Robust Analysis

Readings and occasional commentary

Robust Analysis

Burn-It-All-Down Populism

Posted on by

Catherine Rampell, Fan club for suspected shooter is a symptom of burn-it-all-down populism:

Public praise for a killer is an escalation of a troubling trend: bloodlust for destruction & retribution. Americans are rejecting leaders who propose solutions for problems, in favor of antiheroes who just want to burn everything down—figuratively or literally.

I disagree with Rampell’s characterization of Senator Warren’s statement as expressing sympathy with Mangione – Warren offered an explanation of the motivations for vigilantism, not an excuse for it – but otherwise I concur with her take:

Here’s the thing about indulging this annihilative reflex to infuriating social problems: Besides the obvious moral odiousness, it doesn’t fix the problems.

Murdering health-care executives won’t help more Americans get care. Purging the FBI won’t reduce crime. Jailing political enemies won’t lower egg prices.

It’s easier to break something than to build it. But to solve a problem, something eventually needs to be built. That part is boring, hard and, lately, not well appreciated by the public.

 

“The meaning crisis, and how we rescue young men from reactionary politics”

Posted on by

From “The meaning crisis, and how we rescue young men from reactionary politics” by Aaron Rabinowitz:

Everyone needs meaning in their lives. Society used to hand men a simple set of narratives for meaning-making: provider, protector, patriarch. Now some segments of the male population feel they are denied those paths, told that it is chauvinistic to see themselves that way, and that progress demands they sit down, shut up, and let others take the lead. While that is good and right for those who are finally being allowed to also participate in society, many men feel they are denied any appealing alternatives. If a large swathe of the population feels they are being denied avenues for meaning-making in their lives, it becomes everyone’s problem, because they will find a way to make their lives meaningful, and in the absence of water they will drink sand.

A correspondent comments:  “Creating spaces to explore models for living as cooperative partners rather than in a hierarchy of superior-inferior positions seems like a good idea.”

Thought for the Day – November 19, 2024

Posted on by

If [Rep. Nancy] Mace finds it difficult to use the toilet without thinking sexual thoughts or inspecting the genitals of the others in the bathroom she would be well advised to shut the stall door and keep her hatred and darkness to herself.

-Rep. Sean Casten

As some of you know, I have a trans son. I think it’s fine to thoughtfully debate whether trans girls can be in girls sports. Not debatable: Transgenderism is real & stirring up hatred against a minority community for political gain is despicable. That’s what this is. Period.

–Jon Ralston

Thoughts for the Day – November 11, 2024

Posted on by

I haven’t posted much in recent years.   There are two reasons:  1)  Better things to do/things I enjoy more and 2) I’ve been a bit more at-ease with the world – not so much with the Big Picture but with it on a day-to-day basis.  So much for #2.

“Observe, orient, decide, act.”

The nominal goals of the incoming administration include:

  1. Economic boom,
  2. Mass deportation,
  3. Relegation of half the population to second-class citizen status, and
  4. Non-violent coexistence with other nations

It doesn’t seem plausible that all of those things can exist simultaneously.  #1 is conditional on #4.  #2 and #3 will alienate international allies and result in a loss of goodwill that will #4 much more challenging.  On the domestic side, imagine that #s 2 and 3 and the violence necessary to implement them will alienate many people who maintain our security.  That feels unlikely to play out well in the long run – and perhaps not even in the short run.  Our adversaries are opportunistic.  They will try to take advantage of internal strife.  I hope he goes for #1 and #4.  He’ll trash our country just like he has every other one of his ventures, but going for #1 and #4 would leave us in the least worst position when (if?) people get serious about climbing out of the crater.  (Prediction:  He’ll go for 1-3 and think he can coerce 4. It won’t work and we’ll end up with 2 & 3.)

That’s hope and speculation more than observation but it’s part of how I’m trying to orient myself.

 

Question of the Day – November 9, 2024

Posted on by

Either people specify what they mean when they say “elite” or the term is just meaningless pejorative. Both parties are dominated by elites in any conventional sense of what that means!  The question is: Why are right-wing elites more palatable to voters than liberal ones?

-Jamelle Bouie