If you have not yet heard the podcast with Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan, I strongly recommend it. Rauch thinks that “the counter-movement is beginning to form” against the religion that punishes heretics. Along the way, he and Sullivan get into some heated, but friendly, disagreements.

One of the disagreements concerns whether the mainstream media has earned distrust or not. Sullivan and I would say that it has. Rauch tries to argue otherwise. On the lab leak hypothesis, for example, Rauch argues that we should give the media credit for eventually turning around. Sullivan points out that media hatred of Mr. Trump was the reason that they failed in the first place. But listen to the episode before you comment.

In an interview with Ezra Klein, Obama says,

I forget whether it was Clarence Darrow, or Abraham Lincoln, or some apocryphal figure in the past who said the best way to win an argument is to first be able to make the other person’s argument better than they can.

. . .none of us have a monopoly on truth. It admits doubt, in terms of our own perspectives. But if you practice it long enough, at least for me, it actually allows you to not always persuade others, but at least have some solid ground that you can stand on

Neither Klein nor Obama cite Julia Galef’s book, and the rest of the interview is uninteresting.

In their debate sponsored by Bari Weiss, Christopher Rufo argues that illiberalism on the right, as exemplified by the January 6 Capitol riot, is weak and marginal. But he sees illiberalism on the left as hegemonic, or nearly so.

David French disagrees. Instead, he sees illiberalism on both left and right as having roughly equal status. On this issue, it appears to me that French flails unconvincingly.

I see the left-right difference this way: On the right, those who are ideologically dedicated to illiberalism (Vermeule, for example) lack followers, and the large followings (Trump’s, for example) lack ideological cohesion; In contrast, the illiberal wing of the left has institutional presence, ideological dedication, and leader-follower alignment.

Jonathan Rauch (minute 36+) argues that liberals like himself did not see the illiberalism on the left coming. He thinks that liberals will start to get organized and fight back. I am looking forward to Rauch’s new book.

Some possible outcomes for the future:

1. The “good left” (Rauch and others) overpowers the illiberal Woke left. p = .05

2. The illiberal Woke left suffers a catastrophic electoral defeat at the hands of a non-populist right. p = .05

3. The illiberal Woke left and the populist right continue to dominate political dynamics, with today’s level of discomfort or more. p = .40

4. The U.S. experiences an era of Woke totalitarianism that lasts for a couple of decades, but which eventually collapses into something else (not necessarily good) p = .25

5. Academia, journalism, traditional media, and government become empty battlegrounds, as technological change results in very different forms of social organization (call this the Balaji scenario, if you will). p = .25

Bari Weiss hosts a debate between David French and Christopher Rufo. They are arguing about state laws directed against Critical Race Theory. But they do not debate the same laws.

French argues against laws that would prevent a teacher from presenting Critical Race Theory. Rufo argues in favor of laws that would prevent a teacher from forcing students to adopt racialist tenets, whether those of CRT or others.

As each formulates it, I would support both French and Rufo. It boils down to what the laws actually say.

David French argues that it is illiberal to be passing laws about what can and cannot be taught in schools. Even if you find Christopher Rufo’s counter-arguments persuasive, I think that “ban the teaching of X” is a bad look for those of us fighting on behalf of liberal values.

I would prefer to approach this as a “freedom of conscience” issue. Just as students should be protected from religious indoctrination in public schools, they should be protected from having to subscribe to a particular racial doctrine.

In an essay, I write,

Even if you could somehow purge social media of every lie, it would still be a sewer. Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, and Fox News are outrage machines. The articles and posts that attract approval and sharing are those that make people in one tribe feel more reassured that the other tribe is evil.

The May Fantasy Intellectual Teams wound up.

The winning team had leading scorers in every category. Podcasters Tyler Cowen, Andrew Sullivan, and Yascha Mounk asked many Devil’s Advocate questions of their guests. Cowen, Mounk, and Nate Silver contributed points in the Open Mind category. Silver contributed as expected in the Thinking in Bets category. Cowen and Jonathan Rauch helped in the discussion-starter category.

I suggest some essays and podcasts that pertain to liberal values.

The fantasy intellectual who is emerging as Most Valuable Player by leading in several scoring categories is Robert Wright. Listen to what Wright says to Robert Wiblin, especially minutes 28-38, about the way that tribalism and psychological biases are impediments to solving important problems. The rest of the podcast elaborates on these themes.

Matt Yglesias writes,

CDC stats say about 95,000 excess deaths each year can be attributed to alcohol abuse, of which about 10,000 are drunk driving fatalities. So looked at one way, booze is deadlier than guns. Looked at another way, gun murder is a more serious problem than drunk driving. Either way, to the extent that you’re inclined to see the gun situation as worth major legislative action, I think it’s certainly worth looking at alcohol as well. Indeed, scholars think that something like 40% of murders involves the use of alcohol, so the issues really are fairly comparable.

It’s a great piece, probably paywalled.