Folks are confused by my reaction to this letter so I thought I‘d clarify. The issue I am having is this: we need courageous institutional leadership. And for that to happen the previous cowardly institutions need to go through a step which is examining how they built this hell.
What I learned during the Evergreen State meltdown was that there was no neutral or center-Left institution to champion even basic physical safety. NPR wasn’t interested. Nor CNN. Not the NYT newsroom. The Democrats didn’t see it even as an opportunity to champion our old values.
Seeing my own brother’s family hunted & the Campus police force stood down was a preview of CHAZ & the totally foreseeable deaths there under the same crazed Governor who let them happen. Dead young people’s lives don’t matter to the Left, “Black Lives Matter” notwithstanding.
Now many of you know I talk about there being a GIN or Gated Institutional Narrative which is basically a fictionalized national story. Harpers is part of that system along with the Atlantic, The Times, etc. What must not happen is that these same players be allowed to lead now.
Why is this? Because they aren’t fit to lead until there‘s a reckoning with their decisions to consciously facilitate our slide into hell. They consciously refused to see this problem under life & death situations. They have actual blood on their hands. So there’s a missing step.
Now Harpers is playing its role. And a lot of instutional cowards will jump on the band wagon if this “New Recognition” of the lefty extremism problem is seen to test well with readers.
And thus it’s time to hold their feet to the fire. We need brave leaders, not test marketers.
And thus it’s time to hold their feet to the fire. We need brave leaders, not test marketers.
This problem we have is largely a creation of @Harpers, @TheAtlantic, @Harvard, @nytimes, @DNC, @NPR, @GovInslee, @Princeton, @Yale, @NewYorker, @washingtonpost, @vox etc who failed to ring the alarm and even sufficiently support their own people like @bariweiss or @NAChristakis.
Am I irritated that I wasn’t asked to sign? I’d say “Mildly irked at most. But in no way surprised.”
*Much* more important however is when @BretWeinstein & @HeatherEHeying are left off. And then I *am* surprised. That‘s telling because it’s still covering up the GIN’s crime.
*Much* more important however is when @BretWeinstein & @HeatherEHeying are left off. And then I *am* surprised. That‘s telling because it’s still covering up the GIN’s crime.
So why am I not surprised I wasn’t asked? Because I‘m a person who is pushing for institutional overhaul. My question would have been: “Why do you get to lead discussion if you weren’t clearly ringing alarms all this time? You aren’t the leaders. Do you own this as your failure?”
And why is this important? Because without a reckoning, our institutions will continue to stir our national pot. They‘ll continue to do A/B test marketing and I do not want the US to be led by *marketers• into freefall even while I welcome them as guests way late to a party.
As to the signatories, I have mixed feelings. Some are brave heroes. Others have been villains who are hopefully turning over a new leaf. The rest are on that spectrum. But I don’t have a lot of strong feelings about this. Long term readers know that my focus is *institutional*.
So that’s it. We can’t allow our institutions to become leads on the solution *before* a period of repudiation of previous cowardice for reasons of *safety*.
To sum up: we got here by glorified marketers being in the leadership chairs at our institions. And we need them ousted.
To sum up: we got here by glorified marketers being in the leadership chairs at our institions. And we need them ousted.
Just ask yourself who has been fighting this visibly w/ courage that is conspicuously left off the letter and why. Those people should be leading and not watching. And their omission means the problem of our commentariat as cowardly institutional marketing guild is continuing. 🙏
