Wokeism doesn't result in changes to the deployment of tangible resources? How about DIE(sic) coordinators (and their voluminous staffs), minority contract set-asides, race and sex-based discrimination in hiring and promotions, welfare programs specifically directed to various identity groups including the big kahuna - slave reparations? And these are not just happening in government but widely across many businesses and other private organizations as well.
I think the distinction is not quite as sharp as you are drawing it. Even in ancient Rome we talk about the rabble being given bread *and* circuses, not just circuses. Edelmann probably sits at the point where most grifting off the government was, to use the Plunkett term, 'honest graft' of providing real improvements like new roads even if the specific deals were shady but Obama was finally forced to admit that there were few 'shovel-ready' projects funded by the 2008 stimulus bill (IIRC the vast majority of that money went to bail out various state government programs). With COVID all pretense of doing anything but the equivalent of dropping C-notes from helicopters was abandoned.
Per Christopher B's comment, I think there is a big temptation from people of a certain personality bent to really WANT politics and culture wars to be pointless theater. If its pointless theater, then there is no moral obligation to participate in it. If anything, there might be a moral obligation not to. And if that was already what you wanted to do, it's awfully convenient.
But does that fit the data?
Let me take a simple example. COVID spending was absolutely enormous. There were an unprecedented amount of real resources at stake. And it was a highly political issue. Lockdowns necessitated bailouts, and one side was clearly more in favor of lockdowns. More specifically, trillions of dollars was spent on bills that passed on party line votes in congress by a single vote. To say that politics didn't matter to the allocation of real resources is fantastical in light of such events.
Furthermore, we can make very direct links between things like woke-ism and real resource allocation during the pandemic. My sick 75 year old father had to wait months to get a vaccine he should have been able to get immediately. The justification for de-prioritizing him was directly spelled out by the CDC in the guidance they put out that our state adopted. "Equity" was listed as a prime reason for their allocation logic. Note that people who didn't bow to the CDC, like DeSantis in Florida, prioritized vaccines by age, my father would have been able to get his vaccine earlier if he lived in a red state.
The mind virus can go beyond government too. I still feel bad for all those kids I saw on playgrounds wearing masks, even though there was no government mandate. Their parents were infected by a mind virus that caused them to abuse their own children for culture war reasons.
Before 2020 I used to believe that politics and culture, if not unimportant, didn't influence my life enough to justify allocating much energy to it. I updated my priors after 2020.
Your incisive essay explains much with little. Voters demand theater. Interest groups demand resources ("rents"). Politicians supply both -- and somehow often play their theater role authentically.
The politics of *theater + corruption* has another basic dimension: Restrictions (regulations; new limits on individual liberties and markets). Activists demand myriad prohibitions. Rent-seekers form common cause with activists and garner resources. Examples: The Green New Deal. The War on Drugs. And Michael Tracy makes a case that politics about "human trafficking" exhibit this type of coalition.
"Edelman’s view is that ordinary citizens become fixated on famous individuals and political conflicts that are merely symbolic." This would appear to be consistent with Rene Girard's theory of mimetics; much of what people want is not so much what they rationally need but rather just what they see other people wanting.
A current instance of Edelman's point is the Ukraine situation; our propagandistic media discuss it in terms of the famous individual (Putin). They fail to consider whether things might be pretty much the same under any likely alternative Russian leader. That might lead to better understanding of the causes of the conflict, and perhaps even means of resolving it, but that would clash with the elites' grifting objective (in this case, enormous profits from munitions).
While Trump and wokism are great examples, let’s think back to the OJ trial and the captivation and polarization that the media coverage created. All the experts and talking heads droning on and on. Did you avoid getting pulled in? Unlikely. Clearly, there were better problems to solve.
A goal of this Substack and the blog before it is to remind its readers to “wake up”! There is real work to do. We must find the truth. We must offer robust solutions.
1 I am absolutely totally unconvinced that the political theater of the greatest interest to mass media and likely also to the general public is anything close to merely symbolic. The impact of wokeism, deniers, activists, and conspiracy theorists on all sides has real consequences.
2 While not unimportant I don't see that the "pigs," rent seekers, and back roomers and what they do is any more important than the issues of political theater.
Here at the start of a new year I think it is important we consider what is most important. We have a mostly free market economy that works pretty well despite all the issues mentioned above. In our focus on the problems, we shouldn't forget that.
I accept your remark that “in the back rooms a few purposive elite organizations are using government to obtain real, meaningful resources. They get the subsidies and protection from competition . . . .” Still, I doubt that any such organization gets everything it wants, and some—though at least semi-elite—are sorely disappointed. There is competition in rent-seeking, with losers and partial-losers as well as winners. (And, of course, there is a limit to what the public will tolerate, even though it is not paying much attention.) Even after getting some of what it wanted, the elite organization must continue to work to preserve its bounty (admittedly, inertia is its friend).
Wokeism doesn't result in changes to the deployment of tangible resources? How about DIE(sic) coordinators (and their voluminous staffs), minority contract set-asides, race and sex-based discrimination in hiring and promotions, welfare programs specifically directed to various identity groups including the big kahuna - slave reparations? And these are not just happening in government but widely across many businesses and other private organizations as well.
I think the distinction is not quite as sharp as you are drawing it. Even in ancient Rome we talk about the rabble being given bread *and* circuses, not just circuses. Edelmann probably sits at the point where most grifting off the government was, to use the Plunkett term, 'honest graft' of providing real improvements like new roads even if the specific deals were shady but Obama was finally forced to admit that there were few 'shovel-ready' projects funded by the 2008 stimulus bill (IIRC the vast majority of that money went to bail out various state government programs). With COVID all pretense of doing anything but the equivalent of dropping C-notes from helicopters was abandoned.
Per Christopher B's comment, I think there is a big temptation from people of a certain personality bent to really WANT politics and culture wars to be pointless theater. If its pointless theater, then there is no moral obligation to participate in it. If anything, there might be a moral obligation not to. And if that was already what you wanted to do, it's awfully convenient.
But does that fit the data?
Let me take a simple example. COVID spending was absolutely enormous. There were an unprecedented amount of real resources at stake. And it was a highly political issue. Lockdowns necessitated bailouts, and one side was clearly more in favor of lockdowns. More specifically, trillions of dollars was spent on bills that passed on party line votes in congress by a single vote. To say that politics didn't matter to the allocation of real resources is fantastical in light of such events.
Furthermore, we can make very direct links between things like woke-ism and real resource allocation during the pandemic. My sick 75 year old father had to wait months to get a vaccine he should have been able to get immediately. The justification for de-prioritizing him was directly spelled out by the CDC in the guidance they put out that our state adopted. "Equity" was listed as a prime reason for their allocation logic. Note that people who didn't bow to the CDC, like DeSantis in Florida, prioritized vaccines by age, my father would have been able to get his vaccine earlier if he lived in a red state.
The mind virus can go beyond government too. I still feel bad for all those kids I saw on playgrounds wearing masks, even though there was no government mandate. Their parents were infected by a mind virus that caused them to abuse their own children for culture war reasons.
Before 2020 I used to believe that politics and culture, if not unimportant, didn't influence my life enough to justify allocating much energy to it. I updated my priors after 2020.
Your incisive essay explains much with little. Voters demand theater. Interest groups demand resources ("rents"). Politicians supply both -- and somehow often play their theater role authentically.
The politics of *theater + corruption* has another basic dimension: Restrictions (regulations; new limits on individual liberties and markets). Activists demand myriad prohibitions. Rent-seekers form common cause with activists and garner resources. Examples: The Green New Deal. The War on Drugs. And Michael Tracy makes a case that politics about "human trafficking" exhibit this type of coalition.
"Edelman’s view is that ordinary citizens become fixated on famous individuals and political conflicts that are merely symbolic." This would appear to be consistent with Rene Girard's theory of mimetics; much of what people want is not so much what they rationally need but rather just what they see other people wanting.
A current instance of Edelman's point is the Ukraine situation; our propagandistic media discuss it in terms of the famous individual (Putin). They fail to consider whether things might be pretty much the same under any likely alternative Russian leader. That might lead to better understanding of the causes of the conflict, and perhaps even means of resolving it, but that would clash with the elites' grifting objective (in this case, enormous profits from munitions).
While Trump and wokism are great examples, let’s think back to the OJ trial and the captivation and polarization that the media coverage created. All the experts and talking heads droning on and on. Did you avoid getting pulled in? Unlikely. Clearly, there were better problems to solve.
A goal of this Substack and the blog before it is to remind its readers to “wake up”! There is real work to do. We must find the truth. We must offer robust solutions.
NO.
1 I am absolutely totally unconvinced that the political theater of the greatest interest to mass media and likely also to the general public is anything close to merely symbolic. The impact of wokeism, deniers, activists, and conspiracy theorists on all sides has real consequences.
2 While not unimportant I don't see that the "pigs," rent seekers, and back roomers and what they do is any more important than the issues of political theater.
Here at the start of a new year I think it is important we consider what is most important. We have a mostly free market economy that works pretty well despite all the issues mentioned above. In our focus on the problems, we shouldn't forget that.
I accept your remark that “in the back rooms a few purposive elite organizations are using government to obtain real, meaningful resources. They get the subsidies and protection from competition . . . .” Still, I doubt that any such organization gets everything it wants, and some—though at least semi-elite—are sorely disappointed. There is competition in rent-seeking, with losers and partial-losers as well as winners. (And, of course, there is a limit to what the public will tolerate, even though it is not paying much attention.) Even after getting some of what it wanted, the elite organization must continue to work to preserve its bounty (admittedly, inertia is its friend).