On Iran, the bright side is that the increasingly visible hatred of most Iranians for their regime may open non-military paths to weakening it. On the other hand, we simply do not know what the stance of an ayatollah-free, democratic Iranian government toward Israel or the Palestinians would be.
On the students, I would ask:
a. How big a psychological and/or ideological difference do you think there is between those who today chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!" and those who 50 years ago chanted "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong is gonna win!"?
b. How big a percentage of students generally, and of young people generally, do you think the former are compared to the latter?
c. If you think the former's stance will have greater or more lasting impact than the latter, why?
Re: things it may be too early to talk about, without discussing any particular options, I will say my own major update has been to realize more viscerally both the importance of what Golda Meir famously called the Israeli secret weapon-- they have nowhere else to go -- and the importance of the fact that the Palestinians have exactly the same weapon. It is tempting for each side to refuse to understand that the other has that weapon, because it is so inconvenient for any narrative that gives one group exclusive claim to the land. To be clear, this isn't "both sides ism"-- the parties have responded to that temptation in very different ways. But the temptation is still a terrible one, and so too is the predicament of having nowhere else to go, and any real improvement has got to be grounded in full consciousness of the predicament, however you seek to address it. Amos Oz, for one, has been very eloquent on this point over the years.
As for the under-40 evaluation: I think you give schools too much credit - or too little. You make it sound like Sacco and Vanzetti or Ethel and Julius Rosenberg or Foucault himself was tutoring the young'uns. In fact there is a much stronger element of Idiocracy to this whole ridiculous protesting business. Of course they would recycle the Nuremburg rally. It's famous in pictures! All they know how to do is recycle and they have nothing to say and they know nothing. I mean, government-funded entitites practically hand out "How to March and Protest: Content Optional" brochures, which reminds me for some reason of Gertrude Himmelfarb's essay about the ludicrousness of the entry of something like "Notes From the Underground" into the high school curriculum, becoming just another novel to dissect. ["Study Question for the reader: do you think the narrator is disaffected? Do you feeel disaffected? Write about a time when you were disaffected."] She thought it defanged literature; turned out it was essentially a pre-emptive defanging of the people made to read it.
And then they stopped making people read anything at all.
I don't have time to elaborate all the ways these idiot protestors are stupid, I'm fairly certain hardly any of them nor their public school teachers could pick out Israel on a map. And Israel is easy.
And I think this because an 80s campus conservative got to know lots of lefties - mostly lefties (though now they'd seem hopelessly centrist I suppose) - you can hardly limit your acquaintance to conservatives when they consist of: your boyfriend, one Christian dude, a super-bright oddball, a barefoot hippie-ish former GI, and a couple of editorial-co-writing siblings (or were they a couple?) straight out of "The Secret History".
And those lefties seemed smart and pretty fun to talk to. They had read the books. Or maybe I should say, they had at least read books.
What is the likelihood that sane left liberals will ditch their "social justice" friends? Or be able to steer them in a more productive direction?
I get the UN position. It has been mostly the same since I was in Model UN in the 80s. Yet I think quitting would be the wrong thing for the US. It still is a place where the imperfectly good USA can talk with and potentially influence the "global south" or whatever you want to call those countries. Quitting the UN would be like a company quitting lobbying on principle. Maybe right, but ultimately counterproductive to reaching its goals.
>The world would probably be a better place if the United States tried to use military force to change the regime in Iran.
"Trying" and failing would have bad outcomes. The question of regime change is also a bit complicated. Regime change in Iraq for democracy created an Iranian proxy. But there are many successful examples of regime change in history, and the post-WW2 changes are not the only models.
>We should get the UN out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the UN. Up, from 5 to 7.
It's not clear to me that the US would consciously choose to do this, but that rather it would happen as the natural result of continued hot war between permanent members of the Security Council. The UN and other international organizations, while not really "doing" much of anything, provides an activity sink. The reason why it wouldn't be a conscious choice is just because the Washington consensus has been that peace is good, desirable, and should be promoted by any means. The UN provides a forum that makes it easier for many small, weak governments to engage in sovereignty roleplay in a way that makes it more convincing to their citizens. Without the UN, the postwar (virtual reality) sovereign state system would also wither away.
This peace bias makes sense because when your society is ruled by bourgeois bureaucrats, peace is prime time for the bourgeois bureaucracy. Mobilization results in the partial enslavement and expropriation of said bourgeois bureaucracy. So, the bourgeois bureaucracy will grin while the head chopper shoves the bureaucrat's innards in his own mouth, Bataclan-style. They'll try to preserve world peace even in the face of the worst humiliation. They will tell you to shut up and go back to work to pay your taxes and service your loans even if your co-worker wants to slit your throat.
Arnold, you are moving in the right direction, and several moves very eloquently stated. But you like the grifter Republican establishment too much, and the rebels too little, presumably because of the former's aggressiveness on Israel. As for Trump - Biden, no doubt Trump has learned a lot and would be much more effective, even though the deep state would continue to try to sabotage him, whereas Biden is non compos mentis, and with nobody having real authority to manage the executive branch we are in a dangerous condition.
Too bad the Clown Car Caucus fired its legislators. Making policy is more than having the "correct" position on an issue. Passing laws on controversial issues requires ability to persuade people who are not already on board. The outlook is not good when the CCC picks the most extreme of 4 candidates to lead it in the House. Trump's recent social media posts and speeches indicate his mental acuity isn't any stronger than Biden's.
1. I’m wondering what evidence you see that indicates that “no doubt Trump has learned a lot..”
2. Unless you meant it as hyperbole, and not literally, it doesn’t seem to me that Biden is even close to “non compos mentis.” In the less stressful non-public Oval Office strategy meetings with Blinken, Sullivan, Austin, etc, I suspect that Biden is functioning competently and with a significant amount of accumulated experience/wisdom. However, I would have preferred that he not be running for re-election. He is now hopelessly incompetent at communicating in public settings, which is a prerequisite for effective leadership. More generally, there has obviously been some level of cognitive decline (more than others who are age 80 and still leaders in government, business, etc.) The risk of further decline is worrisome. (IMHO, he needs to drop Harris and select either the Governor of Michigan , Lloyd Austin or Commerce Secretary Gina Raimindo..)
I realize that all foreign aid doesn't flow through the UN but I will make a synecdoche of it. The UN is essentially responsible for the creation of the Palestinian population, in terms of its explosive growth the past 75 years. Ideology begets population growth. This is just one and the most currently visible example of how everything is made worse because we have to ignore population growth. Who cares if the UN leaves but of course we should get out of the UN.
The problem that existed at the creation of Israel, that the Jews would get some of the land and the Arabs would get some of the land, and some of the Arabs on the Jewish side of the line went off to Jordan but a few remained behind - is only a faint echo of the problem that exists now.
And globally, the problems we face in the future are going to make this look elementary.
I would rate any of the major challengers to Trump above Biden. I think that any one of them could appoint people to serve in government who are competent and treat them well enough that they could do their jobs. I see Mr. Trump spending his time feuding with his own appointees.
I'm a little OCD and I want "Evidently, in the absence of a normative foundation or the exercise of elite power" to read "Evidently, in the absence of a normative foundation for the exercise of elite power". Please fix.
ETA: this is good - "Hence the constant expansion of state through partnership with NGOs, international organisations and public-private partnerships. This dispersal of decision making is motivated by the impulse of responsibility aversion."
Most Americans, even supporters of the Clown Car Caucus, believe in free lunches. There's no incremental changes in either spending or tax increases that make a large dent in the long term deficits. 10 year rates over 5% make the problem a whole lot worse. Any major legislative changes will require a fairly high level of bipartisan support. Good luck with Mike Johnson figuring out how to do that. On deficits Brian Riedl is a good one to read: https://thedispatch.com/article/americans-shrug-off-historic-debt-surge/
Exactly my point. Everyone's ox needs to be gored to fix the problem. Good luck to crazy Mike Johnson, who will, in fact, not come close to building a bipartisan coalition to control spending growth in any meaningful way. At best we might see an "office supplies" savings program.
On Iran, the bright side is that the increasingly visible hatred of most Iranians for their regime may open non-military paths to weakening it. On the other hand, we simply do not know what the stance of an ayatollah-free, democratic Iranian government toward Israel or the Palestinians would be.
On the students, I would ask:
a. How big a psychological and/or ideological difference do you think there is between those who today chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!" and those who 50 years ago chanted "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong is gonna win!"?
b. How big a percentage of students generally, and of young people generally, do you think the former are compared to the latter?
c. If you think the former's stance will have greater or more lasting impact than the latter, why?
Re: things it may be too early to talk about, without discussing any particular options, I will say my own major update has been to realize more viscerally both the importance of what Golda Meir famously called the Israeli secret weapon-- they have nowhere else to go -- and the importance of the fact that the Palestinians have exactly the same weapon. It is tempting for each side to refuse to understand that the other has that weapon, because it is so inconvenient for any narrative that gives one group exclusive claim to the land. To be clear, this isn't "both sides ism"-- the parties have responded to that temptation in very different ways. But the temptation is still a terrible one, and so too is the predicament of having nowhere else to go, and any real improvement has got to be grounded in full consciousness of the predicament, however you seek to address it. Amos Oz, for one, has been very eloquent on this point over the years.
As for the under-40 evaluation: I think you give schools too much credit - or too little. You make it sound like Sacco and Vanzetti or Ethel and Julius Rosenberg or Foucault himself was tutoring the young'uns. In fact there is a much stronger element of Idiocracy to this whole ridiculous protesting business. Of course they would recycle the Nuremburg rally. It's famous in pictures! All they know how to do is recycle and they have nothing to say and they know nothing. I mean, government-funded entitites practically hand out "How to March and Protest: Content Optional" brochures, which reminds me for some reason of Gertrude Himmelfarb's essay about the ludicrousness of the entry of something like "Notes From the Underground" into the high school curriculum, becoming just another novel to dissect. ["Study Question for the reader: do you think the narrator is disaffected? Do you feeel disaffected? Write about a time when you were disaffected."] She thought it defanged literature; turned out it was essentially a pre-emptive defanging of the people made to read it.
And then they stopped making people read anything at all.
I don't have time to elaborate all the ways these idiot protestors are stupid, I'm fairly certain hardly any of them nor their public school teachers could pick out Israel on a map. And Israel is easy.
And I think this because an 80s campus conservative got to know lots of lefties - mostly lefties (though now they'd seem hopelessly centrist I suppose) - you can hardly limit your acquaintance to conservatives when they consist of: your boyfriend, one Christian dude, a super-bright oddball, a barefoot hippie-ish former GI, and a couple of editorial-co-writing siblings (or were they a couple?) straight out of "The Secret History".
And those lefties seemed smart and pretty fun to talk to. They had read the books. Or maybe I should say, they had at least read books.
"What they really mean is that they would hate to see Israel win." => Are we talking about winning this war? Or are we talking about a long term win?
And since I'm more interested in the issue of the long term prospects for Israel and Palestine, what does it mean for you Arnold for Israel to win?
1.- A demilitarized Palestine?
2.- Dropping the issue of the right of return ? (in exchange for something, I suppose)
3.- Diplomatic recognition from all Arab and Muslim countries?
4.- Recognition of (most) of Jerusalem as part of Israel?
5.- Recognition of territory west of the West Bank barrier as part of Israel? (in exchange for other territories, I suppose)
6.- Other(s).
I assume it might be a combination of the above.
What is the likelihood that sane left liberals will ditch their "social justice" friends? Or be able to steer them in a more productive direction?
I get the UN position. It has been mostly the same since I was in Model UN in the 80s. Yet I think quitting would be the wrong thing for the US. It still is a place where the imperfectly good USA can talk with and potentially influence the "global south" or whatever you want to call those countries. Quitting the UN would be like a company quitting lobbying on principle. Maybe right, but ultimately counterproductive to reaching its goals.
>The world would probably be a better place if the United States tried to use military force to change the regime in Iran.
"Trying" and failing would have bad outcomes. The question of regime change is also a bit complicated. Regime change in Iraq for democracy created an Iranian proxy. But there are many successful examples of regime change in history, and the post-WW2 changes are not the only models.
>We should get the UN out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the UN. Up, from 5 to 7.
It's not clear to me that the US would consciously choose to do this, but that rather it would happen as the natural result of continued hot war between permanent members of the Security Council. The UN and other international organizations, while not really "doing" much of anything, provides an activity sink. The reason why it wouldn't be a conscious choice is just because the Washington consensus has been that peace is good, desirable, and should be promoted by any means. The UN provides a forum that makes it easier for many small, weak governments to engage in sovereignty roleplay in a way that makes it more convincing to their citizens. Without the UN, the postwar (virtual reality) sovereign state system would also wither away.
This peace bias makes sense because when your society is ruled by bourgeois bureaucrats, peace is prime time for the bourgeois bureaucracy. Mobilization results in the partial enslavement and expropriation of said bourgeois bureaucracy. So, the bourgeois bureaucracy will grin while the head chopper shoves the bureaucrat's innards in his own mouth, Bataclan-style. They'll try to preserve world peace even in the face of the worst humiliation. They will tell you to shut up and go back to work to pay your taxes and service your loans even if your co-worker wants to slit your throat.
Everyone should have a peace bias. It's the only way to build wealth.
I agree whole-heartedly, even without the wealth-building aspect.
Arnold, you are moving in the right direction, and several moves very eloquently stated. But you like the grifter Republican establishment too much, and the rebels too little, presumably because of the former's aggressiveness on Israel. As for Trump - Biden, no doubt Trump has learned a lot and would be much more effective, even though the deep state would continue to try to sabotage him, whereas Biden is non compos mentis, and with nobody having real authority to manage the executive branch we are in a dangerous condition.
Too bad the Clown Car Caucus fired its legislators. Making policy is more than having the "correct" position on an issue. Passing laws on controversial issues requires ability to persuade people who are not already on board. The outlook is not good when the CCC picks the most extreme of 4 candidates to lead it in the House. Trump's recent social media posts and speeches indicate his mental acuity isn't any stronger than Biden's.
1. I’m wondering what evidence you see that indicates that “no doubt Trump has learned a lot..”
2. Unless you meant it as hyperbole, and not literally, it doesn’t seem to me that Biden is even close to “non compos mentis.” In the less stressful non-public Oval Office strategy meetings with Blinken, Sullivan, Austin, etc, I suspect that Biden is functioning competently and with a significant amount of accumulated experience/wisdom. However, I would have preferred that he not be running for re-election. He is now hopelessly incompetent at communicating in public settings, which is a prerequisite for effective leadership. More generally, there has obviously been some level of cognitive decline (more than others who are age 80 and still leaders in government, business, etc.) The risk of further decline is worrisome. (IMHO, he needs to drop Harris and select either the Governor of Michigan , Lloyd Austin or Commerce Secretary Gina Raimindo..)
(I’m a centrist Democrat) (not Center-Left)
Mark Kaufman
Kansas City
I'm curious whom you consider "underrated" in the Republican establishment?
I realize that all foreign aid doesn't flow through the UN but I will make a synecdoche of it. The UN is essentially responsible for the creation of the Palestinian population, in terms of its explosive growth the past 75 years. Ideology begets population growth. This is just one and the most currently visible example of how everything is made worse because we have to ignore population growth. Who cares if the UN leaves but of course we should get out of the UN.
The problem that existed at the creation of Israel, that the Jews would get some of the land and the Arabs would get some of the land, and some of the Arabs on the Jewish side of the line went off to Jordan but a few remained behind - is only a faint echo of the problem that exists now.
And globally, the problems we face in the future are going to make this look elementary.
I don't know that I would score the various items as Mr. Kling does, but none of his opinions seems to me unreasonable.
I would be interested to know how he would rate Biden versus specific challengers to Trump, especially DeSantis, Haley, Scott, and Christie.
I would rate any of the major challengers to Trump above Biden. I think that any one of them could appoint people to serve in government who are competent and treat them well enough that they could do their jobs. I see Mr. Trump spending his time feuding with his own appointees.
I'm a little OCD and I want "Evidently, in the absence of a normative foundation or the exercise of elite power" to read "Evidently, in the absence of a normative foundation for the exercise of elite power". Please fix.
ETA: this is good - "Hence the constant expansion of state through partnership with NGOs, international organisations and public-private partnerships. This dispersal of decision making is motivated by the impulse of responsibility aversion."
I know, I went and checked it in his essay. That does not in any way help me ;-).
Most Americans, even supporters of the Clown Car Caucus, believe in free lunches. There's no incremental changes in either spending or tax increases that make a large dent in the long term deficits. 10 year rates over 5% make the problem a whole lot worse. Any major legislative changes will require a fairly high level of bipartisan support. Good luck with Mike Johnson figuring out how to do that. On deficits Brian Riedl is a good one to read: https://thedispatch.com/article/americans-shrug-off-historic-debt-surge/
Exactly my point. Everyone's ox needs to be gored to fix the problem. Good luck to crazy Mike Johnson, who will, in fact, not come close to building a bipartisan coalition to control spending growth in any meaningful way. At best we might see an "office supplies" savings program.