Dave's Daily Dose 10/26/2021
Backlog Zero
Today’s the day! After three weeks of solid progress, we’re at Backlog Zero. Work on new articles will proceed, as these Doses will probably dwindle down to 2-3 items per day, 2-3 times per week.
Yglesias had a very insightful piece about how educational polarization has given the left the advantage in the “war of ideas”.
I do wonder how long this trend will hold, though. There are two countervailing trends: (1) the increasing puritanism of leftist social thought, and (2) the unpredictability of partisan and wedge politics.
On the puritanism angle, although leftist social thought is still vibrant and diverse if you speak the lingo, that remains A Big If, and the well is bound to run dry sooner or later. Arguably, it already has: Most of the fundamental conceptual framework for leftist social thought was actually done in the previous century1, and today’s social theorists are mainly just filling in the blanks, much like how today’s engineers (including myself) are filling in the blanks of physics that’s 30-50 years old at this point.
And perhaps that’s a good thing. The next major visible frontier of social thought, transhumanism, is probably a far ways off, judging from the lack of meaningful progress on brain-computer interfaces. Meanwhile, current leftist social thought is regarded by (an admittedly proto-fascist) right as fatally dangerous. If leftist social thought doesn’t change much for the next 30-50 years, well, we could all use the cooling off period right about now, to refresh and recharge our batteries before processing the next major human social evolution.
On the unpredictability angle, we of course can’t perfectly forecast the next 5 years of partisan and wedge politics, let alone 50, but we can always identify the seeds of change. Two major seeds I see are the (thus-far-abortive) attempted intellectualization of the Trumpist movement, and libertarianism.
In the traumatic aftermath of 2016, many lefties may have missed the attempt to codify a formal Trumpist ideology by various think-tankers and conservative activists who were “all-in” on Trumpism. It’s okay though, guys, because you didn’t really miss much. But those institutions are still around, and now they’re players in the game. It’s important not to count them out while they’re down; just because Trumpism is currently being driven by an abhorrently bigoted, morally and intellectually bankrupt populism, doesn’t mean it won’t show back up some day wearing a properly-tailored suit and relying on more than dog-whistles to make its pitches. Less Hitler, more Metternich.
On the other extreme, we’re all pretty familiar with political libertarianism at this point. It’s a strong and popular stream within the current GOP, and has influences reaching as far as myself and Yglesias over here on the left. What really could unlock libertarianism’s potential would be if Ranked Choice Voting makes it big; particularly in liberal cities, it’s already essentially the Most Socially Acceptable Way To Be A Rightist, and freed from their dependence on the GOP and centrist Democrats, Big-L Libertarians would probably be the first third party to become nationally competitive, mainly by hollowing out Republican support in cities that already hate the GOP.
That said, failing RCV going national, libertarianism stands the best chance as the alternative philosophy for Republicans to fall back on when Trumpism runs its course. Just like the “Bush failed because we weren’t conservative enough” line, by the 2028-32 primary seasons, Republicans will be running on “Trumpism failed because we weren’t libertarian enough”.
Turbulent 20s vs. Roaring 20s. Last year, the big prediction by People Who Know Things was that we’d see another Roaring 20s after a year of lockdowns and fiscal stimulus. On first-order approximation, it more or less passed the sniff test, but it also sounded like just another narrative to be cautious of buying into too deeply.
Likewise, we should treat this new Turbulent 20s prediction with similar skepticism. But still, it’s a very interesting juxtaposition to contemplate. At first glance, I’d lean more towards Turbulent than Roaring, but I’ve also been wrong before.
Charlie Warzel mentioned in his Bulwark interview the growing “career skepticism” movement among younger people. I think this is potentially indicative that we’re finally moving past “bullshit jobs” and into the era of the leisure economy.
Or, of course, not. Who knows?
Bill Kristol bitches about the nutsos on both extremes. Great for him.
What he’s too busy signaling his centrist virtues to see, is that the defining aspect of our political moment isn’t extremism. It’s indeterminacy. We live in a “Schrodinger’s Politics”. It could be that we’re heading off a cliff. It could be that we back away from the edge, and our proverbial “better angels” take charge. But for all the certainty on all sides, damned if anyone actually knows which!
America’s a powder keg right now. Three straight decades of filibuster abuse have stagnated our policy process, and driven an ideologically and demographically diverse left into an autocannibalistic desperation for needed changes that become more and more drastic. The right embarked on a generation-long strategy of wagging the dog with propaganda, which ended up consuming their party in the flames of authoritarian populism, and leaving as their only viable path to power a disgusting minoritarianism which itself threatens to undermine the constitutional order even if the authoritarian populism doesn’t.
The thing about powder kegs is, they don’t explode on their own. A powder keg can sit in your basement unsparked for a hundred years, never to interrupt your life, but always a threat. Or it can explode, of course.
I guess the moral is, the nutsos alone aren’t the threat. They didn’t arise from the ether as fully-formed crackpots ready to ruin some bright January day in our dear nation. They’re here because the system is breaking. Just because there’s a plausible future where we can all look back in hindsight and say, “Yeah, that wasn’t so big of a deal after all!”, doesn’t mean that there’s no threat. Just because the powder keg hasn’t exploded after 100 years, and maybe won’t explode for another 100 after that, doesn’t mean it can’t ignite in Year 201.
Elites like Bill Kristol may be alarmed by the nutsos, but they should be more alarmed that they themselves created the nutsos.
For example, intersectionality and CRT were developments of the 80’s.
>I guess the moral is, the nutsos alone aren’t the threat. They didn’t arise from the ether as fully-formed crackpots ready to ruin some bright January day in our dear nation. They’re here because the system is breaking. Just because there’s a plausible future where we can all look back in hindsight and say, “Yeah, that wasn’t so big of a deal after all!”, doesn’t mean that there’s no threat. Just because the powder keg hasn’t exploded after 100 years, and maybe won’t explode for another 100 after that, doesn’t mean it can’t ignite in Year 201.
The problem with changing the system is that a lot of politicians like being able to hide behind the filibuster so they can continue to make deals with corporate lobbyists. They like the system as it is. And they don't want to switch to a talking filibuster or one that requires the minority to find 40 votes to sustain it, because they don't want to have to spend a whole lot of time on the floor. They'd rather spend it fundraising and making backroom deals.
Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are just the tip of the iceberg in that regard. They take the heat so other Democrats don't have to. Sure, this is probably Manchin's last term and Sinema may end up being the bad guy in this whole debate, but the thing is, they've got cushy jobs on K Street waiting for them on the other side of any election loss. And once they're gone, more such politicians will undoubtedly emerge.