29 Comments

Leave me alone but go ahead and transition my boy into a girl without telling my wife and I.Leave me alone but lock me in my house because Dr Fauci said so. Leave me alone but fire me from my job for misgendering someone. Leave me alone but tell me what kind of toilet, shower head, light bulb, car, refrigerator I can have.

Expand full comment

I agree that the current leadership of the Democratic Party does not believe in, or even understand, pluralism. It is a debating technique to win elections, while implementing the opposite of pluralism, once elected.

I think that we need to rediscover the benefits of Federalism. Let each state go their own way on the vast majority of domestic issues as long as they do not violate the Constitution.

Expand full comment

Way past that now, sir.

Expand full comment

How is it “way past that now” to “rediscover the benefits of Federalism?”

Expand full comment

Fair enuf. I'd say that federalism -- like Constitutionalism, rule of law and order, legal precedent, and basic freedoms . . . ship has sailed. You won't get any federalism out of Obama, Hillary etc. Nor out of the GOPe. Ok if you disagree, maybe you are correct.

Expand full comment

Well, I am certainly not making a prediction of the future, but at the very least, we at least need to put the concept of Federalism back on the political agenda.

And, no, I see no way that the Democratic Party will embrace the concept, unless the Republicans dominate the federal government for the next decade. It is very puzzling to me that Republicans almost completely ignore the concept.

Expand full comment

Ok by me, 'preciate your patience with me.

Expand full comment

They will accept it only when enough of them are in camps. There can be no illusions about it at this point.

Expand full comment

Nope. Nothing would build more sympathy for them.

Expand full comment

“Let 50 flowers bloom!” is both a pathetic number of flowers and of types of plant. Political liberal pluralism is a very poor substitute for anarchic libertarian toleration. We only need to accept, and not necessarily respect, all personal and social diversity as long as it is compatible with self-owning people and their private property. This is liberty in practical terms. It allows for an ever-evolving profusion of possible choices.

https://jclester.substack.com/p/toleration-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search

@Bo Winegard

Expand full comment

“Liberal pluralism accepts both traditionalism and progressivism as legitimate orientations to the world and argues that healthy societies should carve out space for each.”

The only realistic modus vivendi is libertarianism. In the absence of full liberty, there will be an endless cold war between citizens.

Expand full comment

I'm very glad the "here's the rub..." part appeared, because in extending several paragraphs to the supposed liberal acceptance of pluralism, you threatened to leave the earth for a while there.

It's important to note that even the much-reviled "religious right" was -- like the crusades -- a tardy defensive response to a very evil and predatory imperialism. The left has been waging judicial and political war on America for at least six decades now.

At this stage, can anyone seriously contend that liberalism is less noxious, ideologically, than communism was? It certainly commands more fervent social activity and mental slavery in its followers.

Here's a bigger rub: human beings can't do without purpose. Those who vacuum telos from human beings and communities must place it elsewhere. Putting it in a historical process of "disenchantment" or "liberation" permits evils beyond limit in the people who fancy themselves as the midwives of the process. Yes, the communists promised historical progress, too. But I'm coming to see theirs as less troublesome, since it dealt in material conditions, things that could be easily charted, measured, and argued over. The liberal promises spiritual edification in cultural destruction. He is far worse.

Expand full comment

What makes progressives so obnoxious is their moral righteousness; but what makes them so dangerous is their willingness to impose it on everyone in the name of virtue and social progress. For that they will go after anybody, from a former president to a Texas doctor warning about a hospital breaking its own policies on transgender operations. Such a stance is not much different from what the soviets did to ensure ideological conformity but societal collapse. I treat this theme in my latest substack piece: Donald Trump and American Jews, and conclude on what I think is a similar note as the one by the author of this piece. Here is the link> https://open.substack.com/pub/schecter/p/donald-trump-and-american-jews?r=1wpgf7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment

Agree.

Expand full comment

I’m far more sympathetic to a Democratic Party that supports Pluralism than one that doesn’t, even if there are counterexamples (Gay Marriage and Abortion are mentioned here). Particularly because those two issues don’t matter much to me. If those are the major two hypocritical anti-pluralist examples, I’m content ignoring them as exceptions that prove the rule rather than characteristic hypocrisy.

I think the Republican Party is fundamentally less pluralist though, even if it’s where I’ve traditionally leaned politically. There’s a very clear shift (especially with Trump’s VP pick) towards a moralist, traditionalist stance and away from the “Get out of the way Mr. Government” conservative politics I like.

Expand full comment

Ok. You're wrong.

Those "traditions" you revile are the source of the prosperity and order that are necessary for people to have meaningful choices.

You can't "pluralistically" decide to ban energy and also still use it, for example.

Expand full comment

I don’t “revile” traditions, no idea where you got that from. No idea who you think is banning energy either.

It seems like you’re just projecting random political hatred onto me.

Expand full comment

Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’s running mate, has repeated the line, “We’ve got a golden rule: Mind your own damn business!”

That would be fine, save for the fact that democrats and socialists don't do the same thing. they stick their nose in everyone's business, interfere with the raising of children, try to groom children for the sex trade, and disobey the laws they don't want to follow.

So, no, government's business is everyone's business.

Kamala Harris herself has claimed that her campaign is about choosing freedom over “chaos, fear, and hate”

So, nothing but feel good politics. I'd rather have an uncertain safety if it meant I could have freedom. The democrats have lost touch with America.

And here is the rub for Democrats who claim to support pluralism: They do not in fact embrace social diversity, and they do not accept the basic tenets of pluralism.

Of course not. Democrats are just one step away from communism, and they can't stand it when people don't agree with their regressive stance on everything. While a moderate person would leave the democrats alone, with a live and let live viewpoint, the democrats don't. They try to jail those who disagree with them. Ala Durov and now Musk, since they can't stand free speech.

Kamala Harris consistently rails against the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe/Casey,

Roe v. Wade should have never been enacted. The Supreme court in it's lack of wisdom somehow made abortion a fundamental right under the interstate commerce clause. That's the clause that they use when they want Federal control of everything, because of their thirst for power.

Expand full comment

What the majority wants does not matter if they are unwilling to fight for it. As long as the Deep State is in control, the U.S. populace will get a plutocratic oligarchy. All presidents have been titular for a long time. The way to change things is to destroy the Deep State.

Expand full comment

You can’t end oligarchy and destroy the deep state if the state continues to exist. The Iron Law of Oligarchy will exist under democracy or an authoritarian regime.

Expand full comment

So there is no solution? Revolution is the answer.

Expand full comment

When has revolution ever eliminated oligarchy? So long as the state exists, you will have it. Of course, hierarchy exists under free markets within companies but power is decentralized and the principle of service is enthroned.

Expand full comment

"When has revolution ever eliminated oligarchy?"

1776

"So long as the state exists, you will have it."

That is only true if the populace is so stupid as to allow it.

As is true of people who piss and moan but never have a solution, you ignored my question!

Expand full comment

The US had an oligarchy in 1776 and all years thereafter; however, it was also the case that state and federal governments were more laissez-faire. The solution is to roll back the state and then eliminate it.

Expand full comment

Pluralism is inclusive; it includes EVERYONE in the compulsion to believe exactly what we believe!

Expand full comment

Yes indeed. Total 'pluralism' for thee, no pluralism for me. Uh, us.

Just more luciferian jivey-jive. Obozo the messianic Lightbringer, it's all so boring, somebody take me home.

I ignore the liars, thieves, and so forth. Love your fealty to God. michael

Expand full comment