I answer questions about links between data science and intersectionality, why so many conservatives are drawn to Catholicism, and how to cut through the "bad faith and bullshit" in our politics
Linker, your realism is shining through all these responses, especially your trenchant rebuttal to Mr. Scialabba's left nostalgia (no, the right does not hold the exclusive franchise on dreams of restoring a hypothetical golden age; for liberals, that would be the period between roughly 1961 and 1967). He probably does not realize that although he abjures the system that enables the obscene concentration of economic power (I wanted to in days gone by), neither he nor you nor I would be able to endure for very long the absence of the material and social goods it brought in its wake. At least our stomachs would not. If one considers things with a measure of determinism rather than the consumerist lens that late-20th century prosperity conditioned most people to view almost all of life with, we come upon the insight that we cannot always choose certain aspects of an ideology to accept or reject like produce at a salad bar (remember that analogy?). We usually have to take them wholesale as a package (especially with the American electoral system, which is not going to change in profound ways anytime soon) and cannot always foresee the downsides--an insight conservatives used to understand but have jettisoned in favor of a raw, crass pursuit of extirpating its rivals, and thus imagining themselves masters of history, as generations of myriad totalitarian, closed worldviews have done.
Now, if my insight makes me sound like a libertarian, I would like to say in Scialabba's defense that, contra your seeming dismissal of the question, inequality does indeed create conditions of resentment and the decline of trust, things that plowed the ground for the recent rise of MAGAism and the post-liberal vogue on the right. That said, the left has increasingly no sense of history (at least an unflinchingly, rigorously disenchanted one). That is especially the case when its doctrinaires refuse to comprehend situations that do not conform to their ideological priors, like the Weimar period. For it was then that the onerous reparations handed down at Versailles undermined any attempt by German pols to build a lasting liberal-democratic edifice that could resist the lures, first, of the "revolutionary conservatives" (roughly the stage where the Republican Party and its cognates elsewhere in the West are now), and then the seduction of Hitler's appeal to the basest human instincts. Woodrow Wilson is the American most responsible for what transpired, from a realist standpoint.
Point being, we now know, or should, that leftist redistributionism is far from the only possible response to maladies like that described above. In cultures shaped by authoritarian expressions of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox; they all ethically amount to the same here) combined, paradoxically enough, with the same materialist outlook on life that classic Marxism sees as the sine qua non of human civilizations of any kind (namely, that acquisition and consumption of material goods is more important than the inner human life), fascism, or its close cousins like Orbanism or the DeSantis experiment in Florida, is the likelier to appeal to a public reared on notions that certain ideas about life are sacrosanct and should not be subject to the academic-type "acids of modernity," as Walter Lippmann put it.
The resulting political impotence of class-conflict models in such a scenario poses painful questions for the left, to be sure, about whether or not alternatives to an identitarian mode are even possible anymore in liberal culture. That is what Scialabba and his dittoheads out there need to ponder instead of trotting out the tired, dated tub-thumping act that has gotten everyone to the left of, say, Joe Manchin, absolutely nowhere. If you do not believe me, then ask why Bernard Sanders has not achieved public office outside that bastion of squeaky-clean, hyper-liberal New England rectitude, Vermont.
We are, in all likelihood, never going to have Medicare for all or a Green New Deal, because the left has nowhere near the muscle it needs to get beyond its coterie to break through to "the system." The enduring appeal of Horatio Algerism in our supposedly more sophisticated, technocratic age (huh!) is the main reason, as Linker pointed out, and it has perhaps done more than anything to keep conservatism not only alive, but thriving in an age when we were supposed to have done away with clashes over the allocation of scarce resources, if one took the 1990s neoliberal utopians (a la Thomas Friedman et al.) seriously. But I do hope that the same holds true for basic human liberty at the Federal level for what has become the far left's mirror image, although I am not holding my breath any that the Congress or the Supreme Court will be willing or able to retard the steadily growing stranglehold of perpetual culture war on states dominated by non-metropolitan mores in the Midwest and South. Red America is not letting up in the wake of Trump, not a solitary inch. In other words, it "can happen here."
Love this whole comment. Bravo sir! The only thing I would change, ……. “cannot always foresee the downsides (NEVER foresee the downsides) an insight conservatives used to understand but have jettisoned in favor of a raw, crass pursuit of extirpating its rivals, and thus imagining themselves masters of history, as generations of myriad totalitarian, closed worldviews have done.”
Uh, Mary ... I would not go THAT far. It is hard to think of an example, but I suppose in general, the generation of intellectuals chastened by Hitler and Stalin, from, say Hannah Arendt onward through the likes of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and his "Vital Center" school of allies, had a more sober esteem of human nature than did those from roughly the Reconstruction of the South through the Great Depression. (Note that I do not include the so-called "New York Intellectuals" in this grouping--all through their ideological metamorphoses, as people like the Brit reactionary John Gray have pointed out, they retained a Trotsky-like teleology largely borrowed, strangely enough given their mostly Jewishness, not so much from Marx or Lenin but from late-medieval Christian millenarians.)
It looked for awhile in the wake of Potsdam that caution and sobriety were in vogue and would stay that way for decades in the future, well into the 21st century even, as long as the Iron Curtain was drawn tight and mutual deterrence held in place. Hell, the era even gave birth to National Review and fusionism, something I cannot imagine taking place 20 years or so earlier (the Old Right was in ruins and stayed that way for about 60 to 80 years). People wanted peace and quiet above all else in the Fifties, and, by and large, they got it.
But JFK, with his youthful image and revival of Wilsonian idealism, wound up putting it to bed by stepping up the anti-Red crusade to give it an eschatological flavor (helped out by Castro's supremo saber-rattling and Diem's ineptitude), a quality that Truman and Eisenhower and their advisors self-consciously rejected out of hand. After Dallas in 1963, LBJ threw it into overdrive, going full messianic with the Wise Men [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wise_Men_(book)] and the Great Society, and we have been spinning around and around ever since, except for maybe the 1980s and 1990s when neoliberalism actually seemed to work and calmed things down in Washington and on campus (I would scarcely recognize one today--only a few piddling, asinine protests ever took place when I was there 30-odd years ago--and those basically romanticizing the days of 1968 Chicago and Kent State). Things were so placid, I did not even bother to vote in the Clinton/Dole yawnfest in 1996. Then history restarted (sorry, Francis Fukuyama) one Tuesday morning about 20 months into the millennium. Need I say more?
So, I would modify your "NEVER" to a more epistemically modest "seldom." The most serious thinkers are those who have that rare capability of applying their imaginations to worst-case scenarios and knowing when to draw back and refrain from linear conceptions, using dialectical ones instead. In our lifetimes, we are never (yes, never; you can definitely count on that) going to see thinkers and political actors do their jobs with a high-minded disinterestedness again (too "BO-ring!" for your social media nuts and uninspiring to a thrill-seeking population generally). Some of the younger generations never have. But let us agree that "seldom" fits best, and I do concur with you that my first post stated the case a little too positively. Does that work?
I think the answer to George Scialabba’s question focused almost solely on the role of inequality in creating political instability. Whereas the question seemed as concerned or more concerned with the socio-economic suffering it can cause to those left out (which of course adds to instability).
This "Ask Me Anything" resulted in a great potpourri of interesting discussions! As a Recovering Catholic, you really locked in for me how their ingrained sense of what is True, drives their omnipotent behavior that at its core is authoritarian.
I would like to make a comment in connection to George Scialabba's question and your (Damon's) response: Damon maintains that economic standing alone does not determingevoting choices. That is true--but that is not the only thing going on. Inequality affects numerous other factors in life, directly or indirectly--even if those at the bottom don't always vote their pocketbook (or think they don't). Back when French social economist Thomas Picketty's books were being translated into English, a number of us (social scientists) were talking about them (in particular the first book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century--English translation 2014) and asking ourselves if there was a "master problem" in the world today--and, for what it is worth, there was general agreement that the "master problem" was inequality. I am talking here not only about the US, but the entire world, which is now deeply interconnected.
Inequality has existed as long as there have been stratified state societies, but today, with the internet and digital communication, awareness of one's own situation vis-a-vis others is much greater than in the past, leading to many grievances--and, as we know, grievances and anger have grown--and a lot of that, while not necessarily directly based on economic differences, are indirectly based on those. And, at the same time, the super-wealthy have grown to obscene proportions, even though there are relatively few of them within the US or the world. They have outstandingly outsized international power that is unprecedented (we are on track to seeing the first individual trillionaire!!!) This is tremendously destabilizing to both US and world order (and, in fact, as the late political philosopher, Sheldon Wolin, has continuously written--we are not really a democracy anymore, but some sort of oligarchy). I do consider that to be part of the "master problem" of inequality, which effects so much else that may not immediately appear to be economic in nature. (My response here echoes what another poster on this site--Evets--has said).
While I shudder at the thought of armed conflict over this matter, I share a lot Scialabba's critique--and I think that our political energies should be directed towards lessening the now highly unequal circumstances before us. We can start in the US with all the interconnected problems people face in getting medical and dental care. Here is a relatively simple issue: why are eye and dental care always separated from the rest of medical care in insurance policies? (I just had to help an adult millennial daughter pay for her dental care because she is struggling to get adequate medical coverage in spite of the three jobs she holds down).
Just a brief comment on the ties to A Dugin. Benjamin Teitelbaum in his book A War For Eternity states Bannon broke from Dugin and Eastern Traditionalism in favor of Orban and his (Bannon’s) own version of a Western Traditionalism. I suppose the same is true for the Tuckerites et. al. It would make sense for several reasons.
Mr. Beiner, you made a pretty good case that Bannon and Dugin are in effect brothers-in-arms, at least barroom buddies, anyway, by worshipping at the altar of Evola and Heidegger. In mainstream media culture, though, no one pays any attention to the philosophical/metaphysical underpinning of the Fascist Internationale, but knows that Durgin seems like a Byzantine, pan-Slavic fanatic out of pre-Soviet times and Bannon is a vile bastard, full stop (but remember that to his admirers, bastardy is a feature, not a bug, that they cannot get enough of--moral inversion in full flower, in other words). Showing them up for their personas will grab attention better than an investigation into their influences, but for our purposes, you struck gold. Thanks for the read.
Very glad you liked the essay! Bannon pretty clearly still has the ear of Trump. And alas, we can't rule out Trump re-occupying the White House in 2025. Quite shocking that Teitelbaum's revelation of the 8-hour rendezvous in Rome didn't generate a great deal more attention than it did (& which Bannon himself expected!!). OK for people who spent 7 months in the West Wing to have heart-to-heart chats with America-hating Russian fascists? Really??
As hard as it is to believe, the current Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, actually sat at the same table & debated Dugin 2 years after the Administration that Blinken was a part of (viz., the Obama Administration) had (quite reasonably!) imposed sanctions against Dugin for his nefarious activities in the Donbas. Check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj24FTHuGXA
Thanks for the reply. Well said. I read your piece with interest. It’s apparent I should have enclosed “broke” with Dugin in parens to denote the lack of honesty or morality in Bannon’s actions--ok, it’s cynicism of the most self-serving kind. Certainly, he agrees with the goal of Dugin’s Eastern Traditionalist underpinnings and he would never miss the opportunity to attaches his lips to a powerful person. I think he sought to distance himself from the unfortunate affinity expressed by ETs for Islam as the most likely agent in bringing about the destruction of the West to better his chances of remaining welcome in the western environment; hence better to hitch the wagon to the alt-right darling, Hungary. I’m sure he thinks he’s a genius but there is benefit and more than a slight hint of treachery. Bannon can now advocate for the undoing and destruction of the West among the developing Judeo Christian alliance. A project that is meeting with some success if the recent National Conservative convention is any indicator. One can only marvel at our disheveled hero and consider the banality of the far right.
Thanks again, and all be adding Inroads to my list of reads.
Excellent insight, there, that Hungary is more palatable to post-liberal Republican primary voters especially than Russia, at least right now (as for the red-hatters, I sure do not know; they probably do not give a damn about the comparative merits of the two nations as models for replacing our Constitutional republic, since they imagine themselves and their idol as not only not undermining it, but rather trying to bolster it).
When it boils down to it, Dugin and Poot are likely a little too much for most of the American high-end far right to stomach, but not Orban. As we know, Orban has numerous disciples in the U.S., one of whom has all but set his eyes straight on the Presidency in 2024. Bannon will jump ship to DeSantis if he thinks Trump is toast in the primaries next year, I all but guarantee you. Trump is just a vehicle for Bannon's ambitions (despite getting kicked out once before), just like he was for all those of the other appointees and employees at the White House and departments from 2017 to 2021. How could it be otherwise when the man's transactional ethos was the binding glue, the basic modus operandi, of his Administration, even when the ordinary vanity and hubris to which political operative are especially prone is taken into account? Trump is not as indispensable to Republican fortunes as was presumed as recently as a few months back; he and DeSantis are now running--get this--neck and neck in recent polls, something unimaginable as recently as this past Christmas.
Now, DeSantis is a true believer in post-liberalism, make no mistake. Whether that inclines him toward emulating DJT in treating people as means toward his own personal ends, or whether his Catholic faith and modest background will keep him clean, will not be known until he gets his hands on the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I am afraid.
David French wrote in the New York Times February 15 that the Jack Smith should make a prosecutorial decision based purely on the law and leave political considerations to the political branch. He argues such considerations should be left to the presidential pardon power. So in a way he agrees with you but kicks the decision about prosecuting Trump to the president and out of the DOJ. What are your thoughts?
You are most welcome.
Linker, your realism is shining through all these responses, especially your trenchant rebuttal to Mr. Scialabba's left nostalgia (no, the right does not hold the exclusive franchise on dreams of restoring a hypothetical golden age; for liberals, that would be the period between roughly 1961 and 1967). He probably does not realize that although he abjures the system that enables the obscene concentration of economic power (I wanted to in days gone by), neither he nor you nor I would be able to endure for very long the absence of the material and social goods it brought in its wake. At least our stomachs would not. If one considers things with a measure of determinism rather than the consumerist lens that late-20th century prosperity conditioned most people to view almost all of life with, we come upon the insight that we cannot always choose certain aspects of an ideology to accept or reject like produce at a salad bar (remember that analogy?). We usually have to take them wholesale as a package (especially with the American electoral system, which is not going to change in profound ways anytime soon) and cannot always foresee the downsides--an insight conservatives used to understand but have jettisoned in favor of a raw, crass pursuit of extirpating its rivals, and thus imagining themselves masters of history, as generations of myriad totalitarian, closed worldviews have done.
Now, if my insight makes me sound like a libertarian, I would like to say in Scialabba's defense that, contra your seeming dismissal of the question, inequality does indeed create conditions of resentment and the decline of trust, things that plowed the ground for the recent rise of MAGAism and the post-liberal vogue on the right. That said, the left has increasingly no sense of history (at least an unflinchingly, rigorously disenchanted one). That is especially the case when its doctrinaires refuse to comprehend situations that do not conform to their ideological priors, like the Weimar period. For it was then that the onerous reparations handed down at Versailles undermined any attempt by German pols to build a lasting liberal-democratic edifice that could resist the lures, first, of the "revolutionary conservatives" (roughly the stage where the Republican Party and its cognates elsewhere in the West are now), and then the seduction of Hitler's appeal to the basest human instincts. Woodrow Wilson is the American most responsible for what transpired, from a realist standpoint.
Point being, we now know, or should, that leftist redistributionism is far from the only possible response to maladies like that described above. In cultures shaped by authoritarian expressions of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox; they all ethically amount to the same here) combined, paradoxically enough, with the same materialist outlook on life that classic Marxism sees as the sine qua non of human civilizations of any kind (namely, that acquisition and consumption of material goods is more important than the inner human life), fascism, or its close cousins like Orbanism or the DeSantis experiment in Florida, is the likelier to appeal to a public reared on notions that certain ideas about life are sacrosanct and should not be subject to the academic-type "acids of modernity," as Walter Lippmann put it.
The resulting political impotence of class-conflict models in such a scenario poses painful questions for the left, to be sure, about whether or not alternatives to an identitarian mode are even possible anymore in liberal culture. That is what Scialabba and his dittoheads out there need to ponder instead of trotting out the tired, dated tub-thumping act that has gotten everyone to the left of, say, Joe Manchin, absolutely nowhere. If you do not believe me, then ask why Bernard Sanders has not achieved public office outside that bastion of squeaky-clean, hyper-liberal New England rectitude, Vermont.
We are, in all likelihood, never going to have Medicare for all or a Green New Deal, because the left has nowhere near the muscle it needs to get beyond its coterie to break through to "the system." The enduring appeal of Horatio Algerism in our supposedly more sophisticated, technocratic age (huh!) is the main reason, as Linker pointed out, and it has perhaps done more than anything to keep conservatism not only alive, but thriving in an age when we were supposed to have done away with clashes over the allocation of scarce resources, if one took the 1990s neoliberal utopians (a la Thomas Friedman et al.) seriously. But I do hope that the same holds true for basic human liberty at the Federal level for what has become the far left's mirror image, although I am not holding my breath any that the Congress or the Supreme Court will be willing or able to retard the steadily growing stranglehold of perpetual culture war on states dominated by non-metropolitan mores in the Midwest and South. Red America is not letting up in the wake of Trump, not a solitary inch. In other words, it "can happen here."
You have nothing to lose but your chains, hell.
Love this whole comment. Bravo sir! The only thing I would change, ……. “cannot always foresee the downsides (NEVER foresee the downsides) an insight conservatives used to understand but have jettisoned in favor of a raw, crass pursuit of extirpating its rivals, and thus imagining themselves masters of history, as generations of myriad totalitarian, closed worldviews have done.”
Uh, Mary ... I would not go THAT far. It is hard to think of an example, but I suppose in general, the generation of intellectuals chastened by Hitler and Stalin, from, say Hannah Arendt onward through the likes of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and his "Vital Center" school of allies, had a more sober esteem of human nature than did those from roughly the Reconstruction of the South through the Great Depression. (Note that I do not include the so-called "New York Intellectuals" in this grouping--all through their ideological metamorphoses, as people like the Brit reactionary John Gray have pointed out, they retained a Trotsky-like teleology largely borrowed, strangely enough given their mostly Jewishness, not so much from Marx or Lenin but from late-medieval Christian millenarians.)
It looked for awhile in the wake of Potsdam that caution and sobriety were in vogue and would stay that way for decades in the future, well into the 21st century even, as long as the Iron Curtain was drawn tight and mutual deterrence held in place. Hell, the era even gave birth to National Review and fusionism, something I cannot imagine taking place 20 years or so earlier (the Old Right was in ruins and stayed that way for about 60 to 80 years). People wanted peace and quiet above all else in the Fifties, and, by and large, they got it.
But JFK, with his youthful image and revival of Wilsonian idealism, wound up putting it to bed by stepping up the anti-Red crusade to give it an eschatological flavor (helped out by Castro's supremo saber-rattling and Diem's ineptitude), a quality that Truman and Eisenhower and their advisors self-consciously rejected out of hand. After Dallas in 1963, LBJ threw it into overdrive, going full messianic with the Wise Men [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wise_Men_(book)] and the Great Society, and we have been spinning around and around ever since, except for maybe the 1980s and 1990s when neoliberalism actually seemed to work and calmed things down in Washington and on campus (I would scarcely recognize one today--only a few piddling, asinine protests ever took place when I was there 30-odd years ago--and those basically romanticizing the days of 1968 Chicago and Kent State). Things were so placid, I did not even bother to vote in the Clinton/Dole yawnfest in 1996. Then history restarted (sorry, Francis Fukuyama) one Tuesday morning about 20 months into the millennium. Need I say more?
So, I would modify your "NEVER" to a more epistemically modest "seldom." The most serious thinkers are those who have that rare capability of applying their imaginations to worst-case scenarios and knowing when to draw back and refrain from linear conceptions, using dialectical ones instead. In our lifetimes, we are never (yes, never; you can definitely count on that) going to see thinkers and political actors do their jobs with a high-minded disinterestedness again (too "BO-ring!" for your social media nuts and uninspiring to a thrill-seeking population generally). Some of the younger generations never have. But let us agree that "seldom" fits best, and I do concur with you that my first post stated the case a little too positively. Does that work?
I think the answer to George Scialabba’s question focused almost solely on the role of inequality in creating political instability. Whereas the question seemed as concerned or more concerned with the socio-economic suffering it can cause to those left out (which of course adds to instability).
This "Ask Me Anything" resulted in a great potpourri of interesting discussions! As a Recovering Catholic, you really locked in for me how their ingrained sense of what is True, drives their omnipotent behavior that at its core is authoritarian.
Same!
I would like to make a comment in connection to George Scialabba's question and your (Damon's) response: Damon maintains that economic standing alone does not determingevoting choices. That is true--but that is not the only thing going on. Inequality affects numerous other factors in life, directly or indirectly--even if those at the bottom don't always vote their pocketbook (or think they don't). Back when French social economist Thomas Picketty's books were being translated into English, a number of us (social scientists) were talking about them (in particular the first book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century--English translation 2014) and asking ourselves if there was a "master problem" in the world today--and, for what it is worth, there was general agreement that the "master problem" was inequality. I am talking here not only about the US, but the entire world, which is now deeply interconnected.
Inequality has existed as long as there have been stratified state societies, but today, with the internet and digital communication, awareness of one's own situation vis-a-vis others is much greater than in the past, leading to many grievances--and, as we know, grievances and anger have grown--and a lot of that, while not necessarily directly based on economic differences, are indirectly based on those. And, at the same time, the super-wealthy have grown to obscene proportions, even though there are relatively few of them within the US or the world. They have outstandingly outsized international power that is unprecedented (we are on track to seeing the first individual trillionaire!!!) This is tremendously destabilizing to both US and world order (and, in fact, as the late political philosopher, Sheldon Wolin, has continuously written--we are not really a democracy anymore, but some sort of oligarchy). I do consider that to be part of the "master problem" of inequality, which effects so much else that may not immediately appear to be economic in nature. (My response here echoes what another poster on this site--Evets--has said).
While I shudder at the thought of armed conflict over this matter, I share a lot Scialabba's critique--and I think that our political energies should be directed towards lessening the now highly unequal circumstances before us. We can start in the US with all the interconnected problems people face in getting medical and dental care. Here is a relatively simple issue: why are eye and dental care always separated from the rest of medical care in insurance policies? (I just had to help an adult millennial daughter pay for her dental care because she is struggling to get adequate medical coverage in spite of the three jobs she holds down).
Just a brief comment on the ties to A Dugin. Benjamin Teitelbaum in his book A War For Eternity states Bannon broke from Dugin and Eastern Traditionalism in favor of Orban and his (Bannon’s) own version of a Western Traditionalism. I suppose the same is true for the Tuckerites et. al. It would make sense for several reasons.
This recent piece of mine on the Bannon-Dugin relationship might be of interest: https://inroadsjournal.ca/fascist-international/
Mr. Beiner, you made a pretty good case that Bannon and Dugin are in effect brothers-in-arms, at least barroom buddies, anyway, by worshipping at the altar of Evola and Heidegger. In mainstream media culture, though, no one pays any attention to the philosophical/metaphysical underpinning of the Fascist Internationale, but knows that Durgin seems like a Byzantine, pan-Slavic fanatic out of pre-Soviet times and Bannon is a vile bastard, full stop (but remember that to his admirers, bastardy is a feature, not a bug, that they cannot get enough of--moral inversion in full flower, in other words). Showing them up for their personas will grab attention better than an investigation into their influences, but for our purposes, you struck gold. Thanks for the read.
Very glad you liked the essay! Bannon pretty clearly still has the ear of Trump. And alas, we can't rule out Trump re-occupying the White House in 2025. Quite shocking that Teitelbaum's revelation of the 8-hour rendezvous in Rome didn't generate a great deal more attention than it did (& which Bannon himself expected!!). OK for people who spent 7 months in the West Wing to have heart-to-heart chats with America-hating Russian fascists? Really??
As hard as it is to believe, the current Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, actually sat at the same table & debated Dugin 2 years after the Administration that Blinken was a part of (viz., the Obama Administration) had (quite reasonably!) imposed sanctions against Dugin for his nefarious activities in the Donbas. Check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj24FTHuGXA
Thanks for the reply. Well said. I read your piece with interest. It’s apparent I should have enclosed “broke” with Dugin in parens to denote the lack of honesty or morality in Bannon’s actions--ok, it’s cynicism of the most self-serving kind. Certainly, he agrees with the goal of Dugin’s Eastern Traditionalist underpinnings and he would never miss the opportunity to attaches his lips to a powerful person. I think he sought to distance himself from the unfortunate affinity expressed by ETs for Islam as the most likely agent in bringing about the destruction of the West to better his chances of remaining welcome in the western environment; hence better to hitch the wagon to the alt-right darling, Hungary. I’m sure he thinks he’s a genius but there is benefit and more than a slight hint of treachery. Bannon can now advocate for the undoing and destruction of the West among the developing Judeo Christian alliance. A project that is meeting with some success if the recent National Conservative convention is any indicator. One can only marvel at our disheveled hero and consider the banality of the far right.
Thanks again, and all be adding Inroads to my list of reads.
Cheers
Excellent insight, there, that Hungary is more palatable to post-liberal Republican primary voters especially than Russia, at least right now (as for the red-hatters, I sure do not know; they probably do not give a damn about the comparative merits of the two nations as models for replacing our Constitutional republic, since they imagine themselves and their idol as not only not undermining it, but rather trying to bolster it).
When it boils down to it, Dugin and Poot are likely a little too much for most of the American high-end far right to stomach, but not Orban. As we know, Orban has numerous disciples in the U.S., one of whom has all but set his eyes straight on the Presidency in 2024. Bannon will jump ship to DeSantis if he thinks Trump is toast in the primaries next year, I all but guarantee you. Trump is just a vehicle for Bannon's ambitions (despite getting kicked out once before), just like he was for all those of the other appointees and employees at the White House and departments from 2017 to 2021. How could it be otherwise when the man's transactional ethos was the binding glue, the basic modus operandi, of his Administration, even when the ordinary vanity and hubris to which political operative are especially prone is taken into account? Trump is not as indispensable to Republican fortunes as was presumed as recently as a few months back; he and DeSantis are now running--get this--neck and neck in recent polls, something unimaginable as recently as this past Christmas.
Now, DeSantis is a true believer in post-liberalism, make no mistake. Whether that inclines him toward emulating DJT in treating people as means toward his own personal ends, or whether his Catholic faith and modest background will keep him clean, will not be known until he gets his hands on the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I am afraid.
This is one of my favorite things Damon does on his Substack, and cheers to my fellow readers who are clearly an intelligent bunch.
David French wrote in the New York Times February 15 that the Jack Smith should make a prosecutorial decision based purely on the law and leave political considerations to the political branch. He argues such considerations should be left to the presidential pardon power. So in a way he agrees with you but kicks the decision about prosecuting Trump to the president and out of the DOJ. What are your thoughts?