I answer questions about whether the U.S. is a plutocracy, why I downplay the anti-liberalism of the Democrats, and what I consider the best music released in the past six years
I, too, have empathy for those seeking relief from pain or undiagnosed medical conditions. However, the frustration some feel with medicine and the medical establishment has been weaponized to promote political extremism. For anyone interested in further exploring this online trend, I recommend the recently-released book ‘Conspirituality: How New Age Conspiracy Theories Became a Health Threat’ and ‘Pastels and Pedophiles: Inside the Mind of QAnon.’
Damon, thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm in a quandary about our institutions, as I do fundamentally agree with the worst rightwing assessment (from the likes of Steve Bannon and Curtis Yarvin) about our institutions: That they are calcified, corrupt and fail to respond to the challenges of our time. The difference between them and me is they want to exploit this fact to destroy the current order and replace it with their authoritarian vision, while I want to reform what institutions can be reformed and recreate new institutions to deal with the challenges of the digital age.
Like Yarvin and many on the left and right, I believe we are transitioning into a new historical epoch that is one of the underlying causes of our current social stress. Clearly technology destroyed the stable media construct that "managed consent" during the 20th Century by destroying the media business model of newspapers and opened up the floodgates to a near infinite amount of unfiltered media "outlets" that operated in a real-time, with an instant many-to-many feedback loop (social media). Theses new communication "tools" allow bad actors like Yarvin and Bannon to "exaggerate" (your word) how bad/corrupt everything is in the world.
I asked my question because I only see two forces in this debate today: The bad actors that happen to be right about our weak institutions and use this fact in their pursuit to destroy them; and the institutionalist (like Damon) who correctly understand the need for strong and effective institutions but don't see the need to respond to the legitimate criticism of these bad actors. I hope for a "third way" that amounts to institutional triage that recognizes the failure of some institutions and rebuilds new institutions on their rubble (like we need new media values, rules and behaviors that only new institutions can bring about) or reform the many institutions that are showing rot (like the ubiquitous presence of BIG money that is distorting many of our institutions and undermining the republican ideals of our framers).
My fear is that those preaching the value of supporting our current institutions, without a strong heaping of reform, play into the hands of those looking to burn down the current system.
while I always enjoy your thoughtful commentary, I am far more satisfied when your commentary focuses on one topic in depth rather than a response to multiple questions
Damon, your claim that "overemphasis on the rights of this or that group" equates to "too much liberalism" tells me that what you mean by liberalism is something quite far from the usual definition of "a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual ..." (wikipedia). Indeed, the endless identity-group politics of the Democrats and their concommitant race essentialism ("not a normal court") is profoundly anti-liberal by the usual defintion, something you persistently refuse to acknowledge.
This reader, somewhat left of the present American center (I don't think I count as a "lefty", other than to most of the right half of the current political spectrum) shares your dislike of public sector unions. Not that big a fan of private sector unions either, but those are at least hypothetically subject to some level of competition, albeit indirectly. Do you happen to know how public sector unions (which cursory reading tells me exist) function, sensu lato, in the Scandinavian countries? How about in Japan, S. Korea, or Taiwan?
(note that I am studiously ignoring most of the rest of Europe, especially Romance language Europe or Greece - other than the abysmal cuisine and surprisingly high degree of endogamy, I want to be Finland)
Damon,
I, too, have empathy for those seeking relief from pain or undiagnosed medical conditions. However, the frustration some feel with medicine and the medical establishment has been weaponized to promote political extremism. For anyone interested in further exploring this online trend, I recommend the recently-released book ‘Conspirituality: How New Age Conspiracy Theories Became a Health Threat’ and ‘Pastels and Pedophiles: Inside the Mind of QAnon.’
Damon, thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm in a quandary about our institutions, as I do fundamentally agree with the worst rightwing assessment (from the likes of Steve Bannon and Curtis Yarvin) about our institutions: That they are calcified, corrupt and fail to respond to the challenges of our time. The difference between them and me is they want to exploit this fact to destroy the current order and replace it with their authoritarian vision, while I want to reform what institutions can be reformed and recreate new institutions to deal with the challenges of the digital age.
Like Yarvin and many on the left and right, I believe we are transitioning into a new historical epoch that is one of the underlying causes of our current social stress. Clearly technology destroyed the stable media construct that "managed consent" during the 20th Century by destroying the media business model of newspapers and opened up the floodgates to a near infinite amount of unfiltered media "outlets" that operated in a real-time, with an instant many-to-many feedback loop (social media). Theses new communication "tools" allow bad actors like Yarvin and Bannon to "exaggerate" (your word) how bad/corrupt everything is in the world.
I asked my question because I only see two forces in this debate today: The bad actors that happen to be right about our weak institutions and use this fact in their pursuit to destroy them; and the institutionalist (like Damon) who correctly understand the need for strong and effective institutions but don't see the need to respond to the legitimate criticism of these bad actors. I hope for a "third way" that amounts to institutional triage that recognizes the failure of some institutions and rebuilds new institutions on their rubble (like we need new media values, rules and behaviors that only new institutions can bring about) or reform the many institutions that are showing rot (like the ubiquitous presence of BIG money that is distorting many of our institutions and undermining the republican ideals of our framers).
My fear is that those preaching the value of supporting our current institutions, without a strong heaping of reform, play into the hands of those looking to burn down the current system.
Damon, what about Duane Allman, Bob Marley or Jimi?
while I always enjoy your thoughtful commentary, I am far more satisfied when your commentary focuses on one topic in depth rather than a response to multiple questions
Damon, your claim that "overemphasis on the rights of this or that group" equates to "too much liberalism" tells me that what you mean by liberalism is something quite far from the usual definition of "a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual ..." (wikipedia). Indeed, the endless identity-group politics of the Democrats and their concommitant race essentialism ("not a normal court") is profoundly anti-liberal by the usual defintion, something you persistently refuse to acknowledge.
Oh well. As you say, judgment is all we have.
This reader, somewhat left of the present American center (I don't think I count as a "lefty", other than to most of the right half of the current political spectrum) shares your dislike of public sector unions. Not that big a fan of private sector unions either, but those are at least hypothetically subject to some level of competition, albeit indirectly. Do you happen to know how public sector unions (which cursory reading tells me exist) function, sensu lato, in the Scandinavian countries? How about in Japan, S. Korea, or Taiwan?
(note that I am studiously ignoring most of the rest of Europe, especially Romance language Europe or Greece - other than the abysmal cuisine and surprisingly high degree of endogamy, I want to be Finland)