This seems like an opportune moment to reiterate my view that much of the behavior of rich/famous/powerful people that we ordinary folk find mystifying is best explained by the composition of their epistemic environments: who's around them, who they listen to.
When you become a US senator, it is incredibly easy to slip into a bubble where you're only talking to other senators, lobbyists, rich people, & lifer pundits. They all flatter your ego. You feel like you're seeing into some special inner circle that knows the *real* truth.
What you're actually hearing is dogshit DC conventional wisdom & collective delusion -- easy to discern if you step back, stay rooted, keep your old friends, take in a variety of info sources. But if you get swept up in it, you feel like you finally know what the proles don't.
This explains, I think, why Manchin & Sinema do not understand, in their bones, the US conservative turn against democracy & the threat of violence & autocracy. The conservatives they know wear suits & have fancy educations & speak in Very Serious tones. Fascists? Don't be silly!
You hear this when you read about past reactionary takeovers too. It is often the people closest to power (think German parliament) *most* taken by surprise when things tip over into violence or single-party rule. Being on the "inside" anesthetizes rather than informs them.
This quote from Daniel Ellsberg (via @upine) is also extremely insightful -- it's about how people w/ access to privileged insider info become unable to listen to or learn from those outside their circle. motherjones.com/kevin-drum/201…
For instance, I'm sure Manchin trusts the rich white guys in suits that he talks to -- the ones who know how things *really* work, who have the inside scoop -- more than he trusts academic (ahem, liberal) economists. Especially since they reinforce his priors & academics don't!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
