I was a grad student in economics when subjective happiness research was starting to become a thing. Easterlin gave a seminar on his paper at my university. I stood up during the Q/A and asked basically what you've said above: What exactly do you mean by "happiness" and how can you be sure that different people or different groups of people are interpreting it the same way?
He brushed me off fairly quickly without even attempting to address the question. I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but I very much got the impression that he was doing this and the profession was letting him get away with it, and he didn't see any point in hashing out this question with a skeptical 2nd year grad student. No one else asked any follow up.
I'll add here, that we took him to dinner and -- apart from brushing me off in the seminar -- he seemed to be a nice guy.
I've spent the subsequent 16 years wondering why I don't "get" happiness research and why everyone else seems to think it's a worthwhile thing.
> Rauch makes the case that the Republican Party is a threat to democracy, because Donald Trump has opened the door to declaring elections invalid.
The gumption that anyone might have to claim that Trump is in any way unique in this regard is galling. Trump's own legitimacy as president was under constant assault, and every effort was made to remove him from office by undemocratic means. Not to mention Bush v. Gore, Stacey Abrahms, etc (and, to be fair, questions about Obama's birth).
I say this not just for the sake of "whataboutism", but to make a point: simply telling people to stop questioning elections is not the solution. That is actually counterproductive, because it just creates more suspicion. We fix this by making it easier for people to trust elections. We need to invest in making elections more reliable, with things like voter ID, proper chain of custody for mail-ins, updated voter rolls, etc.
Exactly my thoughts. When people speak up about concerns of legitimacy, and the response is "Stop questioning the legitimacy! What's wrong with you!" that's a sign something is deeply wrong. The proper response when people are worried about legitimacy is to be transparent and show the inner workings, and if that's not possible, take steps to create more transparency and address other concerns about the process. That the response since 2020 has been the exact wrong thing says as much as anything that there are serious problems afoot.
It's so bizarre to me when people argue the pros and cons of Trump without foregrounding catastrophic risks. Whatever else one thinks of Trump's behavior surrounding the 2020 election, it illustrates that he has a very weird, unpredictable mind, a distorted ego and unusually bad judgment. If he were president now, the risks of nuclear war would be much worse--which is saying a lot. If he comes back in '25, the Russians may gamble on his abandoning NATO, which would be very dangerous indeed.
I hate DeSantis, but if a crystal ball told me DeSantis would for sure be president in 2025, I'd be so relieved I'd be dancing in the street.
It seems silly to fear catastrophe with Trump AFTER 4 highly effective years, without noting how much worse Biden is AND Obama was with respect to nuclear war.
Putin semi-attacked under Obama, did NOT attack under Trump, did full attack under Biden.
If Dems hadn't stolen the election for Biden (censoring H. Biden's laptop means it was NOT a 100% free and fair election ... so it was stolen):
1) USA would be producing far more oil & gas, so the price would be lower AND Putin would certainly have less cash, so far less likely to attack (and be seen not winning);
2) Trump would not have "lost" in Afghanistan as Biden did - Trump wanted to leave without losing (he hates to lose). It's not clear that was possible, so it's likely Trump would still be talking with the Taliban without losing -- as he talked with N. Korea without losing, nor with either side winning. Not losing Afghanistan means Putin is less likely to attack.
Being irrational about Trump in 2015-16, with no experience of his actual policies, is weak but understandable. Being irrationally hysterical about Trump after 4 years of him in power reflects poorly on those who continue to be fear-mongering hysterics.
> the Russians may gamble on his abandoning NATO, which would be very dangerous indeed.
How so? What do you expect the Russians to do in that case? Do they Ukraine? Germany? All of Europe? The world?
And how well do you think the Russians are actually doing in Ukraine? If you think they are doing poorly, what makes you think they would be a danger to anyone else?
The concern would be that the Russians might think they could push Trump without reprisal, perhaps in the Baltics. But they might judge wrongly, because Trump is so unpredictable and you can never tell when he'll listen to his more conservative advisors. Trump retaliates unexpectedly, the situation escalates, etc.
Trump is pretty consistent in that he does not favor war or foreign intervention that is unnecessarily costly. That he is not hellbent on ruling the world (as the current Washington consensus is) alone would have put us in a much better geopolitical situation than we are now.
What you're talking about applies to conventional wars in which the US is the aggressor, but the game theory of nuclear deterrence is very different. If you behave in ways your opponent can't predict, that can lead to annihilation even if you are unpredictable in a less warlike direction. Danger is higher when the adversary doesn't know how far they can push you, and it's basically impossible to know how far one can push Trump.
While Richard Hanania is better than Tyler on the New Right, like most college indoctrinated writers he also fails to address the new pillars: Family, God, Nation. Parties proposing these are being demonized as "populist" as well as being a threat to democracy, as Richard notes:
>>Fukuyama himself has gotten caught up in a wider hysteria, I think making the common mistake of confusing his aesthetic revulsion towards Trumpism and populism more generally with something that will end democracy. <<
Arnold and Tyler also have aesthetic revulsions against Trump, as partially shown by a lack of good vs bad point policy analysis but more clearly by insults without examples. (Because the actual examples would weaken the insult?)
Humans have a big place in their heart for individualism. They also have a God shaped hole in their heart - which is either filled with God or some other God-substitute (like Woke or Climate Alarmism).
They also have a family hole - which might be filled instead with friends or work colleagues, or maybe even VR internet "friends". Close friends and family are still less that 150.
Logically, there are 3 "bigger than Dunbar number" groupings: tribalism, nationalism, or globalism. Each of which could be Christian or non-Christian. The New Right, like the pro-life movement, will be filled mostly by those who prefer their group to be Christian. And in politics, they would rather live in a Christian nation with Christian laws, rather than a slightly (or heavily) oppressed minority in a secular anti-Christian nation.
"Christian nationalism" is also a book by Andrew Torba, of Gab - who is actively and so far not so quickly, building a parallel internet Christian economy.
"Christian nationalism is not only the necessary alternative to secularism, it is the form of government we must pursue if we want to love our neighbors and our country."
If it's true that the New Right is bereft of vision, the ideal of "loving our neighbors and our country" is going to be, if it isn’t already, the primary positive motivation.
Orban in Hungary and likely Meloni in Italy will likely be showing flavors of Christian Nationalist policy. Not Putin.
But yes to Theology That Bites Back (Blog & Mablog)
‘which claims that beyond a certain level, economic gains lead to very little improvement in measures of happiness.’ Since happiness is entirely subjective, influenced by mood and circumstances... both variable... and third party appraisal of it relies on self-reporting which cannot be independently verified, how on Earth can it be measured? On what scale? Can love be measured too?
RE: Easterlin
I was a grad student in economics when subjective happiness research was starting to become a thing. Easterlin gave a seminar on his paper at my university. I stood up during the Q/A and asked basically what you've said above: What exactly do you mean by "happiness" and how can you be sure that different people or different groups of people are interpreting it the same way?
He brushed me off fairly quickly without even attempting to address the question. I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but I very much got the impression that he was doing this and the profession was letting him get away with it, and he didn't see any point in hashing out this question with a skeptical 2nd year grad student. No one else asked any follow up.
I'll add here, that we took him to dinner and -- apart from brushing me off in the seminar -- he seemed to be a nice guy.
I've spent the subsequent 16 years wondering why I don't "get" happiness research and why everyone else seems to think it's a worthwhile thing.
> Rauch makes the case that the Republican Party is a threat to democracy, because Donald Trump has opened the door to declaring elections invalid.
The gumption that anyone might have to claim that Trump is in any way unique in this regard is galling. Trump's own legitimacy as president was under constant assault, and every effort was made to remove him from office by undemocratic means. Not to mention Bush v. Gore, Stacey Abrahms, etc (and, to be fair, questions about Obama's birth).
I say this not just for the sake of "whataboutism", but to make a point: simply telling people to stop questioning elections is not the solution. That is actually counterproductive, because it just creates more suspicion. We fix this by making it easier for people to trust elections. We need to invest in making elections more reliable, with things like voter ID, proper chain of custody for mail-ins, updated voter rolls, etc.
Exactly my thoughts. When people speak up about concerns of legitimacy, and the response is "Stop questioning the legitimacy! What's wrong with you!" that's a sign something is deeply wrong. The proper response when people are worried about legitimacy is to be transparent and show the inner workings, and if that's not possible, take steps to create more transparency and address other concerns about the process. That the response since 2020 has been the exact wrong thing says as much as anything that there are serious problems afoot.
It's so bizarre to me when people argue the pros and cons of Trump without foregrounding catastrophic risks. Whatever else one thinks of Trump's behavior surrounding the 2020 election, it illustrates that he has a very weird, unpredictable mind, a distorted ego and unusually bad judgment. If he were president now, the risks of nuclear war would be much worse--which is saying a lot. If he comes back in '25, the Russians may gamble on his abandoning NATO, which would be very dangerous indeed.
I hate DeSantis, but if a crystal ball told me DeSantis would for sure be president in 2025, I'd be so relieved I'd be dancing in the street.
It seems silly to fear catastrophe with Trump AFTER 4 highly effective years, without noting how much worse Biden is AND Obama was with respect to nuclear war.
Putin semi-attacked under Obama, did NOT attack under Trump, did full attack under Biden.
If Dems hadn't stolen the election for Biden (censoring H. Biden's laptop means it was NOT a 100% free and fair election ... so it was stolen):
1) USA would be producing far more oil & gas, so the price would be lower AND Putin would certainly have less cash, so far less likely to attack (and be seen not winning);
2) Trump would not have "lost" in Afghanistan as Biden did - Trump wanted to leave without losing (he hates to lose). It's not clear that was possible, so it's likely Trump would still be talking with the Taliban without losing -- as he talked with N. Korea without losing, nor with either side winning. Not losing Afghanistan means Putin is less likely to attack.
Being irrational about Trump in 2015-16, with no experience of his actual policies, is weak but understandable. Being irrationally hysterical about Trump after 4 years of him in power reflects poorly on those who continue to be fear-mongering hysterics.
Trump-DeSantis 2024 seems likely to me right now.
> the Russians may gamble on his abandoning NATO, which would be very dangerous indeed.
How so? What do you expect the Russians to do in that case? Do they Ukraine? Germany? All of Europe? The world?
And how well do you think the Russians are actually doing in Ukraine? If you think they are doing poorly, what makes you think they would be a danger to anyone else?
The concern would be that the Russians might think they could push Trump without reprisal, perhaps in the Baltics. But they might judge wrongly, because Trump is so unpredictable and you can never tell when he'll listen to his more conservative advisors. Trump retaliates unexpectedly, the situation escalates, etc.
Trump is pretty consistent in that he does not favor war or foreign intervention that is unnecessarily costly. That he is not hellbent on ruling the world (as the current Washington consensus is) alone would have put us in a much better geopolitical situation than we are now.
What you're talking about applies to conventional wars in which the US is the aggressor, but the game theory of nuclear deterrence is very different. If you behave in ways your opponent can't predict, that can lead to annihilation even if you are unpredictable in a less warlike direction. Danger is higher when the adversary doesn't know how far they can push you, and it's basically impossible to know how far one can push Trump.
While Richard Hanania is better than Tyler on the New Right, like most college indoctrinated writers he also fails to address the new pillars: Family, God, Nation. Parties proposing these are being demonized as "populist" as well as being a threat to democracy, as Richard notes:
>>Fukuyama himself has gotten caught up in a wider hysteria, I think making the common mistake of confusing his aesthetic revulsion towards Trumpism and populism more generally with something that will end democracy. <<
Arnold and Tyler also have aesthetic revulsions against Trump, as partially shown by a lack of good vs bad point policy analysis but more clearly by insults without examples. (Because the actual examples would weaken the insult?)
Humans have a big place in their heart for individualism. They also have a God shaped hole in their heart - which is either filled with God or some other God-substitute (like Woke or Climate Alarmism).
They also have a family hole - which might be filled instead with friends or work colleagues, or maybe even VR internet "friends". Close friends and family are still less that 150.
Logically, there are 3 "bigger than Dunbar number" groupings: tribalism, nationalism, or globalism. Each of which could be Christian or non-Christian. The New Right, like the pro-life movement, will be filled mostly by those who prefer their group to be Christian. And in politics, they would rather live in a Christian nation with Christian laws, rather than a slightly (or heavily) oppressed minority in a secular anti-Christian nation.
"Christian nationalism" is also a book by Andrew Torba, of Gab - who is actively and so far not so quickly, building a parallel internet Christian economy.
https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Nationalism-Biblical-Dominion-Discipling-ebook/dp/B0BCV58B4K/
Another book coming out 1 November is: The Case for Christian Nationalism
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christian-Nationalism-Stephen-Wolfe/dp/1957905336
"Christian nationalism is not only the necessary alternative to secularism, it is the form of government we must pursue if we want to love our neighbors and our country."
If it's true that the New Right is bereft of vision, the ideal of "loving our neighbors and our country" is going to be, if it isn’t already, the primary positive motivation.
Orban in Hungary and likely Meloni in Italy will likely be showing flavors of Christian Nationalist policy. Not Putin.
But yes to Theology That Bites Back (Blog & Mablog)
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-shaking-off-the-christian-nationalism-jimjams.html
‘which claims that beyond a certain level, economic gains lead to very little improvement in measures of happiness.’ Since happiness is entirely subjective, influenced by mood and circumstances... both variable... and third party appraisal of it relies on self-reporting which cannot be independently verified, how on Earth can it be measured? On what scale? Can love be measured too?