thank you so much for the mention and the links. i'm glad to have made a small contribution to such an important discussion.
on the subject of polarization (which i wrote about in the now-binned precursor to the post linked in the show notes): here in America, and maybe in the rest of the Western world, we're having a very hard time breaking the mental habit of dividing people into "liberal" and "conservative." we're well past the point of those old terms being incoherent, as far as describing people's actual attitudes. there are some conversations exploring "the authoritarian center" and "the populist periphery" as the real site of conflict; that's useful up to a point, but carries too much moral judgment in both directions.
for my money -- at least in the U.S. -- the conflict seems to be between people who see their country as a unique territory, and those who see it as one national franchise in a globalized overculture.
i'm absolutely not a Trump supporter; however, i sympathize more and more with people who would traditionally be considered "conservative," because i see how little their values are reflected in the national discourse. oftentimes they get labelled as bigots or white supremacists for no other reason than not wanting to move to "where the jobs are." they want the jobs to be where *they* are, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation in what was recently one of the richest countries on the planet. they don't want their small town to be more like Brooklyn; they don't subscribe to the kind of cultural chauvinism that sees every community in some stage of arrested development along the path to becoming the same kind of futuristic cosmopolitan enclave. a big part of the Democratic Party's failure for the past eight years, in my view, has been the utter failure (maybe unwillingness or inability) to translate their policies into terms that Americans-by-choice can appreciate. it's always assumed that *everybody* is equally excited about applying for membership in the Galactic Federation when the time comes; these celebrations of diversity and inclusion and constant mobility within a globalized overculture implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) treat it as a practice run for a Star Trek-style techno-utopia, where the sacrifices required (death of local communities, loss of blue-collar jobs, demonization of traditional values) are equally understood as unfortunate but necessary. and then any resistance to that assumption is immediately cast as bigotry or hostile nationalism, because the opposing side sees their own values as universal.
it's an old story, but one that will keep repeating unless we're more precise in how those values are defined and understood.
can't recall, but i can see from reviews that it's a worthwhile read. i wonder why Goodhart went with "Nowheres" instead of "Anywheres?" for me, the really striking thing about the people i struggle to relate to—even within my own family— is what looks (to me) like a mercenary willingness to go wherever the next big score is, to chase a marginally better opportunity. not just once, for the one good job or the right person, but over and over again, to live in places i would find soul-crushing. remote work opportunities have only accelerated this trend. i can't help being suspicious of people who *could* make a home somewhere and choose not to; i see that same ethos reflected in the kinds of stories we tell ourselves about "progress" in a modern society.
This is an autopsy of the Harris loss/Trump win that makes sense to me. https://youtu.be/JXTbtBEg82o. So grateful for Krystal and Saagar’s journalism. A populist leftist and a populist rightist, both of them anti-war, both anti-elitist, both fearlessly honest about the corruptions on their own “side.”
thank you so much for the mention and the links. i'm glad to have made a small contribution to such an important discussion.
on the subject of polarization (which i wrote about in the now-binned precursor to the post linked in the show notes): here in America, and maybe in the rest of the Western world, we're having a very hard time breaking the mental habit of dividing people into "liberal" and "conservative." we're well past the point of those old terms being incoherent, as far as describing people's actual attitudes. there are some conversations exploring "the authoritarian center" and "the populist periphery" as the real site of conflict; that's useful up to a point, but carries too much moral judgment in both directions.
for my money -- at least in the U.S. -- the conflict seems to be between people who see their country as a unique territory, and those who see it as one national franchise in a globalized overculture.
i'm absolutely not a Trump supporter; however, i sympathize more and more with people who would traditionally be considered "conservative," because i see how little their values are reflected in the national discourse. oftentimes they get labelled as bigots or white supremacists for no other reason than not wanting to move to "where the jobs are." they want the jobs to be where *they* are, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation in what was recently one of the richest countries on the planet. they don't want their small town to be more like Brooklyn; they don't subscribe to the kind of cultural chauvinism that sees every community in some stage of arrested development along the path to becoming the same kind of futuristic cosmopolitan enclave. a big part of the Democratic Party's failure for the past eight years, in my view, has been the utter failure (maybe unwillingness or inability) to translate their policies into terms that Americans-by-choice can appreciate. it's always assumed that *everybody* is equally excited about applying for membership in the Galactic Federation when the time comes; these celebrations of diversity and inclusion and constant mobility within a globalized overculture implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) treat it as a practice run for a Star Trek-style techno-utopia, where the sacrifices required (death of local communities, loss of blue-collar jobs, demonization of traditional values) are equally understood as unfortunate but necessary. and then any resistance to that assumption is immediately cast as bigotry or hostile nationalism, because the opposing side sees their own values as universal.
it's an old story, but one that will keep repeating unless we're more precise in how those values are defined and understood.
Thanks for this, R.G., it merits a whole further episode. Did we talk about Goodhart’s The Road to Somewhere?
can't recall, but i can see from reviews that it's a worthwhile read. i wonder why Goodhart went with "Nowheres" instead of "Anywheres?" for me, the really striking thing about the people i struggle to relate to—even within my own family— is what looks (to me) like a mercenary willingness to go wherever the next big score is, to chase a marginally better opportunity. not just once, for the one good job or the right person, but over and over again, to live in places i would find soul-crushing. remote work opportunities have only accelerated this trend. i can't help being suspicious of people who *could* make a home somewhere and choose not to; i see that same ethos reflected in the kinds of stories we tell ourselves about "progress" in a modern society.
This is an autopsy of the Harris loss/Trump win that makes sense to me. https://youtu.be/JXTbtBEg82o. So grateful for Krystal and Saagar’s journalism. A populist leftist and a populist rightist, both of them anti-war, both anti-elitist, both fearlessly honest about the corruptions on their own “side.”