America, Land of the Free and Home of the Individual
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Much as hope that this is the case, I fear that it’s wishful thinking. The gun control fiasco was pure political theater, nothing more. Meanwhile, Fox reports this morning that a bipartisan group of our so-called “representatives” is insisting that the Army take $375 million of tanks which it doesn’t want. That’s five times the amount of the FAA sequester! Congress is an embarrassment!

  • ““liberaltarianism,” a kind of emerging cultural and political consensus that joins the right and the left together around a kind “a highly individualistic view of our social and cultural fabric, and government’s role therein, with a statist understanding of government’s role in providing economic security.”

    Economic security? Maybe “cosmopolitan liberaltrarianism” would be a better phrase. For the policies these new liberalatarians have foisted upon the country (trade, immigration) take away the economic security of most Americans, the poorest and most vulnerable above all.”

    This is not consent of the governed. It is the manufactured consent of our governing elites, who profit at everyone else’s expense.

    Maybe it’s time for a new American revolution? Advocating violent overthrow of the government — a constitutional right enshrined in the Declaration of Independence no less — might be the only thing that will get their attention.

    • Marty Keller

      A further question: how long can this neo-socialist binge be maintained? As Glenn Reynolds frequently notes, that which cannot go on forever won’t.

  • Anthony

    “…a highly individualistic view of our social and cultural fabric, and government’s role therein…. Most everything in American politics can be understood as either an outgrowth of or a reaction to our country’s growing individualism.”
    Now, WRM is this an evolving advantage to our nation? That is, does said social movement enhance or detract from much needed social capital (social trust) in pluralistic country? To paraphrase Adam Garfinkle, what reciprocal standards and expectations of conduct can we anticipate from “highly individualistic view” (are we allies in common or individuals stretching contours of libertarianism)?

    • Right, it may be possible for a society to be too individualistic for its own good. It may not may not be able to defend itself from internal forces of subversion. See here for the theory:

      • Here’s a nice quote:

        ““Over the past half century, a number of theories have been formulated to explain the different levels of democracy found in the nations of the world. As conceived here, democracy refers to a system in which there is opportunity for competitive elections and deliberative referendums, with broad public participation encouraged for both (Vanhanen, 2003). Democracy in this instance refers exclusively to the liberal variety where the emphasis is on competitive politics, rather than the classical type in which the focus is on consensus building and statesmanship (Werlin, 2002). Two key characteristics of liberal democratic systems include the presence of institutions that permit citizens to express preferences for alternative policies and leaders, and the existence of institutionalized constraints that prevent the misuse of power by an executive elite (Inglehart, 2003; Lipset, 1959; Marshall & Jaggers, 2010).”

      • Anthony

        Thanks for the information.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.