"The political entrepreneur is an unnatural being."
This is a fun riff in a fun review, but imo the political entrepreneur is actually the most natural type, and far predates the market entrepreneur. Classic human archetypes from priest, to warlord, to longhouse busybody are all merely subtypes of the political entrepreneur, who at heart seeks to create a politically-constituted "thing" to which deference, attention, and tribute must be paid. DC is Silicon Valley for these folks, and the foundation world (much more than academia) is the equivalent of VC, funding 100 founders in search of 1-2 big successes.
Good poast. Have not read the book but theoretically, if a friendly president were to be elected to office, how many of those legislations (listed in that table) could be repealed in the short, mid, and long term? I imagine the executive order one could be rescinded ASAP, but was there any strategic outlines for doing away with the rest?
Awesome, thank you. Everyone who reads Hanania will be highly interested in Jesse Merriam's account of the "canonization" of Brown vs. Board of Education.
In 1999, Richard Posner published _The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory_. In that book, he called the most influential moral philosophers "moral entrepreneurs". I wouldn't be surprised if Hanania, U of C grad that he is, was familiar with Posner's book and perhaps put his own spin on Posner's approach.
You write that Hanania's explanation for why Republicans have lost is that "The one line summary is 'Republicans were too lazy and disorganized'. I have no doubt that this explanation is true, but it feels unsatisfactory." Doesn't this just dovetail with his "Liberals read, conservatives watch TV" article? Conservatives are more religious and happier, which makes them less desirous of imposing social changes; not to mention they have lower IQ and (ipso facto?) get most of their information from TV rather than reading.
That said, I don't know whether Hanania's claims about conservatives are supposed to apply to, say, 1964. Was it true then that conservatives got most of their information about the world from TV? But weren't newscasters fairly liberal? If so, did they get their information from the Birch Society?
"The political entrepreneur is an unnatural being."
This is a fun riff in a fun review, but imo the political entrepreneur is actually the most natural type, and far predates the market entrepreneur. Classic human archetypes from priest, to warlord, to longhouse busybody are all merely subtypes of the political entrepreneur, who at heart seeks to create a politically-constituted "thing" to which deference, attention, and tribute must be paid. DC is Silicon Valley for these folks, and the foundation world (much more than academia) is the equivalent of VC, funding 100 founders in search of 1-2 big successes.
Good poast. Have not read the book but theoretically, if a friendly president were to be elected to office, how many of those legislations (listed in that table) could be repealed in the short, mid, and long term? I imagine the executive order one could be rescinded ASAP, but was there any strategic outlines for doing away with the rest?
Awesome, thank you. Everyone who reads Hanania will be highly interested in Jesse Merriam's account of the "canonization" of Brown vs. Board of Education.
https://dc.claremont.org/how-we-got-our-antiracist-constitution-canonizing-brown-v-board-of-education-in-courts-and-minds/
And on "The Affirmative Action Regime"
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-affirmative-action-regime/
In 1999, Richard Posner published _The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory_. In that book, he called the most influential moral philosophers "moral entrepreneurs". I wouldn't be surprised if Hanania, U of C grad that he is, was familiar with Posner's book and perhaps put his own spin on Posner's approach.
You write that Hanania's explanation for why Republicans have lost is that "The one line summary is 'Republicans were too lazy and disorganized'. I have no doubt that this explanation is true, but it feels unsatisfactory." Doesn't this just dovetail with his "Liberals read, conservatives watch TV" article? Conservatives are more religious and happier, which makes them less desirous of imposing social changes; not to mention they have lower IQ and (ipso facto?) get most of their information from TV rather than reading.
That said, I don't know whether Hanania's claims about conservatives are supposed to apply to, say, 1964. Was it true then that conservatives got most of their information about the world from TV? But weren't newscasters fairly liberal? If so, did they get their information from the Birch Society?