the 1970’s and the “greed is good” cultural revolution of the 1980’s reflect the transformation of America into a meritocracy. Firms and organizations felt great pressure to perform so they did a much better job of defining needs, recruiting, socializing, retaining and compensating those who add the most value. They also gave up on their paternalistic roles and embraced the need to make economically rational decisions even when they conflicted with other factors and stakeholders. These changes obviously effected blue collar workers, but they also challenged supervisors, professionals, managers and executives. Job security and status security were shredded.
We now have a much, much more anxious society. This is obvious in rural America, the rust belt, and “fly over” country. But it is nearly as important on the coasts, in the growing Sunbelt cities and in the suburbs. The relative winners are preserving their gains. The modest middle-class winners are very insecure. The bottom one-third have largely lost hope, are angry and easily prodded to take a “victim” perspective.
Bell says that unstable groups can be manipulated by politicians. He describes the playbook. Populism, emotions, morality, religion, polarization, targets, anti-elites, anti-intellectuals. He notes that these factors apply to individuals at all economic levels of society. Individuals want to have a solid social status so that they can enjoy their wealth, power and lives. Trump’s offer to “make America great again” is a promise to provide this security against the various threats. Bell doesn’t think this approach is effective in the long run because mere promises will not deliver the promised results.
Big Picture Thoughts
Individuals require an ideology or a religious belief in order to be relatively secure within a true meritocracy. A revival of mainstream religious belief and participation is overdue in America. A purely secular worldview that provided security from pursuing one’s talents and rejecting economic and status goals might help some individuals.
The Trump coalition of bottom two-thirds social concerns with top 5% economic concerns is unstable in the long-run. “We won’t get fooled again”. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. There are inherent, deep divisions between these two groups. The top 5% can thrive in a world with very limited public services, the bottom two-thirds cannot. The top 5% cannot allow the extreme Trump policies which threaten their wealth and status (anti-trade, lost allies, anti-universities, anti-media, irrational immigration policies, deficit spending/inflation, huge industrial policy investments, imperial president, undermined rule of law). They support human rights, globalism, DEI, minority interests, global health, global environment, global finance. Trump has managed to combine judge appointments, deregulation and tax cuts to maintain his minority coalition. It is only the weakness and strategic incoherence of the Democratic Party’s policies that has allowed this to succeed.
America has continued to grow wealthier. Its economy continues to be the envy of the world. The pie may be large enough to promise the 5% that they can keep their share while also promising the bottom two-thirds that we can run a society with a true safety net and some sharing of incremental income and wealth.
Americans may be ready to “take back” their government. Require civility. Prioritize real issues. Neutralize election policies. Set minimum character standards. Reward compromise and results. Require real majorities
1981 Oldsmobile 98. The “Main Street” Republican party of 1981. Practical, shiny, powerful, white walls, chrome trim, leather interior, accessible, landau roof, 4 doors, large, American, fender skirts, superior, a known and consistent item.
The 2024 Trump organization has few remaining connections to the 1981 Reagan Republican Party, or that of Eisenhower in the 50’s, Nixon in the 70’s or the Bushes in the 90’s or 00’s. Let’s highlight some of the big differences.
Fiscal conservatism. Balanced budget. No debt. Trump used debt throughout his career, ran record deficits during his presidency and is now trying to eliminate the debt ceiling.
World-class agriculture exports. Trump accepts that US agriculture might take some hits from his “trade wars” approach. He uses various subsidies to partially offset the damages.
Industrial policy. Trump has an activist approach, promoting individual industries and firms that support him and penalizing those who oppose him. Republicans have historically concluded that the market alone is best positioned to invest for growth and the national government role should be minimal, preserving the institutional context.
Competition policy. The Republican party has supported a “hands off” approach. Trump prefers to intervene in the media, high technology, electronics, manufacturing, energy and banking industries. Manufacturing and extractive energy are preferred industries!
Rule of law. Republican investors and owners have relied upon a stable legal environment. Trump asserts that all laws and regulations are subject to his review and interpretation.
Imperial presidency. Republicans pushed to restrain presidential power during decades of liberal activism. Trump has permanently expanded the “rights” and powers of the presidency. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” was an early warning.
Fair play. Republicans traditionally sought to build citizen support for core institutions. Trump undermines the FBI, DOJ and IRS.
Free trade. Republicans supported free trade for 70 years as a way to benefit American multinational corporations and citizens. Trump takes a 1920 mercantilist approach to trade, believing that individual country trade deficits are harmful to the US. He believes that the “wins” from individual negotiations are greater than the net benefits of a free trade system for America’s strong world leading economy.
Military strength. Republicans have typically been hawks. Trump views defense spending as an optional investment which should be minimized as possible. He believes that a “strong enough” military and economy, combined with strong deal making and threats is “strong enough”.
Limit military strength. Republicans supported the WWII agreements that limited the military strength of Germany and Japan. Trump sees no reason to limit their military strength.
Alliances. Republicans have supported American alliances with Europe, Japan and other supporters of the “American Way”. Trump views these alliances as “welfare” for other countries. The U.S. is providing military, economic and institutional support without extracting tributes from the allies.
NATO. Republicans have always supported this counterweight to threats from Russia. Trump sees Russia as a “reasonable” adversary which is not interested in threatening the US. Europe should protect itself from Russia.
Global international order. Republicans have generally supported the various global organizations supporting the Western-defined economic and political systems following WWII. UN, associated organizations, WTO, IMF, World Bank. Trump views these organizations as an extra investment for the US and a threat to US interests. He prefers one-to-one negotiations rather than this universal approach to defining and enforcing US interests.
Institutions. Republicans have supported the main US institutions which have supported the American way. Trump questions all government departments, public education, universities, the mainstream media, journalists, and Hollywood.
Science. Republicans have historically supported American science and scientists, based on military, social and economic results. They have believed in professionals and objective reality. Trump believes that many scientific views are really political views, subject to political control. The contrast in medicine/public health is greatest.
Conservative philosophy. Starting with William F. Buckley, conservatives developed a consistent “conservative” world view that linked together social, political, military and economic dimensions. Trump has no conservative philosophy. He is purely transactional.
National Leaders. The Republican Party was based in the Northeast and Midwest. It dominated the country from 1860-1930 and again in the 1950-80’s. Traditional large metro areas provided intellectual and political leaders. Trump has abandoned the east and west coasts.
Conventional. Republicans embraced the preservation of history and convention. Trump is a revolutionary, seeking to overturn the “modern” FDR, LBJ “new deal” consensus on economic, social and political issues that he opposes. Judicial overturn of abortion rulings is “exhibit one”.
States rights. Republicans have supported “states’ rights” to preserve conservative social positions. Trump seeks to enforce national decisions.
Separation of Church and State. Republicans quietly accepted the need to preserve religious rights and allow the state to be “neutral”. Trump and religious conservatives question this solution. They worry that secular interests are indoctrinating students.
Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-totalitarian. Republicans generally embraced the “American Way” and opposed alternate views. Trump is purely transactional.
Western culture. Republicans believed that the post-war consensus of democracy, human rights, mixed market capitalism and international order was effective and right. Trump does not believe that the US should promote its ideals. All international relations are purely transactional.
Fixed monetary policy. Republicans have pushed for a “rules based” monetary policy to limit the risks of an “active” monetary policy. Trump wants to control the Federal Reserve Board to promote low interest rates.
Character. Republicans have highlighted “character” as an essential trait of any national leader. Trump dismisses “character” as irrelevant.
Russia. Republicans fought the cold war against Russia. Trump sees Russia and Putin as just another global competitor, no better or worse than many others.
Special relations. Republicans have supported historical US relations and agreements. Trumps sees everyone as transactional. NATO, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Mexico, UK, France, Germany.
Summary
Republicans, like all political parties, have shuffled their coalition partners through time. The Reagan coalition was not the Eisenhower coalition, but the differences were minor. The Bushes generally embraced the broad “conservative” Reagan tent. Trump is clearly not a “philosophical” conservative. He is not trying to conserve a culture and its main institutions. He believes in a radical individualism closer to libertarianism and realpolitik. The world is dangerous. It is only win/lose. Only great deal makers can deliver results. The whole is the sum of the parts. “Trial and error” is an essential approach. There are very clear differences between the historical Republican Party and Trump’s views. I think they will become more apparent as Trump tries to implement his views.
Trump’s 2017 inauguration crowd was only one-third the size of Obama’s in 2009. I was there in 2009. The wind chill was around 10 degrees. Trump’s REAL and deep foreign policy support among Republicans is similarly quite small.
Trade wars, attacking allies and driving an active industrial policy all undermine the US economy, resulting in lower GDP, lower tax revenues, higher spending, a greater budget deficit and higher inflation. Fiscal conservativism was recently the hallmark of the Republican party. It helped to unify the various flavors of conservatism. Everyone could agree on a balanced budget amendment, no trade-offs of higher taxes for increased spending, and threatening a government shutdown and possible debt default in order to force congress and the president to address the budget deficit and the growing federal debt. The real situation is worse today, with larger debt as a share of GDP, a forecast increase and a large annual budget deficit during a time of 4% unemployment. Trump’s headline foreign policies threaten the economy. Despite the Federal Reserve Bank’s reduction to the benchmark federal funds rate, long-term interest rates have drifted upwards. Will a Paul Ryan re-emerge?
(2) Corporate America
US based multinational corporations have thrived in the 75-year post-war era. They benefit greatly from the opportunities that free trade provides. Tariffs, trade wars, restrictions, industrial policy and presidential interference all reduce profits and increase risks. Trump may reduce corporate taxes and regulations, but international tariffs and regulations will hurt corporate bottom lines. The net benefits may quiet some corporate leaders. Others will incur greater harm and work to protect their interests.
(3) Agriculture/Rural America
American agriculture is a world class exporter. It thrives under consistent patterns of free trade. Trade retaliation is a big threat to agricultural revenues, profits and land values. Production agriculture is just 1% of US GDP, but it exceeds 5% of GDP in 1,130 American counties, averaging 14.11% of the value of production in this one-third of America geographically. In the other two-thirds of the country, agriculture accounts for just 0.36% of GDP, so it’s politically irrelevant. American agriculture has always been disproportionately effective in politics. Trade wars may soon have one-third of American counties up in arms.
(4) Philosophical Conservatives
Proven cultural and institutional frameworks are best. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Support countries with similar cultural institutions and values. Protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful against the claims of the fringe interests. Isolationism, protectionism, and “do it yourself” foreign policy are unproven and risky strategies. The philosophical conservatives enjoyed a nice run from William Buckley’s 1950’s through the rise of the “tea party” in response to the Great Recession. They were amongst the first and strongest opponents of Trump’s views and have led the “never Trump” movement. They were never a large share of the party, but they provided a mental framework that allowed the components to work together and the conservative think tanks and media to earn a degree of respectability in the court of intellectual public opinion. Trump’s character challenges and blatant transactionalism and individualism cannot be reconciled with their views.
(5) Wall Street/Banking
America dominates international finance and banking. Raising capital, making markets, advising firms, and making risky investments. The global financial system works for Wall Street. Rapid and unpredictable changes to the “rules of the game” increases risk levels and makes global investments harder to plan, finance and execute.
(6) Hawks/Neoconservatives
Might makes right. Don’t fall for ideals. This group agrees with Trump on basic principles but can’t understand why anyone would undermine the highly valuable postwar alliances that the US has developed with NATO and individual countries because “they don’t pay enough” or “they win too much in trade”.
(7) Economic Free Marketers
True believers in capitalism and free markets see it as the best way to create and preserve value with the added side bonus of protecting individual liberty. Tariffs and active industrial policy are the traps that idealistic Democrats fall into. Republicans know that only the market, in the end, will deliver prosperity and liberty. Trump’s preference for a very active foreign economic policy and a relatively active and intrusive domestic economic policy does not match this group. They can embrace his general low tax, low regulation, only results matter views.
(8) Libertarians
Same as above on economic policy issues. There is a huge risk of the empowered centralized state, stripped of checks and balances, turning around and threatening individual liberties. A centralized totalitarian or fascist state is a huge threat that must be avoided at all costs. Trump has a libertarian streak, but he does not embrace libertarian principles.
(9) Main Street Republicans/Professional Class
This group wants to ensure that the hard-working professionals, managers and small business owners that add value for Americans overall continue to receive their fair share of the rewards. Trump’s “activist” foreign policy puts these rewards at risk. Firms and investors, large and small, will win or lose based upon imposed tariffs, regulations and industrial policies. The economic churn will be much faster, greater and random. A significant number of previously secure upper middle-class professionals will incur significant losses in a much more dynamic Schumpeterian age of creative destruction. The general demonizing of the elites, bureaucrats, experts, intellectuals, scientists, universities, teachers, media, economists, military leaders, pundits, market researchers, pollsters, high-tech leaders, foreign policy community, NGO’s, public health, etc. is a big negative for this group which naturally found a home in the Republican party in the post-war era. Trump’s belief in the “great man” theory of history is at odds with the mildly progressive culture of suburban, upper middle-class America.
(10) American Patriots/Neoconservatives
The US fought the “cold war” against communism for 50 years. Trump thinks that Putin is just another global competitor. Trump’s claim that “Putin’s actions are no better or worse than America’s historically” sounds like something Bernie Sanders might claim! He’s not worried about the communist views of China, North Korea or Vietnam. He’s ready to negotiate. He opposes the “communist” dictators in Cuba and Venezuela. There is no defense of the American values of democracy, equality, free markets or human rights in Trump’s approach. It’s simply America versus all other nations. Tactically and politically, Trump has repositioned China as the new great enemy. Historically, Americans fought the world wars, and the cold war based on the principles of democracy, liberty, freedom, individual values, capitalism and human rights. Trump wants to disengage from Europe and the Middle East while increasing assets to address China, just like Obama. Some patriots just need an enemy, others want to defend principles.
Many cultural conservatives have deep, fundamentalist religious beliefs. Their views are “right” and other views are “wrong”. Trump’s foreign policy is purely transactional. It doesn’t assert that the western or Christian world view is better, preferred or right. He’s not following Bush, Jr. to provide the world with the benefits of American political, economic and cultural systems. He just says that the American people, perhaps with their Christian/western opinions, are worth defending aggressively. It defends some dictators in Russia, Turkey and Hungary who do not share historical American values. Trump’s overall pragmatic, transactional, economics first views don’t square well with cultural conservatives who place moral and religious values first. Trump is delivering a set of Supreme Court and federal justices willing to overturn activist liberal judge rulings and to support legislation passed by culturally conservative states and the US Congress. He’s willing to poke at other cultures, races and nationalities as being “others”, not as good as the true Americans. Younger evangelicals seem less willing than their parents, who have been fighting the “culture wars” for 50 years, to embrace Trump at a transactional level and give up their ideals. Trump’s anti-immigrant posture, protecting America from the threat of the “others” does resonate with some cultural conservatives. Net, net, Trump is not losing support from this group due to his international policies.
(12) Victims of Economic and Social Change
This group clearly supports Trump’s populist diagnosis and prescriptions. The loss/decline of American industry was due to international traitors and coconspirators who undercut the owners and workers. It was all avoidable. Economic, banking, university, media and political elites conspired to undermine the domestic virtuous workers and owners in order to benefit “others”: other countries, religions, races, cultures, classes and interests. The story is just like Hitler’s description of the Weimar Republic leaders. The country was sabotaged by traitors. This is a very powerful story. Many Americans today buy this story. For how long?
Summary
Politics is all about telling a story and managing coalitions. Ronald Reagan told a very attractive story that wove together the various strands of conservatism into a coherent narrative. This story reframed American politics. Presidents Clinton and Obama confirmed the core conservative story, just like Eisenhower and Nixon confirmed the core New Deal story earlier. Newt Gingrich triggered both parties to adopt a polarized world view.
Trump leveraged this situation to attract economically and culturally disadvantaged individuals to embrace a greatly reformulated conservative, Republican, red, populist world view. Trump’s international relations policies don’t really fit well with the historical views of the Republican party. It remains to be seen if these mental conflicts will undermine his political support as he is able to implement them and deliver results. He is “riding on the coat tails” of broad popular support for “conservative” solutions to our many challenges.
International affairs have been secondary priorities for the last 50 years. They were top priority in the quarter century after WWII. Trump’s emphasis may make them top priority once again!
The world faces five issues that require global solutions.
Risk of global war, including nuclear war
Risk of a pandemic that kills billions of people
Risk of global warming accelerating out of control
Risk of China and the US unintentionally destabilizing all global systems
Risk of the international economic order breaking down, impoverishing billions
The world has found a variety forums, agreements, institutions, relationships, indirect promises, incentives and threats that have “managed” such risks for 80 years. Unilateral bargaining has not been the best solution.
Some Trump Approaches to Consider
International relations, economics, military and migration are very important and should be treated as top priority by the USA.
The US has a variety of power bases that could be more actively used. Military power, nuclear power, dollar as the reserve currency, tariffs and trade restrictions, soft cultural powers, SWIFT currency system, immigration laws and enforcement, educational systems, regulation of major global corporations, treaties, global military bases, market size to allow protectionist policies/threats, leading universities, intellectual property, strategic asset reserves, technology leadership, flexible/dynamic economy, small expected role for government, low tax rates, trusted economic institutions, support for the rule of law, independent and effective central bank, extended track record of innovation and economic growth, younger population, global economic and cultural connections, multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-religious society. Trump emphasizes some advantages more than others, but the basic point that the US has the resources to pursue a more “active” set of foreign policies and negotiations is clear and worthy of consideration.
Pragmatic, transactional, realpolitik approaches should be balanced against idealistic, principled approaches. Win/lose and win/win frameworks should both always be considered and re-assessed based on the current situation in each area of application.
Making automatic value judgements about dictators, authoritarians, fascists, socialists, cultures, races, religions, human rights, capitalism, free trade, globalism, isolationists, and globalists is not the best approach. Countries and leaders resent this presumptuous approach. They oppose the inevitable shortcomings, inconsistencies and self-dealing of the winning post-war coalition. East vs. West. North vs. South. Emerging markets. BRICS. Everyone thinks that they are “right”. Relating at a neutral level has many advantages.
Some situations can be addressed on a purely transactional level without making them more complicated by considering all of the potential issues between the parties.
The US has leverage in specific one-on-one situations where it holds the overall advantage or a single trump card.
Other countries have internal political situations which can be exploited.
Single country deals are easier to reach than regional or global deals.
The views of America’s foreign policy elites, including the military, are relatively similar. They and we could benefit by considering alternative approaches in many situations.
Some degree of inconsistency, deception, changes, flexibility, bluffing, fakes, misdirection, multiple paths, opportunism, threats, espionage, bribes, breaking the rules, etc. are valid components of making and breaking deals.
Less powerful states should not automatically be elevated to “most favored nation” or “sovereign equality” status.
The economic, diplomatic, military, communications and polemical responsibility for maintaining the “global economic order” must be shared by all of those who benefit and not upwardly delegated to the US.
Where Trump Goes Too Far
Soft power is quite valuable for the US. Don’t undermine it on principle.
Alliances multiply the power of the US. Don’t discount or undermine them.
Global bodies and principles can support US interests.
The US is a smaller share of global population, cultural, military and economic power. Going it alone is a risky strategy.
There are very significant advantages of global free trade, especially for the most competitive US based multinational corporations.
Direct pursuit of pure power politics is not supported by many Americans.
The US benefits greatly from maintaining the existing international system of trade and finances.
Sovereign nations and politicians do not automatically respond rationally. They are willing to take “irrational” steps to protect and promote their sovereignty.
There is a value with allies and opponents of maintaining some belief or trust that the US will uphold its commitments, even in the face of adversity or opportunities.
Some results (nuclear annihilation) are so bad that they must be avoided at all costs.
Maintaining long-term allies is quite valuable.
Public criticism of allies undermines their incentive to cooperate.
Trade deficits “come and go”, no real reason to oppose them on a country-to-country basis.
Very successful countries incur trade deficits without harm for many decades.
Embracing or engaging with authoritarian leaders undermines the support of traditional liberal leaders of allied countries.
A consistently transactional approach undermines the expectation that a nation will do “whatever it takes” to pursue its big picture goals and ideals.
There are significant long-term benefits from developing and maintaining allies.
Trade wars are inherently unpredictable, but historically they have devolved into a race to the bottom, greatly reducing valuable trade.
Summary
Trump overemphasizes a win/lose perspective, leverage and direct negotiations. Individuals, firms and countries since WWII have learned that there are win/win strategies and tactics to be considered even when the stakes are highest. Actors have used these strategies because they deliver sustainable results. The best negotiators use all of the tools which are available. They don’t use a hammer as their only tool.
Good News 