u/jfanch42

So it seems to me that there is a persistent theme I have detected in the Liberal discourse lastly. It is a theme that we have a problem and also a possible solution. I wanted to present a number of different sources in order to illustrate how widespread these ideas are and then discuss them. 

The problem as it is presented is political; Democrats lack a clarity of vison. This was brought to the front by Rob Flaherty recently in a number of interviews and discussions about his reports for the 2024 autopsy. here (13:58) he discusses with Bill Crystal the importance of it. This point is reiterated here (11:00) in his discussion with Tim Miller where they also discuss Millers belief that we need more creative destruction in politics and that presidential campaigns must amount to something greater. Others have noted similar ideas. For example, the the Croked Media guys (1:11:22) talk about the importance of big ideas instead of platitudes and Anand Hernden (17:56, 43:04) says that politicians get credit not for their specific ideas so much as the clarity and strength of their convictions.  

I believe that this lack of a: brand” is actually the result of a greater intellectual flaw in modern liberalism, the lack of a moral vision. This is a thing I have also seen floating around a lot. Historian Gary Gerstle argues that all political orders have an accompanying vision of the good life. And a fundamental part of that is the construction of a moral order. Ezra Kline has been circling this idea for a while and in an recent interview (55:33), he says it explicitly. The entire show is about how originally Liberalism was a moral project as much as a political one, and that this was lost over time. He connects this to an excess of individualism and a lack of meaning.  Later in response to this video, J.J. McCullough and some likeminded youtubers expanded on discussed the topics. This theme of a need for a moral vision keeps coming up in different contexts. Earlier their book Kline and his coauthor were asked by Scott Galloway discussed (52:17) what the ultimate ends of politics should be, and while his coauthor did not, Kline gave an interesting answer that shows he is thinking about it. Two other thinkers who have been thinking about this a lot are David Brooks and George Packer. Brooks discuss the importance of morality a lot, specifically in a morality grounded in classical liberal humanism, this Interview here is a good example. Packer discusses on an episode of the Offline podcast (52:38) on how there is a need in human beings to aspire to a greater moral order and unity. 

All of this I think adds up to an idea I have been toying around with for a while. That the challenges to liberalism are not merely situational, that they represent a deep intellectual flaw in the way modern liberalism has evolved. But it seems like our current politics has a really hard time recognizing that. That we have become so technocratic and data driven that we have lost sight of a higher ideal. That we treat people as the consumers of a political product and not the participants in a particular social vision. I am interested to hear what you think. 

So, I was watching this episode of the Secret Pod  here at 44:19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItBAOPJxBn0

where JVL and Sarah are discussing Grahm Platner and JVL said something that spurred me to write this post which consolidates something that I have been thinking about for a while. He says, “I just want serious people” and then he laments the lack of enthusiasm for such people. I think that as we approach a new era of politics (God willing), we need to seriously engage with this perspective because I think it is very widespread. I admit I am, as much as I respect him, going to be going at JVLs world view pretty hard, but I invite critique and hope this will be productive.  

So, when JVL discusses his politics, the thing he emphasizes over and over again is his sort of Chestertonion conservatism, a belief that we must be epistemically careful because we can always make things worse. And this idea, which I am sure he would acknowledge, shapes almost everything else he says.  

With that in mind it really caught my attention when he said that he wants serious people in contrast to Graham Plattner, whom he implied was not serious. I think that is weird because I have listened to many interviews with Platner and he seemed very serious to me. He was serious in the sense of seeming to be educated on the subjects on which he was discussing. He could describe his democratic socialism quite articulately and connect disparate ideas together. One can debate the merits of his arguments, but they are informed in coherent in a way that someone like Trump is not. He was serious in the sense of considering politics to be a matter of grave importance and consequence. When he talked to Jon Stewert, they were laser focused on the subject at hand, they didn’t talk about football or pop stars or other pablum that more conventional politicians sometimes do. He seemed to me very serious, even where I disagreed with him. 

JVL contrasted these “unserious people” with Mikie Sherrill as his sort of platonic ideal of a politician. JVL extolled her virtues on the podcast before in the run up to her election. He didn’t praise her platform ( in fact he criticized it for over-promising, which he framed as a regrettable necessity) , no he praised her pedigree, that she was a fighter pilot and a lawyer and then a politician, that she had an extremely high level elite education.  

And then I understood what JVL meant by serious people. He means people who are very good at managing the machinery of life. To really succeed at formal elite institutions like elite schooling and law or business, generally, your success is defined by being able to go through 30+ years of life without ever making a serious mistake. I remember hearing Anand Giridharadas talk about this when he was discussing the elite, that they tend to live remarkably conservative lives: “I think a lot of them are in bed by 8:00 PM.” so, it makes sense that JVL would see someone like Platner as a bleak symbol. Whether innocently or not, the man has made mistakes, and that people seem to not find that off-putting seems to disturb JVL. He made similar criticisms of Mandani, explicitly calling New York an old rickety, infinitely complex machine, that needed someone who was an absolute expert on that machine to keep it running.  

If you view government as an old, infinitely complex, infinitely fragile machine that must be maintained at all costs, then it makes sense you would balk at Platner; he has demonstrably exhibited non optimal judgment at least once in his life. This contrasts with Sherril, who seems to have been born to earn gold stars and always get her homework in on time, with good penmanship. From that perspective, his concerns about “seriousness” make sense 

Except I don’t think that is what high-level politics should be? 

So, cards on the table I am adamantly against neoliberalism (a philosophy that JVL has said he adores). People debate what, if anything, that term means but with regard to this subject, what I dislike is the notion that at some point in the late twentieth century, we had basically “solved” politics, that all the hard questions had been answered and all that was left was to tinker with the details. I think this belief is a big part of how we arrived at our current situation. Maybe that kind of politics was possible in a different era but not now; i think we have to go back and answer fundamental questions about what we want out of politics and what high aspirations we want to pursue. JVL blanches at that sort of optimism. He has said he dislikes Obama and I suspect this is why; Obama sort of did present himself as an almost messianic figure. But I genuinely don’t think we can avoid that kind of politics. This was something that Francis Fukuyama, the guy who basically codified the neoliberal consensus that JVL so longs for, has said directly. He was the one who pointed out that people have greater aspirations then simple prosperity and survival. Human beings are not newly stupid and decadent; it has always been true that in the end, the world is not enough.  

Now you can find Platner's specific politics persuasive or not, but I think that it is just true that there is no way to get out of this current moment without a more radical approach, not necessarily leftist, but radical. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing! I think it is good that we are asking more of politics. I think it is good that we are more ideological. I think it is good that we have a large array of temperaments and backgrounds in politics now. Because at my core I believe in small r republican ideals. The founders believed in an actual republic where people governed themselves, especially Jefferson (who was himself like Platner, a farmer). Yes, they believed one needed to be virtuous and educated, but that wasn't the same as the elite credentialism that rules the modern world. Ben Franklin was famously a party animal who banged everyone in New England. John Addams was well known for being a prick. And Sam Addams famous contribution to American history was getting a bunch of drunk guys to get dressed up in silly outfits and commit vandalism. Yes, they aspired to high ideals of education and civic mindedness, but this country was explicitly founded not to be solely governed by buttoned-up but people of absolute propriety. And so, I reject the claim that we should only be led by “serious people”