Barton Swaim on Cipolla on stupidity; Lorenzo Warby on the bureaucracy/activist mindset; Dan Williams offers a syllabus; Bryan Caplan, Rachel Ferguson, and I discuss Huemer's *Progressive Myths*
“And as I point out, he models how to write clearly, instead of hiding behind academic jargon.“ Lack of academic jargon is one of the best features of Arnold Kling’s and Michael Huemer’s writing. Thank you both.
What appears to be stupid may in fact have rational motivation. Open borders create enormous opportunities for political grift in the form of spending on provision of social services, whose providers obtain lucrative contracts through "pay to play," thus benefiting officials. It may be that most or even all the rhetoric about compassion is nothing more than specious moral cover for this sort of grifting. The activities appear stupid in terms of reasonable assumptions about how a country should be run, but they serve a different purpose.
Re Swaim: I had similar thoughts the past couple days, about the Biden administration. Clearly the FBI and ICE knew exactly where a bunch of thugs and lowlifes were. They had done their job to that extent. Why didn’t Biden’s executive branch order them rounded up? Ostensibly such an obvious win?
Possibilities that occur to someone who knows nothing of the “process”:
*too much (unwarranted, now seemingly unnecessary?) respect for the judiciary, for lawyers’ interpretations? Because those dubious interpretations are needed to shore up other of their questionable projects?
*FBI etc. quiet quitting because under impression the effort would be for naught, no planes would take off?
*Unwillingness to draw attention to criminals while letting in thousands a day? But it seems like visible deportations could have deflected from that, made the end game of citizenry replacement more secure?
*Stupid really young people in charge of WH? Like, really bottom of the barrel products of US education system? We don’t cage people, we don’t fly people around? Government by Rumi tattoo?
I disagree with Warby, at least on a cursory read. Left activism is distinguished by what he or his colleague Helen Dale in another excellent piece have called “the Omnicause”, where I tried to distinguish this.
Though a conservative, and its furthest aims are alien to me - I would never have the insolence (because I’m a conservative?) - to say, for instance, that the activist movement for gay rights, was illegitimate. Was only seeking to dominate.
Activism is legitimate when conducted by those affected, its goals targeted.
Leftism perverts causes toward its own end of turning things upside down, of destruction. But it isn’t synonymous with activism.
Women in particular were once avid activists for a variety of causes - see the great preservationists of historical sites, typically women - ironically, since we’re told they were voiceless.
That variety has actually been shut down, usurped by the radicalism of feminism - neutering women, making them less interesting, forcing them into the one leftist project of destruction of the family.
“And as I point out, he models how to write clearly, instead of hiding behind academic jargon.“ Lack of academic jargon is one of the best features of Arnold Kling’s and Michael Huemer’s writing. Thank you both.
What appears to be stupid may in fact have rational motivation. Open borders create enormous opportunities for political grift in the form of spending on provision of social services, whose providers obtain lucrative contracts through "pay to play," thus benefiting officials. It may be that most or even all the rhetoric about compassion is nothing more than specious moral cover for this sort of grifting. The activities appear stupid in terms of reasonable assumptions about how a country should be run, but they serve a different purpose.
Re Swaim: I had similar thoughts the past couple days, about the Biden administration. Clearly the FBI and ICE knew exactly where a bunch of thugs and lowlifes were. They had done their job to that extent. Why didn’t Biden’s executive branch order them rounded up? Ostensibly such an obvious win?
Possibilities that occur to someone who knows nothing of the “process”:
*too much (unwarranted, now seemingly unnecessary?) respect for the judiciary, for lawyers’ interpretations? Because those dubious interpretations are needed to shore up other of their questionable projects?
*FBI etc. quiet quitting because under impression the effort would be for naught, no planes would take off?
*Unwillingness to draw attention to criminals while letting in thousands a day? But it seems like visible deportations could have deflected from that, made the end game of citizenry replacement more secure?
*Stupid really young people in charge of WH? Like, really bottom of the barrel products of US education system? We don’t cage people, we don’t fly people around? Government by Rumi tattoo?
*Soros penetration of Executive branch?
I disagree with Warby, at least on a cursory read. Left activism is distinguished by what he or his colleague Helen Dale in another excellent piece have called “the Omnicause”, where I tried to distinguish this.
Though a conservative, and its furthest aims are alien to me - I would never have the insolence (because I’m a conservative?) - to say, for instance, that the activist movement for gay rights, was illegitimate. Was only seeking to dominate.
Activism is legitimate when conducted by those affected, its goals targeted.
Leftism perverts causes toward its own end of turning things upside down, of destruction. But it isn’t synonymous with activism.
Women in particular were once avid activists for a variety of causes - see the great preservationists of historical sites, typically women - ironically, since we’re told they were voiceless.
That variety has actually been shut down, usurped by the radicalism of feminism - neutering women, making them less interesting, forcing them into the one leftist project of destruction of the family.
This was timely...thanks much.