In your section on philosophical analysis you imply that people without graduate school will not understand it. Now, I did go to graduate school, the French department of Columbia University, to be exact. I also graduated from Barnard College. However, I believe that I would have been able to understand your analysis of Leo Strauss for example without all that education. It's quite possible to learn a lot from outside reading and other sources. I am sure that I have learned more broadly after university than during my years there. Therefore, I encourage you to delve into philosophy and give your readers the opportunity to reach up to your points of view.
As a paying subscriber, I love what you are doing and encourage you to do more of it. Balance and nuance are sadly in short supply in much of today's political and social analysis. I am surprised, however, to hear you say the following: "Something about our digitally networked world, along with its distinctive socioeconomic configurations and trends, is encouraging right-wing antiliberalism. We don’t really know what this something is or why it’s having this effect." I think we do have a pretty good idea of what this "something" is, though it is tough to know what to do about it. In short, liberalism succeeded by drawing on a set of social norms (mostly religious) that it simultaneously undermined, leaving an atomized population culturally adrift and exposed to the ravages of technology-fueled mass consumer capitalism. Many others have covered this territory better than I can. I would point you to the work of fellow Substack authors Paul Kingsnorth and N.S. Lyons, who have both delved deeply into the underlying currents.
You said: Philosophical Analysis—These aren’t as common, mostly because they require a lot of preparatory work on my part, but also because I don’t want things to get too densely academic around here, excluding subscribers who haven’t gone to graduate school.
My response: These are my favorite posts BECAUSE I haven't gone to graduate school:)
I have appreciated reading entries in all of those categories. Congrats and thanks. I have been especially interested in the posts on particular thinkers on the right. It's not hard to understand why grasping politicians like DeSantis would latch onto policy entrepreneurs like Chris Rufo (of "CTR" branding fame) and try to extract any electoral advantage they think they could yield. But I am completely confounded (but fearfully fascinated) by the rightwing thinkers like Rod Dreher and Adrian Vermeule, who are powerful intellects but who seem to me to have gone off the deep end.
As a lefty, it's not hard for me to find things to hate about modernity, so that part doesn't mystify me. But I don't get why these kinds of successful, affluent, prominent and well-compensated men are so horrified by or contemptuous of the way the mass of people (especially women and secular people) are moved by liberal culture and its key notes of egalitarianism? Seems like there has got to be psychic reasons behind the philosophical ones.
(I'm a new comer so I don't know if you've written about Vermeule––would love to hear those thoughts.)
Damon, when you begin to understand that the Democrats (and the worldwide Left more generally) are every bit as antiliberal as the Republicans, then you will begin to understand what is going on.
Also, when did "antiliberal" replace "illiberal" as the meaningless slur of the moment? So hard to keep up.
Congratulations on the first anniversary of this enterprise, Damon. I'm happy I've been along for the ride.
Congratulations Damon and thank you for your work.
Keep up the great work Damon!
In your section on philosophical analysis you imply that people without graduate school will not understand it. Now, I did go to graduate school, the French department of Columbia University, to be exact. I also graduated from Barnard College. However, I believe that I would have been able to understand your analysis of Leo Strauss for example without all that education. It's quite possible to learn a lot from outside reading and other sources. I am sure that I have learned more broadly after university than during my years there. Therefore, I encourage you to delve into philosophy and give your readers the opportunity to reach up to your points of view.
As a paying subscriber, I love what you are doing and encourage you to do more of it. Balance and nuance are sadly in short supply in much of today's political and social analysis. I am surprised, however, to hear you say the following: "Something about our digitally networked world, along with its distinctive socioeconomic configurations and trends, is encouraging right-wing antiliberalism. We don’t really know what this something is or why it’s having this effect." I think we do have a pretty good idea of what this "something" is, though it is tough to know what to do about it. In short, liberalism succeeded by drawing on a set of social norms (mostly religious) that it simultaneously undermined, leaving an atomized population culturally adrift and exposed to the ravages of technology-fueled mass consumer capitalism. Many others have covered this territory better than I can. I would point you to the work of fellow Substack authors Paul Kingsnorth and N.S. Lyons, who have both delved deeply into the underlying currents.
You said: Philosophical Analysis—These aren’t as common, mostly because they require a lot of preparatory work on my part, but also because I don’t want things to get too densely academic around here, excluding subscribers who haven’t gone to graduate school.
My response: These are my favorite posts BECAUSE I haven't gone to graduate school:)
I have appreciated reading entries in all of those categories. Congrats and thanks. I have been especially interested in the posts on particular thinkers on the right. It's not hard to understand why grasping politicians like DeSantis would latch onto policy entrepreneurs like Chris Rufo (of "CTR" branding fame) and try to extract any electoral advantage they think they could yield. But I am completely confounded (but fearfully fascinated) by the rightwing thinkers like Rod Dreher and Adrian Vermeule, who are powerful intellects but who seem to me to have gone off the deep end.
As a lefty, it's not hard for me to find things to hate about modernity, so that part doesn't mystify me. But I don't get why these kinds of successful, affluent, prominent and well-compensated men are so horrified by or contemptuous of the way the mass of people (especially women and secular people) are moved by liberal culture and its key notes of egalitarianism? Seems like there has got to be psychic reasons behind the philosophical ones.
(I'm a new comer so I don't know if you've written about Vermeule––would love to hear those thoughts.)
Damon, when you begin to understand that the Democrats (and the worldwide Left more generally) are every bit as antiliberal as the Republicans, then you will begin to understand what is going on.
Also, when did "antiliberal" replace "illiberal" as the meaningless slur of the moment? So hard to keep up.