4 ms·

IMO Global Governance failed in 2020 not because of populist resistance and conspiracy theories but because the people in charge didn't practice what they preac

IMO Global Governance failed in 2020 not because of populist resistance and conspiracy theories but because the people in charge didn't practice what they preached. It didn't help that some governments took the opportunity to "not let a crisis go to waste" and push through unpopular or controversial policy. > I was saying that the coronavirus was a fire drill for global governance and would be a test of our ability to react to bigger problems like climate change. This is an interesting analogy. You talk about conspiracy theories and populist resistance (which were and are rampant) but let's not pretend that the "fire fighters" weren't at times sitting inside the very building that's ostensibly on fire drinking fine wine tea and eating fois gras. There were countless examples of the ruling class making exceptions to lockdowns / covid policy for their friends and political causes-du-jour while being outright draconian in restrictions to activities and groups that did not fall in line. The most obvious example in the US being the riots in 2020 surrounding BLM and the George Floyd killing vs people not being allowed to go to church services. Certainly, the zeitgeist from the media and ruling class would lead you to believe one was righteous and good while the other was "literally killing people". Alternatively, if you don't want a "culture war" example: small businesses were forced to shut their doors while big box retailers were allowed to remain open under the guise of being "essential businesses". How many of the small hardware stores survived COVID vs Lowes and Home Depot, both of which made record profits? Or, a more personal example: A very close relative of mine passed during COVID yet we were not allowed to have a funeral for her. We followed all the prescribed precautions - vaccine, masking, social distancing, testing...all of it. When a high-ranking politician (John Lewis) passed, not only was his family allowed a funeral, they managed to have three former Presidents of the United States in attendance!

PaulHoule 3y ago
I like this reply (irrespective of the culture wars aspect) and it does underscore the difficulties. If you got into that Habermas book and its sequels (had to dig them out of deep archive from my Uni library they are so dense) you'd realize the problem is deep. A "department of legitimacy" would have to give out a lot of tough love and crack down on delegitimizing behavior, that's for sure. As case studies I would point out: (1) a sector of Republicans who pursue one kind of legitimacy, "sticking to their guns" and posturing with extreme positions (e.g. they feel like they have at least do something to buy the perception of legitimacy of somebody) and (2) Democrats who take legitimacy for granted (I'm Hillary Clinton, of course I am legitimate). In Hillary's case there was that experience of being on the receiving end of Richard Mellon Scaife's (oddly an unnamed villain in https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Sum-Society-Distribution-Possibilities-Change/dp/0465085881 https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Sum-Society-Distribution-Possibi...) war against her husband which convinced her that any illegitimacy perceptions were part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" thus nobody could have convinced her that she could have changed her behavior and won in 2016.

PaulHoule 3y ago

I like this reply (irrespective of the culture wars aspect) and it does underscore the difficulties. If you got into that Habermas book and its sequels (had to dig them out of deep archive from my Uni library they are so dense) you'd realize the problem is deep. A "department of legitimacy" would have to give out a lot of tough love and crack down on delegitimizing behavior, that's for sure. As case studies I would point out: (1) a sector of Republicans who pursue one kind of legitimacy, "sticking to their guns" and posturing with extreme positions (e.g. they feel like they have at least do something to buy the perception of legitimacy of somebody) and (2) Democrats who take legitimacy for granted (I'm Hillary Clinton, of course I am legitimate). In Hillary's case there was that experience of being on the receiving end of Richard Mellon Scaife's (oddly an unnamed villain in https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Sum-Society-Distribution-Possibilities-Change/dp/0465085881 https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Sum-Society-Distribution-Possibi...) war against her husband which convinced her that any illegitimacy perceptions were part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" thus nobody could have convinced her that she could have changed her behavior and won in 2016.