Source: freddy dendoktoor has released this “New Year, Numbers, 3D, 2026” CC0 Public Domain
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon or making a one-time contribution via PayPal. Thanks for your consideration.
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on Twitter and/or BlueSky.
Over a year ago, a Youtuber known as MegaLag did an expose of how the coupon sharing extension called Honey, owned by PayPal, committed fraud on users at both ends of its functions, and stole affiliate commissions to boot.
Other people on Youtube who had promoted Honey, and taken sponsorship money from it, apologized for doing so and urged their viewers to remove it from their browsers.
This dealt a blow to Honey, but not a fatal one. They’re still up there, and doing even worse things now. If that wasn’t bad enough, there are now imitators of Honey’s business model.
I keep wondering how any of this is legal. According to the MegaLag video on the second link, largely because affiliate networks benefit from increased online shopping traffic… I still wonder how this is legal, and why don’t governments the world over go after this kind of predatory behavior.
I remember feeling pretty disheartened after the first year of Trump’s first term, thinking it was gonna be a looooong 3 years….I am even more disheartened about the next 3 years. What will America look like by the end of this endless stream of shit?!
Watched the series finale of Stranger Things last night. I will not post any spoilers, but will say that I thought they managed the ending very well. This seems hard to do for some shows, but I thought they nailed it.
I don’t do resolutions, but do appreciate the reset the turning of the calendar represents. I hope 2026 holds good things for all here.
In my morning know-your-enemy skim of conservative “thinking”, I came across Michael Brendan Dougherty at NRO Corner inadvertently admitting something I’ve long believed.
Roger Scruton, although he never quite put it this way, used to impress upon his audiences that conservatism was the search for the reasons behind commitments we did not make by reasoning our way into them.
We already know what we believe, now we have to come up with some rationalization for it.
I’ve had a running disagreement with Reynolds (tiny matter of emphasis really). He blames conservatism on religion. I broaden it to faith, not necessarily religious. Example: MAGA, and the unitary executive, when you get down to it, are manifestations of an intuitive need for a strong daddy. I have come to feel very strongly that liberalism flows from utilitarianism and conservatism from belief. There are many flavors of conservative, but liberals are mostly just liberal (albeit not without disagreements). Reason is reason, faith can take you anywhere. You’ll learn more about conservatives from reading Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow on reason and intuition than you will from reading conservative theorists or political science.
@gVOR10: I would argue that, ultimately, all of these frameworks derive from attitudes about power.
A simple formulation of a much more complicated conversation: conservatives believe that the existing social, political, and economic order is essentially just and is the result of long-term, tried-and-true evolution–you know, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It just so happens that white, Christian, propertied males think this is great, and everyone else is less convinced.
Weirdly, laborers, women, and other groups outside of power are pretty sure that the existing distribution of wealth is unjust and that a system that treats humans more equitably is in order.
It also helps to be in the first group if you think that there are “natural” distinctions to be made based on things like intelligence, race, gender, and/or ancestory and to be in the second group if you believe that all humans are fundamentally equal.
@gVOR10: BTW, I don’t think Doughtery is making a faith-based argument there. I think he is noting that we are all born into a set of social, economic, and political circumstances that we did not choose, and therefore have to reason our way into understanding them. And from a conservative POV, that means that reality is shaped over time, and not simply constructed.
I would also state that his post feels overly flowery and leaves the reader having to decode what his point is.
One last thought, as I wax a bit philosophical on New Year’s Day: no one should make the mistake that one side (whatever side that might be) is purely the reason-driven side, nor that one is the purely faith-driven side. We all derive a lot of our views from both reason and faith (even if it is not of a religious type).
Moreover, it is important to remember that important elements of American conservatism grew out of classical liberalism. Part of the contemporary problem is that some segments of the reactionary right are in partial, if not full, rejection of those principles (see, e.g., “heritage” Americans).
These days it can be hard to tell the difference between conservatism and authoritarianism. But I think they are different.
Conservatism, it seems to me, comes from a universal human dislike of change. Everyone has it, but these things are balanced out by other values. With conservatives, dislike of change tends to outweigh other values.
Authoritarianism comes from the want of a strong daddy – a rescuer. I observe that this can be quite a strong impulse in people whose father was either absent or abusive. That’s kind of a puzzle, and I’m not going to answer it here. I do think there’s an answer, a system for this.
Meanwhile religion or other beliefs are the backfill spoken of. They are the ex-post-facto stories we tell to justify and motivate certain kinds of beliefs and behaviors.
For just about *any* political behavior, you can find a religious group that has religious beliefs that justify and motivate that behavior. Both liberal and conservative.
The abolitionist movement was fueled by people of faith. And there was a solid defense of slavery from the pulpit (obviously not the same pulpit) as well. That’s just one example.
(Not to say Steven is wrong, I just have a different perspective.)
I’d argue that there is no longer a conservative movement in the US and if there is, it is housed w/in the Dem party. What is called conservative in America, is in reality, reactionary or revanchism.
As far as authoritarianism is concerned, I agree that it comes from the desire for a strong daddy, but it tendency toward authoritarianism exists on the left as well. There are many progressives that yearn for government to force the adoption of their preferred solutions.
In The Reactionary Mind, Robin traces conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution. He argues that the right was inspired, and is still united, by its hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market; others oppose it. Some criticize the state; others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality – while simultaneously making populist appeals to the masses.
It’s never really been about asking why a fence is there before tearing it down.
@Jay L. Gischer: To be clear, I am not dismissing the role of religious faith or other sets of beliefs as important variables in politics. I just don’t buy faith/reason dichotomies, or even saying that faith is, per se, the specific source of a specific political position.
@gVOR10: I have been meanig to read that book, but haven’t gotten around to it. On the one hand, I agree that MAGA is reactionary, but I also would like to know what definition he is using, as I don’t think “reactionary” simply means “in reaction to” something. By that definition, Marxism is a reaction to the industrial revolution and therefore is “reactionary.”
Whenever I use the term, I mean a backwards-looking ideological framework that seeks the restoration of a fictional past, typically to aid a specific set of persons. Nazism was, therefore, reactionary, likewise MAGA.
Not to judge a book by its blurb, I agree with this, “Robin traces conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution” but do not think that Burke is reactionary in the way I describe above.
I agree with this: ” the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality.”
I am less convinced of this, “while simultaneously making populist appeals to the masses.” I am not sure it is always populist, but again, I suppose it depends on the definition. I would note that I think it is mistake to assume any political attempt at mass appeal is, per se, “populist.”
Traditional American conservatism has in may respects been a weird variant of liberalism, given its inclination to constitutionalism, elected government, general suffrage, procedural law, no class based legal privileges, free markets, generalised rights etc.
(Modified by American racial and religous context)
Older forms of European conservatism were generally VERY different indeed; the closest semblances perhaps being the “right Republicans” in France.
And then, much of post-war European conservatism, while abandoning reactionary hierachicalism, was also very different, in putting a lot more emphasis on social soldarity, due to the massive influence of the Catholic and Lutheran “Christian Democrat” movements.
I’ve just finished reading Tom Holland’s “Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind”
Which makes a rather good case for the rather convoluted intellectual history of Christianity and its consequences being fundamental to the entire modern “western/westernized” worldview, including mant of the basic assumptions of liberalism, conservatism, and socialism.
And also indicates, in my view, how much fascism and Nazism (and to a lesser extent Leninist communism) were a (failed) attempt at a revolt against this general structure.
And thus paradoxically also a product of it.
Well worth a read, imho.
Even if the basic concept is not that novel, it puts the whole case for it together rather well.
Also, in re: impulses towards authoritarianism, I think that in many ways, that is our natural state, or at least a kind of default.
Centralized authority is efficient and, in theory, potentially the best option if you find a good decision-maker. Good decision-making and compromise are hard.
As a father of 3, there were certainly times that, as much as I sincerely wanted a consensus answer on where we should go to dinner, I succumbed to dictatorial decision-making. And nothing makes you appreciate dictatorship more than being a Faculty Senate President…
Not to mention that various forms of “conservatism” are oten very different.
Indeed.
And also indicates, in my view, how much fascism and Nazism (and to a lesser extent Leninist communism) were a (failed) attempt at a revolt against this general structure.
Agreed.
In my view (again, a simple version of a much longer discussion), liberalism emerges in the 18th century to challenge pre-modern feudalism. Both Marxism and fascism are responses to liberalism. Marxism is a critique that liberalism didn’t go far enough to fulfill its own promises, and fascism is largely a repudiation of the entire liberal enterprise. (At least in their purest forms).
I’ll have to read that book, but I have doubts.
Many early liberals were dubious about extending effective political power to the “lower orders”.
While at least some “conservatives” have viewed “liberalism” as exploitation dressed up as idealism.
I also wonder how far he can account for post-WW2 mainstream European conservatism?
And the effect of historical contingency and it production of rather odd or “fuzzy” categories.
Was the French “Republican Right” of 19th century onward “liberal” or “conservative”?
A lot relates to who exactly is dominant in a particlar polity and economy at any particular point.
But if it all depends on that, can “conservatism” be a coherent category at all, as opposed to shorthand for “what the current elite considers serves their interests”?
And than of course you get into: why are elites prone to divisions on such, as they obviously are.
Or else the “anti-elite” populist line would have no traction at all.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I still like McClelland’s short summary of fascism: “trying to be revolutionary without being Marxist.”
It may understate the aspect of what it was in revolt against (and ironically how revolting it was, because of that) and how it also derived from some aspects of liberalism (vulgarised Spencer/Darwin, and anti-clericalism, etc).
But it still puts a finger on a central aspect of the whole nasty mess.
@CSK:
@Steven L. Taylor:
Accepted authority is not necessarity “feudal”; there’s a reasonable case for the argument that habitual acceptance of a current order is necessary for any such to function.
And it usually works as long as it is not seen to breach “reasonable”, and therefore, humans being humans, more traditional than rational, limits.
There’s good case for feudalism being actually quite highly devolved authority, as means of dealing with the problems of running a pre-modern state with a rather inadequate resource base.
The earliest states of neolithic/bronze levels seems not to have been feudal at all, but priest/king sorta-absolutisms with a small soldier caste.
Which reflected the economic and social basis of the early city-states: once a “boss” imposed himself in control of a combined grain market monoply/land law/force it was a pretty stable system.
And seems a fairly general outcome of “clan/tribal” chieftain systems adapting to agriculture.
Meanwhile, in Niger:
A uranium ore convoy in Niger, run by the Russian “Afrika Corps”, is stuck in Niamey, unable to transport the uranium to its destination (though to be Togo for shipment to who knows where.)
The jihadis are blocking the routes, the Russians unable to secure them (being useless) and the French gleefully jamming monkey wrenches in the machinery.
International relations rule #1: “F@ck with us, and we shall reciprocate, when possible.”
International relations rule #2: “Rule #1 particulary applies when France is involved.”
Otoh, what exactly the US is up to in Nigeria, if anything sensible at all (hah!) remains to be seen.
@JohnSF: As we have discussed in the past, I have problems with the notion that fascism is “revolutionary,” but, as always, the devil is in the details.
I think I would prefer “counter-revolutionary” or, really, just reactionary. But that is a longer conversation.
. I was trying to find a word that best described the socio-political schema that liberalism was trying to replace, and “feudalism” seemed the best pull.
Meanwhile in Yemen:
Saudi airstrikes on United Arab Emirates and allies positions in southern Yemen lead UAE to pull out.
Now who had a Saudi/UAE war on the cards for 2026?
Because its obvious Riyadh is running out of patience with the UAE both re Yemen and Sudan.
(And the al Saud actually get to be the good guys for once? Hmm.)
If there is a full blown KSA/UAE confrontation, which Republican dimwits will support which side in Washington?
Though that’s about the only amusing aspect of the whole mess.
I was trying to find a word that best described the socio-political schema that liberalism was trying to replace, and “feudalism” seemed the best pull.
That’s fair enough; or at least “feudalism modified by absolute monarchy”.
My quibbling is about the much earlier emergence of monarchic governance in smaller areas; feudalism seems to have been a function of monarchy trying to expand geographically on an inadequate economic/admisnistrative base.
Earlier “smaller state monarchies”, or those absent external threat challenges (eg ancient Egypt), seem generally to have been not feudal at all.
I think I would prefer “counter-revolutionary” or, really, just reactionary.
I think this is one we can chase each other round the shrubbery about for a good long time, lol.
My contention would be “fascisms” were more mass society, mass movement, social mobilization efforts.
Whereas “reaction” in the European sense desired no such thing.
Though of course there are grey areas:
e.g. was Franco’s Spain reactionary or fascist?
Peronism?
How exactly does the Kuomintang get categorised at all?
And above all, right now:
Where in the shed did I put that bottle of Burgundy, dammit?
********************@
Over a year ago, a Youtuber known as MegaLag did an expose of how the coupon sharing extension called Honey, owned by PayPal, committed fraud on users at both ends of its functions, and stole affiliate commissions to boot.
Other people on Youtube who had promoted Honey, and taken sponsorship money from it, apologized for doing so and urged their viewers to remove it from their browsers.
This dealt a blow to Honey, but not a fatal one. They’re still up there, and doing even worse things now. If that wasn’t bad enough, there are now imitators of Honey’s business model.
I keep wondering how any of this is legal. According to the MegaLag video on the second link, largely because affiliate networks benefit from increased online shopping traffic… I still wonder how this is legal, and why don’t governments the world over go after this kind of predatory behavior.
Yeah, freezing all federal childcare funds will surely be a massive incentive for people to have more children.
All money to the oligarchs!
I remember feeling pretty disheartened after the first year of Trump’s first term, thinking it was gonna be a looooong 3 years….I am even more disheartened about the next 3 years. What will America look like by the end of this endless stream of shit?!
On that note, Happy New Year, OTB’ers!
Happy New Year, all!
Watched the series finale of Stranger Things last night. I will not post any spoilers, but will say that I thought they managed the ending very well. This seems hard to do for some shows, but I thought they nailed it.
I don’t do resolutions, but do appreciate the reset the turning of the calendar represents. I hope 2026 holds good things for all here.
In my morning know-your-enemy skim of conservative “thinking”, I came across Michael Brendan Dougherty at NRO Corner inadvertently admitting something I’ve long believed.
We already know what we believe, now we have to come up with some rationalization for it.
I’ve had a running disagreement with Reynolds (tiny matter of emphasis really). He blames conservatism on religion. I broaden it to faith, not necessarily religious. Example: MAGA, and the unitary executive, when you get down to it, are manifestations of an intuitive need for a strong daddy. I have come to feel very strongly that liberalism flows from utilitarianism and conservatism from belief. There are many flavors of conservative, but liberals are mostly just liberal (albeit not without disagreements). Reason is reason, faith can take you anywhere. You’ll learn more about conservatives from reading Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow on reason and intuition than you will from reading conservative theorists or political science.
@gVOR10: I would argue that, ultimately, all of these frameworks derive from attitudes about power.
A simple formulation of a much more complicated conversation: conservatives believe that the existing social, political, and economic order is essentially just and is the result of long-term, tried-and-true evolution–you know, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It just so happens that white, Christian, propertied males think this is great, and everyone else is less convinced.
Weirdly, laborers, women, and other groups outside of power are pretty sure that the existing distribution of wealth is unjust and that a system that treats humans more equitably is in order.
It also helps to be in the first group if you think that there are “natural” distinctions to be made based on things like intelligence, race, gender, and/or ancestory and to be in the second group if you believe that all humans are fundamentally equal.
@gVOR10: BTW, I don’t think Doughtery is making a faith-based argument there. I think he is noting that we are all born into a set of social, economic, and political circumstances that we did not choose, and therefore have to reason our way into understanding them. And from a conservative POV, that means that reality is shaped over time, and not simply constructed.
I would also state that his post feels overly flowery and leaves the reader having to decode what his point is.
One last thought, as I wax a bit philosophical on New Year’s Day: no one should make the mistake that one side (whatever side that might be) is purely the reason-driven side, nor that one is the purely faith-driven side. We all derive a lot of our views from both reason and faith (even if it is not of a religious type).
Moreover, it is important to remember that important elements of American conservatism grew out of classical liberalism. Part of the contemporary problem is that some segments of the reactionary right are in partial, if not full, rejection of those principles (see, e.g., “heritage” Americans).
These days it can be hard to tell the difference between conservatism and authoritarianism. But I think they are different.
Conservatism, it seems to me, comes from a universal human dislike of change. Everyone has it, but these things are balanced out by other values. With conservatives, dislike of change tends to outweigh other values.
Authoritarianism comes from the want of a strong daddy – a rescuer. I observe that this can be quite a strong impulse in people whose father was either absent or abusive. That’s kind of a puzzle, and I’m not going to answer it here. I do think there’s an answer, a system for this.
Meanwhile religion or other beliefs are the backfill spoken of. They are the ex-post-facto stories we tell to justify and motivate certain kinds of beliefs and behaviors.
For just about *any* political behavior, you can find a religious group that has religious beliefs that justify and motivate that behavior. Both liberal and conservative.
The abolitionist movement was fueled by people of faith. And there was a solid defense of slavery from the pulpit (obviously not the same pulpit) as well. That’s just one example.
(Not to say Steven is wrong, I just have a different perspective.)
@Jay L. Gischer:
I’d argue that there is no longer a conservative movement in the US and if there is, it is housed w/in the Dem party. What is called conservative in America, is in reality, reactionary or revanchism.
As far as authoritarianism is concerned, I agree that it comes from the desire for a strong daddy, but it tendency toward authoritarianism exists on the left as well. There are many progressives that yearn for government to force the adoption of their preferred solutions.
@Sleeping Dog:
In The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump Corey Robin argues that conservatism has been always thus. From the Amazon blurb,
It’s never really been about asking why a fence is there before tearing it down.
@Jay L. Gischer: To be clear, I am not dismissing the role of religious faith or other sets of beliefs as important variables in politics. I just don’t buy faith/reason dichotomies, or even saying that faith is, per se, the specific source of a specific political position.
@gVOR10: I have been meanig to read that book, but haven’t gotten around to it. On the one hand, I agree that MAGA is reactionary, but I also would like to know what definition he is using, as I don’t think “reactionary” simply means “in reaction to” something. By that definition, Marxism is a reaction to the industrial revolution and therefore is “reactionary.”
Whenever I use the term, I mean a backwards-looking ideological framework that seeks the restoration of a fictional past, typically to aid a specific set of persons. Nazism was, therefore, reactionary, likewise MAGA.
Not to judge a book by its blurb, I agree with this, “Robin traces conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution” but do not think that Burke is reactionary in the way I describe above.
I agree with this: ” the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality.”
I am less convinced of this, “while simultaneously making populist appeals to the masses.” I am not sure it is always populist, but again, I suppose it depends on the definition. I would note that I think it is mistake to assume any political attempt at mass appeal is, per se, “populist.”
Hahahaha….Daily Beast referred to Noem and Miller as ICE Barbie and ICE Baldy. 😉 😉
@Jay L. Gischer:
@Steven L. Taylor:
@gVOR10:
Not to mention that various forms of “conservatism” are oten very different.
Traditional American conservatism has in may respects been a weird variant of liberalism, given its inclination to constitutionalism, elected government, general suffrage, procedural law, no class based legal privileges, free markets, generalised rights etc.
(Modified by American racial and religous context)
Older forms of European conservatism were generally VERY different indeed; the closest semblances perhaps being the “right Republicans” in France.
And then, much of post-war European conservatism, while abandoning reactionary hierachicalism, was also very different, in putting a lot more emphasis on social soldarity, due to the massive influence of the Catholic and Lutheran “Christian Democrat” movements.
I’ve just finished reading Tom Holland’s “Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind”
Which makes a rather good case for the rather convoluted intellectual history of Christianity and its consequences being fundamental to the entire modern “western/westernized” worldview, including mant of the basic assumptions of liberalism, conservatism, and socialism.
And also indicates, in my view, how much fascism and Nazism (and to a lesser extent Leninist communism) were a (failed) attempt at a revolt against this general structure.
And thus paradoxically also a product of it.
Well worth a read, imho.
Even if the basic concept is not that novel, it puts the whole case for it together rather well.
Also, in re: impulses towards authoritarianism, I think that in many ways, that is our natural state, or at least a kind of default.
Centralized authority is efficient and, in theory, potentially the best option if you find a good decision-maker. Good decision-making and compromise are hard.
As a father of 3, there were certainly times that, as much as I sincerely wanted a consensus answer on where we should go to dinner, I succumbed to dictatorial decision-making. And nothing makes you appreciate dictatorship more than being a Faculty Senate President…
@JohnSF:
Indeed.
Agreed.
In my view (again, a simple version of a much longer discussion), liberalism emerges in the 18th century to challenge pre-modern feudalism. Both Marxism and fascism are responses to liberalism. Marxism is a critique that liberalism didn’t go far enough to fulfill its own promises, and fascism is largely a repudiation of the entire liberal enterprise. (At least in their purest forms).
@gVOR10:
I’ll have to read that book, but I have doubts.
Many early liberals were dubious about extending effective political power to the “lower orders”.
While at least some “conservatives” have viewed “liberalism” as exploitation dressed up as idealism.
I also wonder how far he can account for post-WW2 mainstream European conservatism?
And the effect of historical contingency and it production of rather odd or “fuzzy” categories.
Was the French “Republican Right” of 19th century onward “liberal” or “conservative”?
A lot relates to who exactly is dominant in a particlar polity and economy at any particular point.
But if it all depends on that, can “conservatism” be a coherent category at all, as opposed to shorthand for “what the current elite considers serves their interests”?
And than of course you get into: why are elites prone to divisions on such, as they obviously are.
Or else the “anti-elite” populist line would have no traction at all.
@Steven L. Taylor:
“Will nobody rid me of this turbulent professor?” 😉
Also, perhaps recruiting a horse as member of the senate? 🙂
It’s depressing to think that feudalism might be the default human condition.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I still like McClelland’s short summary of fascism: “trying to be revolutionary without being Marxist.”
It may understate the aspect of what it was in revolt against (and ironically how revolting it was, because of that) and how it also derived from some aspects of liberalism (vulgarised Spencer/Darwin, and anti-clericalism, etc).
But it still puts a finger on a central aspect of the whole nasty mess.
@CSK:
@Steven L. Taylor:
Accepted authority is not necessarity “feudal”; there’s a reasonable case for the argument that habitual acceptance of a current order is necessary for any such to function.
And it usually works as long as it is not seen to breach “reasonable”, and therefore, humans being humans, more traditional than rational, limits.
There’s good case for feudalism being actually quite highly devolved authority, as means of dealing with the problems of running a pre-modern state with a rather inadequate resource base.
The earliest states of neolithic/bronze levels seems not to have been feudal at all, but priest/king sorta-absolutisms with a small soldier caste.
Which reflected the economic and social basis of the early city-states: once a “boss” imposed himself in control of a combined grain market monoply/land law/force it was a pretty stable system.
And seems a fairly general outcome of “clan/tribal” chieftain systems adapting to agriculture.
Meanwhile, in Niger:
A uranium ore convoy in Niger, run by the Russian “Afrika Corps”, is stuck in Niamey, unable to transport the uranium to its destination (though to be Togo for shipment to who knows where.)
The jihadis are blocking the routes, the Russians unable to secure them (being useless) and the French gleefully jamming monkey wrenches in the machinery.
International relations rule #1: “F@ck with us, and we shall reciprocate, when possible.”
International relations rule #2: “Rule #1 particulary applies when France is involved.”
Otoh, what exactly the US is up to in Nigeria, if anything sensible at all (hah!) remains to be seen.
@JohnSF: As we have discussed in the past, I have problems with the notion that fascism is “revolutionary,” but, as always, the devil is in the details.
I think I would prefer “counter-revolutionary” or, really, just reactionary. But that is a longer conversation.
@JohnSF:
. I was trying to find a word that best described the socio-political schema that liberalism was trying to replace, and “feudalism” seemed the best pull.
Meanwhile in Yemen:
Saudi airstrikes on United Arab Emirates and allies positions in southern Yemen lead UAE to pull out.
Now who had a Saudi/UAE war on the cards for 2026?
Because its obvious Riyadh is running out of patience with the UAE both re Yemen and Sudan.
(And the al Saud actually get to be the good guys for once? Hmm.)
If there is a full blown KSA/UAE confrontation, which Republican dimwits will support which side in Washington?
Though that’s about the only amusing aspect of the whole mess.
@Steven L. Taylor:
That’s fair enough; or at least “feudalism modified by absolute monarchy”.
My quibbling is about the much earlier emergence of monarchic governance in smaller areas; feudalism seems to have been a function of monarchy trying to expand geographically on an inadequate economic/admisnistrative base.
Earlier “smaller state monarchies”, or those absent external threat challenges (eg ancient Egypt), seem generally to have been not feudal at all.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I think this is one we can chase each other round the shrubbery about for a good long time, lol.
My contention would be “fascisms” were more mass society, mass movement, social mobilization efforts.
Whereas “reaction” in the European sense desired no such thing.
Though of course there are grey areas:
e.g. was Franco’s Spain reactionary or fascist?
Peronism?
How exactly does the Kuomintang get categorised at all?
And above all, right now:
Where in the shed did I put that bottle of Burgundy, dammit?
Folks, be nice to Professor J tomorrow. Alabama is getting spanked in the Rose Bowl.
@DAllenABQ:
Is this some odd American kinky thing us trans-Pondians need to know more about? 😉
Or possibly, less? 🙂
@JohnSF:
It means Alabama is losing badly. You’re welcome.
@CSK:
As innocent as that?
How disappointing. 😉
@JohnSF: Alabama also got spanked in the Civil War.
And now for something completely different: A National Institution Devoted ro Power and Loyalty
According to The Guardian, this site was set up by Toby Morton, a writer for South Park.
@DAllenABQ:
Surely not by surly Sherman?, said Shirley.