To some it might feel as though America is coming apart- heading for a national divorce. Recent polls have shown that up to roughly 37% of Americans want to see the country split into two over national differences, and in many ways the recent over-turning of Roe vs. Wade has only accentuated this impression. I don’t want to get into the recent SCOTUS decision, it’s not the point of this essay, but sufficed to say that of those who support abortion, most want the facility not for themselves but for others, and in practice the fact that Blue States will have abortions and Red States will not is largely reflective of the views in these States- the only danger being that it will only further accelerate the separation of peoples by political tribe to the point that fewer have friends in the opposition camp, leading in turn to the imagining of the ‘enemy’ and some cruel or mendacious ogre or bogeyman- gross caricatures which bear no resemblance to the actual people they represent.
The problem, in a nutshell, is one of means versus ends. Most Americans want better schools for their kids. Most Americans want quality healthcare. Most Americans want to protect kids from being shot in schools. And, despite the impression superficially imparted by the corporate media might lead one to expect, most Americans are either very proud or extremely proud of their country. This should serve as some consolation to many who might have thought that the routine national flagellation and oikophobia portrayed in the media is reflective of a deeper national self-loathing sweeping the nation. Even amongst the young, only 8% say they are ‘not at all proud’ of their country.
The real contention, the fundamental problem causing America to be ‘a house be divided against itself’, is Solution Aversion. It’s a technical term used to describe a particular type of bias, which makes people more or less likely to support a particular goal, depending upon the method proposed as a solution. The standard example comes from Climate Change. If you are a Republican, and an idea is proposed to massively increase government funding for renewables, then chances are you are very unlikely to support the policy proposal. If, on the other hand, the proposal is that America gives tax breaks, incentives and use clever underwriting techniques to get the free market to create a new wave of cheap, save and abundant energy from Nuclear power plants to tackle climate change, then as a Republican you are likely to be all for it.
In simple terms, conservatives hate solutions which involve government, and liberals tend to distrust or hate market-based solutions to problems. Conversely, liberals tend to think government is good and public employment is a public good in itself, whilst conservatives tend to think that the free and voluntary exchanges of the market are inherently more moral, for the simple reason that they don’t normally involve force or coercion. And it’s this simple difference in philosophy which has led to a gradual and steadily growing animosity between the two major political tribes in America, because they are both so desperate to prove that their philosophy is right, and more importantly, that the other side is wrong. More than than, they have increasingly come to see the other side’s philosophy as a threat.
To the liberal, the conservative ethos of individualism and personal responsibility can seem cold, unfeeling and insufficiently caring towards society’s more vulnerable citizens. Even among the political class, it’s not uncommon on the Left for politicians think that Republicans only care about tax cuts, when it would be far truer to say that conservatives see government as the root of most of society’s ills, and will do anything in their power to limit its power and size. Plus, with their often fuller knowledge of economics, Republicans are aware that for every dollar removed from the economy in taxes, it removes economic good from society, in the form of goods and services produced to service Americans wants and needs. Trickledown in particular might be somewhat flawed as a concept, but there can be little doubt that the economy thrives more when less money is taken from the average citizen in tax.
Meanwhile, conservatives see Democrats commissioning of government program after program as the doubling down on failure after failure. They obsess over the sheer waste of it all, can point to legions of unresponsive government bureaucracies which do little other than make citizens lives more difficult through form-filling, and have a whole litany of instances where people have lost their houses to government repossession for offences as mundane as not mowing a lawn. Conservatives can’t get their heads around the liberal belief that public employment is a public good in itself. The can’t see that although a program isn’t always as successful as originally hoped, to the liberal even small change is change for the good, with the eventual hope that problems will be fixed in the aggregate.
But the real problem is the result. In their ideological war over competing philosophies, Left and Right have given Americans a far worse outcome than if either of two philosophies had run their course, unimpeded. Instead of the best of either system, Americans get the worst of both. Britain is hardly the model of the best run universal healthcare system- there are better examples in Sweden, Switzerland and Australia- but it’s worth noting America spends significantly more in government funded healthcare per person, both in real cash terms and as a percentage of revenue and GDP, and American healthcare still isn’t anywhere near universal.
And no, the problem isn’t massive drug profits by Big Pharma (although one might question the morality of some)- a cursory examination of Big Pharma financials shows this isn’t the case. Instead the difference tends to boil down to whether those commissioning healthcare are making rational rationing choices when it comes to only marginally more efficacious next generation drugs, over far cheaper drugs that are marginally less effective or have worse side effects. More generally, it’s indicative of a system beset by huge inefficiencies and waste, where PBMs needlessly complicate commissioning and hospitals and insurance companies employ legions of admins arguing over whether a particular cost should be covered by insurance- with the inevitable result that the customer ends up paying for it.
The worst of both systems. In many ways, America has become like a two parents squabbling over whether to send their daughter to a public or charter school- they’ve become so obsessed over form rather than function, they’ve neglected to listen to their daughter read at night, keep her off her smartphone and away from social media- regular meals have gone out of the window and there is not even the slightest concern over making sure she has ample opportunity to play with her friends and socialise normally. All because the argument has become more important than the result.
And all the while the level of desperation ordinary citizens feel continues to boil to the brim. Is it any wonder that after decades of what amounts to negligence of duty, most Americans are palpably frustrated and angry- or that the entrenchment into partisanship becomes even more intense- with more pathological versions of the same ideologies tendered to the American people like illusory life rafts which can save America?
Wake up America. Don’t let you country burn, or increasingly become a first world country with third world problems. Recognise that the jackals on corporate media and jackasses in Congress aren’t at all reflective of the people they are paid to represent. Wake up America. The idiots you see spouting shit on social media are nothing like kind, decent people who just happen to be conservatives, liberals or progressives- the game is rigged so they can only get their voice across, if they become their worst selves online. Wake up America. It is time to start talking to each other again, rather than careening towards a national divorce which can only make the world a darker and more dangerous place. The world still needs you, now, more than ever.
Think you are close to the mark with this essay. There are two very different political worldviews at play. One believes that government is the cure and bigger, more centralized government is better. The other believes that the people are the cure and government should be the smallest possible and closest to the people. Foundational presuppositions matter greatly in this debate.
A large percentage of Americans have become weary of the hard work of self governance. The solution is a benevolent dictator and they are hard to come by.
"personal responsibility can seem cold, unfeeling and insufficiently caring towards society’s more vulnerable citizens"
Funny because voluntary charity is caring and moral, while forcefully taking money and only giving some small amount to actual suffering people is government force at its worst: fake morality, fake kindness, fake caring, fake charity, wasted spending, all handled by government extortion and managed by politicians who never have accomplished anything outside of using force.
Just look around your neighborhood and ask yourself if you bought those things voluntarily or government forced you to have them.
Even libertarians and conservatives (not anarchists, but they remain rare and their utopia is likely out of reach) mostly agree that government can do real regulation (making things regular for interoperability across the states, like roads, power, water, sewers, extradition, money, etc.) and provide for actual common good and no unequal protection rejection to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. Those are so called positive rights, which are also the basis for why abortion can be illegal, where the zygote's/fetus's rights surpass the woman's rights and she must be forced to give up her rights for this never-born, never-met, unknown entity they call a Person with full rights. Liberals love to pretend positive rights are everywhere (housing, healthcare, food, water, clothing, education, jobs, etc.) and this abortion ruling is just another example of their preference for a bad idea coming back to haunt them.
The US just needs to be taught what having 50 states means. It's the definition of choice, and it moves democracy closer to those who will be inflicted with the laws that all restrict voluntary actions. Not having a one size fits all federal government power (one that can't balance a budget, but we're told can run 330 million free people's lives by force) gives us choice. National laws lock you in as you aren't free to move to another country, but you are free to choose any state at any time as you prefer.
The US just needs to be reminded of the power of free people to choose for themselves and voluntarily associate and do real moral actions to help one another and provide a safety net for those who truly cannot care for themselves.
Jun 26, 2022·edited Jun 26, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen
Yes, Americans agree that school shootings, pollution and environmental degradation are bad. But who doesn't? I think the premise of the article is weak. The examples of issues chosen on which we agree are issues that all sane people agree on. We are extremely far apart, further apart than ever, on more philosophical issues such as freedom vs security or whether equal outcomes should be a focus of policy.
To add another layer it's not necessarily that Republicans believe in small government because if a Republican suggests a big government solution they will be more likely to support it and if a Democrat makes a small government proposal they will oppose it and vice versa. Too much relies on dissonance reduction rather than listening to other people and engaging in genuine dialogue.
Good article. I’ve flagged a few sentences with typos that should be easy for you to correct:
“More than than, they have increasingly come to see the other sides philosophy as a threat.” - two typos
Also I think there’s a point where you use “the” instead of “they,” which is a mistake I make all the time. I’d double check the article. Can’t find it right now. Double check the last two paragraphs I think. Maybe I’m wrong and there isn’t a typo but I think there might be.
“In many ways, America has become like a two parents squabbling over whether to send their daughter to a public or charter school- they’ve become so obsessed over form rather than function, they’ve neglected to listen to their daughter read at night, keep her off her smartphone and away from social media- regular meals have gone out of the window and there is not even the slightest concern over making sure she has ample opportunity to play with her friends and socialise normally. All because the argument has become more important than the result.”
Great analogy. Last sentence really does an excellent job of summing up the situation.
I hope, with fingers crossed and little optimism, that the upshot of the Roe v Wade decision will open people's eyes to the benefits of federalism. One benefit is that there is a lot that states can decide for themselves plus there is a lot of potential for experimentation.
A type of experimentation is occurring now as people and corporations exit California to places where corporate and personal taxes are lower and there are fewer regulations that place burdens on both individuals and businesses.
In an ideal world, we need experimentation in the use of different medical systems, different systems of taxation, different systems of education, etc., for all to view and to compare and contrast. In the great scheme of this experimentation, people from different states will say why don't we do it like that other state which having so much success at _____.
Somehow I don't think this will work because of the reasons you covered—they aren't doing it my way, and it's my way or the highway. It's interesting that some are quick to use other countries systems as baselines of success, but look no further. For example, in the states we often hear from those on the left that we require a medical insurance system like that of Canada. Why do they insist we stop there? Why can't we discuss systems that might even be better than Canada? Their answers, to my ears, are superficial and are usually something to effect that people will always need medicine and people aren't smart enough to make their own medical decisions, so we need government control. Or perhaps, someone might make a profit, and you can't have medicine and profits in the same sentence. I ask why not look at real-time experiments. When I point out the success of cash-only surgery significantly lowering prices and producing high-quality results because the middle man and the expensive municipal hospitals are not part of this system. I get stares that imply I have lost it. On a related topic, I mention that it might be worth a look at direct primary care. This system of primary care shows that removing insurance and government from the middle of the doctor-patient relation significantly reduces cost and makes both patients and doctors happier. Again, the usual responses deal with my sanity, but no substantive argument as to why these systems won't work. They seem to be working, but not for the masses because there have been no large-scale experiments and in the case of DPC, governments are hampering the experiment because that is what governments do when it comes to medicine. Organizations like Doctors4PatientCare and the Galen Institute have gone before congress only to talk to the walls because politicians have their minds made up—they want to run and regulate the show when it comes to medicine.
How do we break through the barriers that will allow us to experiment across states and regions and then have meaningful discussions on which is best for your community, your state, perhaps the nation? I am not optimistic this can happen if people aren't will to explore the new and because politicians thrive on keeping control and preventing the new.
Bro! been a while since i commented, but i love your posts. re-posted you multiple times in class.
the problem, as i see it, is that conservative politicians are prepared to use whatever techniques work to achieve whatever ends they want, conservative pundits are delighted that they no longer need 'knowledge' or 'work' to have their opinions justified, and so are the people that listen to them.
i think there is a real residual element from the alt right 'just for the lolz' trolling vibe.
at some point, do you not have to point out that the majority of 'conservatives' are expressing ideas that are fucking nuts? progressives are morons, but conservative thought is what frightens me right now. conservatives are doing more damage to people who they disagree with. from a utilitarian perspective, more 'harm' is done by conservatives.
i dunno about you, but i grew up redneck and have a lot of conservative friends. and they say dumb shit all the time like, 'justina' or 'lock her up'. hateful tropes. my proggy friends have hateful tropes too. but nobody listens to them. im not concerned about the ill-informed. i'm interested in what you have to say.
my premise is, and has been since i met you, that ideological conservatives are just better at this shit. getting the message out. the talking points, and getting those talking points into the mouths of people. people i both know and respect.
remember when i quit quillette? maybe, maybe not. but when i woke up on jan. 6th and realized some shit was going on, i was like, dope. this is my premise. the reason i invested a year into the best conservative rhetoric i could find, quillette. you. ray. some other dope posters. let's see what conservatives say as this shit happens.
and they were justifying if from the get go. YOU were justifying if from the get go,. i called it an armed insurrection right after i woke up and realized it was going on. you called me out for calling it an armed insurrection. you recant that now, obviously. but why were you immediately repeating the talking point?
that was eye-opening for me. trump said he was going to challenge the results of the election years before he challenged it. and yet you conservative-apologist types acted surprised when he actually did it. why did you defer to supporting trump?
i am going to extend my argument.
children will continue to die in school because of conservative talking points. more children die in the US from gun violence than anything else. more mass shootings have occurred in 2022 than days of the year.
let's pause and reflect on those facts.
children are most likely to die in the US from gun violence. children. fucking children.
conservatives are well aware of the lazy moral hypocrisy of progressives. they show up at church every week for the entire life, and some privilege baby condemns religion on his FB and gets lots of love? fuck those guys.
my mother, her friends, many of the people i knew and loved in my life? they choose religion, and i support them.
those conservative people i love and respect are being overwhelmed by conservative elite ideology. don't give them more reasons.
support real conservatives and genuine heterodoxy. condemn the bs 'faux conservative'.
Even more important than our success is their failure. And if their failure is the country's failure, that's collateral damage -- or even serves them right for voting for the wrong tribe. I remember when McConnell stated openly that his goal was to prevent the Obama administration from getting anything done. One of the branches of government set itself the task of shutting down the Executive. Seems to me that should be a High Crime.
Think you are close to the mark with this essay. There are two very different political worldviews at play. One believes that government is the cure and bigger, more centralized government is better. The other believes that the people are the cure and government should be the smallest possible and closest to the people. Foundational presuppositions matter greatly in this debate.
A large percentage of Americans have become weary of the hard work of self governance. The solution is a benevolent dictator and they are hard to come by.
"personal responsibility can seem cold, unfeeling and insufficiently caring towards society’s more vulnerable citizens"
Funny because voluntary charity is caring and moral, while forcefully taking money and only giving some small amount to actual suffering people is government force at its worst: fake morality, fake kindness, fake caring, fake charity, wasted spending, all handled by government extortion and managed by politicians who never have accomplished anything outside of using force.
Just look around your neighborhood and ask yourself if you bought those things voluntarily or government forced you to have them.
Even libertarians and conservatives (not anarchists, but they remain rare and their utopia is likely out of reach) mostly agree that government can do real regulation (making things regular for interoperability across the states, like roads, power, water, sewers, extradition, money, etc.) and provide for actual common good and no unequal protection rejection to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. Those are so called positive rights, which are also the basis for why abortion can be illegal, where the zygote's/fetus's rights surpass the woman's rights and she must be forced to give up her rights for this never-born, never-met, unknown entity they call a Person with full rights. Liberals love to pretend positive rights are everywhere (housing, healthcare, food, water, clothing, education, jobs, etc.) and this abortion ruling is just another example of their preference for a bad idea coming back to haunt them.
The US just needs to be taught what having 50 states means. It's the definition of choice, and it moves democracy closer to those who will be inflicted with the laws that all restrict voluntary actions. Not having a one size fits all federal government power (one that can't balance a budget, but we're told can run 330 million free people's lives by force) gives us choice. National laws lock you in as you aren't free to move to another country, but you are free to choose any state at any time as you prefer.
The US just needs to be reminded of the power of free people to choose for themselves and voluntarily associate and do real moral actions to help one another and provide a safety net for those who truly cannot care for themselves.
Yes, Americans agree that school shootings, pollution and environmental degradation are bad. But who doesn't? I think the premise of the article is weak. The examples of issues chosen on which we agree are issues that all sane people agree on. We are extremely far apart, further apart than ever, on more philosophical issues such as freedom vs security or whether equal outcomes should be a focus of policy.
To add another layer it's not necessarily that Republicans believe in small government because if a Republican suggests a big government solution they will be more likely to support it and if a Democrat makes a small government proposal they will oppose it and vice versa. Too much relies on dissonance reduction rather than listening to other people and engaging in genuine dialogue.
Good article. I’ve flagged a few sentences with typos that should be easy for you to correct:
“More than than, they have increasingly come to see the other sides philosophy as a threat.” - two typos
Also I think there’s a point where you use “the” instead of “they,” which is a mistake I make all the time. I’d double check the article. Can’t find it right now. Double check the last two paragraphs I think. Maybe I’m wrong and there isn’t a typo but I think there might be.
“In many ways, America has become like a two parents squabbling over whether to send their daughter to a public or charter school- they’ve become so obsessed over form rather than function, they’ve neglected to listen to their daughter read at night, keep her off her smartphone and away from social media- regular meals have gone out of the window and there is not even the slightest concern over making sure she has ample opportunity to play with her friends and socialise normally. All because the argument has become more important than the result.”
Great analogy. Last sentence really does an excellent job of summing up the situation.
Insightful article Geary.
I hope, with fingers crossed and little optimism, that the upshot of the Roe v Wade decision will open people's eyes to the benefits of federalism. One benefit is that there is a lot that states can decide for themselves plus there is a lot of potential for experimentation.
A type of experimentation is occurring now as people and corporations exit California to places where corporate and personal taxes are lower and there are fewer regulations that place burdens on both individuals and businesses.
In an ideal world, we need experimentation in the use of different medical systems, different systems of taxation, different systems of education, etc., for all to view and to compare and contrast. In the great scheme of this experimentation, people from different states will say why don't we do it like that other state which having so much success at _____.
Somehow I don't think this will work because of the reasons you covered—they aren't doing it my way, and it's my way or the highway. It's interesting that some are quick to use other countries systems as baselines of success, but look no further. For example, in the states we often hear from those on the left that we require a medical insurance system like that of Canada. Why do they insist we stop there? Why can't we discuss systems that might even be better than Canada? Their answers, to my ears, are superficial and are usually something to effect that people will always need medicine and people aren't smart enough to make their own medical decisions, so we need government control. Or perhaps, someone might make a profit, and you can't have medicine and profits in the same sentence. I ask why not look at real-time experiments. When I point out the success of cash-only surgery significantly lowering prices and producing high-quality results because the middle man and the expensive municipal hospitals are not part of this system. I get stares that imply I have lost it. On a related topic, I mention that it might be worth a look at direct primary care. This system of primary care shows that removing insurance and government from the middle of the doctor-patient relation significantly reduces cost and makes both patients and doctors happier. Again, the usual responses deal with my sanity, but no substantive argument as to why these systems won't work. They seem to be working, but not for the masses because there have been no large-scale experiments and in the case of DPC, governments are hampering the experiment because that is what governments do when it comes to medicine. Organizations like Doctors4PatientCare and the Galen Institute have gone before congress only to talk to the walls because politicians have their minds made up—they want to run and regulate the show when it comes to medicine.
How do we break through the barriers that will allow us to experiment across states and regions and then have meaningful discussions on which is best for your community, your state, perhaps the nation? I am not optimistic this can happen if people aren't will to explore the new and because politicians thrive on keeping control and preventing the new.
Bro! been a while since i commented, but i love your posts. re-posted you multiple times in class.
the problem, as i see it, is that conservative politicians are prepared to use whatever techniques work to achieve whatever ends they want, conservative pundits are delighted that they no longer need 'knowledge' or 'work' to have their opinions justified, and so are the people that listen to them.
i think there is a real residual element from the alt right 'just for the lolz' trolling vibe.
at some point, do you not have to point out that the majority of 'conservatives' are expressing ideas that are fucking nuts? progressives are morons, but conservative thought is what frightens me right now. conservatives are doing more damage to people who they disagree with. from a utilitarian perspective, more 'harm' is done by conservatives.
i dunno about you, but i grew up redneck and have a lot of conservative friends. and they say dumb shit all the time like, 'justina' or 'lock her up'. hateful tropes. my proggy friends have hateful tropes too. but nobody listens to them. im not concerned about the ill-informed. i'm interested in what you have to say.
my premise is, and has been since i met you, that ideological conservatives are just better at this shit. getting the message out. the talking points, and getting those talking points into the mouths of people. people i both know and respect.
remember when i quit quillette? maybe, maybe not. but when i woke up on jan. 6th and realized some shit was going on, i was like, dope. this is my premise. the reason i invested a year into the best conservative rhetoric i could find, quillette. you. ray. some other dope posters. let's see what conservatives say as this shit happens.
and they were justifying if from the get go. YOU were justifying if from the get go,. i called it an armed insurrection right after i woke up and realized it was going on. you called me out for calling it an armed insurrection. you recant that now, obviously. but why were you immediately repeating the talking point?
that was eye-opening for me. trump said he was going to challenge the results of the election years before he challenged it. and yet you conservative-apologist types acted surprised when he actually did it. why did you defer to supporting trump?
i am going to extend my argument.
children will continue to die in school because of conservative talking points. more children die in the US from gun violence than anything else. more mass shootings have occurred in 2022 than days of the year.
let's pause and reflect on those facts.
children are most likely to die in the US from gun violence. children. fucking children.
conservatives are well aware of the lazy moral hypocrisy of progressives. they show up at church every week for the entire life, and some privilege baby condemns religion on his FB and gets lots of love? fuck those guys.
my mother, her friends, many of the people i knew and loved in my life? they choose religion, and i support them.
those conservative people i love and respect are being overwhelmed by conservative elite ideology. don't give them more reasons.
support real conservatives and genuine heterodoxy. condemn the bs 'faux conservative'.
Even more important than our success is their failure. And if their failure is the country's failure, that's collateral damage -- or even serves them right for voting for the wrong tribe. I remember when McConnell stated openly that his goal was to prevent the Obama administration from getting anything done. One of the branches of government set itself the task of shutting down the Executive. Seems to me that should be a High Crime.