6 ms·

I couldn’t get past the first several paragraphs because the article drips with smug superiority by adopting the trope of being above it all and “blaming both s

I couldn’t get past the first several paragraphs because the article drips with smug superiority by adopting the trope of being above it all and “blaming both sides”. It claims that it was going to explain why the US regime has failed, but so far seems only to name drop and blame various well known politicians. I’d like to read the simplified, less narrative summary of the main argument of this article to see if the thesis makes sense or offers any explanatory power.

zepto 6y ago
Dismissing something as ‘bothsidesism’ doesn’t tell us anything. I agree with you that declaring ‘failure’ is essentially bullshit, and that is a fault with the article. Either we learn from the situation or we don’t. However I don’t see what’s wrong with chronicling how political themes are systemic and not associated with a particular party. In any case, the piece does a lot more just blame politicians, and talks about structural forces such as demographics and economics and how they lead to this situation. Why dismiss that?
- eutropia 6y ago
  I repudiate the tone and style and not the content. For whatever reason, the author comes off as "other and separate" from the problematic system, rather than an earnest participant interested in improving the system. Seems to lack humility or curiosity. The presentation prevented me from getting into (the admittedly familiar) material re: structural faults of neoliberal capitalism and American exceptionalism.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Can you quote anything that shows how they come off this way?
    - eutropia 6y ago
      No, because “it’s just like, my opinion, man.” In all seriousness, my issues with it are my own, and if you don’t get the same tone from reading the first few paragraphs: that’s totally ok. So I don’t think I’d be able to make a strong case to someone skeptical. Chances are, it wasn’t the author’s intent and the author isn’t as shallow and pedantic as this article makes them seem to me.
      - zepto 6y ago
        “pedantic as this article makes them seem to me.” The article doesn’t make them seem anything. You have done nothing but attack the author, rather than the substance. At best that’s a poor kind of reasoning.
andrewla 6y ago
Michael Lind is a big fan of Burnham's ideas about how the divides in our society tend to be more along the lines of productive individuals (which are both workers and entrepreneurs and organizers and generally people with domain-specific skills) who add value, and the class of managerial elites (middle managers, self-designated experts who consider themselves generalists). If you genuinely see the Republicans as a force for evil and the Democrats as a force for good, then I don't think you're going to enjoy his work. If you see the hyper-concentration of power in our society (in finance, in business, in politics) as problematic and are curious about the reasons for it and more information about it, and what some ideas about how to address it, then this article is a good introduction to some of the concepts.
- shakezula 6y ago
  You can be recognize the hyper-concentration of power in our society as a problem and simultaneously recognize that the parties are not equally responsible for that problem.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Why is apportionment of blame even useful? How does it help us to decide what we can do to make things better?
    - shakezula 6y ago
      It's not appointment of blame, it's appointment of cause, which is fundamental if you're trying to solve for the _problem_.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Is it? The entire piece is about examining broader causes without blaming a particularly group. I am not sure that there is a meaningful distinction between ‘blaming’ a group and saying the group caused the problem. Both are about identifying a group of people as the problem.
megameter 6y ago
You basically got a sense of it. The article assumes attachment to these premises: 1. The United States, as a nation, is or was fundamentally good. 2. Economic liberalism(capitalist society - free markets, private property, etc.) is fundamentally good. 3. Traditional society and its communities(religion, family structure, etc.) was fundamentally good. 4. The political unity that defined the post-war US was fundamentally good. Then the arguments made are based around the deviation from these unquestioned norms. If these things are good, then the politicians are bad - on both sides - because they instigated and escalated division, and must also take all the blame for economic problems because they allowed the outsourcing of labor, and for social problems because they allowed more women and immigrants in the workforce and disrupted the traditional society. Note that I list four assumptions, not five. That's because the politics are listed as a crisis separate from national identity. The rest of the article is summaries of these deviations, which you have surely read in other articles. The author concludes with "we must agree these things are the issue before we can rebuild a society".

zepto 6y ago

Dismissing something as ‘bothsidesism’ doesn’t tell us anything. I agree with you that declaring ‘failure’ is essentially bullshit, and that is a fault with the article. Either we learn from the situation or we don’t. However I don’t see what’s wrong with chronicling how political themes are systemic and not associated with a particular party. In any case, the piece does a lot more just blame politicians, and talks about structural forces such as demographics and economics and how they lead to this situation. Why dismiss that?

eutropia 6y ago
I repudiate the tone and style and not the content. For whatever reason, the author comes off as "other and separate" from the problematic system, rather than an earnest participant interested in improving the system. Seems to lack humility or curiosity. The presentation prevented me from getting into (the admittedly familiar) material re: structural faults of neoliberal capitalism and American exceptionalism.
- zepto 6y ago
  Can you quote anything that shows how they come off this way?
  - eutropia 6y ago
    No, because “it’s just like, my opinion, man.” In all seriousness, my issues with it are my own, and if you don’t get the same tone from reading the first few paragraphs: that’s totally ok. So I don’t think I’d be able to make a strong case to someone skeptical. Chances are, it wasn’t the author’s intent and the author isn’t as shallow and pedantic as this article makes them seem to me.
    - zepto 6y ago
      “pedantic as this article makes them seem to me.” The article doesn’t make them seem anything. You have done nothing but attack the author, rather than the substance. At best that’s a poor kind of reasoning.

andrewla 6y ago

Michael Lind is a big fan of Burnham's ideas about how the divides in our society tend to be more along the lines of productive individuals (which are both workers and entrepreneurs and organizers and generally people with domain-specific skills) who add value, and the class of managerial elites (middle managers, self-designated experts who consider themselves generalists). If you genuinely see the Republicans as a force for evil and the Democrats as a force for good, then I don't think you're going to enjoy his work. If you see the hyper-concentration of power in our society (in finance, in business, in politics) as problematic and are curious about the reasons for it and more information about it, and what some ideas about how to address it, then this article is a good introduction to some of the concepts.

shakezula 6y ago
You can be recognize the hyper-concentration of power in our society as a problem and simultaneously recognize that the parties are not equally responsible for that problem.
- zepto 6y ago
  Why is apportionment of blame even useful? How does it help us to decide what we can do to make things better?
  - shakezula 6y ago
    It's not appointment of blame, it's appointment of cause, which is fundamental if you're trying to solve for the _problem_.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Is it? The entire piece is about examining broader causes without blaming a particularly group. I am not sure that there is a meaningful distinction between ‘blaming’ a group and saying the group caused the problem. Both are about identifying a group of people as the problem.

megameter 6y ago

You basically got a sense of it. The article assumes attachment to these premises: 1. The United States, as a nation, is or was fundamentally good. 2. Economic liberalism(capitalist society - free markets, private property, etc.) is fundamentally good. 3. Traditional society and its communities(religion, family structure, etc.) was fundamentally good. 4. The political unity that defined the post-war US was fundamentally good. Then the arguments made are based around the deviation from these unquestioned norms. If these things are good, then the politicians are bad - on both sides - because they instigated and escalated division, and must also take all the blame for economic problems because they allowed the outsourcing of labor, and for social problems because they allowed more women and immigrants in the workforce and disrupted the traditional society. Note that I list four assumptions, not five. That's because the politics are listed as a crisis separate from national identity. The rest of the article is summaries of these deviations, which you have surely read in other articles. The author concludes with "we must agree these things are the issue before we can rebuild a society".