Michael Lind with Jack Murphy

Michael Lind talks American class war with @jackmurphylive -- Self-recommending.
https://t.co/2ieZle8xrd via @YouTube

— Samuel Hammond 🌐🏛 (@hamandcheese) April 6, 2021

Frohnen Reviews New Class War

"Lind’s New Class War is one between technocratic managerial elites and the middle and (especially) working classes tied to recent populist revolts." - @KirkCenter Senior Fellow Bruce P. Frohnen reviews "The New Class War" by Michael Lind: https://t.co/hp0xa99u4M pic.twitter.com/kv91MKwwp0

— Russell Kirk Center (@KirkCenter) March 27, 2021

The Great Awokening

#TheWokeWars

"My impression is the Great Awokening is a sort of post-Protestant new gentility that worships blacks precisely because it’s so hard not to slip up and notice / mention ungenteel truths about blacks." - @Steve_Sailer https://t.co/huV5DhBZKm

— VDARE (@vdare) November 19, 2020

Michael Lind on Yankees?

The Oligarchy at Work

“Multicultural America...is a grotesque synthesis of New Left and New Right, a rhetorical radicalism and real plutocracy, of divide-and-rule multiculturalism and cheap-labor economic globalism.” — Michael Lind, Next American Nation

— Tyler Fagan (@tylerafagan) November 1, 2020

Trump v. the Managerial State

Pedro Gonzalez on Michael Lind

Today, law-abiding Americans are technically still living under draconian, nationwide lockdowns. Simultaneously, the cities they live in are subjected to racially motivated rioting, in which mob members conspicuously flout public health guidelines. https://t.co/c3ADUUn7At

— Chronicles Magazine (@ChroniclesMag) October 28, 2020

Chronicles

Won't Disagree with This Headline

Replace the Elite https://t.co/3fzQkHx2aF

— john milbank (@johnmilbank3) August 15, 2020

First Things

Patrick Deneen reviews The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite by Michael Lind.

Deneen:

Not unlike the managerial elite he criticizes, Lind fails to draw the correct conclusion from his own analysis. What’s ­needed is not “democratic pluralism” in which the ruling class remains a neoliberal, managerial elite who strategically concede some wealth and status to their inferiors. What’s needed is a fundamental displacement of the elite ethos by a common-good, popular conservatism that directs both economic goals and social values toward broadly shared material and social capital, toward the support of family and community life. We do not need libertarian overlords who buy off the working class with some welfare, nor a federal government that doles out tax receipts to localities, nor secularists who grudgingly grant some space to religious believers, but a ruling class that is itself informed by the very values that Lind believes were once regnant as the price of admission to elite status itself. Only the fear of not conforming to the regnant ethos will sufficiently move elites, but that fear will arise subsequent to the wholesale defeat, displacement, and discrediting of the regnant elite ethos.

This means, contra Lind, that what is needed is not “democratic pluralism,” which Lind envisions as a balance of power between an otherwise exploitative ruling class and an electorally powerful underclass. Rather, the current ruling class needs to be displaced by the ethos of the underclass: people shaped by and supportive of guild, ward, and congregation. The ruling class, no less than the working class, should be shaped by commitments of solidarity and subsidiarity, and not merely accord grudgingly with those who are. Lind regards the revival of such institutions as the Church as an unrealistic goal and calls for some sort of functional equivalent. Yet the decline of organizational forms of unions, local politics, and Church has been significantly advanced by the ­individualist, materialist, and secular ethos embraced by today’s managerial elite. If these institutions declined due to sustained efforts by the managerial elite, their renewal can be effected through the displacement of that elite with a different one informed by an opposing ethos. The power sought is not merely to balance the current elite, but to replace them. In the end, there is no “functional equivalent” of solidarity and subsidiarity, and only a leadership and working class steeped in such values will restore the ­republic.

This is the conservative fantasy, that they will gain power -- the "illiberals" or common-good conservatives will enact common-good conservatism when they get power, after enlisting the support of the working class. Tell me, who is going to provide the financial support to make this happen? Donald Trump? How are they going to overcome the gatekeepers within the Republican Party who act on behalf of the oligarchy?

Michael Lind on Industrial Policy and National Security

Michael Lind works through the logistics of implementing an industrial policy to protect our national security in @AmerCompass. Give it a read.https://t.co/eQjQ1WKdBZ

— Tyler Fagan (@tylerafagan) August 10, 2020

Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement

Simon and Schuster

Rod Dreher: Class War as Culture War and ‘Civil Rights’ And Totalitarianism

The Federalist Radio Hour: PlayerFM
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties – Dennis Prager with Christopher Caldwell

Reviews:
Chuck Chalberg: Christopher Caldwell’s “The Age of Entitlement”
Peter Y. Paik: Civil Rights Against Civil Society
Steve Sailer: Civil Rights Gone Wrong
Seth Barron: America Unraveled: Christopher Caldwell’s new book argues that, for the past half-century, the U.S. has been effectively living under two competing constitutional regimes.
Darel E. Paul: Clashing Rights

Patrick Deneen Reviews Michael Lind's The New Class War

First Things

Lind follows Burnham’s basic thesis that a new elite had arisen to replace first the older land-based aristocracy, and then the industry-based oligarchy. The new elite was distinctive for its monopolization of portable skills that allowed them to manage modern firms. Running these organizations required flexibility, mobility, skills in “symbolic analysis,” and a concomitant disconnection from place, culture, and tradition. Those who exhibited such aptitudes were vacuumed from every city, town, and hamlet across the world and into the urban cores. Those lacking such abilities, or unwilling to become sufficiently flexible and mobile, became the Left Behind. This new ruling class saw itself as a “meritocracy.” It believed that its power was earned and deserved, and that those who didn’t succeed deserved their station. Noblesse oblige was replaced by calls for state welfare as adequate compensation for those who lost the meritocratic sweepstakes.

The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite by Michael Lind