Hello there, I had Renew the Republic coming in on my free email list. Because I subscribe to so many other sites, I scrolled down to see if there was a name attached to RtR and, because at first I didn't see any author's name, I cancelled my free subscription. Then I saw your name pop up, Frank di Stefano, and not only did I resubscribe, I took out an annual subscription. Your name and good work are already out there, perhaps your name should appear in RtR in a bit more high-profile way. Cheered you are back and very glad to read Yuval Levin's name coming up in a different post.
Frankly, a subject who can vote in a system delivering prosperity sounds strictly better than pretending more direct democracy is desirable or more legitimate.
I'm not arguing for direct democracy. In fact, I'm not even arguing here for which I find more preferable. I'm talking about what's sustainable.
People support democracy because it promises consent. If it no longer offers the consent it promises, it becomes internally inconsistent and thus illegitimate. If it's illegitimate, it will collapse because there's no longer any reason for citizens to buy in and cooperate. And another system will replace it.
To some folks, that might be a good. Maybe an overt autocracy can in fact provide more material benefits, like Brave New World--keeping citizens like well cared house pets. Maybe some would prefer that. I wouldn't, and I believe any autocracy can provide peace, prosperity, or stability, or happiness because of the internal pressures and incentives of autocracy. I believe every autocracy is on a glide path towards misery and decline.
I believe it's in the interest of everybody including the state, which often finds Enlightenment liberalism a frustrating impediment to what it wants to do, to keep this experiment running.
Internal inconsistencies are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause illegitimacy. Legitimacy is in people's heads. If they believe their input makes a difference, then the liberal government is legitimate. And if the input is indeed used, then the government is indeed more liberal than autocratic. I do not advocate for an autocracy, I advocate for maintaining the liberal "democracy" status-quo, which has always been "oligarchy with vote as an input".
I'll be writing more about this. I agree that your model has always been somewhat true, sometimes more and sometimes less, at certain times in America. But I disagree that this, essentially corruption of the system, is long-term sustainable. It's a natural corruption that is going to happen and that, as long as its kept in check, the system can shake off and sustain itself. When it overwhelms and the straw eventually breaks the camel, the whole thing comes down like an imploding building.
Hello there, I had Renew the Republic coming in on my free email list. Because I subscribe to so many other sites, I scrolled down to see if there was a name attached to RtR and, because at first I didn't see any author's name, I cancelled my free subscription. Then I saw your name pop up, Frank di Stefano, and not only did I resubscribe, I took out an annual subscription. Your name and good work are already out there, perhaps your name should appear in RtR in a bit more high-profile way. Cheered you are back and very glad to read Yuval Levin's name coming up in a different post.
Thanks for the subscription! I really look forward to giving you a bunch of great stuff to read over the next year!
Frankly, a subject who can vote in a system delivering prosperity sounds strictly better than pretending more direct democracy is desirable or more legitimate.
I'm not arguing for direct democracy. In fact, I'm not even arguing here for which I find more preferable. I'm talking about what's sustainable.
People support democracy because it promises consent. If it no longer offers the consent it promises, it becomes internally inconsistent and thus illegitimate. If it's illegitimate, it will collapse because there's no longer any reason for citizens to buy in and cooperate. And another system will replace it.
To some folks, that might be a good. Maybe an overt autocracy can in fact provide more material benefits, like Brave New World--keeping citizens like well cared house pets. Maybe some would prefer that. I wouldn't, and I believe any autocracy can provide peace, prosperity, or stability, or happiness because of the internal pressures and incentives of autocracy. I believe every autocracy is on a glide path towards misery and decline.
I believe it's in the interest of everybody including the state, which often finds Enlightenment liberalism a frustrating impediment to what it wants to do, to keep this experiment running.
Internal inconsistencies are neither necessary nor sufficient to cause illegitimacy. Legitimacy is in people's heads. If they believe their input makes a difference, then the liberal government is legitimate. And if the input is indeed used, then the government is indeed more liberal than autocratic. I do not advocate for an autocracy, I advocate for maintaining the liberal "democracy" status-quo, which has always been "oligarchy with vote as an input".
I'll be writing more about this. I agree that your model has always been somewhat true, sometimes more and sometimes less, at certain times in America. But I disagree that this, essentially corruption of the system, is long-term sustainable. It's a natural corruption that is going to happen and that, as long as its kept in check, the system can shake off and sustain itself. When it overwhelms and the straw eventually breaks the camel, the whole thing comes down like an imploding building.
More to come.