Many of these folks hate the idea of the country generating wealth. I think many of them only object to despotism insofar as the despot isn’t them.

I mean, I understand it. I consider myself a Rawlsian; one of the critiques of Rawls has always been that his political framework allows for bounded authoritarianism, which isn't entirely wrong.

Yes, it's a *criticism*

Sure, and there are responses to that criticism. W. Bush's plan to spread liberal democracy across the world as part of the GWOT didn't end up working out that great for the people it was supposed to benefit. It's within the realm of reasonableness to prioritize "make people's lives better."

A strong liberal democracy is *how* you make people's lives better

It can be! In reality it often is. But there are also examples of strong liberal democracies that make people's lives worse. Not too many examples of authoritarian regimes that made people's lives better (China since 2002 is probably the best example, and not a great one), but it's not a per se bar.

A functioning liberal democracy is antecedent to equitable wealth redistribution. There has never been an authoritarian system with much wealth to redistribute, and their attempts at redistribution almost always rewarded the powerful and well connected, not the poor

many millions of people have disagreed and it would be swell for liberals to reckon with why

I gave up trying to figure out why people are dumb years ago. That's someone else's job, as far as I'm concerned.

people are dumb; this is true! it feels like Dems are ignoring the primal screams of wealth inequality in favor of measured means tested responses that they swear poll 7% better. no wonder they're so underwater with literally everyone in the country! focus on this first and you'll actually win votes

I think there's remarkably little evidence that the primal scream you describe has any basis whatsoever in material conditions. Dems rather famously passed a ton of non means tested programs (most important being the child tax credit) and it got them nothing. The program wasn't even popular.

you're right it was a big nothing even as people now feel the sting of the missing child tax credit, more children are in poverty. that feels like messaging battle that got swallowed by inflation and Biden's infirmity

but this isn't coming from nowhere, nor is it a media invention. Dems could speak to the inability to buy a home or save for retirement, have a bold Project 2029 but so far the energy is being put to relitigating how toxic progressivisms brief cultural moment was www.wsj.com/economy/wsj-...

But yes, I would prefer less means treating in general. I just don't think it will have any real electoral effect.

Thoughts on Singapore as a possible counterexample? (Though sure, it's weird in lots of ways, so maybe it's just another way in which it's an exception.)

There’s a different connection though. Trump and conservatives over the last decade have destroyed the unwritten rules/norms of our democracy and are increasingly destroying the written ones. So there’s no “going back to what it was before” and we should start thinking about what we rebuild it into

The thing that bit Democrats in the ass in Biden’s term was there was no agenda beyond “not being Trump”, the fever would break and we’d go back to the way it was before. That has been entirely disproven so yes beating fascism is goal #1 but you do that through a positive vision for the future.

ISTM there is a positive feedback loop between weather and income redistribution and liberal democracy. Eliminating redistribution leads to wealth and income inequality which itself erodes liberal democracy

i care about wealth redistribution because we've seen slam dunk after slam dunk example that the wealthy will prefer their wealth to liberal democracy

The two-valued orientation (either/or, black & white) world can come about as part of the phenomena of "push-back". If you kick a man when he's down, & stop for whatever reason, you can't expect him to get up & thank you for stopping. If you don't want the Pol Pot push back, then don't push. It may

have been Smith who called it "enlightened" self-interest. The dominant champions of Liberal Democratic Theory may want to get enlightened, & show a little respect for Radical Democratic Theory. It's not a threat. It's a palatable alternative to the guillotine. Because of the word "Democratic".