6 ms·

I think what’s less relevant here is “builder” vs. “non-builder” but whether or not governmental authority is properly hitched to the will of the citizens on av

I think what’s less relevant here is “builder” vs. “non-builder” but whether or not governmental authority is properly hitched to the will of the citizens on average. The vast distributed efforts by citizens to produce PPE that the government seemed incapable or unwilling to acquire seems to hint at some serious dysfunction.

groby_b 6y ago
Full agreement there. (Plus a side of vicious anti-science sentiment, with a good helping of a complete misunderstanding what "freedom" is) I do believe that we as a society are currently trying to decide if we want to build something communal, or if we want to commit to extreme selfishness. It'd be more fun to read about it in a history book, but it sure is interesting.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’d argue that America committed 100% to selfishness by the 1980s. This is when you begin to see community institutions begin to be replaced with private ones, all the way down to the destruction of community pools for private ones.
- pphysch 6y ago
  If only that dichotomy was reflected in our two political parties. But nope, we just have centrist "please preserve the status quo" candidate and right-wing "extreme selfishness" candidate. No builders allowed.
  - groby_b 6y ago
    I understand the sentiment, but: Are you running for a local office? Are you engaged in changing election laws? If you're builder, building a better election system is a noble task, and one that requires tackling.
topkai22 6y ago
I think that is part of the problem the author is getting it- the assumption that the government, especially the federal government, is the sole institution that can execute things. Historically, the argument goes, that didn't used to be the case. People self organized, but they organized into INSTITUTIONS, not just brief movements- the NAACP was formed in 1909. I always think of my grandparents in these discussions. They had an enormously active civic life their entire lives- quite literally, my grandfather passed away at a church lecture. They helped build institutions like an anti-smoking organization, their church, or the local arts organization- not necessarily as leaders, but as the people who made things happen. Boomers, Xers, and millenials... don't seem to do this. It's pretty well documented (see Bowling Alone). I'm with the author here- our the ability to organize has been greatly diminished even as our ability to communicate has gone up. There are probably many reasons why- entertainment is far more plentiful and an alternative to civic engagement, maybe our existing institutions really are that good, the trained responses the author discuss. Whatever it is, I think it is a shame- participating in civic society is one the great joys in life, and I agree that the lack of participation saps something of the United States culture and success. That being said, civic society doesn't operate in isolation. It tends to interact with government extensively, but it can lend legitimacy and guidance to government actions. You can see this at work with the government responses to the BLM movement- one of the great civic society triumphs of recent times, although a very different one then the author talks about.
- curuinor 6y ago
  The Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese responses were undergirded by large functional government bureaucracies, trust me. It wasn't town hall democracies and local small-scale stuff like that, that arranged mass functional responses to the crisis. Korea and Taiwan have civic society and the PRC really doesn't, the thing that makes them different is government competence and government operational capability. Pandemic response is extremely within the wheelhouse of government.
- pnathan 6y ago
  my understanding is that the US peak institutional involvement was 1959. I link it to the strong trend of anti-authoritarianism and individualism that started to become current in the 50s & 60s. Today it manifests in the ancap and anarcho-communist ideologies most extremely, but it also manifests everywhere as trust breaks down and a general unwillingness to move in concert with others at a large scale is present.

groby_b 6y ago

Full agreement there. (Plus a side of vicious anti-science sentiment, with a good helping of a complete misunderstanding what "freedom" is) I do believe that we as a society are currently trying to decide if we want to build something communal, or if we want to commit to extreme selfishness. It'd be more fun to read about it in a history book, but it sure is interesting.

ashtonkem 6y ago
I’d argue that America committed 100% to selfishness by the 1980s. This is when you begin to see community institutions begin to be replaced with private ones, all the way down to the destruction of community pools for private ones.
pphysch 6y ago
If only that dichotomy was reflected in our two political parties. But nope, we just have centrist "please preserve the status quo" candidate and right-wing "extreme selfishness" candidate. No builders allowed.
- groby_b 6y ago
  I understand the sentiment, but: Are you running for a local office? Are you engaged in changing election laws? If you're builder, building a better election system is a noble task, and one that requires tackling.

topkai22 6y ago

I think that is part of the problem the author is getting it- the assumption that the government, especially the federal government, is the sole institution that can execute things. Historically, the argument goes, that didn't used to be the case. People self organized, but they organized into INSTITUTIONS, not just brief movements- the NAACP was formed in 1909. I always think of my grandparents in these discussions. They had an enormously active civic life their entire lives- quite literally, my grandfather passed away at a church lecture. They helped build institutions like an anti-smoking organization, their church, or the local arts organization- not necessarily as leaders, but as the people who made things happen. Boomers, Xers, and millenials... don't seem to do this. It's pretty well documented (see Bowling Alone). I'm with the author here- our the ability to organize has been greatly diminished even as our ability to communicate has gone up. There are probably many reasons why- entertainment is far more plentiful and an alternative to civic engagement, maybe our existing institutions really are that good, the trained responses the author discuss. Whatever it is, I think it is a shame- participating in civic society is one the great joys in life, and I agree that the lack of participation saps something of the United States culture and success. That being said, civic society doesn't operate in isolation. It tends to interact with government extensively, but it can lend legitimacy and guidance to government actions. You can see this at work with the government responses to the BLM movement- one of the great civic society triumphs of recent times, although a very different one then the author talks about.

curuinor 6y ago
The Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese responses were undergirded by large functional government bureaucracies, trust me. It wasn't town hall democracies and local small-scale stuff like that, that arranged mass functional responses to the crisis. Korea and Taiwan have civic society and the PRC really doesn't, the thing that makes them different is government competence and government operational capability. Pandemic response is extremely within the wheelhouse of government.
pnathan 6y ago
my understanding is that the US peak institutional involvement was 1959. I link it to the strong trend of anti-authoritarianism and individualism that started to become current in the 50s & 60s. Today it manifests in the ancap and anarcho-communist ideologies most extremely, but it also manifests everywhere as trust breaks down and a general unwillingness to move in concert with others at a large scale is present.