I just don’t really buy that the most inflammatory politician in my lifetime, Donald Trump, is going to miraculously pull off a unity message this election cycle. Unity has just never been his message.
No, sorry Yuval, but the both-sides won't fly in this case. On the one hand we have Republicans calling out Democrat lawfare, attempts to undermine and/or pack SCOTUS, undermining election integrity, violating the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 14th amendments, and generally shredding the Constitution. On the other hand we have sitting Democrat Congress members and prestige media comparing Trump to Hitler, ignoring or condoning threats against Kavanaugh and Alito, and talking about the end of democracy.
Knuckleheads like Donald Trump Jr. and plenty of right-wing randos on the Internet say intemperate things on social media that promote confrontation and violence, but they are neither elected nor appointed officials, nor do they hold the most coveted jobs in television and print media. Just because the Left Can't Meme doesn't mean that these things are in any way equivalent.
Demonizing opposition with emotional, inflammatory (attention getting) speech is normal politics. Electronic information just makes it seem worse today. Having lived through the 1960s, I prefer the current political climate. It is more difficult for the politicians to sell lies to a citizenry with many more information choices than 3 news anchors. Unfortunately, disturbed people will continue to be drawn to political violence. If Trump is elected, another assassination attempt is likely.
Great interview here. But Levin did refer to Fauci as a "great scientist..."
No. He's not. And you'd be hard-pressed to take any examples from the past 4 years, and even the AIDS years, and run the data and prove that he is. He's a politician, and he's in bed with pharma. He was dangerous in the 80's, and he's dangerous now.
Good pod. Been thinking about something I don't know that we've been talking about enough, which is what might have happened had that inept kid succeeded. If that bullet would have impacted an inch or two to one side of where it did, what do you suppose would be happening right now? You don't have to like Trump to be horrified at the thought of the bullet we ALL just dodged. There would have been civil unrest on a scale we probably can't easily envision and that we certainly couldn't bring back under control without a LOT of blood being spilled, including a lot of innocent blood caught in the crossfire. Because innocents always die in orgies of political violence. I get a gut ache every time I think of the man--my age almost exactly--who's final act was to cover his wife and daughters, and the two others who were critically injured because this demented little shit didn't care where those bullets went. Did he contemplate the full implications of what he was doing? Doubtful. I've been a 20-year-old male. I know how thoughtless and limited they're capable of being.
We've all been narrowly delivered from something unimaginably horrible. We'd damnwell better recognize it.
Almost all of these kinds of political conversations raise in the same question:
"Why is there so much polarization, demonization and extremism in modern politics? Where is this coming from?" It's like two ratchets, each getting cranked up one click at a time.
Conspiracy theorists think they have answers. Public intellectuals think they have answers. No one gets any Christmas bonus for saying, "It's quite a mystery, isn't it. I haven't a clue."
Strangely enough, a computer science or math major who is familiar with Game Theory is more likely than a political scientist or journalist to give you the correct answer: It's a big Prisoners' Dilemma, a.k.a. Tragedy of the Commons.
By that, I mean:
Let's say that after the attempted assassination, the Left and the Right both agreed to turn down the heat on their rhetoric. That would be great. We'd all agree that it would be a better world; we could all more clearly weigh policies and decide, calmly, how to cast our ballots.
However, this truce, this whispering gallery of calm, is too easy to violate, and violators will be rewarded with lots and lots of internet attention (views, upvotes, clicks, likes, retweets, etc., etc.). If the other side doesn't respond equally vociferously -- or MORE VOCIFEROUSLY! -- then they will lose, because, right now, social media is the tail that wags the dog's body politic.
(We could also call it an arms race which uses rhetorical devices rather than nuclear devices. And only a fool would disarm unilaterally.)
The calm, respectful silence will always naturally devolve into an edgy, insulting screaming match. Always. Unless there are real penalties or limits on the volume. Unless there is enforced moderation.
(Most Usenet Newsgroups learned this in the early 90s, even before the Web existed, nevermind TikTok.)
This must sound like a PSA for more censorship. It is not. But this post is already too long.
The Tragedy of the Commons does explain it. Without ownership, there is only a downside, anything is possible. There is no minimum.
The primary actor game theory-wise is statistical, overwhelming numbers.
When there is 1) the toxic brew of too many people with the egocentric desire to be heard, 2) anonymity*, 3) no limit on what can be said, and 4) limitless modes of broadcasting vitriol, there is oversaturation of the individual and/or collective mind, psychological and physical chaos resulting in paralysis.
An analogy is Custer on the Little Big Horn Battlefield. At least Custer could see the faces of those assaulting him. But he was impotent to influence an outcome.
*Even if you know someone's name and face, without them being physically face to face with you, you are only passively involved, not an actively engaged participant.
Part of the problem is the lack of faith in the judgement of the audience (the citizens) to sift through the inflammatory rhetoric to get to the actual issues and dismiss the hysterics. I know that it seems impossible to be able to rely on” the people” to have the level of education and discernment to be able to participate in this way. This is because we as a nation have failed in our educational and, to be honest, journalistic approaches. In the schools and in our media we TELL people what to think do not encourage people to learn how to think for themselves. This is what is great about The Free Press and initiatives like it. They foster a deeper discussion and understanding. Until this becomes the norm and not the oddity that it is today, the elites will always treat the public at best, like children, and at the worst, like sheep.
I think the part of the conversation about how politicians lie was interesting but missed some obvious points. I think at the heart of the lies, oftentimes, is a contempt for the average American. For example, the thought process is "I think most Americans are bigots and so if I say I am for gay marriage, I won't get elected and therefore I won't have my opportunity to do the right thing and pass and promote gay marriage". So when asked "are you for gay marriage" they said "no". That was a lie and they had the opportunity to tell the truth and give their argument as to why they believed that, but instead they lied to get the job and they did what they wanted. If you don't like the gay marriage argument, then substitute any other one - how about how Obamacare is not a tax. Well the minute it was constitutionally challenged it was argued by the left's own attorneys that it was constitutionally allowable as a tax. This is contempt for the American people and it subsequent disingenuousness is the engine behind the "noble lie" narrative. "It's okay that I lie, because I am smarter, more educated, more cultured, and my vision is the correct vision. Americans are chaotic bumpkins and so they need to be lead to the correct outcome" This obvious contempt for the average American and their values (which include a lot of conservative values) is what is behind the "populist" resentment that is discussed here.
Trust is a two-way street. The leaders have to trust the American people for any trust in the institutions to work. Take the time and make your arguments as clearly as you can.
Even in this discussion, which I thought overall was a fantastic, productive conversation, Mr. Levin says that it is "irresponsible to vote for Donald Trump". That is totally untrue - even when you acknowledge some of the things Trump did wrong in his first term (I think that this is a great summary to start with by the way https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/553984-feehery-6-positive-things-about-the-trump-years-and-6-bad-things/) there are things that he clearly got right. That is the same for any president that has served. So what makes voting for Donald Trump "irresponsible" but voting for Biden in 2020, not? Is it just that Mr. Levin doesn't like him? Make an argument, not a statement.
I just don’t really buy that the most inflammatory politician in my lifetime, Donald Trump, is going to miraculously pull off a unity message this election cycle. Unity has just never been his message.
No, sorry Yuval, but the both-sides won't fly in this case. On the one hand we have Republicans calling out Democrat lawfare, attempts to undermine and/or pack SCOTUS, undermining election integrity, violating the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 14th amendments, and generally shredding the Constitution. On the other hand we have sitting Democrat Congress members and prestige media comparing Trump to Hitler, ignoring or condoning threats against Kavanaugh and Alito, and talking about the end of democracy.
Knuckleheads like Donald Trump Jr. and plenty of right-wing randos on the Internet say intemperate things on social media that promote confrontation and violence, but they are neither elected nor appointed officials, nor do they hold the most coveted jobs in television and print media. Just because the Left Can't Meme doesn't mean that these things are in any way equivalent.
I finished listening to the rest of the podcast, and it was generally excellent sober analysis by Yuval. Kudos.
Demonizing opposition with emotional, inflammatory (attention getting) speech is normal politics. Electronic information just makes it seem worse today. Having lived through the 1960s, I prefer the current political climate. It is more difficult for the politicians to sell lies to a citizenry with many more information choices than 3 news anchors. Unfortunately, disturbed people will continue to be drawn to political violence. If Trump is elected, another assassination attempt is likely.
I now have every Yuval Levin book on my wish list. What an epic podcast!
Great interview here. But Levin did refer to Fauci as a "great scientist..."
No. He's not. And you'd be hard-pressed to take any examples from the past 4 years, and even the AIDS years, and run the data and prove that he is. He's a politician, and he's in bed with pharma. He was dangerous in the 80's, and he's dangerous now.
Good pod. Been thinking about something I don't know that we've been talking about enough, which is what might have happened had that inept kid succeeded. If that bullet would have impacted an inch or two to one side of where it did, what do you suppose would be happening right now? You don't have to like Trump to be horrified at the thought of the bullet we ALL just dodged. There would have been civil unrest on a scale we probably can't easily envision and that we certainly couldn't bring back under control without a LOT of blood being spilled, including a lot of innocent blood caught in the crossfire. Because innocents always die in orgies of political violence. I get a gut ache every time I think of the man--my age almost exactly--who's final act was to cover his wife and daughters, and the two others who were critically injured because this demented little shit didn't care where those bullets went. Did he contemplate the full implications of what he was doing? Doubtful. I've been a 20-year-old male. I know how thoughtless and limited they're capable of being.
We've all been narrowly delivered from something unimaginably horrible. We'd damnwell better recognize it.
I could listen to this man for hours and hours. Unmatched wisdom. So measured.
Almost all of these kinds of political conversations raise in the same question:
"Why is there so much polarization, demonization and extremism in modern politics? Where is this coming from?" It's like two ratchets, each getting cranked up one click at a time.
Conspiracy theorists think they have answers. Public intellectuals think they have answers. No one gets any Christmas bonus for saying, "It's quite a mystery, isn't it. I haven't a clue."
Strangely enough, a computer science or math major who is familiar with Game Theory is more likely than a political scientist or journalist to give you the correct answer: It's a big Prisoners' Dilemma, a.k.a. Tragedy of the Commons.
By that, I mean:
Let's say that after the attempted assassination, the Left and the Right both agreed to turn down the heat on their rhetoric. That would be great. We'd all agree that it would be a better world; we could all more clearly weigh policies and decide, calmly, how to cast our ballots.
However, this truce, this whispering gallery of calm, is too easy to violate, and violators will be rewarded with lots and lots of internet attention (views, upvotes, clicks, likes, retweets, etc., etc.). If the other side doesn't respond equally vociferously -- or MORE VOCIFEROUSLY! -- then they will lose, because, right now, social media is the tail that wags the dog's body politic.
(We could also call it an arms race which uses rhetorical devices rather than nuclear devices. And only a fool would disarm unilaterally.)
The calm, respectful silence will always naturally devolve into an edgy, insulting screaming match. Always. Unless there are real penalties or limits on the volume. Unless there is enforced moderation.
(Most Usenet Newsgroups learned this in the early 90s, even before the Web existed, nevermind TikTok.)
This must sound like a PSA for more censorship. It is not. But this post is already too long.
The Tragedy of the Commons does explain it. Without ownership, there is only a downside, anything is possible. There is no minimum.
The primary actor game theory-wise is statistical, overwhelming numbers.
When there is 1) the toxic brew of too many people with the egocentric desire to be heard, 2) anonymity*, 3) no limit on what can be said, and 4) limitless modes of broadcasting vitriol, there is oversaturation of the individual and/or collective mind, psychological and physical chaos resulting in paralysis.
An analogy is Custer on the Little Big Horn Battlefield. At least Custer could see the faces of those assaulting him. But he was impotent to influence an outcome.
*Even if you know someone's name and face, without them being physically face to face with you, you are only passively involved, not an actively engaged participant.
Part of the problem is the lack of faith in the judgement of the audience (the citizens) to sift through the inflammatory rhetoric to get to the actual issues and dismiss the hysterics. I know that it seems impossible to be able to rely on” the people” to have the level of education and discernment to be able to participate in this way. This is because we as a nation have failed in our educational and, to be honest, journalistic approaches. In the schools and in our media we TELL people what to think do not encourage people to learn how to think for themselves. This is what is great about The Free Press and initiatives like it. They foster a deeper discussion and understanding. Until this becomes the norm and not the oddity that it is today, the elites will always treat the public at best, like children, and at the worst, like sheep.
I think the part of the conversation about how politicians lie was interesting but missed some obvious points. I think at the heart of the lies, oftentimes, is a contempt for the average American. For example, the thought process is "I think most Americans are bigots and so if I say I am for gay marriage, I won't get elected and therefore I won't have my opportunity to do the right thing and pass and promote gay marriage". So when asked "are you for gay marriage" they said "no". That was a lie and they had the opportunity to tell the truth and give their argument as to why they believed that, but instead they lied to get the job and they did what they wanted. If you don't like the gay marriage argument, then substitute any other one - how about how Obamacare is not a tax. Well the minute it was constitutionally challenged it was argued by the left's own attorneys that it was constitutionally allowable as a tax. This is contempt for the American people and it subsequent disingenuousness is the engine behind the "noble lie" narrative. "It's okay that I lie, because I am smarter, more educated, more cultured, and my vision is the correct vision. Americans are chaotic bumpkins and so they need to be lead to the correct outcome" This obvious contempt for the average American and their values (which include a lot of conservative values) is what is behind the "populist" resentment that is discussed here.
Trust is a two-way street. The leaders have to trust the American people for any trust in the institutions to work. Take the time and make your arguments as clearly as you can.
Even in this discussion, which I thought overall was a fantastic, productive conversation, Mr. Levin says that it is "irresponsible to vote for Donald Trump". That is totally untrue - even when you acknowledge some of the things Trump did wrong in his first term (I think that this is a great summary to start with by the way https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/553984-feehery-6-positive-things-about-the-trump-years-and-6-bad-things/) there are things that he clearly got right. That is the same for any president that has served. So what makes voting for Donald Trump "irresponsible" but voting for Biden in 2020, not? Is it just that Mr. Levin doesn't like him? Make an argument, not a statement.
Honestly more and more reminds me of what NPR used to be.