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.
Well, look at it this way- imagine there was a third party which offered a number of new programs, as well as do things like improve educational results (which is actually possible, with only a very modest investment in classroom practice training)- but at the same time, they promised to only fund their programs by eliminating existing waste within government.
Do you think either of the two main parties would stand a chance against this new third party?
You could be right; I would like to think so, but no such party has arisen and I don’t see a possibility of a third party arising at this point. We are not a parliamentary system and multiple parties would likely lead to real chaos. I’d prefer to see voters do a better job of hiring representatives. Intriguing thought, though.
The other problem with third parties is that the tend to get squeezed in the middle. People tend to vote tactically, to prevent the party they see at the existential threat getting into power.
Third parties have never one any significant election in the modern US where a "fair election" costs millions for local races and over a billion to be a president.
Totally agree. They actually banned Bret Weinstein from one of the major social media platforms, when he proposed a way out of the madness. To many vested interests like American politics exactly as they are- captured by crony capitalism and beholden to the donor class.
I'm aware, and he was certainly right about the unconstrained view of the world and its dangers. That being said, I do think it's possible for people to make better choices from a limited set of options, and actually found myself becoming a little excited when I introduced myself to Richard Thaler's work on libertarian paternalism and the 'nudge'. I also think that vocational training pitched to ability could make all the difference.
"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.
I largely agree. On average religious people given 7% to charity, only 1.5% for secular types, although its somewhat contingent upon being part of a community. The problem is that most people outside of conservative and libertarian circles are unfamiliar with the underlying philosophies. I was only stating a commonly held misconception.
The problem is, if one wants to push people towards more self-reliance, morale support in transition is vital and there really needs to be the economic opportunities paired with vocational training. This was one of things which Reagan later admitted was his chief regret. His team thought people would simply shift from welfare to work- when often years of inactivity meant they needed help to transition to opportunity.
The classic "tithe" is 10% of income. When government first takes 30% from (not including the inflationary hidden theft) and claims to offer all these charitable solutions, why would I continue to give more? Especially when they see homeless everywhere, and know that billions are spent on the homeless industrial complex (look at California for big spending and no improvements in outcomes). Especially when government tells me how intrinsically evil and sinful I am for being an old, white man, a person of white privilege, white supremacy, white fragility and of our course a sexist pig to boot. How dare I believe in liberty and equal protection under the law and realize that big government doesn't provide either?
Have you encountered Michael Shellenberger's writing and podcasts on the homeless. Apparently the Dutch have found a far better way of dealing with the problem. First, it's largely an open air drug problem, not a homelessness problem. Accordingly, caught anyone shooting up in public is given the choice between rehab and prison, with most choosing the former. Then they triage out the truly mentally ill to care facilities, to get them stabilised on meds.
Most progressives don't believe him when he tells them about the choice between rehab and prison. In their minds, the Netherlands like the Nordic model countries are all thoroughly progressive. In some ways they are- if one is talking about political systems- but at a social level, they are in many ways far more socially conservative than most Anglosphere countries. At least, that's what I found in a recent visit to Sweden.
He's on my reading list- particularly San Fransicko- but it's obviously a long list and I don't know when I will get to him.
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.
I think you're correct when it comes to elites, and you've highlighted that I wasn't clear enough on who I meant, when I wrote the essay. And you've even given me a pretty good example, in the argument over equity vs. equality (or equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity). If you've ever read any Jonathan Haidt then you will know that roughly 20% to 30% of the population wants more fairness in terms of equality (distribution), whilst the other 70% to 80% of the population are more socially conservative or libertarians and believe in fairness in terms of proportionality, or in other word, procedural fairness where people get rewarded as a result of their talents and hard work. Almost without exception those who worry about inequality of outcome are those who are born into the top of the socio-economic spectrum.
The greatest illustration of this was California Proposition 16 to repeal prop 209. For those unfamiliar, this was an attempt to overturn equality of opportunity and introduce equity everywhere- from education to public employment and corporate boards. The irony was that the highly educated wealthy white liberals who wanted it, were defeated by its supposed beneficiaries. Even amongst African American men who would have been the bills greatest beneficiaries and had a significant interest in seeing it passed, were split roughly 50%:50% in whether they voted yes or no.
It all boils down to K-12. It turns out that achievement levels are quite even racially with one important proviso. Kids from poorer backgrounds need stricter schools and a scientific approach to learning (Cognitive Load Theory), which commits the basic building blocks of knowledge (like times tables) to long-term memory. It makes sense. Children learn and develop from two sources- the school and everywhere else (home & peer group). It turns out that when you fundamentally improve the learning provided by the school, through discipline and a cognitive sciences approach, the kids from poorer backgrounds or single parent families naturally benefit the most.
How do we know it works? Because it has already worked in the UK. Educational reforms in London led to Black British kids performing 0.5% higher than white kids in exam conditions at 16, for the simple reason than a large portion of the UK Black British population is located in London. Granted, when one drills down into the numbers white kids in London also benefited, but by nowhere near as the Black kids. All without one whit of equity or equality of outcome being involved.
So in a sense, I agree with you- if we are talking about the elites. But that's only a tiny sliver of the population, and if we are going to take cultural progressives as an example only 3% of progressives are African American, even though they are massively overrepresented in media and amongst the activist class. Outside the 10% or so who wield such disproportionate cultural and political power, most people just want a fair shake, the chance to participate in a game which isn't rigged.
And there's the rub- because in many ways the Culture Wars are an attempt to conceal the unassailable advantage of being born into the top 10%, behind a veil of moral virtue along racial grounds. The system is rigged, but mostly against anyone who happens to born into the bottom 60% of the socio-economic spectrum, a much larger per capita portion of whom happen to be Black.
Social mobility can be fixed, but it requires massive and fundamental reforms in the way America operates K-12.
You’ll have to get rid of the teachers Union before any significant improvement in education can be expected. Massive moral and ideological corruption firmly in place.
I don't know whether getting rid of them would be the best way- but I definitely think teachers should be split from administrators and bureaucrats, in terms of union representation, because in many ways their interests compete with each other.
It also depends how you pitch it. In London, they managed to improve things mainly through training in classroom practice. And from some of the American teachers I've talked to online, most don't like the interference caused by bureaucrats and the way it impedes their job. With attacks on teachers on the rise, I think many would want some forms of reform.
They may be ripe for a sea change, provided it was handled sensitively. Of course, the newer more ideological type are another problem altogether. Many would prefer to teach empathy to Maths.
The other thing to consider is that social media gives a tiny number of extremists outsized power. This works in two ways. First, by the fear of social sanction within the political tribe. And second, by causing the other tribe to greatly overestimate the commonality of particular beliefs on the other side.
On the Left, 8% are progressives, but I would be willing to bet that a good 75% of those are of the far more benign economic progressive type, who mostly want to see stronger worker protections and universal healthcare in the US. Even when one drills into the cultural progressive subset, I imagine most just see it as an empathy building tool. We see the bad actors because of their power and their ability to cause heartbreak and misery to people espousing what were, until recently, quite mainstream ideas.
Similarly, the White Supremacist bogeyman is also wildly overestimated. In 2017, the SPLC estimated there were between 11,000 and 13,000 White Supremacists in America. Once one drilled down it the figures one quickly found that about two-thirds were white prison gang members more interested in making a living out of selling drugs and illegal firearms than actual White Supremacy. There may be a slightly larger online and isolated number (and in many ways these lone wolf types are far more dangerous), but total numbers are unlikely to be that much more significant than the active white supremacist numbers.
Perhaps, the best example of the difference between the perception and reality is the Jordan Peterson fiasco, where he was disinvited from Cambridge. In this case a tiny number of activists managed to get his invitation rescinded. But when the counter-campaign hit full swing and the professoriate was crucially allowed to vote in secret, the vote to allow him to return was near unanimous and actually resulted in Cambridge adopting a new free speech policy.
So even amongst the elites, support for the extreme views is rare. The far greater problem is that a larger percentage excuse the behaviour under the pretext of a noble aim and the majority viewpoint of the political tribe is supressed out of fear of social sanction and expulsion from the tribe- for they too greatly overestimate the total numbers of people who actually subscribe to the more harmful aspects of this nonsense.
The one exception is gender ideology. Here, people really are pursuing harmful goals. Most simply don't realise that in the past for every one kids with acute gender dysphoria who later went on the become transgender, there were between three and nine kids who did experience GD but grew out of it, going on to live perfectly happy lives as gays and lesbians, freed from a 50:50 risk of suicide and the need for a lifetime of psychological and medical care.. If anything, these ratios are likely to be far, far higher than in the past.
The solution is unlikely to come out of America. But as countries like the UK, Sweden, Finland and others experience far better outcomes and far fewer deaths from suicide, the American Psychiatric community will be forced to admit the absolute humanitarian catastrophe they've presided over. In effect, they will realise there were two groups that needed to protect, not one.
And yet the hardcore progressives keep winning and winning and winning. (Roe v Wade being overturned is just a temporary setback). You say only 8% are progresssive and 3/4ths of those only economic progressives who want more worker protection and universal health care. Well the rest must not be very opposed to the progressive social agenda because they don't push back. You are trying to tell me that they just keep winning and winning and winning with only, really 2% of the population supporting them? No, I think the support for the progressive agenda is, unfortunately, much larger than 2%. Only 2% may be hardcore progressives but many more approve of their agenda. It's not some big illusion where really the majority opposes it but somehow it just mysteriously keeps gaining ground. No, I think the truth is that generations raised on narratives of oppression and greed and racism have bought into them and they happily go along with the the hardcore progresssives, thinking that a more just world will emerge from it.
Have you ever heard of the Dictatorship of the Small Minority- there a good Medium article out there by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. For example, only 4.4% of the UK is Muslim, but other than very specialist suppliers catering to other religious needs ( eg. Jewish), virtually all meat sold in the UK is halal.
Besides, when one looks at culturally woke ideas, most cynically apply a cost benefit analysis. Simply put, it costs far less to cave to the handful of activist than it does to stand up to them, and this is the reason for woke capitalism, institutional capture and the reason why corporate Dems capitulate without the slightest bit of pushback. Up until now it has cost them less to go along than it would to push back, but this is changing, with more Americans becoming aware of the craziness being taught in schools and examples like subscription cancellations of Disney +.
Finally, although you probably didn't mean it this way, the Roe vs. Wade decision illustrates just how a relative small strongly committed percentage of electorate can overwhelm the majority. Those who support an almost total ban on abortion (with exceptions for medical reasons and in some instances rape and incest) only constitute 13% of the electorate- but crucially the religious right and their supporters have always been quite open about their aims.
The cultural progressives percentage of the electorate may be much smaller, but they aren't really honest about what they are pushing. Teaching CRT praxis becomes reversing whitewashed history, they've created the trans tipping point fiction in order to justify massive increases in the number of kids who are simply gender nonconforming or only have mild gender dysphoria being treated as though they had the pathology of 1 in 30,000 males or 1 in 100,000 females. They argue that structural racism doesn't require actual racism, yet in the same breath claim that whiteness is 'problematic'.
There problem is that lies and obfuscations only work for so long- and in addition to punishment they are about to receive for the economic woes they've induced, over one million Democrats have switched to the Republican party (not simply shifted to Independent), and that is going to be with them for far longer.
You must have noticed how some of them can fully support a particular progressive trend one second, and then claim it doesn't exist or is something else the next. They are using confusion to get their way, and as more and more instances come to light, more and more people are waking up to the reality.
The biggest tickling timebomb is trans kids. My aunt has a friend whose daughter switched to transman. They are no happier, and in the UK we are seeing a decided increase in people suing the NHS for failing to provide adequate counselling in the run up to medicalisation, and in terms of a failure to explain the full consequences. We are not the only ones- Sweden and Finland are backing up from the ideology and other countries are following suit. The activists have taken to calling the UK TERF island online.
Ron DeSantis would do well to start quoting the UK on this subject, just as he did on lockdowns and other Covid issues during the pandemic.
Yeah...., maybe. I know this argument. I don't think most people are hard-core progressives. It's complicated. Your points are valid about the Dictatorship of the Small Minority. You're right that the more people learn about exactly what some of this progressive stuff entails the more likely they are to push back against it. What I'm trying to say, though, is that they, on some hard to describe level, agree with progressivism in a way which makes it hard to resist when they don't really like what it means in actual practice. Progressivism is framed as caring. Most people can't put caring about others feelings in proper perspective. They tacitly agree that it is of the utmost importance to protect the feelings of everybody. Again, unconsciously, they go along with this, not realizing that this conflicts with providing a level playing field. People will need to consciously admit that placing the highest value on protecting the feelings of everyone is not a good way to run a society. Right now, I think (I could be wrong) that most people think that it is of the utmost importance. And because of this they can't go against any policy that is based on it.
Well, a lot of what you're describing can be attributed to poorly aligned systems and bad acting. Basically, they drove a bulldozer through Title IX and it's been a super highway for bad acting ever since. A case in point would be the way that Andrew Sullivan was railroaded out of conventional media. The more activist journalists and writers may not have liked what he had to say, but he could hardly contribute to an unsafe workplace from hundreds of miles away, could he?
Unfortunately, poorly designed systems can be manipulated and distorted by bad actors. We have the same sorts of claims here in the UK, and the occasional TERF who has resigned from the Guardian because of workplace pressure and bullying, but the problem is nowhere near as pronounced, because there wasn't a poorly made law open to abuse by bad actors.
Simply put, the bad actors only use their hurt feelings with such frequency because they know they can use them a leveraging tactic, to cause legal problems for an employer more costly than firing another employee they find objectionable. It a poor tactic, and one which companies are realising somewhat belatedly. The Washington Post just fired one bad actor activist, and transferred another to a lesser job. Netflix told its employees if you don't like it, don't work here.
They should have known that if you capitulate once to workplace terrorism, then you're only asking for further disruption. I blame the universities- as soon as student activists began targeting specific professors, they should have simply expelled the ringleaders as examples.
Ironically, the whole shitshow has given me a better insight into why socialism doesn't work. It's less about the incentives than I previously thought- in Sweden, a doctor only makes about three times as much as a forklift driver- less after generous redistribution- hardly seems worth the accrued debt from living expenses from seven years study (even if the tuition fees are paid for by the taxpayer).
But people are still just as keen to become doctors, because of a mixture of status and psychic profit- and Sweden is better described as free market capitalist with larger social safety nets and higher taxes, than socialist. No, the real problem with socialism is that it is a uniquely poorly aligned system in terms of incentives and manipulations by bad actors- it produces pathologically bad leaders and apparatchik who are ideologically possessed.
The lesson we need to take from the last decade or so, is that we need to give a lot more thought as to how systems and institutions can be hardened against manipulations by bad actors, and swiftly change laws to prevent abuses. Unfortunately, it's a long road to recovery- many institutions have been actively pushing out conservative viewpoint minorities for some time and in many instances pathological ideologues have managed to gain positions of power.
The only real solution is legislative- most public institutions should at least contain token numbers of conservatives and populists, so that people can see for themselves that the claims about American racism are untrue.
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.
Jonathan Haidt ran an experiment a few years back. The subject was teen pregnancy and he got politicians from both sides involved. The only proviso was that there was absolutely no media involved- to the point that the politicians weren't even allowed to brief after the event. In this environment, real progress was made, with both sides conceding certain points. It may even be one of many reasons why teenage pregnancies have dropped.
It also points to a larger axiomatic truth. Corporate media poisons everything- it's their business model.
The instances of Republican big government solutions, often called out as hypocritical by the left, will in all likelihood be consistent with how conservatives view the proper role of government. They have no problem with increased military spending, for example.
Actually it's more basic than that. The group you identify with is the most important thing here not the content or ideas. Agreeing with your group reduces dissonance which is the major determinant here and over-rides any logic or sensibility in the ideas or proposals presented.
Probably never but the point still holds. If the suggestion comes from a Republican it will be accepted by Republicans but if the exact same proposal is advanced by Democrats, Republicans will reject it.
Well, sooner of later most Western countries are going have to come to terms with the fact that they are at the limit of government spending, and that the only way to find money for future spending needs is going to be through cannibalising existing government. Recent experiences have taught them that modern monetary theory simply doesn't work.
That being said, I don't expect them to admit their new reality any time soon. In many ways., I suspect that Green Tech is an attempt to cheat these Iron Rules of economics- by creating value at the same time that they create labour. Unfortunately, it's a bad deal- in most countries nuclear is a far sounder investment. In many ways, they miss the point though. It's all about the amount and portion of money which is allowed to flow through the system free from government mandate and earmarks- free to capitalise on the iterative computational power of the market to create self-sustaining systems which render profits.
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.
Cheers, mate- especially about the analogy, I could only spot one typo, even though you've highlighted it for me! And I simply couldn't find the the which should have been a they! I'm bloody terrible at copy editing!
But back to the analogy. I recently read some advice on writing which stated that writers should be afraid to use repetition or belabour existing themes or devices. Good advice, I thought. I think there is a distinct difference between being at the coalface and reading someone else's work. Of course, we've all seen the writer who overuses repetition, but in small doses I think it can be an effective way of getting a point across.
With the national divorce theme, I felt extending the analogy was simply the natural place to go, especially given that there has been a degree of irresponsibility on both sides. Nothing is more likely to cause an actual Civil War than letting the worst examples speak for each political tribe, even though to the partisan, it can feel like you've got a strong fighter in the gladiatorial arena. Who cares whether one battle is won or lost, when the whole country could lose the war?
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.
I completely agree with you. Have you read any Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the subject of antifragility? He has managed to find a completely new benefit to the 50 experiments running scenario. It's structurally antifragile, because only a small portion of the total network is potentially subject to catastrophic shock, and as such one wouldn't see the disastrous outcomes which usually happen when bad ideas spread across boundaries and create exposure to system-wide risks.
The problem is from a political perspective, centralised control is a definitive political advantage. The message discipline which Tony Blair managed to implement within New Labour, made every politician which followed look like a feckless amateur, barely capable of running a bath. And, of course, centralised political control also equals centralised bureaucratic control, in real terms. Not good for governance overall.
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'.
Hello mate! Long time, no see! I never really justified the insurrection, even though for a short while I did believe in the election fraud argument- it was largely based on the overnight election results, where counting was paused and then resumed, only for several Dem results to come in which showed 97% or 98% of results voting Dem. I worked it out within a couple of days and self-corrected- it all boiled down to African American precincts coming in which were also filtered through the Dem leaning mail in votes. As you know, I'm quite a good statistician, and previously and at the time it took me a couple of days to consider this dynamic.
I never supported the riot. At the time, you will remember that I condemned Trump for his irresponsible behaviour. However, I will concede that until quite recently I thought that it was a Riot rather than an Insurrection, working on theory that it was Trump's attempt to gain permanent control over the Republican party through forcing Republican leaders into a loyalty test designed to consolidate support for a 2024 run. What really changed my mind was the Elector issue- it's a tactic not without its parallels during the Nixon era: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/13/electoral-college-jfk-trump/
I made the same mistake with Putin. I have a real blind spot when it comes to rational action- Trump had a snowballs chance in Hell of overturning the election, and as such I couldn't see why he would try.
Where Republicans go wrong, is that they can't see that election fraud wasn't really necessary. This Molly Ball article shows the campaign which made sure that Trump could never win again: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ . Facebook spent $350 million on perhaps the most advanced localised targeting campaign of its type in history, and although I have no proof on the subject I would be willing to bet that they weaponised the microtargeting technology first developed during Brexit, and then in the 2016 campaign.
The vote curing brought to bear was the largest operation of its type and heavily favoured Democrats, with the ample time allowed by early voting and mail-ins. I had our old friend Kurt send me a study which 'proved' that mail-ins didn't influence the outcome of the election. Buried in the appendices was the directly contradictory evidence that it shifted the election 1.5% towards the under 60s. The media blacked out the Hunter Biden laptop, including the fact that it indirectly implicated Joe Biden in a corruption scandal. Similarly, the Tara Reade allegations (which were for more credible than those levelled at Brett Kavanagh) were blacked out for weeks, and then disingenuously 'discredited' by the NYT.
Although Trump exaggerated his economic achievements, he managed to push the curve of economic recovery beyond the peaks and troughs normally seen in such instances, particularly in terms of running a tighter labour market. Taken together his tax cut (which was admittedly only temporary for the middle classes) and a 3.8% rise in real wages above inflation amounted to the best economic conditions ordinary workers had enjoyed in nearly forty years. More importantly it meant that bosses suddenly had to be nice to roofers rather than treat them like shit. In fact, there is strong evidence that Joe Biden saw how successful Trump's approach was and tried to copy him and run a tight labour market. Unfortunately, he went about it entirely the wrong way, using enhanced unemployment to remove women from the workforce, and modern monetary theory. My point was that none of this was presented to the American people in choosing who to vote for- Trump enjoyed strong support amongst those whose lives he directly improved, but the rest of the population remained largely ignorant- which is why white male white collar voters voted against him, and black, brown and white blue collar workers voted for him.
I found out recently that the Biden administration is asking the press not to refer to the Abraham Accords by name- the reason being that Biden wants to get the Saudis on board and make it his own peace deal. Again most Americans knew nothing about it. Trump reset the relationship with China, and Biden has largely kept this position in place politically because of Americans support for it, whilst creating hundreds of tariff exceptions so that China can effectively get around the rules.
Whilst criticising Trumps withdrawal from the Iran deal, the Biden admin hasn't exactly been keen to re-enter the deal without major concessions from the Iranians- probably because they've realised that the deal was a major diplomatic blunder which realigned the region strategically against America, jeopardising the Saudis oil flow to America.
But perhaps the great tragedy of all is Ukraine. The Intransigent NATO stance running up to the invasion gave Putin every excuse he ever needed to invade Ukraine, and this growing hostility to Putin was largely based upon the erroneous conviction in Washington that Russia has a major impact on the 2016 election. Macedonian troll farms producing fake political content to monetise Facebook had a larger impact!
There is every likelihood that if Trump has been in office, Ukraine would have never happened. Not because of any merit on Trump's part- but rather insanely because he was so erratic it would have been impossible to predict what he would do!
I was wrong for a couple of days on the overnight election counting, and I've admitted that. I also thought that there was no reasonable way that the riot could feasibly be called a serious election attempt and until very recently that's a position the FBI themselves held, despite their obvious bias against Trump and populism in general. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/ 'FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated'. What I wasn't look for was other attempts to undermine the result- and there is now a growing list which shows that their was a concerted effort.
The only thing which could possibly make you feel as though I was taking the conservative side was the issue of non-citizen voting. Nobody knows how extensive it is. Nobody. The conservative argue that of the 22 million noncitizens living in America legally between 3% and 6% can and do vote. On the other hand, liberal centres like the the Brennan center argue that the problem is virtually non-existent. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but alone this issue is unlikely to have effected the outcome of the election, and most of the more serious people connected to Trump, like Barr openly admitted.
That being said, the majority of Americans support voter ID and signature verification for Mail in votes, with 64% of African Americans agreeing on voter ID. And far from Voter Suppression a recent analysis from the Brennan center showed that more resources were spent per election cycle per Black or Brown voter than per white voter,, even though they did experience longer wait times. We have to ask ourselves the question why are the Dems so intent on not allowing voter ID when a substantial majority of Americans support it? I would suggest that although noncitizen voting in the 2020 election in Battleground states is unlikely to have been the 234K claimed by partisan sources, it could have easily been in the low tens of thousands.
My favourite quote on the subject comes from Glenn Loury who said "If the election was stolen, it was stolen legally".- and that's basically my position as well. Don't get me wrong- I disliked Trump intensely, thought that he was deeply irresponsible for not conceding the election and enabling the peaceful transition of power, and some of his statements were downright odious. That being said he did face the most coordinated disinformation campaign in American history to remove him from office. Most damning of all, the media and Big Tech deliberately suppressed two pieces of evidence which would have likely influenced the outcome of the election. The Tara Reade allegation I can sort of see as acceptable, after all- due process- but the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop was inexcusable.
You may feel that the media and Big Tech were justified, because Trump was a danger in office. But my point would be that it wasn't their decision- the American people should have been able to make the decision for themselves. Any way you look at it- regardless of way both of us may feel about Trump- the Molly Ball Time article taken in concert with the laptop was a deliberate attempt to subvert the democratic process.
I still don't think it was an armed insurrection. Sure I know there is the argument that a flagpole can be a weapon, but the two words taken together would mean a planned armed force. I'll admit that there were several groups who seemed to have fantasised elaborate plans which amounted to conspiracies, but when the day came most of them showed themselves to be the type of sad little LARPers one expects in these instances. I still think it was an atrocious riot- not a planned and coordinated attempt to overturn an election.
What I have been sold on however, is the argument surrounding the fake electors. Taken together with other factors, such as the Georgia phone call, I really do think Trump was trying to overthrow the election by illegitimate means.
Personally, I hope that recent polling which suggests that Republican favour DeSantis over Trump proves true. It's a pretty good prediction that there is going to be a Republican sitting in the Oval Office in 2024- and I would much rather it be DeSantis than Trump. Anyway, nice to hear from you, mate! I've missed you!
you are a good statistician. like, you have elevated my game, just talking to you, over the years.
the crew at QC were 100% justifying the *whatever word you want to call it* argument as it happened on jan 6th.
'not an insurrection'. 'not violent'. you saw me calling this out as it was happening, and i was right. those comments are there. i think when you call shit out live and get it right, you get extra cred. props to me.
"The media blacked out the Hunter Biden laptop, including the fact that it indirectly implicated Joe Biden in a corruption scandal. Similarly, the Tara Reade allegations (which were for more credible than those levelled at Brett Kavanagh) were blacked out for weeks, and then disingenuously 'discredited' by the NYT."
so, i don't know who tara reade is, but i invite you to join me on team 'both sides are fucking morons'.
i don't think the answer to faux-wokeness is embracing conservative thought. on the subjects of religion, or morality, i believe conservatives over progressives 99 times out of 100. and on anything that requires even a modicum of kindness, i'm going with progressives.
everyone is a dumbass. nobody is doing the work, on either side, to make judgements.
Well, one of the things I've become increasingly focused upon is using market driven ideas to accomplish progressive goals of economic justice. This is why the means vs. ends issue is so important. One of the reasons why housing has become so expensive is because of the scarcity costs of building land.
In most instances this is artificial- caused by local government tightening the tap of supply. With an approach which makes the process of obtaining building permits easy, ordinary land owners could profit, whilst still supplying cheaper land to builders. There could be a huge surge in house building, providing well-paid jobs for large numbers of poorer kids who didn't do well at school.
Progressives did themselves a huge disservice when they switched from rights-based activism to identity politics. Instead, they should have learned economic theory. Here's one for your kids- ever here of Say's Law? It's pretty foundational in classical economics. It's the idea that supply creates demand, rather than demand creating supply. Something similar to Henry Ford paying his workers so they could buy his cars, paired with the notion that increasing supply lowers price, expanding the portion of the population which can afford your goods.
Most politicians are economically illiterate morons, regardless of their party affiliation. They all seem to think that raising prices automatically increases supply, when in practice they are creating exactly the type of economic scarcity which creates the type of insecurity that causes tension between ingroups.
Have you heard of Chloé Valdary? She's designed a revolutionary form of diversity training which correctly places the blame for inter-group tensions on insecurity, and uses love and compassion to help people overcome their fears and the biases which result. It's called the Theory of Enchantment. She's even been on Jordan Peterson's podcasts and received his seal of approval- showing that there is a way to do diversity without antagonising the Right.
"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"
Can you explain how this differs from the Democrat Party? I think you may be illustrating the points of the essay. Do you remember Harry Reid?
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.
Not necessarily, Ray. The Separation of Powers was essentially all about preventing changes from happening unless a clear majority of the population agrees with it. In theory, as least, nothing major should even be considered before 60% of the population agrees with a given proposal. The fundamental problem is that politicians actual policy agenda's are vastly removed from the people who elected them. That's what happens in a system where the choice is always the least worst of two options.
And before you come back to me with Roe vs. Wade, it really should have been a legislative change in the first place, and the Dems have had adequate opportunity to codify it into Law over the years.
" unless a clear majority of the population agrees with it. In theory, as least, nothing major should even be considered before 60% of the population agrees with a given proposal. "
But I don't think that was McConnell's motive. Had he been in the stronger position I doubt he'd have hesitated to use it, 60% be damned.
" Roe vs. Wade, it really should have been a legislative change in the first place, and the Dems have had adequate opportunity to codify it into Law over the years. "
Heck yes. Rats have had many chances to put a solid law in front of a shakey constitutional right. And everybody knew this was going to happen, why didn't the Rats take steps? Don't make sense.
They wanted to keep the issue alive in election cycles, scaring women who might have otherwise have voted Republican, to vote Democrat. Pure cynical politics was the reason.
We have 50 state sovereigns (not to mention city and county ones), so not having the federal government impose on all the same "majority" view is what gave us strength, but now is treated as a weakness by the pro-government crowd.
I do find it funny that those who love government services and think capitalism is so evil only point to corporations empowered by corrupt government politicians.
Crony capitalism. One of the easiest ways to see whether a country has been subjected to corporate regulatory capture is to look at its restaurant sector. If chain restaurants are only a minority, then government hasn't yet prostituted itself to the crony capitalists. If small, independent restaurants are only a minority of the market, then the rot has set in.
We're quite lucky in the UK. Although access is routinely sold, and companies often get 'help' with their tax bills, they haven't yet sold the regulatory legislative process.
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.
Well, look at it this way- imagine there was a third party which offered a number of new programs, as well as do things like improve educational results (which is actually possible, with only a very modest investment in classroom practice training)- but at the same time, they promised to only fund their programs by eliminating existing waste within government.
Do you think either of the two main parties would stand a chance against this new third party?
I don't.
You could be right; I would like to think so, but no such party has arisen and I don’t see a possibility of a third party arising at this point. We are not a parliamentary system and multiple parties would likely lead to real chaos. I’d prefer to see voters do a better job of hiring representatives. Intriguing thought, though.
The other problem with third parties is that the tend to get squeezed in the middle. People tend to vote tactically, to prevent the party they see at the existential threat getting into power.
That is also a problem in open primary states.
Third parties have never one any significant election in the modern US where a "fair election" costs millions for local races and over a billion to be a president.
Totally agree. They actually banned Bret Weinstein from one of the major social media platforms, when he proposed a way out of the madness. To many vested interests like American politics exactly as they are- captured by crony capitalism and beholden to the donor class.
Sowell talked about this with his thoughts on constrained vs. unconstrained views of humans.
I'm aware, and he was certainly right about the unconstrained view of the world and its dangers. That being said, I do think it's possible for people to make better choices from a limited set of options, and actually found myself becoming a little excited when I introduced myself to Richard Thaler's work on libertarian paternalism and the 'nudge'. I also think that vocational training pitched to ability could make all the difference.
"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.
I largely agree. On average religious people given 7% to charity, only 1.5% for secular types, although its somewhat contingent upon being part of a community. The problem is that most people outside of conservative and libertarian circles are unfamiliar with the underlying philosophies. I was only stating a commonly held misconception.
The problem is, if one wants to push people towards more self-reliance, morale support in transition is vital and there really needs to be the economic opportunities paired with vocational training. This was one of things which Reagan later admitted was his chief regret. His team thought people would simply shift from welfare to work- when often years of inactivity meant they needed help to transition to opportunity.
The classic "tithe" is 10% of income. When government first takes 30% from (not including the inflationary hidden theft) and claims to offer all these charitable solutions, why would I continue to give more? Especially when they see homeless everywhere, and know that billions are spent on the homeless industrial complex (look at California for big spending and no improvements in outcomes). Especially when government tells me how intrinsically evil and sinful I am for being an old, white man, a person of white privilege, white supremacy, white fragility and of our course a sexist pig to boot. How dare I believe in liberty and equal protection under the law and realize that big government doesn't provide either?
Have you encountered Michael Shellenberger's writing and podcasts on the homeless. Apparently the Dutch have found a far better way of dealing with the problem. First, it's largely an open air drug problem, not a homelessness problem. Accordingly, caught anyone shooting up in public is given the choice between rehab and prison, with most choosing the former. Then they triage out the truly mentally ill to care facilities, to get them stabilised on meds.
Most progressives don't believe him when he tells them about the choice between rehab and prison. In their minds, the Netherlands like the Nordic model countries are all thoroughly progressive. In some ways they are- if one is talking about political systems- but at a social level, they are in many ways far more socially conservative than most Anglosphere countries. At least, that's what I found in a recent visit to Sweden.
He's on my reading list- particularly San Fransicko- but it's obviously a long list and I don't know when I will get to him.
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.
I think you're correct when it comes to elites, and you've highlighted that I wasn't clear enough on who I meant, when I wrote the essay. And you've even given me a pretty good example, in the argument over equity vs. equality (or equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity). If you've ever read any Jonathan Haidt then you will know that roughly 20% to 30% of the population wants more fairness in terms of equality (distribution), whilst the other 70% to 80% of the population are more socially conservative or libertarians and believe in fairness in terms of proportionality, or in other word, procedural fairness where people get rewarded as a result of their talents and hard work. Almost without exception those who worry about inequality of outcome are those who are born into the top of the socio-economic spectrum.
The greatest illustration of this was California Proposition 16 to repeal prop 209. For those unfamiliar, this was an attempt to overturn equality of opportunity and introduce equity everywhere- from education to public employment and corporate boards. The irony was that the highly educated wealthy white liberals who wanted it, were defeated by its supposed beneficiaries. Even amongst African American men who would have been the bills greatest beneficiaries and had a significant interest in seeing it passed, were split roughly 50%:50% in whether they voted yes or no.
It all boils down to K-12. It turns out that achievement levels are quite even racially with one important proviso. Kids from poorer backgrounds need stricter schools and a scientific approach to learning (Cognitive Load Theory), which commits the basic building blocks of knowledge (like times tables) to long-term memory. It makes sense. Children learn and develop from two sources- the school and everywhere else (home & peer group). It turns out that when you fundamentally improve the learning provided by the school, through discipline and a cognitive sciences approach, the kids from poorer backgrounds or single parent families naturally benefit the most.
How do we know it works? Because it has already worked in the UK. Educational reforms in London led to Black British kids performing 0.5% higher than white kids in exam conditions at 16, for the simple reason than a large portion of the UK Black British population is located in London. Granted, when one drills down into the numbers white kids in London also benefited, but by nowhere near as the Black kids. All without one whit of equity or equality of outcome being involved.
The power of this approach is so convincing that it led to a school in the second poorest borough in London, with endemically high crime, outperforming Eton purely on this basis of grey matter and exam results: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10639291/Brampton-Manor-state-school-Newham-gets-89-Oxbridge-offers.html . Placements offered in the article will be as a result of mock exam results and provisional upon hitting the right exam results.
So in a sense, I agree with you- if we are talking about the elites. But that's only a tiny sliver of the population, and if we are going to take cultural progressives as an example only 3% of progressives are African American, even though they are massively overrepresented in media and amongst the activist class. Outside the 10% or so who wield such disproportionate cultural and political power, most people just want a fair shake, the chance to participate in a game which isn't rigged.
And there's the rub- because in many ways the Culture Wars are an attempt to conceal the unassailable advantage of being born into the top 10%, behind a veil of moral virtue along racial grounds. The system is rigged, but mostly against anyone who happens to born into the bottom 60% of the socio-economic spectrum, a much larger per capita portion of whom happen to be Black.
Social mobility can be fixed, but it requires massive and fundamental reforms in the way America operates K-12.
You’ll have to get rid of the teachers Union before any significant improvement in education can be expected. Massive moral and ideological corruption firmly in place.
I don't know whether getting rid of them would be the best way- but I definitely think teachers should be split from administrators and bureaucrats, in terms of union representation, because in many ways their interests compete with each other.
It also depends how you pitch it. In London, they managed to improve things mainly through training in classroom practice. And from some of the American teachers I've talked to online, most don't like the interference caused by bureaucrats and the way it impedes their job. With attacks on teachers on the rise, I think many would want some forms of reform.
They may be ripe for a sea change, provided it was handled sensitively. Of course, the newer more ideological type are another problem altogether. Many would prefer to teach empathy to Maths.
Further apart than ever? How about in 1860?
The other thing to consider is that social media gives a tiny number of extremists outsized power. This works in two ways. First, by the fear of social sanction within the political tribe. And second, by causing the other tribe to greatly overestimate the commonality of particular beliefs on the other side.
On the Left, 8% are progressives, but I would be willing to bet that a good 75% of those are of the far more benign economic progressive type, who mostly want to see stronger worker protections and universal healthcare in the US. Even when one drills into the cultural progressive subset, I imagine most just see it as an empathy building tool. We see the bad actors because of their power and their ability to cause heartbreak and misery to people espousing what were, until recently, quite mainstream ideas.
Similarly, the White Supremacist bogeyman is also wildly overestimated. In 2017, the SPLC estimated there were between 11,000 and 13,000 White Supremacists in America. Once one drilled down it the figures one quickly found that about two-thirds were white prison gang members more interested in making a living out of selling drugs and illegal firearms than actual White Supremacy. There may be a slightly larger online and isolated number (and in many ways these lone wolf types are far more dangerous), but total numbers are unlikely to be that much more significant than the active white supremacist numbers.
Perhaps, the best example of the difference between the perception and reality is the Jordan Peterson fiasco, where he was disinvited from Cambridge. In this case a tiny number of activists managed to get his invitation rescinded. But when the counter-campaign hit full swing and the professoriate was crucially allowed to vote in secret, the vote to allow him to return was near unanimous and actually resulted in Cambridge adopting a new free speech policy.
So even amongst the elites, support for the extreme views is rare. The far greater problem is that a larger percentage excuse the behaviour under the pretext of a noble aim and the majority viewpoint of the political tribe is supressed out of fear of social sanction and expulsion from the tribe- for they too greatly overestimate the total numbers of people who actually subscribe to the more harmful aspects of this nonsense.
The one exception is gender ideology. Here, people really are pursuing harmful goals. Most simply don't realise that in the past for every one kids with acute gender dysphoria who later went on the become transgender, there were between three and nine kids who did experience GD but grew out of it, going on to live perfectly happy lives as gays and lesbians, freed from a 50:50 risk of suicide and the need for a lifetime of psychological and medical care.. If anything, these ratios are likely to be far, far higher than in the past.
The solution is unlikely to come out of America. But as countries like the UK, Sweden, Finland and others experience far better outcomes and far fewer deaths from suicide, the American Psychiatric community will be forced to admit the absolute humanitarian catastrophe they've presided over. In effect, they will realise there were two groups that needed to protect, not one.
And yet the hardcore progressives keep winning and winning and winning. (Roe v Wade being overturned is just a temporary setback). You say only 8% are progresssive and 3/4ths of those only economic progressives who want more worker protection and universal health care. Well the rest must not be very opposed to the progressive social agenda because they don't push back. You are trying to tell me that they just keep winning and winning and winning with only, really 2% of the population supporting them? No, I think the support for the progressive agenda is, unfortunately, much larger than 2%. Only 2% may be hardcore progressives but many more approve of their agenda. It's not some big illusion where really the majority opposes it but somehow it just mysteriously keeps gaining ground. No, I think the truth is that generations raised on narratives of oppression and greed and racism have bought into them and they happily go along with the the hardcore progresssives, thinking that a more just world will emerge from it.
Have you ever heard of the Dictatorship of the Small Minority- there a good Medium article out there by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. For example, only 4.4% of the UK is Muslim, but other than very specialist suppliers catering to other religious needs ( eg. Jewish), virtually all meat sold in the UK is halal.
Besides, when one looks at culturally woke ideas, most cynically apply a cost benefit analysis. Simply put, it costs far less to cave to the handful of activist than it does to stand up to them, and this is the reason for woke capitalism, institutional capture and the reason why corporate Dems capitulate without the slightest bit of pushback. Up until now it has cost them less to go along than it would to push back, but this is changing, with more Americans becoming aware of the craziness being taught in schools and examples like subscription cancellations of Disney +.
Finally, although you probably didn't mean it this way, the Roe vs. Wade decision illustrates just how a relative small strongly committed percentage of electorate can overwhelm the majority. Those who support an almost total ban on abortion (with exceptions for medical reasons and in some instances rape and incest) only constitute 13% of the electorate- but crucially the religious right and their supporters have always been quite open about their aims.
The cultural progressives percentage of the electorate may be much smaller, but they aren't really honest about what they are pushing. Teaching CRT praxis becomes reversing whitewashed history, they've created the trans tipping point fiction in order to justify massive increases in the number of kids who are simply gender nonconforming or only have mild gender dysphoria being treated as though they had the pathology of 1 in 30,000 males or 1 in 100,000 females. They argue that structural racism doesn't require actual racism, yet in the same breath claim that whiteness is 'problematic'.
There problem is that lies and obfuscations only work for so long- and in addition to punishment they are about to receive for the economic woes they've induced, over one million Democrats have switched to the Republican party (not simply shifted to Independent), and that is going to be with them for far longer.
You must have noticed how some of them can fully support a particular progressive trend one second, and then claim it doesn't exist or is something else the next. They are using confusion to get their way, and as more and more instances come to light, more and more people are waking up to the reality.
The biggest tickling timebomb is trans kids. My aunt has a friend whose daughter switched to transman. They are no happier, and in the UK we are seeing a decided increase in people suing the NHS for failing to provide adequate counselling in the run up to medicalisation, and in terms of a failure to explain the full consequences. We are not the only ones- Sweden and Finland are backing up from the ideology and other countries are following suit. The activists have taken to calling the UK TERF island online.
Ron DeSantis would do well to start quoting the UK on this subject, just as he did on lockdowns and other Covid issues during the pandemic.
Yeah...., maybe. I know this argument. I don't think most people are hard-core progressives. It's complicated. Your points are valid about the Dictatorship of the Small Minority. You're right that the more people learn about exactly what some of this progressive stuff entails the more likely they are to push back against it. What I'm trying to say, though, is that they, on some hard to describe level, agree with progressivism in a way which makes it hard to resist when they don't really like what it means in actual practice. Progressivism is framed as caring. Most people can't put caring about others feelings in proper perspective. They tacitly agree that it is of the utmost importance to protect the feelings of everybody. Again, unconsciously, they go along with this, not realizing that this conflicts with providing a level playing field. People will need to consciously admit that placing the highest value on protecting the feelings of everyone is not a good way to run a society. Right now, I think (I could be wrong) that most people think that it is of the utmost importance. And because of this they can't go against any policy that is based on it.
Well, a lot of what you're describing can be attributed to poorly aligned systems and bad acting. Basically, they drove a bulldozer through Title IX and it's been a super highway for bad acting ever since. A case in point would be the way that Andrew Sullivan was railroaded out of conventional media. The more activist journalists and writers may not have liked what he had to say, but he could hardly contribute to an unsafe workplace from hundreds of miles away, could he?
Unfortunately, poorly designed systems can be manipulated and distorted by bad actors. We have the same sorts of claims here in the UK, and the occasional TERF who has resigned from the Guardian because of workplace pressure and bullying, but the problem is nowhere near as pronounced, because there wasn't a poorly made law open to abuse by bad actors.
Simply put, the bad actors only use their hurt feelings with such frequency because they know they can use them a leveraging tactic, to cause legal problems for an employer more costly than firing another employee they find objectionable. It a poor tactic, and one which companies are realising somewhat belatedly. The Washington Post just fired one bad actor activist, and transferred another to a lesser job. Netflix told its employees if you don't like it, don't work here.
They should have known that if you capitulate once to workplace terrorism, then you're only asking for further disruption. I blame the universities- as soon as student activists began targeting specific professors, they should have simply expelled the ringleaders as examples.
Ironically, the whole shitshow has given me a better insight into why socialism doesn't work. It's less about the incentives than I previously thought- in Sweden, a doctor only makes about three times as much as a forklift driver- less after generous redistribution- hardly seems worth the accrued debt from living expenses from seven years study (even if the tuition fees are paid for by the taxpayer).
But people are still just as keen to become doctors, because of a mixture of status and psychic profit- and Sweden is better described as free market capitalist with larger social safety nets and higher taxes, than socialist. No, the real problem with socialism is that it is a uniquely poorly aligned system in terms of incentives and manipulations by bad actors- it produces pathologically bad leaders and apparatchik who are ideologically possessed.
The lesson we need to take from the last decade or so, is that we need to give a lot more thought as to how systems and institutions can be hardened against manipulations by bad actors, and swiftly change laws to prevent abuses. Unfortunately, it's a long road to recovery- many institutions have been actively pushing out conservative viewpoint minorities for some time and in many instances pathological ideologues have managed to gain positions of power.
The only real solution is legislative- most public institutions should at least contain token numbers of conservatives and populists, so that people can see for themselves that the claims about American racism are untrue.
Ooops! You really got me there! Yes, we were further apart in 1860.
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.
Jonathan Haidt ran an experiment a few years back. The subject was teen pregnancy and he got politicians from both sides involved. The only proviso was that there was absolutely no media involved- to the point that the politicians weren't even allowed to brief after the event. In this environment, real progress was made, with both sides conceding certain points. It may even be one of many reasons why teenage pregnancies have dropped.
It also points to a larger axiomatic truth. Corporate media poisons everything- it's their business model.
The instances of Republican big government solutions, often called out as hypocritical by the left, will in all likelihood be consistent with how conservatives view the proper role of government. They have no problem with increased military spending, for example.
Yes, I'm by no means a fan of the Forever Wars. You should try programming you YouTube to give you feed on 'climate' and 'engineering' though. It gives one a sense of techno-optimism about the world, which is sadly lacking from the MSM narrative. Start with these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZArQMFhQ4&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFIHecZDfc&t=2s
The military is one of the very few legitimate federal government spheres.
Exactly. However, if the same suggestion comes from a Democrat it will be rejected by Republicans. It works the other way as well.
Largely because neither side wants the other side claiming credit for anything popular with voters.
Actually it's more basic than that. The group you identify with is the most important thing here not the content or ideas. Agreeing with your group reduces dissonance which is the major determinant here and over-rides any logic or sensibility in the ideas or proposals presented.
Sure, I see what you mean- I immediately jumped to the realpolitik rather than looking at the social enforcement of political tribes.
When in history, since JFK, has a Democrat suggested smaller government as a solution? Your point on partisanship is otherwise valid.
Probably never but the point still holds. If the suggestion comes from a Republican it will be accepted by Republicans but if the exact same proposal is advanced by Democrats, Republicans will reject it.
Senator Tim Scott's recent police reforms proposals immediately spring to mind.
Well, sooner of later most Western countries are going have to come to terms with the fact that they are at the limit of government spending, and that the only way to find money for future spending needs is going to be through cannibalising existing government. Recent experiences have taught them that modern monetary theory simply doesn't work.
That being said, I don't expect them to admit their new reality any time soon. In many ways., I suspect that Green Tech is an attempt to cheat these Iron Rules of economics- by creating value at the same time that they create labour. Unfortunately, it's a bad deal- in most countries nuclear is a far sounder investment. In many ways, they miss the point though. It's all about the amount and portion of money which is allowed to flow through the system free from government mandate and earmarks- free to capitalise on the iterative computational power of the market to create self-sustaining systems which render profits.
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.
Cheers, mate- especially about the analogy, I could only spot one typo, even though you've highlighted it for me! And I simply couldn't find the the which should have been a they! I'm bloody terrible at copy editing!
But back to the analogy. I recently read some advice on writing which stated that writers should be afraid to use repetition or belabour existing themes or devices. Good advice, I thought. I think there is a distinct difference between being at the coalface and reading someone else's work. Of course, we've all seen the writer who overuses repetition, but in small doses I think it can be an effective way of getting a point across.
With the national divorce theme, I felt extending the analogy was simply the natural place to go, especially given that there has been a degree of irresponsibility on both sides. Nothing is more likely to cause an actual Civil War than letting the worst examples speak for each political tribe, even though to the partisan, it can feel like you've got a strong fighter in the gladiatorial arena. Who cares whether one battle is won or lost, when the whole country could lose the war?
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.
I completely agree with you. Have you read any Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the subject of antifragility? He has managed to find a completely new benefit to the 50 experiments running scenario. It's structurally antifragile, because only a small portion of the total network is potentially subject to catastrophic shock, and as such one wouldn't see the disastrous outcomes which usually happen when bad ideas spread across boundaries and create exposure to system-wide risks.
The problem is from a political perspective, centralised control is a definitive political advantage. The message discipline which Tony Blair managed to implement within New Labour, made every politician which followed look like a feckless amateur, barely capable of running a bath. And, of course, centralised political control also equals centralised bureaucratic control, in real terms. Not good for governance overall.
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'.
Hello mate! Long time, no see! I never really justified the insurrection, even though for a short while I did believe in the election fraud argument- it was largely based on the overnight election results, where counting was paused and then resumed, only for several Dem results to come in which showed 97% or 98% of results voting Dem. I worked it out within a couple of days and self-corrected- it all boiled down to African American precincts coming in which were also filtered through the Dem leaning mail in votes. As you know, I'm quite a good statistician, and previously and at the time it took me a couple of days to consider this dynamic.
I never supported the riot. At the time, you will remember that I condemned Trump for his irresponsible behaviour. However, I will concede that until quite recently I thought that it was a Riot rather than an Insurrection, working on theory that it was Trump's attempt to gain permanent control over the Republican party through forcing Republican leaders into a loyalty test designed to consolidate support for a 2024 run. What really changed my mind was the Elector issue- it's a tactic not without its parallels during the Nixon era: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/13/electoral-college-jfk-trump/
I made the same mistake with Putin. I have a real blind spot when it comes to rational action- Trump had a snowballs chance in Hell of overturning the election, and as such I couldn't see why he would try.
Where Republicans go wrong, is that they can't see that election fraud wasn't really necessary. This Molly Ball article shows the campaign which made sure that Trump could never win again: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ . Facebook spent $350 million on perhaps the most advanced localised targeting campaign of its type in history, and although I have no proof on the subject I would be willing to bet that they weaponised the microtargeting technology first developed during Brexit, and then in the 2016 campaign.
The vote curing brought to bear was the largest operation of its type and heavily favoured Democrats, with the ample time allowed by early voting and mail-ins. I had our old friend Kurt send me a study which 'proved' that mail-ins didn't influence the outcome of the election. Buried in the appendices was the directly contradictory evidence that it shifted the election 1.5% towards the under 60s. The media blacked out the Hunter Biden laptop, including the fact that it indirectly implicated Joe Biden in a corruption scandal. Similarly, the Tara Reade allegations (which were for more credible than those levelled at Brett Kavanagh) were blacked out for weeks, and then disingenuously 'discredited' by the NYT.
Although Trump exaggerated his economic achievements, he managed to push the curve of economic recovery beyond the peaks and troughs normally seen in such instances, particularly in terms of running a tighter labour market. Taken together his tax cut (which was admittedly only temporary for the middle classes) and a 3.8% rise in real wages above inflation amounted to the best economic conditions ordinary workers had enjoyed in nearly forty years. More importantly it meant that bosses suddenly had to be nice to roofers rather than treat them like shit. In fact, there is strong evidence that Joe Biden saw how successful Trump's approach was and tried to copy him and run a tight labour market. Unfortunately, he went about it entirely the wrong way, using enhanced unemployment to remove women from the workforce, and modern monetary theory. My point was that none of this was presented to the American people in choosing who to vote for- Trump enjoyed strong support amongst those whose lives he directly improved, but the rest of the population remained largely ignorant- which is why white male white collar voters voted against him, and black, brown and white blue collar workers voted for him.
I found out recently that the Biden administration is asking the press not to refer to the Abraham Accords by name- the reason being that Biden wants to get the Saudis on board and make it his own peace deal. Again most Americans knew nothing about it. Trump reset the relationship with China, and Biden has largely kept this position in place politically because of Americans support for it, whilst creating hundreds of tariff exceptions so that China can effectively get around the rules.
Whilst criticising Trumps withdrawal from the Iran deal, the Biden admin hasn't exactly been keen to re-enter the deal without major concessions from the Iranians- probably because they've realised that the deal was a major diplomatic blunder which realigned the region strategically against America, jeopardising the Saudis oil flow to America.
But perhaps the great tragedy of all is Ukraine. The Intransigent NATO stance running up to the invasion gave Putin every excuse he ever needed to invade Ukraine, and this growing hostility to Putin was largely based upon the erroneous conviction in Washington that Russia has a major impact on the 2016 election. Macedonian troll farms producing fake political content to monetise Facebook had a larger impact!
There is every likelihood that if Trump has been in office, Ukraine would have never happened. Not because of any merit on Trump's part- but rather insanely because he was so erratic it would have been impossible to predict what he would do!
I was wrong for a couple of days on the overnight election counting, and I've admitted that. I also thought that there was no reasonable way that the riot could feasibly be called a serious election attempt and until very recently that's a position the FBI themselves held, despite their obvious bias against Trump and populism in general. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/ 'FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated'. What I wasn't look for was other attempts to undermine the result- and there is now a growing list which shows that their was a concerted effort.
The only thing which could possibly make you feel as though I was taking the conservative side was the issue of non-citizen voting. Nobody knows how extensive it is. Nobody. The conservative argue that of the 22 million noncitizens living in America legally between 3% and 6% can and do vote. On the other hand, liberal centres like the the Brennan center argue that the problem is virtually non-existent. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but alone this issue is unlikely to have effected the outcome of the election, and most of the more serious people connected to Trump, like Barr openly admitted.
That being said, the majority of Americans support voter ID and signature verification for Mail in votes, with 64% of African Americans agreeing on voter ID. And far from Voter Suppression a recent analysis from the Brennan center showed that more resources were spent per election cycle per Black or Brown voter than per white voter,, even though they did experience longer wait times. We have to ask ourselves the question why are the Dems so intent on not allowing voter ID when a substantial majority of Americans support it? I would suggest that although noncitizen voting in the 2020 election in Battleground states is unlikely to have been the 234K claimed by partisan sources, it could have easily been in the low tens of thousands.
My favourite quote on the subject comes from Glenn Loury who said "If the election was stolen, it was stolen legally".- and that's basically my position as well. Don't get me wrong- I disliked Trump intensely, thought that he was deeply irresponsible for not conceding the election and enabling the peaceful transition of power, and some of his statements were downright odious. That being said he did face the most coordinated disinformation campaign in American history to remove him from office. Most damning of all, the media and Big Tech deliberately suppressed two pieces of evidence which would have likely influenced the outcome of the election. The Tara Reade allegation I can sort of see as acceptable, after all- due process- but the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop was inexcusable.
You may feel that the media and Big Tech were justified, because Trump was a danger in office. But my point would be that it wasn't their decision- the American people should have been able to make the decision for themselves. Any way you look at it- regardless of way both of us may feel about Trump- the Molly Ball Time article taken in concert with the laptop was a deliberate attempt to subvert the democratic process.
I still don't think it was an armed insurrection. Sure I know there is the argument that a flagpole can be a weapon, but the two words taken together would mean a planned armed force. I'll admit that there were several groups who seemed to have fantasised elaborate plans which amounted to conspiracies, but when the day came most of them showed themselves to be the type of sad little LARPers one expects in these instances. I still think it was an atrocious riot- not a planned and coordinated attempt to overturn an election.
What I have been sold on however, is the argument surrounding the fake electors. Taken together with other factors, such as the Georgia phone call, I really do think Trump was trying to overthrow the election by illegitimate means.
Personally, I hope that recent polling which suggests that Republican favour DeSantis over Trump proves true. It's a pretty good prediction that there is going to be a Republican sitting in the Oval Office in 2024- and I would much rather it be DeSantis than Trump. Anyway, nice to hear from you, mate! I've missed you!
hey brother!
you are a good statistician. like, you have elevated my game, just talking to you, over the years.
the crew at QC were 100% justifying the *whatever word you want to call it* argument as it happened on jan 6th.
'not an insurrection'. 'not violent'. you saw me calling this out as it was happening, and i was right. those comments are there. i think when you call shit out live and get it right, you get extra cred. props to me.
"The media blacked out the Hunter Biden laptop, including the fact that it indirectly implicated Joe Biden in a corruption scandal. Similarly, the Tara Reade allegations (which were for more credible than those levelled at Brett Kavanagh) were blacked out for weeks, and then disingenuously 'discredited' by the NYT."
so, i don't know who tara reade is, but i invite you to join me on team 'both sides are fucking morons'.
i don't think the answer to faux-wokeness is embracing conservative thought. on the subjects of religion, or morality, i believe conservatives over progressives 99 times out of 100. and on anything that requires even a modicum of kindness, i'm going with progressives.
everyone is a dumbass. nobody is doing the work, on either side, to make judgements.
Well, one of the things I've become increasingly focused upon is using market driven ideas to accomplish progressive goals of economic justice. This is why the means vs. ends issue is so important. One of the reasons why housing has become so expensive is because of the scarcity costs of building land.
In most instances this is artificial- caused by local government tightening the tap of supply. With an approach which makes the process of obtaining building permits easy, ordinary land owners could profit, whilst still supplying cheaper land to builders. There could be a huge surge in house building, providing well-paid jobs for large numbers of poorer kids who didn't do well at school.
Progressives did themselves a huge disservice when they switched from rights-based activism to identity politics. Instead, they should have learned economic theory. Here's one for your kids- ever here of Say's Law? It's pretty foundational in classical economics. It's the idea that supply creates demand, rather than demand creating supply. Something similar to Henry Ford paying his workers so they could buy his cars, paired with the notion that increasing supply lowers price, expanding the portion of the population which can afford your goods.
Most politicians are economically illiterate morons, regardless of their party affiliation. They all seem to think that raising prices automatically increases supply, when in practice they are creating exactly the type of economic scarcity which creates the type of insecurity that causes tension between ingroups.
Have you heard of Chloé Valdary? She's designed a revolutionary form of diversity training which correctly places the blame for inter-group tensions on insecurity, and uses love and compassion to help people overcome their fears and the biases which result. It's called the Theory of Enchantment. She's even been on Jordan Peterson's podcasts and received his seal of approval- showing that there is a way to do diversity without antagonising the Right.
"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"
Can you explain how this differs from the Democrat Party? I think you may be illustrating the points of the essay. Do you remember Harry Reid?
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.
Not necessarily, Ray. The Separation of Powers was essentially all about preventing changes from happening unless a clear majority of the population agrees with it. In theory, as least, nothing major should even be considered before 60% of the population agrees with a given proposal. The fundamental problem is that politicians actual policy agenda's are vastly removed from the people who elected them. That's what happens in a system where the choice is always the least worst of two options.
And before you come back to me with Roe vs. Wade, it really should have been a legislative change in the first place, and the Dems have had adequate opportunity to codify it into Law over the years.
" unless a clear majority of the population agrees with it. In theory, as least, nothing major should even be considered before 60% of the population agrees with a given proposal. "
But I don't think that was McConnell's motive. Had he been in the stronger position I doubt he'd have hesitated to use it, 60% be damned.
" Roe vs. Wade, it really should have been a legislative change in the first place, and the Dems have had adequate opportunity to codify it into Law over the years. "
Heck yes. Rats have had many chances to put a solid law in front of a shakey constitutional right. And everybody knew this was going to happen, why didn't the Rats take steps? Don't make sense.
They wanted to keep the issue alive in election cycles, scaring women who might have otherwise have voted Republican, to vote Democrat. Pure cynical politics was the reason.
In the case of the Obama administration, getting nothing done would have been a huge win for America.
We have 50 state sovereigns (not to mention city and county ones), so not having the federal government impose on all the same "majority" view is what gave us strength, but now is treated as a weakness by the pro-government crowd.
I do find it funny that those who love government services and think capitalism is so evil only point to corporations empowered by corrupt government politicians.
Now, if only we could learn to monetise innovation. When it does happen, is only seems to happen by accident, like with Raspberry Pi.
Crony capitalism. One of the easiest ways to see whether a country has been subjected to corporate regulatory capture is to look at its restaurant sector. If chain restaurants are only a minority, then government hasn't yet prostituted itself to the crony capitalists. If small, independent restaurants are only a minority of the market, then the rot has set in.
We're quite lucky in the UK. Although access is routinely sold, and companies often get 'help' with their tax bills, they haven't yet sold the regulatory legislative process.