At the beginning of the book, the author adds a chapter arguing that the end justifies the means. This is necessary because much of what he recommends is “uncivilized” and inherently a bit misleading. For example, he later refers to the moment when some members of his team question the ethics of personally attacking a “good” man who stood in the way of a particular policy they were advocating. In a separate section of the book, he argues that you need to characterize your enemies in an extreme way in order to mobilize your followers (for example. B Nazis, racists), even if your differences are not so significant. Otherwise, people will not be motivated to take the necessary steps to make changes. He notes that some team members won`t understand if you later negotiate a solution with the people you`ve demonized before. In the section on tactics, he notes: “In a fight, almost anything is allowed.” And, of course, his thirteenth rule is: “Choose the target, freeze it, customize it, and polarize it.” We see it a lot now. This is where the key to this mystery lies, except that it is not caused by the “left”. When people feel threatened, they group tightly together. This behavior has survival benefits. Nothing predicts the outcome of violent competition better than numerical superiority and coordination.
This grouping reflex is integrated into our DNA. The key to the observed political pattern is that people on both the right and the left react as if they are threatened with violence. What everyone misses or ignores – I can`t say which one – is that any government operation that goes beyond the limited criteria of the citizenship grant is violence against someone. And in a majority government, democracy prevails over the fact that “someone” is the minority. People are hurt by their government. They react by banding together tightly and trying to regain control of the government so that they are no longer their target. What`s confusing is that once they have control, they don`t stop the carnage. They simply redirect it to the losers of political competition, which makes the losers group much more closely. The solution is simple, and these are not involuntary labor camps. It is a question of no longer using the government for activities that have nothing to do with justice.
Medicare. Medicaid. Social security. Even education. They steal from all citizens of minorities and impose obedience on them. It`s slavery, it`s theft and it`s harmful. If I may, let me hold up a mirror to science itself. Does this “uncivil segmentation” affect faculty, not only in terms of politics, but also in terms of schools of thought? When it comes to politics, I`ve seen a rather exaggerated reaction from academics to Trump`s election, so much so that there is regularly a “Tourette syndrome” – diatribes about the current political landscape that seems stronger than the past.
It`s almost as if there are “hateful two-minute sessions” to conduct meetings that have nothing to do with the current political landscape. And those who do not respect the line are immediately skipped. This phenomenon of “anger” includes many people who are supposed to be the ones who are supposed to analyze the political landscape in a professional (passionless) way. But is that what we do? The social science profession seems to approach the Trump administration as a big outlier (several standard deviations above average), but has anyone asked whether the government is really that “far away” or not? In short, does what Professor Mason studies in the political world also affect the profession in which the analysis is conducted? I have exactly the same observations. I am a European who sometimes tries to follow American policy. I try to get a more objective picture by reading different websites: I read a conservative site (National Review), one on the left (Salon.com), and one that has articles on both sides (New York Times, although it also seems more to the left). I`ve read articles in salon.com that are full of pure hatred against whites, men, Trump voters, etc. I have never read a similar agitation in the National Review.
Yes, leftists are becoming more and more positive about socialism and trying to gloss over the crimes of the communists, while I have not noticed anything comparable with regard to the right and the Nazis. Antifa is violent, and I don`t see any comparable violent group on the right. Restrictions on expression, demonstrations on campus, bans on speakers, firing people for bad thoughts, all these undemocratic and uncivilized things are mostly left-wing. Russ Roberts: [40:26] Yes. Well, you`re talking about the fact that – and I myself have this romance to some extent, although I think listeners might think that`s not the case. But there is this view that political outcomes are the aggregation of citizens` preferences. We spend a lot of time with this program and talk about the fact that there are a lot of gaps in this context. and also the fact that we have no “will” – the people. There are often wide differences of opinion. But what you mean is that the correlation between citizens` political preferences and political outcomes is diminished because of this partisan intensity. I will again nominate Arthur Brooks as a potential future guest on this topic (or a related topic), based on his new podcast focused on the art of disagreement.
As a Liberal myself, Brooks is one of those Conservatives that I watch because I am interested in some of his work. I`m a little lost in the idea that you can`t have proportional representation in the United States (a parliamentary system). It would be entirely plausible to use the House of Representatives and (potentially) increase the number of representatives to ensure that all states have at least 5 repetitions (just throw away a certain number). It would be a state-to-country parliament, which would make it unique, but I see no reason why, instead of each state voting at the district level, we wouldn`t be able to have party-led elections for the House of Representatives – much like the Dutch House of Representatives. This could be done at the national level or from one State to another, although it is constitutionally more difficult to create a system at the national level. Russ Roberts: The only problem with that is that if Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or someone, Kamala Harris— is the candidate, it`s going to be really hard for these Republicans to stand up and vote for them. And part of that, of course, is: I just can`t put on a Yankee hat. I am sorry. It just doesn`t happen. “But the weather is really nice outside. That`s all I have.
I know. It doesn`t matter. I will undergo sunstroke. Russ Roberts: Then they have fewer listeners and spectators – Russ Roberts: I had a good friend in St. Louis, when I lived there, we would gather for Super Bowl parties and election nights. And celebrated as much as possible – sometimes our team wasn`t in the Super Bowl and our team wasn`t really in the choice because for me in general, I`m never satisfied on both sides. But it`s still fun. You`re still putting down roots – you`re excited. Maybe you prefer one to the other. It`s exciting. For me, the guest descended into obvious partisanship while trying to stay aloof: a kind of CNN or Fox host who claims to have no horse in the race.
Two examples: instead of “national service” (which indicates hard or soft coercion.. and similar to the requirement for high school students to volunteer), I would rather prefer fewer barriers to civil society organizations that would give people their own autonomy to find cross-cutting divisions….