I understand that my position on this blog is taken as anti-social, but that is something that has to be taken if you are going to basically advocate Oriental Despotism in the 21st century. Who am I going to get along with? No one. I am obviously stark raving mad. As Moldbug noted way back in 2008:
“The second thing to remember is that no one else endorses this plan. Or even anything close. In the political world of 2008, restorationism is completely off the map. It is off the table. It is outside the room. It is outside the building. It is running stark naked and crazy through the woods. In a word, it is pure moldbuggery.”
It is 2015, and nothing has changed, even neoreactionaries consider it crazy- and they are supposed to be influenced by Moldbug. Don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater- maybe liberalism is not THAT bad.
Yes, yes it is.
Liberalism is nothing short of being the human incarnation of anarchy and chaos, and as we know from the development of chaos in polities, the bill for the party has to be paid eventually, and that day is coming. The elite know it. Just take a look at this, and follow the links to Amazon to see some of the reviewer’s comments such as this:
“Howell and Moe make the bold and trenchant argument that the dysfunctions of American government lie squarely in the powers that the Founding Fathers gave Congress, and that the solution is to dramatically shift the balance of power to the executive. This book is sure to trigger an important debate, precisely because its fundamental analysis is so correct.”
—Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University, and author of Political Order and Political Decay
I agree with almost everything they say. Except for their analysis and the conclusion, so actually I only agree that the constitution is a joke, and that power should be centralised effectively, but even then I don’t really agree. It is all very complicated. Am I a socialist? Am I a fascist? Who cares.
Firstly, let’s start with the authors’ assertion of the following:
“Why is the nation so poorly governed? This is the question that we address in our new book, Relic. What we show is that the fundamentals of an answer can be traced to the Constitution—which, for all its admirable qualities, imposes a structure of government that has long been outdated, and is ill-suited to modern times.”
Well, yes. This is exceptionally lucid. Followed by:
“Congress is right at the center of the nation’s modern-day dysfunction. As a decision-maker, it is inexcusably bad. It is immobilized, impotent, and utterly incapable of taking effective action on behalf of the nation.”
Well, Again yes, but we can go further here, which the authors themselves do here:
“Congress is an ineffective policymaker because it is wired to be that way by the Constitution, whose design ensures that legislators are electorally tied to their local jurisdictions and highly responsive to special interests. Congress is not wired to solve national problems in the national interest. It is wired to allow hundreds of parochial legislators to promote their own political welfare through special-interest politics.”
Actually, the entirety of government is ineffective because of the constitution’s wiring, and no, the answer is not better wiring, the answer is rejecting the concept of republicanism. A conclusion the authors must surely have entertained somewhere deep down when writing:
“Government was not expected to do much, and the founders—mainly concerned about avoiding “tyranny of the majority”—purposely designed a byzantine government that couldn’t do much, separating authority across the various branches of government and filling it with veto points that made coherent policy action exceedingly difficult.”
When government has been able to act, moreover, congressional lawmaking has typically led—due to the built-in nature of legislators’ incentives—to cobbled-together policy concoctions crafted to attract disparate legislators with disparate interests into the necessary support coalitions, not to provide the most effective means of addressing social problems.”
Another major area in which I diverge from the authors is in the following:
“In the last century, American society has continued to change at a frenzied pace, driven by stunning technological innovations and an increasingly complex and globalized economy, and giving rise to a mind-boggling array of vexing problems that weigh upon American society today.”
Technological determinism- that calling card of the liberal. Sure, developments in computers drove McGeorge Bundy and the elite to fund Marxist guerrillas, Jewish crazies and blacks to shit on American society. Yeah, sure. Or maybe it was the spread of microwave ovens? Or birth control? I dunno, but whatever the technology, it really did a number on Stephen Currier by making him organise the funding for the CUCRL. Maybe it was a toaster holding a gun to his head.
Being an oriental despotism advocate and a purveyor of anti-republicism, I have no problem viewing the republican structure without the absolute surety that the theory of republicanism is absolutely correct. The authors of the essay do not have this luxury, being infected with republicanism, so they must search for reasons within the bounds of not questioning the very idea of republicanism. The result is to blame one branch of the republican structure, and call for more centralisation – yet keep the republicanism. Why not just eject the republicanism wholesale, and force responsibility for decisions onto the executive totally? Why maintain the charade?
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to really work. It all likely needs to be reset. But it does demonstrate the manner in which competing power centers in a republicanism structure work:
“Here, specifically, is an approach that makes eminently good sense: with Congress the prime source of dysfunction, it should be moved to the periphery of the policymaking process where its pathologies can do less damage—and presidents should be moved to the center where they can do the most good.”
Most good for whom? The people. High – low.