I am going to be interested to see if he can pull off talking to progressives, constitutionalists, and fascists each in their own language. That would be an accomplishment in itself.
I try this technique sometimes. With Christine Blasey Ford, I really tried to imagine what it would be like if what she said happened to her as a teenager had happened the way she said. I'm afraid I couldn't take it very seriously. Then when she testified, I tried to imagine what it would be like to be telling that story myself and have no one believe me. I never quite decided if she was just weak-minded or lying, but again, I couldn't quite get to believing her. Weak-minded or lying seemed to fit her life, and the accusations themselves jarred with everything I could learn about Kavanaughs. But at least I had the satisfaction of knowing I tried to take her seriously instead of discounting her as a member of the wrong team. I'd done something similar decades ago with Anita Hill, when I was actually still voting D, but starting to lose faith, and that debacle didn't help.
Sometimes when people freak out about President Trump's authoritarian tendencies, which I can't quite see, I try to imagine whether I'd have correctly concluded that Hitler was a global menace, and whether I'd have had the courage to say no. Again, I just can't get there. The contrast between the BS pulled by the last administration in nearly every cabinet overwhelms any qualms I might have about the current administration, even if I imagine how I'd like what they're doing if they were in an opposing party.
...quite decided if she was just weak-minded or lying...
I decided that she was telling 'her' truth, but not 'the' truth. I don't doubt she really believes what she said. It's a known issue that false memories are created in intense moments of therapy (such as the therapy to save her marriage she was undergoing, decades after the alleged event, when she first recounted a vaguer form of this 'memory').
Maybe that's what you mean by 'weak minded,' but I don't know that strength or weakness is the issue. I think psychotherapy is the issue. It's dangerous stuff; I recommend the BBC's documentary "The Century of the Self" to begin appreciating just how dangerous it is.
I find him fascinating, because he writes things that I had not even thought of, such as "The American people...care about the wrong election." It's jarring, and rocks one back a bit. But a lot of times, I just don't know what he means with these things.
To take an analogy, it is as if he is singing the tenor line of a hymn and calling it the melody. (That may be what Eric is seeing in the "misreads history" part.) That's not wrong, exactly, and may actually teach us something. But it misses more.
Also, I think he gets lost in the weeds, lets the kite string out too far. His point that we naturally dichotomise and think "Well if that side isn't true, then the other side must be the ones who are right," is likely tr4ue of human nature, while those who think themselves even wiser look for synthesis, somewhere in the middle, both-sides-have-a-point conclusions, but even those may be entirely wrong. It's a good reminder. But then the point is done, and he's still going,trying to wring conclusions from it.
I'm not saying he's right, but interesting; not everyone says interesting things, and as you note he does. I'm further interested to see if he can pull off his larger project.
The more I do think about his model, though, the more it seems a little bit plausible: Congress as a 'defeat device for democracy' explains a lot about the so-called 'failure theater' we saw from Republicans around repealing the ACA. On the other hand Congress passed the ACA, so it's not that it's only and purely failure theater. But back on the first hand, what he's calling 'civic' America wanted the ACA. Congress did that for them, not for democracy; people were widely opposed to it, and the Democratic party paid a huge price for doing it.
To some degree we're seeing the same thing at work with the lockdown defiance. It's ultimately not the elected officials who are deciding whether gymnasiums reopen. It's the police. Where they are enforcing the order, gyms are reopening but being shut down. Where they are not, gyms are open. The power is really being exercised not by the elected government but by the self-appointing one (excepting Sheriffs, who are elected).
7 comments:
That guy again.
He grossly misreads history, and I don't even know where to begin.
I am going to be interested to see if he can pull off talking to progressives, constitutionalists, and fascists each in their own language. That would be an accomplishment in itself.
I try this technique sometimes. With Christine Blasey Ford, I really tried to imagine what it would be like if what she said happened to her as a teenager had happened the way she said. I'm afraid I couldn't take it very seriously. Then when she testified, I tried to imagine what it would be like to be telling that story myself and have no one believe me. I never quite decided if she was just weak-minded or lying, but again, I couldn't quite get to believing her. Weak-minded or lying seemed to fit her life, and the accusations themselves jarred with everything I could learn about Kavanaughs. But at least I had the satisfaction of knowing I tried to take her seriously instead of discounting her as a member of the wrong team. I'd done something similar decades ago with Anita Hill, when I was actually still voting D, but starting to lose faith, and that debacle didn't help.
Sometimes when people freak out about President Trump's authoritarian tendencies, which I can't quite see, I try to imagine whether I'd have correctly concluded that Hitler was a global menace, and whether I'd have had the courage to say no. Again, I just can't get there. The contrast between the BS pulled by the last administration in nearly every cabinet overwhelms any qualms I might have about the current administration, even if I imagine how I'd like what they're doing if they were in an opposing party.
...quite decided if she was just weak-minded or lying...
I decided that she was telling 'her' truth, but not 'the' truth. I don't doubt she really believes what she said. It's a known issue that false memories are created in intense moments of therapy (such as the therapy to save her marriage she was undergoing, decades after the alleged event, when she first recounted a vaguer form of this 'memory').
Maybe that's what you mean by 'weak minded,' but I don't know that strength or weakness is the issue. I think psychotherapy is the issue. It's dangerous stuff; I recommend the BBC's documentary "The Century of the Self" to begin appreciating just how dangerous it is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00ghx6g/episodes/guide
I find him fascinating, because he writes things that I had not even thought of, such as "The American people...care about the wrong election." It's jarring, and rocks one back a bit. But a lot of times, I just don't know what he means with these things.
To take an analogy, it is as if he is singing the tenor line of a hymn and calling it the melody. (That may be what Eric is seeing in the "misreads history" part.) That's not wrong, exactly, and may actually teach us something. But it misses more.
Also, I think he gets lost in the weeds, lets the kite string out too far. His point that we naturally dichotomise and think "Well if that side isn't true, then the other side must be the ones who are right," is likely tr4ue of human nature, while those who think themselves even wiser look for synthesis, somewhere in the middle, both-sides-have-a-point conclusions, but even those may be entirely wrong. It's a good reminder. But then the point is done, and he's still going,trying to wring conclusions from it.
I'm not saying he's right, but interesting; not everyone says interesting things, and as you note he does. I'm further interested to see if he can pull off his larger project.
The more I do think about his model, though, the more it seems a little bit plausible: Congress as a 'defeat device for democracy' explains a lot about the so-called 'failure theater' we saw from Republicans around repealing the ACA. On the other hand Congress passed the ACA, so it's not that it's only and purely failure theater. But back on the first hand, what he's calling 'civic' America wanted the ACA. Congress did that for them, not for democracy; people were widely opposed to it, and the Democratic party paid a huge price for doing it.
To some degree we're seeing the same thing at work with the lockdown defiance. It's ultimately not the elected officials who are deciding whether gymnasiums reopen. It's the police. Where they are enforcing the order, gyms are reopening but being shut down. Where they are not, gyms are open. The power is really being exercised not by the elected government but by the self-appointing one (excepting Sheriffs, who are elected).
Post a Comment