Brownstone Institute
The Post-Ideological Age
Fr0m the Brownstone Institute
Conventional wisdom has it that the US and much of the Western world has polarized into right and left. These tribes are hard-core and share mutual loathing. That model of understanding pervades all popular media and consumes the culture, such that everyone feels the need to choose. It’s simple, harkens back to Cold War binaries, drums up media attention, and further divides the population in ways that benefit the leaders of both sides.
The reality underneath the surface is otherwise. The old ideologies are fractured and most serious people are trying to piece together something other than the old frameworks. The turning was slow at first, probably beginning at the end of the Cold War, but culminated in the response to the Covid crisis. Despite the claim, left and right have never been more scrambled. The reassembling is also occurring right now but it looks much more like the ruling class vs everyone else.
The Covid policy response confounded every ideological outlook. For the center-left that had always trusted public health, seeing the principles of 100 years shredded in an instant was a shock. For the center-right, to see the Republicans in power acquiesce to the idea of “shutting down the economy” was truly hard to believe. The concerns of the traditional civil libertarians, including free speech, were trampled. Those who had traditionally rallied around the rights and interests of business big and small watched with horror as Big Business joined the lockdown armies and small businesses were crushed. The believers in science as a standard of truth to rise above it all were astonished to see every journal and every association compromised by state priorities.
As for nearly everyone who believed that we still lived in a representative democracy, in which elected leaders held the power, they were astonished to watch as politicians became fearful and powerless over the many layers of entrenched bureaucratic experts in government, the deepest layers of which seem to be taking charge over traditional civilian agencies. The people who had always regarded pharma as constantly foiled by the FDA watched in amazement as these vaccine-wielding powerhouses called the shots over all approval processes.
As the dissidents began to cut through the censorship that was almost immediate in the spring of 2020, we discovered a fascinating thing. Our traditional allies were not with us. I’ve heard this from the right, left, and libertarians all. Whether in academia or media, no one was speaking out in ways we might have expected. As Naomi Wolf put it in a private seminar, in words that shocked me at the time, “all our past alliances, institutions, and networks have collapsed.”
There was something about the excuse for the imposition of sudden despotism that seemed to confound all the main voices on all sides. That was a clue that something was very wrong, and it was more than betrayal. It was a sign that we had profoundly misunderstood the intellectual lay of the land.
One might have supposed that church leaders would protest the closing of houses of worship. For the most part, they did not. It was the same with old-line civil liberties organizations. They fell silent. The Libertarian Party had nothing to say and neither did most libertarian think tanks; even now the party’s standard bearer was fully in with the lockdown program when it mattered. The left fell in line and so did the right. Indeed, major “conservative” outlets weighed in on behalf of lockdowns and vaccine mandates – same as the traditional “liberal” outlets.
And what did the dissidents have in common? They were concerned with evidence, science, calm, and traditional law and liberty. Crucially, they were in a career position to say something about the problem. That is to say, most of the dissidents were not in a position of dependency on the major systems of power and influence, whether in the nonprofit world, academia, Big Media and Tech, and otherwise. They spoke out because they cared and because they were in a position to do so.
Gradually over the months and years, we have found each other. And what have we found? We’ve discovered that people who were seemingly on different sides solely due to branding of the past had far more in common than we thought.
And as a result, and partly because we were now in a position to trust each other more than we might otherwise, we began to listen to each other. More importantly, we have begun to learn from each other, discovering all the ways in which our previous tribal connections had blinded us to realities that we had right before us the whole time but we simply could not see.
As an example, many on the left who had long defended the rise of government power as a check on the depredations of private business were amazed to see these very powers turned against the classes of people whose interests they had long defended, namely the poor and working classes. If nothing else, the pandemic response was a prime example of class exploitation of the people on behalf of the economic, cultural, and political elites.
Conversely, those of us who had long championed the rights of business were forced to look squarely at the reality that the largest corporations, heavily consolidated after decades of loose credit, were working so closely with government as if there really was no difference between the public and private sector. Indeed it was hard to tell the difference.
Those who had long championed the rights of media against elite attacks discovered that there really was very little difference between mainstream corporate media and government public relations departments, who in turn were carrying water for the most powerful corporations that stood to gain trillions from the whole caper.
Watching all this unfold in real time was an astonishing experience. Above all else, it was intellectually disorienting. And so those of us who care about holding an accurate understanding of the world had to regroup, draw on what we knew to be true which was confirmed but rethinking postulates and dogmas we assumed to be true but which turned out to be false in the emergency.
Yes, these days have ended, at least for now, but they leave a vast carnage of old ideological systems in the dustbin of history. Part of the job of Brownstone Institute, and perhaps even our main job, is to figure out the operations of the world in a realistic way, backed by evidence and the best theory, toward finding our way back to the fundamental principles that have built civilization over the centuries. That goal is inseparable from the very idea of rights, and public institutions that are responsive to the people.
What we have learned is that our ideological system not only didn’t protect us; they could not even fully explain the strange realities that unfolded.
Everyone in the dissident community agrees fully with the main theme of The Lord of the Rings: power is the great killer of the human spirit. Our job is to figure out who has that power, how to dismantle it, and the right path to preventing something like this from ever happening again. And by “something like this,” we mean everything: the exploitation, the restrictions on peaceful behavior, the agency capture and corporate aggression, the censorship and betrayal of the promise of the information age, the crushing of property rights and enterprise, and the violation of bodily autonomy.
In our quieter moments, all of us are wondering how we could have been so confused about the ideological bifurcations of the past. Why were we so entrenched in them? And to what extent did those ideologies create an artificial veneer over the growing problems underneath the binary overlay? This was surely the case and it went on for decades.
We think back now on populist movements of the past and see how many of them, whether ostensibly from the right or left, ultimately came from the same place, the perception that the system was being run by something or someone other than is being advertised. The Occupy Wall Street movement ultimately came from the same instincts as the Truckers Revolt in Canada that came some twelve years later, and yet one is called left and one is called right.
It is impossible to separate the BLM protests and sometimes riots from reaction against being locked up for the better part of two months from a virus that was known to be a threat mainly to the aged and infirm. That unleashed predictable anger that was often deeply destructive. And the shock and outrage at the vaccine and mask mandates stemmed from the same basic impulse: the human desire not to live in cages of someone else’s creation but rather be in charge of our own bodies and lives.
It’s the same with the anti-censorship movements today, and the growing nationalist movements around the world that wonder whether or not nation-states even have authority anymore to control the massive and hegemonic global forces that seem to be pulling the strings behind the scenes.
All these shifts in the firmament of opinion and politics come from the same place: the desire to take back control of our lives.
This means many things. It includes causes that many on the right have neglected: food freedom, medical freedom, corporate consolidation, the rise of the corporate state, private-sector censorship pushed by agency outsourcing, the militarization of civilian agencies, and deep-state power. And the same is true for the honest left, newly aware of the corruption of government, the rights of religious freedom and free enterprise, the evils of central banking and financial surveillance, and far more.
Looking back, much more makes sense. Consider the domestic discontent in the US that culminated in the implausible election of Donald Trump in 2016, an event that confounded the elite classes in media, government, tech, and pharma. Trump stood in symbolic opposition to it all and took some minor steps toward rolling back the empire at home and abroad. He was joined in this effort by political trends in the UK (with Brexit) and Brazil (with the rise of Bolsonaro). A new flavor of populism seemed to be on the rise.
There were many attempts to crush it here and abroad, starting far back but intensifying after 2016. The culminating moment was the Covid regime which was global in scope and involved a “whole of society” approach as if to say: we and not you are in charge. Look what we can achieve! Observe how little you really matter in the scheme of things! You thought the system worked for you but it is designed and run by us!
Is this sustainable? It is highly doubtful, at least not in the long term. What is desperately needed now is a paradigm of understanding that transcends the tribal alliances of the past. It really is the ruling elite vs. everyone else, an outlook that blows apart ideological divisions of the past and cries out for a new comprehension of the present moment, not to mention new plans of action. And this remains true regardless of the outcome of the election in November.
In the language of Thomas Kuhn, our times have seen the decisive collapse of old paradigms. They have fallen under the weight of too many anomalies. We have already entered into the pre-paradigmatic stage that seeks a new and more evidence-based orthodoxy of understanding. The only way we can get there is to enter into and enjoy the clash of ideas, in a spirit of freedom and learning. If nothing else, these are exciting times to be alive and active, an opportunity for all of us to make a difference for the future.
If you are interested in supporting the work of Brownstone Institute – the fellowships, events, books, retreats, and ongoing journalism and research – we invite you to do so. Unlike so many others, we have no government or corporate backing and depend entirely on your willingness to help. This is how we save intellectual integrity and how we save the world.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
There is a lack of public comment and debate about Kamala Harris’s call for price controls on groceries and rents, the most stunning and frightening policy proposal made in my lifetime.
Immediately, of course, people will reply that she is not for price controls as such. It is only a limit on “gouging” (which she variously calls “gauging”) on grocery prices. As for rents, it’s only for larger-scale corporations with many units.
This is nonsense. If there really are national price-gouging police running around, every single seller of groceries, from small convenience stores to farmers’ markets to chain stores, will be vulnerable. No one wants the investigation so they will comply with de facto controls. No one knows for sure what gouging is.
Don Boudreaux is correct: “A government that threatens to punish merchants for selling at nominal prices higher than deemed appropriate by government clearly intends to control prices. It’s no surprise, therefore, that economists routinely analyze prohibitions against so-called ‘price gouging’ using exactly the same tools they use to analyze other forms of price controls.”
As for rental units, the only result will be fewer amenities, new charges, new fees for what used to be free, less service, and a dramatically reduced incentive to build new units. That will only lead to a pretext for more subsidies, more public housing, and more government provision generally. We have experience with that and it is not good.
The next step is nationalizing housing and rationing of groceries because there will be ever fewer available.
The more the betting odds favor Kamala, the stronger the incentive to raise prices as high as possible now in anticipation of price controls come next year. That will provide even more seeming evidence for the need for more controls and a genuine crackdown.
Price controls lead to shortages of anything they touch, especially in inflationary times. With the Federal Reserve seemingly on the verge of cutting rates for no good reason – rates are very low in real terms by any historical standard – we might see wave two of inflation later next year.
Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute
Here are real interest rates historically considered as they stand. Do you see a case here for lowering them?
Next time, however, merchants will not be in a position to respond rationally. Instead, they will confront federal price investigators and prosecutors.
Kamala is wrong that this will be the “first-ever” ban on price gouging. We had that in World War II, along with rationing tickets on meat, animal fats, foil, sugar, flour, foil, coffee, and more. It was a time of extreme austerity, and people put up with it because they believed it was saving resources for the war effort. It was enforced the same as we saw with covid lockdowns: a huge network enlisting state and local institutions, media, and private zealots ready to rat out the rebels.
Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8875 on August 28, 1941. It claimed broad powers to manage all production and consumption in the US. On January 30, 1942, the Emergency Price Control Act granted the Office of Price Administration (OPA) the authority to set price limits and ration food and other commodities. Products were added as shortages intensified.
And yes, all of this was heavily enforced.
In case you are doing the math, that’s a $200,000 fine today for noncompliance. In other words, this was very serious and highly coercive.
Technology limited enforcement, however, and black markets sprung up everywhere. The so-called Meatleggers were the most famous and most demonized by government propaganda.
What happens when the government restricts meat consumption?
During World War II, food rationing led to significant changes in consumption habits in the United States.
Adults and children over 12 were limited to 2 lbs of meat per week, which was monitored through rationing… pic.twitter.com/goCU1FGMnD
— Meat Head (@markeatsmeat) February 20, 2024
In a nation with more agriculture in demographic proximity, people relied on local farmers and various methods of bartering goods and services.
Years went by and somehow people got through it but production for civilian purposes came to a near standstill. The GDP for the period looked like growth but the reality was a continuation and intensification of the Great Depression that began more than a decade earlier.
There are fewer people alive now that recall these days but I’ve known some. They adopted habits of extreme conservation. I once had a neighbor who simply could not bear to throw away tin-foil pie pans because she had lived through rationing. After she died, her kids discovered her vast collection and it shocked them. She was not crazy, just traumatized.
How would such a thing transpire today? Look at the program SNAP, the new name for food stamps. For those who qualify, the money goes into a special account managed by the federal government. The recipient is sent an EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card, which is used like a credit card in stores. It costs taxpayers some $114 billion a year, and works out as a huge subsidy to Big Agriculture, which is why the program is administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Transitioning that program to the general population would not be difficult. It would be a simple matter of expansion of eligibility. As shortages grow, so too could the program until the entire population would be on it and it would be mandatory. It could also be converted into a mobile app instead of a piece of plastic as a fraud-prevention measure. With everyone carrying cell phones, this would be an easy step.
And where could people spend the money? Only at participating institutions. Would non-participation institutions be entitled to sell food, for example, at local farmers’ co-ops? Maybe at first but that’s before the media demonization campaigns come along to decry the rich who are eating more than their fair share and the sellers who are exploiting the national emergency.
You can sell how this all unfolds, and none of it is implausible. Only a few years ago, governments around the country canceled gatherings for religious holidays, limited the numbers of people who could gather in homes, and banned public weddings and funerals. If they can do that, they can do anything, including the rationing of all food.
The program that Harris has proposed is not like other matters that she has flip-flopped on. She is serious and repeats it. She spoke about it even during the debate with Trump but there was no followup or critique of the scheme offered. Nor does such a crazy plan require some legislation and a vote by Congress. It could come in the form of an executive order. Yes, it would be tested by the Supreme Court but, if recent history holds, the program would be long in effect before the Court weighed in. Nor is it clear how it would rule.
The Supreme Court in 1942 heard the case of Albert Yakus, a Boston-based meat seller who was criminally prosecuted for violating the wholesale beef price ceiling. In Yakus vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled for the government and against the meat-selling criminal. That’s the existing precedent.
Nor does all this have to unfold immediately following the inauguration. It can happen as matters become ever worse following anti-gouging edicts and when inflation worsens. After all, a presidency that believes in central planning and forced economic austerity would last a full four years, and the coercion could grow month after month until we have comprehensively enforced deprivation by the end, and no one remembers what it was like to buy groceries at market prices with their own money.
I wish I could say that this is an outlandish and fear-mongering warning. It is not. It is a very realistic scenario based on repeated statements and promises plus the recent history of government management of the population. There is likely another wave of inflation coming. This time it will meet with a promise to use every coercive power of government to prevent increases in prices on groceries and rents.
What if voters actually understood this? What then?
Keep in mind the main legacy of the Covid years: governments learned the fullness of what they could do under the right circumstances. That’s the worst possible lesson but that is what has stuck. The implications for the future are grim.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
Accountability for those responsible for the disasters of global governments’ handling of the Covid-19 pandemic is nearly impossible. For several reasons.
Namely, that accountability would have to come from those currently in government. Many, if not most, of whom supported the mask mandates, vaccine passports, and other absurdities inflicted on the global public. It would also require those responsible to actually acknowledge their mistakes, then take responsibility for them. How often do we see politicians or influential public figures admit that they were wrong?
Especially when the consequences were, and are, so severe.
It’s refreshing when we see the rare blissful examples of people in charge, those who will influence decisions, admitting that mistakes were made. That absurd policies with no basis in science were forced on the public. And apologize for their role in it.
Former Australian Premier Admits Vaccine Mandates Were Wrong
Dominic Perrottet is the former premier in New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state and home to Sydney. Australia, infamously, was one of the most prolific spreaders of Covid misinformation during the pandemic, while also being home to some of the world’s most restrictive policies and mandates.
While Daniel Andrews from the state of Victoria often receives most of the criticism, and rightfully so, for his extremism during the pandemic, New South Wales was nearly as restrictive.
The state under Gladys Berejiklian banned gatherings of 500 people or more in March, with the order enforced by state police with punishment including prison time, fines, or both. They closed their borders, even to other Australians, from July 8th, 2020 to November 2020, then again from January 2021 to the middle of February 2021. Even after the borders opened, visitors returning to the state from Victoria were forced to quarantine.
NSW made QR code check-ins mandatory in 2021 for “contact tracing,” a laughable, futile attempt to track a highly infectious respiratory virus. Retail stores, taxis, offices, and many other locations required individuals to scan a QR code upon entry.
In March 2020 they also made it illegal for more than two people to gather at a time, as well as banning people from leaving their own homes without a “reasonable excuse.” That’s not an exaggeration; the law quite literally states “that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, leave the person’s place of residence.”
Masks were mandated, including at outdoor events, well past 2021 and into 2022. In fact, as late as August 2021 NSW enforced curfews from 9 pm to 5 am and made masks mandatory anytime someone left their home. In late September, some restrictions were relaxed, allowing residents to create a 3-person “friend bubble” where leisure activities were permitted.
By October, the state reached an 80% full vaccination rate, allowing for the vaccinated to regain a small measure of freedom.
As with the rest of Australia, none of it worked. Lockdowns, mandates, an 80% vaccination rate, restrictions on the unvaccinated — none of it mattered.
Even more hilariously, New South Wales’ vaccine passport system came into effect directly before the state saw its highest rate of Covid spread during the pandemic.
And Perrottet, who presided over the period of vaccine mandates, passports, and unrestrained Covid spread from 2021 into 2023, has now admitted that he and the state were wrong.
“If the impact of vaccines on transmission was limited at best, as is now mostly accepted, the law should have left more room for respect of freedom,” Perrottet said in a recent speech, according to ABC Australia.
“Vaccines saved lives, but ultimately, mandates were wrong. People’s personal choices shouldn’t have cost them their jobs.”
“When I became premier, we removed [vaccine mandates] or the ones we actually could, but this should have happened faster,” he told the legislative assembly this week.
“If a pandemic comes again, we need to get a better balance encouraging people to take action whilst at the same time protecting people’s fundamental liberty.”
This isn’t nearly enough, but it’s still startling to see someone from one of the world’s most authoritarian Covid countries admit that their policies were ineffective and harmful, as well as being an infringement on fundamental liberties.
For perspective, has Joe Biden or Kamala Harris admitted that their illegal vaccine mandate was a mistake? That it was a mistake to bar unvaccinated visitors like Novak Djokovic from entering the country based on misinformation from Dr. Fauci?
Has the CDC acknowledged that their recommendations were arguably wrong, that their claims of vaccine efficacy against infection or transmission were a world-altering, historic failure? What about the media and their role in promoting that misinformation? Have they apologized?
Of course not. Politicians and their media partners don’t acknowledge mistakes; they don’t take responsibility for their actions. Especially when their actions have disastrous consequences. The only way these policies ever permanently end is if more people in positions of power such as Perrottet admit they were wrong.
Fauci, Biden, and Harris never have, and never will. This raises the disturbing thought that they’d easily reimpose those same restrictions again if given the opportunity.
It’s reassuring to see at least one prominent politician admit they were wrong. But there should be more.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Premier: Stop sending asylum claimants to Alberta!
Police seize more than 66 kg of illicit drugs in interprovincial trafficking investigation
They Were Who We Thought They Were. And Trump Let Them Off The Hook
Big Pharma’s Rap Sheet
Kamala Harris Is Full On Hiding Her Climate Agenda From Voters
$40 million weekly cash shipments from US are stabilizing Afghanistan’s Taliban government
Singh must push Trudeau to scrap the carbon tax
-
Daily Caller2 days agoBiden Admin Touts Reduction In Border Crossings While Flying In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Migrants
-
Economy1 day agoScrap the second carbon tax: Taxpayers Federation
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoElon Musk slams woke Los Angeles Times for questioning ‘morality’ of having children
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoiPhone Now Collects Your Mental Health Data
-
Economy2 days agoIf Canadian families spent and borrowed like the federal government, they would be $427,759 in debt
-
Addictions22 hours agoWATCH: “Government Heroin” documentary exposes safer supply scandal in London, Ontario
-
espionage21 hours agoChronic Counter-terrorism Lapses at the Border
-
Red Deer2 days agoRed Deer Advocate will print just twice a week starting next month