Well written and educational (for me). Strong arguments across. I also will say that I continue to be impressed with Oren’s self-control. His arguments are stronger when he writes like he does today—objectively and calmly (to be sure, with a little wit sprinkled here and there). Nevertheless, it speaks to his seriousness, credibility and reputation that he can refrain from ad hominem attacks when he is called out by some of these feeble-minded ninnies (or more charitably, perhaps, people who do not have a relationship with reality or familiarity with basic, reasoned economic competence).
To be relevant though, shouldn’t his slappy fights be with the majority-holding MAGA’s wielding power right now? Miller, Bessent, Hassett, JD, Don, RFK Jr, Mike Johnson, et al? It’s time to man up and take responsibility for your team’s actions. Instead, the people Oren obsesses over have no power. They’ve been excommunicated. Years ago. If they attended a Trump rally and the attendees knew who they were, they would be in physical danger. Why should we care what powerless, washed up think tankers post on the former co-presidents social media platform? And, as an ironic aside, Hassett once advised McCain, W, and Oren’s benefactor Mitt:)…
Really? It’s hard to recall a significant issue where congress and the party writ large hasn’t capitulated to Don. The few with the character to speak the truth either get primaried, retire, have their businesses threatened, face political violence, or lamely self-geld like JD and Little Marco. I’ve not seen such a sycophantic congress. Who is the face of congressional resistance? Congress is the article one branch for a reason, their cowering and abdication is a profound disappointment. In any event, why does Oren avoid the obvious policies Don is pursuing whose economic relevance dwarfs whatever this internet troll says? Maybe he fears having AC’s tax exempt status threatened if he speaks the truth that JD and Little Marco once spoke?
Unfortunately, we live in a time when the people in charge are dumber than the ones they're leading. That old slogan—“Man has a right to the fruit of their labor”—feels just as naive and disconnected as the fantasy that the good girl ends up with the prince on the white horse.
Societies cost something to run. Roads, hospitals, courts, power grids, food inspections—none of it comes free. The adult question is: who pays for all that? Pretending that in a large, resource-limited country people can just "opt out" of the bill is delusional.
Sure, the idea of keeping everything you earn might’ve made sense in the Wild West or during the Klondike gold rush, when there were few people, zero services and a surplus of land. But today? It’s irrelevant. Romantic, maybe. But also useless.
Per Papola's longer tweet: "Constitutional Conservatism is about constraining the government’s size and scope in order to protect and maximize individual liberty and flourishing." This epitomizes a thorough going libertarianism, not a constitutional conservatism. While individual liberty is a good thing, within limits, government action should seek to empower mediating institutions. I would suggest that those who agree with him instead read Nisbet's Community and Power for a contrary and more accurate view. A thoroughgoing libertarianism implemented in real time will likely lead to a very different end result than liberty for all.
Libertarianism, small government conservatism, limited government conservatism--regardless of what you call it--all lead inexorably to larger government over time.
"Thanks to Twitter, and the poor judgment of the high-net-worth individuals who use it, we are all able to see that the skills conducive to becoming rich are uncorrelated to other useful skills, like critical thinking and political judgment. The entertainment of Elon Musk’s real-time education in how the federal budget works is not something any prior generation could have enjoyed. Economists likewise provide valuable insight into the sorts of things economists say and do when no one is around to advise them otherwise."
And don't get Oren started on the fundamental ignorance displayed by the President of the United States on a daily basis!
Does anyone really know how a federal system is supposed to work ?
Well,I guess not for it is WE you are electing the cretins running it.It is just sad to see so many in Government worried only about theirs and not ours.
Income disparities are at an all time high and we wish to do this ? And when those folks get sick from the "fruits" we are going to tell them ...figure it out you are free.
"We’ll have him on the American Compass podcast for a conversation. But don’t hold your breath."
No kidding...
I remember a podcast you did with David Bahnsen (he of the 'Velocity of Money' thesis I still don't understand). It was a very amicable coversation (on his podcast, I think). I had just recently come across the both of you so I was very interested to listen to it. If I had to note one takeaway from it, it was that Bahnsen grew frustrated with you because you simply kept presenting real-world evidence of the harm that financialization has done to our economy to counter his 'baffle 'em with bulls***' financial jargon. I got the sense there was a point where he threw up his hands and said to himself, 'I got no more ammo'. I found it very revealing. Over the years, the term 'the financial industry' has become commonplace. It's almost as if while actual industry has slowly been evaporating from our economy, the David Bahnsens of the world have co-opted the word to make what they do seem substantive. It was similar to the textversation you just had but being in real-time, you and David had to address each other's actual ideas. Here, though, accusing you of not rooting your economic ideas in the Ten Commandments has definitely upped the game. I thought countering 'the velocity of money' was tough. Well, good luck with taking on Moses if Stein comes on the podcast. (and watch out for the heavenly lightning bolts)
Stern: “Oren, anyone who has been in a room with you knows you don't believe people have a right to the fruits of their labors or have a right to liberty.”
Geez, Oren, he makes you sound like a bloody liberal. We both know you’re anything but. Where do these people get this stuff?
Great article, Oren at his best. The exTwitter commentary was insightful. A powerful argument for some form of editorial process. I always thought twitter was a horrible concept precisely because it invited reaction without reflection. Who has the time for reading all that? I don't.
Similarly I've understood the Republican party as the usurpation of Burkean actual conservatives by Libertarians who formed an unholy alliance with evangelical leaders. They did so for votes because actual Libertarian policy is inherently unpopular despite frequent reference to "liberty" and "freedoms" in their disingenuous rhetoric. But with the help of evangelical social issue formation they captured a substantial mass of voters to effectively support behind the scenes Libertarian policy, which is to say, vote against their own material interests. The key facts to bear in mind about Libertarian policy is that policy always favors the wealthy and accrues power and wealth to the wealthy. In their rhetoric Libertarians refuse to recognize that wealth IS power. Uncorrupted democracy is the only peaceful counter to that power. Things like Money is Speech are Libertarian "Freedom" cries. Freedom to buy politicians and parties and elections.
Stern's comments are to my mind absurd and unhinged. I take Christianity proper to be about the words of Jesus. Old testament stuff should be very very background if the words of Jesus matter. If a religion is named after Jesus, it should really relate to what he is purported to have said rather than what came before. Jesus was far far more Socialist than Libertarian. Stern's assertions are to my reading, anti-Christian.
Anyway, the rest of Oren's dismantling of the unholy alliance was a delight to read. What I still struggle with and it appears Oren does as well is his insistence on cramming Progressive economic policy into a nominally "conservative" framework. I'm sanguine over any criticisms of corruption of any party and of unhelpful social issue intrusions into policy that could help the the vast majority of Americans. Just as evangelicals are lead to support anti-Jesus policies, I believe some of the putative "left" social issue movements are fomented somehow by the financial elite for exactly the same reason. That being to divide voters to prevent "solidarity" on the material issues.
Musk recently, hilariously, proposed forming a new political party that would claim 80% of the American center. Somebody needs to tell him that 80% of the American Center wants him and his financial elite cohort to pay far far more in taxes and to have far less political influence. Oren's comment was beautiful: "Thanks to Twitter, and the poor judgment of the high-net-worth individuals who use it, we are all able to see that the skills conducive to becoming rich are uncorrelated to other useful skills, like critical thinking and political judgment. The entertainment of Elon Musk’s real-time education in how the federal budget works is not something any prior generation could have enjoyed." Apparently Elon is a slow learner in some realms.
A third party seems like an attractive alternative given the very real corruption of the two main parties. But to form one, the social issue problem has to be resolved and some sort truce formed. That's why I keep appealing to Oren to be more inviting to a broader audience. I'm not clear on his ultimate intent. Reforming the republican party back to an anti-libertarian party strikes me as more challenging than reforming the Democratic party back to a workers first party. Both involve challenging the power of wealth and are monumental tasks. Maybe he has no ultimate aim other than discourse. I am curious though.
When I Read Oren Cass, I tend to see his own “anti-Christ” labeling in the form of spending cuts. Like most big govt progressives believing that under their stewardship, govt spending can grow exponentially because under their plan, 85yrs from now, the budget will be balanced. This, despite in a mere 2to4yrs, everything changes and the plan is tossed out the window.
Rand Paul reminds me of several people I have known, who seem intelligent and articulate, but hold a Libertarian world view that consists of a single idea. Yes, it scrupulously defends the individual's property rights, but can't even imagine a solution to any other problem - especially any problem arising from their one hallowed principle. "By God, if I want to pee into my stream, it's my property, and I have a right to do it." What if someone upstream from you pees into it? "Uh..."
A sophisticated libertarian (an oxymoron!) would say you solve this problem through tort law. The upstream pisser owes the downstream guy compensation for harm. That's enough to deter bad behavior.
But ..what happens if millions of people say driving cars are responsible for run off from roads that gets into water supply? We can't have all drinkers of water sue all drivers...so then we have to have.... REGULATIONS.
Thousands of examples like this are why the libertarian vision collapses at almost the first contact with reality. And it's why libertarian ideas are fit for 2:30AM a dorm lounge bull session but nothing else.
Snore. Once again Oren fails to acknowledge that his "new" right is in charge. They've controlled his party for 10 years and counting. They preside over all 3 branches of the government. The fundamentalists he laments were kicked out years ago. I suppose there is something I care less about than Oren's thin-skinned battle with fellow elites over the past, it's just that nothing comes to mind. His defensiveness tells all. He's beginning to realize that his legacy is forever tethered to a party that has lapsed into a cult of Don. Hence his obsession with whataboutism. It's a diversion, a salve for his guilty conscience.
Here's a thought. How about some commentary about what is happening today. Right now. What are the long term consequences for our economy of Oren's "new" right agenda, the one its leader-Don, is implementing as we speak. Assaults on the rule of law, record setting deficits, the taco-tariff charade, rampant corruption, the hollowing out of the civil service, the fomenting of political violence, masked/unidentified federal agents snatching our neighbors (not criminals) and shipping them to foreign prisons without due process, the appointment of incompetent loyalists to the power ministries, attacks on the media/justice system/universities, the obliteration of our western alliances, switching sides in the global contest between democracy and autocracy. Might those matter more than Oren's slappy fight with Stern?
Isn't it time for a new "new" right? A new establishment? New elites? Oren and his buds have had their chance. It's been a decade and all we have to show for it is anger, division, and a loss of our national soul. Good luck America.
The only fomenting of political violence I have seen and it’s has been enormous has come from Democrat politicians and much of MSM.
Those illegals have due process. It’s within letter of the law. Just because you don’t like it and a few activist judges wish to prevent it, doesn’t make it unlawful.
The justice system is already corrupt. The universities are already corrupt, especially with blatant racism given a new pretty name. Any “assaults” on rule of law are followed after the courts legitimize if they are applicable to actions be taken.
Deficits…. Each admin and congress create more, so he is par for the course.
Tariffs? I agree! Ridiculous and more harm than ant perceived benefit .
You must have missed January 6th. Check it out, it was on TV. Beating cops with confederate flagpoles sure seemed kinda violent to me. But alas, Don pardoned those violent felons... Sounds like you’re good with Don pocketing hundreds of millions in corrupt meme coin loot, a future democratic president thanks you for the permission:). I’m likewise chuckling at the thought of a future democratic president breaking Don’s deficit records, sending masked/unidentified federal agents into the streets, deploying the military on our streets, shaking down businesses, threatening judges, telling universities what to teach, lying about election outcomes, and hawking fragrances, bibles, action figures, steaks, and gold sneakers! You’ll I’m sure be intellectually consistent and approve, correct? As to the “corrupt” judiciary, how do you think all the Don appointees that keep ruling against the administration hoodwinked him into appointing them?
I guess I’m just old fashioned. I think JD and Little Marco told the truth about Don the first time. You?
Other resources I'd commend to you are the on the record comments of the high command from his first term. When appointed, we were assured those staffers were "the best people". Brace yourself before reading though, they're explicit.
Nope, don't watch any. It's all on tape:) Video really sucks sometimes... Which JD and Little Marco analysis of Don do you believe, I believe the first version? Those are all recorded too BTW.
Well written and educational (for me). Strong arguments across. I also will say that I continue to be impressed with Oren’s self-control. His arguments are stronger when he writes like he does today—objectively and calmly (to be sure, with a little wit sprinkled here and there). Nevertheless, it speaks to his seriousness, credibility and reputation that he can refrain from ad hominem attacks when he is called out by some of these feeble-minded ninnies (or more charitably, perhaps, people who do not have a relationship with reality or familiarity with basic, reasoned economic competence).
No, Oren engaged in the most vicious ad hominem imaginable against Stern: he quoted him.
To be relevant though, shouldn’t his slappy fights be with the majority-holding MAGA’s wielding power right now? Miller, Bessent, Hassett, JD, Don, RFK Jr, Mike Johnson, et al? It’s time to man up and take responsibility for your team’s actions. Instead, the people Oren obsesses over have no power. They’ve been excommunicated. Years ago. If they attended a Trump rally and the attendees knew who they were, they would be in physical danger. Why should we care what powerless, washed up think tankers post on the former co-presidents social media platform? And, as an ironic aside, Hassett once advised McCain, W, and Oren’s benefactor Mitt:)…
They are still wielding a ton of influence with members of Congress is why.
Really? It’s hard to recall a significant issue where congress and the party writ large hasn’t capitulated to Don. The few with the character to speak the truth either get primaried, retire, have their businesses threatened, face political violence, or lamely self-geld like JD and Little Marco. I’ve not seen such a sycophantic congress. Who is the face of congressional resistance? Congress is the article one branch for a reason, their cowering and abdication is a profound disappointment. In any event, why does Oren avoid the obvious policies Don is pursuing whose economic relevance dwarfs whatever this internet troll says? Maybe he fears having AC’s tax exempt status threatened if he speaks the truth that JD and Little Marco once spoke?
No, Oren engaged in the most vicious ad hominem imaginable against Stern: he quoted him.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when the people in charge are dumber than the ones they're leading. That old slogan—“Man has a right to the fruit of their labor”—feels just as naive and disconnected as the fantasy that the good girl ends up with the prince on the white horse.
Societies cost something to run. Roads, hospitals, courts, power grids, food inspections—none of it comes free. The adult question is: who pays for all that? Pretending that in a large, resource-limited country people can just "opt out" of the bill is delusional.
Sure, the idea of keeping everything you earn might’ve made sense in the Wild West or during the Klondike gold rush, when there were few people, zero services and a surplus of land. But today? It’s irrelevant. Romantic, maybe. But also useless.
Per Papola's longer tweet: "Constitutional Conservatism is about constraining the government’s size and scope in order to protect and maximize individual liberty and flourishing." This epitomizes a thorough going libertarianism, not a constitutional conservatism. While individual liberty is a good thing, within limits, government action should seek to empower mediating institutions. I would suggest that those who agree with him instead read Nisbet's Community and Power for a contrary and more accurate view. A thoroughgoing libertarianism implemented in real time will likely lead to a very different end result than liberty for all.
Libertarianism, small government conservatism, limited government conservatism--regardless of what you call it--all lead inexorably to larger government over time.
"Thanks to Twitter, and the poor judgment of the high-net-worth individuals who use it, we are all able to see that the skills conducive to becoming rich are uncorrelated to other useful skills, like critical thinking and political judgment. The entertainment of Elon Musk’s real-time education in how the federal budget works is not something any prior generation could have enjoyed. Economists likewise provide valuable insight into the sorts of things economists say and do when no one is around to advise them otherwise."
And don't get Oren started on the fundamental ignorance displayed by the President of the United States on a daily basis!
Does anyone really know how a federal system is supposed to work ?
Well,I guess not for it is WE you are electing the cretins running it.It is just sad to see so many in Government worried only about theirs and not ours.
Income disparities are at an all time high and we wish to do this ? And when those folks get sick from the "fruits" we are going to tell them ...figure it out you are free.
"We’ll have him on the American Compass podcast for a conversation. But don’t hold your breath."
No kidding...
I remember a podcast you did with David Bahnsen (he of the 'Velocity of Money' thesis I still don't understand). It was a very amicable coversation (on his podcast, I think). I had just recently come across the both of you so I was very interested to listen to it. If I had to note one takeaway from it, it was that Bahnsen grew frustrated with you because you simply kept presenting real-world evidence of the harm that financialization has done to our economy to counter his 'baffle 'em with bulls***' financial jargon. I got the sense there was a point where he threw up his hands and said to himself, 'I got no more ammo'. I found it very revealing. Over the years, the term 'the financial industry' has become commonplace. It's almost as if while actual industry has slowly been evaporating from our economy, the David Bahnsens of the world have co-opted the word to make what they do seem substantive. It was similar to the textversation you just had but being in real-time, you and David had to address each other's actual ideas. Here, though, accusing you of not rooting your economic ideas in the Ten Commandments has definitely upped the game. I thought countering 'the velocity of money' was tough. Well, good luck with taking on Moses if Stein comes on the podcast. (and watch out for the heavenly lightning bolts)
Stern: “Oren, anyone who has been in a room with you knows you don't believe people have a right to the fruits of their labors or have a right to liberty.”
Geez, Oren, he makes you sound like a bloody liberal. We both know you’re anything but. Where do these people get this stuff?
Great article, Oren at his best. The exTwitter commentary was insightful. A powerful argument for some form of editorial process. I always thought twitter was a horrible concept precisely because it invited reaction without reflection. Who has the time for reading all that? I don't.
Similarly I've understood the Republican party as the usurpation of Burkean actual conservatives by Libertarians who formed an unholy alliance with evangelical leaders. They did so for votes because actual Libertarian policy is inherently unpopular despite frequent reference to "liberty" and "freedoms" in their disingenuous rhetoric. But with the help of evangelical social issue formation they captured a substantial mass of voters to effectively support behind the scenes Libertarian policy, which is to say, vote against their own material interests. The key facts to bear in mind about Libertarian policy is that policy always favors the wealthy and accrues power and wealth to the wealthy. In their rhetoric Libertarians refuse to recognize that wealth IS power. Uncorrupted democracy is the only peaceful counter to that power. Things like Money is Speech are Libertarian "Freedom" cries. Freedom to buy politicians and parties and elections.
Stern's comments are to my mind absurd and unhinged. I take Christianity proper to be about the words of Jesus. Old testament stuff should be very very background if the words of Jesus matter. If a religion is named after Jesus, it should really relate to what he is purported to have said rather than what came before. Jesus was far far more Socialist than Libertarian. Stern's assertions are to my reading, anti-Christian.
Anyway, the rest of Oren's dismantling of the unholy alliance was a delight to read. What I still struggle with and it appears Oren does as well is his insistence on cramming Progressive economic policy into a nominally "conservative" framework. I'm sanguine over any criticisms of corruption of any party and of unhelpful social issue intrusions into policy that could help the the vast majority of Americans. Just as evangelicals are lead to support anti-Jesus policies, I believe some of the putative "left" social issue movements are fomented somehow by the financial elite for exactly the same reason. That being to divide voters to prevent "solidarity" on the material issues.
Musk recently, hilariously, proposed forming a new political party that would claim 80% of the American center. Somebody needs to tell him that 80% of the American Center wants him and his financial elite cohort to pay far far more in taxes and to have far less political influence. Oren's comment was beautiful: "Thanks to Twitter, and the poor judgment of the high-net-worth individuals who use it, we are all able to see that the skills conducive to becoming rich are uncorrelated to other useful skills, like critical thinking and political judgment. The entertainment of Elon Musk’s real-time education in how the federal budget works is not something any prior generation could have enjoyed." Apparently Elon is a slow learner in some realms.
A third party seems like an attractive alternative given the very real corruption of the two main parties. But to form one, the social issue problem has to be resolved and some sort truce formed. That's why I keep appealing to Oren to be more inviting to a broader audience. I'm not clear on his ultimate intent. Reforming the republican party back to an anti-libertarian party strikes me as more challenging than reforming the Democratic party back to a workers first party. Both involve challenging the power of wealth and are monumental tasks. Maybe he has no ultimate aim other than discourse. I am curious though.
When I Read Oren Cass, I tend to see his own “anti-Christ” labeling in the form of spending cuts. Like most big govt progressives believing that under their stewardship, govt spending can grow exponentially because under their plan, 85yrs from now, the budget will be balanced. This, despite in a mere 2to4yrs, everything changes and the plan is tossed out the window.
Anytime someone references the Founders and religion…. Run.
They should take a break from the Bible and read ‘Nature’s God’.
Rand Paul reminds me of several people I have known, who seem intelligent and articulate, but hold a Libertarian world view that consists of a single idea. Yes, it scrupulously defends the individual's property rights, but can't even imagine a solution to any other problem - especially any problem arising from their one hallowed principle. "By God, if I want to pee into my stream, it's my property, and I have a right to do it." What if someone upstream from you pees into it? "Uh..."
A sophisticated libertarian (an oxymoron!) would say you solve this problem through tort law. The upstream pisser owes the downstream guy compensation for harm. That's enough to deter bad behavior.
But ..what happens if millions of people say driving cars are responsible for run off from roads that gets into water supply? We can't have all drinkers of water sue all drivers...so then we have to have.... REGULATIONS.
Thousands of examples like this are why the libertarian vision collapses at almost the first contact with reality. And it's why libertarian ideas are fit for 2:30AM a dorm lounge bull session but nothing else.
Exactly. It's a chess game that is always over in two moves.
and ‘anti-Christian assault’
should be
an ‘anti-Christian assault’
Snore. Once again Oren fails to acknowledge that his "new" right is in charge. They've controlled his party for 10 years and counting. They preside over all 3 branches of the government. The fundamentalists he laments were kicked out years ago. I suppose there is something I care less about than Oren's thin-skinned battle with fellow elites over the past, it's just that nothing comes to mind. His defensiveness tells all. He's beginning to realize that his legacy is forever tethered to a party that has lapsed into a cult of Don. Hence his obsession with whataboutism. It's a diversion, a salve for his guilty conscience.
Here's a thought. How about some commentary about what is happening today. Right now. What are the long term consequences for our economy of Oren's "new" right agenda, the one its leader-Don, is implementing as we speak. Assaults on the rule of law, record setting deficits, the taco-tariff charade, rampant corruption, the hollowing out of the civil service, the fomenting of political violence, masked/unidentified federal agents snatching our neighbors (not criminals) and shipping them to foreign prisons without due process, the appointment of incompetent loyalists to the power ministries, attacks on the media/justice system/universities, the obliteration of our western alliances, switching sides in the global contest between democracy and autocracy. Might those matter more than Oren's slappy fight with Stern?
Isn't it time for a new "new" right? A new establishment? New elites? Oren and his buds have had their chance. It's been a decade and all we have to show for it is anger, division, and a loss of our national soul. Good luck America.
Please…. Hollow out civil service !
The only fomenting of political violence I have seen and it’s has been enormous has come from Democrat politicians and much of MSM.
Those illegals have due process. It’s within letter of the law. Just because you don’t like it and a few activist judges wish to prevent it, doesn’t make it unlawful.
The justice system is already corrupt. The universities are already corrupt, especially with blatant racism given a new pretty name. Any “assaults” on rule of law are followed after the courts legitimize if they are applicable to actions be taken.
Deficits…. Each admin and congress create more, so he is par for the course.
Tariffs? I agree! Ridiculous and more harm than ant perceived benefit .
You must have missed January 6th. Check it out, it was on TV. Beating cops with confederate flagpoles sure seemed kinda violent to me. But alas, Don pardoned those violent felons... Sounds like you’re good with Don pocketing hundreds of millions in corrupt meme coin loot, a future democratic president thanks you for the permission:). I’m likewise chuckling at the thought of a future democratic president breaking Don’s deficit records, sending masked/unidentified federal agents into the streets, deploying the military on our streets, shaking down businesses, threatening judges, telling universities what to teach, lying about election outcomes, and hawking fragrances, bibles, action figures, steaks, and gold sneakers! You’ll I’m sure be intellectually consistent and approve, correct? As to the “corrupt” judiciary, how do you think all the Don appointees that keep ruling against the administration hoodwinked him into appointing them?
I guess I’m just old fashioned. I think JD and Little Marco told the truth about Don the first time. You?
Sounds like you watch too much tv. The View is not a journalistic institution.
Other resources I'd commend to you are the on the record comments of the high command from his first term. When appointed, we were assured those staffers were "the best people". Brace yourself before reading though, they're explicit.
Nope, don't watch any. It's all on tape:) Video really sucks sometimes... Which JD and Little Marco analysis of Don do you believe, I believe the first version? Those are all recorded too BTW.
Unfortunately, those groups have the money, and you can’t win an election without money.