Democrats + Big Business = ?

Posted on by

Peter Zeihan writes,

eight years of Obamaesque inaction, four years of Trumpian irregularity, and a never-ending parade of preening, feckless wankers in Congress has prompted American businesses to take a far more active role in topics we all until recently thought of as the exclusive province of government. Civic planning. The environment. Immigration. Education. Income inequality. Racial inequality. Boardrooms across all sectors now regularly bear witness to discussions of all. The social chasm between business and the Democrats isn’t nearly as wide as it once was.

He describes a scenario in which the business community aligns with the Democrats. I would say that such an alliance would reduce the probability that the U.S. goes down the path of Lenin’s Russia, but it will strongly increase the probability that the U.S. goes down the path of Mussolini’s Italy.

37 thoughts on “Democrats + Big Business = ?”

  1. I could not agree more with this evaluation of Corporate America. I have worked for multiple large organizations over the last two decades and I do not think I can over exaggerate the change that has occurred over the last couple of years. At my organization I was assigned, Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson to read and I have had at least 4 one hour sessions to discuss the book with my manager and peers. This is in addition, to the more than 8 sessions on Diversity and Inclusion in response to the summer protests. In all of these discussions it is clear to me that there is only one right answer.

    I’ll add that I agree as human beings we should all work to make the world a better place, but it seems that we are way out of the scope for the mission of the company.

  2. California is the future of the US, and Latin America is the future of California. So, it’s most likely that the US goes down the Latin American path, with a lot of “big personalities” for politicians, and oscillating between the economic hard left (The Castros, Chavez-Maduro, Lula, Morales, Ortega, Allende) to somewhat more “Gated-enclave elites”-friendly regimes, and probably with the same periodic fiscal / debt crisis problems.

    • “California is the future of the US, and Latin America is the future of California.”

      +1 thank you, a perfect summary.

      • Indeed, but Latin America with more money, so more ability to push destructive policy and rack up a higher body count.

        • Didn’t Tyler say the future of our countries mixed race deplorables was up chucked favelas with better internet.

          “similar to the better dwellings you might find in a Rio de Janeiro favela. The quality of the water and electrical infrastructure might be low by American standards, though we could supplement the neighborhood with free municipal wireless….” (p. 244)

          • More important question: who’s going to write the definitive ethnic dining guide to the favelas?

            The elites need to know where to visit on the weekends (but, never after dusk).

    • This kind of historicism is pernicious nonsense for reasons well described by Karl Popper.

      The future course of history is fundamentally unpredictable. The worst kinds of authoritarianism and totalitarianism have always been justified by some version of historicism that promises to either avoid some future apocalypse or deliver some utopian future.

      There have been many times in our history when the future appeared much more desperate than this. The beginning of the Civil War, the 30’s when we were dealing with the Great Depression and the explosive growth of right and left wing totalitarianism, and the late 60’s and early 70’s when domestic political violence and rioting were much worse than today are obvious examples.

      • The Rebs were doomed from the start. Radical ideologies never got close to power in the USA in the 1930s. And the urban unrest of the 60s and 70s had an escape valve in the suburbs that is less tenable today. These were problems, but not existential problems.

        If you’ve got good genes, nothing is a problem in the long run. Having your cities carpet bombed and atom bombed isn’t a problem. Living through Mao and loosing decades to communism isn’t a problem. Anything you can think up, not a problem. On a long enough timeline, the genes shine through, and you end up a prosperous and pleasant society in the long run.

        If you don’t have the genes, Handle describes what that is like pretty well. If middling genes then middle income trap that oscillates between mediocre years and Venezuela type crisis. If terrible genes then Haiti. If you’re some halfway combination of Latin America with a bit larger cognitive elite, you get up chucked Latin America like Cowen wrote about.

        The crisis of America is a crisis of genetics, and that’s a heck of a lot more of a crisis than whether the Union can triumph over some hill crackers they outnumber 5 to 1 and outproduced them 32 to 1.

        • >—“If you’ve got good genes, nothing is a problem in the long run.”

          Yeah, so the America Civil War wasn’t really a much of a crisis in “the long run” then. And, of course, it is a collectivist “you” who is OK in this analysis. Individuals are insignificant.

          And it is precisely this focus on “the long run” and devaluing of the individual that has always made this kind of historicism the preferred tool for authoritarians. These future utopian versus dystopian scenarios can devalue current lives so easily and justify just about anything. Especially if the perceived necessary costs are imposed on people of the wrong race or “genetics.”

          >—“The crisis of America is a crisis of genetics…”

          No the crisis of America is a crisis of authoritarianism rising on both right and left. Due to the Flynn Effect IQ tests have to constantly be re-normed. If they weren’t our grandparent’s generation have been borderline retarded by todays standards. Genes change slowly. IQ changes much faster and culture can change much faster yet.

          It is your particular nightmare to live in a world where, whatever you do, half the population remains stubbornly of below average intelligence.

          • “No the crisis of America is a crisis of authoritarianism rising on both right and left.”

            Could you please flesh this out a bit? I think I already understand your views on the right (at least for Trump), so more interested to read what you have to say about the left.

          • Sure Hans, be happy to.

            The extremes of political left (and right) are most notable for their increasing willingness to use violence (I mean here both private violence and the coercive powers of government) in order to advance their political goals. Their political goals tend to be opposite in a way I will describe in a minute.

            But both extremes also tend to appeal to personality types that are more concerned with personal power than political philosophy. So the fact that both extremes compete for the allegiance of the same people makes them hate each other even more and be more inclined to see each other as the prime enemy.

            And so we see an authoritarian like Putin moving easily from being a sincerely enthusiastic KGB communist to a fascist kleptocrat who now loves private property and extreme inequality. Either one works for him as long as he has power.

            But for the many who do care about political philosophy, right and left are opposites. The left tends to stand for more equality of outcomes, and be internationalist in values.

            The right tends to a Nietzchean celebration of hierarchic inequality and a fervent nationalism that sees many natural enemies in the world.

            The left tends to seek to reform an embarrassingly oppressive past while the right tends to seek the recovery of a lost prior greatness and see civilization itself as threatened by leftist reforms.

            A centrist sees political freedom as more fundamental than economic freedom. Both extremes become more comfortable with doing away with political freedom in service of their vision of economic freedom.

            For the centrist, the advantage of preserving democracy is that the inevitable errors in government are corrected much more easily than in more authoritarian states of right or left. So then Hayek was afraid that European socialism would be a one way ratchet towards communism. But it wasn’t because democracy was preserved. Throughout northern Europe, socialism was rolled back and markets were eventually relied on much more as it became obvious that socialism was causing economic stagnation.

            Bernie Sanders will tell you that by “democratic socialism” he means what they have in the Nordic countries today. But those countries rely on relatively free markets with a lot of taxation on the middle class to pay for a big social safety net for the middle class. Many have done away with minimum wages and estate taxes. They do allow people to get rich. They are not under the dangerous illusion that it can all be paid for by just taxing the rich.

            The American left today tends to be woefully ignorant of all this and is losing its ability to even argue competently for the reforms it should be embracing by refusing to even listen to the people who disagree with it. More and more they don’t even know what he arguments are on the right.

            Bernie ought to hate inequality because he hates the idea that some people are poor. It seems to me he is more offended by the fact that some people are rich.

            After WWII the government sponsored social safety nets that were put in place in the west had very broad popular support. That movement was based more on a theory of politics and history than a theory of economics. The people who lived through that era tended to be quite convinced that too much inequality had fed both political extremes in a way that, in the end, didn’t even benefit the rich. I think they were right.

          • “justify just about anything. ”

            You believe unlimited violence is justified to provide what you believe every individual should have. I believe that society doesn’t have an obligation to do that. I don’t share your violent and avaricious impulses.

            The Flynn Effect reference just shows how little you know about IQ testing and intelligence. It’s embracing to even bring up, and show your views are based entirely on ignorance.

            “half the population remains stubbornly of below average intelligence.”

            But what is the average? That’s what matters.

            “It is your particular nightmare to live in a world”

            The nightmare world I want to live in is the OECD without lots of third world immigration. Horror of horrors.

    • I would say France is the future of California (and ultimately the US). Or Italy, Spain, or Portugal.Would to God we could have the relatively soft landing of Sweden (Switzerland being sadly off the table), but that’s not where we’re going.

      • This looks like my commute to Alameda via downtown Oakland circa 2016. I can only imagine that it’s gotten even worse.

        Some nice views of the honey buckets at the link! But, are they gender neutral?

  3. “There is a big difference between sacking a Seven-Eleven and beating a cop to death on the steps of the People’s House.”
    If ANTIFA had only looted one Seven-Eleven, his point would be valid. However, they spent the entire summer burning and looting countless stores and residences. They launched attacks at Federal Courthouses. At least a dozen people were killed during those riots.
    These riots occurred mostly in Democratic controlled cities. The Democrats did nothing, at least until it became clear in the polls that the riots were hurting Democrats.
    It will take a lot more than the Jan 6 riot (an inexcusable riot) to convince me that the Democrats are the law and order party.

    • …that the Democrats are the law and order party.

      Yeah, Zeihan is really reaching, claiming that one “murdered” policeman has flipped this political allegiance. The Dem leadership promptly militarize DC (something they wouldn’t do for other parts of the country that would have liked some help against rioters) and gleefully announce all National Guardsmen are being vetted for badthinking. Not the greatest way to welcome your new constituents.

      • I agree that Democrats have little chance of being the law and order party in the near future. No one who isn’t already deeply aligned with the Democrats will be able to take that idea seriously until the 2020 summer riots fade from memory.

        I do think it is reasonable to say that after the Capitol event, it may be the case that Republicans are no longer be automatically perceived as such, and that going forward being the party of law and order may be up for grabs. But that will depend on a track record of consistent concrete action to that effect, and not only when it benefits your team.

  4. Paleo-libertarian Ilana Mercer offered a different simile that was seems new and insightful: the USA as a petro-state:

    “The profit structure, moreover, within many a Deep Tech company is reminiscent of that of a Petrostate. Billions flow top-down, from these sheik-dominated organizations—Bill Gates, Satya Nadella, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos—to their pet political fiefdoms.
    Dissident Americans take comfort in the fact that our leper-like deplatforming—financial and otherwise—is executed by private companies. Discrimination, aver the libertarian-minded among us, is the prerogative of private property. Or, so we console ourselves. We’re safe. After all, aggression for aggression’s sake, as we libertarians have long maintained, is the modus operandi of the state, not of free enterprise. 
    Yet, here we are! In more effectively banishing people and their products from the market, private multinationals are posing a serious competition to the State. “

    I like this simile because of the emphasis in Islam and in the USA on submission, the role of religious police, and the mullahs in industry.

    Deep tech will gain even more power in the weeks and months to come. The voting process is transmogrifying into a farce. The mail-in ballot is not a secret ballot and the days of a secret ballot are near an end. There is a at least a 50/50 chance the Congress will nationalize the voting process and require all voting by mail and when that happens you can be sure that there will be nothing in place to prevent a Blackrock from requiring the businesses they have money in to require their employees to complete and submit their ballots for harvesting under the direction supervision of Blackrock employees.

    And the odds are that any dissident bad thought will be criminalized and prohibited from using the internet. For example, if in your private email you use plain English pronouns or phrases like “biological male,” “real woman,” or “surgically mutilated male pretending to be female “ the chances are very high that soon google or Facebook will report you and you will be criminally prosecuted for hate speech. It is already happening in the UK.

    Edward Ring takes a fair shot at libertarians for bringing about this state of affairs. He notes that libertarians won their priorities: “After all, legalized drugs, open borders, “free trade,” privatized public space, destruction of single-family zoning, and online censorship by monopolies are all policies supported by libertarians, progressives, and neoliberals alike.” He suggests maybe rethinking that bargain: “

  5. “eight years of Obamaesque inaction, four years of Trumpian irregularity, and a never-ending parade of preening, feckless wankers in Congress has prompted American businesses to take a far more active role in topics we all until recently thought of as the exclusive province of government.”

    I think this is a specious assertion of causality. Large companies are assuming the roles he described because they have realized that it is very much in their interest to do so. Mimicking and/or displacing the government only broadens their entrenchment in the (profitable) status quo. It’s the same reason why Pablo Escobar built hospitals and schools in Medellin.

    • Human resources departments are aware that job candidates from top schools with more than one job offer, will often choose the company that is WOKE-er, greener, and virtue signals more energetically. It’s largely about recruitment, according to one HR professional of my acquaintance.

      • I remember reading “The Coddling of the American Mind” at a pool in Hawaii in October 2018, shortly after it was published. My thoughts at the time:

        1) will this spread like a virus from college campuses to corporate America or will it stay contained?

        2) if it does spread, we as a country, are probably completely screwed.

        Fast forward a couple of years…how are things going?

        • …how are things going?

          LOL

          “Coddling” was too optimistic with its premise that if we fix childhood and schooling our kids will be all right. But we have Joe Biden, raised before our early years were ruined, lecturing us on how history needs to be re-written. John Brennan, 65 years old, wanting me to be put in a gulag for badthinking. The rot is in every institution that gets caught up in these holiness death spirals.

  6. ” I would say that such an alliance would reduce the probability that the U.S. goes down the path of Lenin’s Russia, but it will strongly increase the probability that the U.S. goes down the path of Mussolini’s Italy.”

    I’m not sure I agree. The revolutionary types aren’t likely to be assuaged by corporate donations. I think you’re expressing a position commonly held on the anti-woke (or just very extreme) left (or right) that ‘woke capital’ is successfully co-opting progressivism away from class warfare (though for them this is a bad thing). I see it more as capitalists selling leftists the rope they’ll use to hang them. In less metaphorical/hyperbolic terms: I don’t think the corporate-Democratic alliance will do anything to slow the regulation/redistribution/nationalization train.

  8. Sorry, Arnold. I didn’t know P. Zaihan and I started to read the first part of his 4 part story of “After Trump”. I stopped quickly because I laugh at this paragraph:

    “The world is a messy, often violent place. Wars over this or that patch of land, or this
    or that resource, have dominated all of recorded history…until recently. After World
    War II the Americans crafted the world’s first true global Order, wielding their
    unparalleled military in a manner that enabled all countries to participate in global
    trade without needing to protect their production, their citizens, or the ebb and flow of
    materials and goods shipments. We did it to purchase the loyalty of the allies to fight
    the Cold War, but the American rationale hardly prevented the strategy from
    transforming our world.”

    How can he claim “until recently” because Americans crafted the world’s first true global Order? It’s a joke. Nobody who assumes that can explain what has been happening since any year after WWII, and in particular since 1991.

    A waste of time.

    • And early today I continue laughing, this time at Tyler’s excitement about a research paper
      https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/money-is-good-at-more-margins-than-you-might-have-thought.html
      in which the author “discovers” that the marginal utility of income is still positive well beyond us$75,000 per year (I didn’t bother to check if he found that the second derivative was still positive).

      The author should have interviewed Biden, Obama, Clinton, and their families to know how much they enjoy to have much larger incomes than us$75,000. They know how many little puppets they can buy with money taken from others, and he could have asked people like Greg G to know how many little puppets like him are for sale.

      • What? You mean I could be paid for this? Where’s my damn money then? I’ve been doing this pro bono.

        Tyler is right! I would very much enjoy to have more money despite already making well in excess of 75k.

        They say that if you can do what you love you will never work a day in your life. So I will carry on either way but it does sound like I qualify for, and should be paid, this additional money which I would very much enjoy to have.

  9. The Donks have gotten into bed with the multinationals, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Hollywood. That’s the money, and big money at that.

    The Donks still need votes, so they go heavy on identity politics. (The ‘Phants used to do the Jesus thing).

    Note that Donk-party concern for non-whites rarely, if ever, extends to 1.4 billion Chinese living under the CCP, which has become increasingly oppressive for 30 years running.

    Indeed, Donk poster-boys at the NBA forbid discussion about Hong Kong….

  10. Arnold, rather than wasting time with P. Zaihan’s nonsense view of what is going on, I suggest reading

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244071

    in which the authors attempt to develop the idea that the new big-tech elite is a class for itself. Yes, the authors recognize how limited their evidence is.

    Elites are hard to study. We can argue that the press elite is also a class for itself — just read Matt Taibbi’s latest article

    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-echo-chamber-era?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3ODI5MDI2LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozMTc4MzE4OCwiXyI6IjdhZnA1IiwiaWF0IjoxNjExMzk0ODM1LCJleHAiOjE2MTEzOTg0MzUsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xMDQyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.b2LPDaLRjCKujaDYF9IgFwG97Zu6m6zUXlEXQ1bUtXA

    but Taibbi’s arguments are speculative and he doesn’t provide evidence. It may an elite, but for itself?

    All elites are expected to have and enjoy power but we are from relating properly the two concepts.

Comments are closed.