The members of the bulwark are neoconservatives. Before this era I thought they wanted a Hitler. I hate much of what the neoconservative movement has done. I usually disagree vehemently with the bulwark's foreign policy, and in my opinion they all have far too rosy a view of this country's role in the world. But I've been proven wrong about their commitment to liberalism. This is by far the most important issue facing us right now, and these people, whatever their shortcomings, are loudly and persistently advocating for human rights, the rule of law, and politics without violence or corruption. They are allies. Let's not reject their efforts, even as we invite them to broaden their range.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “conservatism failed” — and I’m a leftie! — because it becomes a semantic debate over “what is conservatism?” (I’m also a pragmatist and anxiety-ridden, and I recognize that humans as a species will protect their perceived tribes.)
That said, send this to JVL. It is time for the Bulwark to expand their voice. Pragmatically, of course.
I take your point. When I say conservatism failed, I’m less interested in semantic definitions and more interested in outcomes. The version of conservatism that shaped American politics for the past several decades ultimately produced a movement willing to abandon democratic norms rather than adapt to demographic and economic change.
That said, I agree the practical question now is how spaces like The Bulwark expand their coalition and analysis rather than simply defend an inherited political identity. That’s really what we’re pushing for here.
As I have said before, privilege is to white people as water is to fish: they swim around in it and never notice it... Until the water is drained (from the swamp).
Stew, can you talk more about what conservatism is? Based on my understanding of the word conservatism, it is bound to fail. There is no “staying put.” We all have to change and continue to adapt.
Great question, and part of what we’re wrestling with.
Conservatism at its best is supposed to be about prudence, institutional stability, and skepticism toward rapid change. The problem is that societies do change, and institutions either adapt or break. That leads to the darker conservative instinct to preserve hierarchy which is something it may be naturally susceptible and thus was blind (or arguably willfully blind) to the ways hierarchy worked in the United States.
Our argument is that much of modern American conservatism stopped adapting and instead framed change itself as illegitimate, which helped create the political crisis we’re living through now.
So the real challenge isn’t whether conservatism can exist, but whether it can evolve in ways that preserve democracy rather than undermine it.
It seems to me Conservatives were deeply influenced by those with a true agenda to mold the Republican Party into what it became. In a slower method than Trumpism used with Project 25, the rhetoric and religiosity became more and more rigid and divisive beginning in the 1980s. By Trumps first term, the groundwork was ready for ‘Christian nationalist movement’ with the purpose of destroying everything. There are some great people at the Bulwark. I would think they would be up for a conversation about what conservatives would like to see moving forward, just as those on the left are doing. Personally, the current Democratic Party is still to realize its framework needs some major adjustments as well.
I read the Bulwark only to keep an eye on “centrists.” I don’t have a paying subscription and won’t funnel money into their group thinking machine.
It’s my personal opinion that the neocons in Congress helped to normalize the Republican Party by claiming they’re not ALL like that only to be brought very quickly to heel by the money their party has bribed them with. It’s a pretty cushy job, let’s face it. On that note, I think we need to slash Congress’ benefits, take dark money out of politics, and completely re-regulate lobbyists . We also need to ban ALL stock trading by members of Congress and their families to slow the constant and sustainable grift.
I also think that “finding the center” is just stupid for the Democratic Party. We need to be a stronger left so that a true consensus might be found by voting in the candidates prior to making any compromises. Congress. We have too many Chuck Schumers.
So, I see the Enlightenment as having been parlor games for the rich. And the philosophizing done in this moment is done by a few. Fault Lines in the Constitution by Sandy Levinson gets to the root problem that Structural change needs to happen. And does so on a level that leaves no one out. That communication barrier is the one I worry about most.
The USA needs an apartheid truth telling like South Africa had. 49 Acres and a mule. Until that happens we will continue to be the corrupt country that Russia and China want to be. Just TERRIBLE!
The Bulwark is very internally consistent. They may feel ‘elite’ or ‘high-minded’ to some, but they have their public. And the reason why that public follows them is because they defend the ideas that are important to their readers and viewers within the framework of their ‘ideology’. That is what makes them credible. I happen to think that the lack of a real center is the problem and I see them as people who at least attempt to articulate what the real center of American politics should be: the values of a liberal republic. What is the problem with that?
Yes, there is a diversity of opinion but overall an internal consistency across the range of Bulwark perspectives. Absolutely there is a sense of credibility, and we agree that a lot of people value a centrist voice.
The problem is that the center of the American political spectrum has been yanked dramatically to the right over the past 45 years, such that our current centrist positions are actually antithetical to the values of a liberal republic. Just because one (or one outlet or one politician or party platform) espouses liberal values, it does not automatically follow that the *policy positions* and *general narrative* they advance actually support the development of those values.
We believe the bulwark wholeheartedly values those liberal precepts, but their centrist views oftentimes reinforce the very centrist practices that have eroded our liberal culture and political outcomes for decades.
I guess I do not know enough about the nitty gritty of American internal politics. I like their ‘true conservative’ side. They want to preserve what needs to be preserved for a liberal republic to thrive. They don’t like babies being thrown out with the bathwater, which is something people do when they move to the extremes of the spectrum. Every polity needs a center of gravity to function predictably. I may be in a minority, but I am deeply convinced that what populists and demagogues do best is to dynamite in the political center and then they go to town. Centrists see those swings, and they don’t like them, because they are centrists.
I would respectfully ask what babies you think the American left wants to throw out with the bath water, what you think needs to be preserved that “extreme” leftists would take away.
To me, the deeper problem we are dealing with is that you can navigate a liberal democracy if everyone understands that they are a part of a whole, and that is possible in industrialized societies because they do need workers and teachers and geniuses and regular people in good health for it to function. But now that synergy between the needs of a healthy economy and its citizens well being is in question. How are we going to get the GOOD ideas of liberal democracy navigate into whatever comes next? I think we have to pick our battles very carefully and I like the ones the Bulwark takes on. At least so far. The challenge we are facing is not about left and right, in my opinion. It is about right and wrong, which is a much higher threshold.
It was nice having this conversation. Your article is very thoughtful.
An orderly border comes to mind, although my idea of an orderly border differs from Trump’s. Meritocracy, well understood. Rules bases world order. Politics geared to individuals and not to identities. Centrists like to parse things, they don’t like to be put in a straitjacket. That’s what makes them so difficult. I don’t blame you for being frustrated.
Thank you for your answer. On the issue of an orderly border, that is a common sense desire that pro-immigration advocates on the left have long sought. Any argument that a humane and inclusive immigration policy leads to a less orderly border is pure propaganda, and I would disabuse you of that misinformation. Even the most radical “open borders” leftwing policy envisions a smooth immigration process, just a more open hearted one. So let’s do away with that myth once and for all.
On “meritocracy,” I think I might have to ask you to expand on that if you want. I suspect it is a thinly veiled preference for a status quo that favors white people and men, but I would welcome a clarification that frames this perspective in a more defensible light.
Interestingly enough, I had a phone convo with one of my sisters last fall, wherein she decried some of the positions the “radical left” was taking. So I asked her which positions she felt were radical. Was paying everyone a living wage radical? Well, no. Was asking for everyone to have access to healthcare for a reasonable cost radical? Well, no. Was allowing women the right to seek medical care for their reproductive needs radical? No. Turns out there was not a single policy I asked about that she could say was “radical”. She is a self-described centrist, with definite conservative leanings on some issues, particularly abortion. So she doesn’t like the current law in MN that puts no restrictions on abortion at all. But when it comes down to it, she acknowledges that the position that the decision about whether or not to seek an abortion should be left up to the individual, in consultation with her significant other and her doctor, is not a “radical left” position. It’s a start.
Meritocracy means to me that you are judged on your merits, and especially that we value the merit of those who were not blessed with ‘legacy’ opportunities. Our society would be very different if we did not instill the drive to become a better person in a better society, which is what Trump derides from his place of privilege. All that requires us to think and behave like individuals who are also altruistic and empathetic.
Okay, well, nothing to disagree with here! Serious people on the left operate from a world view deeply rooted in altruism and empathy, on interconnectedness and compassion. So these are all very leftwing values, whereas the centrist position has become increasingly devoid of altruism and empathy from Reagan to Clinton to bush to Obama, Trump and Biden. I think this is a perfect example of where “the center” has moved materially from altruism and empathy and left the left with a monopoly on policies that effectuate and incentivize those values. As for meritocracy, it sounds to me like you are basically in favor of common sense “fairness,” and if that is the case, then I would reiterate that these are leftwing positions, not what the left seeks to eliminate.
Surprise, you’re a lefty! I think this exchange of ours illuminates the vast difference between what the actual left wants and supports and what mainstream mischaracterizations of the left (including from outlets like the bulwark) purport us to want. These centrists cast us as extreme and out of touch when empirically speaking, we’re rational and they are often extreme and out of touch. A reality-based understanding of the left makes this plain. A propagandized cartoon of the left obscures it.
I like the way you think! Yet, altruism and empathy can be found in unexpected places. I advise caution in trying to assign it along political lines. What I would like is a country for my grandchildren where human decency is a basic right.
It is often said that “a budget is a moral document.” It’s a little cliche and ham-handed, but the overarching point is correct. Budgets are not the only moral documents. Laws are. Party platforms are. Slogans and campaign ads and talking points are.
Pretending that there is any equivalency between a fascist movement and an anti-fascist movement is how we got here in the first place. Treating the midway point between fascism and opposition to fascism as “reasonable” or “moderate” is how we got here in the first place.
Caution against naming things for what they are is, in part, how we got here in the first place.
Parties have been the failure of democracy. We broke our democracy up into 2 parties and everyone else’s opinion has been forced to fit the framework of those 2 parties. We treat these parties as RIGHT vs WRONG but within each party you can find different truths that simply go unheard. We vote on legislation that also gets simplified into THIS TOPIC or THAT TOPIC but that same legislation has hidden topics in the small print that always slips past the larger public. This is how we got here. Hidden agendas tucked neatly into one view or another but serving a few who care nothing about either.
We have been a part of the biggest pyramid scam since the inception. It will always be the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS. The billionaires don’t have to care about such trivial ideals because they pay and nominate fighters like they are betting on combat sports. This is NOT reality for them, it’s OUR reality and their hobby. Everything we are squirming over is just as much entertainment to them as prime time television is to us. They learned this from the Pharaohs, Emperors, the Caesars, Czars, and Kings or Monarchs, what will always be the 1 - 10%. We are the base of the pyramid and as long as we are at the bottom, they will forever look down on us. We think with democracy it has changed but we gave them too much power. Power to shutdown and have vacations while the rest of the people starve or go without work. No, that’s not the elites but it is their nominees. We believe we shape this government but the whole system is bought and paid for. We elect people to champion our communities but they serve only 💰from endorsements while throwing our money away frivolously. We don’t see the arguments are the point, the division is the point. The circus show we provide them with, while being clueless to the scam. Riots, looting, shootings,…none of that concerns them because they are not even near the threat. They are on private islands while we kill each other. We pay taxes into the scam every year and vote every 4, just for a chance to entertain “The Masters” at the top of the pyramid. Trump is just their current champion, he is no more important than any other. He is trying to come out on top or at least feel that way. He, like all champs, is one knockdown away from losing everything. Right now he’s winning because we’re still paying to watch him fight. The elites are still entertained because we are still paying to watch their broadcast.
When anyone is ready to change the channel (the conditions) let me know. Until then, we will have this same situation for better or worse because we have married ourselves to it. Break the chains ⛓️💥 and free yourselves, or there’s really nothing to talk about.
The history of oligarchs and authoritarianism are congruent and centuries long. The crop of old and new moneied oligarchs now on the scene is typical. They have come to believe that money is power and might makes right, so they are above the rules that apply to everyone, who isn't rich enough.
Their objectivist philosophy doesn't address the reality of who actually does the ground level work. If you inhabit the top of the economic tree and cut its roots, the life of the tree is finite and a crash is iminate.
Readers of the bulwark, readers and Writers of any substack our members of a bubble. I admit I appreciate reading and writing on substack. The problem is not where the bulwark lands on the continuum of political philosophy. The problem is readers of any substack are in a center -left bubble in contrast to the right wing, which continues to reach beyond their bubble with right wing radio, podcast, etc..
That institutions shaping anti-Trump analysis still carry assumptions that helped create this political crisis and we need broader perspectives if we want to actually win.
I've had the very same problems with the Bulwark, They are the Tea party, not MAGA. MAGA is a Trump brand mark. Without Ronald Reagan, William F Buckley, there would be no MAGA, and the Bulwark is still Reaganite Buckleyites. Milton Friedman infested.
They are still the enemy or progressivism and social progress, the friends of the rich, the exploiters.
I watch Bill Maher last night, he had on MTG and showered her with praise, and five minutes later, she was still the same old bigot. She doesn't deny Trump, she still defends Trump, there is only one issue that separates her from Trump and this pedophilia, and the Epstein files..
Same with Liz Cheney, she is the same horrible bigoted person she ever was, with one exception: she stayed true to the Constitution. and despite her sister being a lesbian, she is vehemently anti LBGT.
Liberals are so needy that they will accept as allies, people who aren't save on one issue, they celbrated the Mueller report, thought that that would rid them of the troublesome orange menace, it didn't, then there was the Documents case, moved to South Florida where a Trump acolyte was chosen to preside, and again they celebrated,, Now they celebrate the Epstein files, despite the fact that Pam Bondi will not release anything that incriminates Trump and Republicans and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Not even a contempt of congress order, who is going to arrest Bondi, herself?
The members of the bulwark are neoconservatives. Before this era I thought they wanted a Hitler. I hate much of what the neoconservative movement has done. I usually disagree vehemently with the bulwark's foreign policy, and in my opinion they all have far too rosy a view of this country's role in the world. But I've been proven wrong about their commitment to liberalism. This is by far the most important issue facing us right now, and these people, whatever their shortcomings, are loudly and persistently advocating for human rights, the rule of law, and politics without violence or corruption. They are allies. Let's not reject their efforts, even as we invite them to broaden their range.
We’re not rejecting their efforts. We’re hoping to improve them.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “conservatism failed” — and I’m a leftie! — because it becomes a semantic debate over “what is conservatism?” (I’m also a pragmatist and anxiety-ridden, and I recognize that humans as a species will protect their perceived tribes.)
That said, send this to JVL. It is time for the Bulwark to expand their voice. Pragmatically, of course.
I take your point. When I say conservatism failed, I’m less interested in semantic definitions and more interested in outcomes. The version of conservatism that shaped American politics for the past several decades ultimately produced a movement willing to abandon democratic norms rather than adapt to demographic and economic change.
That said, I agree the practical question now is how spaces like The Bulwark expand their coalition and analysis rather than simply defend an inherited political identity. That’s really what we’re pushing for here.
As I have said before, privilege is to white people as water is to fish: they swim around in it and never notice it... Until the water is drained (from the swamp).
Stew, can you talk more about what conservatism is? Based on my understanding of the word conservatism, it is bound to fail. There is no “staying put.” We all have to change and continue to adapt.
What am I missing?
Great question, and part of what we’re wrestling with.
Conservatism at its best is supposed to be about prudence, institutional stability, and skepticism toward rapid change. The problem is that societies do change, and institutions either adapt or break. That leads to the darker conservative instinct to preserve hierarchy which is something it may be naturally susceptible and thus was blind (or arguably willfully blind) to the ways hierarchy worked in the United States.
Our argument is that much of modern American conservatism stopped adapting and instead framed change itself as illegitimate, which helped create the political crisis we’re living through now.
So the real challenge isn’t whether conservatism can exist, but whether it can evolve in ways that preserve democracy rather than undermine it.
It seems to me Conservatives were deeply influenced by those with a true agenda to mold the Republican Party into what it became. In a slower method than Trumpism used with Project 25, the rhetoric and religiosity became more and more rigid and divisive beginning in the 1980s. By Trumps first term, the groundwork was ready for ‘Christian nationalist movement’ with the purpose of destroying everything. There are some great people at the Bulwark. I would think they would be up for a conversation about what conservatives would like to see moving forward, just as those on the left are doing. Personally, the current Democratic Party is still to realize its framework needs some major adjustments as well.
I read the Bulwark only to keep an eye on “centrists.” I don’t have a paying subscription and won’t funnel money into their group thinking machine.
It’s my personal opinion that the neocons in Congress helped to normalize the Republican Party by claiming they’re not ALL like that only to be brought very quickly to heel by the money their party has bribed them with. It’s a pretty cushy job, let’s face it. On that note, I think we need to slash Congress’ benefits, take dark money out of politics, and completely re-regulate lobbyists . We also need to ban ALL stock trading by members of Congress and their families to slow the constant and sustainable grift.
I also think that “finding the center” is just stupid for the Democratic Party. We need to be a stronger left so that a true consensus might be found by voting in the candidates prior to making any compromises. Congress. We have too many Chuck Schumers.
So, I see the Enlightenment as having been parlor games for the rich. And the philosophizing done in this moment is done by a few. Fault Lines in the Constitution by Sandy Levinson gets to the root problem that Structural change needs to happen. And does so on a level that leaves no one out. That communication barrier is the one I worry about most.
The USA needs an apartheid truth telling like South Africa had. 49 Acres and a mule. Until that happens we will continue to be the corrupt country that Russia and China want to be. Just TERRIBLE!
The Bulwark is very internally consistent. They may feel ‘elite’ or ‘high-minded’ to some, but they have their public. And the reason why that public follows them is because they defend the ideas that are important to their readers and viewers within the framework of their ‘ideology’. That is what makes them credible. I happen to think that the lack of a real center is the problem and I see them as people who at least attempt to articulate what the real center of American politics should be: the values of a liberal republic. What is the problem with that?
Yes, there is a diversity of opinion but overall an internal consistency across the range of Bulwark perspectives. Absolutely there is a sense of credibility, and we agree that a lot of people value a centrist voice.
The problem is that the center of the American political spectrum has been yanked dramatically to the right over the past 45 years, such that our current centrist positions are actually antithetical to the values of a liberal republic. Just because one (or one outlet or one politician or party platform) espouses liberal values, it does not automatically follow that the *policy positions* and *general narrative* they advance actually support the development of those values.
We believe the bulwark wholeheartedly values those liberal precepts, but their centrist views oftentimes reinforce the very centrist practices that have eroded our liberal culture and political outcomes for decades.
I guess I do not know enough about the nitty gritty of American internal politics. I like their ‘true conservative’ side. They want to preserve what needs to be preserved for a liberal republic to thrive. They don’t like babies being thrown out with the bathwater, which is something people do when they move to the extremes of the spectrum. Every polity needs a center of gravity to function predictably. I may be in a minority, but I am deeply convinced that what populists and demagogues do best is to dynamite in the political center and then they go to town. Centrists see those swings, and they don’t like them, because they are centrists.
I would respectfully ask what babies you think the American left wants to throw out with the bath water, what you think needs to be preserved that “extreme” leftists would take away.
To me, the deeper problem we are dealing with is that you can navigate a liberal democracy if everyone understands that they are a part of a whole, and that is possible in industrialized societies because they do need workers and teachers and geniuses and regular people in good health for it to function. But now that synergy between the needs of a healthy economy and its citizens well being is in question. How are we going to get the GOOD ideas of liberal democracy navigate into whatever comes next? I think we have to pick our battles very carefully and I like the ones the Bulwark takes on. At least so far. The challenge we are facing is not about left and right, in my opinion. It is about right and wrong, which is a much higher threshold.
It was nice having this conversation. Your article is very thoughtful.
An orderly border comes to mind, although my idea of an orderly border differs from Trump’s. Meritocracy, well understood. Rules bases world order. Politics geared to individuals and not to identities. Centrists like to parse things, they don’t like to be put in a straitjacket. That’s what makes them so difficult. I don’t blame you for being frustrated.
Thank you for your answer. On the issue of an orderly border, that is a common sense desire that pro-immigration advocates on the left have long sought. Any argument that a humane and inclusive immigration policy leads to a less orderly border is pure propaganda, and I would disabuse you of that misinformation. Even the most radical “open borders” leftwing policy envisions a smooth immigration process, just a more open hearted one. So let’s do away with that myth once and for all.
On “meritocracy,” I think I might have to ask you to expand on that if you want. I suspect it is a thinly veiled preference for a status quo that favors white people and men, but I would welcome a clarification that frames this perspective in a more defensible light.
Interestingly enough, I had a phone convo with one of my sisters last fall, wherein she decried some of the positions the “radical left” was taking. So I asked her which positions she felt were radical. Was paying everyone a living wage radical? Well, no. Was asking for everyone to have access to healthcare for a reasonable cost radical? Well, no. Was allowing women the right to seek medical care for their reproductive needs radical? No. Turns out there was not a single policy I asked about that she could say was “radical”. She is a self-described centrist, with definite conservative leanings on some issues, particularly abortion. So she doesn’t like the current law in MN that puts no restrictions on abortion at all. But when it comes down to it, she acknowledges that the position that the decision about whether or not to seek an abortion should be left up to the individual, in consultation with her significant other and her doctor, is not a “radical left” position. It’s a start.
Meritocracy means to me that you are judged on your merits, and especially that we value the merit of those who were not blessed with ‘legacy’ opportunities. Our society would be very different if we did not instill the drive to become a better person in a better society, which is what Trump derides from his place of privilege. All that requires us to think and behave like individuals who are also altruistic and empathetic.
Okay, well, nothing to disagree with here! Serious people on the left operate from a world view deeply rooted in altruism and empathy, on interconnectedness and compassion. So these are all very leftwing values, whereas the centrist position has become increasingly devoid of altruism and empathy from Reagan to Clinton to bush to Obama, Trump and Biden. I think this is a perfect example of where “the center” has moved materially from altruism and empathy and left the left with a monopoly on policies that effectuate and incentivize those values. As for meritocracy, it sounds to me like you are basically in favor of common sense “fairness,” and if that is the case, then I would reiterate that these are leftwing positions, not what the left seeks to eliminate.
Surprise, you’re a lefty! I think this exchange of ours illuminates the vast difference between what the actual left wants and supports and what mainstream mischaracterizations of the left (including from outlets like the bulwark) purport us to want. These centrists cast us as extreme and out of touch when empirically speaking, we’re rational and they are often extreme and out of touch. A reality-based understanding of the left makes this plain. A propagandized cartoon of the left obscures it.
I like the way you think! Yet, altruism and empathy can be found in unexpected places. I advise caution in trying to assign it along political lines. What I would like is a country for my grandchildren where human decency is a basic right.
It is often said that “a budget is a moral document.” It’s a little cliche and ham-handed, but the overarching point is correct. Budgets are not the only moral documents. Laws are. Party platforms are. Slogans and campaign ads and talking points are.
Pretending that there is any equivalency between a fascist movement and an anti-fascist movement is how we got here in the first place. Treating the midway point between fascism and opposition to fascism as “reasonable” or “moderate” is how we got here in the first place.
Caution against naming things for what they are is, in part, how we got here in the first place.
Parties have been the failure of democracy. We broke our democracy up into 2 parties and everyone else’s opinion has been forced to fit the framework of those 2 parties. We treat these parties as RIGHT vs WRONG but within each party you can find different truths that simply go unheard. We vote on legislation that also gets simplified into THIS TOPIC or THAT TOPIC but that same legislation has hidden topics in the small print that always slips past the larger public. This is how we got here. Hidden agendas tucked neatly into one view or another but serving a few who care nothing about either.
We have been a part of the biggest pyramid scam since the inception. It will always be the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS. The billionaires don’t have to care about such trivial ideals because they pay and nominate fighters like they are betting on combat sports. This is NOT reality for them, it’s OUR reality and their hobby. Everything we are squirming over is just as much entertainment to them as prime time television is to us. They learned this from the Pharaohs, Emperors, the Caesars, Czars, and Kings or Monarchs, what will always be the 1 - 10%. We are the base of the pyramid and as long as we are at the bottom, they will forever look down on us. We think with democracy it has changed but we gave them too much power. Power to shutdown and have vacations while the rest of the people starve or go without work. No, that’s not the elites but it is their nominees. We believe we shape this government but the whole system is bought and paid for. We elect people to champion our communities but they serve only 💰from endorsements while throwing our money away frivolously. We don’t see the arguments are the point, the division is the point. The circus show we provide them with, while being clueless to the scam. Riots, looting, shootings,…none of that concerns them because they are not even near the threat. They are on private islands while we kill each other. We pay taxes into the scam every year and vote every 4, just for a chance to entertain “The Masters” at the top of the pyramid. Trump is just their current champion, he is no more important than any other. He is trying to come out on top or at least feel that way. He, like all champs, is one knockdown away from losing everything. Right now he’s winning because we’re still paying to watch him fight. The elites are still entertained because we are still paying to watch their broadcast.
When anyone is ready to change the channel (the conditions) let me know. Until then, we will have this same situation for better or worse because we have married ourselves to it. Break the chains ⛓️💥 and free yourselves, or there’s really nothing to talk about.
The history of oligarchs and authoritarianism are congruent and centuries long. The crop of old and new moneied oligarchs now on the scene is typical. They have come to believe that money is power and might makes right, so they are above the rules that apply to everyone, who isn't rich enough.
Their objectivist philosophy doesn't address the reality of who actually does the ground level work. If you inhabit the top of the economic tree and cut its roots, the life of the tree is finite and a crash is iminate.
Readers of the bulwark, readers and Writers of any substack our members of a bubble. I admit I appreciate reading and writing on substack. The problem is not where the bulwark lands on the continuum of political philosophy. The problem is readers of any substack are in a center -left bubble in contrast to the right wing, which continues to reach beyond their bubble with right wing radio, podcast, etc..
Yes, one can argue we’re in a bubble, which is why we can’t afford intellectual gatekeeping inside it?
True. I do feel we need to open our gates wider (sorry for the mixed metaphor).
Your point?
That institutions shaping anti-Trump analysis still carry assumptions that helped create this political crisis and we need broader perspectives if we want to actually win.
Can you please offer examples?
Tune into our upcoming series “reality checking the bulwark” for contemporary examples 🙏
I've had the very same problems with the Bulwark, They are the Tea party, not MAGA. MAGA is a Trump brand mark. Without Ronald Reagan, William F Buckley, there would be no MAGA, and the Bulwark is still Reaganite Buckleyites. Milton Friedman infested.
They are still the enemy or progressivism and social progress, the friends of the rich, the exploiters.
I watch Bill Maher last night, he had on MTG and showered her with praise, and five minutes later, she was still the same old bigot. She doesn't deny Trump, she still defends Trump, there is only one issue that separates her from Trump and this pedophilia, and the Epstein files..
Same with Liz Cheney, she is the same horrible bigoted person she ever was, with one exception: she stayed true to the Constitution. and despite her sister being a lesbian, she is vehemently anti LBGT.
Liberals are so needy that they will accept as allies, people who aren't save on one issue, they celbrated the Mueller report, thought that that would rid them of the troublesome orange menace, it didn't, then there was the Documents case, moved to South Florida where a Trump acolyte was chosen to preside, and again they celebrated,, Now they celebrate the Epstein files, despite the fact that Pam Bondi will not release anything that incriminates Trump and Republicans and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Not even a contempt of congress order, who is going to arrest Bondi, herself?
Meanwhile the following is from an FBI tip file, that the White House put up on the web, but when they realized it, they pulled it, but not before Meidas Touch snagged it. Trump is getting fellatio from a 14 year old girl.https://www.jezebel.com/doj-drops-millions-of-epstein-files-then-briefly-pulls-1-listing-sexual-abuse-allegations-against-trump
https://www.meidasplus.com/p/doj-just-deleted-this-document-from