(Yes, I am tweeting this. Enjoy the delicious irony. No, really, sit with it for a moment. Roll around, until your skin tingles from its mildly caustic properties.)
(I am now on a Twitter campaign to get major institutions, including my employer, to tell employees to get off Twitter. I don't expect it to work. But a girl's gotta try.)
(Given that I am a right-wing columnist, in an overwhelmingly left-wing industry, people are bound to be suspicious of my motives. *Mutter/cough/something something et tu cancel culture?* Understandable. However ...)
Ironically, my conclusion was not inspired by conservatives complaining about "cancel culture". It was inspired by conservative editors and other institutional leaders of my acquaintance complaining about the corrosive effect Twitter was having on their institutions.
Professional institutions are delicate creatures. They function because they have a common ethos, hell a telos, towards which everyone is working, and everyone's professional energies are ultimately channeled towards that joint product.
That's true even if you don't have an explicit ideological project; you still have a common "corporate culture", which matters A LOT.
Obviously that's an ideal--there are always principal-agent problems in any employment relationship, people trying to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the whole, or push their pet projects even if fulfilling them would be a disaster for the institution ...
But Twitter reportedly made this much worse. People started treating their workplaces like hotels where they parked while they engaged in their personal brand-building exercise on Twitter.
Any attempt to refocus employees on the needs of the institution bogged down in endless adjudications of superficially similar behaviors that were treated differently ... "Why does Mommy love Joey more than me?"
And I guess this is where I am fundamentally conservative: I think institutions matter a lot. I think virtually every staffer at a major newsroom or thinktank or other professional group is getting more out of their group than the group is getting out of them.
The sum is greater than the parts. It is a mistake to let that sum disaggregate into a dozen or a hundred or a thousand parts, which is what Twitter tends to do.
I don't want the government to ban it, to be clear, and I think Twitter itself should strive for viewpoint neutrality
But I think major institutions should also strive for viewpoint neutrality by telling everyone to get off Twitter, rather than taking on the impossible job of "retroactive social media editor" where people are disciplined or fired after the fact for crossing a dim and wavy line.
Anyway, thanks for reading, as usual, this is just a little teaser for a column that makes the point in much more depth. That column is here and I urge you to read it: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I understand why cities and states are desperate to get BIPOC vaccinated--on average, they have more exposure AND more comorbidities, and vaccination rates lag.
In DC, people in affluent and whiter wards are getting almost all the appointments. Mom lives in Ward 5, one of the Wards that is struggling, and when I took her to get her shot at a nearby Safeway, everyone there was a white woman who didn't live near that safeway. Except us.
Moreover, it was clear from the way that they spoke to us that they assumed we, too, had just surfed in from Ward 1, rather than taking the appointment closest to Mom.
Though it does explain how we got an appointment relatively easily.
I want to call out this particular point in my larger tweetstorm, because it sorta maps onto a dumb talking point from the left: "The government can borrow and spend any amount we want. American *can't* have a Greek-style debt crisis, because we borrow in our own currency!"
My right-wing followers, of course, understand why this won't fly: America borrowing in dollars, and under US law rather than some neutral third country, is not a law of nature. People with money could easily decide it was too risky to make us dollar-denominated loans.
(Or at least, at any price we'd want to pay.)
What would make them decide this? The fastest way would be for America to borrow a metric crap ton of money, and then default or let inflation eat away the value of our loans so we're repaying pennies on the dollar in real terms.
So I've been saying Trump is dangerous basically since the beginning. Not because I thought he was going to cancel elections and become a dictator; I didn't think he had the competence, or American institutions the vulnerability, for that.
Spent some time in the ER this weekend for what looked like it might be a detached retina and thankfully was not. It has become clear to me that a lot of health care workers aren't exactly against getting vaccinated; they just want to be vaccinated two months from now.
My solution to this is to say "You're getting priority because you're essential. If you don't take it, you will be the absolute last person in line to get it, and you get no sick pay if you test+. It's your right, I'm not going to argue, decide right now."
America does not have time to mess around while all the nation's health care workers try to be almost, but not quite, at the front of the line. Use it or give it to someone who's happy to take the risk. (It me!)
And also, frankly, in the responses to the column that preceded it, which discussed the CDC's "Let some old people die in the name of equity" vaccination strategy.
Back to the column at hand, which was about the people I follow who called covid-19 as a big problem AHEAD of the big mid-March shift in the upper-middle-class professional consensus. What sort of people were they?
Many people have had this thought, none of them have been able to produce strong empirical evidence for it. If this effect were really compelling, America wouldn't have a more dynamic economy than Europe, but it does, despite a pretty bad regulatory and tax architecture.
There were a lot of predictions that Obamacare would goose the rate of entrepreneurship, and the theory is the same: by derisking a startup, it should make it easier to form one. Didn't show up in the numbers: bls.gov/bdm/entreprene…
On the margin might this produce a small effect? Maybe. But there could also be countervailing effects; for example, the higher taxes necessary to pay for a large welfare state might reduce the potential return to entrepreneurship, making people less interested in it.