NYT: In Multilevel Marketing, Sleight of Hand Is Simply the Rule of Doing Business

The New York Times reports on this new book, Little Bosses Everywhere: How the Pyramid Scheme Shaped America:

Bridget Read’s “Little Bosses Everywhere” exposes the deceptions of direct-selling companies that make their profit not off customers but off their own sales force…

When Read introduces the characters behind America’s first big multilevel marketing scheme, it almost sounds like the setup to a joke: What happens when a Gilded Age dilettante, a eugenics-curious Dale Carnegie acolyte and an overzealous marketer of burial plots come together? The answer is Nutrilite, a vitamin company that in the mid-1940s started offering its distributors a new business opportunity. Instead of just selling vitamins, they could recruit other distributors and form a “downline,” with lower-level sellers all contributing to their higher-ups’ sales volume…

In her telling, it was partly under the leadership of Van Andel and DeVos that multilevel marketers coalesced with the New Right, forming an alliance of “the country’s wealthiest businessmen, evangelicals and other conservative Christians, positive thinkers and free-market radicals.” The story of multilevel marketing is one of Americans falling prey to the idea that they should turn against experts and big institutions: Try supplements as a way to hack your health, work for yourself as a way to hack your career. These lifestyle tips can end up forming a political worldview, too, one that’s doggedly anti-expert and fiercely capitalist.

Here are some excerpts from this new book:

* In the true story of MLM, told in full, its operators aren’t just cheerleaders at the sidelines of a long – fomenting right – wing revolution. They are major players in this movement to return American society, under the guise of free enterprise and economic populism, to Judeo – Christian values, and to an era of small government, unprotected labor, and consolidated private wealth not seen since before the New Deal. The DeVos and Van Andel families may be MLM’s most prominent political architects, using their distributors’ dollars to fund think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and corporate activist groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — but they are not the only ones. Their allies across the industry, from the grandmotherly Mary Kay Ash in 1963 to the tanned fitness influencers of Herbalife in 2016, have helped power the modern conservative movement’s most effective, unseen propaganda factory, indoctrinating its spiritual warriors on a crusade for capitalism. The money of millions of people caught up in a web of innumerable downlines has been used to convince many generations that government regulation turns them into slaves. Multilevel marketing has profoundly altered American society, seeping into all our lives regardless of whether or not one has every participated in one. It is to be ignored at our own peril.

* Mary Kay Ash was not as explicitly political — though in 1977, she came under fire for circulating a leaflet among her beauty consultants cribbed from an anti – Equal Rights Amendment group in Texas called “Women Who Want to Be Women,” with the signature “Lovingly, Mary Kay,” affixed on the bottom. Instead, she grew her profile as a free enterprise mascot on the motivational speaking circuit, which had by now become a lucrative industry. Ash was a fixture at a series of “Positive Mental Attitude” rallies, the brainchild of W. Clement Stone, the insurance executive multimillionaire and Nixon fundraiser who had collaborated with an aging Napoleon Hill on Success magazine in the 1950s. Other speakers included Paul Harvey, a radio personality who for years voiced Amway ads, and Zig Ziglar, a former Nutri – Bio and Holiday Magic salesman with a wildly successful motivational speaking business.
Another speaker at Positive Mental Attitude rallies was Robert Schuller, a California televangelist and disciple of Norman Vincent Peale. Richard DeVos gave $58,000 to support Schuller’s “Hour of Power,” broadcast live on TV from his drive – in megachurch in Garden Grove, California. Along with the think tanks and business groups, a network of conservative Christian media companies platformed figures like Schuller, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and Jerry Falwell to rival mainstream liberal programming. In 1977, Amway wanted to be a part of them and purchased the Mutual Broadcasting System, a radio network with the largest number of affiliates of any in the world at the time.

* There is also a section devoted to independent contractors; Project 2025 recommends that the next president return to Trump – era rules that made it easier to designate workers as temporary contractors rather than full – time employees. “Roughly 60 million Americans across all income groups, ages, education levels, races, and household types participate in independent work, including full – time, part – time, or as a ‘side hustle,’ ” the document reads. “People choose independent work for a variety of reasons, including flexibility, earnings potential, and the desire to be one’s own boss.”
The foreword to the policy book was written by President Kevin D. Roberts, a former college history professor turned think tank CEO, whose appointment was announced in 2021 by Heritage board Chair Barb Van Andel – Gaby, Jay’s daughter. (“He will ensure that our unprecedented influence on Capitol Hill continues,” Van Andel – Gaby said.) Roberts opens the foreword by invoking an important year: 1979, the year of the Amway decision. He compares the current moment to that one, when “the United States and the conservative movement were in dire straits,” yet righted themselves by coming together just in time to elect Ronald Reagan. The country again has a chance for revolution, to “champion the dynamic genius of free enterprise against the grim miseries of elite – directed socialism.” His foreword could have come directly out of one of Rich DeVos and Jay Van Andel’s “Business Viewpoint” newspaper columns in the 1980s.

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off on NYT: In Multilevel Marketing, Sleight of Hand Is Simply the Rule of Doing Business

Tom Wolfe’s Favorite Russian Writers

Gemini says: Tom Wolfe cited several Russian writers as influences and inspirations, particularly those associated with the Brothers Serapion group, including Boris Pilnyak, and especially Eugene Zamiatin. He also expressed admiration for other Russian authors like Nikolai Gogol, Alexander Pushkin, Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Mikhail Bulgakov.
Elaboration:
Brothers Serapion:
While studying at Yale, Wolfe discovered the Brothers Serapion, a group of early Soviet writers who were influenced by French Symbolism and explored themes of the Revolution. He was particularly drawn to Boris Pilnyak and Eugene Zamiatin, who, in turn, influenced his writing style, especially in his early short pieces.
Eugene Zamiatin:
Zamiatin, known for his novel “We,” was a significant influence on Wolfe. Wolfe even mentioned that “We” was a source of inspiration for George Orwell’s “1984”.
Other Russian Writers:
Wolfe also acknowledged the work of other notable Russian authors, such as Gogol, Pushkin, Chekhov, Dostoevsky, and Bulgakov. He appreciated their literary techniques and their exploration of human nature.

LF: What did he see in them? What did he learn from them? How did he emulate them?

Grok: Tom Wolfe, known for his vivid, immersive style and sharp social commentary, drew significant inspiration from Russian writers, including the Serapion Brothers (notably Boris Pilnyak and Eugene Zamiatin), as well as Nikolai Gogol, Alexander Pushkin, Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Mikhail Bulgakov. His admiration for these authors stemmed from their stylistic innovation, psychological depth, social critique, and ability to capture the absurdities and complexities of human experience.

What Wolfe Saw in Russian Writers

Stylistic Innovation and Experimentation:

Serapion Brothers (Boris Pilnyak, Eugene Zamiatin): The Serapion Brothers, a post-revolutionary literary group, emphasized artistic freedom and formal experimentation over ideological conformity. Pilnyak’s fragmented, impressionistic narratives in works like The Naked Year captured the chaos of revolutionary Russia, while Zamiatin’s We pioneered dystopian fiction with its sharp, satirical prose and psychological intensity. Wolfe admired their bold rejection of conventional storytelling and their ability to reflect societal upheaval through innovative forms.

Gogol and Bulgakov: Gogol’s surreal, darkly comedic style in Dead Souls and The Nose blended satire with the grotesque, exposing societal absurdities. Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita similarly used fantastical elements to critique Soviet bureaucracy and human nature. Wolfe was drawn to their playful yet incisive use of language and structure to reveal deeper truths.

Pushkin and Chekhov: Pushkin’s lyrical precision in Eugene Onegin and Chekhov’s understated, psychologically rich short stories (e.g., The Lady with the Dog) showcased mastery of form and economy. Wolfe appreciated their ability to convey profound insights with clarity and subtlety.

Social and Cultural Critique:

Dostoevsky and Zamiatin: Dostoevsky’s exploration of existential and moral dilemmas in Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov offered a template for grappling with human psychology and societal tensions. Zamiatin’s We critiqued totalitarian control and the loss of individuality, resonating with Wolfe’s interest in cultural shifts. Wolfe saw these authors as fearless in dissecting the power structures and ideologies of their time.

Gogol and Bulgakov: Both used satire to expose corruption and hypocrisy—Gogol targeting Tsarist bureaucracy, Bulgakov the Soviet regime. Wolfe admired their ability to weave social commentary into compelling narratives.

Vivid Characterization and Immersion:

Chekhov and Dostoevsky: Chekhov’s focus on ordinary characters’ inner lives and Dostoevsky’s intense psychological portraits inspired Wolfe’s emphasis on capturing the essence of his subjects. He valued their ability to make characters both universal and deeply specific.

Pilnyak and Zamiatin: Their works immersed readers in the sensory and emotional realities of their settings, a quality Wolfe sought to replicate in his journalistic and novelistic depictions of American culture.

What Wolfe Learned from Them

Wolfe’s engagement with these Russian writers shaped his approach to both journalism and fiction, particularly in the development of New Journalism and his later novels. Key lessons include:

Blurring Fiction and Nonfiction:

From Pilnyak and Zamiatin, Wolfe learned to use novelistic techniques in nonfiction, such as vivid scene-setting and stream-of-consciousness, to convey truth more powerfully than traditional reporting. This informed his New Journalism style, seen in works like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, where he immersed readers in the counterculture with a Zamiatin-like intensity.

Gogol and Bulgakov’s blending of reality and fantasy taught Wolfe to exaggerate and stylize real-world events to highlight their absurdity, as in his satirical essays on American excess.

Satire and Social Observation:

Dostoevsky and Bulgakov’s critiques of ideology and power inspired Wolfe to target American consumerism, status obsession, and cultural fads. In The Bonfire of the Vanities, he channels Dostoevsky’s moral probing and Bulgakov’s satirical edge to dissect 1980s New York’s greed and racial tensions.

Gogol’s sharp wit influenced Wolfe’s humorous takedowns of cultural pretensions, evident in essays like “Radical Chic,” where he mocks elite posturing with Gogolian flair.

Immersive, Sensory Prose:

Chekhov’s economy and Zamiatin’s sensory richness taught Wolfe to craft prose that was both precise and evocative. He adopted Chekhov’s focus on small, telling details to bring characters to life, as seen in his profiles of figures like Muhammad Ali or Ken Kesey.

Pilnyak’s fragmented style influenced Wolfe’s use of rapid, impressionistic vignettes to capture the frenetic energy of modern America, particularly in The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby.

Psychological and Cultural Depth:

Dostoevsky’s exploration of inner conflict and societal pressures shaped Wolfe’s character-driven narratives, such as Sherman McCoy in The Bonfire of the Vanities, whose unraveling echoes Raskolnikov’s torment.

Pushkin’s lyrical clarity inspired Wolfe’s attention to rhythm and cadence, ensuring his prose was as engaging as it was incisive.

How Wolfe Emulated Them

Wolfe’s emulation of these Russian writers is evident in his stylistic choices, thematic concerns, and narrative techniques across his career:

New Journalism as Literary Experiment:

Like the Serapion Brothers, Wolfe rejected rigid literary conventions, using fiction-like techniques (dialogue, interior monologue, vivid description) in nonfiction. In The Right Stuff, his portrayal of astronauts mirrors Zamiatin’s blend of psychological insight and societal critique, presenting them as both heroic and flawed within Cold War America’s ideological machine.

His use of onomatopoeia, exclamation points, and unconventional punctuation (e.g., “!!!!!”) echoes Gogol’s and Bulgakov’s playful, disruptive style, amplifying the energy of his prose.

Satirical Novels:

The Bonfire of the Vanities reflects Dostoevsky’s moral complexity and Bulgakov’s satirical sweep, critiquing New York’s class and racial divides with a sprawling, multi-perspective narrative. Wolfe’s depiction of Sherman’s downfall parallels Dostoevsky’s focus on guilt and redemption, while his exaggerated characters recall Bulgakov’s fantastical caricatures.

In A Man in Full, Wolfe channels Chekhov’s focus on ordinary lives under pressure, exploring Stoic philosophy and Southern culture with a nuanced, Chekhovian lens.

Cultural Chronicles:

Wolfe’s essays, like those in The Pump House Gang, emulate Gogol’s and Pilnyak’s ability to capture a society’s zeitgeist through vivid, idiosyncratic details. His immersion in subcultures (surfers, hippies, Wall Street traders) mirrors Pilnyak’s fragmented depictions of revolutionary Russia.

His focus on status and power, central to Radical Chic and From Bauhaus to Our House, draws on Zamiatin’s and Bulgakov’s critiques of conformity and ideological dogma, applied to American elites and architectural trends.

Character-Driven Storytelling:

Wolfe’s profiles and novels feature richly drawn characters, inspired by Chekhov’s and Dostoevsky’s psychological depth. In I Am Charlotte Simmons, he explores a young woman’s moral and social struggles with a Dostoevskian intensity, set against the backdrop of a modern university.

His use of dialogue and slang, as in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, reflects Pushkin’s and Chekhov’s ear for authentic speech, grounding his narratives in the vernacular of his subjects.

Specific Connections and Examples

Eugene Zamiatin: Wolfe cited Zamiatin’s We as a major influence on his interest in dystopian themes and stylistic freedom. In The Right Stuff, Wolfe’s depiction of the space race’s ideological underpinnings echoes Zamiatin’s critique of dehumanizing systems, though applied to American heroism.

Boris Pilnyak: Pilnyak’s chaotic, sensory-driven style informed Wolfe’s early journalism, particularly in The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, where he uses rapid-fire vignettes to capture the vibrancy of 1960s car culture.

Nikolai Gogol: Wolfe’s satirical essays, like “Radical Chic,” mirror Gogol’s Dead Souls in their skewering of societal pretensions, using humor to expose the absurdity of elite behavior.

Mikhail Bulgakov: The fantastical energy of The Master and Margarita resonates in Wolfe’s exaggerated, larger-than-life portrayals of figures like Leonard Bernstein or Wall Street tycoons, blending humor with biting critique.

Fyodor Dostoevsky: Wolfe’s novels, especially The Bonfire of the Vanities, adopt Dostoevsky’s focus on moral crises, with characters facing existential questions amid societal pressures.

Anton Chekhov: Wolfe’s attention to small, revealing details in his journalism (e.g., a subject’s clothing or gestures) reflects Chekhov’s method of using the mundane to illuminate character.

Alexander Pushkin: Wolfe’s rhythmic, accessible prose, even in dense social critiques, draws on Pushkin’s lyrical clarity, ensuring his work remains engaging.

Broader Context and Impact

Wolfe’s engagement with Russian literature aligned with his broader goal of reviving the 19th-century realist novel’s scope and ambition in a 20th-century context. He saw these Russian writers as masters of combining literary artistry with social observation, a model he applied to his chronicles of American life. By emulating their techniques, Wolfe not only pioneered New Journalism but also crafted novels that captured the sprawling, contradictory nature of modern society, much as his Russian predecessors did for their own eras.

Russian writers of the 19th and 20th centuries, like Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, and later Bulgakov, Pasternak, and Solzhenitsyn, are celebrated for their profound ability to capture the human condition, wrestle with existential and moral questions, and weave rich, psychologically complex narratives. Their greatness stems from a unique confluence of cultural, historical, and artistic factors:

Philosophical Depth: Russian literature often grapples with “cursed questions” about the meaning of life, morality, faith, and human suffering. Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov explores free will and the existence of God, while Tolstoy’s War and Peace meditates on fate versus individual agency. This philosophical bent was fueled by Russia’s intellectual climate, where thinkers debated Orthodoxy, nihilism, and Western influences.

Psychological Realism: These writers excelled at portraying the inner lives of their characters with unmatched depth. Dostoevsky’s ability to depict tormented souls (e.g., Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment) and Chekhov’s subtle rendering of everyday human struggles (e.g., in The Lady with the Dog) set a standard for character-driven storytelling. They revealed universal truths through individual psyches, making their works timeless.

Social and Historical Context: Russia’s turbulent history—serfdom, imperial autocracy, revolutions, and wars—provided a dramatic backdrop. Writers like Turgenev (Fathers and Sons) captured generational clashes, while Solzhenitsyn (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich) exposed Soviet oppression. Their works reflected the tensions of a society caught between tradition and modernity, East and West.

Moral and Spiritual Inquiry: Many Russian authors were deeply concerned with ethics and spirituality, rooted in Orthodox Christianity or reactions against it. Tolstoy’s quest for a meaningful life and Dostoevsky’s exploration of redemption resonate with readers seeking purpose. Even secular writers like Chekhov infused their stories with a moral sensitivity to human fragility.

Innovative Storytelling: Gogol’s surreal humor (The Nose), Bulgakov’s magical realism (The Master and Margarita), and Chekhov’s minimalist short stories revolutionized narrative forms. Their stylistic boldness, combined with emotional and intellectual weight, made their works both accessible and profound.

Cultural Isolation and Universality: Russia’s geographic and cultural position—partly European, partly Asiatic—gave its writers a unique perspective. They absorbed Western literary traditions (e.g., Romanticism, Realism) but infused them with a distinctly Russian sensibility, creating works that felt both local and universal.

Their Gift: The gift of these writers was their ability to synthesize raw emotional intensity, philosophical inquiry, and social observation into stories that feel urgently human. They wrote with a sense of moral responsibility, as if literature could redeem or at least illuminate a chaotic world. Their works don’t just entertain—they challenge readers to confront their own beliefs, choices, and existence.

This blend of heart, mind, and soul, forged in a crucible of Russian history and culture, is why their literature remains a towering influence globally.

Posted in Tom Wolfe | Comments Off on Tom Wolfe’s Favorite Russian Writers

‘The Rule of Law, The Rule of Courts, and the Rule of the State’ (5-4-25)

02:00 WSJ: Trump’s Tariffs Are Lifting Some U.S. Manufacturers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W960TW79QCI
07:00 Trump’s First 100 Days, Tariffs Impact Trade, AI Agents, Amazon Backs Down, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W960TW79QCI
24:00 Michael Huemer: Trade, Tariffs, & Make-Work Bias, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160942
40:00 Democrats Think They Have A Branding Problem, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/05/democrats-think-they-have-branding.html
43:00 Michael joins the show to talk tariffs, https://x.com/Michaelmvlog
https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trumps-tariffs-are-lifting-some-u-s-manufacturers-06b4c6e1?mod=hp_lead_pos2
48:00 Mike Walz out as national security advisor
1:03:00 People who love words tend to hate Trump
1:17:00 The Rule of Law, The Rule of Courts, and the Rule of the State, https://thenewdigest.substack.com/p/the-rule-of-law-the-rule-of-courts
1:28:00 There’s never been a presidential envoy like Steve Witkoff, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Witkoff
1:35:00 Democrats Think They Have A Branding Problem, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/05/democrats-think-they-have-branding.html
1:39:00 How Can People Keep Arguing That Trump Has Destroyed The Economy?, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/05/how-can-people-keep-arguing-that-trump.html
1:44:00 How are liberalism and democracy at odds?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161035
2:05:30 THE LAST GASP OF ISRAEL’S LEGACY MEDIA?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNc22yhiJ4
2:15:00 Liberalism’s Fear, https://thejosias.com/2018/05/09/liberalisms-fear/
2:27:00 NYT: Spain in the Dark Is Safer Than Elsewhere With Power, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/03/opinion/spain-portugal-blackout.html
2:30:00 WSJ: In Trump 2.0, ‘Free Trade’ Republicans Are a Dying Breed, https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/in-trump-2-0-free-trade-republicans-are-a-dying-breed-04eca4b0?mod=hp_lead_pos10
2:33:40 WSJ: Trump’s tariffs are a gift to the mafia, https://www.ft.com/content/94aad6c8-5ae8-42b9-9079-15c3934dfbaa
2:40:00 NYT: The New Culture of the Right: Vital, Masculine and Offensive, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj1hSTDXmrI
2:47:00 Josh Hawley’s book on manhood, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/josh-hawleys-manhood-teaser/id1651876897?i=1000701556004
3:01:00 The Right-Wing Vibe Shift, https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-right-wing-vibe-shift
3:18:00 Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=121464
3:23:00 DTG on Trump’s tariffs: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/supplementary-material-26-ancient-pyramids-sesame-street-monsters-more-lab-leak-discourse
3:37:35 How to meet women: The four pathways, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNDsRyYs6E0
3:54:00 The Self-Control Industrial Complex, https://www.speakandregret.michaelinzlicht.com/p/the-self-control-industrial-complex

Posted in America | Comments Off on ‘The Rule of Law, The Rule of Courts, and the Rule of the State’ (5-4-25)

The Democrats believe they have a branding crisis.

This reminds of the optics crisis experienced by the Alt Right post Charlottesville, and Biden’s communications crisis that Americans think the economy sucks and he’s too old to govern. These are all attempts to deny reality. The problems are deeper than branding, optics and communication.

People don’t want to do the work. They don’t want to go deep. They want the easy solution.

My biggest disagreement with my peers (people giving their opinion about the world) is that I see good things existing in a constellation where they compete with one another (freedom vs community, efficiency vs cohesion, truth vs safety), while they see a clear hierarchy of values (such as freedom or efficiency or democracy are always first).

Grok says: “The Democratic Party is currently facing what many describe as a branding crisis, particularly evident in its low favorability ratings and struggles in battleground areas. Recent analyses, such as a March 2025 Axios article (Axios – Democrats’ popularity crisis), indicate that the party is in its deepest popularity hole in nearly 50 years, with challenges including a lack of popular national leaders, dwindling media influence, and a shift of young voters toward conservatism. This crisis is not merely perceptual; internal polling from Navigator Research, shared with POLITICO in March 2025 (POLITICO – Democrats’ brand problem), shows that in swing congressional districts, a majority of voters believe Democrats are “more focused on helping other people than people like me,” with only 27% of independents feeling the party focuses on them.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Democrats believe they have a branding crisis.

How are liberalism and democracy at odds?

Grok says: “Liberalism and democracy can be at odds because liberalism emphasizes individual rights, limited government, and protections against majority rule, while democracy prioritizes majority rule and collective decision-making. Liberalism seeks to constrain state power through checks like constitutions or judicial review, which can conflict with democratic demands for popular sovereignty. For example, a democratic majority might support policies—like restricting certain speech or seizing property—that violate liberal principles of free expression or property rights. Conversely, liberal institutions, such as courts overturning popular laws, can frustrate democratic will, appearing elitist or undemocratic. This tension arises when the majority’s desires clash with protections for individual or minority rights, forcing a trade-off between collective power and personal liberty.”

Adrian Vermeule: “Liberalism is created by and in the service of elites who capture most of the upside gains of ever-greater release from customary, moral, and economic constraints, and who are buffered — economically and personally — from the downside risks and losses. Liberalism’s agents know and fear that the broader demos may reject their aspirations for ever-more-satisfying forms of creativity and self-fulfillment.”

Grok says:

Adrian Vermeule’s quote critiques liberalism as a system designed to benefit elites while potentially alienating the broader population. Let’s unpack and develop this idea by exploring its core claims, historical and philosophical roots, and implications in contemporary contexts, while grounding the analysis in reason and skepticism.

Core Claims

Vermeule argues that liberalism—understood as a political and cultural framework emphasizing individual freedom, autonomy, and release from traditional constraints—serves elite interests. He suggests:

Elite Capture: Liberalism’s benefits (economic, cultural, personal) disproportionately accrue to elites who drive its agenda.

Asymmetry of Risk: Elites are insulated from the negative consequences of liberal policies, while the broader population bears the costs.

Elite Anxiety: Those promoting liberalism fear resistance from the “demos” (the common people), who may reject the elite’s vision of progress and self-fulfillment.

Historical and Philosophical Context

Liberalism, rooted in Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Mill, and Kant, prioritizes individual rights, free markets, and secular governance over collective traditions or moral frameworks. Vermeule’s critique aligns with a broader intellectual tradition skeptical of liberalism’s universalist claims, including:

Marxist Critiques: Marxism views liberalism as a tool of the bourgeoisie, masking class exploitation under the guise of universal freedom. Vermeule’s “elites” could be seen as a modern bourgeoisie, profiting from deregulated markets and cultural individualism.

Burkean Conservatism: Edmund Burke emphasized the value of tradition and social cohesion, warning against rapid change driven by abstract ideals. Vermeule, a legal scholar with Catholic integralist leanings, echoes this concern for customary constraints.

Post-Liberal Thinkers: Contemporary critics like Patrick Deneen (in Why Liberalism Failed) argue that liberalism erodes community, family, and virtue, creating a fragmented society where only the powerful thrive.

Vermeule’s focus on elites suggests a populist inflection, resonating with critiques of globalization, technocracy, and cultural progressivism. His mention of the “demos” invokes a tension between democratic sovereignty and elite governance, a recurring theme in debates over liberalism’s legitimacy.

Developing the Argument

Let’s explore Vermeule’s claims in three dimensions: economic, cultural, and political.

1. Economic Dimension: Elite Capture and Risk Asymmetry

Liberalism’s economic policies—free markets, globalization, deregulation—have generated immense wealth but also inequality. Elites (corporate leaders, financiers, tech moguls) benefit from open borders, technological disruption, and flexible labor markets. For example:

The top 1% in the U.S. now hold over 30% of the nation’s wealth (Federal Reserve data, 2023), a trend accelerated by post-1980s neoliberal reforms.

Globalization has enriched multinational corporations while hollowing out industrial heartlands, leaving working-class communities vulnerable to job loss and cultural erosion.

Elites are “buffered” from these downsides through wealth, mobility, and access to private systems (e.g., elite education, healthcare). The broader demos, however, faces wage stagnation, housing unaffordability, and social dislocation. Vermeule’s critique suggests liberalism’s promise of universal prosperity is a myth, with elites reaping rewards while externalizing costs.

2. Cultural Dimension: Creativity vs. Cohesion

Liberalism celebrates individual self-expression, challenging traditional norms around family, religion, and community. Vermeule sees this as serving elites who seek “ever-more-satisfying forms of creativity and self-fulfillment.” Examples include:

Cultural shifts toward secularism and individualism, which elites navigate with ease due to their resources and social networks.

The promotion of cosmopolitan values, which align with the lifestyles of urban professionals but alienate those rooted in local traditions.

The demos, less equipped to adapt to rapid cultural change, may feel their values—often tied to religion, family, or place—are under siege. This fuels backlash, as seen in populist movements (e.g., Brexit, Trumpism), which Vermeule implies elites fear. Data from Pew Research (2020) shows 60% of Americans believe traditional values are declining, with rural and working-class respondents most likely to express concern.

3. Political Dimension: Elite Anxiety and Democratic Resistance

Vermeule’s claim that elites “fear” the demos points to a crisis of legitimacy. Liberal institutions—courts, media, universities—are increasingly seen as disconnected from popular will. Examples:

The rise of “populist” leaders challenging liberal orthodoxy (e.g., Orbán in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil).

Declining trust in institutions: Gallup (2024) reports only 30% of Americans have confidence in the media, and 25% in Congress.

Elites, Vermeule suggests, respond by doubling down on technocratic governance—think global climate agreements or social media censorship—which further alienates the demos. This creates a feedback loop: elite policies provoke resistance, which elites counter with more control, risking democratic erosion.

Counterarguments and Nuances

To test Vermeule’s thesis, consider liberal defenses:

Universal Benefits: Liberalism has lifted billions out of poverty globally (e.g., World Bank data shows extreme poverty fell from 36% in 1990 to 9% in 2022). Critics might argue that focusing on elite capture ignores broader gains.

Individual Empowerment: Liberalism’s emphasis on rights has empowered marginalized groups (e.g., women, minorities), not just elites. Vermeule’s focus on traditional constraints risks romanticizing hierarchical pasts.

Populist Risks: The demos’ rejection of liberalism can veer into authoritarianism or xenophobia, as seen in some populist movements. Elites’ fears may be justified if unchecked populism threatens democratic norms.

Yet Vermeule’s critique holds weight where liberalism’s idealism masks power dynamics. The tension between individual freedom and collective stability remains unresolved, and elites’ insulation from consequences fuels distrust.
Contemporary Implications

Vermeule’s ideas resonate in 2025’s polarized climate:

Tech and AI: The AI revolution, driven by liberal principles of innovation, enriches tech elites while threatening jobs for the demos. X posts from 2024 show growing public unease about AI’s societal impact.

Cultural Wars: Debates over free speech, cancel culture, and traditional values reflect the elite-demos divide. Elites in media and academia often frame dissent as “backwards,” reinforcing Vermeule’s point about fear of the demos.

Political Realignment: Both left and right increasingly critique liberalism—progressives decry corporate power, conservatives lament moral decay. Vermeule’s integralist leanings suggest a post-liberal alternative, though his vision of a morally grounded state raises its own concerns about coercion.

Conclusion

Vermeule’s critique portrays liberalism as a project that, intentionally or not, prioritizes elite interests while risking alienation of the broader population. By removing customary, moral, and economic constraints, liberalism creates a world where elites thrive but the demos struggles, leading to resentment and potential backlash. Developing this idea reveals tensions between freedom and stability, individual and collective, elite and masses—tensions liberalism has yet to fully resolve. Whether one agrees with Vermeule’s diagnosis, his warning about elite capture and democratic discontent demands serious reflection in an era of growing polarization.

Posted in Democracy | Comments Off on How are liberalism and democracy at odds?