Thoughts for the Day: Tuesday 16 February 2021

 

Inadequate Equilibria

Eliezer Yudkowsky

There’s just such a vast array of mistakes human minds can make that if you rejected every argument that looks like it could maybe be guilty of some fallacy, you’d be left with nothing at all. It often just doesn’t mean very much when we find that a line of argument can be made to look “suspiciously like” some fallacious argument. Or rather: being suspicious is one thing, and being so suspicious that relevant evidence cannot realistically overcome a suspicion is another.

Collingwood's The Idea of History

Peter Johnson

Collingwood may well be right to say that there can be no history of nature, but this surely applies to biography, too. What gives biography its structure – what determines its particular aspect, if you like – are not natural facts, but the individual’s perspective on their life understood as a whole. The skilled biographer not only relives the life of his subject, he enhances it through the telling. In the biographer’s hands, events in life which his subject made too little of or repressed can be induced to say more.

This is a significant argument given Collingwoods rather dour remarks about biography as a genre. But I agree with Johnson.

Collingwood's The Idea of History

Peter Johnson

By this process of re-enactment history is brought into the closest possible relationship with life, or, to put this in Collingwood’s language, it is necessarily linked to self-knowledge.

Men in Dark Times

Hannah Arendt

The world lies between people, and this in-between—much more than (as is often thought) men or even man—is today the object of the greatest concern and the most obvious upheaval in almost all the countries of the globe. Even where the world is still halfway in order, or is kept halfway in order, the public realm has lost the power of illumination which was originally part of its very nature.

The Wedge

Scott Carney

Think of the macrophage—and, for that matter, the entire diverse assembly of immune cells—as a pack of friendly wolves patrolling the area inside our skin, attacking the things that might hurt us. What happens when those wolves no longer have regular prey? They go stir-crazy. They get bored. And they might turn on themselves.

The following polling figures from WTF JHT website. 

poll/ 58% of American believe Trump should have been convicted. 61% said Trump’s conduct warranted him being impeached and put on trial. (ABC News)

poll/ 75% of Republicans say they’d like to see Trump play a prominent role in the Republican Party. Overall, 60% of Americans do not want Trump to play a prominent role in the party. (Quinnipiac)

poll/ 62% of Americans say a third political party is needed – up from 57% in September. 33% of Americans say the two major parties are doing an adequate job representing the public. (Gallup)

The following courtesy of Heather Cox Richardson's Substack feed. 

The Senate trial also gave powerful proof of just how undemocratic the Senate has become. Voting rights journalist Ari Berman noted that the “57 senators who voted to convict Trump represent 76.7 MILLION more Americans than 43 senators who voted to acquit.”

Read this whole Tweet chain by Berman: eye-opening. 

https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1360703942255067137?s=20

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne noted that the adherence of all but seven senators to Trump “should end the absurd talk that there is a burden on President Biden to achieve a bipartisan nirvana in Washington. If most Republicans can’t even admit that what Trump did is worthy of impeachment, how can anyone imagine that they would be willing and trustworthy governing partners?” 

And a couple of other outstanding one-liners from Dionne in his column: 

"Trump will prove to be even more of an albatross than [Herbert] Hoover, who, after all, had a moral core."

"You can tell how worried Republicans are that they are now the Trump Party by the contortions of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who aided Trump almost to the end. Rarely has a politician been more blatant in attempting the impossible feat of running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-trumpism/2021/02/14/17037b70-6f02-11eb-93be-c10813e358a2_story.html

Code Red: How Progressives & Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country by E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Maybe this book is as important as when I started reading it

Will progressives and moderates feud while America burns? 

Or will these natural allies take advantage of a historic opportunity to strengthen American democracy and defeat an increasingly radical form of conservatism? 

 The choice in our politics is that stark. This book is offered in a spirit of hope, but with a sense of alarm.

E.J. Dionne, Jr., Code Red: How Progressives & Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country

As I write this review on 11 March 2020, it appears that perhaps the battle royal that seemed to be brewing in the Democrat Party will be put on hold, at least until after the defeat of Donald Trump. Perhaps. But things have certainly changed even from when I began to read this book at the beginning of March when Sanders appeared to have a lead in the race for the nomination, and Biden had only a win (albeit big) in South Carolina. Today, after results from yesterday in the five states that voted, including Michigan, where Biden scored a very impressive win, and Washington, where Biden trails by a whisker with about two-thirds of precincts reporting, Biden is now has changed his position. Biden now is on track to receive the nomination (but in this world, trains can come off the track). So can we signal the all-clear sirens? Not quite yet.

Sanders isn't prepared to jump on the Joe bandwagon yet, but I've heard conjecture that he will come on board at a reasonable time and not try to damage Joe in his remaining campaign. Supporters? Well, we hope. But back to Dionne.

Even if the nomination is all but over, the message Dionne preaches is one that all Democrats need to heed through the election and beyond. In short, so-called progressives and so-called moderates need each other. Indeed, all Democrats who seriously contended for the nomination this year were progressives, all of them to the left of even Barack Obama. But Democrats, like almost any group, love to bicker about the smallest differences. When the goal is affordable health care for all, then "Medicare-for-All" versus upgraded Obamacare is a difference in the path, not the goal. Ditto with reducing inequality, climate change, access to education, treatment of immigrants and minorities, and so on. All Democrats stand in stark contrast the Party of Trump (no more "GOP"). We might use the analogy of an athletic team: the coach (voters in the primaries and caucuses) seem to have decided on the starting line-up (Biden), but Sanders and his supporters can still be a part of the team. (Although it would be nice if Sanders became a full-time Democrat, wouldn't it?)  One hopes (and I believe) that Bernie won't quit the team out of anger and frustration and that most of his supporters won't either. Bernie, if trends continue, will have been licked fair and square, so any claim of a fix or unfair fight (which seemed to have lingered after Clinton defeated him) will clearly prove to be nothing more than sour grapes.

But there will be--we hope--a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress after the election. And we will need moderates, or as I prefer to say, the "the pragmatists," to work with "the visionaries," those who want to go beyond where the American electorate is prepared to go. Indeed, I agree that great changes in our political and economic systems. And I don't differ much in my diagnosis from those wanting politically-mandated change. But I believe that most of the change will need to come from the bottom up and not imposed from the top down. It will be a combination of both. But pushing too hard from the top (politically) down onto the electorate would likely cause a severe backlash. And Dionne, who's an astute student of American political history, recognizes the necessary synergy needed between the visionaries and the pragmatists to foster change. FDR, for instance, was a political leader who walked this tight-rope successfully. Did FDR accomplish everything he and his visionary supporters would have liked? No. But he did enact change that shaped American life and politics for more than a half-century? Yes. Would the civil rights movement (visionary) have prevailed without the ultimate pragmatic politician, Lyndon Johnson? Likely not, or at least not when they did make great gains in the late 50s through the mid-60s. Like the positive and negative poles of a battery, the visionaries and the pragmatists need each other. Or as great American democratic socialist, Michael Harrington, quoted by Dionne, put it, "the left-wing of the possible" needs to practice "visionary gradualism."

Much of what I've written above channels what Dionne writes about in his book. I've long been a fan of his work: he's a student of high-brow political thought (Francis Fukuyama, Mark Lilla, and Michael Harrington get mentioned and discussed), he pays attention to the insights from contemporary electoral research, and he performs shoe-leather reporting that tries to access what non-elites are thinking, all of which makes for first-rate reporting and analysis. Also--and this should probably be first on my list--Dionne holds a set of values and perspective that I find myself in close agreement with, one that seeks that perfect balance between vision and pragmatism. (Of course, maybe just a little of my high regard for Dionne is based on the fact that he had the tremendous insight to quote our older daughter and her friend in a column he wrote way back in 2000. Our daughter had introduced Bill Bradley at a campaign event. Of course, almost every politically active Iowan should expect some political reporter to quote them at some point during the caucus season.) Anyway, once again I find myself in agreement with Dionne and appreciative of his insights. So while the game isn't over, we should soon expect to have our starting line-up. I hope that everybody who cares about defeating our opponent gets involved and helps us pull together toward a resounding win. 

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid---Or Better Yet, Don't

I want to share some random thoughts on recent convergences between events and my reading. The events have to do with injury and death, and the reading primarily, concerns and NNT’s Antifragile, as well as some blog sites.

The attack on the Boston Marathon and the subsequent pursuit and capture of the bombers has taken a total of four lives, with a number of other people critically or seriously wounded some suffering horrible injuries that will alter the remainder of their lives. At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut last December, 27 persons, including teachers and children, lost their lives. In Aurora Colorado last summer, 13 people lost their lives at the hands of the lone gunman. Finally, around the time of the events in Boston, a plant exploded in Texas taking 14 lives. One never wants to fall into the logic of Stalin’s cruel adage that “a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”, but we do need to look carefully at what mortally threatens us.

Although it’s too early to know yet the full extent of whatever arsenal the Boston bombers held, it was surely significant given the firefight that they entered into with the authorities. Yet, immediately before those events, the U.S. Senate, despite polls showing overwhelming support, refused to take any action to limit or control access to firearms. The huge disconnect between the threat of firearms in our society and the willingness of the federal government to address this issue is truly frightening.

What we learned from the firearms debate, as well from other debates over a number of other issues, that our political system is broken. It is broken because the Senate refuses to alter the antiquated and anti-democratic practice of the filibuster; it is broken because a minority of the population and often a minority of the minority of the population) can effectively veto any legislation; and finally, our system is thoroughly corrupted by our campaign financing system. I personally decided to get involved with rootstrikers.org as a way to try to get the issue of political corruption addressed (I’ll be more writing more about this soon).

We also have to consider the stories that we will attribute to Boston. Was it an act of “terrorism”? Was it at an act of jihad, or was it a Columbine-like act? I think it is too early to say, but what I fear we are seeing is a fusion of the two lines of terror. If we limit the definition of terrorism to overtly political acts planned and perpetrated with some ultimate political goal in mind, then we still can’t be sure if the Boston bombers qualify. However, if we broaden the definition to include acts like those at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine High School, then surely we have encompassed possible motives for the Boston bombers. What do the actions of those who perpetrated Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook have in common with those of the Boston bombers? All were the actions of young males. It may be that the Boston bombers intended to give some patina of jihadism them to their attacks, but we may be missing a much more fundamental phenomena. If history has taught us anything (and I warily use that tired cliché), it is the volatility and danger of young men. In India, we see it in some bombings, but most commonly in acts of horrific violence against women and children. The way the acts of disaffected young men play out varies, but the inclination—even preference—for violence is marked. Cliodynamics expert Peter Turchin suggests that we will see an upswing of violence sometime within the next 10 years. I hope he’s wrong, but events of the last year suggest he may have some insight.

Boston may show, and it’s my theory in general, that Islam, and jihadism in particular, are often simply vehicles for disaffected young men acting out their violent resentments. Religion (and this can include Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, among others) can give form and meaning to the violent proclivities we observe, but none of these belief systems intrinsically promotes this attitude. Indeed, the vast majority practitioners and doctrines in each religion prefer peace and compassion.

The photo above (taken from Stephen Walt’s blog) is perhaps the scariest image of the week. All of us owe thanks to law enforcement officials who quickly identified and apprehended these violent criminals. (These young men committed criminal acts—whatever motives we attribute to them—and they should be prosecuted as such). More importantly, however, it’s the lock down and manhunt in Boston should give us pause. During that one day, Boston approached a police state. The radical gun proponents seem to think that their rights are going to be taken away by a liberal-dominated government seeking to take away their weapons (a fantasy if there was one), but it’s our desire as a nation  to assure absolute safety that makes it much more likely that we’d fall prey to authoritarian government. I’ve said many times before that war is the greatest enemy of democracy; a war on crime or terrorism is perhaps an even greater threat than wars undertaken abroad. I say this not as a criticism of any elected officials or law enforcement officials who acted this week in Boston, but as a general warning. We have to keep the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our historic and long-standing system of criminal procedure intact. Shame on Senators Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina) and John McCain (R. Arizona) for seeking to undermine and denigrate our criminal justice system.

The other very troubling aspect of the Boston shut down was the message that it sent to other would-be criminals, whether whatever their motivations. We have sent the message that a major American city can be shut down by a single violent criminal at large. Granted, he was dangerous and should have been treated by both the law enforcement and civilians with the greatest of caution, but were we wise to send this message? Although there a lot of precedents that I would not look to Israel for guidance about, its attitude towards terrorist actions (or criminal actions) is to go about life as normally as possible. These are the words that Obama uttered, but they are not the actions that officials in Massachusetts took.

Largely missing from the news because of how it fit into the events in Boston, was the explosion of a plant in Texas. This is Texas that prides itself on its lack of regulation of businesses (“intrusive or burdensome regulations”) and so-called tort reform (price controls on tort recoveries). I can’t help but think of India when I think of Texas, as India has this unregulated Wild West aspect to it. In assessing risks and where to live, two things I would consider are a state (or nation’s) gun laws (the more restrictive the safer the locale) and the strength of their regulatory and legal system. If potentially dangerous entities are regulated and subject to legal sanctions when they endanger people, then a locale is safer. To paraphrase Lincoln Steffens (who really got it wrong about the Soviet Union), “I have seen the future, and it doesn’t work”.

We need to sort out the risks in our lives. We cannot be absolutely safe, and as NNT argues in Antifragile, attempts to do so can actually prove counterproductive. This dictum applies to terrorism, it applies to crime, it applies to gun regulation, and it applies to other types of regulations. Finding the optimal mix of regulation and control is the challenge. It’s going to take some hard, clearheaded thinking. It’s going to involve taking some risks and realizing that the more we attempt to make ourselves absolutely safe, the more we endanger ourselves.

Here are some discussions of the situations that I’ve found worthwhile: 

E.J. Dionne: https://www.readability.com/articles/cie4zdi5 “They Way Forward on Guns”

Stephen Walt: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/19/the_lockdown_in_boston “The Lockdown in Boston”

Robert Wright: https://www.readability.com/articles/vksvrwqd “Drone Strikes and the Boston Marathon Bombings”

NYT: https://www.readability.com/articles/zncm1fti “Legal Questions Riddle the Boston Marathon Case” 

John Cassidy: https://www.readability.com/articles/ckmkklcx “Terrorist Hunt Sends America Over the Edge”

Rick Perlstein https://www.readability.com/articles/gf0frysx “Our Politics of Fear”

Jack Goldstone, https://www.readability.com/articles/txgthswo “Tragedy in Boston”

Bill Minutaglio, NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/opinion/in-the-texas-plant-explosion-history-repeats-itself.html 
"Texas on Fire, Again and Again"

E. Dionne: If He's Happy, I'm Happy

I missed the President's big speech last night since I was traveling and meeting with clients. However, if Dionne's report is accurate--and from the snippets I saw in TV, it is--then Obama has done what I believe he should do: not only propose a new jobs program, but also lay down the smack to the Republicans. He did both. Bully for him! And good for all of the rest of us!

I spoke to a local Democratic legislator Wednesday night after we both heard former Labor Secretary Robert Reich speak @ the IMU, and I shared these concerns. As she pointed out, Obama has to compromise because the Republicans were putting a gun to our heads with the politics of threat. However, I argued, and still do, that Obama has to rally his troops and show the nation who wants to do what. Protect the very wealthiest from tax cuts? Allow joblessness to linger? Pick up the failed policies of the 1930's? Not for me buddy, and not without going down with a fight. You go Obama!

E.J. Dionne in London on London (and the other cities)

Interesting follow-up to the last post (on Goldstone). Here we have Dionne talking the politics of all of this (in GB). We (democracies) have a problem having an adult debate. Yes, condemn, arrest, and punish. Stop rioting, but riots don't just grow on trees, they grow out of bad conditions. No rioting here on Magowan Ave. Wonder why not? We can't condone or reward, but we (and I say "we" because it can happen here) or the Brits would be dumb not to address causes. We'll see.

E. J. Dionne on Obama & Steven Johnson on the Future of the Book

E.J. Dionne is one of my favorite political commentators, and not just because he had the smarts to interview my daughter and her friend during the 2000 political campaign. He’s an insightful and sensible “liberal” (I generally don’t care for or trust such labels, but I bow here to popular prejudices). In his column today in the Washington Post, he argues that Obama has both “intellect” (vision, a sense of the whole) and “intelligence” (an ability to get things done). Dionne credits this distinction to Richard Hofstadter, the great American historian, from his Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1966). Worthwhile.

Steven Johnson wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the future of the book. For all bibliophiles, an interesting and challenging piece. Johnson is generally upbeat; I remain cautious. As much a blogs, and magazines and newspapers offer, nothing matches the extended argument and consideration of a book. Can it withstand all the potential for jumping and hoping? Johnson recognizes the problem, but he glosses over it. Otherwise, the Kindle 2 would certainly be a big temptation. Time will tell.