Is there a pro-freedom progressivism? I’m not certain, but Matthew Yglesias sure seems to think so. In the past hour, he has tweeted the following:
1. Criticism of a “Really outrageous attack on free speech” by law enforcement in Arizona.
2. Argued “Let’s make it easier to get permits to build houses” An hour earlier he made the pitch more overtly political, “Own Ron DeSantis by making it easier to build houses in California.“
3. Argued “Let’s make clean energy deployment easier“
4. Argued “Let’s increase the supply of doctors and other medical professionals” by weakening the AMA cartel.
5. Five hours ago he suggested that “freedom” was the best way to sell the pro-choice argument:
As I’ve said many times, there’s no such thing as public opinion. It depends how you frame the question. I.e., the question creates the opinion.
6. Six hours ago, he tweeted, “YIMBY is about freedom, not apartment buildings.”
7. Twenty hours ago he tweeted on vaccines and nuclear power. In both areas he has written more extensive essays, sometimes advocating the removal of regulatory barriers that slow the development of vaccines and prevent the construction of (low carbon) nuclear power plants.
Matt Yglesias is certainly not a libertarian. But he’s also not a typical progressive. Rather he advocates something called “popularism”, which is roughly the achievement of progressive goals via popular means (and in some cases compromises.) This differs from “populism”, which often aims at non-progressive policy goals such as trade barriers, immigration barriers, and the weakening of criminal justice protections. In Yglesias’s view, unpopular “woke” excesses actually end up hurting the progressive cause.
I find it interesting that Yglesias often sees the “freedom” message as a way of making public policies more palatable. He spends part of the year in Texas, and seems to have a pretty good grasp of how middle Americans think, especially when compared to the typical coastal progressive.
PS. If I were pro-life, I’d be infuriated by this misleading and manipulative video. But as Yglesias correctly suggests, it is probably quite effective.
PPS. Warning: If progressives keep using the freedom message because it works, they might eventually find themselves beginning to believe in freedom. Handle with care! 🙂
READER COMMENTS
Mark Z
Jul 8 2022 at 2:52pm
This might be how one might sell (some) progressive ideas to conservatives, libertarians, and moderates. Among progressives, usually the converse seems true: when progressives buy into libertarian ideas, it’s usually for reasons related to progressive values, e.g., legalizing marijuana because people punished for it are disproportionately minorities, allowing more housing because it disproportionately helps the poor, opposing bailouts because they benefit the 1%.
I think most people who aren’t libertarians are consciously aware enough that their worldview hinges on a challenge to liberal individualism (or its “excesses”) that they aren’t going to be duped by wordplay. I guess we’ll see if Yglesias manages to get progressives to support nuclear energy by appealing to freedom, but I suspect it’ll be as ineffective as Andrew Sullivan’s family values-base “conservative case for gay marriage” (which I don’t think was very effective, though I can’t prove it).
Scott Sumner
Jul 8 2022 at 3:56pm
“I suspect it’ll be as ineffective as Andrew Sullivan’s family values-base “conservative case for gay marriage” (which I don’t think was very effective, though I can’t prove it).”
I can’t prove the converse. But it’s an odd claim for a formerly unpopular idea that soared in popularity at a faster rate than almost any other social change in history. If not “family values”, what could have possibly caused such a rapid change of heart among the public?
Chris
Jul 8 2022 at 4:40pm
I suspect that Matt’s framing of these issues in that way is part of why progressives appear to find him so unpleasant.
BS
Jul 8 2022 at 9:54pm
Wait and see what happens when “popularism” fails to make the sale and people resist the policy.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 8 2022 at 10:15pm
Yglesias is just an old style Liberal, a Progressive who not only took, but passed Econ 101.
DeservingPorcupine
Jul 10 2022 at 1:16pm
The police filming law seems pretty reasonable.
Scott Sumner
Jul 10 2022 at 3:00pm
Not to me.
DeservingPorcupine
Jul 17 2022 at 1:36pm
You think a 3rd party needs to be closer than 8 feet to effectively film police?
Todd K
Jul 10 2022 at 7:21pm
“Matt Yglesias is certainly not a libertarian.”
Certainly not. He once tweeted that anyone who gets a vaccine should get $50 and those who refuse should get three weeks to change there mind and after that should be strapped down for a forced injection and get $0.
He later deleted the tweet but that sentiment is as far from libertarian as one can get.
Michael Stack
Jul 11 2022 at 2:47pm
It’s not libertarian but it’s also not that far away either. The case for individual choice and freedom is based on the fact that you’re not hurting anyone else. The externality associated with vaccination is massive. We restrict things like emissions and pollution all the time without thinking it is a violation of rights.
I can’t drive drunk down the highway because I might hurt somebody.
Of course in life nearly everything we do has some externalities; the question is whether the externalities are sufficiently large to justify government intrusion. It seems though unless you’re an anarchist, you have to allow for some amount of government control when large scale externalities are in play.
Todd K
Jul 12 2022 at 3:33pm
“The case for individual choice and freedom is based on the fact that you’re not hurting anyone else. The externality associated with vaccination is massive.”
This is false. The vaccines are not sterilizing and that was known from very early in 2021 if not earlier. You also need to factor in how many serious injuries and deaths the vaccines have cause as you consider a “Strap them down and inject them!” policy. A recent paper concluded 1 in 1,200 vaccinations caused serious injuries including those that have lead to death.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239
MIchael Sandifer
Jul 11 2022 at 8:09am
I’m a progressive who favors YIMBYism; free banking; school vouchers; abolishment of the FDA, SEC, and FINRA; total drug legalization, including ending prescription requirements; zero limits on abortion; total elimination of taxes on capital, a stronger US military that takes a tougher line with China; 100% free trade(except where there are national security concerns) and open borders(But stricter limits on citizenship); a Friedman-like negative income tax, but inflation-adjusted;…
Maybe one reason I see little value in reading Yglesias is that he’s almost always preaching to the choir.
anon/portly
Jul 13 2022 at 1:22pm
It may be that there are some “progressives” who are in favor of vouchers, deregulation and free trade, but generally speaking aren’t virtually 100% of the people who so self-identify against those things?
Maybe one reason I see little value in reading Yglesias is that he’s almost always preaching to the choir.
I think MS must mean “in my particular case he’s almost always preaching to the choir.” In general of course Yglesias is criticizing the beliefs and preferences of progressives and trying to push them to see things differently. He’s the rare public intellectual who is specifically and with purpose doing the opposite of “preaching to the choir.” When Chris above says that progressives find Yglesias “unpleasant” I think that is true and what they find unpleasant is constantly being told they are in error. (Scott Sumner gives a couple of examples – the “popularism” and “wokeness” issues – but there are many others).
TGGP
Jul 12 2022 at 3:41pm
Yglesias has been explicit that many of his political goals are not popular, so it’s not just a matter of phrasing a question. He thinks his preferred political party should emphasize their popular stances, not their unpopular ones. They can still put in place some unpopular policies once they win office with a comfortable majority, but they must maintain overall popularity to maintain their position.
Comments are closed.