Very good piece. I saw a reference to your writing on Developmental Politics.
I am 1/3 of the way through the book I would have written about our system had I pursued a PhD beyond my BA in Political Science 50 years ago. Much of our issues are structural, and the result of elite failure. https://americanexception.com/book/
Several of the thinkers who you mention are critics of the excesses of wokism. As part of those excesses, people are denounced and charged with transgressions without any finding of facts or intent, or application of a moral basis. That’s vigilantism, and liberal discourse is a casualty. The means of this, as you say, are “scaring doubters, resisters, and critics who otherwise considered themselves ‘on the left’ into silence, submission, and/or ostrich-like denial. (One reason, obviously, why this is a bad deal is that targeted individuals may become generally alienated from progressive political currents, or at least participation in those.)
Jacobinism is one extreme approach; another would be a kind of counter-Jacobinism that whitewashes or ignores inequities that have to do with the forms and results of oppression. Those thinkers who are politically heterodox aren’t off the hook, of course, from addressing issues of systemic injustice. (Yang has a refreshing approach in that his program clearly seeks to solve the roots of division in American society.) One of the demands of the wokesters – a valid one, I think – is that anyone who has a forum has a responsibility in these times to speak to matters of social justice. Some of these matters involve racism or sexism, and the wokesters don’t want people to avoid the conversations on these, whatever their job or field may be.
Here's an update from a former Twitter employee, when he and I discussed Carol's points on Fragmentation and Conflict. Twitter's revenue stream depends on the number of logged-in users per month multiplied by the average number of hits on ads. (User engagement isn't part of the business model.) Twitter endeavors to increase the number of log-ins per month from its user base, much of which only active now and then. The best way to increase log-ins, and therefore ad revenue, is manufactured controversy. This slops over onto journalism, and slops again from journalism into politics.
The more conservatives were banned from Twitter, the less the manufactured controversy, the fewer monthly log-ins, and the less the ad revenue. Visualize conservatives as the piñata while progressives were the kids with sticks. What if the piñata shrinks so there's less candy to be had? Or if the piñata disappears altogether? No more fun, game over! Banning conservatives was a poor business decision. Twitter became boring, nothing but a progressive echo chamber. Boredom stifles log-ins and ad revenue. This is one reason why Elon Musk wants free speech on Twitter, starting with luring Trump back onto the platform.
The following points about President Trump apply with equal force to other conservatives who ventured into the Twitterverse:
When President Trump was still on Twitter, he had more followers than Pope Francis and comparable numbers to major pop stars. (in some ways, President Trump himself is a species of pop star.) It is likely that a considerable number of his followers were progressives who enjoyed getting triggered and posting snark, criticisms, and whatnot. The other followers were Trump fans. Twitter kept the fun going for progressives by restricting conservative posts somewhat (but not completely), while giving progressives free rein. The Trump fans also enjoyed getting triggered when their hero was made into a piñata.
Result: more wrath, which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Spot on assessment, especially the list, items 1-9!
There's an additional point to consider: market segmentation. Both legacy corporate media and upstart online media have become hybrids of "news and opinion" and "shows". The News & Opinion portion purports to be real & accurate & valuable for everyone, while the Shows portion is built on a business model designed to attract eyeballs within a niche market. The Internet lowered barriers to entry drastically: anyone can produce videos, blogs, SubStacks, etc. It's no longer necessary to employ a stable of reporters and editors, or to own a building and printing presses. This contributes to the pressure to create niche markets, each with its own favorite Shows....which generates a tribal mentality...and creates mental bubbles. All this slops over onto politics.
Very clear overview of the past 50+ years of the detrimental influence of neo-liberalism.
If the entirety of this process was seen as a collective dream, how would it all look different - a "dream" moved by an underlying process of awakening?
Very good piece. I saw a reference to your writing on Developmental Politics.
I am 1/3 of the way through the book I would have written about our system had I pursued a PhD beyond my BA in Political Science 50 years ago. Much of our issues are structural, and the result of elite failure. https://americanexception.com/book/
Several of the thinkers who you mention are critics of the excesses of wokism. As part of those excesses, people are denounced and charged with transgressions without any finding of facts or intent, or application of a moral basis. That’s vigilantism, and liberal discourse is a casualty. The means of this, as you say, are “scaring doubters, resisters, and critics who otherwise considered themselves ‘on the left’ into silence, submission, and/or ostrich-like denial. (One reason, obviously, why this is a bad deal is that targeted individuals may become generally alienated from progressive political currents, or at least participation in those.)
Jacobinism is one extreme approach; another would be a kind of counter-Jacobinism that whitewashes or ignores inequities that have to do with the forms and results of oppression. Those thinkers who are politically heterodox aren’t off the hook, of course, from addressing issues of systemic injustice. (Yang has a refreshing approach in that his program clearly seeks to solve the roots of division in American society.) One of the demands of the wokesters – a valid one, I think – is that anyone who has a forum has a responsibility in these times to speak to matters of social justice. Some of these matters involve racism or sexism, and the wokesters don’t want people to avoid the conversations on these, whatever their job or field may be.
Here's an update from a former Twitter employee, when he and I discussed Carol's points on Fragmentation and Conflict. Twitter's revenue stream depends on the number of logged-in users per month multiplied by the average number of hits on ads. (User engagement isn't part of the business model.) Twitter endeavors to increase the number of log-ins per month from its user base, much of which only active now and then. The best way to increase log-ins, and therefore ad revenue, is manufactured controversy. This slops over onto journalism, and slops again from journalism into politics.
The more conservatives were banned from Twitter, the less the manufactured controversy, the fewer monthly log-ins, and the less the ad revenue. Visualize conservatives as the piñata while progressives were the kids with sticks. What if the piñata shrinks so there's less candy to be had? Or if the piñata disappears altogether? No more fun, game over! Banning conservatives was a poor business decision. Twitter became boring, nothing but a progressive echo chamber. Boredom stifles log-ins and ad revenue. This is one reason why Elon Musk wants free speech on Twitter, starting with luring Trump back onto the platform.
The following points about President Trump apply with equal force to other conservatives who ventured into the Twitterverse:
When President Trump was still on Twitter, he had more followers than Pope Francis and comparable numbers to major pop stars. (in some ways, President Trump himself is a species of pop star.) It is likely that a considerable number of his followers were progressives who enjoyed getting triggered and posting snark, criticisms, and whatnot. The other followers were Trump fans. Twitter kept the fun going for progressives by restricting conservative posts somewhat (but not completely), while giving progressives free rein. The Trump fans also enjoyed getting triggered when their hero was made into a piñata.
Result: more wrath, which is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Spot on assessment, especially the list, items 1-9!
There's an additional point to consider: market segmentation. Both legacy corporate media and upstart online media have become hybrids of "news and opinion" and "shows". The News & Opinion portion purports to be real & accurate & valuable for everyone, while the Shows portion is built on a business model designed to attract eyeballs within a niche market. The Internet lowered barriers to entry drastically: anyone can produce videos, blogs, SubStacks, etc. It's no longer necessary to employ a stable of reporters and editors, or to own a building and printing presses. This contributes to the pressure to create niche markets, each with its own favorite Shows....which generates a tribal mentality...and creates mental bubbles. All this slops over onto politics.
Very clear overview of the past 50+ years of the detrimental influence of neo-liberalism.
If the entirety of this process was seen as a collective dream, how would it all look different - a "dream" moved by an underlying process of awakening?
A cogent assessment. Thank you.
Great piece, thank you.