The critique of neo-conservatism and of Reaganism, especially the right-libertarian critique from within conservatism, amounts to a critique of their shared Hegelianism.
The critique of neo-conservatism and of Reaganism, especially the right-libertarian critique from within conservatism, amounts to a critique of their shared Hegelianism.
I was working on some spare-time notes for a period during which I do not in theory possess any spare time, and by now the notes are an unfinished opus. It struck me today that the footnotes to that not…
I think HRC comes off rather well in this interview with Jeffrey Goldberg: Hillary Clinton: Chinese System Is Doomed, Leaders on a ‘Fool’s Errand’. Makes me proud I voted for her in the 2008 California primary, though in those dark,…
The exchange over the weekend between Rex and Fuster has helped me to organize some thoughts about American conservatism. I hope to have something more hopeful or positive to say at a later time, but, in a way that I…
America aims to be as much and as little interventionist and militarist as required in order to avoid ever becoming as catastrophically interventionist and militarist as she, in competition or cooperation with potentially many others, could be.
The un-clarity or confusion, or confusion of confusions, regarding the meaning of these two terms is typical of this historical moment, which in one sense can be thought to have simply befallen us, having never been willed into existence by anyone, but in another sense can be viewed as the predictable and desired product of choices made over the course of at least two or now three presidential elections, in as self-conscious a manner as a mass democratic system is able to undertake.
As for Trumpism vs. Bushism, one will be no less dependent on “populist nationalism” than the other, to whatever extent it is also successful: In a mass electoralist national system under popular sovereignty, the winner will always be the truest national populist, by definition, if not necessarily the purest national populist according to some external or merely intellectual standard.
I am seeking a grand strategic overview of the grand strategic field such as it is, in clear but not simplistic statements susceptible to critical consideration and re-consideration – not total occupation of the literature and victory in detail down to every last sty and hollow. All the same, if I am reluctant to add to the reading list unnecessarily, I will remain grateful for recommendations on further very-essential reading.
Trump is finance fully self-invacuated, in a full-length gilt mirror, a Medusa transfixed by its own refracted self-admiration; at the same time, he is the return of the annihilated masses, as mass nihilism.
Libertarianism and the Left, and the more general problem for metaphysically individualist liberalism.