thebulwark--2020-08-21--Get Ready for Anti-Anti-QAnon

Get Ready for Anti-Anti-QAnon

The Democratic National Convention was a marvel of message discipline .
The speeches and events had a clear theme : to portray today ’ s Democratic party as totally normal , mainstream , non-combative , and not radical at all .
In a year of race riots and cancel culture , we may have a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this gauzy image of the party of the left .
Yet there is something comforting about the fact that a large political movement has been able to settle on a non-repellent political message and actually stick to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that for the past four years .
All of this led Karl Rove to observe that this “ enormous message discipline ” is something “ Republicans would be wise to emulate.
” Yeah , I didn ’ t think that was likely to work out , either .
Even as Rove was speaking , Donald Trump was tweeting—expressing his support for Laura Loomer , a conspiracy-theorist nutjob , for winning the primary to run as the Republican candidate in Florida ’ s 21st district .
Loomer has no real chance of winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for both parties that fringe characters sometimes manage to get themselves nominated in hopeless districts where nobody respectable can be convinced to run .
But usually they don ’ t get the endorsement of the sitting president .
This followed Trump ’ s endorsement of Marjorie Taylor Greene , a devotee of the QAnon conspiracy theory , and it was followed by the president being asked outright about QAnon at a press conference and offering them a kind of tepid endorsement as patriots who “ love our country.
” Thus , in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theory into the mainstream of the right—though it is following the usual template for support of Trump himself : anti-anti-QAnon .
First , for those who don ’ t frequent the shadier corners of the Internet , what is QAnon ?
It started out as a standard “ anon ” scam , in which a random person on an Internet discussion board claims to be an anonymous insider giving out secret information .
Such claims are , of course , highly improbable and impossible to verify , but they gain a ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this case , the anonymous source claimed a Q clearance in the federal government giving him access to secret information—hence the QAnon name .
He spun a fantastical tale about how Donald Trump ’ s erratic actions all make sense as cover for a secret war against a “ deep state ” composed of Democrats who are—wait for it—Satan-worshippers running an international child-molesting ring .
“ Q ” keeps predicting that Trump will order mass arrests of the villains in this conspiracy .
The endlessly ramifying QAnon conspiracy theory tells its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to hear , from the innate depravity of one ’ s political opponents to the fantasy of a judgment day on which everyone you dislike will be arrested en masse and shipped off to Gitmo .
But the biggest psychological need it serves for its devotees on the right is to reassure them that Donald Trump really does know what he ’ s doing .
QAnon conspiracies excel at explaining how the president ’ s erratic and ill-considered actions are really proof of his superior tactical genius , which can only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge .
You can see how this would appeal to Trump supporters , insulating them from the doubts about Trump that must be creeping into the edges of their consciousness .
You can also see why the president himself would like it .
Hence his response when asked what he thought about QAnon .
First , let me throw a little skepticism at the idea that our first extremely online president , a guy who ’ s skulking around on Twitter at all hours of the day or night , doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory about him that has spread like a rash across social media .
But this is vintage Trump : his unwillingness to just say that he doesn ’ t know something and leave it at that , combined with his habit of measuring everything by the standard of personal flattery .
The only thing he really needs to know about QAnon is that they like him .
Asked about the core QAnon idea that he is “ secretly saving the world from this satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals , ” Trump replied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambiguity .
He doesn ’ t know about it , but maybe it ’ s good .
You can bet that QAnon followers lapped this up as confirmation that they were right all along .
But the real damage isn ’ t so much what Trump himself said .
The damage is what his legions of followers—including those in the media and in the political establishment—will do to rationalize Trump ’ s flirtation with QAnon .
Anti-anti-ism is the preferred template for Trump support among those who still want to maintain some veneer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend Trump ’ s own statements and actions , but they can find plenty to criticize in his critics .
So they won ’ t defend or endorse QAnon , not really .
They will just dismiss as hysterical anybody who thinks that it ’ s important for Trump to disavow QAnon .
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany set the tone : “ He believes his supporters are good , hard-working people that love this country .
He is not in the business of ‘ basket of deplorables ’ politics.
” So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elitist snob .
The general line you will see being taken is that real people don ’ t really know or care about QAnon and only “ the media ” is obsessed by it—though Q followers have been showing up at Trump ’ s rallies for years .
And after all , why haven ’ t the Democrats denounced Antifa ?
( Anti-Anti-ism leans heavily on Whataboutism . )
This is just beginning , but we know by now that it will spread , especially since Marjorie Taylor Greene isn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Q quackery .
When this president indicates that he won ’ t criticize anyone he regards as his fan base , no matter how crazy , the rest of the party tends to follow suit .
Why is it important that the president denounce a fringe movement like QAnon—or at least refrain from saying nice things about it ?
It is not merely a sign of “ message discipline ” but a sign of mental discipline .
Each party has its crazy wing and its ( relatively ) sane moderates , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to figure out which faction is in the driver ’ s seat .
The fact that the Democrats were able to put their sanest face forward for their convention and keep the radicals off to the sides is an indication that maybe there ’ s some truth to their message of moderation , that the inmates don ’ t yet run the asylum .
Donald Trump ’ s mental incontinence when it comes to conspiracy theorists , white nationalists , and other disreputable people , and the successes that conspiracy-theorist candidates have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indicate that the guardrails that separate the sane from the crazy have been knocked down and that there is nothing to keep the irrational fringe from becoming the Republican mainstream .

The Democratic National Convention was a marvel of message discipline. The speeches and events had a clear theme: to portray today’s Democratic party as totally normal, mainstream, non-combative, and not radical at all. In a year of race riots and cancel culture, we may have a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this gauzy image of the party of the left. Yet there is something comforting about the fact that a large political movement has been able to settle on a non-repellent political message and actually stick to it. We haven’t seen much of that for the past four years.
All of this led Karl Rove to observe that this “enormous message discipline” is something “Republicans would be wise to emulate.”
Yeah, I didn’t think that was likely to work out, either. Even as Rove was speaking, Donald Trump was tweeting—expressing his support for Laura Loomer, a conspiracy-theorist nutjob, for winning the primary to run as the Republican candidate in Florida’s 21st district. Loomer has no real chance of winning, and it is a perennial problem for both parties that fringe characters sometimes manage to get themselves nominated in hopeless districts where nobody respectable can be convinced to run. But usually they don’t get the endorsement of the sitting president.
This followed Trump’s endorsement of Marjorie Taylor Greene, a devotee of the QAnon conspiracy theory, and it was followed by the president being asked outright about QAnon at a press conference and offering them a kind of tepid endorsement as patriots who “love our country.”
Thus, in one fell swoop, Trump injected an insane conspiracy theory into the mainstream of the right—though it is following the usual template for support of Trump himself: anti-anti-QAnon.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
First, for those who don’t frequent the shadier corners of the Internet, what is QAnon? It started out as a standard “anon” scam, in which a random person on an Internet discussion board claims to be an anonymous insider giving out secret information. Such claims are, of course, highly improbable and impossible to verify, but they gain a ready audience among those who want to believe.
In this case, the anonymous source claimed a Q clearance in the federal government giving him access to secret information—hence the QAnon name. He spun a fantastical tale about how Donald Trump’s erratic actions all make sense as cover for a secret war against a “deep state” composed of Democrats who are—wait for it—Satan-worshippers running an international child-molesting ring. “Q” keeps predicting that Trump will order mass arrests of the villains in this conspiracy.
The endlessly ramifying QAnon conspiracy theory tells its gullible followers a whole lot of things they want to hear, from the innate depravity of one’s political opponents to the fantasy of a judgment day on which everyone you dislike will be arrested en masse and shipped off to Gitmo. But the biggest psychological need it serves for its devotees on the right is to reassure them that Donald Trump really does know what he’s doing. QAnon conspiracies excel at explaining how the president’s erratic and ill-considered actions are really proof of his superior tactical genius, which can only be appreciated by those with special insider knowledge.
You can see how this would appeal to Trump supporters, insulating them from the doubts about Trump that must be creeping into the edges of their consciousness. You can also see why the president himself would like it. Hence his response when asked what he thought about QAnon.
I don’t know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate, but I don’t know much about the movement. . . . I’ve heard these are people that love our country. . . . I don’t know, really, anything about it other than they do, supposedly, like me.
First, let me throw a little skepticism at the idea that our first extremely online president, a guy who’s skulking around on Twitter at all hours of the day or night, doesn’t actually know anything about a widely disseminated theory about him that has spread like a rash across social media.
But this is vintage Trump: his unwillingness to just say that he doesn’t know something and leave it at that, combined with his habit of measuring everything by the standard of personal flattery. The only thing he really needs to know about QAnon is that they like him.
Asked about the core QAnon idea that he is “secretly saving the world from this satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals,” Trump replied:
I haven’t heard that. But is that supposed to be a bad thing or a good thing? I mean, you know, if I can help save the world from problems, I’m willing to do it.
This is Trump’s trademark ambiguity. He doesn’t know about it, but maybe it’s good. You can bet that QAnon followers lapped this up as confirmation that they were right all along.
But the real damage isn’t so much what Trump himself said. The damage is what his legions of followers—including those in the media and in the political establishment—will do to rationalize Trump’s flirtation with QAnon.
Get prepared for anti-anti-QAnon.
Anti-anti-ism is the preferred template for Trump support among those who still want to maintain some veneer of respectability. They can’t defend Trump’s own statements and actions, but they can find plenty to criticize in his critics. So they won’t defend or endorse QAnon, not really. They will just dismiss as hysterical anybody who thinks that it’s important for Trump to disavow QAnon.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany set the tone: “He believes his supporters are good, hard-working people that love this country. He is not in the business of ‘basket of deplorables’ politics.” So criticizing wacky conspiracy theorists makes you an elitist snob.
The general line you will see being taken is that real people don’t really know or care about QAnon and only “the media” is obsessed by it—though Q followers have been showing up at Trump’s rallies for years. And after all, why haven’t the Democrats denounced Antifa? (Anti-Anti-ism leans heavily on Whataboutism.)
This is just beginning, but we know by now that it will spread, especially since Marjorie Taylor Greene isn’t the only Republican candidate with a weakness for Q quackery. When this president indicates that he won’t criticize anyone he regards as his fan base, no matter how crazy, the rest of the party tends to follow suit.
Why is it important that the president denounce a fringe movement like QAnon—or at least refrain from saying nice things about it? It is not merely a sign of “message discipline” but a sign of mental discipline.
Each party has its crazy wing and its (relatively) sane moderates, and we look to the statements of its leaders to figure out which faction is in the driver’s seat. The fact that the Democrats were able to put their sanest face forward for their convention and keep the radicals off to the sides is an indication that maybe there’s some truth to their message of moderation, that the inmates don’t yet run the asylum.
Donald Trump’s mental incontinence when it comes to conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, and other disreputable people, and the successes that conspiracy-theorist candidates have been having in his party’s primaries, indicate that the guardrails that separate the sane from the crazy have been knocked down and that there is nothing to keep the irrational fringe from becoming the Republican mainstream.


thebulwark--2020-08-21--‘Donald Trump Has Failed Our Country’

‘Donald Trump Has Failed Our Country’

Back in 2016 , Eliot Cohen and Bryan McGrath published a letter signed by a hundred or so national security officials who were opposed to the election of Donald Trump .
Included in the letter was the following : Mr. Trump ’ s own statements lead us to conclude that as president , he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe , and which would diminish our standing in the world .
Furthermore , his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Therefore , as committed and loyal Republicans , we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head .
We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office .
That was four years ago , and as the kids say , it aged well .
This fall , we have another presidential election .
And another such letter exists , put forward by Ken Wainstein and John Bellinger and Defending Democracy Together ( our sister non-profit , where—full disclosure—I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter is a little more pointed , as we ’ ve now had nearly four years of Trumpism .
Spoiler : Things have gotten way worse .
You can read more about it here , but the letter raises ten main points : 1 ) Donald Trump has gravely damaged America ’ s role as a world leader .
2 ) Donald Trump has shown that he is unfit to lead during a national crisis .
3 ) Donald Trump has solicited foreign influence and undermined confidence in our presidential elections .
4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictators and failed to stand up for American values .
5 ) Donald Trump has disparaged our armed forces , intelligence agencies , and diplomats .
6 ) Donald Trump has undermined the rule of law .
7 ) Donald Trump has dishonored the office of the presidency .
8 ) Donald Trump has divided our nation and preached a dark and pessimistic view of America .
9 ) Donald Trump has attacked and vilified immigrants to our country .
10 ) Donald Trump has imperiled America ’ s security by mismanaging his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this : “ We are firmly convinced that it is in the best interest of our nation that Vice President Joe Biden be elected as the next President of the United States , and we will vote for him.
” Not everyone who signed the 2016 letter was prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton .
Everyone who signed this one has seen enough .
They ’ re voting for Biden .
What ’ s really interesting is that , among the new signatories , there are people who actually worked for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Miles Taylor , the former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) ; Elizabeth Neumann , formerly the assistant secretary of DHS ; Michael Leiter , the former general counsel of DHS ; and Robert Shanks , formerly the general counsel of the Peace Corps .
I talked to Taylor about why he signed the letter and he tells me what impressed him is how the signatories really ran the gamut of the National Security professionals : There ’ s freedom agenda folks on there .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the whole group , interventionists , non-interventionist .
.
.
it ’ s everyone .
It represents the national security Conservative establishment and some non establishment types .
And so I think it ’ s very telling that a diverse group would come together and say , “ Really , the president ’ s a danger to our security.
” .
.
.
I can ’ t really think of similar precedent , except maybe when you had so many Scoop Jackson Dems flip sides .
So I really do feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a damning , damning indictment of the president ’ s national security record and deservedly so .
And look , Trump denies a lot of things and when something goes bad , he ’ ll try to always push responsibility off onto a different person .
But look , Trump has owned his foreign policy .
He has really owned his foreign policy , and he ’ s been proud to say that he owned his foreign defense policy decisions .
So there ’ s no getting around this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , the things that they ’ re blaming Trump for in this letter aren ’ t necessarily all Trump and he ’ s had to change out his cabinet .
There ’ s been some bad eggs.
” No , Trump ’ s foreign policy is his own and so this indictment is of him personally and the decisions that he ’ s made or the decisions he ’ s failed to make .
Interestingly , Taylor tells me that he and the other former Trump folks found out this letter was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t recruited .
And had there been more lead time , more former Trump people would have signed the letter : “ It ’ s certainly just the tip of an iceberg.
” Taylor has been making the rounds on cable and in print as he was the highest-ranking former Trump official to endorse Joe Biden .
He did a video for Republican Voters Against Trump ( another project of our sister non-profit , Defending Democracy Together ) .
But it ’ s not all just former officials who feel that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I went and did a TV hit , like 30 minutes before I went on , another person in the White House texted me , someone who ’ s a stone ’ s throw from the Oval , and basically said ‘ You know how I feel and I ’ m so glad you ’ re out there doing this .
I wish I could be doing the same thing right now.
’ And I was like , man , does he not even realize that it ’ s down the hallway and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got people that feel this way .
So that ’ s telling , it ’ s not just ex-Trump officials , and of course , that ’ s what Trump ’ s going to want to paint it as : disaffected people , disgruntled people who ’ ve left .
No , no , it ’ s people who come and sit with you at a meeting , Mr. President , and are there with you today .
The calls are coming from inside the house , Mr. President .
Correction : An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the 2020 letter was organized by Eliot Cohen and Bryan McGrath .
While both signed the 2020 letter , it was organized by Ken Wainstein and John Bellinger .

Back in 2016, Eliot Cohen and Bryan McGrath published a letter signed by a hundred or so national security officials who were opposed to the election of Donald Trump. Included in the letter was the following:
Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.
That was four years ago, and as the kids say, it aged well.
This fall, we have another presidential election. And another such letter exists, put forward by Ken Wainstein and John Bellinger and Defending Democracy Together (our sister non-profit, where—full disclosure—I have also done work). This letter is a little more pointed, as we’ve now had nearly four years of Trumpism. Spoiler: Things have gotten way worse.
You can read more about it here, but the letter raises ten main points:
1) Donald Trump has gravely damaged America’s role as a world leader.
2) Donald Trump has shown that he is unfit to lead during a national crisis.
3) Donald Trump has solicited foreign influence and undermined confidence in our presidential elections.
4) Donald Trump has aligned himself with dictators and failed to stand up for American values.
5) Donald Trump has disparaged our armed forces, intelligence agencies, and diplomats.
6) Donald Trump has undermined the rule of law.
7) Donald Trump has dishonored the office of the presidency.
8) Donald Trump has divided our nation and preached a dark and pessimistic view of America.
9) Donald Trump has attacked and vilified immigrants to our country.
10) Donald Trump has imperiled America’s security by mismanaging his national security team.
The letter concludes with this: “We are firmly convinced that it is in the best interest of our nation that Vice President Joe Biden be elected as the next President of the United States, and we will vote for him.”
Not everyone who signed the 2016 letter was prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton. Everyone who signed this one has seen enough. They’re voting for Biden.
What’s really interesting is that, among the new signatories, there are people who actually worked for Trump on national security issues. Among them, Miles Taylor, the former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Elizabeth Neumann, formerly the assistant secretary of DHS; John Mitnick, the former general counsel of DHS; and Robert Shanks, formerly the general counsel of the Peace Corps.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
I talked to Taylor about why he signed the letter and he tells me what impressed him is how the signatories really ran the gamut of the National Security professionals:
There’s freedom agenda folks on there. There’s super hardcore realists. There’s the whole group, interventionists, non-interventionist . . . it’s everyone. It represents the national security Conservative establishment and some non establishment types. And so I think it’s very telling that a diverse group would come together and say, “Really, the president’s a danger to our security.” . . . I can’t really think of similar precedent, except maybe when you had so many Scoop Jackson Dems flip sides. So I really do feel like it’s quite unprecedented and it’s a damning, damning indictment of the president’s national security record and deservedly so. And look, Trump denies a lot of things and when something goes bad, he’ll try to always push responsibility off onto a different person. But look, Trump has owned his foreign policy. He has really owned his foreign policy, and he’s been proud to say that he owned his foreign defense policy decisions. So there’s no getting around this. There’s no saying, “Well, the things that they’re blaming Trump for in this letter aren’t necessarily all Trump and he’s had to change out his cabinet. There’s been some bad eggs.” No, Trump’s foreign policy is his own and so this indictment is of him personally and the decisions that he’s made or the decisions he’s failed to make.
Interestingly, Taylor tells me that he and the other former Trump folks found out this letter was going out and offered to sign it—they weren’t recruited. And had there been more lead time, more former Trump people would have signed the letter: “It’s certainly just the tip of an iceberg.”
Taylor has been making the rounds on cable and in print as he was the highest-ranking former Trump official to endorse Joe Biden. He did a video for Republican Voters Against Trump (another project of our sister non-profit, Defending Democracy Together).
But it’s not all just former officials who feel that way, Taylor tells me.
Before I went and did a TV hit, like 30 minutes before I went on, another person in the White House texted me, someone who’s a stone’s throw from the Oval, and basically said ‘You know how I feel and I’m so glad you’re out there doing this. I wish I could be doing the same thing right now.’ And I was like, man, does he not even realize that it’s down the hallway and up the stairs. You’ve got people that feel this way. So that’s telling, it’s not just ex-Trump officials, and of course, that’s what Trump’s going to want to paint it as: disaffected people, disgruntled people who’ve left. No, no, it’s people who come and sit with you at a meeting, Mr. President, and are there with you today.
The calls are coming from inside the house, Mr. President.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the 2020 letter was organized by Eliot Cohen and Bryan McGrath. While both signed the 2020 letter, it was organized by Ken Wainstein and John Bellinger. The article also incorrectly identified Michael Leiter as the former general counsel of DHS, instead of John Mitnick.


thebulwark--2020-08-21--Re-Canonize the Hughes Brothers

Re-Canonize the Hughes Brothers

The New York Times dropped a big piece Thursday morning asking why the Criterion Collection—the boutique Blu-ray/DVD/streaming-service distributor generally accepted by cinephiles as the keepers of an unofficial-yet-powerful cinematic canon—is so lacking in diversity .
“ The Criterion edition of To Sleep With Anger—released less than three years after the meeting with [ Criterion President Peter ] Becker , in 2019—put [ black director Charles ] Burnett in rarefied company , ” Kyle Buchanan and Reggie Ugwu write .
“ He is one of only two living Black Americans to have a feature-length film in the collection , which comprises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 450 directors .
There are just four African-American directors with feature films in the collection overall , or less than 1 percent.
” Now , singling out the Criterion Collection for condemnation here feels a little bit backwards ; after all , it ’ s not the Criterion Collection that has greenlight power nor is it the Criterion Collection that works for talent agencies and other talent incubators .
A boutique Blu-ray company can not magic into existence an army of black filmmakers churning out high-caliber work worthy of canonization .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m naturally a little skeptical about discussions that revolve around diversity for diversity ’ s sake — though , as one of maybe 10 Rotten Tomatoes-certified conservative film critics , I ’ m also pretty open to the suggestion that representation matters if you want to increase the diversity of any given professional sphere .
That said , as I was reading Buchanan and Ugwu ’ s report , my first thought was : “ Finally !
The Hughes Brothers will get the recognition they deserve !
” But it turns out they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past : Menace II Society , their excellent entry in the genre of late- ’ 80s , early- ’ 90s movies about inner city life , was released by Criterion as a laserdisc .
For some reason , it has not made the leap from laserdisc to the next generation of Criterion physical media .
And Albert Hughes sounds none too pleased about it : It ’ s hard to blame Albert for being a little bit salty , as he and his brother have never really gotten their proper critical due .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t want to have anything to do with the Criterion Collection going forward .
But as a big fan of the Hughes Brothers ’ cinematic output , part of me hopes they use this as a way to get the Criterion stamp for some of their underappreciated gems .
Menace II Society is an obvious choice for ( re- ) canonization , given that it was already part of the collection once upon a time .
Given the hard feelings , however , perhaps they could force Peter Becker and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of other classic Hughes flicks as the price of readmission .
The Book of Eli is not the sort of picture one thinks of when one thinks of the Criterion Collection ; it ’ s more “ basic cable classic ” at this point .
But that totally undersells what the Hughes Brothers managed with this stylish action-thriller starring Denzel Washington as a man trying to safely get the last Bible in existence across the country and Gary Oldman as a deranged leader trying to get his mitts on a copy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moody post-apocalyptic color filter masking everything in a grayish haze , Albert and Allen Hughes built a whole world out of an idea : the power and promise—and danger , in the wrong hands—of faith .
Despite being an agnostic myself , I found it all quite moving in addition to being a rousing piece of action cinema .
A more likely film for inclusion is the tremendously underrated Alpha , Albert Hughes ’ s 2018 action-adventure movie about the moment man and dog became inseparable allies in the war to tame nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starkly stylized sort of way , his use of slo-mo and hero shots calling to mind epic tableaus and grand vistas .
And by using an invented ancient language , Hughes forces you to follow the story with your eye rather than your ears : It is pure cinema , visual storytelling that transcends the ages .
Alpha is modern mythmaking of the highest order , a sort of origin story for that good pup who sleeps at your feet every night .
And it ’ s the sort of movie that deserves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extra features and commentary tracks and behind-the-scenes looks at how Hughes managed to pull off some of the amazing shots in this picture .
I ’ d totally watch a full 20 minute featurette about the fictional language invented for the movie .
So if the Criterion Collection is truly serious about diversifying their lineup of canonized directors , they know where to start : with the first domesticated dog and its epic cinematic story .

The New York Times dropped a big piece Thursday morning asking why the Criterion Collection—the boutique Blu-ray/DVD/streaming-service distributor generally accepted by cinephiles as the keepers of an unofficial-yet-powerful cinematic canon—is so lacking in diversity.
“The Criterion edition of To Sleep With Anger—released less than three years after the meeting with [Criterion President Peter] Becker, in 2019—put [black director Charles] Burnett in rarefied company,” Kyle Buchanan and Reggie Ugwu write. “He is one of only two living Black Americans to have a feature-length film in the collection, which comprises more than 1,000 films by more than 450 directors. There are just four African-American directors with feature films in the collection overall, or less than 1 percent.”
Now, singling out the Criterion Collection for condemnation here feels a little bit backwards; after all, it’s not the Criterion Collection that has greenlight power nor is it the Criterion Collection that works for talent agencies and other talent incubators. A boutique Blu-ray company cannot magic into existence an army of black filmmakers churning out high-caliber work worthy of canonization. And, as a right-leaning sort, I’m naturally a little skeptical about discussions that revolve around diversity for diversity’s sake — though, as one of maybe 10 Rotten Tomatoes-certified conservative film critics, I’m also pretty open to the suggestion that representation matters if you want to increase the diversity of any given professional sphere.
That said, as I was reading Buchanan and Ugwu’s report, my first thought was: “Finally! The Hughes Brothers will get the recognition they deserve!” But it turns out they’ve gotten that recognition in the past: Menace II Society, their excellent entry in the genre of late-’80s, early-’90s movies about inner city life, was released by Criterion as a laserdisc. For some reason, it has not made the leap from laserdisc to the next generation of Criterion physical media.
And Albert Hughes sounds none too pleased about it:
For the Hughes brothers, who said that they had been honored to be included in the collection in the 1990s, the damage has already been done. “How dare that be an oversight?” Albert Hughes said. “You should know better.”
It’s hard to blame Albert for being a little bit salty, as he and his brother have never really gotten their proper critical due. And it’s totally understandable if they don’t want to have anything to do with the Criterion Collection going forward.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But as a big fan of the Hughes Brothers’ cinematic output, part of me hopes they use this as a way to get the Criterion stamp for some of their underappreciated gems. Menace II Society is an obvious choice for (re-)canonization, given that it was already part of the collection once upon a time. Given the hard feelings, however, perhaps they could force Peter Becker and the decision-makers at Criterion to include a couple of other classic Hughes flicks as the price of readmission.
The Book of Eli is not the sort of picture one thinks of when one thinks of the Criterion Collection; it’s more “basic cable classic” at this point. But that totally undersells what the Hughes Brothers managed with this stylish action-thriller starring Denzel Washington as a man trying to safely get the last Bible in existence across the country and Gary Oldman as a deranged leader trying to get his mitts on a copy of the good book. Shot with a moody post-apocalyptic color filter masking everything in a grayish haze, Albert and Allen Hughes built a whole world out of an idea: the power and promise—and danger, in the wrong hands—of faith. Despite being an agnostic myself, I found it all quite moving in addition to being a rousing piece of action cinema.
A more likely film for inclusion is the tremendously underrated Alpha, Albert Hughes’s 2018 action-adventure movie about the moment man and dog became inseparable allies in the war to tame nature. Hughes shot the film in a starkly stylized sort of way, his use of slo-mo and hero shots calling to mind epic tableaus and grand vistas. And by using an invented ancient language, Hughes forces you to follow the story with your eye rather than your ears: It is pure cinema, visual storytelling that transcends the ages. Alpha is modern mythmaking of the highest order, a sort of origin story for that good pup who sleeps at your feet every night.
And it’s the sort of movie that deserves a full-on Criterion treatment, with massive extra features and commentary tracks and behind-the-scenes looks at how Hughes managed to pull off some of the amazing shots in this picture. I’d totally watch a full 20 minute featurette about the fictional language invented for the movie.
So if the Criterion Collection is truly serious about diversifying their lineup of canonized directors, they know where to start: with the first domesticated dog and its epic cinematic story.


thebulwark--2020-08-21--We Worried Trump Would Endanger the U.S.

In 2016 , I was one of a group of Republican national security experts that published a statement of concern that Donald Trump would be a danger .
In another effort , many of us pledged that we would not vote for him .
We grieve that his comportment as president has been even more damaging to our country than most of us imagined a Trump presidency could be .
And so , many of us from 2016 , and many who did not sign those public statements but are now alarmed by the president ’ s corruption and malfeasance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
All of us are former national security officials who served in senior jobs during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan , George H.W .
Bush , George W. Bush , and/or Donald Trump .
We include former directors of the CIA , Republican members of Congress , secretaries of defense and of the military services , and ambassadors .
We hope you ’ ll be open to hearing us .
The president ’ s most important obligation is to protect Americans .
In his behavior during this terrible pandemic , President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by not ensuring the federal government coordinated national action to assist , but actively made the pandemic worse by spreading dangerous misinformation and attacking state and local officials .
Many of the deaths that American families are now mourning should weigh on his conscience .
They were preventable by sound administration , which he failed to provide .
America ’ s national security is inseparable from its domestic practice .
Who we are as a political culture is how we act as a state internationally .
And who we are becoming in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump inflames prejudices , inciting political , racial , and ethnic divisions that weaken our nation .
He undermines the rule of law and dangerously labels journalists as enemies of the people .
He solicited—and continues to solicit—foreign influence to assist his election .
He is corroding our institutions of governance and those that protect us .
We describe our concerns in detail in advertisements that will be running in local and national newspapers in the coming days .
But our main point is that we fear for our country if Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have some misgivings about policies a potential Biden presidency would enact .
But we yearn for a return to normalcy—to arguing policies on their merits and within norms of behavior that aren ’ t a danger to the Constitution and the institutions of democracy in America .
For now , we believe it is imperative that we stop Trump ’ s assault on our nation ’ s values and institutions and reinstate the moral foundations of our democracy .
Albert Camus wrote in The Plague that “ All I can say is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are victims—and as far as possible one must refuse to be on the side of the pestilence.
” Please refuse to be on the side of the pestilence .
Please join us in taking seriously the threat that Donald Trump ’ s presidency poses to the security of our country .

In 2016, I was one of a group of Republican national security experts that published a statement of concern that Donald Trump would be a danger. In another effort, many of us pledged that we would not vote for him. We grieve that his comportment as president has been even more damaging to our country than most of us imagined a Trump presidency could be.
And so, many of us from 2016, and many who did not sign those public statements but are now alarmed by the president’s corruption and malfeasance, are banding together to endorse Joe Biden. All of us are former national security officials who served in senior jobs during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump. We include former directors of the CIA, Republican members of Congress, secretaries of defense and of the military services, and ambassadors.
We hope you’ll be open to hearing us.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The president’s most important obligation is to protect Americans. In his behavior during this terrible pandemic, President Trump has not only failed by omission, by not ensuring the federal government coordinated national action to assist, but actively made the pandemic worse by spreading dangerous misinformation and attacking state and local officials. Many of the deaths that American families are now mourning should weigh on his conscience. They were preventable by sound administration, which he failed to provide.
America’s national security is inseparable from its domestic practice. Who we are as a political culture is how we act as a state internationally. And who we are becoming in the Trump era worries us profoundly. Donald Trump inflames prejudices, inciting political, racial, and ethnic divisions that weaken our nation. He undermines the rule of law and dangerously labels journalists as enemies of the people. He solicited—and continues to solicit—foreign influence to assist his election. He is corroding our institutions of governance and those that protect us.
We describe our concerns in detail in advertisements that will be running in local and national newspapers in the coming days. But our main point is that we fear for our country if Donald Trump is re-elected.
All of us have some misgivings about policies a potential Biden presidency would enact. But we yearn for a return to normalcy—to arguing policies on their merits and within norms of behavior that aren’t a danger to the Constitution and the institutions of democracy in America. For now, we believe it is imperative that we stop Trump’s assault on our nation’s values and institutions and reinstate the moral foundations of our democracy.
Albert Camus wrote in The Plague that “All I can say is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims—and as far as possible one must refuse to be on the side of the pestilence.”
Please refuse to be on the side of the pestilence. Please join us in taking seriously the threat that Donald Trump’s presidency poses to the security of our country.


thebulwark--2020-08-22--Protecting the Products of Liberty

Protecting the Products of Liberty

American conservatives can advance the current debate over liberalism ’ s future by better articulating the difference between liberty and the products of liberty .
That is , we must distinguish the concept of liberated individuals from the invaluable institutions that liberated individuals create over time .
Much of today ’ s discontent with liberalism stems from the view that when the state sees its job as freeing people from coercion and enabling them to do as they will , society becomes a collection of atomized , alienated , frustrated , and polarized individuals .
In this view , liberalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and community—the things that can give us happiness , stability , and meaning .
Indeed , if we understand liberalism as the maximization of individual rights , we will focus our attention on unfettering citizens .
We ’ ll judge society ’ s success by the extent to which an individual can say what she wants , own what she wants , do what she wants , and so on .
But that is a flawed “ snapshot ” understanding of liberty .
It looks at the freedom enjoyed by citizens at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , must be understood as rules that set actual living , breathing humans into motion .
In the real world , liberty is free citizens in action over time .
We don ’ t exist in suspended animation , and our societies don ’ t suddenly materialize out of thin air .
Free individuals continuously bump into one another , and from all of those interactions we learn how to build healthy societies .
So liberalism is notable not just for the promises inked on parchment but for the way it establishes conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerge .
A brilliant mind could study the rules of football and never predict that the I formation would end up as a classic arrangement for offensive players before the snap .
That same genius could study the rules of chess and never predict that the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian Defense would become an essential opening .
Only when millions of plays are run from scrimmage , and when billions of games of chess are played , do these sound strategies emerge .
To be clear , those strategies are found nowhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when real people act inside of established parameters time and time and time again that robust solutions are discovered .
A version of this insight is found in game theory .
The rules of the “ prisoner ’ s dilemma ” seem to inevitably lead to a permanently suboptimal result .
But play that game thousands of times in a tournament with other participants , and the unintuitive but optimal “ tit-for-tat ” strategy is revealed .
Such “ iterated ” games show that it is through activity inside of rules over time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succeed inside of those rules .
We can call such strategies “ emergent , ” “ spontaneous , ” “ unplanned , ” or something else .
But we must recognize them for what they are : evolved , experience-based responses to established conditions .
We should understand liberalism itself as an evolved , experienced-based response to the human condition .
Over the course of scores of generations , some societies realized , for instance , the danger of centralizing authority , preventing people from thinking independently , and permitting the state to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , some of these societies fostered the development of concepts like natural rights , governments as protectors of liberty , political equality , the rule of law , and the consent of the governed .
These societies also helped establish concrete rules like separating branches of government , enumerating state powers , and protecting explicit individual rights .
Though some of these ideas and practices preceded Enlightenment-era liberalism , together they help define contemporary liberalism .
But once government was limited and individuals were liberated , the lessons didn ’ t stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bumping into one another .
And from those nearly infinite interactions over time , these societies produced evolved , experienced-based responses to the human condition as it exists inside of the rules of liberalism .
We used our liberty to develop tools for amplifying the strengths and mitigating the dangers of liberated individuals .
These tools should be thought of as the products of liberty .
Many exist outside of government as institutions or “ social formations , ” like traditions , customs , and norms .
For instance , realizing the costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of civility .
Appreciating the need for community despite legal autonomy , they developed a constellation of voluntary and civic associations .
Recognizing the dangers of unregulated behavior , they developed norms of social conduct .
The list goes on : schools , local journalism , courage , soup kitchens , grit , marriage , charity , volunteerism , fables , and so on .
F.A .
Hayek astutely noted that liberal states develop a reverence for such organic institutions , habits , and customs .
“ Paradoxical as it may appear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reason , and Tradition , ” “ it is probably true that a successful free society will always in a large measure be a tradition-bound society.
” But some products of liberty take the form of government—typically local and state—action .
That is , among our liberties is the right to engage in the process of producing democratically legitimate government rules .
As G.K. Chesterton famously wrote , “ The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people.
” Indeed , our Constitution isn ’ t merely a list of individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participatory self-government .
Its Article I creates a democratically elected legislature charged with making laws ; its Article IV guarantees a republican form of government in each state ; its 10th Amendment gives states and their subdivisions the authority to legislate broadly under “ police powers.
” Importantly , the laws that emerge in a democratic republic don ’ t fall from the sky , and they are seldom the result of speculation and reason alone .
Instead , they grow from the traditions and experiences of citizens and their representatives .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formation , theft , vandalism , homelessness , land use , professional licensing , alcohol sales , taxation , gambling , and much more .
If a community reaches a consensus on such a matter , maintains that consensus for long enough , and deems that consensus sufficiently important , the community can codify it .
With both types of products of liberty—the non-governmental and the governmental—it is important they primarily remain local , differentiated , and malleable .
Different geographies will have different heritages and different animating principles .
They will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They will develop different strategies and adjust them over time .
This is America as a community of communities .
So long as their varied products of liberty are small-scale and don ’ t run afoul of clear constitutional and legal prohibitions , they stand as invaluable ways for groups of citizens to learn , deliberate , compromise , and self-govern .
Those on the right should remember that such ideas have been at the heart of American conservatism .
For example , Russell Kirk ’ s ten principles of conservatism include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appreciation of variety among such traditions , and the recognition that such traditions are brought to life and sustained by local democratic action and voluntary association .
We can see , then , that the defense of individual rights is not the only goal of liberalism .
Also important is the preservation of those things we use our liberty to create .
Unfortunately , there are those who claim to respect liberty but have little compunction about undermining its products .
Whether under the banner of progressivism , libertarianism , or something else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meddle with the membership and activities of voluntary associations and overturn state statutes and local ordinances that flow from custom and practical experience .
Generally , they will defend their actions as necessary to protect individual liberty .
But we must recognize how continuously undermining the products of liberty undermines liberalism .
Many modern critics are concerned that liberalism in practice deracinates and disconnects us .
By fetishizing individual autonomy , it is argued , liberalism untethers us from our forebearers and longstanding conventions and breaks the bonds between people today .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , elites substitute progressive sensibilities about immigration , global citizenship , public assistance , social policy , and more .
The upshot is a citizenry that is unmoored and deprived of agency and that then seeks solidarity through other , often unwholesome , means .
Some believe that this is the unavoidable consequence of liberalism : Liberalism in full bloom , with its prioritization of liberty , individualism , and reason , leads ineluctably to the displacement of traditional beliefs , attachments , and ways of life .
That argument is , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That liberalism has too often not accommodated a wide enough array of policies and practices does not that it can not .
Liberalism is not inherently incompatible with traditionalism or small-scale democracy but it can be distorted in ways that make it functionally hostile to traditionalism and small-scale democracy .
To put a finer point on it : Judges , administrators , and other distant authorities who routinely presume to know best make it difficult to reconcile liberalism with a constellation of communities reaching different conclusions about the good life .
Liberalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient humility and those unwilling to show deference to the seasoned , reasoned , stable views of communities , becomes anti-democratic , anti-pluralist , and anti-tradition .
This , we must appreciate , is a key contributor to liberalism ’ s current wobbliness .
Shoring it up will require more modest governing elites .
They should understand that different communities will draw different but similarly legitimate conclusions by following their particular histories , faiths , governing principles , local circumstances , and democratic deliberations .
It is time to recognize that , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the products of liberty—institutions , traditions , associations , norms , ordinances—is essential to the preservation of liberalism .

American conservatives can advance the current debate over liberalism’s future by better articulating the difference between liberty and the products of liberty. That is, we must distinguish the concept of liberated individuals from the invaluable institutions that liberated individuals create over time.
Much of today’s discontent with liberalism stems from the view that when the state sees its job as freeing people from coercion and enabling them to do as they will, society becomes a collection of atomized, alienated, frustrated, and polarized individuals. In this view, liberalism inhibits the good life by preventing solidarity and community—the things that can give us happiness, stability, and meaning. Indeed, if we understand liberalism as the maximization of individual rights, we will focus our attention on unfettering citizens. We’ll judge society’s success by the extent to which an individual can say what she wants, own what she wants, do what she wants, and so on.
But that is a flawed “snapshot” understanding of liberty. It looks at the freedom enjoyed by citizens at a moment in time. Liberty, however, must be understood as rules that set actual living, breathing humans into motion. In the real world, liberty is free citizens in action over time. We don’t exist in suspended animation, and our societies don’t suddenly materialize out of thin air. Free individuals continuously bump into one another, and from all of those interactions we learn how to build healthy societies. So liberalism is notable not just for the promises inked on parchment but for the way it establishes conditions in which unpredictable but socially beneficial institutions emerge.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Products of Liberty
A brilliant mind could study the rules of football and never predict that the I formation would end up as a classic arrangement for offensive players before the snap. That same genius could study the rules of chess and never predict that the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian Defense would become an essential opening. Only when millions of plays are run from scrimmage, and when billions of games of chess are played, do these sound strategies emerge. To be clear, those strategies are found nowhere in the rules. It’s when real people act inside of established parameters time and time and time again that robust solutions are discovered.
A version of this insight is found in game theory. The rules of the “prisoner’s dilemma” seem to inevitably lead to a permanently suboptimal result. But play that game thousands of times in a tournament with other participants, and the unintuitive but optimal “tit-for-tat” strategy is revealed. Such “iterated” games show that it is through activity inside of rules over time that we accumulate the wisdom necessary to succeed inside of those rules. We can call such strategies “emergent,” “spontaneous,” “unplanned,” or something else. But we must recognize them for what they are: evolved, experience-based responses to established conditions.
We should understand liberalism itself as an evolved, experienced-based response to the human condition. Over the course of scores of generations, some societies realized, for instance, the danger of centralizing authority, preventing people from thinking independently, and permitting the state to invade homes and confiscate property. Over time, some of these societies fostered the development of concepts like natural rights, governments as protectors of liberty, political equality, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed. These societies also helped establish concrete rules like separating branches of government, enumerating state powers, and protecting explicit individual rights. Though some of these ideas and practices preceded Enlightenment-era liberalism, together they help define contemporary liberalism.
But once government was limited and individuals were liberated, the lessons didn’t stop. Free societies now had free individuals bumping into one another. And from those nearly infinite interactions over time, these societies produced evolved, experienced-based responses to the human condition as it exists inside of the rules of liberalism. We used our liberty to develop tools for amplifying the strengths and mitigating the dangers of liberated individuals. These tools should be thought of as the products of liberty.
Many exist outside of government as institutions or “social formations,” like traditions, customs, and norms. For instance, realizing the costs of unbridled expression, societies developed rules of civility. Appreciating the need for community despite legal autonomy, they developed a constellation of voluntary and civic associations. Recognizing the dangers of unregulated behavior, they developed norms of social conduct. The list goes on: schools, local journalism, courage, soup kitchens, grit, marriage, charity, volunteerism, fables, and so on. F.A. Hayek astutely noted that liberal states develop a reverence for such organic institutions, habits, and customs. “Paradoxical as it may appear,” he wrote in “Freedom, Reason, and Tradition,” “it is probably true that a successful free society will always in a large measure be a tradition-bound society.”
But some products of liberty take the form of government—typically local and state—action. That is, among our liberties is the right to engage in the process of producing democratically legitimate government rules. As G.K. Chesterton famously wrote, “The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people.” Indeed, our Constitution isn’t merely a list of individual freedoms; it fully intends to cultivate participatory self-government. Its Article I creates a democratically elected legislature charged with making laws; its Article IV guarantees a republican form of government in each state; its 10th Amendment gives states and their subdivisions the authority to legislate broadly under “police powers.”
Importantly, the laws that emerge in a democratic republic don’t fall from the sky, and they are seldom the result of speculation and reason alone. Instead, they grow from the traditions and experiences of citizens and their representatives. People living in liberty learn lessons about family formation, theft, vandalism, homelessness, land use, professional licensing, alcohol sales, taxation, gambling, and much more. If a community reaches a consensus on such a matter, maintains that consensus for long enough, and deems that consensus sufficiently important, the community can codify it.
With both types of products of liberty—the non-governmental and the governmental—it is important they primarily remain local, differentiated, and malleable. Different geographies will have different heritages and different animating principles. They will have different experiences and cope with different challenges. They will develop different strategies and adjust them over time. This is America as a community of communities. So long as their varied products of liberty are small-scale and don’t run afoul of clear constitutional and legal prohibitions, they stand as invaluable ways for groups of citizens to learn, deliberate, compromise, and self-govern. Those on the right should remember that such ideas have been at the heart of American conservatism. For example, Russell Kirk’s ten principles of conservatism include respect for custom and convention, the appreciation of variety among such traditions, and the recognition that such traditions are brought to life and sustained by local democratic action and voluntary association.
We can see, then, that the defense of individual rights is not the only goal of liberalism. Also important is the preservation of those things we use our liberty to create.
Elitism vs. Liberty’s Products
Unfortunately, there are those who claim to respect liberty but have little compunction about undermining its products. Whether under the banner of progressivism, libertarianism, or something else, they would, for instance, meddle with the membership and activities of voluntary associations and overturn state statutes and local ordinances that flow from custom and practical experience. Generally, they will defend their actions as necessary to protect individual liberty. But we must recognize how continuously undermining the products of liberty undermines liberalism.
Many modern critics are concerned that liberalism in practice deracinates and disconnects us. By fetishizing individual autonomy, it is argued, liberalism untethers us from our forebearers and longstanding conventions and breaks the bonds between people today. In the place of such beliefs and affiliations, elites substitute progressive sensibilities about immigration, global citizenship, public assistance, social policy, and more. The upshot is a citizenry that is unmoored and deprived of agency and that then seeks solidarity through other, often unwholesome, means.
Some believe that this is the unavoidable consequence of liberalism: Liberalism in full bloom, with its prioritization of liberty, individualism, and reason, leads ineluctably to the displacement of traditional beliefs, attachments, and ways of life. That argument is, however, too deterministic in my opinion. That liberalism has too often not accommodated a wide enough array of policies and practices does not that it cannot. Liberalism is not inherently incompatible with traditionalism or small-scale democracy but it can be distorted in ways that make it functionally hostile to traditionalism and small-scale democracy. To put a finer point on it: Judges, administrators, and other distant authorities who routinely presume to know best make it difficult to reconcile liberalism with a constellation of communities reaching different conclusions about the good life.
Liberalism, when led and managed by those lacking sufficient humility and those unwilling to show deference to the seasoned, reasoned, stable views of communities, becomes anti-democratic, anti-pluralist, and anti-tradition. This, we must appreciate, is a key contributor to liberalism’s current wobbliness. Shoring it up will require more modest governing elites. They should understand that different communities will draw different but similarly legitimate conclusions by following their particular histories, faiths, governing principles, local circumstances, and democratic deliberations.
It is time to recognize that, in our diverse, continental republic, protecting the products of liberty—institutions, traditions, associations, norms, ordinances—is essential to the preservation of liberalism.