One striking thing about the "debate" over Biden's jobs bill is that Republicans no longer even bother to offer an argument -- and no one bothers to ask -- WHY we should invest less, or WHY we would invest only in roads & bridges and not in, say, electricity transmission.
It is both intuitively obvious & in line with every economics textbook that these long-term investments in physical & human capital are what keep a country strong. Money's still pretty cheap; there's no particular reason to worry about the deficit right now. So ...
... WHY do Republicans want to invest less in America's future? Seriously: why? They've just been kneejerk braindead opposed to Government Doing Anything for so long that we have, collectively, given up on asking them to justify it. We just take the nihilism for granted.
We have one party that, when it takes charge, tries to invest in the country's future & improve the material conditions of its citizens, & another party that, when it takes charge, imposes suffering on immigrants & trans people, & we're just acclimated to it, like it's normal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As a Gen-Xer, it is wild to contemplate how much the notion of "selling out" dominated our minds & youth culture ... and then how quickly that all went away. The very notion sounds like a charming anachronism now. aarongilbreath.substack.com/p/selling-out
The idea of being authentic, of resisting the distorting influence of commerce ... do Kids These Days even think about things that way any more? I feel like media & youth culture have become so utterly ubiquitous that it's senseless to imagine anything outside them.
Seems like the best you can do these days to resist all that stuff is just to bury yourself in layer upon layer of irony -- to be ironically distanced from *everything*, as self-defense.
It's cool that CNN finally fired Rick "frothy mixture" Santorum, but: why him & not all the other racist fuckheads? Why this particular racist thing he said & not all the others? What exactly are the criteria here? It would be great if CNN would lay out some clear standards.
The problem, of course, is that if CNN (or any mainstream institution) clearly articulated standards, it would become clear, not only that cons regularly violate them, but that they are incommensurate with today's conservatism at a fundamental level.
The standard, banal values of any mainstream institution operating in a muticultural democracy -- accuracy, equal access, equal rights -- are incommensurate with today's conservatism, which is ultimately devoted to continued domination of a particular ethnic culture.
All right, a thread about white epistemic hegemony (only less pretentious than that sounds).
As a specific illustration of the larger phenomenon I want to discuss, we begin with @zchace's superb recent podcast miniseries, The Improvement Association. nytimes.com/2021/04/22/pod…
It's really worth listening to the whole thing, but I'll give a quick Cliff Notes. In Bladen County, NC, there's a longstanding org called the Bladen County Improvement Project, which basically organizes the country's black vote into a single voice, to maximize its impact.
Though Blacks are a minority in the county, the BCIP (a PAC) has been extremely successful at uniting them so they consistently get at least some representation & exercise at least some power. It's led by a crusty old guy w/ a huge personality, Horace Munn.
If you, a generally leftie person, think the broader left has got something wrong, you might be tempted to use an argument of the form: "See? Conservatives aren't the only ones who deny experts/science/facts! Both sides do it!"
Do not do this.
I understand the temptation. You're frustrated. This argument gets attention & clicks. It feeds into your self-image as an independent thinker. It feels good.
But it is bad. The fact is, none of the mistakes or differences cited in arguments like these ...
... are ever *remotely* of the scale & ubiquity of anti-intellectualism on the right. They are often differences of interpretation or judgment, not plain facts. And they do not rise out of systemic rejection of mainstream sources of epistemic authority, as they do on the right.
I'd go a bit further: conservatism is not contingently against democracy, because of particular features of today's politics; it is *inherently* against democracy. You cannot square "this country is for a certain kind of people" & "all people have equal rights & representation."
The death penalty was the first policy question that forced me to grapple with the "run aground" problem. To me, saying "you shouldn't kill people" is to morality what, say, "there is a rock" is to epistemology. If someone responded, "no, there's no rock," you quickly realize ...
... there aren't a lot of *arguments* you can mount. You can only repeat, "no, look. A rock! Right there!" Maybe kick it. The sensory experience of the rock is the foundation of your case. You can't go further down, find deeper justification. You've run aground.