Will Marshall on state capacity; Yuval Levin on children and the Internet; Martin Gurri on the culture/political war; Tim Roemer on electoral sabotage;
I think "culture wars" is an inaccurate (and losing) description of what the right is fighting against. A more accurate description of a large part of the fight is the fight against institutionalized anti white (and anti asian) racism. One side favors race based discrimination; the other doesn't.
The right had been so demoralized by the left that they are terrified to call things by their proper names and instead use euphemisms like culture wars.
Regarding electoral sabotage, this can backfire. In the 2016 presidential campaign, many Democrats were enthusiastic for a Trump nomination believing he was the least electable of the primary candidates.
"As you know, I don’t think very highly of using political means to fight the culture war. But the counter-argument is that the rest of us are 'culturally nonexistent' and so we have no choice."
Perhaps I don't follow the various issues closely enough, but I have yet to see a recent instance of the right using political means to fight the culture war. What I've seen instead is the right using political means to fight a hybrid political-culture war that the left created and dominates. Take the Disney matter: Disney began moving sharply left during the Eisner era, adopting increasingly progressive attitudes and corporate policies across all divisions (e.g. Disney's Pride Day, which dates back to the 90s.). Disney's move to the left only accelerated during the last decade, particularly during DeSantis's tenure. At no time, however, did Florida's government retaliate politically/legislatively, because Disney's cultural disposition is its own business.
This all changed with the PRE bill though, to which Disney voiced opposition as a matter of official corporate policy (as opposed to left-leaning execs mouthing off to the press as citizens). Disney, the corporate behemoth it is, thus chose to play the role of political combatant to actively oppose and undermine legislation that has nothing to do with any of its core businesses; Disney entered this arena of its own volition. This is precisely what prompted the revocation of Disney's special district, as DeSantis stated quite explicitly. Mind you, the purpose of the PRE bill was to thwart the left's practice of using public-school curricula, which is squarely within the purview of the state, to promote their particular cultural preferences. The left, as is its wont, drew first on this one.
Pronoun lessons and pride flags in 2nd-grade classrooms come before the PRE bill and dissolution of Reedy Creek in the political order of operations. The right is merely playing defense in their own zone.
I'm skeptical that the "dismantle" group is accurately named. Many want to dismantle parts of government, changing the focus of coercion, but there seems little appetite for small government.
Marshal: "Size" of government seems the wrong metric. I want things done differently without caring very much if that requires more people and dollars or less. Police reform, probably more. Climate change? A tax on net CO2 emissions would probably mean less direct intervention at the technology level. CDC and FDA using cost benefit analysis would I suspect require more personnel.
"I don’t think very highly of using political means to fight the culture war."
The culture war, particularly in schools, has been fought almost entirely through political means. Kling's comment suggest he just hasn't noticed it. I'd recommend Richard Hanania as the best at explaining this; specifically "Lessons from the Frontlines of the University Wars" with Richard Lowery.
"The output of culture can’t be legislated on demand"
This is naive. Even the example of Disney: I can't find the link, but I read a Disney insider explaining how the Disney leadership previously wanted to stay out of unrelated politics, but groups of mostly DEI staff successfully pressured the leadership to go woke. Those DEI staff were ultimately forced onto Disney through political means.
Looks like Gurri is coming around to the reality of "The Empire Strikes Back" answer to The Revolt Of The Public. He thought that the elites couldn't get the toothpaste back in the tube, but when you see the tube filling back up again, it's time to adjust your priors.
I'm going into the eighth year of repeating my position, but to say it again, Gurri seemed to miss where social media really did change things in a discontinuous fashion and in a manner hard to reverse or adapt to, while attributing phenomenon to it which were nothing new from a historical perspective.
For example, consider his 'nihilism' argument about groups being mostly against the status quo regime but unable to unite as being 'for' anything. Ok, now consider words Hayek wrote about 80 years ago:
"It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they", the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive program."
See? It's not the media, it's the masses. If the masses count, this is what you get. And it doesn't matter if it's led or leaderless. Anything involving rallying "huge masses" tends towards 'nihilism' as a natural consequence of the principle of the lowest common denominator, with examples going back a century (and much more) before social media.
Providing your social security number to a website is asking for disaster. The federal government let my personal data get hacked and allowed a scammer to get a SBA coronavirus loan in my name. I would rather be considered underaged than be a victim of identity theft again.
>>I would like to see as a one-time punishment all of the Democratic Congressmen who work on the DCCC be stripped of committee assignments for two years.
The Democrats have been doing this kind of thing for years because it works, unfortunately. I’m glad folks are finally noticing.
Kansas only has a Democrat governor because third party candidate Greg Orman siphoned off enough Republican votes to give the win to Democrat Laura Kelly. Wichita has a Democrat mayor who only won 46% of the vote when democrats dumped a ton of money into another third party candidate.
I think "culture wars" is an inaccurate (and losing) description of what the right is fighting against. A more accurate description of a large part of the fight is the fight against institutionalized anti white (and anti asian) racism. One side favors race based discrimination; the other doesn't.
The right had been so demoralized by the left that they are terrified to call things by their proper names and instead use euphemisms like culture wars.
Regarding electoral sabotage, this can backfire. In the 2016 presidential campaign, many Democrats were enthusiastic for a Trump nomination believing he was the least electable of the primary candidates.
"As you know, I don’t think very highly of using political means to fight the culture war. But the counter-argument is that the rest of us are 'culturally nonexistent' and so we have no choice."
Perhaps I don't follow the various issues closely enough, but I have yet to see a recent instance of the right using political means to fight the culture war. What I've seen instead is the right using political means to fight a hybrid political-culture war that the left created and dominates. Take the Disney matter: Disney began moving sharply left during the Eisner era, adopting increasingly progressive attitudes and corporate policies across all divisions (e.g. Disney's Pride Day, which dates back to the 90s.). Disney's move to the left only accelerated during the last decade, particularly during DeSantis's tenure. At no time, however, did Florida's government retaliate politically/legislatively, because Disney's cultural disposition is its own business.
This all changed with the PRE bill though, to which Disney voiced opposition as a matter of official corporate policy (as opposed to left-leaning execs mouthing off to the press as citizens). Disney, the corporate behemoth it is, thus chose to play the role of political combatant to actively oppose and undermine legislation that has nothing to do with any of its core businesses; Disney entered this arena of its own volition. This is precisely what prompted the revocation of Disney's special district, as DeSantis stated quite explicitly. Mind you, the purpose of the PRE bill was to thwart the left's practice of using public-school curricula, which is squarely within the purview of the state, to promote their particular cultural preferences. The left, as is its wont, drew first on this one.
Pronoun lessons and pride flags in 2nd-grade classrooms come before the PRE bill and dissolution of Reedy Creek in the political order of operations. The right is merely playing defense in their own zone.
I'm skeptical that the "dismantle" group is accurately named. Many want to dismantle parts of government, changing the focus of coercion, but there seems little appetite for small government.
Marshal: "Size" of government seems the wrong metric. I want things done differently without caring very much if that requires more people and dollars or less. Police reform, probably more. Climate change? A tax on net CO2 emissions would probably mean less direct intervention at the technology level. CDC and FDA using cost benefit analysis would I suspect require more personnel.
"I don’t think very highly of using political means to fight the culture war."
The culture war, particularly in schools, has been fought almost entirely through political means. Kling's comment suggest he just hasn't noticed it. I'd recommend Richard Hanania as the best at explaining this; specifically "Lessons from the Frontlines of the University Wars" with Richard Lowery.
"The output of culture can’t be legislated on demand"
This is naive. Even the example of Disney: I can't find the link, but I read a Disney insider explaining how the Disney leadership previously wanted to stay out of unrelated politics, but groups of mostly DEI staff successfully pressured the leadership to go woke. Those DEI staff were ultimately forced onto Disney through political means.
Looks like Gurri is coming around to the reality of "The Empire Strikes Back" answer to The Revolt Of The Public. He thought that the elites couldn't get the toothpaste back in the tube, but when you see the tube filling back up again, it's time to adjust your priors.
I'm going into the eighth year of repeating my position, but to say it again, Gurri seemed to miss where social media really did change things in a discontinuous fashion and in a manner hard to reverse or adapt to, while attributing phenomenon to it which were nothing new from a historical perspective.
For example, consider his 'nihilism' argument about groups being mostly against the status quo regime but unable to unite as being 'for' anything. Ok, now consider words Hayek wrote about 80 years ago:
"It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they", the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive program."
See? It's not the media, it's the masses. If the masses count, this is what you get. And it doesn't matter if it's led or leaderless. Anything involving rallying "huge masses" tends towards 'nihilism' as a natural consequence of the principle of the lowest common denominator, with examples going back a century (and much more) before social media.
Re. youth age verification: The phrase "secure federal website" is an oxymoron.
Providing your social security number to a website is asking for disaster. The federal government let my personal data get hacked and allowed a scammer to get a SBA coronavirus loan in my name. I would rather be considered underaged than be a victim of identity theft again.
The only way to get rid of dirty tricks in politics is to get rid of politics.
>>I would like to see as a one-time punishment all of the Democratic Congressmen who work on the DCCC be stripped of committee assignments for two years.
That's a great idea Arnold
It doesn't matter what the voters/polled want. The only thing that matters is what the people who run the government want.
The Democrats have been doing this kind of thing for years because it works, unfortunately. I’m glad folks are finally noticing.
Kansas only has a Democrat governor because third party candidate Greg Orman siphoned off enough Republican votes to give the win to Democrat Laura Kelly. Wichita has a Democrat mayor who only won 46% of the vote when democrats dumped a ton of money into another third party candidate.
Really dishonest stuff.