What’s Wrong with the World

Here's some articles on her at National Review (they also have links to other articles on her within them).

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDU3MzQ2YzY3OGM4MGEzZDQ0MWM1ODU4MjNlMzQ5OGY=

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDZjZThkOGE4YzA0NjU1N2E2Yjg0MTM1ZWQxNTc1OWM=

Quotes from them.

"Wood evidently believes that the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause and that a Supreme Court ruling permitting that phrase would “announce that the United States is a nation that has adopted monotheism as its official state dogma.”

"Wood is clearly ready to invent a constitutional right to same-sex marriage: “The right not to have the State prescribe a set of acceptable spouses, in the absence of the kind of powerful reason it would have for incest laws or laws designed to protect children, is implicit in the concept of liberty.”

"No judge whom I’m aware of is more extreme than Wood on abortion. Her defiance of the Supreme Court’s mandate in NOW v. Scheidler (and her incurring successive 8-1 and 8-0 reversals by the Court) ought alone to be disqualifying. In addition, Wood has (in dissent) voted to strike down state laws banning partial-birth abortion and (again in dissent) voted to strike down an Indiana informed-consent law that was in all material respects identical to the law upheld by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey."

I wonder if there are recent court cases where the religious belief of a justice has been cited in an opinion, or relevant at all? I suspect that it is not very important.

In any case, there is virtually no way to know the sincerity of a pubic figure's religious belief.

The insincerity of a public figure's beliefs is probably easier to guess.

I'd like to see a few pundits advocate for another Byron White, even just to throw a few rhetorical bombs into the discussion. He was a Kennedy appointee, after all.

Neither the Democrats, the WASP non-establishment, nor the law schools produce his kind anymore.

Wow, her RICO jurisprudence is off the wall. I'm no expert, but I seriously doubt that filing a RICO claim against a state will stand up under Seminole Tribe. Just add that to Scheidler and it's rather surprising.

Phantom Blogger - thanks for the links. Ms. Wood is a fully signed-up member of the Monstrous Regiment.

Possibly even more dreadful than John-Paul Stevens himself.

I wonder if there are recent court cases where the religious belief of a justice has been cited in an opinion, or relevant at all? I suspect that it is not very important.

In any case, there is virtually no way to know the sincerity of a pubic figure's religious belief.

Steve Sailer thinks it's an ethnicity thing. The important point is not that the members of the court assent to particular theological positions, but that in a still largely WASP nation there will possibly not be a single WASP on the highest court in the land.

The important point is not that the members of the court assent to particular theological positions, but that in a still largely WASP nation there will possibly not be a single WASP on the highest court in the land.

Or you could look at it another way: That nearly all the members of the supreme court do assent to particular theological positions, those particular positions happen, not suprisingly, to be that of the WASP (as it has evolved, drastically of course, from the very first British settlers in North America); and therefore in a majority WASP nation, the religion of WASP has so thoroughly taken over that people not ethnically WASP, nevertheless convert (at least in public) to that religion in order to receive and maintain membership that nation's Halls of Power(tm).

Steve Nicoloso - excellent point.

Is multi-culturalist liberalism, in the end, primarily a WASP thing? or primarily a Jewish thing?

One could spend the rest of one's life chewing over *that* interesting question.

In the meantime - thank goodness for [most of] the Roman Catholics on the court.

I really hope the people who voted for Obama and bought all of the nonsense about a new kind of politics feel very badly. I was no great fan of McCain, but people need to recognize the opportunity that has been lost-two seats on the court and if Obama wins again, and he might very well do so, you can bet there will be another. Geez, thanks to all those so called Pro Lifers who voted Obama. >:

You're right, Perry.

Thanks also to the pro-lifers who were too pure to vote for McCain, making even more certain by their pro-life purity that Obama would not lose -- and that the unborn would.

And, no, they're not sorry. They can't imagine why anyone would be sorry for ideological purity. To them, ideological purity trumps real death every time.

Well, when it comes to voting, there's always the option of the True Election.

Wow, Paul, that's an amazing link. I've hardly ever read anything remotely like it.

But it's pure baloney. Little girls are resistible, even cute ones dressed in red. See "Schindler's List."

It may indeed be baloney. But it sure is productive of further thinking along similar lines. Moldbug has a much clearer understanding of the logical drift of democracy than, for instance, the kind of publicists who carried on about democracy at great length in the last US administration. His perception of FDR is admirably clear as well.

Michael or Paul--Since Paul has brought up this link (which he also sent me by e-mail), I'll just ask: Can either of you tell me in, I dunno, 30 words or less when the _dickens_ Moldbug is saying or recommending? I read and read and read and finally decided I wasn't going to figure it out before I had to go do something else, so I didn't finish it. This is literally true. I couldn't figure out what the guy was saying.

As an immediate practical matter, he is recommending a massive voter strike, a boycott by voters of all elections, until such time as it will be possible to register a vote for his idea of a "true election," which basically looks like a form of elective dictatorship specifically empowered to sweep aside most of the current bureaucracies and institutions comprising our managerial regime.

Thanks. Whom does he want for dictator?

Steve,

Your question @ April 13, 9:05 PM is one of the most fascinating questions I've heard in a long time. Moldbug's answer is blame the WASPs (actually, I think he says blame the Quakers, but as Lydia says, it is hard to get through an entire Moldbug post for the punchline...with Moldbug the journey is the reward).

Michael,

Was that little girl dressed in red in "Shindler's List" supposed to represent Stalin or something? I think the symbolism went right over my head.

He is silent on that question. It's clear that he wants anyone who is serious about this idea of elective regime change.

There was no symbolism, Jeff. She represented an individual little girl murdered by the Nazis. Hence, her fate represented the utter callousness of the Nazis. Little girls get murdered all the time. If anything in Moldbug's post turns on the idea that little girls are irresistible, his thesis is in trouble.

"Your question @ April 13, 9:05 PM is one of the most fascinating questions I've heard in a long time."

Since the 1930s in another place? I'm starting to feel like the geezer in this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs5bnVoZK4Q&playnext_from=TL&videos=YHXCfhfVmUE

You all might ponder the question at the end.

And what is with these "libertarians" who pine for dictatorships and military takeovers? Rx for Moldbug: less chemistry, more history and read the California Constitution.

Paul, did you link to the "true election" with approval? What happened to the republican government guarantee? Or does that only apply in some cases?

I've noticed some new names being proposed but Woods would do just fine. Being on the wrong side of a majority decision by the present court is hardly a disqualification. Pam Karlin would also be an interesting choice and get us kind of away from the Ivy league.

Since the 1930s in another place?

Lame and predictable even for you.

Matt, unless i am mistaken, multicultural liberalism isn't viewed with favor on the right. Within that context, just how far is the sentiment expressed from the notion of the cosmopolitan, rootless, unassimilable Jew?

That may not have been the intention but, over the past few days, following the links around libertariandom has led me to a number of sites whose proprietors display an appalling lack of basic historical knowledge and a lack of an insight as to what things like economic collapse and military takeovers would actually entail, Dictatorship as a casual discussion?

I understand that an excess of theory and a paucity of historical knowledge and real life experience come with being young, especially in a stable and prosperous country but it may be wise to at least consider that one may be helping to set in motion forces that keyboards can't control.

Al--

I linked somewhat with approval, as I might link somewhat with approval to Rousseau's The Social Contract*. As it happens, my first impression of the essay on True Election was "well, this guy has rather brilliantly updated Rousseau into modern idiom." Although that old half-mad Swiss was a much more concise writer.

Incidentally, here is the point where Al usually goes away quietly, perhaps because the big machine in his brain labeled Liberalism returns a "DOES NOT COMPUTE" to the idea of a conservative who understands political theory. We'll see what happens.

But look, the question "may a democracy legitimately entrust its power, not to many representatives but to the one?" is not one theorists of democracy in any age (except maybe our own) have neglected to recognize as a real question. Certainly from the perspective of a people under minority dictation (monarchy or aristocracy), a majoritarian dictator looks like a plausible if clearly risky route to liberty.

___________
* Most likely I'd recommend Rousseau's On the Government of Poland.

For the record, I'm appalled by the proposal to instate dictatorship. And Moldbug even has the gall to talk about the Committee for Public Safety. Uh, yeah. So he studies history, but he also apparently doesn't mind repeating it. He can go to the guillotine first, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not the one looking for revolution followed by dictatorship.

Moldbug is great fun, and I think quite valuable, when read as a poet. Think of his posts as song lyrics wafting on the breeze over the walls of the asylum and you may find them quite valuable, or at least entertaining.

So Moldbug thinks that we should elect a tyrant, in the original Greek meaning? Well, I'll grant that this is a known failure mode for democracy, going back to the Greeks who saw it happen around them -- so if you're opposed to democracy as such, it's got plenty of precedent behind it. I don't see that the precedents are *positive* ones.

And any points he gets are removed if he seriously means the bit towards the end about the tyrant allowing a referendum after the standard term of office. I thought his theory recognized that a real transfer of sovereignty is not actually revocable.

Paul, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I honestly don't get why you see this as insightful.

Let's imagine a more moderate but still arresting variation of the theme.

What if the several states called a constitutional convention, for the purpose of asking and answering the question, Shall all current bureaucracies and departments larger than the state level be hereby dissolved, and the Federal Union be stripped back to the bare bones of the Constitution?

Okay, still very far-fetched, obviously. But the idea of a constitutional Convention is not in any way alien to our tradition; nor is it nearly so appalling as the stuff Lydia objects to.

The point is to look at methods of getting out of our current mess, even unorthodox ones. What endears me to the Unqualified Reservations site is evident in Al's hilarious reaction. That writer really discomfits liberals (or at least a certain type of liberal). His quixotic radicalism touches something deep within them.

More on your proposal later, Paul, but meanwhile...

I imagine that an apparently serious proposal to overthrow the government of the U.S. by violence and establish instead a theocracy with, I dunno, that guy with the "God hates _____s" signs (can't remember his name) as individual dictator with powers to order summary execution by stoning would also discomfit liberals. And should, you know, discomfit everybody sane. So I'm not sure that's much of a guide to what makes any kind of sense and what doesn't.

al: yeah, right...to speculate, however briefly, about the religious & ethnic roots of present-day "liberalism" is to raise the spectre of...

...NAZISM!!!

And you think Moldbug is a libertarian, you surprising man?

Just curious: in the course of "following the links around libertariandom" did you happen to come across MM's constant nemesis, TGGP? Now *he's* a libertarian. A libertarian's libertarian. And I speak as a libertarian (but not as a libertarian's libertarian).

Something tells me that you probably didn't.

Lydia, I really do not see the relevance of such an extraordinary analogy. Moldbug says FDR was a dictator in the form he's talking about. He ruled mostly by personal decree. Lincoln was another. Is that provocative overstatement? Sure, but gives a better context than Phelps and his lunatic signs.

Lydia, I think that MM would be the first to admit that the results of a "true election" can be disastrous. When he cites examples of what he's talking about, he's not necessarily, or even usually, *approving* of them. I don't think that he carries any candle for (e.g.) "The Committee for Public Safety" - let alone Roosevelt, let alone Hitler.

On the other hand, I think he rather admires (e.g.) Cincinnatus, Octavian Caesar, and possibly even Oliver Cromwell.

And I think that he thinks that the existing system in the U.S. is pretty much un-reformable, short of the sort of convulsion that led to these various dictatorships.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not at all sure that he's wrong.

and possibly even Oliver Cromwell.

Hope he's not too fond of Christmas dinner. :-)

Well, yes, Lydia - Oliver Cromwell was a pretty scary guy. I suspect that MM's partiality toward him may be based on a single quote:

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Moldbug's a sucker for a great line.

Whom does he [Moldbug] want for dictator?

Can't say for sure. But by my reading is that almost anyone (of above average IQ, and in good mental health), given absolute sovereignty, would govern better than we are (and have been) governed. And I cannot say I'd disagree with him. Clearly it would be best handled by someone who doesn't want the job. I'd nominate Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Seriously, btw.

Steve Burton asks:

Is multi-culturalist liberalism, in the end, primarily a WASP thing? or primarily a Jewish thing?

Interesting question perhaps. But only because Jews, so famously overrepresented in everything powerful and respectible, have become, more WASPy than WASPs. Hasidim do not run Top 20 American Univerisities, Wall Street, and Hollywood. Jews incarnated as white Massachusetts liberals do... and while they've been at that, they've also been doing a fair amount of genetic mixing with ethnic WASPs. This in the end, of course, should take us full circle in another generation or two. The Jews that mixed will be more or less be "gone", i.e., mixed thoroughly into the dominant WASP culture; and the only Jews that will be (identifiably) left will be those (highly fecund) exotics, who keep mostly to themselves.

Truly, thank God for (most of) the Catholic members of SC! But even among the more conservative ones, you'll discern the Shibboleths of WASP society.

As to the Concise Moldbug(tm), there simply isn't one. I have read in chronological order everything he's put up on his blog. It weaves a compelling story (of maybe 1.5 million words!). He is dead right (IMO) about the diagnosis. He is wishy-washy on the cure... but that is largely because there isn't one. His latest idea is to defeat democracy with democracy. It's probably the best one, but still remains implausible. The trouble is: If Moldbug's right about the diagnosis (i.e., that democracy's slide into anarchy is inherent and irreversible), then all of the obvious ends to democracy (oligarchy, rule by executive fiat, military coup, invasion by an imperial power) will only come long after democracy runs its course (cf. Zimbabwe). His goal is (and that of all people of good will ought to be) to prevent this catastrophic and bloody end. The trouble with democracy is that you cannot elect a new people; and by the time most of us are ready to give up on democracy willingly, most of us will be dead.

I understand that an excess of theory and a paucity of historical knowledge and real life experience come with being young

There you go again. Can you say anything without adding casual insults?

it may be wise to at least consider that one may be helping to set in motion forces that keyboards can't control.

Have you lost your wits?

It's well known that Jews are prolific within the leftist camp. Prominent Jews often agitate for open borders and multiculturalism and the rest of it. We can't say this though, because a random blog reader, armed with this newfound insight, will run out and kick off the Fourth Reich.

You can't even satirize this.

But by my reading is that almost anyone (of above average IQ, and in good mental health), given absolute sovereignty, would govern better than we are (and have been) governed.

Like Barack Obama, for example? Be careful what you wish for, etc....

Paul suggests,

What if the several states called a constitutional convention, for the purpose of asking and answering the question, Shall all current bureaucracies and departments larger than the state level be hereby dissolved, and the Federal Union be stripped back to the bare bones of the Constitution?

Sounds like it could be a good idea. But it would be in the very _opposite_ direction of electing a dictator. I mean, obviously, this would be a _decentralizing_ move rather than a move towards the centralized power of monarchy, which was exactly what the founders were trying to avoid. See the thing is, I really believe in the wisdom of the original set-up of the country. I think they had all these great ideas about balancing concerns of anarchy with concerns about centralizing, balancing state power and federal power, limiting centralizing, representative rather than direct democracy, balance of the branches of government, and so on and so forth. They were _wise_. No, the system won't preserve itself. That's how we got where we are, with something hardly recognizably the same as what we started with. But just because both going to a dictatorship and going back to the bare bones of the constitution would be regarded as "radical," it scarcely follows that they actually have anything substantive in common. Far to the contrary. One is running in exactly the direction the founders were trying to avoid. The other is trying to get back to something like their humble and balanced solutions to the problems of governance.

One is running in exactly the direction the founders were trying to avoid. The other is trying to get back to something like their humble and balanced solutions to the problems of governance.

Anarchy only runs one way. Order only runs the other. The only "balance" to be found amidst a self-governing people, i.e., the only reason they don't hack each other to shreds, is their innate capability of self-government. And 18th century anglophone North America had the same in abundance. But the genie is now out of the bottle, and we're living in 21st century anglophone (more or less) North America and the capacity for self-government is alarmingly rare. There is no going back to those halcyon days. It is the natural end of enfranchisement: Egalitarian slavery; late-Breshnev Soviet malaise.

And Lydia, you use the word "dictator" as if it were self-evidently synonymous with murderous, rapacious thug. That is largely a modern appellation--ennervated and enable by liberalism. The Moldbuggian hypothesis is that nothing corrupts as absolutely as partial power. Give the Personal Sovereign absolute power (cf. corporate CEOs) and he'll (or she'll) have no reason to slay his perceived enemies (no gulags, concentration camps, secret police).

Barak Obama does not have anything close to personal sovereignty. If he had run on such a platform, I might have found it in my heart to vote for him. No, he's a firm believer in democracy, and dialog, and process, and dozens of other emotionally satisfying words. He doesn't even have anything close to the power that FDR had. He's largely a figure head, like Queen Elizabeth. The real power of USG is wielded by unelected, good-intentioned, and utterly unanswerable civil service apparatchiks... so much so (i.e., so thoroughly has the revolution infected everything) that we can no longer even rely on the US Military (usually a bastion of reactionary sentiments) to go ahead and take power for the good of the Country.

Wow, Steve N., I don't read enough of your stuff to know whether you consider yourself a conservative. I assume you do. But as far as I'm concerned, the position that Barack Obama would be, or would plausibly be, an acceptable ruler if only he had more centralized dictatorial power is insane. This is a whole new twist on oddball ideas among my fellow conservatives--it would be better to make the liberal ideologue a dictator, because absolute power purifies. Or something like that.

Count me way, way out.

*sigh*

I doubt we'll ever bring Lydia around toe Moldbug's great virtues. But Lydia, I think what we're seeing here, in part, is a growing recognition on the part of many conservatives that there may be no way out of our predicament by normal means. Our sclerotic managerial state continues to drift toward a Leftist tyranny. We are one vote on the Supreme Court away from rulings that would proscribe parts of Christian orthodoxy. We face an unholy union of Wall Street and Washington that is a particularly odious plutocracy; in its profligacy it is driving us toward a national bankruptcy or massive new taxation to stave off said bankruptcy. Even if we cut all discretionary spending from the federal budget, the middle class and old-age entitlements still present a binary "big new taxes or bankruptcy" choice.

Our culture is thoroughly pornographic, with nary a hint anywhere of the idea that self-government includes the liberty of a community to police its mores. Our military and police and intelligence services are by and large crippled by PC tyranny. There is probably not a law enforcement institution left that would not permit innocents to die in order to preserve the favored delusions about a certain religion of peace.

I could go on.

Whether this situation can be reformed is an open question. Liberals like Al can sense how dangerous Moldbug is, precisely because he is an acknowledged reactionary who will have no part of the "loyal opposition" charade, and is capable of spellbinding essays recommending that others join him.

I must note as well that Moldbug has often reminded me of our own esteemed former colleague Zippy, especially Zippy's famous "Hegelian Mambo" and the "unprincipled exception" -- his brilliant analysis of how Liberalism, like all birds, flies on two wings, a left and a right. Both become very dangerous men when they start talking about what might happen to this majestic bird if the right wing decided to go on strike and stop flapping at all.

Well, sure, Paul, I agree heartily with all of your descriptions of what's wrong with the world. But what does any of this have to do with making Barack Obama personal dictator as an improvement in the situation? You did mention a "leftist tyranny," did you not? I mean, talk about playing a wild card. Proscribing the Christian religion? Well, I guess it depends on who is dictator, doesn't it? If we picked some member of CAIR and made him dictator, we could be pretty sure of getting sharia and seeing dhimmi status imposed on Christians on an accelerated schedule even from the present one.

My problem here is with this crazy notion that dictatorship qua dictatorship is some sort of plausible solution to our problem. I could understand a _bit_ better if you said, "There is a very, very short list of people whom I would trust to be dictator. If one of _them_ were absolute monarch, that would probably be an improvement in our situation." I might not agree, because I have a great distrust of centralizing power, and I think a healthy distrust, but it would at least have some structure to it as an answer to the problems you raise: "We have such-and-such problems; I think this specific person has the right ideas and would, given great power, be able to fix or greatly improve those problems without making worse ones." What's blowing my mind here is this idea that dictatorship is in its _nature_ some sort of plausible improvement on our present situation, and that almost anyone would do. And Steve Nicoloso's biting the bullet on my B.O. example is, as far as I'm concerned, a reductio of the position. You're bothered by policies that B.O. and his friends and associates like and promote, so you think an improvement would be to give him _more power_? What is this? It makes no sense at all.

I realize, Paul, that you haven't endorsed the "let's make Obama dictator" solution yourself in so many words, but I also just get this odd feeling from you that this all has something to do with "normal" vs. "abnormal" means, as though a more or less randomly selected dictator, because putting him in charge would be a radical change, would give us some reason to expect better times.

The whole thing makes no sense to me at all.

Lydia -- Please remember that you're just going by the meager attempts at summarizing Moldbug that we have supplied. You don't cotton to his writing style, but as Singer says, "with Moldbug the journey is the reward."

He thinks that one of the biggest things wrong with the world is Democracy. I'm not myself persuaded of that, but I'm willing to accept that assumption, arguendo, to see where his thought leads. So he's constantly asking, how can we put Democracy behind us, how can we escape its bloody maw?

With the True Election he answers, why, we'll destroy democracy by means of extreme concentrated democracy. My view is that such an idea is beyond far-fetched. It's fantastical. But there is also the long dilation by which he comes to this far-fetched idea, contained within which is the idea of the electoral boycott. This is where Moldbug dovetails with the much more grounded Zippyian view -- the view that the mere participation in the democratic charade is enervating.

I actually have no problem with an electoral boycott, particularly by conservatives, because I think it might give more conservative candidates a better chance in the future. As you know, I'm a purist on a number of issues, and I get very frustrated with the idea that we have to vote in order to continue to be relevant. My belief, instead, is that we are making ourselves less relevant by always voting for one of the "viable" candidates. Gradually our convictions become irrelevant. I even saw one pro-life conservative say of a recent, ahem, northeastern candidate, a _fully liberal and openly pro-abortion Republican_, "He's pro-life enough for me." It was discouraging. That's not pro-life relevance. That's irrelevance.

So, sure, you want to talk electoral boycotts, I'm very interested. But as far as I'm concerned, this has to do with revitalizing democracy by getting a wider variety of (legitimate) points of view on the table and letting candidates be viable in the long run who are not presently considered viable. Our present two-party politics with the increasing marginalization of conservative candidates as "not viable" involves a self-fulfilling prophecy and a process that gradually narrows the spectrum of political views and political discourse and makes democracy more and more of a charade.

I doubt we'll ever bring Lydia around to Moldbug's great virtues.

Would those virtues include Moldbug's take on religion?

No.

Moldbug is right about democracy. It makes us feel good about ourselves because everyone is part of the 'process', but doesn't produce any better results than any other system. It makes us feel good about ourselves though, and God knows Americans love to feel good about themselves.

But Lydia, I think what we're seeing here, in part, is a growing recognition on the part of many conservatives that there may be no way out of our predicament by normal means.

We've been using normal means??

Seriously, I think we can get out of the current mess. All we need are 400+ housewives willing to give up two years of their lives to replace the members in Congress. At least most housewives can balance a budget. They also will make sure that everyone in the country is clean behind the ears :-)

The Chicken

Flattery of the sovereign is always a useful tool of the interested or malign.

Chicken -- Joking aside, I don't doubt that Christian housewives, especially, could combine to form a far wiser legislature than what we have now. I am just horrified at the thought of putting them through what that entails. The Left has been particularly ghoulish and dishonorable toward conservative women.

"...such an idea is beyond far-fetched. It's fantastical..."

Yes, Paul - the chances that we will follow the particular path to sorta-kinda-dictatorship that Moldbug suggests are precisely zero.

The chances that we will follow a much nastier path to a much nastier sort of dictatorship may be significantly greater.

My brother-in-law, a very smart (but also very virtuous!) banker is about 50% persuaded that we are headed for an Argentinian-style economic meltdown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999%E2%80%932002)

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.08/tshtf1.html

As a liberal arts guy to my very core, I'm hardly in a position to judge the likelihood of such scenarios. The heck if I know! But it strikes me that, in the wake of such a collapse, all sorts of things that now seem far-fetched - even fantastical - might suddenly become thinkable.

So, sure, you want to talk electoral boycotts, I'm very interested. But as far as I'm concerned, this has to do with revitalizing democracy by getting a wider variety of (legitimate) points of view on the table and letting candidates be viable in the long run who are not presently considered viable.

It is precisely that, Lydia, which was Liberalism--in anglophone North America circa 1775... that led to an uprising against what was (at the time) the most liberal government the world had ever known. And now you complain it has gone too far. No, it has gone exactly the direction it had to go; and to a far lesser degree than King George III (or Louis XIV for that matter) might have predicted only (and I do mean only) because of the banked-up reserve of personal virtue in the citizenry of the said polis. And now you complain that we've gone too far and must get back. But I can only say that you should thank God that we have only gotten down this far. Others have fared far worse far more quickly (cf. Zimbabwe).

A "revitalized democracy" makes about as much sense as "kinder, gentler anarchy." In fact, in my mind, they are synonymous. No one ought care (nor does anyone truly care) about democracy, qua democracy, or about having a voice qua having a voice; instead we care about 1) security of persons and property; 2) uniform, reliable, and just enforcement of positive law; and then (and only then) 3) freedom. In a word: Good (i.e, competent, capable, confident) Government. And note these are hierarchical. Just as no one suffering from a lack of oxygen can care about a lack of water, or anyone suffering from a lack of water can care about a lack of sex; no one suffering from a lack of (1) can possibly care about (2), and no one suffering from (2) can care about a lack of (1). And once we have all 3, no one (who isn't a leftist ideologue at any rate) will care about whether they personally have the right to vote.

I do think that, while there is not a logically necessary connection between liberalism and democratic governing rituals, they do exhibit very strong mutual reinforcement. Liberalism without democracy is I think more feasible than democracy without liberalism; but that is like saying that Christianity without the liturgy is more feasble than the liturgy without Christianity. Or something along those lines.

Zippy, I suspect that there are several simple little modifications in voting methods that would change some of that liberalism-democracy relationship. For example, each Representative gets his votes in Congress weighted by how many votes he got in being elected. And, making much larger districts, but seating the highest 3 vote-tallying candidates, instead of winner take all.

Tony, I agree that as with liturgical rubrics and faith, the relationship can be modified by changing the details. But in my view what that amounts to is that we can make the practice of democracy less liberal by making it less democratic.

uniform, reliable, and just enforcement of positive law;

The thing is, Steve N., that I think this is an oxymoron if the positive law is unjust. Can you have a "uniform and reliable" enforcement of, say, positive law that says a trad businessman _must_ hire a proud, bizarre-looking, and loud-mouthed transsexual? Well, sure. Can you have a _just_ enforcement of that positive law? Well, no, because the law itself is unjust. So what you're saying to me just sounds like Khan in Star Trek thumping his fist and yelling, "We offered the world order!" I care about what _kind_ of order it is. And as things are, I tend to think that a wider number of candidates in elections and a revised idea of "viability" would give my ideas about just order a better chance to be heard and implemented. It's not a truth of logic, but I can see pretty clearly how the two interrelate, and it's not that surprising.

Well, Lydia, of course such a law would be unjust, but also uninteresting to a Personal Sovereign who is unencumbered by the natural ideological devolution that democracy (by way of egalitarianism) has wrought. The Personal Sovereign who cares about his (or her) subjects offers them freedom; and, there being no obvious public good, to say nothing of financial profit, in forcing together persons of incompatible views, would never infringe on their freedom for such trivial (and arguably destructive) reasons. And sure, we might get a terrible sovereign (like Hitler); but single sovereigns can always be overthrown... and you can't very well elect a whole new people (tho' sadly some have tried).

Zippy notes:

Liberalism without democracy is I think more feasible than democracy without liberalism; but that is like saying that Christianity without the liturgy is more feasble than the liturgy without Christianity.

Oddly enough Christianity without the liturgy is (largely, and to an ever greater extent) what low-church Protestantism is. Low church protestantism was the founding and seminal civic religion of anglophone North America, which became (rather quickly) the seedbed of a form of liberalism (more radical than the Whigs of the British Commons) which would come, in the span of 200 years, to utterly dominate the world. Coincidence? I doubt it.

"Incidentally, here is the point where Al usually goes away quietly..."

The discussions of theory here-abouts often and quickly spin out of control and become hard to follow (opportunity cost rules). Going into theory when we don't have agreement on fact is pointless. In most cases we seem not to agree on the actual conditions; making that clear is important and useful but going beyond that is futile.

There are things that California could do to remedy the present situation that don't require a dictator - change the idiotic requirement for a two-thirds requirement to pass a budget, fix Prop. 13, fix the initiative process.

Seriously discussing radical changes that can't happen may be therapeutic for some but I don't really see the point. (And re: Moldbug, my gut tells me substances are involved.)

Also, time wise, if it stops raining, I need to be outside and even if it is raining and until I can get to the last 300 feet of fencing, I have to deal with the local deer when their wanderings up and down the valley have then coming across.

"al: yeah, right...to speculate, however briefly, about the religious & ethnic roots of present-day "liberalism" is to raise the spectre of...

...NAZISM!!!"

Well, if that is what you had done, i shouldn't have commented. Most Jews in the United States are located on the center-left to left, vote Democratic, etc. However, you didn't do that. You wrote, "Is multi-culturalist liberalism, in the end, primarily a WASP thing? or primarily a Jewish thing?". If all you meant is that a distinct group that comprises about 2% of the population and which has known discrimination by the majority might see advantages in policies that promote the toleration of all groups, that is hardly remarkable and if that is what you intended, then OK.

The problem is (again) actual conditions. "Multiculturalism" is too often dog-whistleese on the right that includes all sorts of strange associations and sure enough, what do we get?

"It's well known that Jews are prolific within the leftist camp. Prominent Jews often agitate for open borders and multiculturalism and the rest of it."

It's this sort of compression that gives us 'death panels" where they don't exist, renders "socialism" as a discussion term meaningless, has a health care plan that is almost identical to one signed into law by a current Republican frontrunner termed as a "takeover by the government", and, as we travel down the food chain, leads to angry, scared folks milling about.

I assumed libertarianism because Moldbug seems to consider himself an Austrian.

Lydia,

I actually think you and Mencius debating one another would be a lot of fun -- he'd appreciate your pop culture sci-fi references as he uses them in his blog posts as well. I think your Khan quote is very, very important in this debate as Moldbug sees Democracy in its present form leading to "flash mobs" of the kind that Steve linked to in a more recent post and in his mind, as Steve N. points out, government serves a hierarchy of needs the first of which is security. I suspect an ideal Moldbug dictator would be Lee Kuan Yew, who led Singapore into independence and was Prime Minister while it was growing in the 20th Century as one of the most successful Asian Tigers. Although theoretically Singapore is a Parliamentary democracy, Lee basically ruled as a dictator and as we can all remember from the famous caning of American Michael Fay, ruled firmly especially when it came to crime and public order. Like you, Lydia, I worry about what kind of order we establish, but I also worry that unless we get serious about first order conditions in this country (like immigration and the underclass) how will we ever convince folks to vote for sensible policies in defense of the unborn or traditional marriage?

"Multiculturalism" is too often dog-whistleese on the right that includes all sorts of strange associations and sure enough, what do we get?

You don't think multiculturalism and open borders are associated? Again, have you lost your wits?

Then again, coming from someone who links the Tea Partiers to Jim Crow, maybe you just have trouble identifying links.

(Parenthetically, I am indeed guilty of 'compression'; I type these comments at work and I assume that everyone knows what I know. Evidently, al does indeed know about Jewish political tendencies, but chooses to make his guilt-by-association ploys anyway.

For the record, I thought the death panel criticism was silly, I think Romney is a duplicitous fraud, and I agree that socialism is indeed a term too vague to be productive.)

al: you continue to surprise.

I asked: "is multi-culturalist liberalism, in the end, primarily a WASP thing? or primarily a Jewish thing?" In my book, that is, precisely, to "speculate...about the religious & ethnic roots of present-day "liberalism."

You object (so to speak) as follows:

"If all you meant is that a distinct group that comprises about 2% of the population and which has known discrimination by the majority might see advantages in policies that promote the toleration of all groups, that is hardly remarkable and if that is what you intended, then OK."

To which I can only reply: wha-huh?

No: when I asked "is multi-culturalist liberalism, in the end, primarily a WASP thing? or primarily a Jewish thing?", I meant to "speculate about the religious & ethnic roots of present-day 'liberalism.'"

I'm sorry that you seem to find this confusing.

But, OK - enough playing dumb. Your *real* point, I take it, al, is that the American Jewish population is so small that it's absurd, and probably racist, even to suggest that they might exercise any significant influence over important socio-cultural &/or political trends, here in the good old U.S. of A.

yeah, right.

The debate I'd like to see is Moldbug v. Zippy; probably the 2 smartest pseudonymous commentators on teh internets. Of course, they'd agree on much; but where and how they'd disagree would very illuminating.

Jeff Singer: "I suspect an ideal Moldbug dictator would be Lee Kuan Yew..."

I suspect you're right.

And how many other political figures in the last century command as much respect as Lee Kuan Yew?

Al --

If other matters such as tending to the fields demand your attention, then fair enough on not replying to me; but this, I'm afraid, is just a cop-out:

The discussions of theory here-abouts often and quickly spin out of control and become hard to follow (opportunity cost rules). Going into theory when we don't have agreement on fact is pointless. In most cases we seem not to agree on the actual conditions; making that clear is important and useful but going beyond that is futile.

I have repeatedly worked to drive the discussion the most basic level of agreeable fact. The theory builds from there. I say that it is a fact that the only three forms of political arrangement known to man are: rule by the one, rule by the few, or rule by the many; merely stating this as an open question earns from you a brassbound dismissal like a fragment from a movie script: who can even imagine, in the 21st century, that anything other than rule by the many is even thinkable?

And then in short order I get you to admit that, of course, Obama's health care reform entails some dominant "rule by the few" aspects. So either rule by the few is a topic for serious discussion, or it is not -- in which case HCR is just as illegitimate to the 21st century as any other non-democratic framework.

Or again, the idea (common enough in the literature of democratic theory) of a sovereign people delegating their sovereignty to a single ruler, as opposed to a deliberative body of representatives, produces the same unthinking dismissal from you. You gotta be on drugs to borrow ideas from Rousseau or Hobbes!

This aint serious conservation, brother. It's ritual denunciation.