Your review is excruciatingly fair to Mounk, and by being so it highlights how he repeatedly finds himself in some barely defensible corners. As you note, he brings a liberal sensitivity to listening to people with illiberal sentiments. A praiseworthy practice. But in his conversations or in his processing those illiberal opinions, he tends to adopt their frame, or start with their definition of a problem. So from the git go he’s headed off in the wrong direction. His destination is wearily predictable - a somewhat mournful, well-intentioned wringing of hands. It’s the sort of wishy-washy liberalism that unintentionally gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It’s such a reliable pattern that, if he weren’t so evidently intensely sincere, I’d think it was simply disingenuous.
I haven’t read the book yet - I can barely force myself to read his stuff in The Atlantic or his new group venture. Your review actually makes me think the various research he pulls together and his discussion of other peoples’ thoughts on diversity and democracy are worth the price. As for the place he arrives at by the end, however, it’s precisely what I expected from the title.
Your discussion of what we need to be exploring when we think about democracy, social cohesion and the complex issues around trust are more capacious and relevant than the narrow binaries Mounk manages to trap himself in. Like any excellent book review, yours offers food for thought - in this case, on what a more muscular liberalism, that doesn’t apologize for itself, ought to look like.
I am writing about similar topics and behaviours, based on my experience in Sweden. Already in 2017 I started writing about needs to update and renew liberalism for 21st century, especially since the critique of liberalism started to focus on aspects as identification and culture, rather than economy and markets.
I read and listen to Mounk from time to time. Partly due to his work on democracy, since I am working with ideas of liquid democracy. He is among liberal thinkers whom argues in favor of "liberal nationalism", as when it comes immigration. Sadly, I see similar arguments and opinions in Sweden, where despite all problems around immigration and integration policies, abandoning core principles and not creating new ideas and visions is simply not good for liberal values.
In my view, one of many problems here is the view that liberal values should be limited to a particular nation, and also that the nation-state is seen as a final step in human history. But if nation-state, national citizenships and passports are seen as that, then what is the point of liberalism for the future?
I mean, are official, registered and active liberals around the world going to think that the role of liberalism is just to maintain certain values and do politics within nations, or is it possible for liberals, in my views, to create complex, "glocal" and federalist ideas and proposal for institutional and individual development? Is freedom a universal value for all humans or something "national"?
For example, "strong borders" are unsafe and dangerous borders while there is already technology that in principle all humans could have a legal digital ID and be able to from point A to point B globally.
An excellent, fair, and detailed critique. It helps to explain the vague disquiet I often feel when reading Mounk's work...as if I'm listening to a piano slightly out of tune. The US is in dire straits for many reasons, but immigration isn't one of them:1) a weak, inept, and out of touch Democratic party, whose geriatric leadership refuse to listen to input from the very voters they are desperate to win and is terrified of leading, 2) a GOP that has been systematically undermining both democracy and the will of the majority for 40 years, 3) a disillusioned populace who feel that neither party is fighting for their wellbeing, 4) incalculable polarization (GOP leadership operates without good faith, but some of their bad faith narrative contains kernels of truth that Democratic leadership shrugs off...eg, the recent incident with Dave Weigel was absurd and Democrats should have said as much). Those who can't stomach Trumpism are often left without reasonable alternatives. Democrats should be blistering the airways about reasonable gun safety...how can a party fail to lead on 'slaughtering innocent children is bad'. The problem is that '1) 'the people' either don't vote or vote on emotion instead of voting on the hard choice before them...permanent minority rule vs liberal democracy, 2) people keep expecting someone to save us (Mueller, Garland, SDNY, Democratic leadership)...this will never happen. Either we collectively organize, run for office and vote, walk off jobs, go on strike, whatever it takes to force public servants to listen and act, or we lose our civil rights. Every other solution proposed in the never-ending publishing cycle is a fantasy. Sadly, my prediction is that few will act and we'll continue to fall off a cliff for decades to come.
"Thanks to America’s restrictionist regime, 100 miles of the interior adjacent to the border is now effectively a constitution-free zone where immigration authorities can stop and demand to see anyone’s papers as if they were at a border checkpoint."
This of course would not be necessary if the border was enforced in the first place. It is a consequene of the "restrictionist regime" actually not being very good at restriction.
Your review is excruciatingly fair to Mounk, and by being so it highlights how he repeatedly finds himself in some barely defensible corners. As you note, he brings a liberal sensitivity to listening to people with illiberal sentiments. A praiseworthy practice. But in his conversations or in his processing those illiberal opinions, he tends to adopt their frame, or start with their definition of a problem. So from the git go he’s headed off in the wrong direction. His destination is wearily predictable - a somewhat mournful, well-intentioned wringing of hands. It’s the sort of wishy-washy liberalism that unintentionally gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It’s such a reliable pattern that, if he weren’t so evidently intensely sincere, I’d think it was simply disingenuous.
I haven’t read the book yet - I can barely force myself to read his stuff in The Atlantic or his new group venture. Your review actually makes me think the various research he pulls together and his discussion of other peoples’ thoughts on diversity and democracy are worth the price. As for the place he arrives at by the end, however, it’s precisely what I expected from the title.
Your discussion of what we need to be exploring when we think about democracy, social cohesion and the complex issues around trust are more capacious and relevant than the narrow binaries Mounk manages to trap himself in. Like any excellent book review, yours offers food for thought - in this case, on what a more muscular liberalism, that doesn’t apologize for itself, ought to look like.
Shikha, regarding liberalism, migration, universalism and nationalism - I recommend you to follow and read Clara Sandelind https://boundedsolidarity.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/does-liberalism-need-nationalism/?fbclid=IwAR3VL1pKpucvR0ZQxd75Xu4cqbiV76vfsk7uM5ui8kwF5sMq2YuvQieJpsU
I am writing about similar topics and behaviours, based on my experience in Sweden. Already in 2017 I started writing about needs to update and renew liberalism for 21st century, especially since the critique of liberalism started to focus on aspects as identification and culture, rather than economy and markets.
I read and listen to Mounk from time to time. Partly due to his work on democracy, since I am working with ideas of liquid democracy. He is among liberal thinkers whom argues in favor of "liberal nationalism", as when it comes immigration. Sadly, I see similar arguments and opinions in Sweden, where despite all problems around immigration and integration policies, abandoning core principles and not creating new ideas and visions is simply not good for liberal values.
In my view, one of many problems here is the view that liberal values should be limited to a particular nation, and also that the nation-state is seen as a final step in human history. But if nation-state, national citizenships and passports are seen as that, then what is the point of liberalism for the future?
I mean, are official, registered and active liberals around the world going to think that the role of liberalism is just to maintain certain values and do politics within nations, or is it possible for liberals, in my views, to create complex, "glocal" and federalist ideas and proposal for institutional and individual development? Is freedom a universal value for all humans or something "national"?
For example, "strong borders" are unsafe and dangerous borders while there is already technology that in principle all humans could have a legal digital ID and be able to from point A to point B globally.
https://www.opulens.se/global/being-an-individual-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow/
An excellent, fair, and detailed critique. It helps to explain the vague disquiet I often feel when reading Mounk's work...as if I'm listening to a piano slightly out of tune. The US is in dire straits for many reasons, but immigration isn't one of them:1) a weak, inept, and out of touch Democratic party, whose geriatric leadership refuse to listen to input from the very voters they are desperate to win and is terrified of leading, 2) a GOP that has been systematically undermining both democracy and the will of the majority for 40 years, 3) a disillusioned populace who feel that neither party is fighting for their wellbeing, 4) incalculable polarization (GOP leadership operates without good faith, but some of their bad faith narrative contains kernels of truth that Democratic leadership shrugs off...eg, the recent incident with Dave Weigel was absurd and Democrats should have said as much). Those who can't stomach Trumpism are often left without reasonable alternatives. Democrats should be blistering the airways about reasonable gun safety...how can a party fail to lead on 'slaughtering innocent children is bad'. The problem is that '1) 'the people' either don't vote or vote on emotion instead of voting on the hard choice before them...permanent minority rule vs liberal democracy, 2) people keep expecting someone to save us (Mueller, Garland, SDNY, Democratic leadership)...this will never happen. Either we collectively organize, run for office and vote, walk off jobs, go on strike, whatever it takes to force public servants to listen and act, or we lose our civil rights. Every other solution proposed in the never-ending publishing cycle is a fantasy. Sadly, my prediction is that few will act and we'll continue to fall off a cliff for decades to come.
"Thanks to America’s restrictionist regime, 100 miles of the interior adjacent to the border is now effectively a constitution-free zone where immigration authorities can stop and demand to see anyone’s papers as if they were at a border checkpoint."
This of course would not be necessary if the border was enforced in the first place. It is a consequene of the "restrictionist regime" actually not being very good at restriction.