1. Article is a 37 minute listen. Check the link for details, if you want em.

Made you look.

I wouldn't listen to anything for 37 minutes either.

Sorry to say, Chick Publications hasn't condensed it.

Lazy sumbitch. Does sadopopulism sum it up for you?

FTA:

Consider two recent high-profile books. The first, Anne Applebaum's "Autocracy Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World," published in 2024, is right on point. These days, she argues, more and more illiberal regimes collaborate " not out of shared ideals but from a "ruthless, single-minded determination to preserve [the] personal wealth and power" of their leaders.

Timothy Snyder is even blunter in his book, "On Freedom," also published last year. The world, he claims, is divided into two types of political systems: liberal democracies (which embrace positive values) and autocracies (which lack values entirely). The tens of millions of Americans who voted for Trump? They're "sadopopulists" who enjoy inflicting pain on others more than helping themselves. What about China? Clearly, "the entire country is a kind of prison." And whenever a country veers away from liberal democracy, the only question is whether it's using oligarchy to get to fascism (as in Russia and Turkey) or fascism to get to oligarchy (as in Brazil and India).

"The major illiberal regimes worldwide do not lack values or ideals " they overflow with them."
Facebook
Twitter
Email
From this perspective of correct liberal opinion, understanding the illiberal world boils down to a few core principles. First, today's illiberal regimes maintain power primarily through repression, violence and corruption. Second, their leaders and deputies are driven by the spoils of tyranny: power, wealth, sex and glory. Third " though opinion is more divided on this point " their populations are either systematically deceived by their rulers or, more insultingly, incapable of tolerating the complexity, openness and pluralism that liberal democracy promotes.

If these critics are right, there's no need to hold a new Colloquium of the Seven. We know what illiberals are about. They are driven by greed, not ideals; anger, not affection; and base interests, not human goods.

A Counterproposal
This article presents a counterproposal: The major illiberal regimes worldwide do not lack values or ideals " they overflow with them. They believe in their values sincerely. So much so, in fact, that each advances a positive and specific vision of human flourishing for its members. Finally, here is my thesis: They are ready and willing to use the soft and hard powers of the state to realize their visions of the good life. They are in the business of crafting souls, or soulcraft.

With this in mind, if I had the major representatives of these regimes at the colloquium table, I'd ask three questions:

1. What is the dominant conception of the good life in your country?

2. Why is it excellent and worthy of devotion?

3. How does " and should " your state advance it?

A weeklong conversation around this could go a long way toward helping poor liberals, like myself, understand the allure, potency, stability and deep human aspirations of my rivals.

My posting is neither affirmation or denial of anything therein. I haven't read most it.

I didn't think this needed explanation.