FUKUYAMA WINS AGAIN:

Why postliberalism failed: Orbán’s warning to the Right (Samuel Mace, 4/20/26, CapX)


This result does not even spell the beginning of the end of our own populist moment, but the failure of Fidesz and the scandals which brought down Orbán’s illiberal regime represent an overdue reckoning with reality for the postliberal dream.

That dream imagines postliberalism as a new and more effective way to govern, delivering conservative priorities through state power and institutional and civic dominance. Fidesz exposed the practical limits of this vision in Hungary, but the problem is far more fundamental.

As Paul Kelly writes in ‘Against Postliberalism’, postliberalism operates as a negative ideological force fighting against the dominance of liberalism and liberal ideals. Even when it arrives in power, it is trapped by this focus into antagonistic political gestures lacking genuine innovation.

Despite the efforts of authors like Adrian Vermuele and Patrick Deneen, the postliberals have had little success imagining something new. Postliberalism remains just the latest intellectual reaction created by the success of liberal democracy, rather than a serious rival to replace it.

DONALD HAS RUBBED THEIR NOSES IN WHAT THEIR VOTES MEANT:

Why is the Maga project teetering? Because not even Trump supporters voted for this dysfunction (Moira Donegan, 4/21/26, The Guardian)

Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election was once seen as a definitive cultural shift, proof that his aggressive, domineering style of rightwing populism had found permanent purchase in US politics. Pundits hailed the triumph of conservatism; institutions scrambled to adjust to the new dominance of a regime with authoritarian aspirations. This was always a suspicious claim: was a narrow victory in one close presidential election really a sign of a broad and permanent cultural shift?

Less than 18 months later, that thesis has collapsed. Trump and his allies have delivered an era of backlash and cultural retrenchment from the executive branch: slashing grants for “woke” research; turning federal programmes meant to promote equality into engines for discrimination; stymying promotions for women and people of colour in the armed services in what critics say is an effort to resegregate the military; and pressuring athletic conferences from the National Collegiate Athletic Association to the International Olympic Committee to ban trans women athletes.

They have made their cultural values felt in pervasive and sadistic ways. Americans see ICE officers patrolling their airports and tanks on the streets of major cities; they see their neighbours being snatched away by immigration agents; and they see the costs of housing soaring out of reach as the construction industry workforce dwindles as a result. They see Trump and his friends posturing on television, complaining over and over again about issues that their side has already won. And they also see the signs posted at their local gas station, where the price has now soared from an average of $3.10 a gallon in 2025 to more than $4.

It’s all well and good to feel Identitarian, until you see the actions your feelings demand.

THE HUMAN COMEDY:

Why Should We Imagine Sisyphus Happy? Explaining Camus’ Famous Quote (Simon Lea, 4/25/26, The Collector)

Instead, we should attempt to imagine Sisyphus happy as he strolls back down the mountain, his time his own. Yes, he lives a meaningless existence in that there is nothing meaningful about endlessly repeating a pointless task that is impossible to complete. However, this means no meaning or purpose has been imposed upon him. Sisyphus has the opportunity to create meaning and make his existence meaningful. This, Camus has been arguing for previously in the essay, is a good thing and should make Sisyphus happy.

Not quite. It is the struggle to attain the god-set goal that gives life meaning. The inability to do so can be viewed as either a tragedy or a comedy. The conservative sees it as the latter. Joy in life derives from being thankful that God granted us the free will to engage in the struggle to be good.

rEASON IS A FAITH:

Why Is the Explanatory Gap the Unsolvable Problem of Neuroscience? (Magnus Wijkander, 4/24/26, Thge Collector)

How can the private world of subjective experience, your feelings, thoughts, and hopes, be defined in terms of the cold, hard data of objective brain science? Philosopher of mind Joseph Levine named this theoretical chasm with practical consequences the “Explanatory Gap.” It’s a core challenge for neuroscience, signifying a fundamental, possibly unsolvable puzzle at the heart of what it means to be human and have consciousness.

cREATION IS BEAUTIFUL:

High Lights: Our lives are governed by wondrous phenomena that we don’t often stop to consider. (Melissa Kirsch, April 25, 2026, NY Times)

Knowing that the spectacle of the northern lights occurs because of electromagnetism doesn’t help to explain the feeling I had that night in the cornfield, the deep gratitude I felt for days afterward. I kept thinking about how we’d gone from total darkness to pyrotechnics in an instant. I had this feeling that there was magic in the world around me, that beauty could emerge from nothingness and I didn’t have to do anything to summon it.

THE eND OF hISTORY IS UNDEFEATED:

The Rise And Fall Of ‘Petty Tyrants’: History shows that bad leaders can successfully undermine democracy — but the story always ends the same way. (Danny Hillis, April 23, 2026, NOEMA)

Once in power, every leader, good or bad, faces difficulties. The fork in the road is how they choose to handle unwelcome realities. For vain leaders, admitting difficulties would mean admitting personal failure. The psychological stakes of honest assessment are unbearable, so they take the path that avoids it.

Setbacks are blamed on the incompetence of subordinates. Those who insist on bringing up unpleasant truths are replaced with sycophants who reinforce petty tyrants’ exaggerated sense of genius. Eventually dissenters are frightened into silence.

To hide the truth from the outside world, petty tyrants must deceive and distract. Detachment from reality does not require stupidity, just the willingness to choose an appealing story over obstinate facts. So energies become focused on fabricating and supporting a convenient story and demonizing scapegoats. Institutions responsible for gathering objective information that might contradict the narrative are deliberately weakened. Critics are portrayed as traitors.

As the leaders and their associates concentrate their efforts on deceiving others, they begin to deceive themselves. To sustain the illusion, they must act as if they believe their own lies, as must those around them. Whether they actually believe becomes irrelevant. They are trapped in their own illusion.

As appearance replaces performance and loyalty replaces competence, the system begins to reward flattery rather than governance. Insiders learn to exploit the tyrant’s vanity, not only to stay in favor, but to advance their own agendas. Corruption becomes systemic. Extraction replaces stewardship and, as parts of the system become parasitic, the deterioration accelerates.

Once decisions are based on false premises, weaknesses are made invisible. But reality does not care. When Mussolini’s troops invaded in summer uniforms, winter still came.

As reality diverges from the fabricated narrative, the functional damages — the military defeats, the economic collapses, the institutional failures — create catastrophes that cannot be hidden. The spell is broken not by some moral awakening, but by these concrete disasters. Once a sufficient portion of the loyal supporters realize they have been duped, the leader will eventually fall.

The energy required to deceive is unsustainable. Reality is relentless. The tyrant who chooses to fight it is doomed.

THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO LIBERALISM:

Postliberalism’s Hungary Gambit Failed (Thomas D. Howes, 4/22/26, Civitas Outlook)

In the debates about postliberalism since Deneen’s book Why Liberalism Failed appeared in 2017, postliberals and their friends (e.g., Kevin Roberts) would that conservatives needed to stop fearing the use of power; some of their close friends in the new right would even echo Carl Schmitt, saying that in politics you need to reward friends and punish enemies; they would ask rhetorically “do you not know what time it is?”; others would dismiss proceduralism as an obstacle to promoting the common good. Among postliberal intellectuals, Adrian Vermeule opposed Madisonian, called for a more powerful and bureaucracy, and said we would be better off; Gladden Pappin bragged about the organizations that were formed to Trump loyalists to fill government positions; Christopher Rufo said these kinds of efforts, which included DOGE (a brainchild of Curtis Yarvin), were an “,” an effort to install a new elite, which echoed the arguments of Patrick Deneen’s book Regime Change. What they learned from Viktor Orbán was that you could decrease the separation of powers and weaken the checks and balances of a government by filling strategic positions with loyalists.

Postliberals also pushed a dubious economic agenda. Power should be used, they argued, to shape the economy; was all the rage, and various forms of right-wing dirigiste strategies were suggested, including 1930s-style corporatism, as it was by Orbán’s employee, Gladden Pappin. Viktor Orbán not only resisted mass immigration (as his replacement, Peter Magyar, does), but he also, they argued, saved Hungarians from the “globalists” who were hollowing out industry with their doctrine of free trade.

So, when Dreher admits Orbán’s loss was about the economy and corruption, postliberal’s conservative critics rightly gasp. Those are precisely the things we warned about—using political power to create advantages for your political party, stifling political speech, rejecting proceduralism for partisan advantage, and misguided economic policies that make countries poorer. The argument was primarily about corruption and poor economic policy. One might argue that more autocratic control is not intrinsically corrupt, but opponents of postliberalism always saw corruption as one of its consequences; and even then, Orban’s autocratic tendencies, his attempts to tip the scales to secure more power for himself and his party, were certainly a good part of what Magyar and his voters opposed.

Postliberals are a minority in American politics, but they punch well above their weight. They are well organized, operate in lockstep, and are loyal to one another—they behave in many ways like the leftists who for decades carried out a strategy of a “long march through the institutions.” Like Joseph de Maistre, one of their intellectual forebears, they believe that social revolutions succeed from the top down, through strategically placed elites. The more transparent their unpopular project, the less successful it will be. They are willing to talk in popular fora about their movement as a populist one, about a fight against the “globalists” and mass immigration, when it is far more about acquiring power for a much less popular social project—this is especially the case for the integralist faction (e.g., Vermeule and Pappin). They want to remove limits on the executive branch’s power, fill the government with loyalists, and form a compliant court, all for someone who shares their comprehensive vision (e.g., Vance).

The fall of the Orbán government not only cut off a huge amount of postliberal funding, but it also exposed their project to further scrutiny. They are leaving Hungary embarrassed and rejected by the Hungarian people. This also leaves them with no political power. Any near-future prospect they have is tied to J.D. Vance, whose power in turn depends on Donald Trump. We have seen many of Vance’s friends already thrown under the bus by Trump, particularly Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson. It is unclear whether Trump even likes Vance or will endorse him. The 2028 primaries are a long way away in Trump time.

Donald is going to force JD out and replace him with Marco.

APPLYING DARWINISM:

Trump, his ‘low IQ’ slur, and the right’s race obsession (Michael Mathes, with Raphaelle Peltier in New York, 4/22/26, AFP)

“Trump’s characterization of people of color as ‘low IQ’ is a racist dog whistle with a long history in the US,” Karrin Vasby Anderson, a professor of communication studies at Colorado State University, told AFP.

During the periods of colonialism and 19th century slavery, “white male elites took for granted that they were cognitively superior to women and people of color and, thus, divinely appointed for leadership.”

Trump’s recent repeated use of the expression dovetails with the American far-right’s apparent obsession with genetics and phrenology, a pseudoscience of cranium size and shape as a supposed marker of intelligence.