On his Gray Mirror Substack, Curtis Yarvin is proposing that the only way forward is the singularity of a democratically elected president who, for the time being, acts as an absolute monarch.
And the Z-man is talking about the fantasy of a two-party political system.
In reality, America is a one party system. It has been since Gettysburg. The differences between the two parties are miniscule. This is why public policy never changes when the party in charge changes. The mild reforms of the Reagan years were followed by a consensus that remains in place to this day. There is some tinkering around the edges to keep up appearances, but otherwise the results of each election have no impact on public policy or the priorities of government.
But why? Why didn't Ronald Reagan cut spending? Why didn't the Supreme Court vote down the unconstitutional Obamacare, and why didn't the Republican Congress of 2017-18 repeal Obamacare?
The answer, of course, is Chantrill's Law, that you cannot repeal a government program. Why? Because every program is some grant of loot and plunder to somebody's political supporters.
Reform Social Security? Even though you might lay out how it will benefit everyone, present beneficiaries are going to suspect that there's a catch, and whatabout their checks.
Reform education? There are millions of folks working in the current system and any change threatens their paychecks. And they have unions breathing down the necks of the politicians.
And so on. This means there is no prospect of "change" until everything is so screwed up that people are ready to give up their share of the loot in return for the promise of a strong leader to lead them to safety.
The story of Hitler demonstrates this. In the years from 1871-1914 Germans were eager to become the equal -- or better -- of the nations of Europe, full of plans to expand the boundaries and create an empire. The disaster of 1918 was a bolt from the blue, utterly unthinkable. And then it got worse, with hyperinflation as the German government failed to balance its books. Then, of course, came the crash of 1929 and things got worse again. What do you expect the Germans, or any people, to do when disaster strikes like that? What any people does in this situation is: it elects a strong leader. It forgets all the privileges and carve-outs and benefits, because they are all Gone with the Wind already. They just want to be saved from disaster.
Will that disaster happen here? Really, my guess is that it won't. Again, Germany's experience is telling. The US has not lost a world war, and been utterly humiliated by the victors. We still have the world's default currency, and that won't change for a decade or two. The Democrats' vote-bank is likely to suffer in the years ahead as Hispanics seem to be moving into the middle class and voting like it.
But in the long run, I'd say, the current system, whether the dysfunctional Uniparty of the Zman's analysis or the dysfunctional oligarchy of Yarvin's analysis, cannot say No. It cannot say to the beneficiaries of the government's 36 percent share of GDP, sorry, but you are going to have to take a cut. It dare not. And so the system will collapse, and people will demand a strong leader.
In the short term we could well see a replay of the 1970s where the ineffectual "stagflation" of the Carter years led to the election of the "amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan. One thing about Ronald Reagan: he may not have reduced spending but he stopped it increasing. I suspect that the spending plans of the Biden administration, that are simply distribution of loot and plunder to lefty interest groups, will inspire a reaction similar to the Reagan revolution.
In the long run, I think we humans have an existential challenge. The story of all previous human government has been dividing and/or conquering and divvying up the loot among the supporters. I suggest that this age-old human culture has reached an end. In the old days "to the victor the spoils" actually worked for the victor -- even though it meant death and destruction to the loser.
But I think that in the industrial and post-industrial era, the victor of a military struggle or a political struggle hurts himself if he resorts to loot and plunder. That's because the real source of wealth today is not gold or oil or broad rich acres but the "intangible capital" inside peoples' heads. The victors get richer by putting the losers back to profitable work rather than plundering them of everything they own.
But I expect it will take a thousand years for humans to change society to reflect this truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment