it's a bit disconcerting how paralyzed the Biden administration was by ostentatiously governing according to professional norms, to the acclaim of no one other than the professionals already the core of his coalition. 1/

and now immediately his successful successor gleefully governs in full mockery of those norms, even before he formally governs. (his premature negotiations yet another point in defiance of those norms.) /fin

It'll be interesting to see if Trump has problems with his base. On the one hand, he's historically been relentless about sussing out their prejudices and leaning into them, and has been rewarded with such loyalty all Republican rivals have been cowed into submission or resignation. 1/

On the other hand, until recently he's rarely tried to cross his base on those prejudices, but the Elon Musk wing of his coalition may push him in that direction. We'll see if he has a problem with the base if he finds it hard to give Musk all the precarious work visas he wants. 2/

The general problem is organizing "connective tissue" beyond what can spontaneously emerge from catering to our basest prejudices is expensive. 3/

It takes a lot of time and money to organize in-person social affairs, and we've restructured ordinary life so we encounter one another less and less except as customers and service providers. 4/

Our social impoverishment, related to the economic version, renders us unthreatening, and helps to stabilize insider dominated coalitions. I won't say it's a conspiracy, but it is an equilibrium. /fin

a problem now widely discussed and thinly addressed!

One thing to say though is that contemporary center-left parties are not actually trying to address it. On the contrary. Obama built an extraordinary grassroots coalition and infrastructure in 2008, then explicitly dismantled it after winning. He wanted technocratic, centralized control. 1/

I'm too distant from UK politics to comment very informedly, but the new AI push from labor looks strikingly like a party seeking to insulate itself from burning public concerns by substituting something onto which inchoate hopes can be projected that does not disturb its insiders' positions. 2/

In the US "centrist" pundits are obsessed with blaming "the groups"—philanthropically financed activist organizations, made up of elite professionals pursuing environmental and identity agendas— for Democrats' failures. 3/

And fine! It's probably right that NGOs claim to represent more than they do represent. Banish them to the wilderness! 4/

But the "and then" is not to reconstitute the party as an in-person membership organization or anything like that. It is to implement their own technocratic solutions, and address politics through polling and "popularism"—messaging what people say they like regardless of what you mean to do. 5/

I could be wrong, but my ill-informed sense is that post-Corbyn Labor is quite similar. 6/

Notionally socdem parties are constituted of entrenched insiders, whose public mouthpieces get labeled "centrist" or moderate". They have their own interests + clients. Much of their work is defending what must be done from demands that might come from ostensibly their own constituents. /fin

it’s the tricky thing about being an “organizer”, or a “political party”. yes, your role is to ensure something happens, not to be content waiting for a spontaneous Godot. yet you can only be the spark, the match. how the flame burns must be determined by the fuel, from the bottom up. 1/

forgetting this simple thing has led is to where we are. 2/

post-Obama in the US, civil society beyond prosperous educated professionals, for whom Obama governed, does not trust the US Democrats. he governed in our name but usurped all control, insisted on driving, places he chose, he said we should be grateful to go. /fin

land value tax is a different issue. (i'm favorably disposed, but it's just a distinct question.) i agree there's been a creep towards financial surveillance at a small scale, that we should intentionally counter. 1/

i object very strongly to your presumption that the rich and at a large scale fund flows are irrevocably anonymous. among the most important current projects in the world is piercing the veil of shell corps and breaking "confidentiality" offered by tax havens. 2/

this is an active fight. just this year, though i think there are continuing court challenges, in the US we've become required to file beneficial ownership declarations for LLCs and corps. 3/

there's much yet to do, especially piercing shielding of beneficial ownership of real estate, but project has been made over the last decade, and continuing this work is essential. you can't counter plutocracy if all the wealth and expenditures are hidden. 4/

crypto is a place where "wealth" can flow in any quantity with perfect privacy, but if we are non-idiotic, we can prevent shielded wealth from ever becoming spendable in the real world. 5/

exchanges can require pedigrees, crypto in quantity without such pedigrees become as unsaleable as conflict diamonds. yes, of course, enforcement is always imperfect and there are always leaks. but we can and should surveil and regulate high-dollar financial flows and stashes. 6/

we'll likely backslide on this over the next few years, since we will be ruled by plutocrats. hopefully, rule by plutocrats won't last forever, and we'll be inclined to clip the wings of plutocracy during the hangover. /fin

I don't know much about Mason, don't mean to pretend that I do! But the perspective strikes me as from the inside of mainstream parties like US Dems and Labor. He looks outward with mixed feelings to a "left", characterizes Corbyn as a threat rather than at least to some degree an opportunity lost.

He's gentle with an identity politics left, who he thinks misguided and is trying to persuade to more constructive approaches. He's not gentle with a left whose foreign policy views are "tankie", even though their economic views are often vigorously social democratic.

I happen to agree with him that both the id-pol focused and "tankie" foreign policy focused portions of a leftish coalition are making grave errors! but i think he's making an error by deciding one can be pulled into coalition, while the other must be banished to the adversary and shunned.

The id-pol people are right to observe that important social disparities break along identity lines in ways not fully captured by material notions of class. But they are wrong to make that a foundation for political activism, because identity advocacy becomes divisive and zero-sum.

Similarly the "tankie" left is not wrong that Western foreign policy has included a lot of horrors. They are wrong in imagining powers like Russia, China, and Iran are therefore superior because they resist Western foreign policy.

Both groups are badly mistaken. But both groups need to be brought into coalition on material social democratic interests. That is the power, and only hope, of social democracy.

Whatever else divides us, whatever we disagree about, a solid material basis for all will leave us much better off than we were, and more able to address those issues.

There will still be racism and sexism in a robust social democracy, but it will matter less, you can tell the racists and sexists to fuck off and just live your life.

Foreign policy will still be complicated under social democracy, but if you view capitalist corruption of a military industrial complex as an important source of Western foreign policy horrors, social democratic reform will make it possible to collectively think more seriously and ethically.

Basically, it seems to me that Mason has a very inside view of what kind of errors leave people "on the broad left" redeemable, and what kind render them pariahs.

Also a bit too technocratic here, "It is entirely possible to defeat and contain right wing populism if social democrats and their allies adopt an evidence-based and professionally executed strategy..."

"Evidence-based" and "professional" has been the hallmark of mainstream center left parties. It has not served them well.

The next bit is "...mobilising our substantial support within civil society and our working class roots." That inverts the direction of causality. A successful socdem movement will need to organize the party such that it is *mobilized* by civil society and working class roots.