The Three Languages of Politics is the subject of a podcast by Darnell Samuels and Joel Nicoloff, which I found heartwarming and head-sobering. It was heartwarming in that they clearly understood and bought into the book. It was head-sobering to consider how unconventional they are. If all I tell you is that they are young and Canadian, you are unlikely to guess their intellectual framework(s).
I hope you will listen and enjoy.
That was a bracing description of the primal means of demonstrating tribal loyalties, tribal sacrifice and tribal response, “scoring points with your tribe,” particularly performing an act of war on others. Human nature does not change. “We have historically needed to belong to groups with a higher moral purpose, a need met increasingly by political affiliation.” One would assume political affiliation would be more open to slow thinking and seeking different angles than religion, but perhaps not.
I share the podcasters’ struggle with the present definition of racism, which has shifted from actions like “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race,” to anything that “feels” bad and any disparity in outcomes, not merely access. Impoverished Asians score higher on the SAT than the wealthiest quintile of Blacks. Therefore, according to many in higher ed, who are overwhelmingly orthodox adherents of the religion of diversity, any inquiry into why this may be so is racist (MSU’s Stephen Hsu, as well as Charles Murray et al.); the SAT is racist; and the SAT must be eliminated, along with anything else that results in disparate outcomes for Blacks.
Not being a big fan of podcasts other than when out on the road, I have to say this was a fairly pleasant experience. It was most interesting listening to them talk about conservatives: conservatives have a real marketing and outreach problem.
Unrelated observation: Canada’s 2019 total GDP was about $1.7 trillion, and the USA fy 2019 federal budget alone was about $3.4 trillion. Is it just me, or is the USA simply too big to operate as a single country and still retain individual rights and popular sovereignty?
Somewhat off topic, my apologies.
Gurri has something pointed out the more frequent number of protests, and that the participants don’t actually have any consensus on any particular demands or goals (though they are some particular self-appointed leaders / advocates who can build websites and donation accounts and come up with lists, but no good way to weigh the actual popular support behind any of that.)
Maybe one should look at it with a costs-benefits approach.
The benefits of participating in the protest movement are probably larger than ever, because social media allows one to easily, cheaply, and conspicuously broadcast one’s participation in these events. You can say, “Did you see that thing on Twitter?! I was there!” Or you hhav a good chance of catching some dramatic incident on video, and dozens media companies will immediately contact you with lucrative offers for the rights.
Meanwhile, the costs are lower than ever, because almost everywhere, the police response in proportion to the activity is as low as ever, especially compared to relatively recent history of extremely rapid and violent crushing of riots and demonstrations with many people arrested and many of those receiving serious criminal penalties. Nowadays the expected value of the risk is much, much lower.
The thing is, if the costs are high, then you had better have a particular cause worth paying those costs for, which tends to select for a bunch of people with the same cause, and likely, the same calls for change, reform, justice, etc. Protests would be fewer in number, probably with a better case and more justifiable basis.
But if the costs are low, it allows for a variety of weak, arguable, controversial causes and any idiosyncratic motive to dominate the price one expects to pay, and the result would be a lot more protests, a lot more chaotic, a lot more unjustifiable, and with no real consensus on rationale or demands.