Scott Sumner on Brad DeLong's opus; Rob Henderson on young male psychology; Brian Chau interviews me; Wild Problems Discussion; Brink Lindsey on post-industrial politics;
I was intrigued by your comments on feminizations on the Brian Chau podcast. I think there is a difference between older and younger women. Older woman, particularly those who have worked with men or have brothers seem to be much better sports. Much less likely to claim sexual harassment at an off colored joke or even a compliment.
I find Brink Lindsey rather mealy-mouthed and sometimes worse. So it's hard to decide whether he believes everything he writes or just espouses key talking points of the elites he sometimes chides to ward off their possible wrath. One even wonders if the strong language he uses only when bootlicking is "Straussian" signaling. Consider (from Lindsey's essay Arnold links above):
<blockquote>Many elites of both left and right, meanwhile, describe themselves — at least among themselves — as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and thus find themselves in the comparatively empty lower-right quadrant. And diametrically opposed to them are large numbers of people in the suppressed quadrant of the economically liberal and socially conservative — a sizeable group of people with views that long went without any representation in national debate. This is the vacuum that authoritarian populism has rushed to fill. Donald Trump was the first U.S. presidential candidate to claim these voters as his own. <i>Of course he offered them poisonous demagoguery, not actual concern for their outlook and interests, but he made them feel seen, and that was enough to enable him to nearly wreck American democracy.</i> Whether he will ultimately succeed remains an open question.</blockquote>
Emphasis added (or maybe not, if the markup I tried to add doesn't work). The point, however, is that Lindsey dramatically accuses Trump of offering voters "poisonous demagoguery, not actual concern for their outlook and interests, but he made them feel seen, and that was enough to enable him to nearly wreck American democracy."
In retrospect we see that truly Trump did not offer "actual concern" (by their fruits ye shall know them). He never tried to implement the key policies he promised on the campaign trail. But Lindsey doesn't criticize Trump for lying to voters. Instead, Lindsey complains that Trump offered "poisonous demagoguery" and "nearly wreck[ed] American democracy." Those latter points are pure elite propaganda lies, which Lindsey repeats exactly. Only Lindsey's pet anti-democratic elite claims that offering voters things they want (things entirely in the mainstream of American public policy throughout most of the 20th and even 21st Centuries, and obviously Constitutional for those who worry about that) is tantamount to "wrecking democracy." The claim that "democracy" means steadfastly ignoring the interests and wishes of the voters is an obnoxious elite inversion of the worst kind. As for "poisonous demagoguery," that is just nasty name-calling by which Lindsey tells elites he agrees that is is improper for any politician to appeal to voters rather than big-money donors. Trump violated that rule because he didn't need major-donor funds, and spectacularly wiped the primary floor with the elite-approved pseudo-right-wing tools like ¡Jeb Bush! (whom everyone knew was <i>planning</i> to take the Republican nomination and then deliberately lose the election to Hilary in exactly the same way as McCain and Romney had thrown over their campaigns by steadfastly refusing to appeal to voters' actual interests. Both McCain and Romney even praised their "opponents" on TV!).
Lindsey concludes with "whether [Trump] will ultimately succeed [to wreck democracy] remains an open question." Now, that may be a dig at the possibility of Trump running again. Obviously, as Lindsey would have it, the voters summoning Trump again would be "un-democratic!" (personally, I think it would be moronic). However, I suspect Lindsey meant more than that. We can also understand Lindsey to be stating that because (per Lindsey) Trump made "people in the suppressed quadrant of the economically liberal and socially conservative" "feel seen" those people may keep on trying to "wreck democracy" by voting for "authoritarian populism." Note that "populism" is just a propaganda term, made pejorative by elite preferences, for "offering the voters what they want," and "authoritarian" in current elite-speak is just a propaganda term for "trying to move public policy away from elite preferences." For example, per elite preferences, imprisoning hundreds of J6 protestors for years without trial or bail <i>on misdemeanor charges</i> is NOT "authoritarian" but proposing to enforce child-abuse laws against Dr-Mengele-proteges who sterilize and mutilate adolescent children IS "authoritarian."
Does Lindsey believe exactly what he has written? Or is that part of his essay so strident that we cognoscenti are to take it for the opposite of what it says? The latter possibility doesn't really make it less harmful-- most readers won't get the joke, and the more who do, the more likely the elites Lindsey seems to be sucking up to will lose tolerance for him.
Isn't Henderson's statement pretty well known? As the strength of the social controls vary it makes sense to increase formal controls in ways that reinforce the social controls. Every police department shroud have a social science R&D division :)
I was intrigued by your comments on feminizations on the Brian Chau podcast. I think there is a difference between older and younger women. Older woman, particularly those who have worked with men or have brothers seem to be much better sports. Much less likely to claim sexual harassment at an off colored joke or even a compliment.
I find Brink Lindsey rather mealy-mouthed and sometimes worse. So it's hard to decide whether he believes everything he writes or just espouses key talking points of the elites he sometimes chides to ward off their possible wrath. One even wonders if the strong language he uses only when bootlicking is "Straussian" signaling. Consider (from Lindsey's essay Arnold links above):
<blockquote>Many elites of both left and right, meanwhile, describe themselves — at least among themselves — as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and thus find themselves in the comparatively empty lower-right quadrant. And diametrically opposed to them are large numbers of people in the suppressed quadrant of the economically liberal and socially conservative — a sizeable group of people with views that long went without any representation in national debate. This is the vacuum that authoritarian populism has rushed to fill. Donald Trump was the first U.S. presidential candidate to claim these voters as his own. <i>Of course he offered them poisonous demagoguery, not actual concern for their outlook and interests, but he made them feel seen, and that was enough to enable him to nearly wreck American democracy.</i> Whether he will ultimately succeed remains an open question.</blockquote>
Emphasis added (or maybe not, if the markup I tried to add doesn't work). The point, however, is that Lindsey dramatically accuses Trump of offering voters "poisonous demagoguery, not actual concern for their outlook and interests, but he made them feel seen, and that was enough to enable him to nearly wreck American democracy."
In retrospect we see that truly Trump did not offer "actual concern" (by their fruits ye shall know them). He never tried to implement the key policies he promised on the campaign trail. But Lindsey doesn't criticize Trump for lying to voters. Instead, Lindsey complains that Trump offered "poisonous demagoguery" and "nearly wreck[ed] American democracy." Those latter points are pure elite propaganda lies, which Lindsey repeats exactly. Only Lindsey's pet anti-democratic elite claims that offering voters things they want (things entirely in the mainstream of American public policy throughout most of the 20th and even 21st Centuries, and obviously Constitutional for those who worry about that) is tantamount to "wrecking democracy." The claim that "democracy" means steadfastly ignoring the interests and wishes of the voters is an obnoxious elite inversion of the worst kind. As for "poisonous demagoguery," that is just nasty name-calling by which Lindsey tells elites he agrees that is is improper for any politician to appeal to voters rather than big-money donors. Trump violated that rule because he didn't need major-donor funds, and spectacularly wiped the primary floor with the elite-approved pseudo-right-wing tools like ¡Jeb Bush! (whom everyone knew was <i>planning</i> to take the Republican nomination and then deliberately lose the election to Hilary in exactly the same way as McCain and Romney had thrown over their campaigns by steadfastly refusing to appeal to voters' actual interests. Both McCain and Romney even praised their "opponents" on TV!).
Lindsey concludes with "whether [Trump] will ultimately succeed [to wreck democracy] remains an open question." Now, that may be a dig at the possibility of Trump running again. Obviously, as Lindsey would have it, the voters summoning Trump again would be "un-democratic!" (personally, I think it would be moronic). However, I suspect Lindsey meant more than that. We can also understand Lindsey to be stating that because (per Lindsey) Trump made "people in the suppressed quadrant of the economically liberal and socially conservative" "feel seen" those people may keep on trying to "wreck democracy" by voting for "authoritarian populism." Note that "populism" is just a propaganda term, made pejorative by elite preferences, for "offering the voters what they want," and "authoritarian" in current elite-speak is just a propaganda term for "trying to move public policy away from elite preferences." For example, per elite preferences, imprisoning hundreds of J6 protestors for years without trial or bail <i>on misdemeanor charges</i> is NOT "authoritarian" but proposing to enforce child-abuse laws against Dr-Mengele-proteges who sterilize and mutilate adolescent children IS "authoritarian."
Does Lindsey believe exactly what he has written? Or is that part of his essay so strident that we cognoscenti are to take it for the opposite of what it says? The latter possibility doesn't really make it less harmful-- most readers won't get the joke, and the more who do, the more likely the elites Lindsey seems to be sucking up to will lose tolerance for him.
Isn't Henderson's statement pretty well known? As the strength of the social controls vary it makes sense to increase formal controls in ways that reinforce the social controls. Every police department shroud have a social science R&D division :)