Category Archives: Politics

Should they be called Marxists?

Posted on by

Yoram Hazony says so.

recognize the movement presently seeking to overthrow liberalism for what it is: an updated version of Marxism. I do not say this to disparage anyone. I say this because it is true. And because recognizing this truth will help us understand what we are facing.

I recommend the whole essay. There is no way to give it justice by quoting excerpts. But here are a couple:

what if it turned out that liberalism has a tendency to give way and transfer power to Marxists within a few decades? Far from being the opposite of Marxism, liberalism would merely be a gateway to Marxism.

. . .The Marxists who have seized control of the means of producing and disseminating ideas in America cannot, without betraying their cause, confer legitimacy on any conservative government. And they cannot grant legitimacy to any form of liberalism that is not supine before them. This means that whatever President Trump’s electoral fortunes, the “resistance” is not going to end. It is just beginning.

His conclusion:

Liberals will have to choose between two alternatives: either they will submit to the Marxists, and help them bring democracy in America to an end. Or they will assemble a pro-democracy alliance with conservatives. There aren’t any other choices.

But the essay does not appear where liberals will read it.

Cultural evolution and economics

Posted on by

Nathan Nunn writes,

There are two primary benefits that culture provides over rationality. First, culture-based decision-making provides a quick and easy way to make decisions. To the extent that rational decision-making (narrowly defined) requires costs due to information acquisition or cognitive processing, then acting on one’s transmitted cultural traditions and values saves on these costs. The second benefit is that relying on culture allows for cumulative learning.

More separate excerpts below.
Continue reading →

Bret Weinstein and Tom Bilyeu, annotated

Posted on by

A two-hour conversation with Bret Weinstein and Tom Bilyeu. When I listened, I sped it up 25 percent. Although they go on several tangents, the main theme is the high level of political tension that currently threatens the country and Bret’s proposed solution, which is a third-party ticket that would involve power sharing by a liberal and a conservative, each of whom is a cut above most politicians in terms of desire to do what is best for the country and mental flexibility to work toward solutions.

I should say at the outset that while I appreciate most of what Bret Weinstein has to say on this and other podcasts, I discount his proposal, because I think that our problems are intellectual, cultural, anthropological, and psychological more than they are political. Our universities have been deformed, so that they elevate conformist mediocrity over the wisdom that comes from curiosity and open-mindedness. Our culture is too divided and antagonistic. Our individual brains and our collective norms have not adapted successfully to the communication environment that has emerged in the last decade. And the pandemic has exacerbated our individual psychological problems, leading us to be more willing to violate norms of non-violence. Continue reading →

Michael Anton’s Republican Party

Posted on by

Michael Anton writes,

What’s needed, then, is a Trumpist political party focused squarely on “old economy”—rural, manufacturing, and blue-collar interests. Which means, in most if not all cases, a party actively opposed to the program of the ruling class. If the Republican Party can become that, all to the good. If it can’t, it should go out of business.

To me, that sounds like a party that stands for stagnation. A party with no vision for the future, only nostalgia for the past.

I will grant that the future on offer from the Democratic Party is dystopian. In my view, they want to “reform” what works (the market). They want to double down on what fails (state-run and state-subsidized education, health care, and “green” energy). And they want to cozy up to the religion that persecutes heretics.

The Republican Party that I would prefer would offer a better vision of the future. Let health care and education be reformed by market forces. Do so by reducing subsidies to demand and restrictions on supply. And protect the principles of the first amendment from the religion that persecutes heretics.

Finding the best ideas

Posted on by

A commenter asks

How does one find the best ideas at present?

I think an important heuristic is to consider a person’s error correction mechanism. The vast majority of people try to create the impression that they are never wrong. That makes them untrustworthy by my heuristic.

One of the reasons that Scott Alexander is (was? will SlateStarCodex come back?) such a useful source of ideas is that he is very diligent, and even systematic, about error correction.

The authoritarian personality

Posted on by

This was in infamous concept that supposedly characterized the right. But Jordan Moss and Peter J. O’Connor write,

Individuals high in authoritarianism – regardless of whether the hold politically correct or rightwing views – tend to score highly on DT and entitlement. Such individuals therefore are statistically more likely than average to be higher in psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and entitlement. We found both moderate bivariate effects and unique effects (regression coefficients) and conclude that the DT and entitlement have important shared and unique effects in predicting our attitudinal outcomes.

Pointer from Zaid Jilani.

In other words, somebody who likes to act out extreme political views is likely to have the “dark triad” (DT) personality characteristics. But we are in an environment of “the other side does it,” so people are willing to excuse the nuts on their own side, which encourages them.

By the way, I have not seen one defense of President Trump’s executive orders bypassing Congress on the next round of “stimulus” that isn’t of the form “the other side does it.” That means it is not an acceptable defense, in my view.

Andrew Sullivan on the religion that persecutes heretics

Posted on by

Andrew Sullivan writes,

There is no such thing as persuasion in this paradigm, because persuasion assumes an equal relationship between two people based on reason. And there is no reason and no equality. There is only power. This is the point of telling students, for example, to “check their privilege” before opening their mouths on campus. You have to measure the power dynamic between you and the other person first of all; you do this by quickly noting your interlocutor’s place in the system of oppression, and your own, before any dialogue can occur. And if your interlocutor is lower down in the matrix of identity, your job is to defer and to listen.

He is reviewing the book by Lindsay and Pluckrose, which will be out in a couple of weeks.

The masses are revolting

Posted on by

Michael Huemer writes,

Today, any schmuck with a computer and an internet connection can participate in the distribution of information and ideas in our society. That has some good aspects (there is a lot more information available, and you can learn about stories that the media elites wouldn’t have covered). But it also results in a lot more content expressing thoughts and values that are more typical of the masses than of the elite. And that means a lot more terrible ideas. The people with authoritarian values and irrational, conspiratorial ways of thinking were always out there; now they have platforms.

Perhaps should be filed under Martin Gurri watch.

The other side does it

Posted on by

A phenomenon that I am very alert to is that of justifying our side doing something wrong by saying that the other side does it. (Is there a name for this?) For example, someone left a comment on this site that implied that it made sense for blacks to treat police with disrespect, because police treat blacks with disrespect. Another common example is defending trade barriers as “retaliation” for another country’s trade barriers.

If blacks retaliate for racist treatment by resisting arrest or threatening police, this is likely to make things worse, rather than better. If we retaliate for trade barriers by putting up trade barriers, this is likely to make things worse, rather than better.

I would say that when you do something bad and, when asked to justify it, all you can come up with is “the other side did it to us,” then you are pretty desperate to rationalize your actions. If your program spits out “Our side is entitled to commit atrocities,” there is a bug in your logic somewhere.