Daniel Jeskey

The world currently seems to be in a state of decoupling, and has been for the past several years. Free trade is seen as a deal for suckers and nationalisms of various sorts and degrees on the rise. I see this inevitably leading to a rise in conflict, which is already occurring. This is not just because we are going from a unipolar world dominated by the United States to a multipolar world with various regional powers. Indeed we might just be in a diminished unipolar world. It is also because we are reversing centuries of global integration. I’m not sure the world will ever be a completely peaceful place. I think there will always be conflict of varying degrees. But the best way found to mitigate war and conflict is through greater integration of the world and economies. Not getting rid of nations per se, but integrating closer together. True, you can end up with other forms of conflict. That surely has been part of the rise of Islamic terrorism as religious fundamentalists deal with a smaller world. However, nationalism and populism will definitely bring about conflicts similar to what we have seen in the past and it will not be good for anybody.

There has been a recent myth circulating that is counter to an earlier myth. The view is that if we integrate our economy with China then they will become more politically free as their economy becomes more free. The more recent myth is that because this didn’t happen, obviously economic interdependence was a mistake that didn’t get us anywhere but stuck with an economy with fewer jobs and the possibility of conflict anyway. I would argue though that it is not the case that we necessarily would turn China into a liberal democratic capitalist state by integrating our economies, although it is still possible that it could happen down the road. However, it is the case that integrating our economies reduces the possibilities of conflict, and by decoupling our economices we not only increase the possibilities of conflict but remove the possibility of China further liberalizing.

This is a short piece following on one that Nate Silver wrote in his substack on the growing split between liberals and leftists. His article is anchored to the Israeli-Hamas conflict that grew out of the attacks of October 7. He focuses on the leftists who support the Palestinians versus the liberals who largely support Israel. Nate uses the example to model the spectrum slightly differently as a triangle with MAGA conservatives in one corner, social justice leftists in the other corner, and liberals in the bottom corner. I think this is a fair model, but I would take it one step further, as his spectrum doesn’t include space for those who are conservatives, but not of the MAGA variety. Yes, we can get really nitpicky here, but I think there needs to be a recognized distinction between those conservatives who are all aboard the Trump train (or nationalist conservatives), as opposed to those who are anti-Trump, and embrace liberal values and principles.

My spectrum would thus resemble more of a trapezoid with the bottom corner broken into two corners, but closer together so that one is right-liberals and the other corner is left-liberals. Liberals after all share some core principles in common, but emphasize different elements. Right-liberals are more conservative socially, but still recognize that rights rest inherently in individuals, just as left-liberals do. Left-liberals are much more comfortable with market regulations and redistribution of wealth, but share with right-liberals a key commitment to free markets of varying degrees. The spectrum as it has been is growing rather long in the tooth, and if differences continue to keep emerging between left-liberals and leftists, and right-liberals and MAGA conservatives, I can see the possibility of new coalitions forming within the parties. I’m sure Nate Silver would not necessarily disagree with this model as his focus was more on the cleavages occurring within the left.

Thinking Without Rails is a new blog where I can explore various thoughts and ideas I have. The title actually comes from a quote for Hannah Arendt, the political theorist. She has a collection of essays called “Thinking Without A Bannister” and she has a quote in front that says,

"There's this other thing, which Draenos brought up...'groundless thinking' I have a 	metaphor which is not quite that cruel, and which I have never published but kept for 	myself.  I call it thinking without a bannister... That is, as you go up and down the 	stairs you can always hold on to the bannister so that you don't fall down, but we have 	lost the bannister.  That is the way I tell it to myself.  And this is indeed what I try 	to do."

I think that this accurately refelcts the current state of our time. It seems the rails have come off and it is important to be able to thinking outside of what we are used to. With the rise of a kind of neo-nationalism and populism, and different kinds of fundamentalism, it is vital to be able to consider where we find ourselves and where we go from here.

The title also reflects that I won’t be constricting this blog to one topic in particular. I am a generalist of sorts, and have thoughts on different subjects ranging from politics and current events, to technology and history, to philosophy, science, and religion. My hope is for this blog to be both entertaining and informative as well as grow in my understanding by writing out my thoughts. There was a thinker who said that they did not know what they thought about something until they write it down. I think this is very true and intend to follow through on that.

Thank you for reading and coming on this journey with me.