10 Comments

Arnold is using the standard pejorative definition of a troll, that is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. Arnold puts President Trump in this category, which I think is a mistake. Trolling can also be an effective means of political communication. President Trump's tweets had serious purposes, among which was the elicitation of responses from political opponents that would tend to discredit them in the eyes of people who might be brought to support him. Arnold is a nice guy with an irenic temperament, and no doubt wishes we could all communicate in a sincere and respectful manner, but that is an unrealistic expectation given the requirements for political success. It is perhaps a measure of the cultural domination of the Left that we only hear outrage about Trump's social media, but not about those who called him Hitler, a fascist, an anti-Semite, racist, etc.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the review! I haven't read Rauch's book yet, and it is pretty low in the queue. After listening to him on Econtalk, I suspect you don't go far enough with regard to his ignoring the rot of institutions and ... blindspot when it comes to the behavior of the left and right. Hearing him talk, I got the impression that he thought if only we could go back to the early '90's and only read the NYT and watch CNN we would be fine. He doesn't seem to quite understand that the rise of Limbaugh, Fox News and eventually Trump were reactions to the rot that had set into the mainstream media by the 70's. My suspicion is that he wouldn't see it as rot.

Expand full comment

I noted the first stages of rot in academia while I was an undergraduate in the early 60s when I began to see self professed “liberals” seldom willing to consider opposing points of view. It worsened while in grad school as opponents to the Viet Nam war routinely shouted down speakers with opposing points of view, and sentiments concerning the importance of self reliance for success were dismissed out of hand. Now that the progressives have essentially eliminated classical liberals from consideration when hiring, diverse opinions dare not be openly expressed.

Expand full comment

Thank you for writing this. After reading your review, I came away with two insights that led me to re-think the problem of how "institutions" should supporting the truth.

1. It's touched on by others already, but I'd argue that "knowledge" should be replaced with "belief" and truth should be replaced with "agreement". Rausch is too partisan to reach the obvious conclusion that in the technical sense, most of the political information put out on both sides is partly true but mostly false.

The act itself of "defending 'the truth'" is conformity with a paradigm we know doesn't work. That is, in this view of the world knowledge is scarce. Partisans need only reveal "the truth" and shut down the lies of their opponents, and reasonable, knowledge-seeking people will be swayed to the partisans' side.

I think that this paradigm doesn't work is obvious, but in case it's not, it doesn't work because we know in reality that the sort of "truths" we argue about politically are irrelevant. For example, the true unemployment rate being 4% or 8% or whether the percentage of kids who go hungry in the US is 4% or 8% doesn't guide many people's policy beliefs. If you think think 4% is tolerable, you likely don't think 8% is all that bad, let alone what policy is needed to fix it.

This is obviously also true for things like masks and vaccination. Literate, numerate people will disagree even if the basic nature of facts are accepted.

What I'm saying is, the nature of the debate as one over truth and knowledge skews the whole affair into an unproductive direction. There's no need to make the argument one of truth, which explicitly calls your opponent a liar, when you could make the argument one of value.

Belief and agreement are better terms to use because they are directly related to political action. Our beliefs and whether others agree with them or not, are how we make political decisions. Thus the import of, say, the 1619 Project. There are some literal truths (and untruths) there. But this knowledge by itself means almost nothing. The meaning comes from whether it shapes our beliefs and destroys our general agreement that the US approach to government can work for everyone.

2. It's inherent in the word "institution" that such a thing is an anti-evolutionary structure. An institution is by definition designed for permanence. To hold something against the evolutionary torrent of ideas. Recognition of this fact is important because with any institution, you should be able to identify what it's trying to preserve. Like, the US Constitution is obviously set up to preserve the basic decision-making process and rights of the government's citizens. On the other hand, most institutions, businesses, the CDC, etc, aren't really set up to preserve anything except themselves.

Which is fine, it's human nature, but it's also why the rot Arnold describes in endemic to institutions and why institutional reform is something that's so frequently a fool's errand.

That is, institutions are designed to preserve something and erode over time. Look at what they're designed to preserve and see if it's truly what you wish to preserve now, and whether it's worth carrying along the institutional baggage with it. Most of the time, I think, it's probably better to start fresh with a new institution rather than trying to build off an old one. (going back to the administrative debate, a great reform would be that many, if not most administrative bureaus have specific sunset provisions. That is, wind down the CDC (or the useless 90% of it) automatically, with the knowledge that, in time of need, a replacement organization can be spun up pretty quickly.

Expand full comment

So many liberal lies, for so long.

John Kerry: " “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia." Nixon won the Nov 68 (since so many racist Democrats voted for 3rd party Wallace instead of HH Humphrey) election, but didn't take office until ... Jan 20.

Didn't Rauch support Kerry, the liar, 2004?

1987 Allan Bloom: "The Closing of the American Mind" >> the underlying problem: the belief that values are relative, an idea imported from Germany in the 1940s despite its fundamental antithesis with American ideals.<<

Did Rauch ever read or react to this book? I think not so much - about 35 years ago.

1994 Charles Murray: "The Bell Curve" http://www.sullivan-county.com/id5/bc.jpg

Is it true that Blacks, today, have lower IQs on average? Yes, this fact is true. How big an influence is genetics, parental raising, Socio-Economic Status (SES) is not clear.

Didn't Rauch reject this truth?

Democrats and elites today seem to believe, and are pushing all to affirm, two big lies:

1) Men and women are equal,

2) All races are equal.

True Reality is sexist; and racist.

We need a rule of law and an American culture where every individual's American Dream can be realized, within reasonable limits. We can only get this with elevation of Individual Rights, and individual results, dominate considerations of groups.

Expand full comment

Arnold;

A few thoughts - in The Constitution of Knowledge, it seems largely that knowledge means 'public knowledge.' There are other kinds - local knowledge and embodied knowledge, for example. Local is only relevant in a certain geospatial context. Embodied knowledge is that space of skills, capabilities, and awarenesses that are subconscious. You have talked quite a bit about organizations above and below the Dunbar number; Isaac Asimov famously translated the notion (in Foundation) that some kinds of knowledge only were relevant at certain social scales - statistical at the largest, personal/private at the level of an individual; some organizations are 'walkable,' others are 'legible,' and still others are statistical.

What are we missing by not having a somewhat nested hierarchy of knowledges at different scales and governed by different standards or rules? Where are disconnects and misunderstandings of scale causing system failures?

Expand full comment