Good points, Carl. The connection to managerial progressivism is an important one to make, and it can get lost as we focus on the chaos inspired by progressive activists. But it's right there in the theory though; Woodrow Wilson, and first discussed in our Claremont circles by John Marini. Conservative thinkers need to continue to make Marini's connections, and not just leave those to our lawyers and Originalist Justices working on it. Dr Fauci and our liberty-squeazing COVID managers are the ones who come to mind most these days, but we professors shouldn't forget about the managerial progressives in our own field- the accreditation/assessment industrial complex.
There's of course also a place for the managerial class in the deeper Marxist theory you reference, "intersectionality." I have heard several communists complain that the bureaucracy "ruined" their pure communism, but central planning and the managers are an unavoidable corollary of their own utopian theory. Once private property is abolished, and the proletariat seizes the means of production, and it isn't instantly paradise on earth- you have to bring in those managers.
P.S.- Here's a recent debate that Josh Hawley participated in with Fed Soc. I agree that his conservativism is a way forward, as opposed to a dead end that I see in Melnick
re the video--"Feddie fight nights," for Fed Society nerds! Love it! (And it features Josh Hammer, not Senator Hawley.) He's up against the Whelan guy who does NRO's bench memos, so he's bound to lose up against that level of life-long con-law expertise, but I'll check it out.
Great video! Both in top form, and Hammer knows more about con-law issues than I had anticipated. He also gives us lots of fresh tid-bits of ideas and phrasings, including some relevant dirt on scholarly libertarians, but I think that Whelan clearly wins the overall debate. Strongly agree with him that "Roberts-is-the-new-Souter" talk is unhinged, and that the whole rhetorical trope of a "conservative legal movement that has failed" is grossly unfair/ingrate. It kind of imports young-Trumpian-CRB-type rhetoric that does make sense in other areas of political struggle into the judicial area, where it doesn't quite work. On the main issue, Whelan shows that it is unclear how Hammer's Common Good Originalism is distinct from the Mainstem of it--I see more the landscape of intra-originalism disputes on distinct topics--such as on libel issues, on 4th-amendment issues, etc., than I do a whole divide opening up b/t the CGers and the OOers ("Original Originalists").
Marini's original book on it came out in '92- "The Politics Of Budget Control: Congress, The Presidency And Growth Of The Administrative State." He was way ahead of the curve with that one. The new book on it, reviewed by Titus here, is "Unmasking the Administrative State":
Dunno how I missed that Titus piece. A very good review, and I particularly liked this very Lawlerian passage: "We might have progressives with us always, but the authority of the power they’ve built into the administrative state could be destroyed quickly. Chance, simple bad luck, itself is helpful to the opponents of progressives, if we only take our chances and spread the good news that the administrative state is illegitimate and has failed. "
Well said, Carl! Looking forward to part 2 before we make the comparison, but like you, I wonder whether we're stuck in a situation where those who know how gov't works & those who understand it's not working for the common good are becoming enemies, or at any rate, have nothing in common...
Like Chris cays--we need to keep our eyes on the necessarily oligarchic implications of rational gov't, as well as the tyrannical character of that claim to rule by scientific expertise. I worry that some of our anger at the woke lead us to forget, the woke are not the oligarchy! (to wit, it's just now in the papers that 100 of the nations CEOs, executives, &c., got together on Zoom to conspire against the laws of states like Georgia, Texas, &c.)
Good points, Carl. The connection to managerial progressivism is an important one to make, and it can get lost as we focus on the chaos inspired by progressive activists. But it's right there in the theory though; Woodrow Wilson, and first discussed in our Claremont circles by John Marini. Conservative thinkers need to continue to make Marini's connections, and not just leave those to our lawyers and Originalist Justices working on it. Dr Fauci and our liberty-squeazing COVID managers are the ones who come to mind most these days, but we professors shouldn't forget about the managerial progressives in our own field- the accreditation/assessment industrial complex.
There's of course also a place for the managerial class in the deeper Marxist theory you reference, "intersectionality." I have heard several communists complain that the bureaucracy "ruined" their pure communism, but central planning and the managers are an unavoidable corollary of their own utopian theory. Once private property is abolished, and the proletariat seizes the means of production, and it isn't instantly paradise on earth- you have to bring in those managers.
P.S.- Here's a recent debate that Josh Hawley participated in with Fed Soc. I agree that his conservativism is a way forward, as opposed to a dead end that I see in Melnick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD-8QfrfO00
re the video--"Feddie fight nights," for Fed Society nerds! Love it! (And it features Josh Hammer, not Senator Hawley.) He's up against the Whelan guy who does NRO's bench memos, so he's bound to lose up against that level of life-long con-law expertise, but I'll check it out.
Great video! Both in top form, and Hammer knows more about con-law issues than I had anticipated. He also gives us lots of fresh tid-bits of ideas and phrasings, including some relevant dirt on scholarly libertarians, but I think that Whelan clearly wins the overall debate. Strongly agree with him that "Roberts-is-the-new-Souter" talk is unhinged, and that the whole rhetorical trope of a "conservative legal movement that has failed" is grossly unfair/ingrate. It kind of imports young-Trumpian-CRB-type rhetoric that does make sense in other areas of political struggle into the judicial area, where it doesn't quite work. On the main issue, Whelan shows that it is unclear how Hammer's Common Good Originalism is distinct from the Mainstem of it--I see more the landscape of intra-originalism disputes on distinct topics--such as on libel issues, on 4th-amendment issues, etc., than I do a whole divide opening up b/t the CGers and the OOers ("Original Originalists").
What Marini pieces or books on managerial progressivism would you recommend?
Marini's original book on it came out in '92- "The Politics Of Budget Control: Congress, The Presidency And Growth Of The Administrative State." He was way ahead of the curve with that one. The new book on it, reviewed by Titus here, is "Unmasking the Administrative State":
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/john-marini-unmasking-the-administrative-state-populism-progressivism/
Dunno how I missed that Titus piece. A very good review, and I particularly liked this very Lawlerian passage: "We might have progressives with us always, but the authority of the power they’ve built into the administrative state could be destroyed quickly. Chance, simple bad luck, itself is helpful to the opponents of progressives, if we only take our chances and spread the good news that the administrative state is illegitimate and has failed. "
A less elevated version of the sentiment would be: Progs, don't piss down my leg & tell me it's raining!
Well said, Carl! Looking forward to part 2 before we make the comparison, but like you, I wonder whether we're stuck in a situation where those who know how gov't works & those who understand it's not working for the common good are becoming enemies, or at any rate, have nothing in common...
Like Chris cays--we need to keep our eyes on the necessarily oligarchic implications of rational gov't, as well as the tyrannical character of that claim to rule by scientific expertise. I worry that some of our anger at the woke lead us to forget, the woke are not the oligarchy! (to wit, it's just now in the papers that 100 of the nations CEOs, executives, &c., got together on Zoom to conspire against the laws of states like Georgia, Texas, &c.)