This Liberal Academic Wants Christians To Leave Politics To Leftists
Lilla wants all Christians to give up and let self-admitted liberal failures like himself have their way in politics.
America, like the rest of the Western world, is sick.
To fight an illness with any hope of success, it is necessary to first identify what ails you. This is as true of nations as it is of men. Just as true: different diagnoses will necessitate different therapies, and an incorrect diagnosis could prove both costly and deadly.
Sohrab Ahmari, the founding editor of Compact, indicates in his new book, "Tyranny, Inc.," that the right's past diagnoses have largely neglected the extent to which the private sector has originated some of the top cancers now eating away at the body politic.
This neglect has partly been a consequence of Cold War-era fusionism, whereby traditional conservatives and libertarians joined forces with the intention of countering the red menace abroad and the pinkos at home.
The libertarian outlook, largely shaped by Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others, predominated in this timely alliance. Consequently, the right tended over time to worship hyper-individualism and the unregulated market above all else.
Gruesome facts drawn from over two centuries of statist nightmares, particularly from the other side of the Iron Curtain, made easy work of defending this idolatry, even among those Abrahamic conservatives whose past religious reservations about modernism, liberalism, and unbridled capitalism might otherwise have given them pause.
With idols come taboos and sacrifices.
In keeping with the libertarian outlook, any effort to temper individual ambition or regulate the market, even in the plain interest of the common good or at the behest of the public, was denounced as totalizing or authoritarian or collectivist or a revival of the spirit of this or that blood-soused leftist ideology from the last century. Pro-labor sentiments were likewise characterized as mileage down the road to serfdom.
Now, well over a saeculum into this idol worship, it has become glaringly clear that the devil-takes-the-hindmost attitude implicit in the neoliberal worldview has been in many ways ruinous for all but the ultra-elite. The center did not hold, and things have fallen apart.
Recent diagnoses point to this neoliberal state of play and the corresponding Randian state of mind as contributing causes of America's sickness.
Rusty Reno, the editor of First Things, has suggested that the postwar consensus that sought an open society, championed by libertarians and progressive liberals alike, effectively targeted the strong loves that bound us together and ordered society with a common or higher good in mind.
The liberal regime conflated the "dark gods" that brought about the totalitarianisms of the early 20th century with these and other "strong gods" (e.g., faith, family, tradition, and flag) necessary for a stable society, ultimately throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
According to Reno, neoliberalism, the "economic and cultural regime of deregulation and disenchantment," seeks to "weaken and eventually dissolve the strong elements of traditional society that impede the free flow of commerce … as well as identity and desire."
As a consequence of the neoliberals' success, many Americans have been rendered not just "unmoored, adrift, and abandoned," but powerless and increasingly susceptible to exercises of raw power by the technocratic openers and other powers that be, both private and public.
The populism that has been gaining steam over the past decade has in large part been a response to this state of things — an effort to usher in a return of the "strong gods."
Patrick Deneen, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame, appears certain that we have crossed the Rubicon; that the liberal regime comprising cultural deregulators (progressive liberals) and economic deregulators (classical liberals) is in its death throes; and that regime change is coming.
When recently discussing how the new order might ensure a balance of power that operates in the interest of the common good, Deneen wrote, "The answer is not the elimination of the elite (as Marx once envisioned), but its replacement with a better set of elites. ... Most needful is an alignment of the elite and the people, not the domination of one by the other."
In "Tyranny, Inc.," Sohrab Ahmari similarly denounces neoliberalism as a contributing cause of America's current malady and further stresses the importance of correcting asymmetries of power adversely affecting ordinary people. However, whereas Deneen figures widespread asymmetries could be corrected by regime change resulting in a better elite, Ahmari is betting on solidarity, regulation, and re-politicization.
Ahmari explains in the book how corporate leaders and their technocratic associates have faithfully made good on the promise of neoliberalism, depriving citizens of power, prioritizing uncommon wealth over the common good, reducing souls to cents on the dollar, and altogether sickening the body politic as much if not more than does the government whose functions the private sector continues to appropriate and/or compromise.
He summarized how this came about thusly: "The classically liberal state was mostly indifferent to private tyranny. The social democratic state sought to curb it by empowering workers and other weak market actors, winning their consent to the system in the bargain and thus stabilizing market and society. The neoliberal state, however, actively abets private tyranny."
"It does this by turning state and law into instruments for promoting market values everywhere," continued Ahmari, "and by rendering the power asymmetries generated by the market immune to political or legal challenge."
Ahmari underscored that this systematic process of depoliticization forecloses "the very possibility of ordinary people using political power and workplace pressure to get a fairer shake out of the economy."
What is needed, according to Ahmari, is the restoration of workers' countervailing power, "the indispensable lever for improving the lot of the asset-less and for stabilizing economics otherwise prone to turbulence and speculative chaos."
Stabilized economics and an empowered worker may greatly help in addressing our underlying societal illness, not only paving the way for a virtuous body politic but also for stable, bigger families, stronger communities, and a center that can weather whatever comes next.
To this end, Ahmari recommends more and stronger unionization efforts in most sectors and a "left-right consensus in favor of tackling the coercion inherent to the market."
Ahmari's pro-labor proposals may appear too pink for some and discomfiting for others on the right who saw fit to discard Christian social teaching during the fusionist decades. Nevertheless, his critique of the private sector and defense of workers — which appear to have already resonated with Republicans like Sens. Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley — are nevertheless worth considering, especially now that the dissolution of the Cold War fusion has freed traditional conservatives to once again differentiate themselves from the moribund liberal regime and to call out the coercive and "compensatory power of an asset-rich few."
If common good or working-class conservatism is to become something more than simply a politically expedient rhetorical ploy for the right to attract disaffected lefties, then it will be worthwhile knowing where we stand in the days to come when traditional values and "the free flow of commerce" conflict, not just when woke capital is involved, but across the board.
Whatever the outcome of that soul-searching, the resulting self-knowledge will likely help shape the political binary that emerges from the corpse of the liberal regime.
The service of Mammon and self has contributed much to the sickness of the West. Greater solidarity in the service of God, a bolstering of the working class, and a purposeful tempering of the powers that be, private and public alike, may contribute to its convalescence.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The conservative project has failed, and conservatives need to forge a new political identity that reflects our revolutionary moment.
New York Post opinion editor Sohrab Ahmari on Thursday defended the Post's reporting on Hunter Biden's emails, responded to the Joe Biden presidential campaign's denial of allegations in the Post's report, and spoke out about Facebook and Twitter censoring the story in a radio interview with BlazeTV host Glenn Beck.
On Wednesday, the New York Post published a story about a "smoking gun" 2015 email that appears to show Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma, thanking Hunter Biden for setting up a meeting with his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic nominee for president. The story explained that this email and others were recovered from a computer allegedly connected to Hunter Biden. The Post also obtained from this computer personal photos of Biden using drugs and engaging in sex acts with an unidentified woman.
The Post's story was swiftly suppressed by both Facebook, which limited the article's distribution on its platform pending an independent fact-check, and Twitter, which outright banned users from sharing the story. After much public outcry over the censorship of the Post story, Twitter explained the rationale for preventing users from sharing the story.
"The images contained in the articles include personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules. As noted this morning, we also currently view materials included in the articles as violations of our Hacked Materials Policy," Twitter said.
"Commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves, aren't a violation of this policy," the social media platform added. "Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked material themselves."
Ahmari pushed back on Twitter's claim, defending the Post's sources.
It "was very clear from the beginning, how we got a hold of this material," Ahmari said. "It was reported deeply. Fairly. Meticulously. And it — it was based on much more solid sourcing than mountains of stories published in center left outlets over the past four years, that collapsed and were based on unalienable sources, telling unnamed sources, telling the reporter."
"None of those got censored by the major — social media platforms, the way this story is," he added.
The Joe Biden campaign for president fiercely denied the allegations in the Post story.
"Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate' and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath," Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said.
"The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story," Bates continued. "They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani — whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported — claimed to have such materials. Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place."
Ahmari dismissed the denial, responding to three points in Bates' statement.
"The first element says, a bipartisan committee found that, you know, Joe Biden had done nothing wrong in Ukraine. Concluded that. That's a non sequitur. We have new evidence. Whatever the various congressional bodies found, fine, that's very nice, but we have new evidence. We have the smoking gun or the smoking crackpipe, if you will," Ahmari said.
"The second one was, the Post did not tell us that Rudy Giuliani was involved in obtaining this underlying material. Plenty of newspapers don't go around saying who their sources are. So that again is a non sequitur," he continued.
"The third thing they said was that the meeting, and this is — you know, if you know lawyers. You know PR people. They choose words very, very carefully," he said. "They said, the meetings did not take place, as alleged by the New York Post. As alleged by the New York Post. So — OK. But then in a political story, they said, they couldn't rule out the possibility that an informal get-together took place."
Ahmari pointed out that the Biden campaign's statement did not dispute the facts of the Post report.
"So Twitter and Facebook, are acting on a case, where even the person being accused in the story, isn't really denying the core facts," he said.
After discussing the actions Facebook and Twitter took to censor the Post story with Beck, Ahmari defended the legacy of the New York Post.
"We are talking about America's oldest continuously published newspaper, that was founded by one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton. I get goose bumps when I say that about the Post," he said. "So this is not some sketchy website, where they can do this to you, without consequences. This is an old newspaper. A beloved newspaper, in New York City. A paper that is a local paper. But also has a national and global voice and imprint."
"The closest thing to an argument I saw from a Twitter safety thread they had put up, they said, this includes — you know, information that was unauthorized for release," Ahmari said. "Well, my Twitter friends, let me tell you about the Pentagon papers. Let me tell you about the Trump tax story. All of journalism is practically built on disclosing things that people don't want disclosed. That's the line of work that you and I are in, Glenn."
NY Post editor speaks out after 'Big Tech' SILENCES bombshell story on Hunter Biden & Ukraine www.youtube.com