Untethered, Unmoored, and Unhappy

 

By Frank Filocomo

Liberalism leaves much to be desired. 

There's no question that liberation is, at least on the surface, a worthy goal. We ought to be free to live our lives as we see fit, right? And who are others to tell us what faith to practice, whom to associate with, or how we should love?

All of that is fair; there's a lot of merit in the "live and let live" proverb. 

When I was an undergrad, I recall reading Matt Kibbe's Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff. It offers good insight into the libertarian mind, in a way that the layperson can digest. I recommend reading it. In fact, it was my introduction to libertarian philosophy, which I adhered to for all of about a month.

The thing with liberalism - and libertarianism, its more radical kin - is that, while it is mostly right in its admonishments regarding state coercion, it offers little in the way of identity and belongingness. If liberalism is seen as an end in itself, life will have little meaning. 

In UnHerd, Paul Kingsnorth writes about liberalism's shortcomings vis-à-vis culture and place. Offering an astute anecdote, Kingsnorth relates a story about a campfire he participated in in the Indonesian rainforest:
Twenty-​­five years ago, I found myself sitting around a fire in an Indonesian rainforest. There were people around the fire from a few different countries... One of our hosts from Borneo began singing something beautiful in his language. Then a German picked up the guitar and belted out something lusty and Germanic. Then a couple of others. It was all quite fun. Then the guitar came round to another English ­person —​­ one who, unlike me, knew how to play­ it —​­ and there was a momentary silence, followed by a hushed consultation with a couple of other English people. What shall I play? It became quickly clear that none of us had a clue what a traditional English song was... In the end, the inevitable happened: the Englishman played a Bob Dylan song. Everybody, including the people from Borneo, sang happily along.

Much of the West's belongingness problem can be traced back to the Enlightenment-rationalism of centuries past. Enlightenment-rationalism teaches us that our thinking ought to be governed primarily by reason and reason alone (ever wonder why the country's leading libertarian publication is called Reason?). That is to say, history and tradition are mostly irrelevant. While, again, it would be wrong to say that Enlightenment thinkers presented no merit in their arguments, it would fair game to point to their lacking emphasis on communal identity. 

And it's worth noting that the liberal project is not a partisan one. Both the establishment Left and Right adhere closely to its tenets. 

This opens the door for a "third way," if you will: a philosophy that is premised around belonging. For years I've argued that that philosophy is communitarianism, which I've written about extensively. 

The third way presents us with an escape from spiritual homelessness.

More from the article:
The quest for culture is always a quest for home. Probably humans can never be truly at home on this earth, but there are degrees of homelessness, I think. When you’re young you want to run away from home and sit around an Indonesian campfire with people from many nations and sing. But you find that home has followed you and that you don’t know what it quite is, or why that bothers you so much. As you get older, you realize both why home matters and how fragile and elusive it is. Then you find you are living in a world whose forces have set out to destroy your sense of home wherever it can be found.

Some may pit communitarianism and liberalism against each other, as though they are diametrically at odds. That, as the late Amitai Etzioni has articulated, is not at all the case. Communitarianism takes a "yes, and" approach to society: a combination of individual autonomy and social order and cohesion. 

While it's tempting to jettison one ideology for another, a more promising future lies within the "yes, and." 

at No comments:
By

Charlie Kirk, R.I.P.

 


On Tuesday, September 9, I moderated an event with my friends Richard Brookhiser and his wife Dr. Jeanne Safer. The event, which was hosted by Braver Angels, centered around Jeanne's 2019 book, I Love You, But I Hate Your Politics. To anyone currently in a politically-mixed relationship or friendship, or for those otherwise curious about the topic, I encourage you to pick up a copy. It is rich with accounts of couples, friends, and family members that have had to navigate political difference. Jeanne's thesis is simple, but powerful: "...character, not political conviction, determines whether or not people can discuss controversial issues amicably."

The event was a ton of fun. We shared stories, laughed, and discussed some possible tactics for conversing with those who are politically different. The audience erupted in applause when Rick announced that September 12 would mark 45 years of marriage between him, a conservative American historian and writer for National Review, and Jeanne, a psychotherapist and life-long liberal. 

Just one day after this panel, conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University. The brutal killing by a coward, whom I shall not name, was broadcasted all over X and other social media. I don't recommend trying to find the footage; it is traumatizing. Kirk's wife and beautiful family will never be the same. To that point, much of the conservative movement won't be the same either. Kirk, since the age of 18, was a juggernaut, someone who, full-throatedly and unabashedly, defended conservative values on college campuses throughout the U.S. This, in turn, inspired young conservatives all over the country to start their own Turning Point chapters at their respective colleges. 

You see, many young conservatives have been reticent to out themselves as right-of-center for fear of being ostracized by peers and faculty. This is a rational fear, but one that Kirk rejected. His courage inspired us all. And, while I never followed Kirk all that closely, I always marveled at what he had built. 

This country is in such desperate need of spiritual healing.

I'd like to share with you all a couple of links from people much wiser than myself:

Read Lura Forcum's Substack entry on how listening to each other can help mend our political divide here.   

Marianne Williamson calls for love and peace here. 

Ross Douthat remarks that "the decisive battle, now as always, is inside the individual human heart." Watch that video here.

R.I.P., Charlie Kirk.

Let us strive for a better tomorrow. 

at No comments:
By

America Needs More Schmoozers

 


I encourage you to read Elizabeth Stice's latest article in Front Porch Republic. 

Stice, having recognized that America's scourge of social atomization is in no way abating, has decided to take matters into her own hands. 

Whatever the culprit for said atomization, people, Stice argues, ought to be more proactive. 

We often think ourselves powerless and unable to effectuate change. If we take a more parochial approach, however, there's actually a lot we can do to improve our lot. 

In her community, Stice has been a facilitator, brainstorming innovative ways to engage friends and neighbors.

In spring of 2024, I ran a 5K with a friend. At that race, other local races were being advertised. One was a “Margarita Mile.” You’d sign up, run a mile, and then you’d get a margarita at the finish line. My friend and I realized that we could put on something like that ourselves.

In 2024, I held my first Margarita Mile. I’ve done more since then. It’s simple. I invite a group of friends. Using sidewalk chalk, I mark a start line and some arrows on the sidewalk in front of my house. It’s an out and back course, so I mark the turn, too. People are invited to show up, run or walk a mile, and then I provide margaritas. My guests bring snacks. My line is “drinks on me, snacks on you.” People are encouraged to bring friends and feel free to come and go. No one has to drink and no one really even has to walk or run. People show up who do neither.

While the idea of the Margarita Mile might sound a bit silly - I, admittedly, think it does - Stice embraces the silliness. You see, the Margarita Mile has little to do with drinking or running; the point is social connection. Something like a Milkshake Minute - where you walk with friends for a minute, and then go grab a milkshake - would presumably achieve the same goal, though I'm not sure it's the healthiest idea...

Again, it's not about what you're doing with your friends; it's that you're doing it with your friends. 

Stice is what sociologist Robert Putnam would call a "schmoozer." Putnam, a Jewish convert, often uses Yiddish words to describe different sociological phenomena. Schmoozers, Putnam writes in Bowling Alone, "give dinner parties, hang out with friends, play cards, frequent bars and night spots, hold barbecues, visit relatives, and send greeting cards." In other words, they are thoughtful and active members of a community. 

The point: America needs more schmoozers. 

As Americans continue to retreat inwards, it is, at least in part, incumbent on schmoozers to coax introverts out of their apartments/cocoons. They do the heavy lifting. 

Be more like Stice. Be a schmoozer. 

 

at No comments:
By

Labor Day and Respect for the American Worker Holds the Key to our Civic and National Renewal

 

By Troy M. Olson

Labor Day Is Often Seen as the End of the Summer, Beginning of the School Year, but increasingly it crosses all of the key areas that are key to America's civic and national renewal.

Labor Day became a federal holiday in 1894 and by that time had been celebrated in the late 19th Century in many states. Its existence came out of the labor movement of trade unionism where it gets its name. In those days, the labor movement existed outside the major two political parties in the United States, would work with both, and even a third that was organizing for major party status at the time--the People's Party (most often referred to as the Populists). 

While organized labor has come to be associated with the Democratic Party today, its history and greatest successes came when it was outside of either major party's reach. That success stalled there first at its post-war zenith under the Truman administration, but then begin to lose momentum in earnest starting in the late 1970s deindustrialization and outsourcing which went on almost uninterrupted into the 21st Century. With it were unionization rates, and subsequent union growth came almost exclusively in the public sector, where gains are going to be pit directly against the interest of taxpayers. Rather than government being the arbiter between labor and management, politicians became the spineless promiser between the taxpayer and the public unionized employee. Labor Day may owe its existence to the trade unionization and labor movement but it increasingly must celebrate the dignity of work itself. 

One of the labor movement's biggest mistakes was becoming a mere arm of a political party. But in the Trump-era, that is beginning to reverse over the key issues of trade, immigration, and a renewed national industrial policy. This realignment will continue in the years to come and probably top out at a figure where in a decade or so the Republican Party is winning more support, along with endorsements and money from 17 of the top 30 unions in America, mostly in the trades and security areas, whereas Democrats are left with 13 or so, exclusively in the public employee and service sectors. 

For many decades now, wages have been stagnant or declined in real terms for the American worker, and the decline of unions is not the only part of that, but political - labor relations in America being what they were certainly prevented considerable recovery. Outsourcing and the forces of globalization, along with mass migration have undercut the American worker and with it put a considerable dent in the American middle class, which brings us to our second area. 

The American middle and working classes were and still are the backbone of this country, especially its civic fate. The dependent poor may need the American government a great deal and America's richest may be able to lobby for the most favorable treatment from government, but it is the middle class families who make or break this Constitutional Republic. There was a time in this country where the middle class could raise their families on one income, and those days are long gone for most of it now, and who it is not gone for pays for that lifestyle with credit cards, reverse mortgages and home equity lines, and most certainly - two parent incomes. 

The dignity of work, strong and intact families backed by a stable income, and crucially what those factors contribute to our communities and civic vitality is why Labor Day is not just another sales day. If we kick off the summer remembering with those who gave the last fully measure of devotion to this country with Memorial Day it is proper that we end it with Labor Day that sees a renewed commitment to what honest, dignified, and purposeful work with fair and decent compensation does for the soul, how it nourishes and builds the family, and how it contributes to building a country whose most ambitious citizens are reaching higher and higher these days, in hopes of a half-century Golden Age to come. 

And for all of those people, of which I am certainly one of them, there will be national and civic renewal without the American worker. In a time where we have emphatically decided to put America and the American people first, let us strive to be a country that recognizes how important respect for the American worker is in reversing so much that has gone wrong the past half-century. 

Troy M. Olson is an Army Veteran, lawyer by training, and co-author (with Gavin Wax) of ‘The Emerging Populist Majority’ now available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Target. He is the Sergeant-at-Arms of the New York Young Republican Club and co-founder of the Veterans Caucus. He lives in New York City with his wife and son, and is the 3rd Vice Commander (“Americanism” pillar) of the first new American Legion Post in the city in years, Post 917. You can follow him on X/Twitter and Substack at @TroyMOlson


at No comments:
By

Hard Core Community

 


When Jack Senff - former frontman of the now-defunct emo/skramz band, William Bonney - would scream the lyrics to songs like "Drug Lord" or "See Ya Later," he'd do so facing the same direction as the crowd. This unique approach to live music performance blurred the lines between the audience and the band; they were, in effect, all one organism, possessed by an unspeakable catharsis. 

"The crowd would sort of become part of the band," Senff Remarked in a YouTube interview. "There were no barriers. It's not like we played stages; we played living rooms and basements and stuff..." 

You might not particularly care for the caustic riffs and yearning screams that typify William Bonney's distinctive sound, but anyone would appreciate the remarkable collective displays of midwestern angst and sweat as seen in this live video. 


Senff, in his classic 3/4 sleeve baseball shirt, screams his heart out into the mic. The concentrated energy in the room is almost biblical. 

This was in South Bend, Indiana in 2013. I watched this from my parent's apartment in Brooklyn, envious of these kids' tight-knit emo community. I think it existed in Brooklyn at the time. Maybe a bit in Bushwick, I don't know. But, man did I wish I was in that sweaty venue with all of them, screaming until my throat was sore. 

To be integrated into a little community like that is an incredible feeling. I know because I've had little tastes of it throughout the years. 

We all need some outlet like this: somewhere where there's no judgement and friends abound. 

at No comments:
By

Read my latest!

 By Frank Filocomo

ICYMI: I had an article go up in Front Porch Republic last week. 

Read it here. 

I write about one Florida-native's quest to unearth her hometown's "third places." 

Have an idea of what my next article should be? Leave a comment!

Wishing you all a productive week!

at No comments:
By

The Communitarian Nature of School Uniforms

 


I hated the uniforms we had to wear in grade school. 

In my middle school in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, we were made to wear beige khaki pants and a collared shirt adorned with the school's logo. Deviation from this would result in a call home. 

I was something of a defiant little brat. I listened to death metal, skateboarded (though not well), and thought rules were bullshit. The uniforms, I felt, suppressed my totally unique individuality. 

It wasn't until much later that I started to see the communitarian merit in the common school uniform. 

Brandon McNeice, in a must-read piece for Front Porch Republic, makes the case for school uniforms as social-levelers:
Uniforms reject the idea that a child’s worth is measured by what she wears, what she can afford, or how effectively she can perform her identity.

Thus, the uniform connotes a sense of togetherness. 

You'll often find in everyday life the individualist temptation to engage in conspicuous consumption. That is, the materialistic desire to show off ones wealth with gaudy, outward displays. Someone wearing a Rolex watch, for example, wants people to know that they come from affluence. 

When, however, we all dress similarly, devoid of designer brands and lavish embellishments, the social dynamic is effectively leveled. Thus, personality and individualism must be demonstrated through intellectual merit. 

Read McNeice's article here. 

Speaking of Front Porch Republic, I should have an article coming out there in the coming days.

Stay tuned!

at 2 comments:
By

Laura Loomer's Idiotic War on the Office of the Surgeon General

 


Laura Loomer - the performative Right-wing political provocateur, notorious for her abrasive demeanor and pugnacity - is, at least in part, to blame for the country's lack of a surgeon general. 

She has, in effect, become the MAGAsphere's gatekeeper. 

Trump's first nominee to the surgeon general post, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, was routinely lambasted by Loomer on X:
Make no mistake, Loomer's main contention with Nesheiwat likely had less to do with this medical malpractice case than it had to do with her "promotion of DEI-focused initiatives implemented through City M.D., and her advocacy for the China Virus 'vaccine' as recently as November 2024."

President Trump, just days after this post, withdrew Nesheiwat's nomination.

To Loomer, Nesheiwat just wasn't MAHA enough. 

Loomer's response to Trump's withdrawal of the Fox News personality's nomination:
Really classy...

In place of Nesheiwat, Trump nominated MAHA-advocate and author, Dr. Casey Means, whom HHS Secretary RFK Jr. has praised: “We actually have to figure out new approaches to medicine, and that’s the kind of leadership that she’s going to bring to our country.”

Means' crunchy con-ism, however, still wasn't enough to satiate Loomer's intractable MAGA appetite: 
Loomer continues to relentlessly attack Means. 

Now we're in August of 2025, and we still don't have a surgeon general. 

What's more, we don't even have a set date for Means' Senate confirmation hearing. According to Politico, "The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is still waiting on paperwork to consider Dr. Casey Means' surgeon general nomination..."

So what if we don't have a surgeon general?

Surgeon generals, through their advisory reports, launch, what the late-Amitai Etzioni called, "national dialogues," or "megalogues." These are community- and country-wide conversations that, if executed correctly, can "lead to significant changes in core values." 

Case in point: it wasn't until Dr. Vivek Murthy's 2023 report, Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation, that we began to take the loneliness epidemic seriously. 

Murthy, however, left the Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) in January of 2025. Since then, Loomer's gatekeeping has prevented the position from being filled. 

President Trump mustn't kowtow to Loomer; our nation needs a doctor.  


at No comments:
By

Dispelling a Myth About Communitarians

 


Communitarians do not believe in coercion. 

Some, often in the libertarian or individualist camps, will use the term communitarian as a pejorative, that is, a dig against those whom they deem to have authoritarian or collectivistic tendencies. 

This, however, couldn't be further from the truth. 

Communitarians do not believe in a top-down, police state. Nor do they think authoritarianism should supplant democracy. Rather, they are respectful of rights and individual autonomy, while also being cognizant of the need for a robust social fabric. 

The great Amitai Etzioni in his book, The New Golden Rule, makes the case that communitarianism essentially represents a balance between bounded individualism and social order. 

To be in favor of social order, however, does not mean that you subscribe to social conservatism or other ideologies that seek to police private behavior.

Etzioni writes:
One cardinal difference between the social conservative and the communitarian paradigm advanced here is the standing of autonomy. It is basic to the communitarian paradigm; it is secondary or derivative in social conservative paradigms. 

It's certainly true that communitarians - myself included - believe that American society has drifted too far into a me-centric paradigm, but they do not think there should be an over-correction. 

If, for example, America's neoliberal era is succeeded by an age of illiberalism and police states, we'll know that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. 

The unbounded liberalism of late-18th century France and the authoritarianism of Mao's China are both bad. 

"A good society," writes Etzioni, "requires a balance between autonomy and order." 

Very well. Now that we've dispelled that misnomer, let's have an awesome week!

at No comments:
By

What Does Post-Liberalism Look Like?

 



What is post-liberalism, and what does it look like in practice?

Last week, Oren Cass - founder of American Compass, a new think tank that promotes the economic policies of the New Right - sat down with Notre Dame political science professor and author of Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen, to discuss the future of post-liberalism, a nascent ideology with an unclear definition. 

Deneen started by defining liberalism. 

These are the four ideological pillars he articulated:

1. Open borders, or, the free movement of peoples. 

2. Laissez faire economics.

3. The belief that liberal democracy ought to be disseminated widely (i.e. the Fukuyama thesis). 

4. The legacy of the sexual revolution. 

Phillip Blond, post-liberal political theorist and author of Red Tory, often alludes to point 2 and 4 as encapsulating the Left-Right liberal paradigm. That is, conservatives (especially in the American context, though less so these days), extol the virtues of deregulation and free markets, while liberals promote a sort of individual autonomy, particularly concerning sexual expression and the jettisoning of gender norms. According to Blond, both belief systems are actually two sides of the same liberal coin. 

Blond, an Englishman, articulated this paradigm at an Institute of Art and Ideas event in 2019:
We have been governed by extreme liberalism since the time of Margaret Thatcher. We have extreme economic liberalism on the Right, and extreme social liberalism on the Left, and they're a common project, and I always think it's incoherent to hear people on the Left denouncing neoliberalism economically, but essentially upholding it socially, and vice versa. 
This same sentiment can be found in Compact Magazine's mission statement: 
Our editorial choices are shaped by our desire for a strong social-democratic state that defends community—local and national, familial and religious—against a libertine left and a libertarian right.
Weirdly, though, it appears that Compact has since changed that language on the 'About' section of their site. See here. 

Deneen, like Blond and the folks at Compact, argues that the "limitlessness" of unbounded liberalism - that is, the belief that individuals should be left to their own devices in all realms of life - does, in fact, have limits. 

Both Deneen and Cass believe that we are already seeing the germ of a reaction to liberalism, as described in the aforementioned four pillars.  

That much is pretty hard to dispute. The Bernie movement, as well as MAGA, are both pretty obvious reactions to the liberal order. New York assemblyman and probable next mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, represents a far-Left rejection of liberalism. 

We are, it certainly appears, entering into a post-liberal era. This, though, begs two stubborn questions: 1. We know what post-liberalism is against, but what is it for? 2. What would post-liberalism look like in practice?

While Cass asked Deneen several times what a "positive version" of post-liberalism might look like, Deneen struggled to offer anything concrete, reiterating that people today are disaffected by liberalism. At one point, he attempts to make a parallel between post-liberalism and libertarianism. This was totally mystifying, as the former is frequently described as a critique of the latter. 

To be sure, Deneen is brilliant. Why Liberalism Failed was an awesome contribution to the national conversation. His normative view of a post-liberal future, though, at least as articulated in this podcast, is underwhelming. 

Personally, I struggle to see any kind of real difference between post-liberalism and social conservatism, à la Rick Santorum. 

Thus, it would make far more sense for post-liberals to simply advocate for a return to social conservative thinking, instead of attempting to build an entirely new ideology from the ground up. 

So, what is post-liberalism? As of right now, nothing...

But, perhaps I'm missing something. If you have the time, listen to the podcast here. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

As always, have a great week!

at No comments:
By

Conversation Is the Only Way Forward

 


There is nothing more dangerous than an ideological echo chamber. 

In Reclaiming Conversation, Sherry Turkle urges readers to "talk with people whom you don't agree."

This is, of course, easier said than done. 

What if, for instance, the person with whom you are conversing is a holocaust-denier or, at least, a holocaust-skeptic? Should said person even be entertained?

A few weeks ago, former UFC fighter and far-right political provocateur, Jake Shields, sat down with X-user and pro-Israel advocate, Adam King, who goes by the pseudonym, Awesome Jew, online.  

Shields is, in many ways, a rebarbative figure. 

He is obsessed with, what has historically been referred to as, the Jewish Question, or, the JQ. That is, more or less, the rather myopic and derivative view that Jews run the world. This is nothing new: an old and boring form of bigotry. 

While some discern anti-Zionism and antisemitism, Shields doesn't bother. 

Here's Shields playing Ye's "Heil Hitler" in front of Israelis in a hotel lobby. "Fuck these Israelis,"  Shields says in his raspy voice, "they're fucking everywhere." 

To rehash every dimwitted, Jew-hating X post from Jake Shields would be akin to emptying the ocean with a thimble, as his feed is replete with the typical Leo Frank-type tropes. 

This said, I was shocked to see that Shields had accepted a debate challenge from Awesome Jew, a right-wing Zionist. 

You can watch the nearly-three hour debate here. 

To be clear, I am no fan of Awesome Jew, either. Many of his posts are far from thoughtful. But his knowledge of Israel and the conflict in the region writ large was clearly no match for Shields, a neophyte far out of his depth. 

Content aside, though, the exchange was surprisingly civil.  

In fact, it was less of a debate and more of friendly back-and-forth, with plenty of laughter and tongue in cheek one-liners. 

While you can frame this as a showdown between a holocaust-skeptic and a right-wing Zionist, you can just as easily see it as two stripped-down humans seeing each other as equals, instead of enemies. 

To be sure, there are some folks in the ever-growing world of nasty conspiracy theories whom it would be unwise to engage: Stew Peters and Lucas Gage are just a few examples. They don't just espouse racism and antisemitism, they engage in violent rhetoric. Here is Peters calling for a "Final Solution" on the Jewish people. 

Shields, however, to his credit, does not advocate for violence during his debate with King (a low bar, I know).

The point: conversation, not censorship, is the best way to combat extremism, both on the political Right and Left. 

Jake Shields and Adam King (Awesome Jew) shake hands.

To be sure, not everyone has the stomach to engage with such divisive personalities, and that's totally understandable. But someone has to do it. 

I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, a black man who has, through the power of conversation, de-radicalized members of the KKK. Davis, a remarkably affable guy with no motive other than cognitive empathy, has done more to combat extremism than anyone else. His approach and temperament ought to be studied. 

Daryl Davis with KKK member.

As polarized as we are in America today, I remain optimistic about our future. Through dialectic, we can depolarize, deradicalize, and come together once again. 

at No comments:
By
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Untethered, Unmoored, and Unhappy

  By Frank Filocomo Liberalism leaves much to be desired.  There's no question that liberation is, at least on the surface, a worthy go...