5 ms·

People are still stupid and willing to be misled, wherever they are from.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago
I think the lessons people most fail to learn concern why someone like Trump could be elected into office in the first place. It's easy to sigh with contempt at the current leadership (and there is plenty to detest), but it is more difficult to examine the failures of the political establishment, to examine the failures of the liberal order, and to examine how these failures create a situation that allows for the proverbial poison that lurks in the mud to hatch out. It is especially difficult for such an establishment to do so as that would require self-criticism. Note that I am not legitimizing the poison, but as often happens, excesses and errors committed in one direction often produce excesses and errors in the other, as if to counterbalance. It doesn't mean all poison is the product of an opposing poison. There is no legitimacy to Hitler (who was driven by and preyed on German narcissism and insecurity, as well as economic factors) or Stalin (who preyed on class envy). And it is also lazy to put all reaction to these failures into the same bucket. MAGA is not the same as much of what falls under "postliberalism"[0]. There are serious thinkers who are responding, within a broader tradition, to the collapse of the liberal order by examining its causes and looking at possible exits from the situation. [0] https://www.postliberalorder.com/ https://www.postliberalorder.com/
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Not sure why you were previously downvoted - I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps I think people are putting this into a "blame" framework. E.g. I've seen basically this argument online "I don't see how you can blame the Democrats for this, as Trump is a million times worse, especially of everything he accuses the Democrats of doing." While I agree with that sentiment, "blame" is the wrong way to look at this. At the end of the day, it's self-evident that something caused the rise of Trump and other autocrats and a breakdown of the post WWII liberal order, and it behooves us all to investigate why that happened. FWIW, I thought this recent article in NYT about liberals in Denmark (who, unlike many liberals elsewhere, take a hard stance against unfettered and illegal immigration) was excellent and offers some clues: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigration-policy-progressives.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigrat.... This paragraph I think summarizes "what went wrong" with leftist policies in many areas: > Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.

I think the lessons people most fail to learn concern why someone like Trump could be elected into office in the first place. It's easy to sigh with contempt at the current leadership (and there is plenty to detest), but it is more difficult to examine the failures of the political establishment, to examine the failures of the liberal order, and to examine how these failures create a situation that allows for the proverbial poison that lurks in the mud to hatch out. It is especially difficult for such an establishment to do so as that would require self-criticism. Note that I am not legitimizing the poison, but as often happens, excesses and errors committed in one direction often produce excesses and errors in the other, as if to counterbalance. It doesn't mean all poison is the product of an opposing poison. There is no legitimacy to Hitler (who was driven by and preyed on German narcissism and insecurity, as well as economic factors) or Stalin (who preyed on class envy). And it is also lazy to put all reaction to these failures into the same bucket. MAGA is not the same as much of what falls under "postliberalism"[0]. There are serious thinkers who are responding, within a broader tradition, to the collapse of the liberal order by examining its causes and looking at possible exits from the situation. [0] https://www.postliberalorder.com/ https://www.postliberalorder.com/

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Not sure why you were previously downvoted - I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps I think people are putting this into a "blame" framework. E.g. I've seen basically this argument online "I don't see how you can blame the Democrats for this, as Trump is a million times worse, especially of everything he accuses the Democrats of doing." While I agree with that sentiment, "blame" is the wrong way to look at this. At the end of the day, it's self-evident that something caused the rise of Trump and other autocrats and a breakdown of the post WWII liberal order, and it behooves us all to investigate why that happened. FWIW, I thought this recent article in NYT about liberals in Denmark (who, unlike many liberals elsewhere, take a hard stance against unfettered and illegal immigration) was excellent and offers some clues: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigration-policy-progressives.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigrat.... This paragraph I think summarizes "what went wrong" with leftist policies in many areas: > Leftist politics depend on collective solutions in which voters feel part of a shared community or nation, she explained. Otherwise, they will not accept the high taxes that pay for a strong welfare state. “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come,” Frederiksen says. Otherwise, “it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.” High levels of immigration can undermine this cohesion, she says, while imposing burdens on the working class that more affluent voters largely escape, such as strained benefit programs, crowded schools and increased competition for housing and blue-collar jobs. Working-class families know this from experience. Affluent leftists pretend otherwise and then lecture less privileged voters about their supposed intolerance.