This post might be misinterpreted in a couple ways, so read the following two points carefully:
1. I’m not defining liberalism in the American sense of left-of-center Democrat. I am using the term in the international sense of supporter of free speech, human rights, a market economy, democracy, civil rights, opposition to nationalism, etc.
2. In general, I don’t believe it makes sense to accuse people of being Nazis or Maoists. Almost everyone, including even extremists, now understand that these were highly flawed political movements.
Nonetheless, it’s worth thinking about why Maoism and Nazism were once so popular. Why did so many Chinese college students join the Red Guard and enthusiastically persecute their professors (and others)? Why did 37% of the German electorate vote for the Nazi Party in 1932? These questions cry out for an explanation.
Here’s an explanation that doesn’t work. “People were different then. Today’s people are much better.” Sorry, but that’s too simple. Do you really think that if you transported today’s college students back in time, and had then live under the conditions of 1966 China, they would have behaved much differently? And what if you put modern Germans into a time machine and sent them back in time to 1932. Yes, with their current knowledge base they would not vote for the Nazis. Not even the most right wing would do so. But what if they had lived in Germany during the Depression, and knew nothing about what happened next?
Of course, not everyone joined the Red Guard, and not everyone voted for the Nazis. So which people alive today would have joined the Red Guard? And which people alive today would have joined the Nazis?
Consider the woke extremists that enthusiastically denounce and shun people for not being sufficiently left wing on a check list of issues. Does anyone seriously believe they would not have been part of the contingent that joined the Red Guard? And think about people that are so anti-immigrant that they don’t even want us to accept high-skilled people from India and China because they worry about America’s European heritage being diluted. Does anyone seriously believe they would not have been among the 37% who voted for the Nazis?
I wish more people would do some serious soul searching, and honestly ask themselves how they would have behaved in some of these extreme situations.
Again, I’m not accusing modern nationalists of literally being Nazis. I don’t even think the 37% of Germans who voted for the Nazi Party were “Nazis” in the modern sense of the term. Most were presumably average people that made a bad decision. Nor do I believe that today’s woke extremists wish to beat and torture their professors. Instead, I see far left and far right wing ideologies as a sort of virus, which can infect people’s minds, even otherwise reasonable minds. And I see liberalism as a sort of vaccine. In July 1932, most Germans voted for either the Nazis or the Communist Party. The minority that didn’t lose their moral bearings voted for centrist parties such as the Social Democrats. Many of those centrists were “liberals”, using the international definition of the term. Who would you have voted for?
When politics gets extremely contentious and extremely tribal, people are pressured to take sides. We get told that extreme tactics are required because the other side is not playing fair. Of course the other side gets told the same thing. It’s hard to hold on to your principles when you are being accused of being a wishy washy moderate, unwilling to fight fire with fire. People hate it when they are ostracized by fellow members of their “tribe”. Sorry, but the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Your only reliable political allies are those that share your core principles.
Bryan Caplan is a good example of someone who sticks to his principles, even when they might make him unpopular. I presume his fellow professors don’t agree with his opposition to feminism. I presume his fellow right wingers don’t like his advocacy of open borders. But he is passionately devoted to the cause of freedom. That core value acts as a sort of vaccine, making him immune to the lure of authoritarian ideologies. I have no doubt that if he had been born in another time and place, he would have avoided becoming an authoritarian of either the left or the right. How many people can honestly say they are sure that they would have done the right thing, if they had lived in a very different time and place?
Again, you are not a commie or a fascist. You do not favor slavery. But perhaps there’s still something wrong. You should express views that convince the thoughtful reader that had you lived in Weimar Germany you would have opposed both the communists and the fascists. You should express views that convince the thoughtful reader that you would have been an abolitionist in 1850. You should hold views that convince the thoughtful reader than in 1900 you would not have viewed the Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants as scum that must be kept out of the country. Think about how you are expressing your views.
There are ways to favor redistribution without giving the impression that you would have been a Maoist. There are ways of opposing woke excesses without giving the impression that you would have been against the abolitionists. There are ways of opposing current levels of immigration without giving the impression that you would have been on the wrong side of that issue in 1900.
Unfortunately, not everyone is giving the right impression. Too often, I see people make arguments in such a way that I immediately recognize that they would have been on the wrong side during an earlier period in history. Don’t be that guy.
PS. Here’s today’s Bloomberg, discussing the mood among CEOs:
Now, with the return of Trump, many appear to be willing to do what it takes to protect and advance their interests. If that means abandoning, at least for now, some of the ideas celebrated at Davos, so be it. Making noises about equality, diversity and the fierce urgency of climate change just might have to wait.
“It’s sort of like, ‘OK, which time were you lying?’” Tom Glocer, a fixture on corporate boards like Morgan Stanley and Merck & Co. Inc., said of the abrupt change.
Yes indeed, which time were they lying? And were they even lying to themselves?
PPS. Here’s a FT article on the likely new Austrian chancellor:
“The probability is now very high of Kickl as chancellor,” said Thomas Hofer, a prominent Austrian political analyst. . . .
Kickl’s pro-Russian views, embrace of conspiratorial thinking around the Covid-19 pandemic and unsavoury flirtations with Austria’s Nazi past have made him too toxic for Nehammer and other centrists, who vowed to keep him out of power.
Kickl is obviously no Nazi, but who would he have voted for if he’d lived in 1932 Germany?
PPPS. Over at the now defunct MoneyIllusion, I used to do a lot of political blogging, arguing that the United States was becoming a banana republic. At the time, my views were regarded as rather eccentric. Based on this recent Matt Yglesias post, these views are now becoming mainstream among respected centrist pundits.
READER COMMENTS
Daniel Greco
Jan 20 2025 at 2:15pm
Is 1850 important? I like to think I’d have been an abolitionist in 1850. I doubt I’d have been one in 1730. (That would have required more moral courage than I expect I’d have had.) I’m sure I wouldn’t have been one in ancient Greece. (That would’ve required much more vision than I’d have had.) I think there’s a good chance that I’d have (wrongly) opposed the American revolution, on broadly conservative, skeptical of radical change grounds. But that doesn’t make me worry too much; most revolutions are a bad idea, and skepticism about them is a good, albeit fallible heuristic.
Basically, I’m trying to figure out what your standards are.
Scott Sumner
Jan 20 2025 at 6:42pm
I suspect there were liberals on both sides of the revolution question, for the reasons you suggest. Canada is a fairly liberal place, and they opted not to join the revolution.
Indeed even someone like Edmund Burke could be viewed as somewhat liberal.
Garrett MacDonald
Jan 21 2025 at 4:27pm
Bryan Caplan, whom Scott mentioned, would’ve been against the war
TGGP
Jan 20 2025 at 5:35pm
The TimeGhost history channel on Youtube recently completed their week-by-week coverage of WW2 and is now covering the rise of Hitler during the Weimar years (starting in 1930). One of the points made there is that the center/liberal or “burgerbloc” parties started out more popular, but over time voters deserted them for the Communists & Nazis. In that respect, the “vaccine” wasn’t that effective.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:10pm
Everyone seems to be missing the point. Just because you vote for a liberal party, doesn’t mean you are a liberal.
TGGP
Jan 22 2025 at 6:11pm
Is a “liberal” like a True Scotsman then?
Scott Sumner
Jan 24 2025 at 3:18pm
A liberal is someone with liberal beliefs. It’s an ideology, not an ethnicity.
Mark
Jan 25 2025 at 9:50pm
I think the case of Weimar Germany though suggests a different story than simply ‘some people are just liberal and others aren’t.’ People who vote for liberal parties tend to be liberal, so I don’t really buy the explanation that people who changed their vote ‘weren’t reality liberal to begin with.’ Many people really just changed their deeply held views. Belief in liberalism was shaken or discredited by a series of acute crises. And the subsequent Nazi regime, at least initially, scored a series of unprecedented foreign policy and economic wins.
Perhaps a more challenging question would be: to what extent would liberal societies have to fail by one’s own metrics before one would question one’s liberal beliefs? Even most committed liberals – including you as I understand it – aren’t deontologically committed to it; their support is conditional on the success of liberal societies. And that’s probably a big reason there are more liberals today than back then: today there’s a much longer and more diverse record of liberal countries being successful than there back then. Returning to the example, by 1960 nearly all Germans accepted liberalism, including probably most who voted for the Nazi party in 1932. Were they faking it and actually continued to be crypto-Nazis? I doubt it. Liberalism was just practically successful for them, and even one’s most deeply held principles are far less stable across time and change of environment that we’d all like to believe.
David Seltzer
Jan 20 2025 at 6:53pm
Scott, nice job. Recently, a person asked me why many Jews are left of center liberals. I related the story my mother told me when I asked her a similar question. Her story. Her parents were were forced into the Pale of Settlement of the Russian Empire. Jews were forbidden to leave the settlement and the schtetls were the target of the Czar’s pogroms. Families intermarried and an amiable morality became the norm. Her father fled when he was in fear of conscription by the Czar and made his way o America. When the Czar was overthrown in the October Revolution, her father rejoiced and later embraced the ideals of FDR’s policies; the New Deal, collectivism and an expanded welfare state, designed to ameliorate the misery of the Depression. This was in stark contrast to the Czar’s indifference to the suffering of Jews. My mother was an FDR dem to the end. She was convinced he cared for the little person and was invested in solving their problems and difficulties. This story was told the children of people like my mother. I suspect it influenced many of them to accept current day liberalism.
Jose Pablo
Jan 21 2025 at 7:09pm
David, are you using “liberal” here in the “American sense”?. I very much doubt that FDR is the best example of “liberalism” with the meaning that Scott is using.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:12pm
FDR was illiberal in a number of important respects. But you can argue he was somewhat liberal by the standards of the 1930s (an admittedly low bar.)
David Seltzer
Jan 21 2025 at 7:54pm
Quoting Scott, “FDR was illiberal in a number of important respects. But you can argue he was somewhat liberal by the standards of the 1930s (an admittedly low bar.)” I used “liberal” in the American sense as my mother embraced it.
Jose Pablo
Jan 20 2025 at 9:27pm
I am using the term in the international sense of supporter of free speech, human rights, a market economy, democracy, civil rights, opposition to nationalism, etc.
By this definition Germany was pretty “liberal”. In fact, the Weimar Republic constitution was considered one of the most modern democratic constitutions of its time. The vaccine didn’t work.
Preaching and hoping for “individual liberalism” is nice and all, but the system has to have some more robust “defenses” against the non-Bryan Caplans of the world (and there are many of those!).
It turned out that the Weimar Republic didn’t have strong enough defenses. It seems that America did, and despite the widespread racism, antisemitism and world leading position on eugenics (which sure counts as a lot of “individual anti-liberalism”), America held off against the comunism and fascism of the 30s.
But past performance is not guarantee of future results. Paraphrasing Reagan, “Liberalism is never more than one generation away from extinction“. Individual good behavior seems like a too naive defense against such a threat.
It would be great if we were all like Saint Caplan. But we are not. Some, very robust, institutional design is required.
After all, the fact that “homo homini lupus” was well stablished more than 22 centuries ago. Maybe Plautus had not met Bryan.
Mactoul
Jan 21 2025 at 1:30am
I don’t understand what opposition to nationalism means other than insufficient enthusiasm and appreciation of unrestricted Third World immigration. But this can hardly apply to Weimer Germany so looking at the actual international relations of Weimer, marked by acrimonious disputes concerning reparations during 20’s, it doesn’t appear that Weimer is marked with opposition to nationalism.
You say America has withstood communism and fascism but this is a very low bar. Particularly given your often expressed views of government and collectivism, I don’t see how you can regard America as anything other than a collectivist entity.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 11:57am
I’ve done many posts explaining why nationalism is evil. Saying it’s nothing more than concern about immigration is like saying communism is nothing more than sharing with the poor.
Jon Murphy
Jan 21 2025 at 1:28pm
And I suppose socialism is simply being a good neighbor?
If you read or listen to most nationalists (even the ones who post comments here), you’ll see immigration is just one tiny aspect of their complaints. In many cases, it includes stripping citizenship of natural born citizens (see, eg, Trump’s recent executive orders). In other cases, it involves cultural purity, seeking to provide protection for some “national culture.”
David Seltzer
Jan 21 2025 at 2:15pm
Jon, ” it includes stripping citizenship of natural born citizens (see, eg, Trump’s recent executive orders).” DJT’s executive order to strip some natural born citizens of their citizenship will be challenged in court. (Citing the 14th Amendment). Natural born is not without precedent with its antecedents in British law dating back to the 17th century. Rule of law is an effective vaccine.
Jose Pablo
Jan 21 2025 at 7:05pm
Rule of law is an effective vaccine
Is it David? For instance to defend us against people storming the Congress “on behalf” of the right President? or to defend us against fellons who are the son of the right President? (not that I think that both things are comparable)
I have very little confident in any effective vaccine. It is better to quickly dettect and avoid the smallest symptom of the disease and immediately isolate the sick.
Jose Pablo
Jan 21 2025 at 7:12pm
And what if the laws are against “liberalism” (as per Scott definition)?
That could also happen. Laws are meant to be, well, “legal”. That doesn’t make them “moral” (see for instance anti-immigration laws), much less “liberal”.
TGGP
Jan 21 2025 at 8:57am
The United States never even had the possibility of a socialist party coming to power. We’d had a two-party system going back to the mid 19th century, and regular elections for even longer. Germany was a new state formed in the aftermath of WW1, and many didn’t regard the Weimar government as legitimate. It had also only been unified in the 19th century (as had Italy). The UK was similar to the US in having a long tradition of elections & established parties (although it had more viable parties, with the Liberals giving way to Labour as the opposition to the Conservatives) without the risk of the government being toppled.
Jose Pablo
Jan 21 2025 at 1:48pm
The United States “invented” the liberal democracy in practice. It was a great advantage starting it from the ground. France tryed a similar experiment 10 years later and it was a resounding failure (“legacy” problems sure played a part).
The United States were also lucky that Washington was the kind of man that refused to be “Napoleonic” when presented with the ocassion.
Luck plays a very significant (and missunderstood) role in the life of both individuals and nations. We frequently atribute individual and collective merit to what is pure luck.
Systems are proved in crisis and difficult times. What is striking about the United States of today is that you can see thousand of people storming Congress in the best time of its (very sucessful by any standard) history.
One can only imagine what “America” (whatever it means) would do in times as hard as the 30s were in Germany.
The Great Depression did bring to America the strongest attack on the liberal democracy that has ever been. A very significant expansion of the Presidential powers, the credible threath of packing the Supreme Court …
David Seltzer
Jan 21 2025 at 5:07pm
Jose, good points. Please see my comment regarding my mother’s worship of FDR.
TGGP
Jan 22 2025 at 6:15pm
At the time the US obtained independence, the UK was officially a monarchy (as it remains today), but Parliament held governing power. The existence of divisions in Parliament (indicating it was competitive rather than what we’d consider a “one party system”) actually seemed like a problem to the US Founding Fathers, who sought to avoid the “mischief of faction” (and failed completely, leading to the US party system). The British system was liberal enough that many Americans believed they were just fighting to retain their traditional rights. So I don’t think it can quite be said that the US “invented” liberal democracy, rather we iterated on the British model.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 12:00pm
“The vaccine didn’t work.”
You completely missed the point of the post. It’s about individual beliefs. Weimar failed because Germans weren’t sufficiently liberal.
Your argument boils down to “System X is flawed, because when X was replaced by Y, things got worse”.
Jose Pablo
Jan 21 2025 at 1:18pm
Preaching and hoping for “individual liberalism” is nice and all
I totally got your point. I just think that this is like asking for people to behave well in order to put and end to robberies. Extremely naive.
Weimar failed because Germans weren’t sufficiently liberal.
What prove of this do you have? They approved and lived under one of the most advanced Constitution of their time.
Unless you are holding the tautological argument that they were not sufficiently “individually” liberal because their political system didn’t held.
Note that if this is your position, it can not be differentiate in practice from my alternative: that they were sufficiently “individually” liberal but that this is not enough for a liberal system to survive.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:14pm
“Preaching and hoping for “individual liberalism” is nice and all”
Yeah, that’s why I do it.
TGGP
Jan 22 2025 at 6:18pm
What is the evidence that, at the beginning of the Weimar regime, Germans held insufficiently liberal beliefs? Not that illiberal parties existed, but that the voters for liberal parties weren’t themselves liberal? And it would seem to qualify as a defect of a system that it can’t preserve itself.
Barry
Jan 20 2025 at 11:32pm
You said, “And what if you put modern Germans into a time machine and sent them back in time to 1932. Yes, with their current knowledge base they would not vote for the Nazis. Not even the most right wing would do so…”
Nazis were not right wing. They were socialists. And modern right wingers are certainly not socialists. None of them are crying out for nationalization of industries, for example.
That’s another lie of the modern leftist, who has much more in common with the National Socialists of that era than any other political group.
Mactoul
Jan 21 2025 at 1:35am
EU in theory I guess. But this particular bundle, has it ever existed anywhere in practice?
Consider opposition to nationalism– which governments or nations, present or past, were marked by opposition to nationalism? Unless they were internationalist in the communist sense or imperialist , none of which would seem particularly liberal.
Jon Murphy
Jan 21 2025 at 1:24pm
Yes. Much of the modern Western world since the 1700s. A slow, evolving process to be sure. One with many setbacks, but liberalism has been slow triumphant since the 1700s. Nationalism, totalitarianism, communism, socialism, etc, while having brief flares, are generally regulated to the ashbin of history.
Jose Pablo
Jan 21 2025 at 7:23pm
Much of the modern Western world since the 1700s
Which represent a (quickly) shrinking share of the world since the 1700s.
I love your optimism, but the situation of liberalism in the world looks to me more and more like the good guys in an apocalyctic zombie movie: parts of Europe (some of them significant) are lost to the sick and the US (the last bastion free of contamination) shows very worrying symptoms (the very reason, I suspect, why Scott and you were writing posts on this topic)
Jon Murphy
Jan 22 2025 at 5:22am
Ebbs and flows. We’re in an ebb now. But as long as the torch of liberty remains lit, the darkness of illiberalism will not win.
History is full of such ebbs of liberalism. But its defeat, while constantly predicted, has never come to pass.
Mactoul
Jan 21 2025 at 11:05pm
And which statesman of 18 and 19c you would advertise as embodying liberalism following Sumner’s definition? They did not create world-spanning empires for the sake of liberalism. USA didn’t grow to continental size while being opposed to nationalism.
Even Lincoln did not believe in equality of whites and blacks. He wanted to repatriate blacks to Africa. The attitudes of 19c liberals would make even Trump blanch.
Jon Murphy
Jan 22 2025 at 5:18am
There’s a jumble of seemingly unrelated questions in your comment. It’s not clear what, exactly, you’re asking or what your point is.
Edmond Burke. Many of The American Founding Fathers. Adam Smith. Frederic Bastiat. AV Dicey. Richard Cobden. Cantillion. Just to name a few.
Actually, in the British case, that was the goal for many of their imperialists. Whether they were right to do so is a different question (I don’t think they were, and liberalism did not always follow in their wake), but liberal imperialists did believe in spreading liberalism through empire.
Yes it did. Explicitly so. During that time, there were several explicitly nationalist parties that opposed the expansion and tried to run for various offices (they were generally soundly defeated).
True but irrelevant.
Very much so. Partly because he is staunchly illiberal. Their acceptance of open borders and free trade is an anathema to him.
Andrew_FL
Jan 22 2025 at 9:51am
Today I learned that Andrew Jackson and James K Polk were liberal anti-nationalists.
Jon Murphy
Jan 22 2025 at 7:08pm
I don’t know if they were anti-nationalist but they weren’t nationalist.
Mactoul
Jan 23 2025 at 1:11am
On the contrary, Trump is far more liberal than 19c examples–the views on female equality and participation in politics, sexual minorities, racial relations, use of muscular foreign policy.
Since you are overly fixated on tariffs, it must be said that Trump didn’t invent tariffs.
Jon Murphy
Jan 23 2025 at 7:56am
That’s just goofy. He’s far less, even if we ignore tariffs. With the point about gender and sexual minorities in politics, he’s about the same (or less). He’s way, way less when it comes to the rest of the items on your list. Not to mention his outright contempt for the rule of law and checks and balances.
TGGP
Jan 21 2025 at 8:51am
Looks like my comment is in moderation because it contained a link. I was just pointing out that during the Weimar republic the liberal/centrist “burgerbloc” started out larger than the Nazis & Communists, but over time their voters left for the extremes. Thus the “vaccine” was not that effective.
Fred Regan
Jan 21 2025 at 11:17am
Surely you are not suggesting that any position shy of unlimited, unconditional support for open borders is “authoritarian”?
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:15pm
No, I use the term “authoritarian” for cases where the person is highly illiberal. I am not 100% liberal on all issues.
steve
Jan 21 2025 at 12:03pm
I put off reading this for some reason but I think this is well done Scott. I totally agree that things have become too tribal. That results in both tribes making false accusation about the beliefs of the other side. So there really are far out woke people but there arent that many and they are largely localized to some universities, San Francisco and NYC. Support for DEI and the radical woke ideas is paper thin which mostly takes the form of most people on the left not criticizing it as much as they should, but then out in the real world away from those true centers of ideology its always been clear most businesses that have DEI programs didnt really believe in or support them. Look at how quickly businesses are giving up on them!
Same on the right. There are some actual Nazis and fascists but it’s not true of most people. Its largely fears about immigration. It’s the belief that their culture wont be the same or that immigrants are taking their jobs.
I also agree strongly that liberalism, if embraced, is a good counter to the ills promoted by tribalism, but tribalism is too well funded and supported right now to make much of a dent. To your list I think I would also add that liberalism generally values norms or, roughly paraphrasing Deirdre, bourgeois values. I think that it has become the norm that political leaders use their positions for personal benefit to the point that they dont even need to hide and in fact their tribe members actually cher them on while they do it.
Steve
Laurentian
Jan 21 2025 at 5:38pm
Doesn’t that make them conservatives though? And don’t liberals think all traditions, customs and norms ought to be challenged? Also current definitions of bourgeois values are quite different from past ones.
steve
Jan 21 2025 at 7:23pm
Not really. For example take a common norm like civility. The lefty radicals in the 60s and 70s weren’t especially civil. Now you have Trump as the leader of the right who makes it a point to be an ass and his fans cheer him on. Take respect for military service which was generally more of a right wing value but now you have Trump making fun of veterans and their families. Or take respect for differences of opinion. On any given day both the left and right can make the case that they are worse.
Steve
Jon Murphy
Jan 21 2025 at 1:22pm
Good stuff, Scott. I have a blog post in the pipeline that touches on the same thing (albeit far less elequently than you). I think a distinguishing feature of liberalism as a vaccine can be seen in Adam Smith’s earthquake thought experiment. It is true that when disaster occurs far away, we do not lose any sleep over it. Nor is it the case that, when such a disaster strikes, we are totally insensitive to it, nor wish it upon anyone. Liberals see everyone as deserving of basic human dignity. We need not love everyone equally; that would be quite impossible. We need not even prefer everyone equally. It is ok to prefer the fortunes of our countrymen over others. But what is not ok, and what characterizes nationalism, is the abuse and injury* of others simply because they are not considered part of the nation. To treat others as if they are underserving of equal treatment under the law.
*”Injury” meaning “violation of justice”
Laurentian
Jan 21 2025 at 2:41pm
Classical liberals did not think that “barbarians” such as Catholics deserved individual dignity. Mill was pretty explicitly about this. Even Bright and Spencer despite their opposition to Imperialism thought Irish Home Rule was a step too far.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:19pm
Good comment. I’d add that nationalists differ from patriots in that they favor one ethnic group over another, even within a given country. Thus Hungarian nationalists don’t favor people living in Hungary, they favor ethnic Hungarians living in Hungary, and elsewhere.
The Roma? They don’t seem to count.
Mactoul
Jan 23 2025 at 1:17am
The modern liberal views nations as merely administrative (in)conveniences thus lack of appreciation of the nationalist point of view.
Jon Murphy
Jan 23 2025 at 7:58am
Again, you have a goofy understanding of liberalism and, consequently, a distorted understanding of nationalism.
Kevin Corcoran
Jan 21 2025 at 2:42pm
Excellent post. Reading this triggered the little memory imp in my brain about an essay I read years ago expressing a surprising and even admirable degree of self-awareness on the author’s part on this very question. Granted, the author of that essay was using a fictional rather than historical setting, but the overall point was similar. She was writing about, of all things, the fictional universe of the Harry Potter stories, particularly the prequel movies. The big-bad of those prequel stories is the dark wizard Grindelwald. After watching the movie where Grindelwald’s rise to power begins, she realized that had she been among the denizens of that particular setting, she would have joined up with him. Of course, the viewers of the movie know the story ends with Grindelwald’s rise bringing great chaos and destruction, and we see all the terrible things he does behind the scenes. But none of that information would have been available to this person’s hypothetical alternate self. As she put it,
Where I think this writer fell short is that she settles back on her confidence that eventually she would have seen Grindelwald’s true nature, realized her mistake, and abandoned his cause. But she doesn’t take it a step further and ask herself how she could make herself into the kind of person who never would have fallen in with someone like Grindelwald and his movement in the first place.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:21pm
Great example.
Laurentian
Jan 21 2025 at 2:57pm
Wasn’t NAFTA and the WTO supposed to be this vaccine? And weren’t the public schools and universities supposed to be this vaccine as well? As was urbanization, industrialization and consumerism?
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:22pm
“Wasn’t NAFTA and the WTO supposed to be this vaccine?”
I don’t recall anyone making that claim.
Laurentian
Jan 22 2025 at 2:14am
Read Bill Clinton’s speech on admitting China to the WTO
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Full_Text_of_Clintons_Speech_on_China_Trade_Bi.htm
Laurentian
Jan 21 2025 at 3:00pm
Caplan is enamored of the absolutist autocracy that is the UAE. Not sure what sort of vaccine is depending on the whims and power of an enlightened despot.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:22pm
I don’t think that is accurate, and I’ve read his posts on the subject.
Mactoul
Jan 22 2025 at 12:37am
Caplan bats for Open Borders and not liberalism and democracy and the Gulf sheikhdoms model of work permits without path to citizenship is quite an antithesis of liberalism.
A liberal would have no distinction between citizens and foreigners, But the sheikhs do strive mightily to maintain the distinction.
Jon Murphy
Jan 22 2025 at 5:26am
That’s just goofy. No one advocates what you say they do here.
Andrew_FL
Jan 22 2025 at 10:03am
Never say no one
Jon Murphy
Jan 22 2025 at 1:27pm
I don’t see anything in that link that supports Mactoul. Indeed, it undermines his point quite strongly.
Andrew_FL
Jan 22 2025 at 3:40pm
What is this, the Argument Clinic? “This isn’t an argument!” “Yes, it is.” “No, it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.”
You say no one advocates the gulf Sheikdom model of immigration. Here’s Bryan Caplan praising it to the nines. You say “Nah, if anything this proves he doesn’t advocate it”-your counter to very clear evidence is just “Nuh uh”.
Jon Murphy
Jan 22 2025 at 7:04pm
No, I didn’t. Reread my comment again.
Travis Allison
Jan 21 2025 at 4:43pm
Maybe political systems that result in two party contests for election are good? Perhaps two party systems are more resistant to extreme changes (both good and bad).
I wouldn’t exactly call Yglesias a profile in courage for speaking truth to power. When Biden was dottering around and clearly mentally deficient at times, he said nothing and criticized people who thought that Biden was slipping. It wasn’t until Biden’s debate performance that he finally changed horses, along with almost all Dems. Also, Yglesias wasn’t exactly beating the drum calling out Biden’s tolerance for and abetting Hunter’s corruption. Any of his (few) criticisms of Biden’s policies were incredibly tepid. Notice that his criticism of pardon power in this article focuses on possible abuse by Trump. There’s no mention of Biden’s abuse of pardon power in the article. Yglesias had too many friends/acquaintances in the Biden Administration.
None of this detracts from your excellent points in your post. I just don’t think calling Yglesias a centrist is accurate. He is definitely, strongly in the Democratic camp and to the left of the median voter.
Scott Sumner
Jan 21 2025 at 7:25pm
I’d view him as center left. He’s recently been quite critical of Biden, but not as critical as I would have liked during previous years. Nonetheless, as a political analyst he is outstanding.
Travis Allison
Jan 22 2025 at 11:15pm
Well, I guess tastes can differ on Yglesias. I think he is at times good at analyzing policy issues, but he isn’t good at analyzing *political* issues. He’s too much of a Dem homer for my tastes. He’s only been very critical of Biden since Biden was no longer running for office.
Nevertheless, it is good to get homer views from both political camps. They often bring up points that I wouldn’t have thought of. Everyone needs an articulate pro-Trumpist in their family, even though I loathe Trump. Then you will understand some of his attraction.
All of the media’s huffing and puffing about Trump’s executive orders and not one peep about Biden’s. Where is the constituency for eliminating executive orders? One would hope that one would arise, but there is nothing.
Mactoul
Jan 21 2025 at 11:19pm
Liberalism, on general grounds, is against particularity. Neither Locke nor Rawls nor Buchanan cared to account for existence of particular polities and political boundaries. Hence, this opposition to nationalism stems from fundamental limitation of liberal theories.
The liberalism tends to world government hence anything that doesn’t celebrate unrestricted movement of people strikes a blow against liberalism in its vital spot. Why else would Orban or Trump would be called illiberal?
Trump may even be for increased legal H1b immigration but as long as he opposes even a whit of unrestricted immigration, he is illiberal.
Jon Murphy
Jan 22 2025 at 5:28am
This is an entertaining story, but it is just that.
Knut P. Heen
Jan 23 2025 at 5:13am
Your vaccine did not work on Vilfredo Pareto.
Cyril Morong
Jan 23 2025 at 8:58am
This reminds me of the passage from Adam Smith where he talks about “furious zealots” ( from The Theory of Moral Sentiments):
“The animosity of hostile factions, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is often still more furious than that of hostile nations; and their conduct towards one another is often still more atrocious. What may be called the laws of faction have often been laid down by grave authors with still less regard to the rules of justice than what are called the laws of nations. The most ferocious patriot never stated it as a serious question, Whether faith ought to be kept with public enemies?—Whether faith ought to be kept with rebels? Whether faith ought to be kept with heretics? are questions which have been often furiously agitated by celebrated doctors both civil and ecclesiastical. It is needless to observe, I presume, that both rebels and heretics are those unlucky persons, who, when things have come to a certain degree of violence, have the misfortune to be of the weaker party. In a nation distracted by faction, there are, no doubt, always a few, though commonly but a very few, who preserve their judgment untainted by the general contagion. They seldom amount to more than, here and there, a solitary individual, without any influence, excluded, by his own candour, from the confidence of either party, and who, though he may be one of the wisest, is necessarily, upon that very account, one of the most insignificant men in the society. All such people are held in contempt and derision, frequently in detestation, by the furious zealots of both parties. A true party-man hates and despises candour; and, in reality, there is no vice which could so effectually disqualify him for the trade of a party-man as that single virtue. The real, revered, and impartial spectator, therefore, is, upon no occasion, at a greater distance than amidst the violence and rage of contending parties. To them, it may be said, that such a spectator scarce exists any where in the universe. Even to the great Judge of the universe, they impute all their own prejudices, and often view that Divine Being as animated by all their own vindictive and implacable passions. Of all the corrupters of moral sentiments, therefore, faction and fanaticism have always been by far the greatest.”
Philo
Jan 27 2025 at 12:45pm
“Who would you have voted for?” If I had understood what was happening, I would have voted with my feet. (My vote at the ballot box would not have changed anything.)
Comments are closed.