I saw this out there and to me I think it's a bad idea to throw individual freedom aside and to advocate for Roosevelt like economy policies with more regulations and unions seems like a miss as the presumptive GOP frontrunner for the 2028 nomination.

What do you think?

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

I think you are falling for a Dem op. Vance is the only candidate that appeals to non-elite Americans in swing states. That makes him a threat to them and their neocon allies

---

what part is the dem op?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

I think you are falling for a Dem op. Vance is the only candidate that appeals to non-elite Americans in swing states. That makes him a threat to them and their neocon allies

---

what part is the dem op?

---

It's in the OP...

Quote:

---

throw individual freedom aside and to advocate for Roosevelt like economy policies with more regulations and unions

---

are you saying the post-liberal movement does not advocate such policy?

or that Vance is not a part of that movement?

because the movement absolutely does.

BMX Bandit said:

---

are you saying the post-liberal movement does not advocate such policy?

or that Vance is not a part of that movement?

because the movement absolutely does.

---

I am not asserting anything. Only answering your question about the dem op in the OP relative to post liberal movement.

And doubt Vance is involved unless some concrete information is provided.

bobbranco said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

are you saying the post-liberal movement does not advocate such policy?

or that Vance is not a part of that movement?

because the movement absolutely does.

---

I am not asserting anything. Only answering your question about the dem op in the OP relative to post liberal movement.

And doubt Vance is involved unless some concrete information is provided.

---

Martels Hammer said:

---

Completely unrelated, but I heard a new term today. Non-practicing White.

---

Oddly enough I'd classify myself as this. I don't connect my identity with my skin color. I'm sure the person who used that term didn't mean it that way

Martels Hammer said:

---

Completely unrelated, but I heard a new term today. Non-practicing White.

I couldn't stop laughing

Anyway, Carey on

---

I am a Non-practicing White.

I am such a professional White that I have never needed any practice and manage on pure skill alone.

What does Post Liberal mean?

bobbranco said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

are you saying the post-liberal movement does not advocate such policy?

or that Vance is not a part of that movement?

because the movement absolutely does.

---

I am not asserting anything. Only answering your question about the dem op in the OP relative to post liberal movement.

And doubt Vance is involved unless some concrete information is provided.

---

Is that the new synonym for populism? Sounds like it to me

Vance will be the nominee in 28, and he will lose

Phatbob said:

---

Is that the new synonym for populism? Sounds like it to me

---

not quite.

https://www.aei.org/commentary/what-is-post-liberalism-and-why-is-it-trending/

So no more Nazis? That's gonna strain their playbook.

Please help me understand what post-liberalism is and what a movement by that name advocates. Serious question because the term is not clicking for me and I'm trying to figure it out.

Link here:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3623461/replies/72861265

Video here:


https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3623461/replies/72861205

Teddy broke up standard oil. Rockefeller's wealth grew. The consumer got much needed competition. Breaking up large corporations should be an American past time. It doesn't make the stock holders poorer, but it does make the new companies compete for marketshare

I don't dislike the guy but he's not a serious presidential candidate.

AgEngineer72 said:

---

Please help me understand what post-liberalism is and what a movement by that name advocates. Serious question because the term is not clicking for me and I'm trying to figure it out.

---

Essentially you'd get Liz Warren economic policies and social conservative policies, the socialists and post-liberals just disagree with the why you need those policies.

YouBet said:

---

What does Post Liberal mean?

---

the academic definition can be a bit of word salad, but as it pertains to vance's politics, substantively it means:

1) government should actively promote a substantive vision of what is "good": family formation, religion, stable communities, rather than stay neutral

2) economics is worker and family-centered rather than efficiency-centered. less adam smith, more oren cass. industrial policy, tariffs, antitrust, skepticism of finance and big tech (though vance in particular is highly connected with the latter).

3) institutions (universities, agencies, courts) should be captured and repurposed, not shrunk. vance has said republicans should be ruthless in exercising power and should seize institutions.

at its core it's a rejection of the enlightenment tradition which runs from john locke through the american founding.

That's a bad description, especially the last paragraph.

I would frame it:
1. Politics should pursue a substantive conception of the common good, rather than merely protect individual choice. (This is right out of Aristotle and most of our founders would have agreed wholeheartedly)
2. Markets are a means, not an end. (This is not a rejection of Smith, but is close to List or Hamilton)
3. Government power is not inherently suspect and should be used affirmatively to reshape institutions. (This is a break with Reagan era conservatives, not Locke).

The American founding combined liberal ideas about rights and consent of the governed with republican, classical, and religious ideas about virtue and the common good.

It is closer to rejecting the *primacy* of individualism in that stack than deleting anything from it.

it's a fair distinction, but you're smuggling in a conclusion by calling the founding's liberal and republican elements a "stack." that makes liberalism sound like merely one ingredient among equals, when the constitutional settlement gave rights, consent, and limited government structural priority over the government's substantive conception of the good.

post-liberalism isn't simply saying virtue is important. communitarians and older american republicans said that too. its more distinctive position is arguing that the liberal state's neutrality is itself part of the problem and that political authority should be deliberately redirected toward substantive ends.

so the relevant divide isn't "liberalism versus virtue." it's whether liberal rights and institutional constraints remain the framework within which the common good is pursued, or whether the framework itself should be reordered around the common good.

Thanks for the definitions. It's hard to keep up with the ever-changing political ideology jargon that gets thrown around.

This concept is about 10 years old and came from intellectual conservative circles.

Think Patrick Deneen, Rod Dreher, Sohab Amari and others…