Why the Republicans are whacko

url

John Roskam of The Institute of Public Affairs appears today at the AFR to defend Republican maneuvres in the US and ideological politics in general:

It says a great deal about modern-day democracy in Australia and America that some politicians now think they can insult another politician by calling them “ideological”. Last week, when Education Minister Christopher Pyne said he would review university funding in Australia, Labor’s spokesman, Kim Carr, claimed it was “an ideologically driven exercise in trying to reshape the university system to their [the Coalition’s] liking”.

On Tuesday in Washington, President Barack Obama accused the Republicans of wanting to shut down the US federal government as part of their “ideological crusade” against his health policies.

…There’s nothing complicated or sinister about the definition of ideology. According to the Oxford Dictionary, an ideology is simply the set of ideas which forms the basis of an economic or political theory. Those ideas can be good or bad.

…To accuse someone of being ideological is to present them as out of touch from the day-to-day concerns of normal people. An ideologue is also seen as being outside of the prevailing consensus. The reason that politicians on the left are so fearful of ideologues on the right is precisely because policy orthodoxy both in Australia and the US is on the centre-left. It’s a strange situation indeed. On the one hand we’re told that our politicians lack ideas and vision, yet as soon as a politician does reveal a philosophical position they’re attacked for being ideological.

Dare I say it, but this is an ideologically driven argument. To be accused of being “ideological” in public discourse is not to imply that you are “out-of-touch” or outside of any “consensus”. It implies only that your arguments are driven by a closed system of logic that prohibits compromise with broader reason.

Roskam’s argument is, ironically, an example. Politics in Australia and the United States is not made from “centre Left” terrain. It’s made from centre-Right terrain or perhaps the “centre”. That is why both political parties largely exist in an economic endeavour of improving productivity, competing in a global economy, and light touch regulation. Sure it has wound back in the past few years. But the peculiar shift has been towards private interests having an unhealthy influence over the national debate and public policy. That’s not socialism, it’s plutocracy. But to Roskam, stuck out on a Libertarian limb, all public policy or spending marks you out as a Lefty.

The same is the case for the Republicans in the US. Crusading against deficits makes plenty of economic sense. So does believing that individuals can innovate and create wealth more effectively than governments. But failing to apply a little pragmatism in terms of the time frame and methods of application only leads to the kind self-destructive cycles we saw in Europe, we’re austerity successfully made public debt burdens far larger and shrank the private sector to boot.

Having said that, I agree with Mr Roskam that more ideology would be good for Australian politics. The current centrist convergence reeks of interests-centric pragmatism that will slowly squeeze the life from our standards of living. But the renewed ideology needed is not naked Libertarianism or rampant Austrians, it’s a mix of the wisdom of those positions with the insights of Keynes, Schumpeter and Irving Fisher. In other words, non ideological ideology.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. “The reason that politicians on the left are so fearful of ideologues on the right is precisely because policy orthodoxy both in Australia and the US is on the centre-left.”

    Policy orthodoxy in the US is on the centre-left?

    That’s quite a bold claim (choosing my words politely)…as it is to claim that policy orthodoxy is in the same place in both the USA and Australia.

  2. Good comments HnH.

    The way I see it, ideology is the enemy of pragmatic, evidence-based policy.

    And ideologues are the least likely to change their minds when presented with inconvenient evidence.

    It is to Australia’s credit that we are mostly suspicious of hard-core ideologues. The best decisions of some of our best PMs have been very pragmatic – battling their own party to win support for reforms in the national interest (for example, Howard on gun reform, or the Hawke-Keating economic reforms). The US is very different.

    • The way I see it, and to put this as clearly as possible..

      Evidence based policy is often the enemy of resolving the tension between ideology (which sits at the core of one’s personal identity/psychological construct, and informs subjective judgements about one’s and others actions along a continuum of consistency/affirmation of that ideology) and pragmatism (which represents an imperative within a socio-political context to sustain one’s ability to exert influence or exist successfully within that sphere) – in a manner which can be cognitively balanced such that one is able to rationalise one’s actions within the compositional elasticity of the applicable ideological construct, or otherwise sustain an operationally compatible level of friction which of itself over the long-term redefines the ideological parameters within which one’s pragmatic actions can be more effectively accommodated.

      I just hope that we, as individuals, and Australia, as a nation, maintain the capacity to fall within the former or latter category as suits our times and circumstances. The IPA’s endeavours in this regard certainly show this is possible, and should be applauded.

  3. RN’s Background Briefing had a good show last week called The Narrowing of Australian Politics. The reporter got close to the issue and got a good quote from Nick Minchin that politics had descended to serving the electors’ self interest and ideas and policies are absent.

    He is right here and the show got near to Curtis’s documentary ‘The Century of the Self’ which explains the malaise of western politics very accurately.

    In the US the Tea party is used by the Koch brothers who push their own plutocratic self interest in the guise of American values and history. It is a sort of ideology.

    Gramsci would have had a time interpreting the deceptions perpetrated on countries today that think they are free of ideology. Not at all.

    As to that article. The use of dictionary definitions to posit argument is a schoolboy tactic and circular.It discredit the author and reveals his own shortcomings.

    • What good has Gramscian analysis of anything ever done? The guy and his followers were Communist agents deliberately trying to undermine the West. Turning whole categories of citizens into victim-grievance WMD’s against their own civilisation.

      Virtually every category of “victims” has a rougher time under actual Communism in practice, but this has never concerned the Gramscians and Frankfurt-Schoolers. Victimology is a means that does not indicate the ends being sought. Lenin himself said that “reactionary peoples are to be eliminated”, so much for multiculturalism, for example. Ask the Tartars or Finns or Kazakhs or Ukranians; or the Hmong in Cambodia or the Uighurs in China.

  4. What if your ideology is reason itself ?

    Reason lends support to and underpins the principles of free markets and capitalism.

    Opponents of free markets also are driven on ideological grounds. Equality, control, central planning – these are all ideological approaches to how a society should be governed.

    • Ideologues of the Left generally fail to understand the creation of new wealth, versus either the distribution of it OR the garnishing of it by the rentier class.

      Reason, and attention to the evidence, does accept that there are moral hazards to disincentivising effort, personal responsibility, and wealth creation. Underlying cultural capital dictates the level at which this effect becomes destructive. For example, Swedes seem to be able to tolerate a much higher level of disincentives. But Eastern Europeans only “pretend to work” when there is nothing in it for them. And in multicultural societies, wide disparities of reaction to incentives are observable.

      • Probably true. But anyone who sees the world principally in terms of “Right” or “Left” is probably an ideologue, and part of the problem 😉

      • Yeah, maybe Jono is right and we should stick to “reason” and “unreason”.

        But the furore over Buturovic and Klein (2010), “Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables” is instructive.

        These authors asked respondents a series of basic questions on economics and scored them “right” or “wrong” on each question. One question I recall was “restricting the supply of housing will tend to make housing more expensive; true or false”?

        Their published findings showed that there was quite some correlation between the level of economic enlightenment and membership of certain identity groups. Democrat voters scored low, Republican ones high. Catholics scored low, Dissenting Protestants scored high. Atheists scored high. Women tended to score lower than men.

        But the publication of their findings aroused a storm of condemnation among all the usual suspects along the lines that “but you guys PICKED THE CORRECT ANSWERS YOURSELF, and these answers are WRONG, the REAL correct answers are the ones WE gave, eg, restricting the supply of housing does NOT tend to make housing more expensive, that is just mean, nasty right wing ideology, WAAAAH!!!!! WAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!…..”

      • These sort of comments would be infinitely more credible if you actually included some sort of reference to back them up.

  5. “But the renewed ideology needed is … a mix of the wisdom of those positions with the insights of Keynes, Schumpeter and Irving Fisher.”

    Alas, few if any are aware of Fisher’s post-1929 work advocating Full Reserve Banking, and, alternate (especially Gesellian) currencies; both of these pressed as solutions to the Great Depression and, as a far more stable foundation for economic life ongoing.

    There’s a simple reason for this ignorance, of course.

    It’s not in the interests of the usurer class.

    • We badly need to simplify the whole outstanding political issue to “producers versus parasites”; and “consumer surplus versus zero sum rent”.

      Henry George agonised 100 years ago that the leaders of “labour” were diverting their political energies into warfare on the employer class, when they actually have interests in common against the rentier class which is where the real threat is from.

      And the rentier class has been winning the war for decades now.

  6. I do not know what the ideology actually defines. I do not agree to the Oxford definition Roskam cites. To me, the term refers to pre-determined ideas – i.e., those that are independent of data/evidence/observations. In short, unscientific. After all, we do not call scientifically developed ideas “ideology”.

    • The problem with saying policy needs to be evidence based or scientific is that for complex systems like society you never have a complete picture of whats going on. You are generally reliant on small pieces of data which may only indirectly related to what youre interested in measuring and occuring in system with a multitude of other change happening constantly. It’s routine to ‘correct’ the data which is where ideology enters into it. It easy to make the evidence say what ever you want… climate change being the prime example.

      • Hear, hear.

        And one of the least considered biases, and yet possibly the most significant one, is the bureaucratic empire building effect, period.

        Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. They vote for everlasting pre-Christmas fattening, with Christmas itself never coming.

        Lee Kuan Yew set up the Singapore Civil Service on the basis that staff would serve 3 year tenures and then be back out into the real world. VERY WISE man. The pay is high for the 3 years and the positions sought after by the best people.

        We are in a time when a healthy skepticism regarding bureaucracies is sorely needed. I was encouraged to see a viral YouTube protest video recently of a sing-along that included a chorus of “Bugger the bankers, bugger the politicians, and bugger the bureaucrats too…..”

        Bill English and other key ministers in NZ are becoming strong skeptics of the bureaucracies they are heading. They have been trialing a few “localist” initiatives. Such as getting some local community heroes to end truancy completely in a busted-arse rural town; something a massive bureaucracy has never achieved and has never come up with a means of achieving.

        Another similar “localist” initiative has boosted local secondary school graduation exam pass rates to nearly 100% from below 30%.

        The only opponents to extending “localism” as a principle, are the big centralised bureaucracies themselves. I have a sneaking optimism that their time has come in NZ; people all over the political spectrum are declining to defend them.

      • There are two issues here; (1) what is the definition of ideology, (2) whether it is a good idea to use it for policy decisions.

        So it looks like we have no problem with (1)? Good. We can put this issue to rest.

        As for (2), my view is that science is a weapon and a powerful weapon that is; in a similar way as Francis Bacon once remarked that the knowledge is power; or Michael Lewis sated in Moneyball that a trader with superior knowledge always win (note that he did not say “information” in the place of “knowledge”).

        Scientifically developed ideas are often strange, foreign and hard to grasp; relativity and quantum mechanics may top the list. Of course, science itself is under constant revision/upgrade/renewal. As soon as science stops that, it will join the realm of ideology in my view. The policy needs to keep it up if you do not want to rely on an obsolete weapon.

      • The problem with saying policy needs to be evidence based or scientific is that for complex systems like society you never have a complete picture of whats going on.
        This is presenting a false dichotomy. A deterministic model of an entire complex system is not required to leverage, or positively change, parts of it.

        It easy to make the evidence say what ever you want… climate change being the prime example.
        Actually it’s quite hard to make the evidence say whatever you want when it is so compelling in one direction. Hence the reason climate change deniers, creationists, and their ilk, have to use intellectually ignorant and/or bankrupt methods to try and do so.

      • “It’s routine to ‘correct’ the data”… Rubbish. It is routine to ignore the data.

      • @Phil,

        Where did you get the graph from? The data is more asymptotic than linear whereas all the models are linear.

        As I stated before, my sense is that as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases more plankton/bacteria/algae species that had not been previously competitive would become competitive and flourish (with enhanced photosynthesis). I could be wrong and even if I am right we do not know which species these might be. But, I am 99% confident that the projection CANNOT be linear.

      • I’m unsure what your point is. All those graphs have both models and data, and there is quite a disparity between them.

        Data has been both ignored, and “adjusted” when certain types of people are in the position to “adjust” it. Raw data ends up the subject of court action regarding whether anyone is allowed to see it apart from the public employees who “adjusted” it before publishing it. The taxpayer paid for it, so it is theirs, not the bureaucrats.

        It is past time for people to generally mistrust bureaucrats of all stripes just as much as bankers. Both are parasites, not producers, and both have been gouging a bigger and bigger share of the cake as time has gone on.

      • My point is that there is information in the data, and the data is going up. The models are a distraction.

        I absolutely share your disdain for bureaucracy, particularly in science and research. I have seen it first hand, and it is a massive drain on otherwise productive resources. For example, at one point I was required to fill in a form for my overlords when one of my PhD students returned from leave, just to confirm they were back in the office. Think about the overhead associated with this – student has to fill in the form, I have to sign the form, form has to get posted, form get’s opened, read, entered into the system. A total joke (they work for me, I pay them, I know when they are back!), and one of the reasons I left to pursue other things.

        Big science was something I avoided like the plague, and the worst was European big science. The best science is being produced by small labs and small groups, who basically tell bureaucrats to f-off.

    • The most useful definition of ideology I have found is the one coined by Kenneth Minogue in Alien Powers: the pure theory of ideology. Minogue says that ideology is “the conviction that current societies are cleverly concealed forms of dehumanizing oppression”. This is combined with a conviction that those who can see the particular form that this oppression takes possess secret knowledge that can cure the world of all its evils. In turn, this justifies the overturning of current societies by whatever means so that those in the know can direct society towards its true perfect nature.

      Ideology is thus the secular successor to the role previously (and in the case of some groups, currently) occupied by religion.

      • Interesting, especially in relation to religion. But I think the term “ideology” is broader than what you described.

        In baseball, once upon a time the managers believed (some still might do) that batting average correlated with scoring runs (and filled his line-up card with guys with high batting averages). To their defence, a higher batting average is certainly preferable to a lower one. But the data show that runs scored by a team correlated far more squarely with the on-base percentage and the slugging percentage (with on-base percentage being more important).

        Would it be a stretch to think that relying on the “higher batting average = scoring more runs” formula in the face of the data is an ideology (even though the data are not necessarily contradictory to the above formula)?

      • Minogue admits that his definition is narrow: however, he argues that if one does not define it precisely, the word becomes exactly what this post notes – a generalized term of abuse directed at ones opponents.

      • Alex, I was getting at something like that with my diversion above on Antonio Gransci and the Frankfurt School and their “victimology” theories that have swept western academia.

        All political and cultural systems apart from the one they are attacking, actually have worse outcomes for their “victim” groups, but that does not stop them being both Communists and cultural relativists. The underlying cause here is the politics of envy, in which cause anything is justified – unreason, lies, violence.

        Strangely enough, there is no libertarian equivalent to this. There are no Ayn Randist equivalents to Che Guevara or “The Shining Path” or Pol Pot or Vladimir Lenin. There is no branch of libertarian ideology to suggest that this ideology is “so noble, it is worth imposing by force”.

        The academic theorists who claim the whole capitalist system is oppressive and terroristic are somewhat ironic in that they publish these pronouncements from positions of academic tenure and with full protections of their freedom of speech, rather than smuggle them out of prison cells written on toilet paper.

      • Strangely enough, there is no libertarian equivalent to this. There are no Ayn Randist equivalents to Che Guevara or “The Shining Path” or Pol Pot or Vladimir Lenin. There is no branch of libertarian ideology to suggest that this ideology is “so noble, it is worth imposing by force”.
        There are plenty of libertarians who think their ideology is so noble they should do nothing about those left broken and suffering in its wake.

        People who think not being able to afford medical care means you should be left to die.
        People who think not being able to afford food means you should be left to starve.
        People who think not being able to afford schooling means you deserve to grow up uneducated.
        People who think “poor” and “lazy” are synonyms.
        People who think the legal and justice systems should be privatised.
        People who think caring about anyone except yourself is a moral failing.
        Etc.

        You have a habit of picking out extreme views on the side of politics you don’t like, and trying to present them as mainstream, while either completely ignoring, or vastly understating the negative impacts of, similarly extreme views on the side of politics you do like.

      • I am not one of those people. I go with Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman on this – helping the poor is noble and good; trying to enforce equality is evil. Few people are this morally clear.

        It is noteworthy that there was a period of economic history prior to state provided welfare, but following the initial explosion of wealth creation from capitalism and property rights and free markets, where nobody starved to death any more. This is what “humanity” is really meant to be all about – willingly and nobly taking care of the poor to whatever extent is in your power.

        But the left hates “charity” – it has to be a matter of “rights” and entitlements. Never mind the moral hazard that so obviously comes back to bite civilisation. Try watching a few episodes of the Jeremy Kyle show on YouTube – I reckon nothing has so powerfully motivated the Poms to do welfare reform.

        Enforced equality – at a kind of “lowest common denominator” – underlies the left’s intransigence over any kind of “choice” even when public money is involved. No vouchers, no tax deductibility – only public monopolies that fail everyone equally, are acceptable.

        I love your suggestion that people will “grow up uneducated because they can’t afford a private school”. Abraham Lincoln’s log-cabin home schooling would beat a typical modern public dumbed-down mis-education hands down. It is also so ironic that so many lefties with the means to do so, send their own children to private schools, including public school teachers (and teachers union members).

  7. Ronin8317MEMBER

    The House Republican believes they are in a win-win situation. Either Obama cave and scrap Obamacare, or the government gets shut down. Yes, they believe the government shutdown is a winner!! This logic also extends to extending the debt ceiling.

    In the Democrat’s corner, their choice is committing political suicide, or watch the Republican commit their own political suicide. As long as both side believes they’re ‘winning’, the situation will not be resolved.

    So what happens when the US bond defaults? The market will simply ignore reality, especially if things revert to normal in a few days. Or it will result in the mother-of-all bankruns as everyone quit their US dollar holdings at the same time. That will be followed by the era of canned soup, toilet paper and ammunitions.

    • US Bonds are going to default one day anyway. The later it comes, the bigger the mess.

      There is no way most governments in the world today are ever going to actually pay back debt; sovereign bonds are just a whole lot more “paper money” sloshing round in the global financial system. When the penny drops that it is all worthless…..?

      Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson are two of the most hated people in New Zealand today. They actually paid off national debt. Idiots….!

      • Just read this in the Wall Street Journal, from the esteemed Niall Ferguson:

        “The Shutdown Is a Sideshow. Debt Is the Threat”

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906704579113661593684356.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

        “….Yes, the federal government shut down this week. Yes, we are just two weeks away from the point when the Treasury secretary says he will run out of cash if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. Yes, bond king Bill Gross has been on TV warning that a default by the government would be “catastrophic.” Yet the yield on a 10-year Treasury note has fallen slightly over the past month…

        “….Yet, entertaining as all this political drama may seem, the theater itself is indeed burning. For the fiscal position of the federal government is in fact much worse today than is commonly realized. As anyone can see who reads the most recent long-term budget outlook—published last month by the Congressional Budget Office, and almost entirely ignored by the media—the question is not if the United States will default but when and on which of its rapidly spiraling liabilities….

        “……The question is what on earth can be done to prevent the debt explosion. The CBO has a clear answer: “[B]ringing debt back down to 39 percent of GDP in 2038—as it was at the end of 2008—would require a combination of increases in revenues and cuts in noninterest spending (relative to current law) totaling 2 percent of GDP for the next 25 years. . . .

        “If those changes came entirely from revenues, they would represent an increase of 11 percent relative to the amount of revenues projected for the 2014-2038 period; if the changes came entirely from spending, they would represent a cut of 10½ percent in noninterest spending from the amount projected for that period.”

        Anyone watching this week’s political shenanigans in Washington will grasp at once the tiny probability of tax hikes or spending cuts on this scale.

        It should now be clear that what we are watching in Washington is not a comedy but a game of Russian roulette with the federal government’s creditworthiness. So long as the Federal Reserve continues with the policies of near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing, the gun will likely continue to fire blanks. After all, Fed purchases of Treasurys, if continued at their current level until the end of the year, will account for three quarters of new government borrowing.

        But the mere prospect of a taper, beginning in late May, was already enough to raise long-term interest rates by more than 100 basis points…..”

  8. “If it turns out that President Barack Obama can made a deal with the most intransigent, hardline, unreasonable, totalitarian Mullahs in the world, but not with Republicans, maybe he’s not the problem” – Jon Stewart

    • Jon Stewart is a comedian and that line is comedy gold. Quite possibly so far, he has been outwitted by the Mad Mullahs playing good cop, bad cop, and they will be testing nukes pretty shortly.

  9. Jake Gittes October 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    “…..In the US the Tea party is used by the Koch brothers who push their own plutocratic self interest in the guise of American values and history. It is a sort of ideology…..”

    “……As a former radical and left-wing activist, Horowitz knows which tune the devil is whistling since he once whistled it himself before he experienced an epiphany and transitioned to the right. Horowitz provided mountains of detailed and specific information about how the left wing is funded and he exposed as false the conventional wisdom that most of the money in politics comes from conservative organizations.

    Horowitz described how most of the great American foundations no longer represent the original intentions of their founders. For example, in his letter of resignation from the board of the Ford Foundation, Henry Ford II stated that the foundation’s money was being spent attacking the very principles of free enterprise, principles that were responsible for the enormous financial success that allowed the Ford Foundation to be established in the first place. The same story can be told at the Carnegie, John D. MacArthur, Pew, Packard and Rockefeller Foundations — their founders would be positively apoplectic with fury if they knew how their money was being spent.

    Horowitz went on to explain that there are 553 anti-free market, left-wing organizations with about $9.5 billion in assets at their disposal as opposed to 32 free-market organizations with approximately $38 million in their coffers…..”

    Link already posted to this article, but comment gone to moderation. Google David Horowitz, “The New Leviathan”.

    Many of the founders of these non-profit organisations, like the Koch Brothers, actually intend to repay a personal debt to the freedom and opportunity that the USA’s political system gave them, and keep that freedom and opportunity going. Their hijacking by lefty-liberal trustees results in them serving the very opposite objectives, ones of cronyism and incumbency and rent-seeking.

    Also refer to Martin Morse Wooster, “The Great Philanthropists and the Problem of Donor Intent”.

    I am inclined to believe that the Koch Brothers are not in the same camp as the Goldman Sachs and Rockefeller gougers, and that ire is being unfairly focused on them by people who do not “get” the difference between “industries” that actually supply stuff that is part of the wealth creation process, and straight out zero sum gouging. Unfortunately many lefty-liberal politicians, especially in the USA, are the biggest recipients of funding from the gougers, which gives the gougers a free pass; while the Republicans get funding from the actual wealth creating industries that is very much less, and are smeared for this.

    • I had this view that people who read a lot have balanced views and then I meet PhilBest.

      When in doubt always read the comment from the guy who gave 1 star

      “You know how when you read something and your BS Detector goes off? Where you think, “Wow, there’s just no way that can possibly be true!?” Well, my BS Detector was going off every few sentences or so when I was reading this book, and whenever it went off, I referred to the end notes to find out if there was any credibility to the claims the authors were making. Almost all of the sources cited were from other right-wing publications, and most of them were opinion pieces. Oh, and you’ve gotta love it when a pseudo-scholar like Horowitz uses the oh-so-scholarly webpage known as Wikipedia. Of course, these hacks regularly employ the right-wing tactic of taking quotations and statistics out of context in order to ‘prove’ their claims.”

      • “….Almost all of the sources cited were from other right-wing publications….”

        Translation: how dare anyone actually publish anything these days outside of the lefty, P.C. establishment approved version. And how dare anybody (PhilBest or whoever) actually dare to get it and read it.

        Horowitz achieved “acclaimed scholar” status in the first half of his career with critical historical writings on the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, and the Fords. He has been made anathema because of becoming a “neo-Conservative”, which as someone famously said, is a lefty who has been mugged by reality.

        His writings are some of the most politically enlightening things that anyone could read. “Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey” is a handy collation of his best shorter works. The story of his long, painful awakening about the nature of the politically correct Left is a poignant human saga including the loss of a close friend by murder and a subsequent monumentally inadequate police investigation.

      • When in doubt always read the comment from the guy who gave 1 star
        The two-star review is fairly informative as well.

        http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Leviathan-Left-Wing-Money-Machine-ebook/product-reviews/B006OHIXK2/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_two?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showViewpoints=0

        I suspect this statement sums up Horowitz, et al, to a ‘T’.

        “The authors, like many advocates, seemed to see a conspiracy around every corner.”

        One thing that never seems to be explained is, that if the Left have all this money, and all these resources, and control all the dialogue, why America is such a far-right leaning culture, and the rest of the Anglosphere has been drifting steadily rightwards for decades.

      • Translation: how dare anyone actually publish anything these days outside of the lefty, P.C. establishment approved version. And how dare anybody (PhilBest or whoever) actually dare to get it and read it.
        There a few things in life more predictable than cries of “censorship” from the Right whenever someone suggests that they enjoy massive episodes of repetitive circular referencing.