54 Comments
Jun 26, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

Think you are close to the mark with this essay. There are two very different political worldviews at play. One believes that government is the cure and bigger, more centralized government is better. The other believes that the people are the cure and government should be the smallest possible and closest to the people. Foundational presuppositions matter greatly in this debate.

A large percentage of Americans have become weary of the hard work of self governance. The solution is a benevolent dictator and they are hard to come by.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

"personal responsibility can seem cold, unfeeling and insufficiently caring towards society’s more vulnerable citizens"

Funny because voluntary charity is caring and moral, while forcefully taking money and only giving some small amount to actual suffering people is government force at its worst: fake morality, fake kindness, fake caring, fake charity, wasted spending, all handled by government extortion and managed by politicians who never have accomplished anything outside of using force.

Just look around your neighborhood and ask yourself if you bought those things voluntarily or government forced you to have them.

Even libertarians and conservatives (not anarchists, but they remain rare and their utopia is likely out of reach) mostly agree that government can do real regulation (making things regular for interoperability across the states, like roads, power, water, sewers, extradition, money, etc.) and provide for actual common good and no unequal protection rejection to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. Those are so called positive rights, which are also the basis for why abortion can be illegal, where the zygote's/fetus's rights surpass the woman's rights and she must be forced to give up her rights for this never-born, never-met, unknown entity they call a Person with full rights. Liberals love to pretend positive rights are everywhere (housing, healthcare, food, water, clothing, education, jobs, etc.) and this abortion ruling is just another example of their preference for a bad idea coming back to haunt them.

The US just needs to be taught what having 50 states means. It's the definition of choice, and it moves democracy closer to those who will be inflicted with the laws that all restrict voluntary actions. Not having a one size fits all federal government power (one that can't balance a budget, but we're told can run 330 million free people's lives by force) gives us choice. National laws lock you in as you aren't free to move to another country, but you are free to choose any state at any time as you prefer.

The US just needs to be reminded of the power of free people to choose for themselves and voluntarily associate and do real moral actions to help one another and provide a safety net for those who truly cannot care for themselves.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2022·edited Jun 26, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

Yes, Americans agree that school shootings, pollution and environmental degradation are bad. But who doesn't? I think the premise of the article is weak. The examples of issues chosen on which we agree are issues that all sane people agree on. We are extremely far apart, further apart than ever, on more philosophical issues such as freedom vs security or whether equal outcomes should be a focus of policy.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

To add another layer it's not necessarily that Republicans believe in small government because if a Republican suggests a big government solution they will be more likely to support it and if a Democrat makes a small government proposal they will oppose it and vice versa. Too much relies on dissonance reduction rather than listening to other people and engaging in genuine dialogue.

Expand full comment

Good article. I’ve flagged a few sentences with typos that should be easy for you to correct:

“More than than, they have increasingly come to see the other sides philosophy as a threat.” - two typos

Also I think there’s a point where you use “the” instead of “they,” which is a mistake I make all the time. I’d double check the article. Can’t find it right now. Double check the last two paragraphs I think. Maybe I’m wrong and there isn’t a typo but I think there might be.

“In many ways, America has become like a two parents squabbling over whether to send their daughter to a public or charter school- they’ve become so obsessed over form rather than function, they’ve neglected to listen to their daughter read at night, keep her off her smartphone and away from social media- regular meals have gone out of the window and there is not even the slightest concern over making sure she has ample opportunity to play with her friends and socialise normally. All because the argument has become more important than the result.”

Great analogy. Last sentence really does an excellent job of summing up the situation.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

Insightful article Geary.

I hope, with fingers crossed and little optimism, that the upshot of the Roe v Wade decision will open people's eyes to the benefits of federalism. One benefit is that there is a lot that states can decide for themselves plus there is a lot of potential for experimentation.

A type of experimentation is occurring now as people and corporations exit California to places where corporate and personal taxes are lower and there are fewer regulations that place burdens on both individuals and businesses.

In an ideal world, we need experimentation in the use of different medical systems, different systems of taxation, different systems of education, etc., for all to view and to compare and contrast. In the great scheme of this experimentation, people from different states will say why don't we do it like that other state which having so much success at _____.

Somehow I don't think this will work because of the reasons you covered—they aren't doing it my way, and it's my way or the highway. It's interesting that some are quick to use other countries systems as baselines of success, but look no further. For example, in the states we often hear from those on the left that we require a medical insurance system like that of Canada. Why do they insist we stop there? Why can't we discuss systems that might even be better than Canada? Their answers, to my ears, are superficial and are usually something to effect that people will always need medicine and people aren't smart enough to make their own medical decisions, so we need government control. Or perhaps, someone might make a profit, and you can't have medicine and profits in the same sentence. I ask why not look at real-time experiments. When I point out the success of cash-only surgery significantly lowering prices and producing high-quality results because the middle man and the expensive municipal hospitals are not part of this system. I get stares that imply I have lost it. On a related topic, I mention that it might be worth a look at direct primary care. This system of primary care shows that removing insurance and government from the middle of the doctor-patient relation significantly reduces cost and makes both patients and doctors happier. Again, the usual responses deal with my sanity, but no substantive argument as to why these systems won't work. They seem to be working, but not for the masses because there have been no large-scale experiments and in the case of DPC, governments are hampering the experiment because that is what governments do when it comes to medicine. Organizations like Doctors4PatientCare and the Galen Institute have gone before congress only to talk to the walls because politicians have their minds made up—they want to run and regulate the show when it comes to medicine.

How do we break through the barriers that will allow us to experiment across states and regions and then have meaningful discussions on which is best for your community, your state, perhaps the nation? I am not optimistic this can happen if people aren't will to explore the new and because politicians thrive on keeping control and preventing the new.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

Bro! been a while since i commented, but i love your posts. re-posted you multiple times in class.

the problem, as i see it, is that conservative politicians are prepared to use whatever techniques work to achieve whatever ends they want, conservative pundits are delighted that they no longer need 'knowledge' or 'work' to have their opinions justified, and so are the people that listen to them.

i think there is a real residual element from the alt right 'just for the lolz' trolling vibe.

at some point, do you not have to point out that the majority of 'conservatives' are expressing ideas that are fucking nuts? progressives are morons, but conservative thought is what frightens me right now. conservatives are doing more damage to people who they disagree with. from a utilitarian perspective, more 'harm' is done by conservatives.

i dunno about you, but i grew up redneck and have a lot of conservative friends. and they say dumb shit all the time like, 'justina' or 'lock her up'. hateful tropes. my proggy friends have hateful tropes too. but nobody listens to them. im not concerned about the ill-informed. i'm interested in what you have to say.

my premise is, and has been since i met you, that ideological conservatives are just better at this shit. getting the message out. the talking points, and getting those talking points into the mouths of people. people i both know and respect.

remember when i quit quillette? maybe, maybe not. but when i woke up on jan. 6th and realized some shit was going on, i was like, dope. this is my premise. the reason i invested a year into the best conservative rhetoric i could find, quillette. you. ray. some other dope posters. let's see what conservatives say as this shit happens.

and they were justifying if from the get go. YOU were justifying if from the get go,. i called it an armed insurrection right after i woke up and realized it was going on. you called me out for calling it an armed insurrection. you recant that now, obviously. but why were you immediately repeating the talking point?

that was eye-opening for me. trump said he was going to challenge the results of the election years before he challenged it. and yet you conservative-apologist types acted surprised when he actually did it. why did you defer to supporting trump?

i am going to extend my argument.

children will continue to die in school because of conservative talking points. more children die in the US from gun violence than anything else. more mass shootings have occurred in 2022 than days of the year.

let's pause and reflect on those facts.

children are most likely to die in the US from gun violence. children. fucking children.

conservatives are well aware of the lazy moral hypocrisy of progressives. they show up at church every week for the entire life, and some privilege baby condemns religion on his FB and gets lots of love? fuck those guys.

my mother, her friends, many of the people i knew and loved in my life? they choose religion, and i support them.

those conservative people i love and respect are being overwhelmed by conservative elite ideology. don't give them more reasons.

support real conservatives and genuine heterodoxy. condemn the bs 'faux conservative'.

Expand full comment

Even more important than our success is their failure. And if their failure is the country's failure, that's collateral damage -- or even serves them right for voting for the wrong tribe. I remember when McConnell stated openly that his goal was to prevent the Obama administration from getting anything done. One of the branches of government set itself the task of shutting down the Executive. Seems to me that should be a High Crime.

Expand full comment