Agree, this was an amazing fantasy. For a someone who tries to critique elitism, they do a lot of work arguing for all the systems that create and sustain elites.
But the point is that the elites do a generally better job than our other options like MAGA. Whatever brass you want to polish on the MAGA titanic, retarded socialist art hoes are better than killing all trade and invading Greenland. It's actually a solid Occam's razor argument
My comment *somewhat* touches on that vein but from a different path::: This essay is well written. And brings up some insightful things that I agree with like how the modern American political economy is very centralized, structurally hollowed out, and increasingly dependent on elite-managed narratives rather than participatory democratic infrastructure(although it really been that way for a very long time its just that the planetary extraction structures which enabled it to mask its true state through perpetual large budget deficits, perpetual large trade deficits, and high liquidity all without inflation, are slipping so its become apparent and its consequences far more "realer" for far more people.
But the analysis seems to be largely unaware of the historical fact that America once operated under a very, very different model, what I have begun to refer t as the “Old Republic”, which from roughly the 1830s until sometime after WW2 was characterized by a decentralized but a deeply integrated economic and political-economic architecture. It deliberately embedded democratic semi-autonomy not just through elections -- it seems it may have actually view that as the lesser in importance part -- but through lower case "d" democratic governance structures achieved through the diffusion of financial, legal, scientific, and regulatory authority across regional and local nodes. Immigrant-heavy and working-class communities had genuine access to real civic infrastructure, banks, school boards, public works agencies, local party committees, and scientific institutions, and local governments with substantial fiscal powers and limited but still substantial self directed economic policy prerogatives, through which they shaped both their material lives and public decisions.
Technocratic centralization has largely voided that embedded agency. So while the essay, in my view, in some ways spot on regarding the current technocratic system’s failures , its proposed reforms appear confined within the very system its critiquing, it assumes both the legitimacy and inevitability of national centralize technocracy while not making any attempt o ponder alternatives such as: a pluralistic, semi-fragmented system base within deliberate redundancy, economic semi-autonomy, a deep national capital market that still maintains strong local capital structures, and true local governance. That historical pathway didn’t just “fail” or fade, it was deliberately dismantled, seemingly by a very similar, in some ways the same and in some minority cases the actual direct descendants, of the set of forces it defeated to start itself in the first place
She's like... a seven at best, dude. *does enormous bong rip*, Anyway... I like Trump because around the time of the 2016 election I had what can best be described as a "prophetic dream", a vision if you will, wherein I entered this enormous stadium and saw Trump sat next to this Metro-Goldwyn Lion. I said to him, sneakily I should add, "oh man, so many people don't like you..." as though I was trying to bring him down a peg, unsettle him. But he just smiled. No he didn't smile, his face just took on this very calm, and wise, serenity: like he was totally beyond all that, as though to say to me, "you have so much to learn." Then I saw this aura surround him: Gold, Red and Brilliant White... He was, in that dream, like (and I know I sound ridiculous saying this) the Tarot Card "The Emperor" -- an absolute quasi-deity, a Welt-Geist that was to bring about the harmony of the Divine Male emerging again under the yoke of, what I felt at that time, the Divine Female in the form of its high-point of Woke. I should add that I wasn't completely convinced by Trump at that point, prior to his election, but when I Woke Up, I couldn't shake this sense of having my belief system overturned, of seeing the measly wretched deception in which I lived, from where I judged others to be lower than I, when it was in fact me who had the poison inside. He is funny, he is a charismatic leader, and I think he genuinely supports peace and the interests of the USA: whether the coastal elites might consider his specific form of taxation myopic or anti-bourgeois is by the bye -- if we take the reasoning at face value, the intent is good, and, although the results might hamstring the America economy, its a "new thing", a strange "new thing" that's actually an old thing -- and that hegemony would collapse in either case. The other guy? What is he, brown? The fuck?! I think people like him because he eats kebabs and knows about the internet and has a full head of hair, and because people hate Israel or something? And the other guy was purportedly a-bit-rapey in a kind of 70s way? I didn't pay that much attention but am thankful for your input and for educating me.
The point isn’t to be nice to them. The point is your “theory” is based entirely off of broad brushes because you very obviously don’t have friends that are on the left and it shows
Substack, it is clear to me, has descended into who can be more combinatorially meta-ironic. It's either "I'm a far-right fascist who supports everything about the Dems" to "I'm a gay trans black leftist ethno-nationalist white supremacist." I hereby, dub this the Hanania effect.
Are the commenters here just contrarian on purpose, am I missing the meme?
This analysis is better than a lot of political punditry out there in understanding the direction and scale of the two political movements; mostly because punditry is so bad, which is kinda also a point of the article.
I’m not so sure. Although Cruz was born in Canada, he had US citizenship through his mother—meaning he’s a Natural-born US citizen (at least, this is the consensus view). In the case of Mamdani, neither of his parents (at the time of his birth) were US citizens; since he was born in Uganda, this means that he is not a Natural-born citizen, unlike Cruz.
“As far as policy goes, I’d rather add $1 trillion to the deficit making up jobs for smol beans than add $1 trillion to the deficit by closing the borders and shutting down trade.”
I could never imagine doing analysis this poorly. There are plenty of valid ways to critique Mamdani’s, but there is no need to lie and misrepresent facts and positions like this
Utterly incomprehensible. Mamdani has laid out a clear plan to pay for his policies to make them deficit neutral. He has also signalled support for "Abundance Liberal" arguments regarding zoning and building. You'd have to be purposefully ignorant to write like you researched his position and then publish this bullshit. Or maybe you're just stupid?
I disagree with those positions. If you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is simply not educated, then you are neglecting the moral foundations of political beliefs.
You've also failed to articulate a policy that isn't just complaining about candidates, so yes, I do think you're uneducated.
Why is taxing the rich bad? If you cry "Capital flight!" I'll call you stupid because that's already been addressed by Zohran's policies, statistical analysis, and historic precedent.
You'll never understand anything if you keep creating these strawmen and pretending you do not understand anything.
I am for the elites.
Agree, this was an amazing fantasy. For a someone who tries to critique elitism, they do a lot of work arguing for all the systems that create and sustain elites.
I don't critique elitism.
But the point is that the elites do a generally better job than our other options like MAGA. Whatever brass you want to polish on the MAGA titanic, retarded socialist art hoes are better than killing all trade and invading Greenland. It's actually a solid Occam's razor argument
My comment *somewhat* touches on that vein but from a different path::: This essay is well written. And brings up some insightful things that I agree with like how the modern American political economy is very centralized, structurally hollowed out, and increasingly dependent on elite-managed narratives rather than participatory democratic infrastructure(although it really been that way for a very long time its just that the planetary extraction structures which enabled it to mask its true state through perpetual large budget deficits, perpetual large trade deficits, and high liquidity all without inflation, are slipping so its become apparent and its consequences far more "realer" for far more people.
But the analysis seems to be largely unaware of the historical fact that America once operated under a very, very different model, what I have begun to refer t as the “Old Republic”, which from roughly the 1830s until sometime after WW2 was characterized by a decentralized but a deeply integrated economic and political-economic architecture. It deliberately embedded democratic semi-autonomy not just through elections -- it seems it may have actually view that as the lesser in importance part -- but through lower case "d" democratic governance structures achieved through the diffusion of financial, legal, scientific, and regulatory authority across regional and local nodes. Immigrant-heavy and working-class communities had genuine access to real civic infrastructure, banks, school boards, public works agencies, local party committees, and scientific institutions, and local governments with substantial fiscal powers and limited but still substantial self directed economic policy prerogatives, through which they shaped both their material lives and public decisions.
Technocratic centralization has largely voided that embedded agency. So while the essay, in my view, in some ways spot on regarding the current technocratic system’s failures , its proposed reforms appear confined within the very system its critiquing, it assumes both the legitimacy and inevitability of national centralize technocracy while not making any attempt o ponder alternatives such as: a pluralistic, semi-fragmented system base within deliberate redundancy, economic semi-autonomy, a deep national capital market that still maintains strong local capital structures, and true local governance. That historical pathway didn’t just “fail” or fade, it was deliberately dismantled, seemingly by a very similar, in some ways the same and in some minority cases the actual direct descendants, of the set of forces it defeated to start itself in the first place
I'm not unaware that American governance has changed over time.
She's like... a seven at best, dude. *does enormous bong rip*, Anyway... I like Trump because around the time of the 2016 election I had what can best be described as a "prophetic dream", a vision if you will, wherein I entered this enormous stadium and saw Trump sat next to this Metro-Goldwyn Lion. I said to him, sneakily I should add, "oh man, so many people don't like you..." as though I was trying to bring him down a peg, unsettle him. But he just smiled. No he didn't smile, his face just took on this very calm, and wise, serenity: like he was totally beyond all that, as though to say to me, "you have so much to learn." Then I saw this aura surround him: Gold, Red and Brilliant White... He was, in that dream, like (and I know I sound ridiculous saying this) the Tarot Card "The Emperor" -- an absolute quasi-deity, a Welt-Geist that was to bring about the harmony of the Divine Male emerging again under the yoke of, what I felt at that time, the Divine Female in the form of its high-point of Woke. I should add that I wasn't completely convinced by Trump at that point, prior to his election, but when I Woke Up, I couldn't shake this sense of having my belief system overturned, of seeing the measly wretched deception in which I lived, from where I judged others to be lower than I, when it was in fact me who had the poison inside. He is funny, he is a charismatic leader, and I think he genuinely supports peace and the interests of the USA: whether the coastal elites might consider his specific form of taxation myopic or anti-bourgeois is by the bye -- if we take the reasoning at face value, the intent is good, and, although the results might hamstring the America economy, its a "new thing", a strange "new thing" that's actually an old thing -- and that hegemony would collapse in either case. The other guy? What is he, brown? The fuck?! I think people like him because he eats kebabs and knows about the internet and has a full head of hair, and because people hate Israel or something? And the other guy was purportedly a-bit-rapey in a kind of 70s way? I didn't pay that much attention but am thankful for your input and for educating me.
I can tell this wasn't written by AI because the AI likes to use the full em-dash — instead of the double dash --
I love political theories that rely on lazy tropes
name one
“Art hoes with law degrees”. This is the laziest crap I’ve read in a long time
Like seriously do you have any friends in the city at all?
That is an object term, sir. Please be considerate to my artistic promiscuous women who are well-credentialed.
The point isn’t to be nice to them. The point is your “theory” is based entirely off of broad brushes because you very obviously don’t have friends that are on the left and it shows
It's more of Amercia's past time than baseball at this point.
Substack, it is clear to me, has descended into who can be more combinatorially meta-ironic. It's either "I'm a far-right fascist who supports everything about the Dems" to "I'm a gay trans black leftist ethno-nationalist white supremacist." I hereby, dub this the Hanania effect.
Name literally one far-right fascist who supports everything about the dems. I concede that most nazis are gay brown people, sure.
Are the commenters here just contrarian on purpose, am I missing the meme?
This analysis is better than a lot of political punditry out there in understanding the direction and scale of the two political movements; mostly because punditry is so bad, which is kinda also a point of the article.
Haters gonna hate
AOC > Mamdani's wife, thick latinas > art hoes. Where's my anxiety pen?
"I do not want Mamdani to become president."—He can't, he's not a 'Natural-born U.S. citizen.'
Neither is Ted Cruz, didn't stop him from running.
I’m not so sure. Although Cruz was born in Canada, he had US citizenship through his mother—meaning he’s a Natural-born US citizen (at least, this is the consensus view). In the case of Mamdani, neither of his parents (at the time of his birth) were US citizens; since he was born in Uganda, this means that he is not a Natural-born citizen, unlike Cruz.
They are fundamentally the same. Cult of personality detached from reality.
“As far as policy goes, I’d rather add $1 trillion to the deficit making up jobs for smol beans than add $1 trillion to the deficit by closing the borders and shutting down trade.”
(Influence lost with Chuck Connor)
(Chuck Connor has removed
You from the party)
(Chuck Connor has declared hostility ☠️)
well chuck I don't think we were ever in the same party
Based Whitney Tilson enjoyer. I worked on his campaign and he’s a real sharp guy. Not the most gifted politician, but a solid guy.
I’d vote for you
One of the most important things I pulled from this is Mamdani’s wife is hot.
Other than conclusion 10, excellent piece
wordcel slop
dumbcel
I could never imagine doing analysis this poorly. There are plenty of valid ways to critique Mamdani’s, but there is no need to lie and misrepresent facts and positions like this
Name one thing I say that's wrong
Utterly incomprehensible. Mamdani has laid out a clear plan to pay for his policies to make them deficit neutral. He has also signalled support for "Abundance Liberal" arguments regarding zoning and building. You'd have to be purposefully ignorant to write like you researched his position and then publish this bullshit. Or maybe you're just stupid?
Apparently it is incomprehensible because you didn't address anything I wrote. Raising taxes on the rich is bad. Freezing the rent is bad.
Raising taxes on the rich is good though. And rent freezes keep people from becoming homeless, which is good.
I disagree with those positions. If you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is simply not educated, then you are neglecting the moral foundations of political beliefs.
You disagree that homelessness is bad?
You've also failed to articulate a policy that isn't just complaining about candidates, so yes, I do think you're uneducated.
Why is taxing the rich bad? If you cry "Capital flight!" I'll call you stupid because that's already been addressed by Zohran's policies, statistical analysis, and historic precedent.