Category: Political Science

The contrasts there are the theme of my latest column for The Free Press.  Excerpt:

The MAGA crowd, starting with Trump and including J.D. Vance, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon, has a different set of beliefs. Again, the actual views here are diverse. (After all, Trump himself can hold multiple views in the course of a single paragraph.) But if I had to summarize the doctrine, I would take the slogan “Make America Great Again” very literally—with an emphasis on again.

Their desire is to bring back an America that was more nationalistic, had a more cohesive elite, was less infatuated with globalization, was more masculine and less feminized, and had a stronger manufacturing base, among other things. That also means fewer immigrants—especially immigrants who don’t come from Europe, which the MAGA crowd views as the font of American civilization.

It is not my purpose to debate these views one by one, but I will note that these have not been the natural trends of our time. Due to birth control, the influence of feminization has risen, because women are taking on increasingly important roles in the workplace, politics, and education. Due to automation and foreign competition, manufacturing employment has declined. The rise of Asia has propelled globalization, and many of the most talented students at U.S. universities are no longer Americans. And because of proximity, mobility, and instability in many Latin American countries, immigration, both legal and illegal, has been rising.

The MAGA recipe thus requires ongoing and quite serious government intervention, in both the economic realm and in culture. Otherwise MAGA is doomed to fail, as its desired ends will be swept aside by the broader currents of history, which favor the tech right. Since the America of earlier times had a much smaller government than today, MAGA advocates, if they are to implement their desired ends, have to war against libertarian tendencies, and thus MAGA is unlikely to end up evolving in libertarian directions.

So whereas the tech right wants freedom to build, MAGA wants the government to manage the building in some very specific directions—like rekindling manufacturing as a core part of the economy, for instance—and to prevent some kinds of globalized building altogether.

Recommended.

Seeing a no-name upstart attempt to upset a brand-name heavyweight is thrilling. But the system has warped the political calculus of the mayoral campaign. Candidates who might have dropped out are staying in. Candidates who might be attacking one another on their platforms or records are instead considering cross-endorsing. Voters used to choosing one contender are plotting out how to rank their choices. Moreover, they are doing so in a closed primary held in the June of an odd year, meaning most city residents will not show up at the polls anyway. If this is democracy, it’s a funny form of it…

Whether Cuomo or Mamdani wins this month, New Yorkers might have another chance to decide between them. After this annoyingly chaotic primary, we could have an annoyingly chaotic election: If Mamdani loses, he might run in the general on the Working Families Party ticket. If Cuomo loses, he might run in the general as an independent, as will the disgraced incumbent, Eric Adams. At least, in that election, voters won’t be asked to rank their favorite, just to pick one.

Here is the full piece.  I do not myself see a big advantage from this system.

In 2018 I published an article in Politico, arguing that fascism would not come to America.  In part that is because of our very long democratic traditions (much longer than Weimar!), and in part because American bureaucracy has become unmanageable, thus limiting the power of the executive.  DOGE in particular has been a quite vivid representation of the latter point, as I made it in 2018 — “The net result is they simply can’t control enough of the modern state to steer it in a fascist direction.”

A few people have asked me to revisit that prediction, and frankly I think it is looking great.  (I do not doubt, however, that the Trump administration represents a major increase in blatant corruption, and a deterioration of norms of governance, most of all in the areas of public health and science but not only.  I think of America as evolving back to some of its 19th century norms, and often bad ones, not fascism.)

Noah Smith wrote recently:

Trump is cosplaying as a dictator. But so far he’s backed down on: * tariffs * ICE sweeps * Abrego Garcia * Greenland/Canada/Panama * Ukraine aid * DOGE He does care about public opinion, a lot.

Here is Noah’s longer essay.

Here is a recent NYT headline: “Trump Loses Another Battle in His War Against Elite Law Firms.”  The judiciary has stood up to Trump firmly, and he has backed down.  The Army parade, by the way, was mostly pathetic and hardly served as a call to fascist arms.  The Kennedy Center is not the new Haus der Kunst.

It was some while back that Trump pulled the nomination of Stefanik to be UN ambassador, on the grounds that the Republican margin in the House was extremely thin.  All I can say is that Hitler would have done it differently.

What both forms of populism share is a tendency to treat virtue as a fixed property of groups and policy as a way of redistributing power from the disfavored to the favored. When I said we needed “a liberalism that builds,” David Dayen, the editor of The American Prospect, responded that “we need a liberalism that builds power” and that the way to get it is for the government “actively supporting the very groups that have been left out of past economic transitions, building the necessary coalition for long-term transformation.”

Every policy, in this telling, has two goals. One is the goal of the policy or the project; perhaps you’re trying to decarbonize the economy or build affordable housing or increase competition in the market for hearing aids. But the other is the redistribution of power among groups: Does this policy leave unions stronger or weaker? Environmental justice groups? Corporations?

Under the populist theory of power, bad policy can be — and often is — justified as good politics. In California, the California Environmental Quality Act is defended by unions that use it to “greenmail” all manner of projects. CEQA is meant to protect the environment, but the threat of unending litigation can be used to win non-environmental concessions on virtually any building project in California.

Here is the full NYT  piece, interesting throughout, for instance:

My view of power is more classically liberal. In his book “Liberalism: The Life of an Idea,” Edmund Fawcett describes it neatly: “Human power was implacable. It could never be relied on to behave well. Whether political, economic or social, superior power of some people over others tended inevitably to arbitrariness and domination unless resisted and checked.”

Worth a ponder.