Everyone, Citing dumb things said and done by Democrats in no way, shape, or form offers any sort of rebuttal to Hanania's book. He'd probably agree with you!
Well, the inconvenient truth is that in current reality, it is indeed asymmetrical. Woke dumbness hasn't killed as many people or worsened peoples' lives or been nearly as corrupt as MAGA dumbness has. And as of now, while Dem leaders may mouth platitudes to wokeness, I just don't see the rot in the Dem leadership (yet) that I see in the GOP leadership, which has completely bent the knee to MAGA. Do you seriously believe that Dems would allow a President of theirs to be so wildly corrupt and as awful a human being as the GOP has allowed Trump to be?
I think this is the core issue. If a left/dem enumerates the massive list of insane policy positions, statements, etc. someone from the right/rep will find one or two items from the fringey left they feel somehow cancels out the right. The ratio of right-leaning to left-leaning craziness is far out of proportion.
I also believe there is something unique to the USA that doesn't exist in past or current populist regimes, we are protected by our states. Internal migration allows left and right leaning citizens to mostly live their preferred lives. A day-to-day life in Mississippi is far different than one in Rhode Island and shields citizens from much of the stupidity at the top.
Good points. I'd add that the craziness in the GOP is concentrated in national politics and the media environment, whereas in the Dems the biggest problem is politics in local areas such as Chicago and LA. Will New York be added to the list? It's too soon to say whether Mamdani will actually be a "socialist".
MAGA has such an iron grip on the Republican Party that they just primaried a sitting R Senator (in what will probably be a close race) who voted with Trump 99.2% of the time because he was too critical of Trump, for a guy indicted by his own party who tried to give a child molester such a sweetheart deal the judge threw it out.
Meanwhile, the woke left can't even get the Democrats to turn on Israel!
“The traditional left/right dichotomy is increasingly being replaced by a split between the well informed and the poorly informed, with the latter drifting toward authoritarian populism.”
I will not comment any further other than to point out that the claim that the left is well informed, given that majorities on the left literally prefer socialism, believe Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state (because genocide and oppression), and prefer China, Venezuela and Iran to Israel is… laughable.
Given that Hanania’s entire book is about right populism, not left populism, and Hanania claims that it is the right that is poorly informed overall, while the left is well informed overall, what other reasonable interpretation is there?
I mentioned Venezuela not at all to be about populism (China and Iran certainly cannot reasonably be construed as populist) of the country in question, but to demonstrate the absurdity that people who hold a more favorable view of Iran and Venezuela can be considered “well informed”.
If you are claiming that the radical left is also poorly informed and populist authoritarian - which would be a reasonable enough claim - then you need to claim that explicitly, because that is nowhere in Hanania’s currently espoused worldview.
I have not read the book and have no intention of doing so.
However, I used to read his Substack quite a lot, until last year when he went SO over the top with his TDS and fixation on the MAGA right fringe and his claims that all of the right is now the MAGA right.
And his claim that leftist midwits are Elite Human Capital (EHC) while not only is “MAGA” stupid, but Elon Musk himself does not qualify as EHC.
To repeat, I brought up Venezuela solely because of that recent poll that showed that the average Democrat now holds a higher opinion of Venezuela, China and Iran than of Israel. And I consider that evidence of NOT being well-informed. I suspect on that narrow point even you agree with me.
Now, if you have evidence that Richard claims that the woke left that favors socialism are equally poorly informed and equally populist authoritarians as he does the MAGA right, please produce it.
Otherwise my claim that today’s Richard is all about claiming the ignorance of the MAGA right, and downplaying the greater ignorance of the left, stands.
A 15% critique of the left, 85% critique of the right, using a broad brush against the right but failing to do the same against the left, does not undercut my claim at all.
Especially when it is today’s Dem party in the last 11 years that has moved much further away from classical liberal economics than has Trump’s GOP, even if the latter too has indeed moved away from it as well.
In the end, the poor predictions I made mostly come down to getting a single thing wrong. I simply misjudged the degree to which the Trump movement had become a cult of personality.”
“I thought that by 2024, we were at a balance of maybe 60% Trump cult, and 40% conservative ideology. But I was wrong, and we were at a place of something like 80% Trump cult, and 20% conservative ideology. Moreover, what we call ‘conservative ideology’ in 2024 is not what it was in 2016. It’s more conspiratorial, less enamored by free markets, more pro-Putin abroad, and anti-vaxx.”
“It’s become clear, however, that in national politics there isn’t much of a conservative movement left outside of the Trump cult of personality. Even if Republican politicians or conservative media figures are themselves not Trump cultists, they depend on voters and an audience that puts loyalty towards one man above all else.”
“The intellectual and moral state of the conservative movement was actually much worse than I thought, and it’s simply not realistic to expect smart policy or competent governance from a movement this dumb,…”
“Even intelligent people, when they’re part of MAGA, become stupid when it comes to policy…”
“The right is an epistemological wasteland right now…”
“A movement this low in human capital simply poisons everything.”
“The theory that ‘conservatism is becoming little more than a Trump cult’ has held up extremely well for nearly a decade now, and even though I subscribed to it before the last election, my main mistake was that I underestimated its strength.”
There are more such comments in other of his posts, but this would seem to be more than sufficient.
I am willing to accept an apology, but I suspect none will be forthcoming.
I hold a dim view of Venezuela, Iran, and the PRC, but why exactly _should_ anyone have a high opinion of Israel? Can you not comprehend that someone can be very informed and not think much of Israel?
Exactly, and I saw from across the Hudson River in NJ that was the frog slow boiling while paying, all in, more than half my income to the governmentS. And then I got wise, moved to FL and its not just a little bit better, its a lot better. Know what pays for my homeS in FL and TN? The taxes I'm not paying to the People's Republic in NJ. Product of misinformation or perhaps an ancedotal, individual lived experience? How many have voted with their feet in my lifetime?
This argument seems rather tautological. There's really nothing much in the linked article beyond saying Mamdani supports high taxes on the rich to fund high levels of government activity/redistribution. Obviously the article makes the case that this will have bad impacts, but it's a completely bog-standard left-wing position.
So your argument boils down to 'the left can't be well informed because they vote for left wing politicians'. Am I missing something?
“So your argument boils down to 'the left can't be well informed because they vote for left wing politicians'. Am I missing something?”
What you are missing is that Richard - and now Scott too - says that people who vote for Trump over socialism are ill-informed and stupid. But that people who vote for socialism are not ill-informed and stupid.
Huh? No this comment suggests I'm not missing anything. You're saying it's impossible for the left to be better informed because to be left is to be ill-informed and stupid by definition.
Which could be true, but it is tautological. I also don't think that is an accurate reflection of Richard or Scotts view at all.
But I did and do indeed say that Richard’s entire thesis is that the left OVERALL is both much better informed and much smarter than the right, which he claims is both stupid and poorly informed.
Despite the fact that the left in large numbers is now voting for socialists, and now OVERALL holds more favorable views of China, Venezuela and Iran than of Israel.
Clearly demonstrating that the left is indeed both smarter and better informed than the right…
This is in fact Richard’s case in the book, and Scott in the review and these comments has in fact defended this.
"What you are missing is that Richard - and now Scott too - says that people who vote for Trump over socialism are ill-informed and stupid." -- let's not forget deplorable, Andy!
Read the book The Revolutionary Center? "I also worry that people on both the right and the left underestimate the importance of process". To me this is probably the most meaningful thing you say in your entire post; and not purely because i have said it to others.
And why do you think so many are so uninformed or might i say just dumb today?
The media environment has deteriorated greatly during my lifetime. Today, much of the media is spewing out misinformation and crazy conspiracy theories.
Although it’s a cliche to comment on some piece of satire that the world actually turned out in the way that was portrayed, in the case of the 1976 movie “Network” the cliche is actually pretty close to valid. Paddy Chayefsky, oracle.
It turns out that most people actually can't in entrusted to tell apart truth from lies when there isn't an elite controlling information and making sure that most media is truthful.
On the process point, it's also the reason primaries elevate some of the least-informed politicians. Primaries are low-turnout elections that overweight the opinions of activists who are most likely to be in an epistemic bubble. Extreme gerrymandering rewards these voters too. They are bad processes. I don't see an easy solution.
True, and am a bit older than you i think so i share your pain. Not just the media; it is educators, too. And truth and politics seem not incompatible, and especially so as it has to do with political parties and truth. Hope springs eternal and at some point some common sense thinking might actually take hold.
But Hanania voted for Trump in 2024 even though he knew the guy tried to end democracy 4 years earlier. Isn't that the fundamental problem? Elites that betray democracy to contain agendas they dislike?
Amoral and traitorous elites is at least as much a problem as populism, and Hanania is unfortunately a good example of that.
No, a vote for Trump is a problem. The "fundamental problem" is people who don't change their minds as new information come sin. Hanania did change his view on Trump.
So he says. I suspect hes just working an angle for his own personal gain, in this case selling books and subscriptions.
If we were in need of people like rh, i could maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. But i dont see the need for his type. Deep down hes just a huckster.
Ah, you should always give people the benefit of the doubt. Also, US democracy is not unlikely to face its most serious challenge ever in the next few months. You should take any ally you can find, really.
Thats not unwise. But i also cant help but think many traditional conservatives probably had a similar thought 10 years ago lol.
And i dont agree that you should always give people the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt has bitten me in the ass way more times than shrewd judgement has.
Its richards character i dont like, that i dont trust. I spent some time on his substack, so im not basing that on nothing. But i saw enough to make me think theres really not as much there as hed like us to believe. As far as being an ally, i think he'll change his coat when he sees itll serve him well to do so.
Ofc he feels the way he does right now, he cant sell his intelligent writings to the stupid right, can he? He saw a dead end in his career on the right and took a sharp turn.
And yeah, when ive formed some judgements like that about a person, i cant ever take them too seriously. I may be completely wrong, idk. If i am, ill eat my shoe.
But the information that Trump used a mob to try and prevent the peaceful transition of power was in when he chose to vote for Trump in 24. What other information is more important?
I'm not going to get into a long debate about Hanania, I'll just say that people who shift their policy views in a more positive direction (from my perspective) should be welcomed, not shunned or cancelled.
“The traditional left/right dichotomy is increasingly being replaced by a split between the well informed and the poorly informed, with the latter drifting toward authoritarian populism.”
In Romania and Germany some "far-left" parties (socialists?) and far-right parties are exploring forming a ruling coalition. I think something similar is happening in Hungary. Anecdote, and some data, indicate that descendants of "good communists" are supporters of authoritarian governments, including far-right parties. I was told that the far-left and far-right want a more authoritarian government (because rent-seeking is easier than personal economic effort?), and each group is confident that once the authoritarian government arrives their group will have control, not the other group. I won't be surprised if we see more joining of the MAGA wing and the far-left whatever wing of the Democrats in the USA.
The gist I got from the people who oppose Orban and the Romanian counterpart seemed to say "we know about authoritarian governments and we don't want it, no matter the justification, whether justified by divine right, or because of communism, or because of fascism, or any other justification".
You gave some examples of the variety of populist governments, but isn't it the case that populist governments eventually become more authoritarian. I don't like popular democracy, and I think people who want the US to move more in that direction (e.g. eliminate the electoral college) don't appreciate why popular democracy per se is not in the US Constitution.
"In Romania and Germany some "far-left" parties (socialists?) and far-right parties are exploring forming a ruling coalition."
That's what Andy (above) didn't understand.
I don't believe the Electoral College serves a useful role in checking populism, but I agree that a constitution should have some checks on popular opinion, such as term limits for the president, America's Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court. But it was the Electoral College that allowed populist Trump to beat non-populist Hillary Clinton. So that seems like a separate issue from populism.
I do agree that populists often move in an authoritarian direction, as we saw with Chavez, Peron, and numerous other examples.
First, great post. I'd just note here that this comment is a bad way to understand the rise of Trump. The problem was not that our electoral system failed to elevate Hilary over him when she did a tad better in the popular vote. The problem is that he got anywhere near a general election in the first place. There will always be a once-in-a-century demagogue who appeals to half of the public. The whole point of republican democracy is to exclude those guys at earlier stages. We used to have political parties that did that. Now, social media and well-intentioned but politically-naive regulatory interventions have neutered the parties. This has brought us closer to pure democracy and further away from republican democracy. *That* is the problem.
Yes, I agree with that. My point is that given we do have a presidential system with weak national parties, the Electoral College was not the specific problem. You could also argue that a parliamentary system would make this outcome less likely.
"In the introduction, Hanania dissects the populist movement with precision, showing how a segment of the right has recently become deranged over politics, partly due to an avalanche of misinformation in social media"
This reflects an inability to reflect on the shortcomings of the Democrat party. Indeed underpinning this thought is the concept that one would rationally support the left but for misinformation. Couldn't possibly be rational, right?
Richard Hanania is a right-winger who has only belatedly turned against Trump (after the 2024 election). He's said he would vote for Spencer Cox or similar if the Republican Party returned to not being MAGA.
What it really reflects is Richard Hanania's ability to notice that Joe Rogan is, in fact, not a good information source.
"Only Democrats engaged with serious publications in substantial numbers. Among that group, 31 percent read The New York Times, and 26 percent read The Washington Post. "
This is: "Our propaganda should be counted among 'serious publications' -- YOUR propaganda should be viewed as propaganda."
Did you not read the next line about the WSJ (which Dems read more than Repubs)? Or do you consider the WSJ leftist propaganda now? It's merely reality that these days, Dems read more than Repubs, who prefer visual content like Fox News and Internet stuff that doesn't require as much reading/mental brainpower. Or are you trying to argue that Fox News and various right-wing podcasts and channels have standards for truth and analysis that are on par with the NYT and WSJ?
Did you not read the next like about the WSJ (which Dems read more than Repubs)? Or do you consider the WSJ leftist propaganda now? It's merely reality that these days, Dems read more than Repubs, who prefer visual content like Fox News and Internet stuff that doesn't require as much reading/mental brainpower. Or are you trying to argue that Fox News and various right-wing podcasts and channels have standards for truth and analysis that are on par with the NYT and WSJ?
I wanted to take issue with one mode of analysis that you and Hanania seem to be making which is the idea that the policy proposed/enacted is equivalent to what that group wants. For example you wrote, "Some left wingers want to pack the Supreme Court".
Using the caveat "some" this is clearly true. But if you were to really try and get to the meat of what left wing/democrats want it would probably look something like this:
-A code of conduct that binds supreme court justices and limits corruption
-The end of lifetime appointments, replaced with term limits
-A process where the balance of the court depends more on which party is winning presidential elections rather than who dies when and strategic retirements
-For one Republican justice (Gorsuch probably) to be removed and replaced with a justice who was appointed by Barack Obama
But I think apart from the first one, the other 3 bullet points can't really be done without some type of constitutional amendment/unthinkable change to the current system, so Democrats are pushing for the alternative option of adding additional justices because that is a reform that can legally be done and is feasible.
Similarly, I think people like Trump and Sanders *want* for manufacturing to return to America and for us to not offshore so many jobs in countries like China. Biden made a good effort of this through the CHIPS act, but in reality it's a very hard issue. It requires changing the incentives of individual companies, making American workers more competitive (perhaps through lowering income taxes, or shifting healthcare costs onto the government rather than employers), changing exchange rates. Basically its a really hard thing to do, so what we get instead is that the US government introduces tariffs on China despite the fact tariffs are largely considered a dead-weight economically.
Does the US government "want" tariffs and unilateral adding of SCOTUS justices? I think the vast majority would say no. But the things they want are really hard to actually get done through the current bottlenecks of the system, so the closest way to get to what they want is these more crude measures. So in general I'm not sure how much analyzing the proposed policies reveals the true preferences of a group, as opposed to being a complicated byproduct of the bottlenecks in the system itself as it exists today combined with the ease of explaining to the public what your goals are.
I'm fine with structural changes done for idealistic reasons, which "grandfather in" the current members of the Court and do not affect the power balance. Thus I'd support a change enacted today that took place in 2030, given that we don't know who would be president at that time. Something like that was done with the two term limit on the presidency, which ended up affecting the GOP first.
"Similarly, I think people like Trump and Sanders *want* for manufacturing to return to America and for us to not offshore so many jobs in countries like China."
The problem here is that neither individual has any understanding of economics at all, which is why their policy proposals would utterly fail to achieve the desired objective. Tariffs aren't the issue.
BTW, most of the manufacturing job loss is due to automation and the fact that consumers now prefer services over goods, not trade with China.
"Ukraine’s so-called “nationalists” seem to want their country to become more like a cosmopolitan Western European nation. They literally elected a Jewish president."
I agree with most of your post here (more than I usually do with your posts), but I think this is an error; Ukrainian nationalists in 2019 voted for Poroshenko. It's possibly the only major country on Earth in which nationalists tended to be more highly educated than non-nationalists:
I don't believe this; they are becoming more misinformed, but I think they are also more likely to know true information (like the three branches of government).
I liked Hanania's Origin of Woke book; I don't think I'll like this one.
I saw some polls showing that younger voters are more ignorant regarding basic facts about our political system. They are the ones educated in the new media environment.
I haven't followed Ukraine as closely as you have, but their current desire to join the EU is a very "un-nationalist" opinion. The EU severely restricts nationalism.
EU offers independence to Ukraine, at least in the short-term, hence a Ukrainian nationalist (as opposed to what--a Ukrainian who favors integration with Russia?) could desire EU membership.
This bit: "For the same reason that I’m far more interested in real world communism than in anything Marx may or may not have favored, I focus on real world nationalism, which tends to be anti-EU, anti-Nato, authoritarian, and often defines nationality in narrow ethnic terms, not in terms of citizenship. "
brings to mind Anna Karenina.
All good, liberal governments are good in the same way; all bad, authoritarian governments justify their authoritarianism in their own, unique way.
Certainly not literally accurate. And not a justification for what-aboutism. Just a reminder that humans are humans, and paying attention to what they do is often more important than what they say. (That's one of the things I appreciate about Adam Smith. He's more descriptive than proscriptive.)
I suggest reading the perils of presidentialism by the Yale scholar Juan Linz. It’s a classic of comparative political systems courses and makes the argument that all presidential systems are doomed to become populist banana republics whereas parliamentary systems in consolidated democracies don’t get populist leaders. There’s a reason why trump resembles all the Latin American presidents like Peron, but no prime minister in parliamentary systems like Australia or Denmark. The only reason why the US avoided the problem for so long is because our parties weren’t polarized. Now that they are, it’s almost impossible to get legislation passed and hold leaders accountable (who is to blame for something - Biden? The senate? The house? The Supreme Court?).
Parliamentary systems come in different flavors and some are better than others, but none are banana republics. The best end up like Denmark, combining free market policies, controlling the media environment, and having strong educational policies such that populist Murdoch-type media doesn’t take hold.
Good points. The US avoided this problem for much of its history, but the president has gradually been gaining more and more power, with the tariff issue being an especially egregious example. When Congress has lost the power of the purse, what's left?
And not just that- it’s impossible for a populist to become prime minister because you have to rise up through the ranks by being a professional politician and be selected by your peers. Those peers can hold a vote of no confidence at any time, instead of a four year guarantee of power. You have constant accountability, and there is a shadow government of the other party able to take power at a moment’s notice.
Republicans initially hated trump before he gained public stardom and he never would’ve made it past MP, if that.
The Occam's Razor answer to why populism is growing comes from the great Howard Beale statement, "I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!"
"Only Democrats engaged with serious publications in substantial numbers. Among that group, 31 percent read The New York Times, and 26 percent read The Washington Post."
Well if you're going to do Brexit, really the only reason you would do it is because the free trade deals you can get from outside the EU outweigh the benefits of being in the EU's free trade zone.
Brexit was done because the lower middle class populists, disproportionately outside the London area, didn’t like losing sovereignty to Brussels, and probably correctly saw that existing institutions weren’t working in their favor. In Arnold Kling terms, they were disproportionately Brokenists.
While the London area elites either were happy to lose sovereignty to Brussels, or didn’t mind it and knew - correctly - that they benefited financially from being in the EU, and surely are Institutionalists who correctly saw that the existing institutions *were* working in their favor.
So each side acted relatively rationally from their economic POV.
Those working class folks outside London likely have/had a small economic downside from Brexit. The elites in London proportionately have suffered a much larger downside.
Only if you believe becoming worse off is somehow rational. Not to mention that you have roughly zero data to support your viewpoint. I'm more likely to believe that Brexit actually hurt the regions who voted for Brexit the most.
Stagnation and populist insurgency seem to be characteristic of politics across the major Eurozone economies. I’d posit other causes for the UK’s malaise.
Well, a little, but it’s more heavily linked to net zero targets being written into law. That feeds into nimbyism because a whole bunch of subsidiary protocols and regulations have to consider it, which leaves any kind of development open to legal challenge on that basis.
When I consider reaching across the aisle to the idiot pinkos, my first trade would be for a swingeing carbon and no other interventions (the other would be to double housing benefit but make it entirely monetary).
The entire first world, in fact. So what has spread over the entire first world? Internet and smartphones. After all, the US most definitely has seen a populist insurgency in politics and isn't anywhere as stagnate as the EU.
But even still, the UK has actually done worse than the EU since Brexit, so Brexit can't get escape blame for making the UK worse off than it could have been if it had stayed in the EU.
Cass Sunstein's column today, "On Being A Conservative", made me think of this column. In particular, this quote from Hayek: “[the conservative] is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.” Better context in the column, of course.
I thought that Britain’s real problem was that they have worse NIMBYism than even the worst places in the US. My impression is that if the Brits could build like they do in Tokyo and Japan more broadly, they would be way wealthier and would never have voted for Brexit in the first place. As it is, in a place where it is close to functionally impossible to add housing, economics and immigration are a zero sum game.
Everyone, Citing dumb things said and done by Democrats in no way, shape, or form offers any sort of rebuttal to Hanania's book. He'd probably agree with you!
Respectfully, Scott, what this claim does is willfully ignore today’s Hanania’s asymmetry.
He claims the woke left “dumbness” is not a reflection of the left overall and the Dem party, but claims that MAGA “dumbness” *is* the entire right.
So much so that the left overall is EHC, while the right is not, and even Elon Musk is not.
Well, the inconvenient truth is that in current reality, it is indeed asymmetrical. Woke dumbness hasn't killed as many people or worsened peoples' lives or been nearly as corrupt as MAGA dumbness has. And as of now, while Dem leaders may mouth platitudes to wokeness, I just don't see the rot in the Dem leadership (yet) that I see in the GOP leadership, which has completely bent the knee to MAGA. Do you seriously believe that Dems would allow a President of theirs to be so wildly corrupt and as awful a human being as the GOP has allowed Trump to be?
I think this is the core issue. If a left/dem enumerates the massive list of insane policy positions, statements, etc. someone from the right/rep will find one or two items from the fringey left they feel somehow cancels out the right. The ratio of right-leaning to left-leaning craziness is far out of proportion.
I also believe there is something unique to the USA that doesn't exist in past or current populist regimes, we are protected by our states. Internal migration allows left and right leaning citizens to mostly live their preferred lives. A day-to-day life in Mississippi is far different than one in Rhode Island and shields citizens from much of the stupidity at the top.
Good points. I'd add that the craziness in the GOP is concentrated in national politics and the media environment, whereas in the Dems the biggest problem is politics in local areas such as Chicago and LA. Will New York be added to the list? It's too soon to say whether Mamdani will actually be a "socialist".
But you agree that Trump is a kakistocrat, correct?
but that's correct
MAGA has such an iron grip on the Republican Party that they just primaried a sitting R Senator (in what will probably be a close race) who voted with Trump 99.2% of the time because he was too critical of Trump, for a guy indicted by his own party who tried to give a child molester such a sweetheart deal the judge threw it out.
Meanwhile, the woke left can't even get the Democrats to turn on Israel!
“The traditional left/right dichotomy is increasingly being replaced by a split between the well informed and the poorly informed, with the latter drifting toward authoritarian populism.”
I will not comment any further other than to point out that the claim that the left is well informed, given that majorities on the left literally prefer socialism, believe Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state (because genocide and oppression), and prefer China, Venezuela and Iran to Israel is… laughable.
Especially coming from an economist.
When this is what the supposedly “well-informed” are voting for: https://jkotkin.substack.com/p/zohran-mamdanis-socialist-new-york
"the claim that the left is well informed"
LOL, that is most definitely NOT what the quoted sentence claims. Venezuela is authoritarian populism, as I specifically pointed out in the post.
Given that Hanania’s entire book is about right populism, not left populism, and Hanania claims that it is the right that is poorly informed overall, while the left is well informed overall, what other reasonable interpretation is there?
I mentioned Venezuela not at all to be about populism (China and Iran certainly cannot reasonably be construed as populist) of the country in question, but to demonstrate the absurdity that people who hold a more favorable view of Iran and Venezuela can be considered “well informed”.
If you are claiming that the radical left is also poorly informed and populist authoritarian - which would be a reasonable enough claim - then you need to claim that explicitly, because that is nowhere in Hanania’s currently espoused worldview.
"I mentioned Venezuela not at all to be about populism"
Hanania cites it. You seem to have strong opinions, have you read the book?
I have not read the book and have no intention of doing so.
However, I used to read his Substack quite a lot, until last year when he went SO over the top with his TDS and fixation on the MAGA right fringe and his claims that all of the right is now the MAGA right.
And his claim that leftist midwits are Elite Human Capital (EHC) while not only is “MAGA” stupid, but Elon Musk himself does not qualify as EHC.
To repeat, I brought up Venezuela solely because of that recent poll that showed that the average Democrat now holds a higher opinion of Venezuela, China and Iran than of Israel. And I consider that evidence of NOT being well-informed. I suspect on that narrow point even you agree with me.
Now, if you have evidence that Richard claims that the woke left that favors socialism are equally poorly informed and equally populist authoritarians as he does the MAGA right, please produce it.
Otherwise my claim that today’s Richard is all about claiming the ignorance of the MAGA right, and downplaying the greater ignorance of the left, stands.
A 15% critique of the left, 85% critique of the right, using a broad brush against the right but failing to do the same against the left, does not undercut my claim at all.
Especially when it is today’s Dem party in the last 11 years that has moved much further away from classical liberal economics than has Trump’s GOP, even if the latter too has indeed moved away from it as well.
"his claims that all of the right is now the MAGA right."
I would encourage you to write comments that do not misrepresent the views of others.
But since you implied that I was misrepresenting, please read for yourself.
The definitive pull quote is from near the end of the piece. Otherwise I cite chronologically as he wrote it.
“The fact that the right had become a low human capital cult wasn’t simply a passing interest of mine. I was obsessed with the idea!”
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/what-i-got-wrong-about-trump
“ Low Human Capital Poisons Everything
In the end, the poor predictions I made mostly come down to getting a single thing wrong. I simply misjudged the degree to which the Trump movement had become a cult of personality.”
“I thought that by 2024, we were at a balance of maybe 60% Trump cult, and 40% conservative ideology. But I was wrong, and we were at a place of something like 80% Trump cult, and 20% conservative ideology. Moreover, what we call ‘conservative ideology’ in 2024 is not what it was in 2016. It’s more conspiratorial, less enamored by free markets, more pro-Putin abroad, and anti-vaxx.”
“It’s become clear, however, that in national politics there isn’t much of a conservative movement left outside of the Trump cult of personality. Even if Republican politicians or conservative media figures are themselves not Trump cultists, they depend on voters and an audience that puts loyalty towards one man above all else.”
“The intellectual and moral state of the conservative movement was actually much worse than I thought, and it’s simply not realistic to expect smart policy or competent governance from a movement this dumb,…”
“Even intelligent people, when they’re part of MAGA, become stupid when it comes to policy…”
“The right is an epistemological wasteland right now…”
“A movement this low in human capital simply poisons everything.”
“The theory that ‘conservatism is becoming little more than a Trump cult’ has held up extremely well for nearly a decade now, and even though I subscribed to it before the last election, my main mistake was that I underestimated its strength.”
There are more such comments in other of his posts, but this would seem to be more than sufficient.
I am willing to accept an apology, but I suspect none will be forthcoming.
I am NOT misrepresenting his views. He has made this claim repeatedly.
I would encourage you not to suggest to commenters that they are making a misrepresentative claim when they are not doing so.
I hold a dim view of Venezuela, Iran, and the PRC, but why exactly _should_ anyone have a high opinion of Israel? Can you not comprehend that someone can be very informed and not think much of Israel?
That you don’t comprehend that whatever you think of Israel, thinking more highly of Iran and Venezuela is…
Well, no more needs to be said, does it?
"When this is what the supposedly “well-informed” are voting for: https://jkotkin.substack.com/p/zohran-mamdanis-socialist-new-york"
Exactly, and I saw from across the Hudson River in NJ that was the frog slow boiling while paying, all in, more than half my income to the governmentS. And then I got wise, moved to FL and its not just a little bit better, its a lot better. Know what pays for my homeS in FL and TN? The taxes I'm not paying to the People's Republic in NJ. Product of misinformation or perhaps an ancedotal, individual lived experience? How many have voted with their feet in my lifetime?
This argument seems rather tautological. There's really nothing much in the linked article beyond saying Mamdani supports high taxes on the rich to fund high levels of government activity/redistribution. Obviously the article makes the case that this will have bad impacts, but it's a completely bog-standard left-wing position.
So your argument boils down to 'the left can't be well informed because they vote for left wing politicians'. Am I missing something?
“So your argument boils down to 'the left can't be well informed because they vote for left wing politicians'. Am I missing something?”
What you are missing is that Richard - and now Scott too - says that people who vote for Trump over socialism are ill-informed and stupid. But that people who vote for socialism are not ill-informed and stupid.
Huh? No this comment suggests I'm not missing anything. You're saying it's impossible for the left to be better informed because to be left is to be ill-informed and stupid by definition.
Which could be true, but it is tautological. I also don't think that is an accurate reflection of Richard or Scotts view at all.
I didn’t say impossible; you said that.
But I did and do indeed say that Richard’s entire thesis is that the left OVERALL is both much better informed and much smarter than the right, which he claims is both stupid and poorly informed.
Despite the fact that the left in large numbers is now voting for socialists, and now OVERALL holds more favorable views of China, Venezuela and Iran than of Israel.
Clearly demonstrating that the left is indeed both smarter and better informed than the right…
This is in fact Richard’s case in the book, and Scott in the review and these comments has in fact defended this.
"What you are missing is that Richard - and now Scott too - says that people who vote for Trump over socialism are ill-informed and stupid." -- let's not forget deplorable, Andy!
Yes you are correct.
It makes perfect sense to vote for socialists who want to freeze rent and open government-run grocery stores.
This is completely consistent with the positions Richard (and Scott, too) has long endorsed.
And shows that leftists who voted for socialism are well informed.
Because it has been demonstrated that socialism works well.
While those who oppose socialism are the ill-informed ones.
Got it.
Read the book The Revolutionary Center? "I also worry that people on both the right and the left underestimate the importance of process". To me this is probably the most meaningful thing you say in your entire post; and not purely because i have said it to others.
And why do you think so many are so uninformed or might i say just dumb today?
The media environment has deteriorated greatly during my lifetime. Today, much of the media is spewing out misinformation and crazy conspiracy theories.
Although it’s a cliche to comment on some piece of satire that the world actually turned out in the way that was portrayed, in the case of the 1976 movie “Network” the cliche is actually pretty close to valid. Paddy Chayefsky, oracle.
It turns out that most people actually can't in entrusted to tell apart truth from lies when there isn't an elite controlling information and making sure that most media is truthful.
Yes, exactly.
Am sure you are familiar with this said by Hitler's propaganda head Goebbels : A lie well told lives forever, but the truth is easy to kill.
On the process point, it's also the reason primaries elevate some of the least-informed politicians. Primaries are low-turnout elections that overweight the opinions of activists who are most likely to be in an epistemic bubble. Extreme gerrymandering rewards these voters too. They are bad processes. I don't see an easy solution.
True, and am a bit older than you i think so i share your pain. Not just the media; it is educators, too. And truth and politics seem not incompatible, and especially so as it has to do with political parties and truth. Hope springs eternal and at some point some common sense thinking might actually take hold.
But Hanania voted for Trump in 2024 even though he knew the guy tried to end democracy 4 years earlier. Isn't that the fundamental problem? Elites that betray democracy to contain agendas they dislike?
Amoral and traitorous elites is at least as much a problem as populism, and Hanania is unfortunately a good example of that.
No, a vote for Trump is a problem. The "fundamental problem" is people who don't change their minds as new information come sin. Hanania did change his view on Trump.
So he says. I suspect hes just working an angle for his own personal gain, in this case selling books and subscriptions.
If we were in need of people like rh, i could maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. But i dont see the need for his type. Deep down hes just a huckster.
Ah, you should always give people the benefit of the doubt. Also, US democracy is not unlikely to face its most serious challenge ever in the next few months. You should take any ally you can find, really.
Thats not unwise. But i also cant help but think many traditional conservatives probably had a similar thought 10 years ago lol.
And i dont agree that you should always give people the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt has bitten me in the ass way more times than shrewd judgement has.
Its richards character i dont like, that i dont trust. I spent some time on his substack, so im not basing that on nothing. But i saw enough to make me think theres really not as much there as hed like us to believe. As far as being an ally, i think he'll change his coat when he sees itll serve him well to do so.
Ofc he feels the way he does right now, he cant sell his intelligent writings to the stupid right, can he? He saw a dead end in his career on the right and took a sharp turn.
And yeah, when ive formed some judgements like that about a person, i cant ever take them too seriously. I may be completely wrong, idk. If i am, ill eat my shoe.
But the information that Trump used a mob to try and prevent the peaceful transition of power was in when he chose to vote for Trump in 24. What other information is more important?
I'm not going to get into a long debate about Hanania, I'll just say that people who shift their policy views in a more positive direction (from my perspective) should be welcomed, not shunned or cancelled.
Incentives matter.
💯
“The traditional left/right dichotomy is increasingly being replaced by a split between the well informed and the poorly informed, with the latter drifting toward authoritarian populism.”
In Romania and Germany some "far-left" parties (socialists?) and far-right parties are exploring forming a ruling coalition. I think something similar is happening in Hungary. Anecdote, and some data, indicate that descendants of "good communists" are supporters of authoritarian governments, including far-right parties. I was told that the far-left and far-right want a more authoritarian government (because rent-seeking is easier than personal economic effort?), and each group is confident that once the authoritarian government arrives their group will have control, not the other group. I won't be surprised if we see more joining of the MAGA wing and the far-left whatever wing of the Democrats in the USA.
The gist I got from the people who oppose Orban and the Romanian counterpart seemed to say "we know about authoritarian governments and we don't want it, no matter the justification, whether justified by divine right, or because of communism, or because of fascism, or any other justification".
You gave some examples of the variety of populist governments, but isn't it the case that populist governments eventually become more authoritarian. I don't like popular democracy, and I think people who want the US to move more in that direction (e.g. eliminate the electoral college) don't appreciate why popular democracy per se is not in the US Constitution.
This was a great column. Thank you.
Thanks, this is a very good example:
"In Romania and Germany some "far-left" parties (socialists?) and far-right parties are exploring forming a ruling coalition."
That's what Andy (above) didn't understand.
I don't believe the Electoral College serves a useful role in checking populism, but I agree that a constitution should have some checks on popular opinion, such as term limits for the president, America's Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court. But it was the Electoral College that allowed populist Trump to beat non-populist Hillary Clinton. So that seems like a separate issue from populism.
I do agree that populists often move in an authoritarian direction, as we saw with Chavez, Peron, and numerous other examples.
First, great post. I'd just note here that this comment is a bad way to understand the rise of Trump. The problem was not that our electoral system failed to elevate Hilary over him when she did a tad better in the popular vote. The problem is that he got anywhere near a general election in the first place. There will always be a once-in-a-century demagogue who appeals to half of the public. The whole point of republican democracy is to exclude those guys at earlier stages. We used to have political parties that did that. Now, social media and well-intentioned but politically-naive regulatory interventions have neutered the parties. This has brought us closer to pure democracy and further away from republican democracy. *That* is the problem.
Yes, I agree with that. My point is that given we do have a presidential system with weak national parties, the Electoral College was not the specific problem. You could also argue that a parliamentary system would make this outcome less likely.
"In the introduction, Hanania dissects the populist movement with precision, showing how a segment of the right has recently become deranged over politics, partly due to an avalanche of misinformation in social media"
This reflects an inability to reflect on the shortcomings of the Democrat party. Indeed underpinning this thought is the concept that one would rationally support the left but for misinformation. Couldn't possibly be rational, right?
Richard Hanania is a right-winger who has only belatedly turned against Trump (after the 2024 election). He's said he would vote for Spencer Cox or similar if the Republican Party returned to not being MAGA.
What it really reflects is Richard Hanania's ability to notice that Joe Rogan is, in fact, not a good information source.
Neither Hanania nor Sumner is left though
"Only Democrats engaged with serious publications in substantial numbers. Among that group, 31 percent read The New York Times, and 26 percent read The Washington Post. "
This is: "Our propaganda should be counted among 'serious publications' -- YOUR propaganda should be viewed as propaganda."
Did you not read the next line about the WSJ (which Dems read more than Repubs)? Or do you consider the WSJ leftist propaganda now? It's merely reality that these days, Dems read more than Repubs, who prefer visual content like Fox News and Internet stuff that doesn't require as much reading/mental brainpower. Or are you trying to argue that Fox News and various right-wing podcasts and channels have standards for truth and analysis that are on par with the NYT and WSJ?
Did you not read the next like about the WSJ (which Dems read more than Repubs)? Or do you consider the WSJ leftist propaganda now? It's merely reality that these days, Dems read more than Repubs, who prefer visual content like Fox News and Internet stuff that doesn't require as much reading/mental brainpower. Or are you trying to argue that Fox News and various right-wing podcasts and channels have standards for truth and analysis that are on par with the NYT and WSJ?
I wanted to take issue with one mode of analysis that you and Hanania seem to be making which is the idea that the policy proposed/enacted is equivalent to what that group wants. For example you wrote, "Some left wingers want to pack the Supreme Court".
Using the caveat "some" this is clearly true. But if you were to really try and get to the meat of what left wing/democrats want it would probably look something like this:
-A code of conduct that binds supreme court justices and limits corruption
-The end of lifetime appointments, replaced with term limits
-A process where the balance of the court depends more on which party is winning presidential elections rather than who dies when and strategic retirements
-For one Republican justice (Gorsuch probably) to be removed and replaced with a justice who was appointed by Barack Obama
But I think apart from the first one, the other 3 bullet points can't really be done without some type of constitutional amendment/unthinkable change to the current system, so Democrats are pushing for the alternative option of adding additional justices because that is a reform that can legally be done and is feasible.
Similarly, I think people like Trump and Sanders *want* for manufacturing to return to America and for us to not offshore so many jobs in countries like China. Biden made a good effort of this through the CHIPS act, but in reality it's a very hard issue. It requires changing the incentives of individual companies, making American workers more competitive (perhaps through lowering income taxes, or shifting healthcare costs onto the government rather than employers), changing exchange rates. Basically its a really hard thing to do, so what we get instead is that the US government introduces tariffs on China despite the fact tariffs are largely considered a dead-weight economically.
Does the US government "want" tariffs and unilateral adding of SCOTUS justices? I think the vast majority would say no. But the things they want are really hard to actually get done through the current bottlenecks of the system, so the closest way to get to what they want is these more crude measures. So in general I'm not sure how much analyzing the proposed policies reveals the true preferences of a group, as opposed to being a complicated byproduct of the bottlenecks in the system itself as it exists today combined with the ease of explaining to the public what your goals are.
I'm fine with structural changes done for idealistic reasons, which "grandfather in" the current members of the Court and do not affect the power balance. Thus I'd support a change enacted today that took place in 2030, given that we don't know who would be president at that time. Something like that was done with the two term limit on the presidency, which ended up affecting the GOP first.
"Similarly, I think people like Trump and Sanders *want* for manufacturing to return to America and for us to not offshore so many jobs in countries like China."
The problem here is that neither individual has any understanding of economics at all, which is why their policy proposals would utterly fail to achieve the desired objective. Tariffs aren't the issue.
BTW, most of the manufacturing job loss is due to automation and the fact that consumers now prefer services over goods, not trade with China.
"Ukraine’s so-called “nationalists” seem to want their country to become more like a cosmopolitan Western European nation. They literally elected a Jewish president."
I agree with most of your post here (more than I usually do with your posts), but I think this is an error; Ukrainian nationalists in 2019 voted for Poroshenko. It's possibly the only major country on Earth in which nationalists tended to be more highly educated than non-nationalists:
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukraines-uniqueness/
"Voters are becoming less well informed."
I don't believe this; they are becoming more misinformed, but I think they are also more likely to know true information (like the three branches of government).
I liked Hanania's Origin of Woke book; I don't think I'll like this one.
I saw some polls showing that younger voters are more ignorant regarding basic facts about our political system. They are the ones educated in the new media environment.
I haven't followed Ukraine as closely as you have, but their current desire to join the EU is a very "un-nationalist" opinion. The EU severely restricts nationalism.
I have learned from reading your blog: polls, like public opinion, are not meaningful. We should seriously doubt poll results that seem outrageous.
In a Pew poll, 12% of respondents under age 30 said they are licensed to operate a class SSGN (nuclear) submarine. Obviously, the true number is 0%.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/
EU offers independence to Ukraine, at least in the short-term, hence a Ukrainian nationalist (as opposed to what--a Ukrainian who favors integration with Russia?) could desire EU membership.
What are "non-nationalists" in Ukraine? Those favoring integration with Russia?
This bit: "For the same reason that I’m far more interested in real world communism than in anything Marx may or may not have favored, I focus on real world nationalism, which tends to be anti-EU, anti-Nato, authoritarian, and often defines nationality in narrow ethnic terms, not in terms of citizenship. "
brings to mind Anna Karenina.
All good, liberal governments are good in the same way; all bad, authoritarian governments justify their authoritarianism in their own, unique way.
Certainly not literally accurate. And not a justification for what-aboutism. Just a reminder that humans are humans, and paying attention to what they do is often more important than what they say. (That's one of the things I appreciate about Adam Smith. He's more descriptive than proscriptive.)
Good points.
I suggest reading the perils of presidentialism by the Yale scholar Juan Linz. It’s a classic of comparative political systems courses and makes the argument that all presidential systems are doomed to become populist banana republics whereas parliamentary systems in consolidated democracies don’t get populist leaders. There’s a reason why trump resembles all the Latin American presidents like Peron, but no prime minister in parliamentary systems like Australia or Denmark. The only reason why the US avoided the problem for so long is because our parties weren’t polarized. Now that they are, it’s almost impossible to get legislation passed and hold leaders accountable (who is to blame for something - Biden? The senate? The house? The Supreme Court?).
Parliamentary systems come in different flavors and some are better than others, but none are banana republics. The best end up like Denmark, combining free market policies, controlling the media environment, and having strong educational policies such that populist Murdoch-type media doesn’t take hold.
Good points. The US avoided this problem for much of its history, but the president has gradually been gaining more and more power, with the tariff issue being an especially egregious example. When Congress has lost the power of the purse, what's left?
And not just that- it’s impossible for a populist to become prime minister because you have to rise up through the ranks by being a professional politician and be selected by your peers. Those peers can hold a vote of no confidence at any time, instead of a four year guarantee of power. You have constant accountability, and there is a shadow government of the other party able to take power at a moment’s notice.
Republicans initially hated trump before he gained public stardom and he never would’ve made it past MP, if that.
Impossible? Not in India where it seems only populists can become prime ministers or chief ministers ( corresponds to PM but for provinces).
The Occam's Razor answer to why populism is growing comes from the great Howard Beale statement, "I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!"
Haninia's sketchy past is disqualifying for me.
"Only Democrats engaged with serious publications in substantial numbers. Among that group, 31 percent read The New York Times, and 26 percent read The Washington Post."
Now that is funny.
I suppose you find the truth funny. Dems also engage more with the WSJ. Do you not consider the WSJ a serious publication?
"Do you not consider the WSJ a serious publication?"
Not for about a dozen years now.
I think it’s unlikely that the UK’s stagnation is primarily down to Brexit. It suits some constituencies to make that claim though.
Well if you're going to do Brexit, really the only reason you would do it is because the free trade deals you can get from outside the EU outweigh the benefits of being in the EU's free trade zone.
Yes, and that didn't happen.
There’s a whole bunch of other ruinous policy mandates and regulation you also escape, should your political class so wish.
Nice in theory. In reality, the UK has suffered more economically from Brexit than if they had stayed in the EU.
It’s hard to parse imo. Growth rates in Germany and France haven’t exceeded the UK’s.
Brexit was done because the lower middle class populists, disproportionately outside the London area, didn’t like losing sovereignty to Brussels, and probably correctly saw that existing institutions weren’t working in their favor. In Arnold Kling terms, they were disproportionately Brokenists.
While the London area elites either were happy to lose sovereignty to Brussels, or didn’t mind it and knew - correctly - that they benefited financially from being in the EU, and surely are Institutionalists who correctly saw that the existing institutions *were* working in their favor.
So each side acted relatively rationally from their economic POV.
Those working class folks outside London likely have/had a small economic downside from Brexit. The elites in London proportionately have suffered a much larger downside.
As in most things in life, incentives matter.
Only if you believe becoming worse off is somehow rational. Not to mention that you have roughly zero data to support your viewpoint. I'm more likely to believe that Brexit actually hurt the regions who voted for Brexit the most.
Stagnation and populist insurgency seem to be characteristic of politics across the major Eurozone economies. I’d posit other causes for the UK’s malaise.
Yes, you could argue that NIMBYism is the number one problem, not Brexit.
That and energy policy
And isn't the bad energy problem sort of related to NIMBYism? No nukes or fracking or windmills or solar in my backyard.
Well, a little, but it’s more heavily linked to net zero targets being written into law. That feeds into nimbyism because a whole bunch of subsidiary protocols and regulations have to consider it, which leaves any kind of development open to legal challenge on that basis.
When I consider reaching across the aisle to the idiot pinkos, my first trade would be for a swingeing carbon and no other interventions (the other would be to double housing benefit but make it entirely monetary).
The entire first world, in fact. So what has spread over the entire first world? Internet and smartphones. After all, the US most definitely has seen a populist insurgency in politics and isn't anywhere as stagnate as the EU.
But even still, the UK has actually done worse than the EU since Brexit, so Brexit can't get escape blame for making the UK worse off than it could have been if it had stayed in the EU.
Yes, Hanania discusses the global nature of the phenomenon.
I suspect "it's the phones", meaning also the internet and cable TV. I.e., a media environment tailored to the wishes of the public.
Cass Sunstein's column today, "On Being A Conservative", made me think of this column. In particular, this quote from Hayek: “[the conservative] is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.” Better context in the column, of course.
I thought that Britain’s real problem was that they have worse NIMBYism than even the worst places in the US. My impression is that if the Brits could build like they do in Tokyo and Japan more broadly, they would be way wealthier and would never have voted for Brexit in the first place. As it is, in a place where it is close to functionally impossible to add housing, economics and immigration are a zero sum game.