Martin Gurri and the ungovernable public(thepullrequest.com)
thepullrequest.com
Martin Gurri and the ungovernable public
https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/the-prophet-of-the-revolt
48 comments
I always recommend Martin Gurri for people looking to model the present state of the US and, in particular, new media/communications platforms impacts.
I liked this piece in many ways. But can't help but notice that the neoliberal economy is missing from his picture. Gurri mentions it once:
>The usual economic explanations explain nothing, in my opinion.
Pretty sure Sanders disagrees.
>The usual economic explanations explain nothing, in my opinion.
Pretty sure Sanders disagrees.
Yeah, I have to give this one to Maslow. Having your basic needs met is great but that gets boring and a feeling of progress becomes a need too. Stagnation is only slightly more tolerable than regression.
Scattered thoughts, fun read, thanks.
> In the last century, two generations of elites tackled the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War, and came ahead on every count. They built the great dams and nuclear plants that electrified the country, and threw in the interstate highway grid for good measure. What has changed?
What! Completely overlooking the popular nature of these accomplishments. Watch interviews with even telephone operators for major government projectsin the 40s and 50s and you'll see a pride in them even a fairly senior governmental manager would not display today. People believed in these things and I think not because of their faith in elites but because they saw these instructions employing their friends and neighbors. People believed in their team. There were overlapping institutions like church which also connected people. We have a huge decline in people doing things together. Mass media could in part be to blame but Reagan style cowboy individuality might be too.
> I will say this: the struggle today is structural, not personality-dependent. Even an FDR or a Reagan would have difficulty preserving institutions whose authority has collapsed because of a radical reversal in the information environment.
Absolutely. See the failures of one Barrack Obama
> As flawed as these narratives were and are--the map was very definitely not the territory--they were coherent worldviews that helped that society navigate reality.
This accurately describes the media of the post WWII era but totally ignores the hodgepodge corrupt media landscapes of the late 19th century and early 20th century. You think people are in a bubble now. Imagine getting all your news from one or two papers which were directly party appartuses and probably ethnically isolated.
> The most disruptive innovation of this nature was surely the printing press.
I think this point is taken too often for granted. 1848 begs to differ. At the time the printing press came about regional european powers were beginning to equalize in strength. The decline of hedgemons could as easily be responsible for reforms theology as the press. You can't set up your own church unless you can keep the Pope's armies out. Once you can it's only a matter of time until controlling your regional branch of the church becomes desirable enough to break things off.
> History has never sponsored reruns of dead ideals, even as sitcoms
Oh come on. This is pure progressivism. There's no "conservation of momentum" in history. No one decides or devine's the rules of what will and won't happen next. Nothing is ever the same and nothing is ever new but change can be heavily weighted to looking much like it did before. Maybe we won't get the third reich again but am ecofascist exclusionary state could absolutely be in the cards. Just as America now greatly resembles Empiral Britain at it's zenith and turn towards decline.
> At the individual level, the nihilist is the random shooter who stalks into a gay bar or a mosque and slaughters dozens of innocent strangers.
This is borderline, "video games cause school shooting" level of association. Political nihilism is not obviously the proximate cause of lone wolf violence. In fact such violence often comes from those politically irrelevant or even activated by a sense of these acts leading to a kind of victory. Timothy McVeigh viewed his action as a successful pokticial act not as a "fuck it, burn it down" shrug.
What I can't help feeling about this writing is that it has fallen deeply for the progressive narrative that is popular in both the elite Republican and Democratic parties. Not to be confused with contemporary "progressivism". Rather the narrative that links Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, sometimes LBJ and sometimes Reagan into a single progression of civil cosmopolitan liberty. I'm not saying here that that narrative is necessarily wrong. But to get this far on an intellectual level and not interogate closer the conflicts which bred these changes and the places where equality has failed to find a hold on liberal democracy. It's like taking for granted labor progress as a part of liberal democracy. As if it will just happen and left movements didn't have something powerful to do with that.
Whiles it's not "end of history", it reads very "end of history but...". Regardless of my complaints it's very thought provoking but I am getting a Slavoj Zizek, lapping himself in his own rationalism, vibe.
> In the last century, two generations of elites tackled the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War, and came ahead on every count. They built the great dams and nuclear plants that electrified the country, and threw in the interstate highway grid for good measure. What has changed?
What! Completely overlooking the popular nature of these accomplishments. Watch interviews with even telephone operators for major government projectsin the 40s and 50s and you'll see a pride in them even a fairly senior governmental manager would not display today. People believed in these things and I think not because of their faith in elites but because they saw these instructions employing their friends and neighbors. People believed in their team. There were overlapping institutions like church which also connected people. We have a huge decline in people doing things together. Mass media could in part be to blame but Reagan style cowboy individuality might be too.
> I will say this: the struggle today is structural, not personality-dependent. Even an FDR or a Reagan would have difficulty preserving institutions whose authority has collapsed because of a radical reversal in the information environment.
Absolutely. See the failures of one Barrack Obama
> As flawed as these narratives were and are--the map was very definitely not the territory--they were coherent worldviews that helped that society navigate reality.
This accurately describes the media of the post WWII era but totally ignores the hodgepodge corrupt media landscapes of the late 19th century and early 20th century. You think people are in a bubble now. Imagine getting all your news from one or two papers which were directly party appartuses and probably ethnically isolated.
> The most disruptive innovation of this nature was surely the printing press.
I think this point is taken too often for granted. 1848 begs to differ. At the time the printing press came about regional european powers were beginning to equalize in strength. The decline of hedgemons could as easily be responsible for reforms theology as the press. You can't set up your own church unless you can keep the Pope's armies out. Once you can it's only a matter of time until controlling your regional branch of the church becomes desirable enough to break things off.
> History has never sponsored reruns of dead ideals, even as sitcoms
Oh come on. This is pure progressivism. There's no "conservation of momentum" in history. No one decides or devine's the rules of what will and won't happen next. Nothing is ever the same and nothing is ever new but change can be heavily weighted to looking much like it did before. Maybe we won't get the third reich again but am ecofascist exclusionary state could absolutely be in the cards. Just as America now greatly resembles Empiral Britain at it's zenith and turn towards decline.
> At the individual level, the nihilist is the random shooter who stalks into a gay bar or a mosque and slaughters dozens of innocent strangers.
This is borderline, "video games cause school shooting" level of association. Political nihilism is not obviously the proximate cause of lone wolf violence. In fact such violence often comes from those politically irrelevant or even activated by a sense of these acts leading to a kind of victory. Timothy McVeigh viewed his action as a successful pokticial act not as a "fuck it, burn it down" shrug.
What I can't help feeling about this writing is that it has fallen deeply for the progressive narrative that is popular in both the elite Republican and Democratic parties. Not to be confused with contemporary "progressivism". Rather the narrative that links Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, sometimes LBJ and sometimes Reagan into a single progression of civil cosmopolitan liberty. I'm not saying here that that narrative is necessarily wrong. But to get this far on an intellectual level and not interogate closer the conflicts which bred these changes and the places where equality has failed to find a hold on liberal democracy. It's like taking for granted labor progress as a part of liberal democracy. As if it will just happen and left movements didn't have something powerful to do with that.
Whiles it's not "end of history", it reads very "end of history but...". Regardless of my complaints it's very thought provoking but I am getting a Slavoj Zizek, lapping himself in his own rationalism, vibe.
Long read (already read it previously), but very good.
Should be more fodder for breaking up and beefing up regulations on tech companies
Should be more fodder for breaking up and beefing up regulations on tech companies
I think you're misreading Gurri; according to his reasoning, any measure is almost impossible (including regulation or anti-trust). From the post:
>"Liberal democracy is still the only game in town. You can’t compete with it – but you can destroy it. You can smash it to bits and put nothing in its place. You can bring down an avenging chaos on a corrupt world. So when you ask whether today’s protests will ever lead to anything, the answer is probably not. They have little positive content."
If we use his paradigm to analyze the 'tech situation', the most likely outcome is furious protests, with no ability to cohere around any specific action.
>"Liberal democracy is still the only game in town. You can’t compete with it – but you can destroy it. You can smash it to bits and put nothing in its place. You can bring down an avenging chaos on a corrupt world. So when you ask whether today’s protests will ever lead to anything, the answer is probably not. They have little positive content."
If we use his paradigm to analyze the 'tech situation', the most likely outcome is furious protests, with no ability to cohere around any specific action.
Right. It's very unclear just what "breaking up the tech companies" really means. There's a few interesting ideas, for sure, but structure change could very well make it worse, not better.
They could start by not putting themselves in the position of being arbiters of information. As Gurri said, a little humility would go a long way.
They could start by not putting themselves in the position of being arbiters of information. As Gurri said, a little humility would go a long way.
Is it though?
It seems China with its repressive apparatus put a clamp on Inteenet and free flow of information.
Lot of his argument fall apart, if there is an alternative he isn't willing to entertain.
It seems China with its repressive apparatus put a clamp on Inteenet and free flow of information.
Lot of his argument fall apart, if there is an alternative he isn't willing to entertain.
Not sure who you're responding to; I replied to the grandparent on the basis of logic they purported to agree with. You seem to disagree with the article itself, and the paradigm described by its subject.
Was replying to
> any measure is almost impossible
But yeah, my beef is with the Gurri. Not all of his description line up with reality.
> any measure is almost impossible
But yeah, my beef is with the Gurri. Not all of his description line up with reality.
>If we use his paradigm to analyze the 'tech situation', the most likely outcome is furious protests, with no ability to cohere around any specific action.
Who exactly is going to participate in "furious protests" against breaking up mega tech companies? lol
Who exactly is going to participate in "furious protests" against breaking up mega tech companies? lol
>"Who exactly is going to participate in "furious protests" against breaking up mega tech companies? lol"
... The furious protests would be against the tech companies, but those protesters would not be able to cohere around a specific action.
The closest analogy would be Occupy Wall St. There were large protests, and not many counter-protests (other than the tangentially related Tea Party ones, which were anti-government, not pro-Wall St.).
... The furious protests would be against the tech companies, but those protesters would not be able to cohere around a specific action.
The closest analogy would be Occupy Wall St. There were large protests, and not many counter-protests (other than the tangentially related Tea Party ones, which were anti-government, not pro-Wall St.).
And if someone does, will anyone ever find out? They'll be "deplatformed" everywhere if they even _think_ of doing something coherent.
That's a curious reading of the post.
I think he would say that the ongoing fallout is caused by structural changes in communication networks, and that the players who happen to be at the top of the pile economically are incidental to that process.
I think he would say that the ongoing fallout is caused by structural changes in communication networks, and that the players who happen to be at the top of the pile economically are incidental to that process.
In the interview Martin Gurri characterizes the left thusly:
> Today the big issue is… what? Wearing MAGA hats? Racism certainly isn’t a divisive issue. Everybody’s against it. Capitalism isn’t much of an issue. Nobody even talks about class or poverty any more. Identity’s too diffuse and dispersed – if identitarians started fighting, it would look more like a scrum than a civil war.
That's not honest. It would be like saying that Reagan supporters in the 1980s only cared about welfare queens, without any substantive policy preferences regarding industrial regulation, unions, defense, etc. In reality "welfare queens" was short-hand for all the substantive policy preferences demanded by conservatives, as well as a statement about the perceived consequences of the excesses of liberal policies. Similar, MAGA hat derision is a liberal statement about the irony of promoting conservative, free market, anti-social safety net policies to "Make America Great Again" when from the left's perspective all the agreed upon societal ills--e.g. loss of blue collar jobs to free trade, lack of income growth combined with increasing income disparity, corporate oligopolies, etc--are a consequence of conservative, Republican, policies. The GOP was the architect of both NAFTA and China entering GATT/WTO.[1] The "neoliberal" movement in the Democratic party was a conservative movement; it was an adoption by some Democrats of conservative Republican economic policies in an attempt to win over increasingly Republican-leaning voters who had been successfully persuaded that traditionally Democratic economic policies (e.g. antagonism to free trade, pro union, "tax & spend" entitlements, etc) were hostile to job growth. And just as Democrats were scrambling to realign their economic platforms with the rightward shift in the electorate, so too was Labor doing exactly the same thing in the U.K. Thatcher and Reagan ushered in the preeminence of conservative economic policies, and Blair and Clinton were late-stage responses to that. To then blame Democrats and their "neoliberal" policies for the legacy of conservative (classically "liberal" outside the Anglosphere--note the semantic games) economic policies is... rich.
I'm sorry, but either Martin Gurri is less than 25 years old, or he's willfully misrepresenting actual, factual, not-particularly-distant political history. I'm pretty sure it's the latter, and he's simply using obtuse, scholarly-sounding terminology to sell a constructed narrative popular among far too many conservatives. I'm familiar with the tactic having heard plenty of similar B.S. political fantasies (e.g. Marxist, Fascist, etc, arguments) that build plausible seeming narratives around hidden, false premises.
There's plenty of blame to go around regarding contemporary cultural divisions. The conservatives were right in their criticisms of the left's identity politics and victim culture. Indeed, identity politics has swallowed up everybody, and it turns out the empowered and entitled often make for the most sympathetic victims of all. But let's be clear about who promoted what, when, and why before we start naming our oppressors and nominating our saviors.
[1] When NAFTA passed under a Clinton presidency, 2/3 of House Republicans voted for it (including Newt Gingrich, who successfully helped to push through special "fast-track" voting rules), while only 1/3 of Democrats voted for it. President Clinton, like Tony Blair in the U.K., was seen as successful precisely because of his conservative economic policies. Clinton also supported GOP authored welfare reform, including block grants to states (which Democrats feared would be directed away from the working class), despite fierce opposition from his own party.
> Today the big issue is… what? Wearing MAGA hats? Racism certainly isn’t a divisive issue. Everybody’s against it. Capitalism isn’t much of an issue. Nobody even talks about class or poverty any more. Identity’s too diffuse and dispersed – if identitarians started fighting, it would look more like a scrum than a civil war.
That's not honest. It would be like saying that Reagan supporters in the 1980s only cared about welfare queens, without any substantive policy preferences regarding industrial regulation, unions, defense, etc. In reality "welfare queens" was short-hand for all the substantive policy preferences demanded by conservatives, as well as a statement about the perceived consequences of the excesses of liberal policies. Similar, MAGA hat derision is a liberal statement about the irony of promoting conservative, free market, anti-social safety net policies to "Make America Great Again" when from the left's perspective all the agreed upon societal ills--e.g. loss of blue collar jobs to free trade, lack of income growth combined with increasing income disparity, corporate oligopolies, etc--are a consequence of conservative, Republican, policies. The GOP was the architect of both NAFTA and China entering GATT/WTO.[1] The "neoliberal" movement in the Democratic party was a conservative movement; it was an adoption by some Democrats of conservative Republican economic policies in an attempt to win over increasingly Republican-leaning voters who had been successfully persuaded that traditionally Democratic economic policies (e.g. antagonism to free trade, pro union, "tax & spend" entitlements, etc) were hostile to job growth. And just as Democrats were scrambling to realign their economic platforms with the rightward shift in the electorate, so too was Labor doing exactly the same thing in the U.K. Thatcher and Reagan ushered in the preeminence of conservative economic policies, and Blair and Clinton were late-stage responses to that. To then blame Democrats and their "neoliberal" policies for the legacy of conservative (classically "liberal" outside the Anglosphere--note the semantic games) economic policies is... rich.
I'm sorry, but either Martin Gurri is less than 25 years old, or he's willfully misrepresenting actual, factual, not-particularly-distant political history. I'm pretty sure it's the latter, and he's simply using obtuse, scholarly-sounding terminology to sell a constructed narrative popular among far too many conservatives. I'm familiar with the tactic having heard plenty of similar B.S. political fantasies (e.g. Marxist, Fascist, etc, arguments) that build plausible seeming narratives around hidden, false premises.
There's plenty of blame to go around regarding contemporary cultural divisions. The conservatives were right in their criticisms of the left's identity politics and victim culture. Indeed, identity politics has swallowed up everybody, and it turns out the empowered and entitled often make for the most sympathetic victims of all. But let's be clear about who promoted what, when, and why before we start naming our oppressors and nominating our saviors.
[1] When NAFTA passed under a Clinton presidency, 2/3 of House Republicans voted for it (including Newt Gingrich, who successfully helped to push through special "fast-track" voting rules), while only 1/3 of Democrats voted for it. President Clinton, like Tony Blair in the U.K., was seen as successful precisely because of his conservative economic policies. Clinton also supported GOP authored welfare reform, including block grants to states (which Democrats feared would be directed away from the working class), despite fierce opposition from his own party.
Listen to the May 25, 2020 Econ Talk episode where Gurri is interviewed (Russ Roberts sucks BTW but that's another issue). I don't think he's being dishonest, he's delusional. His brain just can't accept that mainstream fascism has arrived and is in his face. And yes, I agree with you that the reason is that he's got some regressive and authoritarian ideals and is probably a registered republican based on his comments and behavior that I've seen.
> from the left's perspective all the agreed upon societal ills--e.g. loss of blue collar jobs to free trade, lack of income growth combined with increasing income disparity, corporate oligopolies, etc--are a consequence of conservative, Republican, policies
But even if this is accepted for the sake of argument (I'm not sure it's entirely true, but let's assume it is), the left has not done what a sane political party should do when these things happen: penalize their own party leaders who let it happen. If Clinton allowed NAFTA to pass despite his own party's fierce opposition, why didn't the party fire him? Why didn't some other candidate beat him in the 1996 primaries? Why did the Democrats continue to protect him despite the fact that he's a womanizer and a liar? And why does the party machine of which he and his wife are poster child beneficiaries continue to run the party despite the fact that it obviously doesn't represent the will of the people? If it did, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic candidate for President in 2016, and again in 2020 (and he might have won in 2016).
In other words, I think Gurri is correct that the left talks a lot about reforms it says it wants, but doesn't back up its talk with action.
But even if this is accepted for the sake of argument (I'm not sure it's entirely true, but let's assume it is), the left has not done what a sane political party should do when these things happen: penalize their own party leaders who let it happen. If Clinton allowed NAFTA to pass despite his own party's fierce opposition, why didn't the party fire him? Why didn't some other candidate beat him in the 1996 primaries? Why did the Democrats continue to protect him despite the fact that he's a womanizer and a liar? And why does the party machine of which he and his wife are poster child beneficiaries continue to run the party despite the fact that it obviously doesn't represent the will of the people? If it did, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic candidate for President in 2016, and again in 2020 (and he might have won in 2016).
In other words, I think Gurri is correct that the left talks a lot about reforms it says it wants, but doesn't back up its talk with action.
Once the New Deal coalition fell apart after the Civil Rights Act passed and the GOP implemented the Southern Strategy and right-to-work laws destroyed unions, the Democrats lost unions as their base of financial support. They still held on in Congress for a while, but couldn't win the Presidency until the Third Way/neoliberal Democrats and groups like the Blue Dogs took charge of the party. At that point, the Democrats became captured (at least financially) by Wall Street and rich urban professionals who were socially liberal but fiscally conservative. There's no "firing" Clinton at that point. The party has been captured. The Democrats are also a much more diverse party since they are as much "not-GOP" as anything else. Why should a conservative Black voter vote Democratic? Of course they shouldn't, but the GOP was pretty explicitly home to racists for decades.
Both parties continue to self-sort in unhealthy ways. The GOP needs more diversity (but of course, is doubling-down on gerrymandering) and the Democrats, frankly, need less. I'd love to trade off some fiscally conservative Democrats for some working-collar populist Republicans. Bernie's support came from appealing to what used to be the base of the Democratic party: the working-class. But it's not enough voters in the raucous big-tent Democratic party to win a primary, and likely not the general election.
We also can't even have a serious conversation about policy since the GOP attacks everything the Democrats do as socialism.
Anyway, to your last point: the left is part of the Democratic party, but it doesn't have a strong-enough hand to play.
Also, look, voters are weird. I volunteered as a Democratic poll greeter here in NC with two women, both professionals, a white woman originally from Cincinnati and a Black woman originally from New Jersey. They'd both voted for Biden in the primary. I was like, what, why? Why didn't you pick someone more progressive? They both said: "because Biden is who we thought would make the strongest general election candidate." So they're not even voting on who they think is best, but who they think the rest of America will accept.
p.s. don't be so hard on Hillary. Let's not forget that she expended a lot of political capital trying to pass universal healthcare. She got killed on that, by Democrats and Republicans alike. I think that really changed her idea of what was possible in politics in the US. She is not the devil she's been made out to be.
Both parties continue to self-sort in unhealthy ways. The GOP needs more diversity (but of course, is doubling-down on gerrymandering) and the Democrats, frankly, need less. I'd love to trade off some fiscally conservative Democrats for some working-collar populist Republicans. Bernie's support came from appealing to what used to be the base of the Democratic party: the working-class. But it's not enough voters in the raucous big-tent Democratic party to win a primary, and likely not the general election.
We also can't even have a serious conversation about policy since the GOP attacks everything the Democrats do as socialism.
Anyway, to your last point: the left is part of the Democratic party, but it doesn't have a strong-enough hand to play.
Also, look, voters are weird. I volunteered as a Democratic poll greeter here in NC with two women, both professionals, a white woman originally from Cincinnati and a Black woman originally from New Jersey. They'd both voted for Biden in the primary. I was like, what, why? Why didn't you pick someone more progressive? They both said: "because Biden is who we thought would make the strongest general election candidate." So they're not even voting on who they think is best, but who they think the rest of America will accept.
p.s. don't be so hard on Hillary. Let's not forget that she expended a lot of political capital trying to pass universal healthcare. She got killed on that, by Democrats and Republicans alike. I think that really changed her idea of what was possible in politics in the US. She is not the devil she's been made out to be.
> Bernie's support came from appealing to what used to be the base of the Democratic party: the working-class. But it's not enough voters in the raucous big-tent Democratic party to win a primary, and likely not the general election.
> Anyway, to your last point: the left is part of the Democratic party, but it doesn't have a strong-enough hand to play.
If those farther left types don't have enough support even to win the Democratic primary, how will they do in the actual race?
> Anyway, to your last point: the left is part of the Democratic party, but it doesn't have a strong-enough hand to play.
If those farther left types don't have enough support even to win the Democratic primary, how will they do in the actual race?
Interesting to see how Democratic party has been captured in order to win elections.
> Both parties continue to self-sort in unhealthy ways.
I agree.
> the left is part of the Democratic party, but it doesn't have a strong-enough hand to play
If by "the left" you mean people like Bernie Sanders, I agree. But his hand isn't strong enough not because he's a leftist, but because he's an outsider. The insider policies of the Democratic party are just as leftist; they're just a different flavor of leftist--roughly speaking, New Left vs. Sanders-style Old Left, hardball power politics vs. "softer" socialism. That's also why the Democrats now are just fine allying with Wall Street and big business: power politics needs financing, and that's where the money is.
> don't be so hard on Hillary
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine.
I agree.
> the left is part of the Democratic party, but it doesn't have a strong-enough hand to play
If by "the left" you mean people like Bernie Sanders, I agree. But his hand isn't strong enough not because he's a leftist, but because he's an outsider. The insider policies of the Democratic party are just as leftist; they're just a different flavor of leftist--roughly speaking, New Left vs. Sanders-style Old Left, hardball power politics vs. "softer" socialism. That's also why the Democrats now are just fine allying with Wall Street and big business: power politics needs financing, and that's where the money is.
> don't be so hard on Hillary
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine.
Really glad to see your comment and others pointing out what’s really happened and happening. I typically can’t get out a fifth of this in conversation before being told I’m wrong. Of course sources are dismissed outright.
The one thing Democrats can do is dictate what republicans won’t back by taking it on themselves. There’s got to be a way to snap back go normalcy that way
The one thing Democrats can do is dictate what republicans won’t back by taking it on themselves. There’s got to be a way to snap back go normalcy that way
I'm not sure that would work. The Republican party, at least the powerful do seem to believe that government can do no right. Even Donald Trump could not turn them toward fiscal stimulus nor infrastructure. Whereas democrats seem willing to take just about anything (though this has stemmed a bit under Trump).
In this case there is no middle as there is no place to compromise between "any" and "none".
In this case there is no middle as there is no place to compromise between "any" and "none".
Republicans have been getting death threats towards themselves and their families for even looking likely to disagree with the president for years now. They also had no problem passing huge tax cuts without funding and thus exploding the deficit. I think it’s imperative that the next president start by trying to stem the online propaganda and anything else contributing to those death threats. The US simply cannot tolerate death threats against its elected officials. They’ve affected our politics for years and progress may be impossible until the propaganda is halted.
Edit-On the original topic of getting the two sides to agree on things, I think the fundamental problem is the us/them dynamic between urban and rural communities. I further posit that a large government program to employ these two communities together would go a long way toward building a communal bridge between them. If people in rural America saw the rest of the country building things like high speed rail to make them less isolated they would see promise for better days in the future. Ie make it so that people can live in rural areas and take a train into work in a city in minutes. Property valuations will increase. Crime will decrease through frankly there being better options all around. (Though I still think a revamped drug scheduling system needs to address the source of crime.)
Edit-On the original topic of getting the two sides to agree on things, I think the fundamental problem is the us/them dynamic between urban and rural communities. I further posit that a large government program to employ these two communities together would go a long way toward building a communal bridge between them. If people in rural America saw the rest of the country building things like high speed rail to make them less isolated they would see promise for better days in the future. Ie make it so that people can live in rural areas and take a train into work in a city in minutes. Property valuations will increase. Crime will decrease through frankly there being better options all around. (Though I still think a revamped drug scheduling system needs to address the source of crime.)
Re high speed rail: The problem is, there aren't enough people in the rural area. You wouldn't have a high-speed rail stop in every other town in rural Kansas - if you did, it wouldn't be high speed rail. You're not going to connect all the farmer's kids to Kansas City that way, still less to Chicago.
I’m sure there’s a way around it. Got any ideas?
Of course there's a way around it. It's this great technology called "cars".
Sure, push to make cars more fuel efficient, push for ways to make fuel for cars that's more closed cycle (like biofuel), push to spread more infrastructure to make things like electric cars or plug-in hybrids feasible. But when you have a population that is very, very spread out, there is no such thing as "mass transit", and we just have to deal with that fact.
Sure, push to make cars more fuel efficient, push for ways to make fuel for cars that's more closed cycle (like biofuel), push to spread more infrastructure to make things like electric cars or plug-in hybrids feasible. But when you have a population that is very, very spread out, there is no such thing as "mass transit", and we just have to deal with that fact.
Bullet trains with a way to drive your car into them. Boom, individualized mass transit. Yes they’d have to stop every thirty minutes.
Another option is to actually have underground tunnels for vehicles to drive through in tightly controlled settings. That way you take the driver out of it - and maybe can install ways to power vehicles internally. You could take that system any time of day without regard for weather, it could be centrally ran and administered ie little room for accidents, and thus depend on it for quick access to daily duties like work.
Another option is to actually have underground tunnels for vehicles to drive through in tightly controlled settings. That way you take the driver out of it - and maybe can install ways to power vehicles internally. You could take that system any time of day without regard for weather, it could be centrally ran and administered ie little room for accidents, and thus depend on it for quick access to daily duties like work.
Except rural people aren't going to agree to that because it would mean an increase in taxes as well as massive amounts of state and federal intervention into their communities.
Edit: I do not buy that death threats have anything to do with the present stalemate. We are nowhere near a historic high water mark for pokticial violence in this country. The 1850s, turn of the century and 1960s were all very violent periods and the US government did not find itself paralyzed then.
The biggest change is that one party has been over run by a philosophy that the government simply cannot do things well or make them better. You cannot launch a ship when half the crew denies that it will float.
Edit: I do not buy that death threats have anything to do with the present stalemate. We are nowhere near a historic high water mark for pokticial violence in this country. The 1850s, turn of the century and 1960s were all very violent periods and the US government did not find itself paralyzed then.
The biggest change is that one party has been over run by a philosophy that the government simply cannot do things well or make them better. You cannot launch a ship when half the crew denies that it will float.
> Even Donald Trump could not turn them toward fiscal stimulus nor infrastructure.
He can't pass an infrastructure plan because anything of that scope requires persuasion and compromise across many competing interests, things I believe he's constitutionally incapable of. It's the same reason he never had a healthcare bill. If he can't strong arm a deal, he can't get it done at all. I think he actually used the bully pulpit of the presidency to pretty poor effect as far as that goes.
He can't pass an infrastructure plan because anything of that scope requires persuasion and compromise across many competing interests, things I believe he's constitutionally incapable of. It's the same reason he never had a healthcare bill. If he can't strong arm a deal, he can't get it done at all. I think he actually used the bully pulpit of the presidency to pretty poor effect as far as that goes.
Don’t forget the wide reports of death threats towards republicans and democrats - anyone remotely open to pushing back gets death threats. And they’re credible. That clearly has kept progress from being made.
To be effective, a US president needs to be a consensus-builder and compromise-broker.
I think Trump doesn't even know what those words mean.
I think Trump doesn't even know what those words mean.
I disagree. I think that Trump, freed of McConnell would have been for using a ton of debt to build things. Would he have insisted that a ton of that spending take place in states that votes for him? Absolutely. But he is not a deficit hawk.
Does this actually disagree with what he said? OP said Trump doesn't put in the effort to persuade (aka, get McConnell to focus on his agenda) and used his bully pulpit ineffectively (aka, putting enough pressure on McConnell to act). That seems to square with your thoughts.
No. This is heralding to a different era of Sorkinesque politics. There are just things the Republican caucus is not going to do because of their philosophical and public commitment to austerity.
My point is that Trump is almost the perfect president to get this done because he has purchase with the base even when he contradicts orthodoxy. A conservative nervous about being primaried for voting for a big government program like this has all the necessary cover to vote for it under Trump. That they could not get it done under Trump I see as incredible evidence of the party's commitment to austerity government.
Look at the fight over food stamps we have every time the farm bill comes around. SNAP costs about 1/3 of 1 percent of GDP. It helps ag and basically extends food security to the entire country. But Republicans fight over it like it's Medicare. I'm not condemning them for this. I happen to disagree but they fundamentally believe, no matter the cost benefit analysis that the government should not do these things and cannot conduct them effectively. It is hard for people to understand because we are so used to the post war order in which both sides believe in government up to a certain point at least.
My point is that Trump is almost the perfect president to get this done because he has purchase with the base even when he contradicts orthodoxy. A conservative nervous about being primaried for voting for a big government program like this has all the necessary cover to vote for it under Trump. That they could not get it done under Trump I see as incredible evidence of the party's commitment to austerity government.
Look at the fight over food stamps we have every time the farm bill comes around. SNAP costs about 1/3 of 1 percent of GDP. It helps ag and basically extends food security to the entire country. But Republicans fight over it like it's Medicare. I'm not condemning them for this. I happen to disagree but they fundamentally believe, no matter the cost benefit analysis that the government should not do these things and cannot conduct them effectively. It is hard for people to understand because we are so used to the post war order in which both sides believe in government up to a certain point at least.
Quoting Martin Gurri as quoted in the parent post, NOT the words of wahern in parent post itself:
> Today the big issue is… what? Wearing MAGA hats? Racism certainly isn’t a divisive issue. Everybody’s against it.
In light of the past months of Black Lives Matter protests, counter-protests by white supremacists (who often enjoyed the support of law enforcement), and overt race baiting by Trump and his surrogates, claiming that racism isn't a divisive issue in American society is tone deaf at best.
> Today the big issue is… what? Wearing MAGA hats? Racism certainly isn’t a divisive issue. Everybody’s against it.
In light of the past months of Black Lives Matter protests, counter-protests by white supremacists (who often enjoyed the support of law enforcement), and overt race baiting by Trump and his surrogates, claiming that racism isn't a divisive issue in American society is tone deaf at best.
I thought this was bizarre too, is he living under a rock? Or is he being intentionally ignorant?
It's widely recognized by the actual American left that neoliberals have taken over the Democratic party, but it's less often said that the Republican party is mutating into a worker's party, differentiated largely on social class. Political correctness: it's just a social class differentiator; keeping the filthy workmen off of our proverbial lawns. Democrats are now the party of the managerial/professional/muh collitch class and minorities, and Republicans are the party of the working class and ... I guess its historical association with small businessmen holds. The history of who passed NAFTA (back almost 30 years ago now, mind you) is pretty irrelevant: nobody in the present day Democratic party is talking about revoking it (2016 Bernie might have; I miss 2016 Bernie); it was the modern worker's party, not the past workers party who wants to renegotiate this disaster.
Lasch saw this at work in the 1970s, FWIIW, which is why Gurri is talking about him. Lasch was an actual Marxist, though he eventually made common cause with Paleocons because he saw the cheerful "left wing" atomization of the family as incredibly destructive for working people, which, of course, was true.
Lasch saw this at work in the 1970s, FWIIW, which is why Gurri is talking about him. Lasch was an actual Marxist, though he eventually made common cause with Paleocons because he saw the cheerful "left wing" atomization of the family as incredibly destructive for working people, which, of course, was true.
Republicans might be the party of pandering to the working class via rhetoric, but their actual policies and actions certainly aren't helping the working class. Trying to claim that the Democrats are in bed with big business any more than the Republicans strikes me as dishonest.
The Democrats policies don't help the working class very much either these days. That's why the republicans have an opening, even on social issues. The 'whassamadda kansas' guy has made an entire career of noticing this, but nobody listens to him. Particularly hilarious in his last book, "Listen Liberal" was his skewering of the "microfinance" fetish of the "left" -aka, let's get the third world in hawk to American userers.
It's a titanic shift; I'm old enough to remember guys like Walter Mondale and Tip O'Neill who made Bernie look like an Ayn Rand fan; they were mainstream democrats who actually did help the working man. Now, even the far left are screeching ninnies who are obsessed with things which would actually destroy the working man's life more than the last 40 years already have.
It's a titanic shift; I'm old enough to remember guys like Walter Mondale and Tip O'Neill who made Bernie look like an Ayn Rand fan; they were mainstream democrats who actually did help the working man. Now, even the far left are screeching ninnies who are obsessed with things which would actually destroy the working man's life more than the last 40 years already have.
Putting "working class" and "minorities" in separate buckets is explicitly racist. By whatever definition you use, minorities are more likely to be working class.
> I learned early in my life that the worst democracy is infinitely better than the best-performing tyranny. So I’m happy to make a leap of faith and say that liberal democracy will still be with us, but with new and interesting permutations, at the turn of the 22nd century.
This is absolutely false, would you rather live in Haiti or China? Also, what makes "Democracy" isn't really clear, you don't necessarily have a say in what you'd like in Democracy. It's just a vehicle to give government legitimacy, even if the votes don't actually matter or are even real.
> We can't even have a civil war, as it's impossible to draw the lines.
This is more false hope, it's very easy to have a civil war even without clear lines. Aggrieved parties just need to pick up a rifle and attack their enemies. You don't need uniforms and flags to have an insurgency.
This is absolutely false, would you rather live in Haiti or China? Also, what makes "Democracy" isn't really clear, you don't necessarily have a say in what you'd like in Democracy. It's just a vehicle to give government legitimacy, even if the votes don't actually matter or are even real.
> We can't even have a civil war, as it's impossible to draw the lines.
This is more false hope, it's very easy to have a civil war even without clear lines. Aggrieved parties just need to pick up a rifle and attack their enemies. You don't need uniforms and flags to have an insurgency.
Yeah, that second one is such an absurd point. I would be willing to bet money that more civil wars have followed the model of spiralling, multilateral chaotic violence than one like the U.S. which had clear sides geographically and politically as well as symmetrical structures.
I think he'd argue that "spiraling, multilateral violence" is not a civil war.
I could be wrong.
I think he's right, though, that mostly you need young men hopped up on testosterone for a conflict like a civil war to happen.
I think if you're over twenty-five, you're unlikely to volunteer for things that are likely to kill you, and that actually forms strong backpressure against large-scale violence in the US.
I could be wrong.
I think he's right, though, that mostly you need young men hopped up on testosterone for a conflict like a civil war to happen.
I think if you're over twenty-five, you're unlikely to volunteer for things that are likely to kill you, and that actually forms strong backpressure against large-scale violence in the US.
Yeah but you don't just get to decide what words mean to suit your argument. The Spanish civil war and Syria are perfect examples of something that is widely considered a civil war and were multilateral.
Most civil wars start as multilateral conflicts. But once groups start getting picked off, the others begin combining into larger structure to preserve themselves and increase their chances of having a stake in victory. Just because you can't see the lines now does not mean they can't emerge after the conflict begins.
I do think the point about age is relevant. It's well know that things like crime decrease significantly with age. We also don't have much historical precedent for the kind of aged populations post industrial countries have.
Most civil wars start as multilateral conflicts. But once groups start getting picked off, the others begin combining into larger structure to preserve themselves and increase their chances of having a stake in victory. Just because you can't see the lines now does not mean they can't emerge after the conflict begins.
I do think the point about age is relevant. It's well know that things like crime decrease significantly with age. We also don't have much historical precedent for the kind of aged populations post industrial countries have.
Or maybe the definition of "Civil War" is more fluid than we think? I don't expect large-scale devastation and cities in ruins like in Syria, no.
But let's do some fun math. Roughly 70 million voted for Trump. Take away the housewives, the boomers, the Latinos in Florida and the less fanatical, more old-school Republicans that delivered Texas.
So let's say "only" a million are left out of the 70 and let's say that "only" a third of those - so 300k are willing to go to war for "their" President.
That's still huge trouble for this country. No, we won't be a failed state but a never-ending far-right insurgency that right-wing and foreign media constantly encourage and feed while the GOP publicly disavow is not something that we know how to deal with either.
The Left will be on the receiving end of it all by its very nature it will be reluctant to confront it beyond "let's talk about it".
But let's do some fun math. Roughly 70 million voted for Trump. Take away the housewives, the boomers, the Latinos in Florida and the less fanatical, more old-school Republicans that delivered Texas.
So let's say "only" a million are left out of the 70 and let's say that "only" a third of those - so 300k are willing to go to war for "their" President.
That's still huge trouble for this country. No, we won't be a failed state but a never-ending far-right insurgency that right-wing and foreign media constantly encourage and feed while the GOP publicly disavow is not something that we know how to deal with either.
The Left will be on the receiving end of it all by its very nature it will be reluctant to confront it beyond "let's talk about it".
> Or maybe the definition of "Civil War" is more fluid than we think?
Exactly this. Retroactively, we combine groups and intentions to simplify the narrative of most conflicts. With good reason, following the dizzying array of groups and actions involved in any conflict is impossible for all but the most determined and specialized scholars. The popular story has to be simplified.
Exactly this. Retroactively, we combine groups and intentions to simplify the narrative of most conflicts. With good reason, following the dizzying array of groups and actions involved in any conflict is impossible for all but the most determined and specialized scholars. The popular story has to be simplified.
>> The highest calling of true elites is to translate the flux of reality into a coherent story.
>> Perspectives on reality of course vary according to the ideals and institutions involved.
>> We are fractured creatures, trapped in a subjective perspective, but we are also symbolic animals, viscerally craving a meaning for our individual lives that is universally acknowledged and so transcends individuality.
>> Belief is the default. What needs to be explained is systematic cynicism or unbelief: it’s a pathological state that makes individuals miserable and society untenable.
>> The public is disenchanted in the elites and their institutions, much in the way science disenchanted the world of fairies and goblins.
>> All you need is a smart phone and a sufficient measure of anger against.
>> The lust for destruction, rather than fascism or some “successor ideology,” looms as the great threat to democracy today.
>> For all the anger, we live pretty comfortably within this evil old system.
>> Websites must compete for attention and so practice the art of the rant.
>> Newspapers are trying to survive by selling polarization.
>> I have learned that the best way to be wrong in public is to make a prediction.
>> On the web, you can vote on anything, at any time. I’m pretty sure that’s not a good thing, but it’s the purest form of democracy, and explanations about why it’s not a good thing always start with the assumption that the elites are smarter than the voters.
>> Like I said, I’m really old, and one of the few things one learns with age, young Antonio, is that there are many more important things than personal vanity.