Blurts & Spasms

Testing Entry

Below is a link to the latest summary of Level 7 political economy key concepts, resources, and action plan, with a section at the end of each chapter to reflect on personal notes, questions, and actionable next steps. AI tools were used to assist with organization and illustration of this document — basically I asked a chatbot to summarize my www.level-7.org website.

AI did a great job with organization and finding supportive examples, but fell far short of adequately representing many Level 7 concepts. Still, it was a useful excercise. In particular, it helped me better define certain ideas, and then present them within a more approachable structure and conicise focus, and in a simpler language. It might be too simple, in fact, but time will tell. 

Level 7: Blueprint for a Sustainable and Equitable Future

 

 

1. Become really well-informed by relying on media with low bias and high factuality. See: Media Bias/Fact Check News and groundnews Resources and Information. For local issues, find local media that is the most factual and unbiased. At the same time, avoid relying on social media for information (yes, I realize the irony of this statement, this being a social media post). Make this self-education a daily discipline.
2. Become better educated than average about the causes — the reasons — behind why something you support is the way it is, and why something you want to see changed is the way it is. Basically, this is about understanding what actions and policies are most likely to support your values. This is probably the most difficult step, because you will need to dig into historical research and the results of studies from reputable organizations, and ignore what most politicians are saying. I’ll give you an example. The latest thorough, long-term academic research on Bill Clinton’s “welfare to work” legislation indicates it has created lasting damage for poor single moms and their kids — even though it DID also get many people off of welfare. It took me about an hour to research this and find to some well-done data-driven studies, and they contradict the dominant political narrative that this was a successful program. But doing this research is old hat for me, and might take someone just starting out a bit longer. Another example would be regarding abortion. Conservative rhetoric says the presence of Planned Parenthood clinics increases abortion access and overall abortion rates. But when we look at the actual data over decades, the opposite is true: any communities where Planned Parenthood had a clinic, abortion rates plummeted over time. Without appreciating what actions are actually effective in achieving the outcomes you feel are important, it’s easy to be hoodwinked by propaganda that “sounds reasonable” but is actually completely wrong.
3. Understand how your local, regional, state and national government works…and then start watching decision-making meetings of deliberative bodies (i.e. town council, various committees, legislature meetings, etc.). Where I live there are free community TV stations that cover these meetings — and in some instances those recordings and/or Zoom recordings are on YouTube. You can see national legislative meetings on CSPAN (for free on their mobile app). It’s really important to appreciate how decisions get made, so that you know how and when to insert yourself into the process (for public comment, to ask questions, to know which government representatives to reach out to, etc.)
4. Build a supportive community of like-minded folks who share your values and objectives. Check in with them regularly. Share resources. Be supportive. Discuss issues and ideas — and be willing to be both skeptical and open. This practice is critical IMO.
5. Join a non-profit organization that champions a cause you care about and acts locally and/or nationally. Then get involved — not just by giving money but participating in discussions, planning, and political activism events.
6. Consider running for office — locally, regionally, in your state, or even nationally. You would be AMAZED how little experience most people running for political office have when they start out. Just make sure you have done some of the previous steps listed above first, so you won’t be misled into being a puppet of other people’s interests (unfortunately very common in politics).
7. In all-of-the-above, make sure you are very clear about a) the outcomes you want to see in the world, b) your own moral and ethical compass, c) the bandwidth you have available, and d) keeping your supportive community close and relying on them to help you be clear and diligent about a, b, and c.

I hope this helps.

Don’t worry, it’s coming. Markets will likely react much sooner to the current instability than the on-the-ground effects of Trump’s policies…so it will be a 1–2–3–4 punch. First a “major adjustment” as investors lose confidence and abandon equities, then a steady uptick inflation trend will become evident, then a resulting constriction of economic activity that further tanks markets and triggers layoffs and jobless claims, then additional instability and weakening GDP as downstream impacts of tariffs disrupt productivity…and the downward spiral will continue. Internationally we already see major (former) U.S. trade partners moving away from the dollar and acquisition of U.S. debt — if that turns into a runaway selloff we could see the U.S. Treasuries market spiral as well. I’d estimate no more than six months before we see serious and lasting consequences for Trump’s mismanagement of the economy — a year at most. But by then the real structural damage will be done, which will then mean a very slow recovery (much slower than usual) from recessive stagflation even if policies are reversed. So I suspect we’re in for a rough ride for the next 6 years at least — and maybe more — if Trump and his appointed incompetent crazies keeps this up.

One could hope that at least some of the right-leaning voters in the U.S. will be able to place the blame for the impending calamity at Trump’s feet, and realize that MAGA is actually toxic to them and their families in time for the mid-term elections. Then again, those conservatives and independents seem to be pretty gullible, so they might believe whatever new con-job Trump and his crazies cook up to deflect blame from him.

We have to wonder, though, why Trump is so intent on destroying America on every level, weakening the U.S. economically, militarily, and abandoning America’s soft power. The appointments Trump has made to every part of government are unqualified, clueless clowns — choices that are as reckless and dumb as Trump’s executive orders. It almost seems like he wants to neutralize U.S. global status and reach altogether, so that his dictator buddies (Putin, Xi Jinping, Orban, et al) can step in to claim economic, political, and military advantage out of the vacuum Trump is creating. Hmmm…..

My 2 cents.

Some likely reasons for the U.S.A.:

1. The success of neoliberalism has been carefully engineered. ***See essay at the end of this post for more on this.***
2. A majority of mass media has been overwhelmed by well-funded propaganda, so a lot of folks believe in things like trickle-down economics.
3. Because “corporations are people,” and “money is free speech,” huge amounts of money have regularly been expended to get pro-corporate candidates elected.
4. Human gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills persist.
5. A conflation of liberty with greed and selfishness is pervasive.
6. The artful use of the illusory truth effect (i.e. repeating things enough that people think they are true, even if they’re just invented falsehoods) by proponents of neoliberalism.
7. Something I call “the broken brain effect.” You can’t really believe in the ludicrous garbage that Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman or Murray Rothbard come up with unless there is some faulty wiring up there. Unfortunately, there is a not-so-fine line between doubling down on delusional thinking that has zero evidence (i.e. neoliberal economic theory) and a diagnosable mental illness.
8. Incredible affluence compared to other parts of the world — and most of human history. Having so much affluence leads people into feelings of entitlement, and the most entitled folks in the U.S. are the wealthy. Even for the middle class and the poor, America’s above-average affluence has lead to embracing silly mistaken beliefs like individualistic materialism.

There are many more reasons, but here is an essay that offers more detail about how the neoliberal movement — which I call the great deception — has been engineered:

http://www.tcollinslogan.com/resources/The_Rise_of_Demagogues_in_Democracy.pdf

It was time.

This essay draws on many different ideas, from writers spanning Plato to Habermas, and offers an explanation and proposed remedy for the travesty of democracy – and tragedy for the U.S. and the world – that has just occurred with the reelection of Donald Trump. It focuses on what fifty years of a conservative political and social agenda has accomplished for America, and how its consequences were predicted over the past 2,400 years. Then the essay tackles what we can do to restore sanity and the common good in concrete and pragmatic terms. Introduction below.

DOWNLOAD PDF OF "The Rise of Demagogues And Tyrants in Democracy" HERE

Introduction

We were warned, but we did not listen. Several conditions have converged to create the perfect seedbed and fertilizer for demagogues and tyrants to spring forth and flourish in modern western democracies, while we seem to have passively expected that our civic institutions would be strong enough to resist or contain them. And, despite growing evidence to the contrary, many well-educated experts continue to assure us that existing tools to collectively prevent the sabotage of our civil society remain potent. But this essay proposes that such mechanisms and institutions are in fact not strong or potent enough – and predictably so – while also offering possible escape hatches from what has become a dire and accelerating downward spiral.

As a starting point, the explanations, accusations, and insights about what swayed the outcome of the U.S. 2024 Presidential election have been plentiful. They are wide-ranging, but include:
 

• The stoking of grievances and anxiety about an inflation economy that weren’t adequately addressed by Democrats.
• The unexpected but potent rise of podcast influencers and “Bro” culture.
• The electorate’s craving for simplistic, black-and-white solutions to complex problems.
• Frustrated finger-pointing at Joe Biden’s resistance to an open Democratic primary.
• A well-worn trope that the U.S. electorate is “just not ready” for a female president…let alone a woman of color.
• A lack of cogent response from the Left to the Right’s campaign against transgender rights.
• A bizarre confidence that Donald Trump’s policies will somehow be more favorable to the working class that Kamala Harris’ would have been.
• The clear observation that Harris did not sufficiently differentiate herself from an unpopular incumbent, or adequately appeal to working voters.
• The fundamental reality of worsening income inequality….

Are these explanations valid? I think a persuasive case can be made that each of them had a measurable impact on 2024 outcomes. But none of these can be singled out as the primary cause of Trump’s victory. In fact, even in combination these simplistic factors are a distraction from what should invite much more concern and scrutiny – and it is this larger, considerably darker storm that we’ll be exploring. It is storm that has been decades in the making, with a force and scope that might have been delayed, but not countered, by this or any other single national movement. I would even speculate that, with so many threads of history coming together at once, and with so much accumulated energy and momentum behind them, those conditions made the outcome of the 2024 U.S. elections inevitable.

What are those historical threads, then, and why have they converged right now? Here is a quick summary of those threads, each of which will be explored with more depth before weaving them into what has become a toxic whole.

1. Erosion and rejection of the rule of law
2. Celebration of greed, selfishness, and opportunism as acceptable cultural norms
3. Confusion about the nature of liberty, equality, and justice
4. Pervasive isolation, disconnection, and alienation across society
5. Cultural strife, discord, and division
6. Economic stress and worsening inequality
7. Willfully persistent ignorance

Although all of these influences have existed in human civilization for millennia, it is critically important to appreciate just how carefully, deliberately, and successfully they have been engineered and amplified over the last few decades. The amplification was the result of well-funded and coordinated efforts that were not arbitrary or accidental. And although many technological, cultural, and ideological developments could have lent themselves to any cause, it was one synthesis in particular that seems to have taken greatest advantages of these tools in current times: the marriage of free market fundamentalism, cultural conservatism, Christian nationalism, pro-white racism, and neoliberalism. This synergy has generated one of the greatest deceptions ever perpetrated on the U.S. electorate – and others around the globe.

Our hypothesis is that as these destructive conditions were carefully cultivated through methodical and sustained right-wing messaging and activism, they contributed to our cultural susceptibility, en masse, to the emotional appeals, deceptive manipulations, and empty promises of demagogic would-be tyrants – eventually coalescing in our current global reality as an unstoppable storm.

The through line of the underlying causality has become obvious, reinforced by the repeated warnings from both advocates and critics of democracy itself, and illustrated by unmistakable patterns in history. It seems, however, that we are an inattentive and forgetful folk, and have become acclimated over successive generations – like the metaphorical frog in a pot of boiling water – to adverse and degrading influences. Despite a chorus of reminders, we have relaxed our vigilance, and that is what allowed the opportunists first to plot, and then to strike.

This leads us to an obvious question: what is the best strategy for an effective and comprehensive response? We will aim to answer that question as well, not only addressing effective forms of resistance, but offering a path forward to building a stronger democratic civil society – on foundations of truth, justice, kindness, and caring – that can resist future storms and return a modicum of sanity to our world. 

Not every religion, but most dominant ones — and even nonreligious philosophies that take root where religion doesn’t — tend to define, reinforce, and encourage “prosocial” behavior. There is a growing body of evidence (see references below) that demonstrate a strong correlation between group fitness (i.e. survival of the fittest group of humans) and prosocial tendencies, which have indeed seemed to help humans succeed in very harsh environments. There is also a strong argument to be found among sociologists and philosophers that societies themselves flourish when prosocial behavior is the norm.

Has science made the role of religiously based prosocial behaviors obsolete? Those who are secular humanists — or others who follow a particular philosophy that emphasizes prosocial traits — might assert that religion is not necessary anymore. And that might be quite true…for them. For others, a desire for guidance and encouragement around how to “be a good person” might nudge them towards an established religion. Or they might find this by joining a charitable organization, or volunteering in their community, and so on.

But what we do know is that there aren’t many strong cultural institutions right now that encourage prosocial behavior — and those few that remain have either been degraded by bad actors or have simply declined. Take the Boy Scouts, for example, or the Shriners. The role of many such organizations (and indeed churches) has been replaced by things like GoFundMe campaigns, social media, and online groups bound more by political ideology and cultural beliefs than religion or science.

And I’m not so sure that prosocial traits are being adequately reinforced by any of these new pathways and practices — even ones supported by scientific evidence. And, in fact, some online groups have rejected science altogether in favor of conspiracy theories, etc.

As to “why religion was created in the first place,” that is very much open to debate. My own personal take, having studied (and practiced) different religions from around the world, is that there are common features of those religions that were inspired by personal felt experience — and by shared “mystical” insights into that felt experience. Essentially, before most religions became the institutions they are today, they were grounded in what was a communally shared spiritual reality that they actually perceived themselves (i.e. they weren’t relying on someone else’s account). My book Essential Mysticism explores this aspect.

REFERENCES

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112242
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-08941-002
Essential Mysticism - https://integrallifework.com/styled/page3/page20/index.html

This is a post that will be interesting to Christians curious about textual and historical evidence around women's roles and authority in early Christianity. It outlines the preponderance of evidence that supports gender equality, and the comparitive lack of evidence that enables cultural conservatives to claim that women are somehow subordinate to men in the Church. It is written specifically with a Chrisian audience in mind.

DOWNLOAD PDF OF "A Debate Over Gender Equality" HERE

Hatred is a strong word — and a pretty destructive one IMO, both in terms of personal emotions and as a collective mood. In fact I don’t think I can honestly say that I “hate” anyone, or would even want to associate with folks who “hate” something or someone…even when it is directed at those I really don’t like. How did I come to this conclusion? By observing human tendencies, behaviors and personal relationships in my own life, and by studying society and social movements throughout history. Wherever hate is involved, the outcomes are not good. So there may be folks that I am critical of, or feel embarrassed for, or disagree with, or am angry towards…but I don’t hate them. Because hate simply makes every problem worse. I agree with others who have posted that “getting to know” those we don’t agree with on a personal level — having a meal with them, befriending them, living with them, etc. — will help dissipate negative feelings; they are just people, after all, not monsters. But that is not really at the root of this question’s central challenge, IMO. Instead, I believe the focus should be on understanding what internal material — childhood traumas, for example, or personal loss and suffering, or unresolved internal conflicts, or a series of emotional injuries like betrayal or abuse, etc. — has contributed to the desire or choice to hate. In my experience, hate is really a consequence of these unaddressed internal and relational issues, and is not really about the object of hate at all. The “hated Other” has just become a scapegoat for all that internal pain, confusion and loss. So, with that in mind, I would recommend finding some resources to work through that difficult interior material (a therapist, a support group, a spiritual counsellor, etc.), while at the same time avoiding folks for whom hatred comes easily, strongly or swiftly, and instead spending more time with folks who are compassionate and kind to their core.

My 2 cents.

The real issue has to do with “real wages,” or wages adjusted for inflation. That is, how far each dollar earned can actually go (including those items we “can’t skimp on”), and how many of those dollars we’re actually earning. The chart below (from econbrowser.com) illustrates what’s been happening in that regard:

You can see that there can be high variability from year-to-year, and especially recently (since COVID). In the past couple of years, wages have been slowly beating inflation…so “real” wages have been rising. With more recent statistics, however, the softening of the job market indicates a possibly deceleration of these wage increases. So U.S. workers may have peaked.

For lower income workers, the reality is that certain types of inflation (in particular food, energy, and rents) have the potential to affect that group’s “real wages” differently than U.S. workers as a whole. Why? Because folks in the lowest 10% income bracket have 35% of their budget allocated to these items, while folks in the highest 10% income bracket have only 13% of their budget allocated to these items.

But here’s the rub: that lowest income bracket has received recent wage increase that have actually outpaced those inflation-sensitive goods and services. Which means that, at least up until very recently, they are actually still getting ahead. You can read more about this here:

https://www.employamerica.org/blog/energy-food-rent-how-will-rate-hikes-help-the-poor-face-their-rising-costs/

That said, every situation is different. For folks on fixed incomes, like a retirement pensions, disability, or social security, there has not been the same rapid offset. Even with annual inflation adjustments to social security (COLA), money simply does not go as far for these folks, and they tend to be more susceptible to “inflation shock.” Here is an article that discusses the impact of inflation on retirees:

https://crr.bc.edu/how-does-inflation-impact-near-retirees-and-retirees/

My 2 cents.

A POWERFUL REMEDY

The tragedy that occurred at the July 13th Pennsylvania rally is one more heartbreaking indicator o­­f the spiraling crisis in America's body politic. It is unfortunate evidence that our collective moral compass continues to be crippled and distorted by angry, hateful political rhetoric. By rhetoric that seeks to defame and ridicule political opponents, promote baseless conspiracy theories, and wantonly encourage political violence – all in service to purely political ends. Before any other considerations, this angry and hateful rhetoric has to stop. Yes, there are other critical challenges to consider, other legitimate sources of grievance, and other serious fractures in civil society that must be healed. But it is a hateful, misleading, and demeaning polemic – issued constantly by pundits and politicians and then amplified across our media – that has too often become the spark that ignites flames of murderous rage. Our only bulwark against this manipulation is to demand that it end right now. Across the political spectrum, and from all corners of the media, this must be our unwavering ultimatum and committed call to action. A unity of moral clarity to reject hateful lies may be our only hope to avert a rapidly worsening, maliciously perpetuating political calamity.

You could say that a large number of populist movements throughout history have arisen from very similar conditions and narratives — and that holds true of current fascist movements around the globe. These shared conditions and narratives include:

• Enduring and increasing economic inequality and lack of economic mobility.
• Anxiety over a perceived loss of status and influence among groups who formerly considered themselves to be among society’s more privileged.
• Frustration with the status quo, and mistrust of existing methods of remedy, equalization, and empowerment (i.e. government, civic institutions, political leadership, democratic elections, etc.).
• Deteriorating economic conditions — or fears about deteriorating economic conditions.
• Deep mistrust — usually racist at its core — about outsiders polluting or corrupting an otherwise “pure and good” society.

What makes fascism unique in its response to these common factors is that fascist movements tend to make fundamental errors about the underlying causes of these undesirable conditions and narratives. For example, fascism tends to blame a particular group in society — such as immigrants, or a “corrupt elite,” or certain racial, religious, or political groups — for all undesirable conditions and felt realities, without establishing a factual bases for those accusations. But the false narratives are extremely effective in uniting angry adherents in an “Us vs. Them” influence campaign of nationalistic and often religious fervor. Historically this can spread like wildfire across society without mass media, but today mass media and especially social media effectively fan those flames and accelerate the spread of fascist ideology.

It should be noted that fascism has never been spontaneous — it is carefully cultivated through disinformation and emotional appeals. Yes, the conditions (the frustrations, the inequity, the dissatisfaction, the fears) are real, but they are manipulated with carefully crafted misleading narratives and false promises to empower opportunistic leaders.

There is also usually a central leadership figure — often a pedantic strongman gifted in hateful rhetoric — offering themselves as the “only solution” to society’s woes, and constantly keeping folks angry, fearful, and motivated. These fascists leaders have nearly always promoted overly simplified solutions to complex problems, and successfully vilified certain members of society as scapegoats to take the blame.

We see all of this being replicated around the world today in various movements — and in the style and rhetoric of what are most often populist far-right political leaders. In the U.S., the strongest fascist tendencies were traditionally held by white supremacist groups, but we have now seen those tendencies infect and overtake the Christian nationalism in the MAGA movement as well.

I hope this was helpful. Here are some links to explore this topic further:

https://www.theindiaforum.in/society/why-fascism-rise-world-over

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/news/fascism-rise-where-does-it-come-and-how-stop-it-common-european-response

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/19/17847110/how-fascism-works-donald-trump-jason-stanley

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/february-web-only/what-is-christian-nationalism.html

 

It is very easy to become disenchanted with U.S. politics. Years ago, as a party delegate in the Washington State Presidential primaries when I was in my late teens, I was asked by the DNC to switch the votes I represented – some 34,000 voters at the state convention – to support the candidate the party decided was most likely to be the winner in other states. I was devastated, as that seemed like a betrayal of those voters, who had absolutely no say in the matter. But that is how things in the real world of our current two-party system are decided. For me, it was the beginning of a harsh and depressing learning curve about that system, the flaws of the electoral college, and how actual “representative” power is brokered by a relatively small number of affluent folks in the U.S. at both state and federal levels. Frankly, it seemed very corrupt, and undermined my youthful idealism for years afterward.

But I still believe voting is incredibly important, and I wanted to share why, even after observing even more disappointing conditions in the U.S. political system over the intervening decades, I still vote regularly at every local, state, and federal election – and perhaps more importantly, why I work very hard to be the most informed voter I can be in each of those elections.

First, I think it is critical to explore some of the profound weaknesses of status quo democracy in U.S. politics, just so we can be very clear about how bad things have become, and what we must do to set them aright. After all those unfortunate details, I’ll explain why I think informed voting nevertheless remains a powerful individual and collective act to support U.S. civil society, and share some of the tools I use to stay informed enough to vote most effectively.

A “top six” list of factors that have undermined the U.S. democratic system:

1. A two-party stranglehold on U.S. politics. Since the early 1800s, the U.S. democratic system has not allowed third parties to have much power in our country, with very few third-party candidates getting elected to any office over the past two centuries. At the state level in particular it is extremely difficult to even get a third-party candidate onto a ballot. And for the rare third-party candidate who does get elected to have any influence, they must align themselves with Republicans or Democrats in order to govern (i.e. get legislation passed, etc.). At the national level, third parties have routinely fractured and diluted either Democrat or Republican votes, allowing the opposing side’s candidates to win – although the ideas of third-party candidates who do well can often influence political discourse and policy on both ends of the political spectrum. (Read more about this here).

2. Massive amounts of “dark money” in political campaigns. This is a result of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited amounts of dark money –money that cannot be traced to any single source – to be used by super PACs in political campaigns. The ruling protects such unlimited spending by corporations and wealthy donors as “free speech,” even though political contributions had been much more strictly and transparently limited before this change. As a consequence of the Citizens United ruling, a very small group of extremely wealthy special interests have disproportionately influenced outcomes in local, state, and federal elections, sometimes spending a billion or more dollars during each election cycle. (Read more about this here and here)

3. The fundamental structure of the U.S. political system. The framers of the U.S. Constitution did their best to balance many competing concerns around a fledgling democracy, but some of their decisions clearly lacked adequate foresight, resulting in barriers to an equitable democracy they could not anticipate. Take for example the allocation of only two senators to each state. This has resulted in California, with a population of 39 million people, having the same representation in the U.S. Senate as Wyoming, with a population of only 500,000 people. The electoral college system, similarly intended to allow all U.S. states to have similarly imbalanced influence in presidential elections, ends up negating a huge number of individual votes. For example, in those same two states, Wyoming has one electoral vote for every 190,000 voters, while California has one electoral vote to every 700,000 voters. Additionally, 48 states have “winner-take-all” systems for awarding their electors, rather than awarding votes proportionally to the candidates that folks in those states actually voted for. As a result, the winner of U.S. popular vote can, and has, contradicted the electoral college results in national elections – in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. (Read more about this here and here)

4. Distortions and deceptions across mass media and the Internet. Three things have undermined the ability of mass media to adequately and factually inform U.S. voters in recent history. First, in 1987, the FCC abolished the “Fairness Doctrine” after Ronald Reagan vetoed legislation to continue that 40-year policy. This dealt a devastating blow to balanced, less biased, more factual reporting in U.S. news, and resulted in a new breed of news broadcasting that unabashedly pandered to special interests and amplified political propaganda. Second, foreign state governments began carefully crafting misinformation and disinformation campaigns to mislead voters in the U.S. – campaigns that really caught fire with the advent of the Internet in the 1990s. Third, the success of social media platforms in the 2000s then rewarded carefully crafted misinformation and disinformation campaigns by propagating them broadly and rapidly with outrageous claims and other “click bait” that appealed to existing fears, indignation, and political biases. (Read more about this here, here, and here).

5. Fake research to support fake “truth” and science skepticism. In the early 1970s, well-funded conservative think tanks were created to influence U.S. policy, persuade elected and appointed officials, and shape voter thinking around certain topics. Probably the best examples of these efforts are pro-tobacco and anti-climate change propaganda, and the campaign to excite deeper skepticism about science itself – all of which began back in the 1970s and continue into the present day. The impact of these think tanks has been far-reaching, including everything from inviting sitting Supreme Court Justices to attend all-expenses-paid “informational retreats” where they were subjected to persuasive faulty research and overt indoctrination, to shaping the political narrative in the U.S. by routinely providing “experts” who discredit factual data to be interviewed on news media outlets. An astonishing amount of false information has now been accepted as gospel in the United States as a result of these efforts, and had exactly the desired effect on election and legislative outcomes. (Read more about this here, here, and here)

6. Deliberate and systematic sabotaging of the voting process through the courts or legislation. Such efforts include partisan redistricting/gerrymandering at the state level, disrupting new voter registration, disenfranchisement of poor voters and voters of color with new voting rules that disproportionately impact them (for example, rolling back protections of the Voting Rights Act in the South beginning in 2013 led to many new, restrictive state laws), and promoting nonfactual conspiracy theories about election fraud that actually lead – rather contrarily – to the intimidation and quitting of election officials, or to states withdrawing from systems like “ERIC” that actually reduce the chances of voter fraud. (Read more about this here, here, and here)

So how should we react to these discouraging conditions…?

Well certainly the easiest decision would be to throw up our hands, disengage from this unfortunate reality, and stop voting. According to a 2023 PEW Research study, a majority of Americans surveyed felt exhausted and angered by U.S. politics – citing many of the concerns outlined above – and this was despite some of the highest turnouts in the previous three U.S. elections. That said, the higher-than-average voter turnout meant that, across those three elections (2018, 2020, and 2022), only 37% of eligible voters voted in all three elections. This is a pretty dismal level of consistent engagement. (Read more about this here)

Thomas Jefferson’s old adage certainly holds that “the government you elect is the government you deserve,” especially if we don’t vote at all. At the same time, Jefferson also opined: “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” And I think his point is essential to a functional democracy: without being as well-informed as we can be, voters will tend to fall under the spell of “tyranny and oppressions of body and mind,” and either lose interest in their own governance…or subscribe to fear-based conspiracies about it. Jefferson sums things up this way: “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

So that is how I arrived at my convictions to remain well-informed and engaged with the political process, even after learning about how vulnerable, threatened, or corrupted our democratic institutions have become. Thinking we accomplish anything by not voting – or by voting for a third-party candidate – is the false choice we have to resist. We know this because of past election outcomes, where third party candidates and/or lack of voter participation contributed directly to candidates being elected POTUS who did not win the popular vote – this was a determining factor in both the 2000 and 2016 elections (read about these here). Instead, we must at least attempt to counter any corrosive sabotage of our democratic systems, or things will become much worse over time. Why will they get worse? Because there are those who would prefer not to allow messy democracy to interfere with their hold on power, and – as evidenced by the “top six” issues listed above – they are relentless in their self-serving pursuit of political power.

What tools, then, are available to us to remain informed, engaged, and vigilant?

First and foremost, to appreciate how biased and/or factual information from a particular news outlet will be, please check out https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/. 

Then, from my experience, some of the more trustworthy sources of news and well-vetted information include:

Worldpress.org (World Press Review — includes different perspectives from all around the globe)
News.Gallup.com (Gallup News; see also Gallup Reports)
Reuters.com (Reuters)
PewResearch.org (Pew Research)
ICIJ.org (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists)
Opensecrets.org (Open Secrets)
Factcheck.org
Politifact.com (Politifact)
Snopes.com (Snopes)
Factchequeado.com (fact checking in Spanish)

In contrast, below is a list of sources I have concluded are nearly always either highly biased, counterfactual, or have a specific agenda to manipulate the truth to some nefarious end (such as to sew discord, misinform, evoke fear or irrational doubts, etc.). Due to a baked-in business model of creating sensational but shallow takes on current events in order to lure viewers, a majority of social media (Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Truth Social, etc.) memes, influencers, and podcasts also tend to be much less reliable. Here, then, is a list of the most questionable sources:

RT.com (Russia Today, RT News)
SputnikNews.com and Radio Sputnik (Sputnik News, formerly RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia)
Infowars.com (InfoWars)
TheSun.co.uk (The Sun)
Voltairenet.org (Voltaire Network)
Oann.com (One American News Network)
FoxNews.com (Fox News)
Breitbart.com (Breitbart)
TheEpochTimes.com (The Epoch Times and NTD TV)
21stCenturyWire.com

And lastly, here are some personal favorites that I find very interesting (though admittedly some of these are more biased than others), and which I often rely upon to help me navigate the nuances of many compelling issues in the news:

Ground.news (Ground News captures current news stories through left, right, and center lenses of bias – and highlights "blind spots" where particular news is neglected or ignored by certain media)
Guardian.com (The Guardian)
Politico.com (Politico)
NPR.org (National Public Radio) and PBS.org (Public Broadcasting Service)
NYTimes.com (New York Times)
TheAtlantic.com (The Atlantic)
Vice.com (VICE News)

In addition, I will often do a deep dive into local media regarding a given candidate or issue for municipal and state ballots. This can be time consuming, but I usually come up with some very interesting nuggets that help me decide how to vote – and really I might spend a similar amount of time shopping for new hiking boots. And sure, I will also watch debates, listen to interviews, and – whenever possible – speak with politicians one-on-one. These efforts nearly always assist with voting decisions which would otherwise be more like throwing a dart at a dartboard than making an informed choice.

Lastly, it is critical that we surround ourselves with people who value rigorous inquiry, appreciate nuance and resist black-and-white thinking, can revise their positions based on reliable new data, aren’t prone to conspiracy thinking, and aren’t overly invested in a belief that “all truth” is relative or subjective. Without these supportive relationships, it can become increasingly difficult to maintain our convictions, or translate them into meaningful and effective action. And it really doesn’t matter whether such folks agree with our positions on various topics or not – in fact it’s healthy to engage in debates where our points of view are challenged, and where we might discover unsupportable assumptions and bias in our thinking or conclusions. I’ve always found such discussions extremely helpful in avoiding my own reflexive groupthink, and helping uncover logical fallacies I may have overlooked. But it is essential that such engagement is grounded in a shared valuation of vetted information sources, carefully evaluated evidence, and an ability to suspend aggressive certainties in favor of a more tentative humility and openness.

I hope this was helpful, and please feel free to email me your questions about any of these topics at [email protected].

This is an interesting question, and yes, there are a lot of examples of this occurring. One that springs to mind is the devolution of classical liberalism. Concepts of “liberty” and “fee markets” championed by proponents of classical liberalism in the 17th and 18th centuries were initially dependent on a strong civil society, but became more and more distorted and disconnected from that prerequisite over time. By the late 18th thorugh early 20th centuries, the initial ideas of a strong civil society with “good government” (Adam Smith) as a counterbalance to corporate malfeasance, capture of government by the wealthy, and abuse and exploitation of workers were completely abandoned by those claiming to be the disciples of classical liberalism (such as the authors of the “Austrian School”). By the time Milton Friedman and the Chicago School came into vogue, the wanton abandon for individualistic enrichment and empowerment had completely discarded any concerns at all for civil society, and actually encouraged corporate capture of government and other characteristics of crony capitalism in order to amplify self-enrichment. Randian objectivism then just added fuel to the same solipsistic fire. “Laissez faire” evolved into a sort of joke that every credible economist and social scientist understood to be a toxic delusion. This is how we arrived at what we call “neoliberalism” today.

There are many other examples of this sort of bizarre distortion of first principles in favor of grossly self-serving and destructive “opposites” — often ones that somehow retain the same name. Christianity is a potent poster child. Democracy is another. Hegelian dialectics, Existentialism, concepts of patriotism and nationalism…there seem to have been many such flip-flops over the years, where what was claimed to arise out of certain concepts, practices, and ideals ended up representing countervailing antagonism to those very same original principles. This seems to have been a very common pattern throughout human history, alas.

My 2 cents.

A morally mature adult owes society their commitment to maintaining that society in prosocial ways. After all, we owe everything we are — absolutely everything — to the civic institutions, rule of law, cultural expectations, economic stability and opportunity, political freedoms, human rights, educational opportunities, and other supportive structures that society provides. These are what form our identity and sense of belonging, and offer us existential security and pathways to aspiration.

It is utterly absurd, immature, and profoundly selfish for anyone to assert that they “owe society nothing.” Such sentiments are caustic and destructive to the promises of freedom, agency, and happiness that developed societies aim to accomplish for all individuals. In the context of modern society, individualistic materialism has unfortunately devolved into a sort of narcissistic solipsism, and if that devolution continues it will not end well for either society or its individuals.

Now, it is also true that society can do harm — it can use institutional, economic, and cultural hierarchy to oppress and deprive some people of the very freedoms, opportunities, and agency that it secures for other groups. And this inequality is a real challenge that we must address, so that there is a realistically “level playing field” for everyone to achieve their potential. This is why I personally advocate for arrangements of political economy that diffuse and distribute both power and wealth, rather than allow them to become concentrated. We are a long way from accomplishing this in much of the world, but there is a way to achieve it. My thoughts on that in the link below.

http://www.level-7.org/

According to research in evolutionary psychology, biology, sociology, and a handful of other disciplines, prosociality is a fundamental human trait that has consistently preserved human communities through many challenges throughout history by enhancing group fitness — at least there is a growing body of research pointing in this direction (see this link). As an antisocial trait, greed is generally antagonistic to group fitness even if it benefits the individual.

Unfortunately, there is a relatively recent mythology — invented without supportive evidence by Austrian School economist and Randian objectivists, among others — that humans are purely self-interested, individualistic, and materialistic critters. These sources do not substantiate these claims but insist they are self-evident primary characteristics of human behavior and decision-making.

But they are simply wrong.

It does not take much effort to confirm the primacy of prosociality in human nature. Just do an academic search on “evolution,” “prosocial behaviors” and “group fitness.”

One recent problem is that, as a society, we have been “feeding the wrong wolf.” Modern commercialistic culture has been reinforcing individualistic materialism and narcissistic selfishness — regularly rewarding these pathological, antisocial behaviors. In a sense, we have collectively been suppressing prosocial impulses in favor of antisocial ones.

If this continues, it will not end well.

However, with respect the the “feasibility of anarchism and socialism,” that’s already been established through left-anarchist examples. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

My take on this is that there is indeed an extreme form of progressive activism that, although it doesn't represent a majority of left-leaning folks, does end up getting a lot of attention in political discourse...especially in right-leaning media.

Here is how I would define what that extreme looks like, why it isn't productive, and what a more mature and effective response looks like:

To understand what I mean by "intersectional disempowerment," this link is a fairly comprehensive discussion of the power dynamics of "intersectionality" by the Scottish government.

So a guy goes to a car dealership, and the salesman convinces him that this one car he’s interested in gets 50 mpg, does 0–60 in 4 seconds, and has a 5-year worry-free warranty. The dealership has one in a sweet metallic red, and so the guy buys it. He loves the car. Shows if off to his friends. Sometimes he just drives it around town for no other reason than because he’s enjoying driving it so much. But pretty soon he realizes that the salesman was…let’s say not quite telling the truth about the car. It only gets 15 mpg. It does 0–60 in about 7 seconds. And when the fuel pump quits after just two months…it turns out the “worry free” warranty doesn’t cover that (or much else that is likely to fail on the vehicle). The thing is, though, he still really loves the car. He’s willing to deal with all the problems because he still enjoys the pure pleasure of driving it around. Even after the dash instruments start failing one by one. Even after the timing belt breaks after 50K miles and the engine requires a total rebuild. Even after the chrome flakes off of all the detail work. Even after the squeaks all around the car get so loud that he can’t drown them out anymore with the car’s underpowered stereo system. This has been a pretty a common American experience. And the thing is, getting angry at politicians or one political party isn’t going to fix this situation - because it has nothing to do with them. The guy should have done his research. He should have listened to some friends who told him to avoid this particular brand of car. He should have been more careful and thoughtful and maybe not believed a salesman who just wanted to make a quick buck. But he didn’t. And he has no one to blame but himself. But…instead of owning up to his mistakes and admitting he was hoodwinked, the guy is furious with anyone who points out he was deceived, or corrects him for trying to blame his bad choices on “government regulation,” or tries to explain that the problems with his car really have nothing to do with unions, but instead were decisions made in corporate board rooms so that shareholders could line their pockets with just a little more profit. But the really sad thing is that, when the car finally breaks down completely after 100K miles, guess where this guy goes to buy another? The same dealership? The same salesman? A later model of the same shitty car…? No way! He’s finally “wised up” and gone to the competing dealership across the street, where the salesman welcomes him with open arms and convinces him to buy the latest model of THAT brand…which gets 50 mpg, does 0–60 in 4 seconds, and has a 5-year worry-free warranty (all of this isn’t true, just as it wasn’t the last time, but he doesn’t check the facts…). And so he buys the car - without doing the research, or listening to his friends, or questioning whether the salesman is telling the truth. And as he drives away, he shakes his fist out the car window at the dealership where he bought his first car, yelling “This is my ‘fuck you’ PROTEST VOTE!” So…really, what’s the point of trying to listen to the concerns of such a mindless, irrational consumer who is so easily and perpetually hoodwinked by lies and deceptions? I mean, really it’s on him to recognize his own mistakes, and to take responsibility for all the bad stuff that has happened to him. And until he takes responsibility and stops blaming others for his problems…well, things are not going to change. Not for him, and not for anyone else like him in America.

IMO the waters are very muddy right now. There are strong indicators of both fundamental strength and fundamental fragility in the U.S. economy (and the global economy as well). Currently, these strengths and fragilities balance each other out to some degree. And that caveat — “to some degree” — is important. Through economic, political, and military lenses, there is a high amount of volatility right now. The future is uncertain. I’ll throw out just a few variables so you can see what I mean:

1. China’s economy is currently tanking, even as they increase military saber-rattling over their geographical influence.

2. The U.S. bond yield curve is still inverted…and getting more pronounced.

3. U.S. labor force participation remains at a strong 62.6% (highest since March, 2020) and the U-6 unemployment rate has fractionally decreased. However, at the same time, the total number of new jobs created is slowly going down.

4. Credit is tightening — everywhere.

5. U.S. inflation is cooling (core inflation of 4.7% is the slowest gain in 20 months).

6. U.S. sovereign debt has been downgraded.

7. Half of the U.S. electorate remains in the thrall of a deluded con man, and their fundamental beliefs about all manner of things (including what policies will best protect democracy and preserve a strong economy moving forward) are totally at odds with reality.

8. In the U.S. and elsewhere, there has been an uptick in business investment (both public and private projects).

So…is it a complete wash? Well, in my humble opinion, it is for now. But any of these factors could easily be disrupted by current events. For example, what if Vladimir Putin — or Saudi’s MBS — decide to curtail oil production (and thereby spike gas prices) just to make Joe Biden look bad during the 2024 election? Such tactics are almost a given at this point, and these would add unwelcome pressure to the U.S. and global economies. With other factors like the ones described above still in play, what do you think will happen in terms of inflation controls and economic recovery? I don’t think the delicate balance of pros and cons would hold — there would be a major disruption, and possibly a crash.

This highly volatile situation is why it is simply not possible to look at just one metric — like employment — and come to any firm conclusions one way or another.

My 2 cents.

An important questions, given today’s polarized landscape. Here are what I believe to be the top influences on people’s political beliefs:

1.Native intelligence.

2. Indoctrination and conformance of family, community, peers, coworkers, etc.

3. Level and quality of education.

4. Exposure to propaganda.

5. Native and learned critical thinking capacity.

6. Level of self-awareness.

7. Native tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

8. Native (or learned?) propensity to be motivated by fear rather than more positive emotions.

9. Need to belong to a group (and remain in lockstep with one’s “tribe”).

10. Native or learned ability to hold one’s own beliefs in a neutral space, and either revise or expand them when we encounter verifiable evidence — see diagram below.

11. An understanding and acceptance of science and the scientific method.

12. A native propensity to gravitate towards conspiracy theories.

My 2 cents.

The wrong-headedness of the latest SCOTUS ruling in favor of evangelical web designer Lori Smith is obvious to thoughtful Constitutional and Biblical scholars -- as it doesn't reflect the values, sentiments, and standards embodied in either document. The previous day's ruling on affirmative action at Harvard is likewise transparently oblivious to the racial realities of American culture and history. But the question to my mind is: Why is this happening? Why are folks who say they are committed to longstanding principles of the U.S. Constitution, the New Testament, and indeed civil society itself so eager to abandon those principles?

Well, I think it is all about fear. A deep, abiding terror that one's status and privilege of being "White and Right" is severely threatened by the natural, normal evolution of a morally maturing culture. It is a knee-jerk grasping after the power and wealth that will inevitably be lost as a more equitable arrangement of civil society is achieved.

And I don't see an end to that grasping. As long as this fear-powered conservatism energizes our electorate and our government officials, these irrational and hypocritical patterns will continue to amplify themselves. What the U.S. Constitution and the New Testament actually promote are concepts like equitable justice, inalienable and universal human rights, the criticality of a strong and democratic civil society, and the unfailing power of a generous and accepting spirit, a reflexive willingness to help others, and an unconditional compassion for our fellow human beings.

Will the overarching principles of love and equality, so venerated by some previous generations, prevail...? Or will we continue to slide backwards into selfishness and prejudice?

Well I suppose we will see how folks decide to vote in the upcoming 2024 elections and beyond...and who decides to abdicate their responsibilities and not vote at all.

We live in a world where lies run rampant, where public figures consistently misrepresent the truth, and where once trusted news sources are no longer viewed as reliable. More than ever before, it is now our individual responsibility to discern what is true and what is not, and to recognize when we become the target of deliberate hoodwinking. It is no exaggeration to claim that the durability of our political systems, the stability of our society, and the health of our planet increasingly depend on our vigilance in this arena. What follows is a brief but detailed overview of how to identify bad information, how we can protect ourselves from it, and how we can best respond to its increasingly loud and invasive presence in our lives.


First, what constitutes “bad information?”

Here are some of the hallmarks that help us quickly and reliably identify misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and manipulative deception:

1. Partial truths that rush to a sweeping conclusion. One of the most common techniques of communicating bad information is to offer only a small portion of cherry-picked facts for a given situation, deliberately omitting additional information that could provide a more balanced or measured perspective, and then quickly rushing into what is usually an extreme and unreasonable conclusion fueled solely on that partial information.

2. Fear or hate mongering – often involving conspiracy thinking and demonizing particular individuals or groups – followed by urgent and imperative calls to action. Negative emotion can be profoundly persuasive, even when the accusations being made have no evidence to support them. And once we have been caught up in strong feelings of foreboding or dislike, our rational faculties tend to shut down, and we may make decisions or take action based on strong emotions alone. And propagators of bad information know this, deliberately using it to their advantage to persuade us to conclude or do things we normally wouldn’t.

3. Visceral and vehement rejection of any reliable sources of information. Those who perpetuate bad information cannot tolerate or allow sources of more accurate information to be consulted by anyone, so they will attack them endlessly – though here again often without evidence to support their accusations.

4. The illusory truth effect. The illusory truth effect is when everyone begins to believe falsehoods are true simply because they get repeated by lots of people – because we are hearing them from multiple sources, the untruths begins to feel familiar and acceptable. Mainly as a consequence of the Internet, enduring falsehoods can now be spread very quickly all around the globe and become accepted into the mainstream as widely believed “truth” in this way.

5. Tribal conformance and groupthink. This technique relies on peer pressure and perceived threats to identity and belonging within a given group to generate lockstep conformance – often within a rigid set of values, priorities, and beliefs. Members of that tribe must, of necessity, conform to a given conclusion or course of action, and endlessly parrot particular talking points, to avoid being kicked out of their tribe. As inherently social creatures who crave acceptance and belonging, these are powerful pressures to keep us in line and make us feel we must propagate bad information…or else.

6. Reliance on a cult of personality or an idealized self-image. In an age of media celebrities who boisterously portray themselves as champions and heroes without any real evidence or history of their actually being that, adoring followers are lured into accepting falsehoods without question and then vehemently defending those falsehoods. They are, after all, defending a champion and hero that has inspired their adoration and made them feel important and “part of something,” perhaps even making them feel better about themselves and closer to an idealized version of who they want to be.

7. Projection, false equivalence, and whataboutism. These techniques attempt to paint the opposition with the flaws, faults, mistakes, and failings of the person trying to defend themselves or make their case. For example, someone who is profoundly corrupt or immoral asserting that their opponent is actually the one who is corrupt or immoral; this is projection. Or a politician claiming that an opposing party’s policies or practices have been just as flawed and destructive as their own, when this is only partially true; this is false equivalence. And, finally, when cornered with undeniable evidence of their own misdoings or malfeasance, someone may counter that their accusers have done something similar, when once again this may be only partially true or even false; this is whataboutism.

8. The constant promotion of other logical fallacies – such as ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, the bandwagon effect, slippery slope fallacies, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, false dilemmas, appeals to ignorance, false cause, manufacturing a “big lie,” and many others. Getting to know what these logical fallacies look and sound like can be very eye-opening – but they do take a bit of time and effort to fully appreciate (see References and Resources section below for more). In brief: ad hominem is simply attacking the character of a person rather than responding to their actual arguments; straw man is misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint so that refuting it doesn’t address the actual argument; bandwagon is claiming that because “everyone already knows” something to be true, is common knowledge, or will succeed, then it must be so; slippery slope is claiming that even a small admission, concession, or seemingly insignificant course of action will inevitably lead to much broader and disastrous results; appeal to authority asserts that because a trusted person or source claims something is true, it must be true; appeal to emotion is just that – there is no rational reasoning or factual evidence involved; false dilemma is insisting the only available choices are between two black-and-white extremes, when in reality there are more nuanced alternatives; appeal to ignorance takes advantage of our not having contrary, factual information to contradict the appeal; false cause links an incorrect cause to a given outcome; a “big lie” is a distortion of factual reality that is so grandiose and extreme – and repeated so often – that uncritical hearers begin to believe it.

9. The appearance of reasonableness. This is, for me at least, one of the more insidious techniques used in bad information. The objective here is to make an argument – usually one based on partial information, logical fallacies, or distortions of fact – in a reasonable, logical, and confident way that makes a given opponent or their viewpoint seem extreme, irrational, or hyperbolic. This technique is often combined with other methods meant to provoke the opposition into emotional reactions or overstatement of their position, and thereby undermining the credibility of their viewpoint.


How can we best respond to and mitigate these influences?

As you can see, there are a lot of tools in the bad information toolkit. And, unfortunately, once we become conditioned to respond to these tools, it is very difficult to free ourselves from their influence and not react impulsively or reflexively when they are used. In fact, one of the most effective ways to manage our immersion in bad information is simply to delay our response. To create a healthy space – in terms of time, emotions, and reflexive thinking – between the initial information we are receiving and how we choose to react to it. It’s a lot like creating space between other kinds of reflexive reaction. For example, if someone aggressively shoves me out of their way to cut past me in line, I might feel a reflexive urge to shove them back, or grab hold of them, or yell out “Hey, you can’t do that!” But if I instead insert a pause in my reaction, take a calming breath, and reflect for a moment about how best to respond, I can short-circuit my own visceral reactivity. Dealing with bad information can benefit from the same kind of patience and self-discipline.

Of course, being well-informed is also highly advantageous, so that when we are presented with partial truths, logical fallacies, or deceptive arguments we can more easily dismiss them because we know what the actual truth is. Amid today’s 24/7 fire hose of mass media – and with digital devices as our constant companions, delivering this firehouse with algorithmic amplification designed to keep our interest – the deluging clamor for our attention can be very challenging to manage.

So here are some helpful ways to buffer ourselves from the onslaught of such unfiltered, often questionable information:

1. Be proactive in how information is consumed. For example, avoid remaining logged into social media or receiving social media notifications on your digital devices. If we allow algorithms to decide what information we should receive, then most research indicates (see References and Resources) that we will receive what provokes our emotional engagement with that social media platform. Why? Simply because more engagement from us results in more ad revenue for those companies. This, in turn, results in what researchers call “computational propaganda.” So instead, if we deliberately choose to seek out specific information more proactively, we can protect ourselves from these profit-driven algorithms.

2. Be proactive in our selection of information sources – and even then, check the facts. This can take some effort to figure out, but eventually we can gather together a number of sources that provide high quality, factual information about our areas of interest. One way to vet the bias and factuality of potential news sources is https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/. And for reliable, in-depth research on many cultural and political issues, we can consult https://www.pewresearch.org/. To verify questionable information, I recommend consulting http://snopes.com/, https://www.politifact.com/, or https://www.factcheck.org/. And to appreciate how money intersects with politics in the U.S., https://www.opensecrets.org/ is an excellent resource.

In terms of the current political landscape in the U.S.A., it can quickly and easily be confirmed (see References and Resources) that the most prolific perpetrators of bad information practices are conservative pundits; the Republican Party and its political candidates; right-leaning U.S. media, bloggers, think tanks, and talk-show hosts; the official state-run media of Russia and China; and the efforts of social media troll farms and other “active measures” maintained by those same countries. Of course, you will want to evaluate and verify these claims yourself, but I think it is important to call out the most nefarious and destructive influences in U.S. politics right now.

Has this always been the case? With respect to Russia, this has definitely been the case since the Soviet era, but China seems to be a relative newcomer to the media-shaping game. Regarding the GOP in the U.S., it hasn’t always been this bad. In my opinion there have previously been reputable and responsible conservative-leaning media and pundits in the U.S. that would have called into question many of the claims being made by Republicans today. At the same time, conservatives have also executed long-term, well-funded efforts to discredit inconvenient facts that threated corporate profits – often through relentless “science skepticism” attacks (e.g. regarding tobacco risks, climate change, acid rain, pesticides, etc.). With equal fervor, conservatives have assaulted government programs and policies that protect consumers, workers, and the poor, usually with some flavor of fear mongering. These efforts include “red scare” anti-socialist propaganda techniques, as well as amping up rhetoric over “culture war” hot button issues (gay marriage and transgender rights; abortion rights; family values; parents’ rights; etc.) to agitate and motivate the Republican rank-and-file.

Do Democrats and those on the political left use similar tactics to persuade and manipulate people? And are left-leaning media, think tanks, and pundits as prolific in their propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation? Again, you will want to research and confirm the realities for yourself. But currently, although the left-leaning side of the political spectrum has sometimes been guilty of using similar tactics, it would be a grossly exaggerated false equivalence to say that Democratic politicians fabricate lies at the same rate as Republicans – or that Democrats rely on misinformation, disinformation, and logical fallacies to the same degree as the GOP. Left-leaning think tanks also tend to approach issues in a more even-handed, evidence-based, and scientific way than conservative ones. And in this moment of history, mainly driven by the extraordinary antics of Donald Trump and his “MAGA” followers, the GOP has gone down a rabbit hole of creating its own alternative realities. We could even say that, to exemplify the most potent examples of every “bad information” technique outlined here, we need only observe the copious pedantic claims uttered by Mr. Trump and his political supporters and media pundits.

As just a handful of examples of what right-leaning America has consistently gotten wrong, yet promoted as “truth” in order to win elections, sell ads, and raise donations:

• Joe Biden really did win the 2020 election, and zero evidence has been presented to the contrary despite repeated lawsuits.

• Donald Trump really did break the law in the willful hoarding of classified documents after he left office – and no, his evasive and obstructive behavior regarding those documents goes far beyond anything Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Mike Pence did by comparison.

• Climate change is a real, scientifically validated event, and not a liberal conspiracy.

• Immigrants had nothing to do with the decline in jobs or wages in the U.S.A. over the last few decades. Instead, it was mainly corporate greed and the natural consequence of those corporations seeking cheaper labor and resources abroad and automating production and services.

• Tax cuts have never “paid for themselves;” that is, conservative trickle-down economics has never helped the poor or working class, but only enriched the owner-shareholders of big business and other wealthy folks.

• Vladimir Putin is not an underdog victimize by “western aggression” who nobly aims to preserve Russia’s status in the world – he is a brutal, murderous, megalomaniacal dictator hell-bent on expanding his own political power and the economic and political influence of Russia so that he can increase his own personal wealth and that of the oligarchs who enable him.

• Obamacare has actually helped millions of people obtain health insurance who couldn’t do so previously, and has helped reduce health care costs overall. And there were never any government “death panels” triaging patient healthcare.

• Deregulation has not helped American consumers or saved U.S. industries – with very few exceptions, it has consistently hurt both.

• There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein had zero ties to the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

• Neither the recent escalation of inflation, nor the ballooning federal deficit, can be laid at the feet of Democrats or Joe Biden. While the legislation and executive policies of both parties have certainly contributed, the lion’s share of irresponsible spending, overly aggressive tax cuts, and disastrous economic and public health policies contributing to both inflation and the federal deficit can be laid squarely at the feet of Republicans – and indeed Donald Trump.

It is therefore not surprising that the GOP is so profoundly committed to false narratives and misinformation – because the facts on the ground make them look really bad.

But 70+ million voters in the U.S. continue to be utterly conned and hoodwinked into believing these lies and many more – and into consistently voting against their own expressed values and best interests.

These are truly extraordinary times.


References and Resources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/logical-fallacies/1/
https://guides.lib.uiowa.edu/c.php?g=849536&p=6077643
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/
https://www.propwatch.org/propaganda.php
https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/06/Casestudies-ExecutiveSummary.pdf
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/radical-ideas-social-media-algorithms/
https://level-7.org/Challenges/Opposition/conspiracy/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/big-lie
https://realmajority.us/files/stacks-image-d301f1f-1142x1600.jpg
https://level-7.org/Challenges/Opposition/
https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/
https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/Attacks_On_Science/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2014/11/conservative-nonsense-political-history
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/27/inflation-blame-game-sorting-out-the-culprits-00035712
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/03/republican-tax-cuts-fail-record-debt-and-inequality-gap-column/3833546002/
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GOP%20Policies%20Caused%20the%20Deficit%20REPORT%2010-15-18.pdf
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-criminal-inhumanity-syria/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/24/republicans-parents-rights-education-culture-war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war

Thank you for the question. Here are what I believe are some contributing factors that have gained increasing prominence in the past couple of decades:

1. A deliberate, carefully planned effort on the part of political activists, think tanks, and corporate media to divide, polarize, and demonize across the political spectrum in order to secure votes, increase campaign contributions and media viewership, and secure political status. It is much easier to appeal to fear and anxiety, play the blame game, and energize “Us vs. Them” polemics than to thoughtfully explore nuanced political philosophy and policy positions.

2. A downward spiral of biased media reporting that was instigated by ending the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. As a consequence of that very ill-informed decision, consumers of news media are simply often not presented both sides of the argument on political issues in any meaningful or reasonable way.

3. Social media echo chambers, the illusory truth effect, and consequent groupthink. When algorithms and like-minded groups of users amplify extreme, biased, and often false information that confirms their worst fear and mistrust, there is no longer room for discussion. Political topics become too highly charged with emotional rhetoric to allow moderating (or even true) viewpoints.

4. An unfortunate dumbing down of the U.S. voting public. There are likely a lot of factors contributing to this — poor nutrition, increased collective stress and anxiety, incomplete education, epidemic levels of ADHD, cultural opposition to “intellectualism,” etc. — but it is increasingly obvious that a lot of folks cannot reason critically at all, and instead quickly race down a rabbit hole of logical fallacies and contradictory assumptions.

5. Overwhelming input streams that folks often just don’t know how to manage, leading to feeling paralyzed, confused, and consequently more vulnerable to the influencing factors listed above. For example: way too much information funneled at all of us 24/7 from all directions at once; increasing complexity in nearly every decision we need to make; equally increasing pressure to make important decisions at much higher quantities and at much faster rates than many previous generations; accelerating technological and cultural changes that are increasingly difficult to track, let alone accept or fully incorporate on cultural and interpersonal levels.

6. A consumerist culture than encourages us to “bandwagon.” We are conditioned from early childhood to be guided by advertising and cultural norms that basically say “Hey, you don’t need to have your own agency or be thoughtfully informed, instead you just need to buy this or that and we’ll solve all your problems for you.” This conditioning runs so deep in U.S. culture that many folks simply conform to the latest cultural fads — which often originate at the fringe extremes of the political spectrum — in order to feel a sense of belonging and empowerment.

7. State-funded disinformation from hostile foreign actors that takes advantage of all-of-the-above and makes them much worse to serve the agendas of that country.

My 2 cents.

When very large and powerful government institutions are not held accountable by a functional democracy, then those institutions will certainly run amok over the citizenry and compromise other freedoms and rights in civil society — including the right to vote. This has tended to happen either where citizens are apathetic about their participation in the democratic process (as has been the case in the U.S.A. for many decades), or in places where a populist strongman deliberately consolidates their own power and undermines democracy itself (as has been the case of late in places like Turkey, Russia, Hungary, India, and multiple nations in Africa and Latin America).

But if the democratic institutions and public participation in democracy are strong, and authoritarian/autocratic leaders are voted out of office before they can wreak substantial damage on civil society, then the size of the government is not relevant, IMO. In the U.S.A., where the government is very large, Trump’s elevation to POTUS definitely woke up the country in terms of stimulating a more passionate participation in democracy…and his being voted out after one term likely saved U.S. democracy. But the size of the U.S. government did not really play into these variables.

What is much more critical in the preservation of democracy is carefully mitigating large concentrations of wealth and power and their impact on democratic institutions. The greatest erosion of democracy in the U.S. can easily be laid at the feet of the largest corporations, corporate media organizations, and wealthy campaign contributors. Their level of interference with functional democracy in the U.S. is truly astonishing — and it’s getting worse. To appreciate how organized and extensive this interference is, take a look into the history of American neoliberalism, which has relentlessly and systematically sought to consolidate wealth and power in the hands of as few people as possible (see link below), and effectively crippled democracy in the process.

https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/

https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-global-decline-democracy-has-accelerated

It’s really pretty simple :

1. Right-wing extremists have been responsible for the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the U.S.A. over the last few decades — and for the vast majority of murders in the course of that political violence as well.

2. Conspiracy theories, groupthink, and brainwashing are present on the far Left, but in only a fairly small percentage (my research estimates about 14% of the Left has succumbed to such maladies). On the right, however, I estimate the numbers to be closer to 35%. If we assume the U.S. electorate to be about equality divided, this means there are more than twice as many folks who are willfully deluded on the Right than on the Left. We should be afraid of giving such folks more political power, right? For example, electing 2020 election deniers to oversee future elections, etc.

3. The “Trump effect.” 70 million people voted a skeevy conman with serious mental issues and a huge ego into office. Putting someone like Trump in the most powerful position on the planet is just…inexcusable. The amount of damage Trump did to the global reputation of the U.S., to our domestic rule of law, to democracy, and to civil society itself is truly epic. And, needless to say, his antics nearly destroyed the GOP as well.

4. The far Right is utterly misinformed about…well…most things, really. Most of the concepts in far-Right ideology represent what I call “broken brain syndrome,” having no basis in fact or good evidence, often promoting strategies that have never demonstrated any causal link with the problems they want to solve. The far-Right rank-and-file are poster children for the Dunning-Kruger effect, where their profound ignorance makes them overconfident. That’s an inherently dangerous combination. And although folks may find the far Left’s vision of the future (i.e. less capitalism, greater democracy, etc.) unattractive, there simply isn’t as much counterfactual fervor there. Those on the far Left are generally much better educated about facts, history, and evidence than those on the far Right.

5. Far Left solutions have actually been tried and have succeeded historically all around the world (for example, take a look at these left-anarchist communities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities). Far Right solutions either have not been tried, or they have utterly failed (examples: austerity measures by conservative policymakers around the globe, Milton Friedman's disastrous interventions in Chile, nearly all deregulation in the U.S., the World Bank's structural adjustment policies in the developing world, etc).

6. As you can see from far-Right-leaning discussion of this and almost every other topic, they lie. A lot. For example, take a look at the "factual reporting" ratings of nearly all far right media sources on www.mediabiasfactcheck.com, and then review how many of those extreme rightwing bias sources are rated as "conspiracy-pseudoscience." Shouldn’t we be hesitant to trust liars?

My 2 cents.

No, the tyranny of the majority is not an unavoidable weakness of democracy. In fact there are so many welll-practiced and time-proven ways to effectively diffuse and countervail this possibility that its ascendence is really the exception rather than the norm.

Successful mitigation includes things like:

1. Implementing subsidiarity, so that democratic decisions are diffused down to the community level. At the same time avoiding concentrations of centralized political and economic power becomes a critical countervailing strategy.

2. Ensuring the electorate is well-educated about its responsibility to govern for the good of everyone in society, and is operating at a level of moral maturity that reflexively supports and enhances this view.

3. Strengthening egalitarian rule of law, and egalitarian civil society generally, to support an equality of rights, opportunity, ability, and enforcement across society — all of which inherently aim to compensate for existing inequalities and at least attempt to level the playing field.

4. Institute truly independent checks and balances to ensure no single institution, governing body, or system has absolute authority over any aspect of society. Interestingly, one way to accomplish this is by implementing direct democratic controls over representative bodies as some constitutions allow.

Sadly, what has become much more problematic is the “tyranny of the minority,” where a smaller group that has gathered an inordinate amount of economic and political power to itself runs roughshod over democracy and civil society to maintain its own privilege, influence, and wealth.

My 2 cents.

This question seems focused around whether folks have equal rights when they have different resources. And yes of course in practice the haves and have-nots are not really equal “under the law” or in many other contexts. Some examples:

1. Your million dollars can buy you an excellent lawyer, whereas my lack thereof may mean I must rely on an overworked and underpaid pubic defender. Any reasonable and observant person knows that many innocent poor people go to jail simply because they do not have a competent defense, whereas many rich people avoid court judgements altogether because they have excellent and expensive attorneys. In addition, due to how cash bail laws work in reality in the U.S., a poor person is often not able to post cash bail, and thus loses their job because they remain absent from work (and then their housing after that, etc.) before they have even gone to trial. In essence, then, a poor person is often punished as “guilty” with pretrial incarceration, where a rich person is not. That is certainly not “equality under the law.”

2. If circumstances beyond my control (natural disasters, pandemics, economic downturns, a physical disability, a sudden illness, etc.) cause me to lose my job and become homeless, my choices will be very limited if I don’t have someone to advocate for me or help me with my situation. Statistically, I am very likely to remain homeless, jobless and/or sick. You, on the other hand, can much more easily relocate, stay in a hotel, buy a new home outright, get the healthcare you need, and so on. You have a much greater probability of recovering or adapting — much more easily than me. But the point is that “under the law” we may appear to have equal opportunity to rent or own a home, or be protected in some way from further calamity, yet in reality we really don’t.

3. If you start a family and end up with a special needs child, that million dollars will come in very handy in assisting your child with special education, custom equipment, therapies, and so on, so that they may actually be able to become functional and independent over time. If my family suffers the same challenges, the likelihood that my child will gain the same level of independence and function is (statistically and realistically) much lower. Once again, “under the law” both of our children may have a right to equal levels of education or healthcare…but in reality your child will effectively have “more rights.”

I could go on, but these examples will hopefully shed light on the reality that a paucity of personal resources has very clear negative impacts on personal liberty, and an abundance of personal resources has very clear positive impacts, even under laws designed to treat them equally. To believe otherwise is the result of either ignorance of the realities of being poor, or ideological convictions that also have no basis in fact.

My 2 cents.

Question from John Anderson:

I am decidedly in the “poor person” category. I have also been on the losing end of a court case against a wealthy person. I am not blind to the advantage of having wealth, especially as it applies to the ability to hire better lawyers. That doesn’t change my view on the nature of my equality under the law with that person. I had as much right as he did to hire better lawyers even if I hadn’t the ability. The fact I could not afford to do so is not proof of a lack of the right to do so. Both he and I had to make our case before the judge. The very fact that we both did so is in fact proof (in my mind, anyway) that we were both equal under the law. I was not barred from appearing before the judge to argue my case. There was no assumption of guilt for me, nor prohibition against making whatever arguments I could to defend my position. And of course, like everyone who goes before the judge, I thought my position just and his unjust, and felt wronged by the judge’s decision. I also admit that the other man felt every bit as justified in his position as I did, and was gratified that the judge ruled with him. Our sense of justice is often subjective.

I can’t afford to purchase a new house on the beach, but I have the right to do so. No law forbids me from doing so or permits only those with a certain level of wealth to do so. I can’t act well enough to be the next Batman, but I have the right to do so. No law forbids me or allows only actors of a certain ability. I can’t run fast enough, catch well enough, etc. to play in the upcoming Superbowl, but I have the right to do so. No law forbids me from doing so or permits only those with a minimum physique, etc. If I wanted to, I could take acting lessons, I could hit the gym, I could invest wisely, and gain the skills to be the next Batman, or the muscle to be the Superbowl MVP, or the wealth to buy that beach house. There is no law that forbids from doing any of those -I am limited only by my current bank accounts, skills, fitness.

Wealth, like skill, good looks, physical strength and intelligence, conveys advantages or privileges, not rights. Beauty, physical stature and abilities, natural intelligence, aptitude and ingenuity, are all often inherited from our parents. Why shouldn’t wealth be, if they have it to give? Who has the right to decide how to dispose of their wealth?

You argue your point very well! And I do appreciate the distinction between “ability” and “availability” that you are making. If rights are only meant to convey equivalent “availability” rather than equivalent “ability,” then my side of this argument has no merit.

Except protected rights ARE also meant to convey equivalent ability, and not just the same availability. We are not talking about sports, or fame, or in fact the earning of wealth itself — all of which could fairly fall within the “ability” framework of your argument. We are instead talking about equality under the law, which has always expressly implied more than just equal “availability.” Some examples:

1. If I can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed on my behalf. Why? Using your argument, I should be able to bone up on the law and defend myself, or take out a loan against my house to hire a good attorney, etc. Right? Except that’s not a realistic expectation, and so public defenders have been part of proposed equal ABILITY of an adequate self-defense. These attorneys would not exist if equivalent ability was not part of the equation of equal justice.

2. In the same way, a variety of special protections exist under the law for the disabled, children, the elderly, and so forth. Why? If these individuals are expected to somehow rise to the occasion when given the same “availability” of their protected rights — regardless of their objective abilities (or lack thereof) — why should they receive any special treatment at all? Because part of equal rights under the law is to attempt (successfully or not) to level the playing field with respect to one’s ability to execute or achieve those rights.

3. In an admittedly extreme extension of logic, if I am accused of vehicular homicide but subsequently end up in a coma from a brain aneurysm, according to your reasoning I should be tried in absentia for my crimes. It’s not the court’s fault (or the victim’s family’s fault, or society’s fault) that I can’t stand trial. Justice must be served. Except, as I’m sure you would agree, I must be “competent to stand trial” before that trial can proceed. Ergo: I must have adequate “ability” to answer for my alleged crime.

So, to put a very fine point on it, in any court of law, if my advantage in ability is extraordinary, and my opponent has profound deficits in their ability, there is not going to be anything close to “equality under the law” unless a judge makes special provisions on my opponent’s behalf, or both parties are forced into one of many leveling processes (such as mitigation, expedited jury trials, etc.). This is a well-known problem with many imperfect solutions. And, unfortunately, a hefty wallet can almost always find ways around these leveling approaches.

In reality, corporate officers of corporations who have knowingly killed tens of thousands of people through deliberate malfeasance (tobacco, pharmaceutical, and petrochemical industries for example) have never been held accountable for their genocidal profit campaigns. But innocent people who can’t afford a good defense have ended up on death row with alarming frequency. So anyone sincerely concerned with justice must ask: “Why is this so?”

Well…it’s for precisely the same reason that the wealthiest corporations often pay little to no taxes: they can afford the expertise to skirt “equality under tax law” and tilt the scales in their favor.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Sadly, almost nothing. I’m not talking about the values that conservatives espouse — such as the importance of family and personal responsibility, the importance of the rule of law and being fiscally responsible, the valuing of the U.S. Constitution and expectations of personal liberty, etc. — many of which I myself agree with. No, the real problem is how conservatives allow themselves to be hoodwinked into believing utterly false claims about causality and therefore into promoting policies and praxis resulting in outcomes that completely undermine and contradict the values they espouse.

Take the example of abortion. Reducing the frequency of abortions seems like a good thing to almost everyone, regardless of where they are in the ideological or political spectrum. The problem is that the conservative approach — to overturn Roe v. Wade and, ultimately, to ban abortions altogether — simply isn’t effective. In fact, decades of data demonstrate that communities where Planned Parenthood has a long-term presence have evidenced a steady reduction in total abortions over time…even as populations in those areas grow…so that per capita abortions steeply decline. So this “liberal/progressive” approach to reducing abortions actually works, even though it flies in the face of conservative claims about “how liberals just want to kill more babies,” or that Planned Parenthood is an evil emblem of this baby-killing frenzy. And we know that, historically, women will still seek abortions whether they are legal or not. Lastly, SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade in the way that it did essentially threatens several longstanding protections of personal liberties (gay marriage, mixed race marriage, parental decision-making, right to contraception, etc.). So despite the rhetorical “virtue signaling” of the abortion bans we see being legislated in conservative states, real-world evidence and outcomes tend to contradict what conservatives claim the root of the problem to be, and their solutions undermine the very personal liberty conservatives claim to support!

And this is true across the board — in the flavor of crony shareholder capitalism that conservative policies promote, in the level of government corruption and law-breaking that politicians elected by conservatives carry out, in the failure of conservative economic policies, in their persistant undermining of democratic institutions, etc. The way conservatives go about reifying their values nearly always either falls short or makes things much worse — often smacking of hypocrisy and invoking high levels of cognitive dissonance within the conservative tribe. Thus conservatives seem to demonstrate a really terrible track record in areas where they are constantly accusing or attacking liberals and progressives. And this hypocritical spiral has extended all the way up to conservative Supreme Court Justices, who are shamelessly “activist” in their revision of 200 years of stare decisis (yet only regarding conservative hot-button issues, and little else). It’s more than a little astonishing.

Why does this happen with such frequency? Why are conservatives so often mistaken? Well…because the folks who work very hard (and spend lots of money) hoodwinking conservatives are benefitting from the false narratives about causality and preferred policy approaches.

Let’s look at just one potent example that spells this out really clearly. Consider that firearms manufacturers — via intense lobbying, funding of pro-gun candidates, generation of endless Second Amendment propaganda and fear-mongering, and long-term intimate relationships with “gun rights” organizations — have been very successful in persuading conservatives that civilians “need” to own lots of weapons, including military weapons. According to gun makers, owning a military weapon is a Constitutional right that is constantly under threat from gun-fearing libtards and the nanny state! But wait…who is this really benefiting from these endless and well-funded persuasion efforts? Well the firearms manufacturers of course! All that propaganda and lobbying directly increases firearm manufacturer profits in a world where starting wars that enlist mass armies has become much less popular, and the sale of military weapons to such armies has consequently become much less profitable. Gun manufacturers just needed to find a new market…and by hoodwinking conservatives, they did just that.

And this is how almost all conservative groupthink is generated…and how the conservative voting base is “energized:” it’s mostly just simple hoodwinking for profit. When we follow the money behind any conservative propaganda, it always leads to folks who want to enrich themselves directly — or empower themselves politically so that they can further enrich themselves.


REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Some additional examples of conservative hypocrisy illustrated below from this website: www.realmajority.us




On the agenda and tactics of neoliberalism: https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/

On the nature of conservative “culture wars” and conning Christians into supporting right-wing agendas:

There are a number of approaches that have worked in the past in the U.S. and in other countries, and they very likely could help now. I’ve listed some below. However, defensive tribalism around conspiracy groupthink has progressed to a level where it will likely take a generation or more to fish the crazies and their families out of the rabbit hole they’ve chosen to inhabit.

Some helpful tools:

1. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine for anyone who claims to be a “news” outlet (including Youtube channels, etc.) AND have the FCC oversee something similar for moderating social media.

2. Educate people about how to identify state-sanctioned disinformation techniques, partisan propaganda, logical fallacies, and the human psychology behind things like Dunning-Kruger effect and the illusory truth effect. At the same time, educate them about how to find more reliable sources of information. I’ve written about much of this here: https://level-7.org/Challenges/Opposition/

3. Increase critical thinking skills training at all levels of education.

4. Use humor to expose and diffuse false information

5. Hold people (and companies) criminally accountable for hate speech or any misinformation they propagate that results in people being injured, targeted, shamed, etc.

6. End privately funded political campaigns and all political advertising funded by superPACs, and instead allow only publicly funded campaigns for political office, with equal and balanced time for all candidates across all media (part of what the Fairness Doctrine used to promote).

I think that’s a start. But it is important to appreciate that there is a deep and abiding hunger among a lot of folks to sustain and amplify gossip, prejudice, anger, dissatisfaction, and “Us vs. Them” rhetoric. Unhappy people like to collect others with similar grievances and fears around themselves. It’s a very old and enduring human trait. And in order to combat that, humanity just needs to grow up a bit — morally and culturally. We all need to become a bit more prosocial as a species, and cultivate conditions that promote what I call “moral creativity.” I write about this here: https://level-7.org/Philosophy/Prosociality/

My 2 cents.

You’ll notice there isn’t one simple answer…but unfortunately that’s what a lot of folks would like — and certainly what political pundits and talkshow hosts are willing to sell us.

Recent causes for inflation in the U.S. — really none of which can be “blamed” on any one political party or candidate — include:

1) Government stimulus spending during the COVID pandemic. This put more $$ in people’s hands to spend and many of them did.

2) Reluctance of Federal Reserve to address inflation sooner. Many influential economists (and folks in Fed itself) believed initial spikes of inflation were “transitory.” But they were wrong.

3) Russian aggression against Ukraine and consequent sanctions. The war itself was hugely disruptive to supplies of everything from oil and natural gas to grain, palladium (used in fuel cells and catalytic converters) and potash (a component of fertilizer production) — and the sanctions levied against Russia then amplified this effect.

4) Supply chain and transport problems around the globe. In addition to the war in Ukraine, a lot of this of this was COVID-related on a global scale, but some of it was also more localized. For example, there were oil refinery problems in the U.S. that added to oil production woes, a particular region of China that couldn’t produce microchips for several months, etc. Regardless, even as demand ramped up, supply chains remained choked…and many of those conditions continue to persist.

5) Pent up demand during COVID. This is actually a biggie, because that pent up demand is still in play — folks are still spending gobs of $$$ on things they couldn’t do during the pandemic, like travel and eating out.

6) Conspiracy thinking. This is actually a pretty nasty feature of U.S. culture that is really hurting the U.S. economy. As just one example, the resistance to COVID vaccination was really, really stupid and probably prolonged the negative economic impacts of COVID on the U.S. economy — and extended all COVID-related inflationary factors — for many more months than necessary.

7) Global economic shifts and expanding excessive consumption. Some twenty years ago the U.S. was able to source really cheap labor and raw materials from developing countries like China, Korea, India, etc. This resulted in much cheaper prices for U.S. consumers. But, as a consequence, Americans who make up only 5% of the global population were using some 50% of global resources. But now, the economies of the developing world have grown tremendously, and billions of their citizens are now much wealthier and expect a higher standard of living — along with higher wages. And of course those new consumers now have need of those same resources that were previously dedicated to supplying goods to Americans. Add to this that, globally, those raw materials are becoming more scarce even as demand for them grows around the globe. So…do you see the problem here? Americans can no longer expect cheap goods from China in particular the way they once did…so prices would have risen in the U.S. regardless of any of the other factors listed here. And the cost of doing business in the U.S. is just rising…period. Developing countries aren’t even willing to buy our garbage anymore! So guess who has to pay more for dealing with that garbage? We do.

Anti-immigrant policies and sentiment in the U.S.. This is actually one of the dumbest “let’s shoot ourselves in the foot” developments in American politics. Blaming immigrants for our problems isn’t just mistaken, it’s really harmful to the U.S. economy. Particularly in agriculture, the U.S. relies almost entirely on immigrant workers to keep Americans fed…and big ag really has never cared if those workers were legal or not. So when politicians amplify fear over a “crisis at the border” and enact policies that keep immigrants from supplying U.S. companies with much-needed cheap labor, guess who pays the price? American consumers of course.

9) OPEC oil production policies. On the heals of oil sanctions against Russia, OPEC’s decision to cut back production was a really, really bad idea — basically a “punch in the gut” to the global economy at the worst possible time.

10) Corporate greed. This includes things like reluctance of banks to pass on increased interest rates to consumers. You may have noticed that mortgage lenders are happy to charge 7%+ on 30-year mortgages, but savings accounts in banks are still only providing less than an unchanged 1% interest. Then you have oil companies raking in ridiculously high profits (the highest in their entire history!) just because they can. This level of greed has plagued corporate America for a long time, but it seems particularly bad right now. And of course it’s not restricted to the U.S. And all of this opportunistic greed is what’s helping make prices on everything very high…and likely will keep those prices from going down even when all of the other inflationary pressures are relieved.

11) Labor shortages and consequent increases in salary. This has been falsely blamed on COVID stimulus and folks choosing not to work because they were receiving COVID relief and unemployment benefits. In reality, this is a much more complicated situation that involves a host of factors — things like folks leaving the workforce due to burnout (especially among what we discovered to be “essential workers” during COVID), early retirement, a sea change in attitudes about work commitment (i.e. “the great resignation” and other gen z attitude shifts), worker deaths and disability from COVID, and major career path shifts due to COVID impacts on certain industries (for example, restaurant workers who were laid off during COVID choosing new careers).

12) Some unfortunately timed fulfillments of campaign promises. On one side, student loan forgiveness could likely become an inflation stimulator if those are allowed to proceed. On the other side, any and all tax cuts have almost certainly helped induce inflation. Here we really can blame the politicians on both the Left and the Right…even though they are just following through on their campaign promises to voters.

13) Financial “psychologics” that are disconnected from reality. This is more subtle, but the U.S. stock market is a very good example. As a consequence of both institutional “build it and they will come” optimism and a huge spike in irrationally exuberant retail investors, the stock market has almost zero correlation with real-world economic indicators. This has been a long-term problem for sure, but essentially the opportunity to make a lot of money in speculative investing, which in turn supercharges valuation and reduces perceived risk, leads to everyone (consumers, corporations, government agencies, etc.) operating as if everything is golden and wonderful…when really the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes (or is wearing moldy rags…!). This false optimism and misplaced enthusiasm actually places a lot of upward pressure on everything from consumer prices to worker salaries, even as it encourages company’s to spend gobs of money because, well, they falsely believe in their own inflated valuation. It’s a pretty nasty cycle!

There are additional factors (after I finished writing this post I realized several more that should have been included) but this captures some pretty substantive issues. And, as you can see, we can’t really pin things on any one thing. It’s complicated. And we certainly can’t blame any one party or individual political leaders for inflation. That’s just a really ignorant knee-jerk response out fear and frustration.

My 2 cents.

Absolutely.

It’s difficult to summarize just how extensive the impacts of consumerism on the individual and society are. I think the easiest way to begin that conversation is to list some semantic containers that encompass negative aspects of consumerism. Three of the most well-defined containers are economic materialism, conspicuous consumption, and commodification. Here is a brief overview of each:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_materialism

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conspicuous-consumption.asp

http://neolib.uga.edu/commodification.php

In essence, these three habits alone contribute to an accelerating amplification of deleterious “non-material” impacts on the individual and society, which include:

1. The general devaluing of human trust relationships in favor of transactional relationships — in other words, the eroding of interpersonal trust and, by extension, community and societal trust. This of course expands into regional, national, and international attitudes and practices as well, so that we come to rely solely on transactional evidence of trust, rather than a more cultural cooperation, interdependence, and exchange.

2. The “externalization” of all personal and collective priorities, growth, meaning, and power, rather than development of internal qualities. For example, the belief that one’s possessions, material wealth, and physical characteristics are more important in attracting friends and romantic partners than internal qualities like honesty, compassion, empathy, generosity, and so forth. Or that one’s self-worth is likewise dependent on consuming and owning material things, rather than on the qualities of one’s own character. Or that social status and popularity propelled by such externals are more important than the quality and depth of our interpersonal relationships (that is, the shared feelings of connection and commitment our friendships evoke). This externalizing attitude is then expanded to include all of society and our national identity: instead of demonstrating good citizenship (in our community, or as a nation in global affairs) we become more concerned with clawing after power, status, and control, as those are our “external” proofs of success in the world…rather than the quality of relationship our nation has with other nations.

3. The overall cheapening of human life and disrespect for our fellow human beings — or anything in life that doesn’t achieve sufficient “exchange value.” This is perhaps the most egregious impact of consumerism, when our prioritization of acquiring material things, reliance on consumption for social status, and projection of material valuation and standards on others erodes our fundamental respect and compassion for others and any valuations of the intangible benefits of being live. Consider that commodification intentionally erases the constructive societal value of everything in favor of its “exchange” value in the marketplace — what better way is there to cheapen and denigrate the intrinsic value of everything in life (art, love, joy, intimacy, humanity, compassion, etc.) than to force everything into tidy, sterile boxes of monetary valuation? Paul Piff at UC Berkeley has done some interesting research related to this, documenting the negative impact of personal wealth on prosocial behaviors.

4. An undermining of happiness as individuals and society as a whole. The vast majority of long-term research in this arena has demonstrated that enduring happiness does not rely on consuming or possessing material things. Instead, happiness is primarily dependent on strong interpersonal bonds with other people — and the deepening trust, intimacy, and contentment this produces. Consuming things does stimulate short bursts of dopamine, but not oxytocin, which loving human relationships stimulate. Interestingly, healthy oxytocin levels actually reduce our need to consume calories. Perhaps it also reduces our “need” to consume other material things….?

5. Interference with spiritual, emotional, and moral development (again as individuals and society as a whole). This is a more subtle principle, and I can only speak from personal observation and experience on this matter. A materialism-consumerism orientation to the world will reliably retard our spiritual, emotional, and moral growth, keeping us “infantilized” and forever dependent. This is really an extension of the “externalization” principle alluded to earlier, but with a much more insidious and profound impact. I think this is why nearly every spiritual tradition encourages relinquishing our acquisitiveness and our trust in material possessions for any sense of self-worth or existential security. If we can’t learn to “let go” of our need to acquire and possess stuff, we will never cultivate the internal growth necessary to be spiritually, emotionally, and morally mature. Why? The mechanisms become intuitively obvious to anyone who has practiced such “letting go” with persistent discipline, but I would equate the process to a child’s individuating from their parents. There is a quality of interior self-sufficiency and an independence of will that is unattainable if we remain attached to material things. We simply cannot become mature adults if we are forever suckling at the teat of consumerism.

Some additional reading related to this topic, in no particular order:

https://www.academia.edu/4233302/The_Stupefaction_of_Human_Experiencehttps://www.academia.edu/4233690/A_Mystics_Call_to_Action

https://www.level-7.org/resources/Developmental_CorrelationsV2.pdf



My 2 cents.

An “Us vs. Them” mentality amplified by regressive cultural norms, for-profit media (including social media) that relies on provoking extreme emotional reactions in order to make money, disinformation campaigns funded by both U.S. corporations and foreign governments in order to consolidate power or disrupt threats to power, underlying and toxic levels of individualism and materialism inherent to commercialistic culture, technologically and commercially driven change occurring at a breakneck pace that inherently alienates folks with non-adaptive constitutions, demographic shifts that also make many people feel uneasy or insecure about their assumed position of privilege in society, exponential complexity and interdependency across all of society that is disorienting and destabilizes cultural traditions and norms, and an unsustainable economic system that has been breaking down for some time….

In other words: a perfect storm.

All of these pressures combine to create real tension and pain across multiple segments of society, and exacerbate differences in how people react to that tension and pain. For one type of group in particular, the disruption and discomfort is very acute — those with a naturally tribalistic, fear-based, morally immature disposition (i.e. a strong “I/Me/Mine” or “We/Us/Ours” moral bias). There is a growing visceral and irrational reactivity among this group, which mainly inhabits the conservative end of the political spectrum (about 35% of conservatives) but is also present in the liberal/progressive end of the political spectrum (about 14% of progressives). These folks are unfortunately mired in low emotional and general intelligence, high levels of willful ignorance, reflexive greed, racial and cultural prejudices, fear, pathological selfishness, and an enduring sense of victimhood and self-righteous indignation. I personally have begun to wonder if the amplification of these negative traits are at least partly the result of epigenetic breakdown of the human genome as a consequence of environmental toxins and stress — but that is another, more challenging topic to explore another time.

But of course such traits are being manipulated by the aforementioned media and disinformation campaigns, along with commercialistic culture, which use them to energize a collective Dunning-Kruger effect and illusory truth effect that result in automatic consumption of untruths, snowballing extremist views, conspiracy thinking, and an increasingly volatile and polarized mindset that unfortunately tends to vote, consume, and donate money entirely contrary to those people’s own best interests, and in contradiction to their deeply held and frequently expressed values.

For more on all of this, please read:

https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/https://level-7.org/Challenges/Opposition/

https://level-7.org/Challenges/Capitalism/https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/Attacks_On_Science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

My 2 cents.

Freedom is a type of cultural currency — a coin with two sides.

On one side of the coin is insulation from economic insecurity, acute lack of opportunity, and deprivation of social capital. I call this “freedom from poverty,” where poverty comes in many forms but always has the same effect: it robs us of the operational capacity to exercise most freedoms, and interferes mightily with exercising liberty. Another way to describe this is for everyone in society to be provided the same existential foundations and available choices — a level playing field across many dimensions of life that liberates us from being oppressed and restricted in real terms.

The other side of the liberty coin is collective agreement to support the liberty of others, regardless of who those others are and whether they are “just like me.” This equates a high level of tolerance and acceptance of differences between people. However, the presumption is that many core values are shared across all differences, so that this collective agreement is not too onerous, distasteful, or amoral. We agree to operate a certain way as a society so that everyone else’s freedoms are maximized. This is the basis of the rule of law.

Good government’s role is to facilitate both sides of the freedom coin when society is not able to do so on its own. When societies are culturally immature — as is the case with the U.S.A where I live — they require a bit more involvement from government to create both freedom from poverty and an effective rule of law. When the citizenry is morally immature and generally ignorant, government intervenes to create “civil society” by bolstering these two arenas. Over time, as societies mature into a more morally advanced arrangement and all citizens acquire broader foundations of knowledge, government’s role can attenuate as both sides of the liberty coin become the de facto reality of cultural practices and standards; that is, civil society can be supported increasingly by perversive culture rather than by government.

The common denominator for all such arrangements is progressive democracy, where citizens have increasingly direct control over how both freedom from poverty and the rule of law are implemented in their community, region, and nation. Democracy becomes a sort of banking system that stores up and protects this wealth of liberty and regulates how it is exchanged and shared within society. But again, democracy can only be effective in this regard when citizens are maturing morally and accumulating sound knowledge.

How to effectively encourage, fortify, and enhance the moral creativity of society so that our “freedom coin” is actually increasing in value has been a long-term aim of my research and writing. For more on this and all-of-the-above, please see the resources below.

Prosociality

Level 7 Philosophy

The Goldilocks Zone of Integral Liberty

Private Property as Violence

My 2 cents.

What Aristotle wrote about some of the weaknesses of democracy is summarized here:

Was Aristotle right when he said "democracy inevitably degenerates into despotism"? Why?

His conclusion covered in that post, however, is this: “Yet possibly these objections are to a great extent met by our old answer, that if the people are not utterly degraded, although individually they may be worse judges than those who have special knowledge — as a body they are as good or better.”

It’s tentative, but this is really the basis for a functional democracy. In the same vein, Thomas Jefferson famously said: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people," which is really a variation on the same themes that Aristotle opines about regarding democracy.

The greatest argument against democracy, therefore, is an ignorant and ‘utterly degraded’ electorate. And, unfortunately, we have seen strong evidence of this in far-right populism around the globe, rather profoundly in the MAGA movement in the U.S., and in the blindly unquestioning support of murderous dictators like Putin by a majority (roughly 70%) of the Russian people. We are living through a period where exactly what Aristotle and Jefferson warned us about is taking place.

My 2 cents.

Comment from David Daniel

"Very educational. But it doesn't really address my question. What is the argument against democracy? Is there one to be had? It is obvious to me that our current democracy has been degraded in a way that Aristotle predicted but is this, in itself, an adequate argument against undertaking the project of democracy.?

I suppose it can be said that many have predicted the failure of democracy but, if it does fail it will be the failure of the participants who make it so. Does that mean that it was a bad idea in the first place? Does that mean that we are not socially and politically evolved enough to run a democracy? Have we just failed at this run through and it should be tried again? Or are we all just better off to live in our misery and let someone else make the decisions for us?"

Good points and here is how I would address them…

1. The problems we are having with democracy (and which indeed were predicted) are not an inherent flaw of democracy itself. They are, rather, a problem of implementing democracy without paying attention to the ongoing education of citizens and moral evolution of a given culture. Without attention to and investment in education and moral maturity, democracy will ultimately fail.

2. In our current landscape, the biggest challenge has been implementing democracy in concert with capitalism. Despite neoliberal rhetoric to the contrary, democracy and capitalism are fundamentally at odds with each other, and that tension has currently resolved in favor of empowering the owner-shareholder class, rather than the worker-consumer class. Why? Well because the very “education” and information available to most of society — and the perpetuation of many cultural institutions — arrives via a mass media that is completely subjugated to the profit motive. And these de facto sources of plutocratic influence are intensively engaged in distorting information and education to deceive and manipulate the voting public to vote against their own best interests, and support self-serving plutocratic agendas instead.

3.We could say that a “perfect” democracy is as romantic an ideal as a benevolent dictatorship, that is true. But IMO a democracy will inherently be more agile, responsive, resilient, and ultimately successful…IF (and only if) other forces don’t interfere with it. Currently, those with the highest concentrations of political, social, and material capital have far too much influence over executive governance, legislation, elections, education, advertising, mass media, and persuasive information in the world’s democracies. We essentially have subjugated democratic institutions to “crony capitalism.” If we could diffuse material concentrations of wealth and political concentrations of influence, democratic institutions could easily begin to recover on their own.

4. How can we know any of these assumptions are valid? Because of research by folks like Elinor Ostrom and the broader examples of successful left-anarchist societies. Ostrom documented countless organically-arising examples of what she called “common pool resource management” all around the globe. In these examples, there was no government involvement, and no property ownership, but instead self-directed, democratic or consensus resource management of common natural resources by small communities. Likewise, the examples of left-anarchist societies (List of anarchist communities) that deliberately diffused political and economic power, and again made all decisions democratically or via consensus, show us that democracy can thrive when it is not corroded and corrupted by the profit motive and generational accumulations/concentrations of capital.

My 2 cents.

I would say rarely if ever. Remember that the very definition of this term is (from Merriam-Webster): if “a desired result is so good or important that any method, even a morally bad one, may be used to achieve it…” The clear implication is that specifically morally questionable means are justified by a “good or important” end.

But that’s just hogwash. All intentions and subsequent actions must be guided by a moral framework, or morality just doesn’t exist. Folks will often rationalize immoral or destructive means to achieve a goal they believe is important — but rationalization is all they are engaged in, not serious moral reasoning. The value of an outcome is utterly compromised by such toxic self-justificaiton — the outcome cannot be evaluated in isolation from the means used to achieve it.

Imagine if you will the most beautiful sculpture ever created — let’s say it’s of a benevolent angel. The sculpture brings everyone to tears of awe when they see it, causes emotional wounds to heal, calms bitterness and hatred between angry combatants who enter into its presence, and even inspires people to perform profound acts of kindness and generosity after seeing it.

The problem? The sculpture is made from the skin, blood, and bones of a thousand children who were tortured and killed to provide those materials. Someone who confidently claims that “the end justify the means” could shrug that torture and murder of children off…but by any definition they would be considered a psychopath.

So when someone begins to tout that philosophy, be very wary. They are well on their way to amoral chaos or serious mental illness…if they haven’t already arrived there.

My 2 cents.

Digging into the assumptions behind this question we discover some interesting contradictions — and likely a misunderstanding of the causality in play regarding certain outcomes.

The greatest drivers of change in the developed world actually do not include “progressivism.” That is a complete misunderstanding of causality in both history and current conditions. The biggest drivers of change include:

1.The profit motive as expressed in corporate commercialism — which has completely changed both the political power structure in the U.S. and globally through concentrations of wealth and plutocratic influence, and completely changed culture through “newer is better” Kool-Aid and commercialized homogenization across previously diverse cultures as well. When cookie-cutter legislation written by and for corporations (via A.L.E.C.) is passed in every state legislature, and every U.S. consumer is using the same products, listening to the same corporate-controlled media, and working under conditions and wages dictated by corporate investors, then “progressive” agendas really represent just a tiny drop of influence in the hurricane of dynamic capitalism — it is capitalism that is the juggernaut instigating and steering the direction of much of our culture and politics.

2. Technology — the industrial revolution, the information age, the rise of automation, and complex systems managed by algorithms and AI…you really can’t place any of these at the feet of progressives either. Our species is addicted to technological innovation. And it is a pretty unstoppable force at this point in terms of the impact it has on culture, learning, information propagation, and indeed human development. Progressives may celebrate technology in their policy proposals — but no more than conservatives celebrate and reinforce technology with their spending habits.

3. Scientific inquiry and knowledge — this has created enormous common sense incentives for changing certain traditional practices and revising traditional views about how the world works. When science discovers that a new way of doing things (or a new way of thinking about things) is advantageous and beneficial to everyone, then this creates tension with previous conceptions, habits, and beliefs. Here progressives do tend to be more emphatic than conservatives about promoting science and scientific understanding, that is true. But it is scientific discovery itself that is most often introducing and propagating the change.

These three forces have accelerated cultural shifts that likely would have taken decades or centuries to occur in pre-industrial mass societies. Have progressives often championed certain themes, practices, perspectives, and values that were accelerated by the breakneck growth of capitalism, science, and technology? Well sure…but saying progressives were responsible for these changes is putting the cart before the horse.

I noticed in some of the comments in this thread that critical race theory was raised as a concern. Let’s put that into the context I have sketched out here. Slavery was a key component in the development of capitalism (see Beckert, Baptiste, Johnson, et al for this linkage) — but in particular it was integral to the economic strength and success of Southern states. Technology (industrialization) was responsible for the economic strength of Northern states — and for an alternative to slavery in the production of goods — both of which rapidly undermined the usefulness of slavery and its economic status and preference. And of course industrial production was also integral to the development of capitalism. Interestingly, it was conservative Christians who were frequently at the forefront of championing equal human rights and emancipation of slaves in the first anti-slavery political movements. However, you’ll notice there aren’t any progressives involved here…in fact the progressive movement hadn’t even started yet. So the cultural shift away from slavery was driven by technology, an evolving economic system, and conservative values in this instance…and not progressives.

And this is the pattern that repeats itself even when progressives came on the scene: it was other primary forces that sparked changed, rather than progressivism itself. Progressivism arose in part as an affirmative response to some of these forces (technology and science in particular), and in part as a countervailing response to the abuses of capitalism. Progressivism was itself a consequence of these forces — one of many changes they inspired.

With respect to the evolution of CRT, all that progressives did was apply scientific inquiry to history in an attempt to identify patterns that kept occurring over time. That’s it. In the case of critical race theory, the understanding of history around the oppression of people of color seemed to indicate that white people sought to maintain their privileged advantage in society simply — this wasn’t always a conscious thing, but it seemed evident in many civic institutions and cultural practices. But this pattern of tacit prejudice did become an enormous blindspot in mainstream understanding, with even the history and practice of slavery being an example of this oversight. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other institutional, political, and legal examples of oppression that can also be explained as protecting the social and economic advantages of white people — so the hypothesis (which is really all CRT actually is) has gained a lot of traction over time. It’s just a pretty good explanation of certain dynamics in U.S. history.

But is the approach valid? I think the point is that CRT can be reasonably discussed and debated. But as the current anti-CRT movement also vehemently opposes any examination of racism in the U.S., we could say that, whether intended or not, the anti-CRT movement is itself an example of (mainly) white people suppressing any exposure of their own privilege and advantage in society — both historical and current — and/or the prejudice they may perpetuate without even being aware of it.

So, on the one hand, progressives do tend to promote technology and scientific understanding as solutions for longstanding problems. But, on the other, they often oppose corporate commercialism’s influence on how things change, even as conservatives tend to promote unchecked growth and change when it benefits the profit motive. So no one is innocent of advocating for change. In a way both progressives and consrervatives are equally both promoters and gatekeepers of change.
Lastly, trying to claim progressivism is some sort of Marxist academic takeover of America (i.e. the “cultural Marxism” attack) is utter hogwash. A thoughtful and observant person doesn’t have to be Marxist to see the problems inherent to capitalism, neoliberalism, and plutocracy.

So, as usual, such things are more nuanced than any black-and-white rhetoric. Putting a more nuanced spin on it, this question could be restated this way: “Does the runaway innovation and cultural change fueled by technology, science, and capitalism have no limits? Will the hunger for constant change inspired by these forces remain unchecked? Do conservatives recognize that their opposition to cultural change is contradicted and undermined by their support of commercialism, corporate agendas, and expanding the political power of owner-shareholders? And do progressives recognize their role in moderating the corrosive influence of plutocracy as inherently ‘conservative’…?“

My 2 cents.

I’ll restrict my comments to progressives in the U.S.A. as that is what I know the most about.

At the granular level, there have been a number of progressive policies that started out with good intentions but eventually led to unintended consequences — especially when there were major economic and/or cultural shifts over time. One example is recycling: it used to make a lot of economic sense because the U.S. exported its raw recycling materials to China, but China has long since shut that gravy train down, leaving certain types of recycling like plastics completely untenable. Additionally, the early recycling of post-consumer paper waste actually produced a lot of toxic pollution that was potentially more ecologically damaging than harvesting trees. Then again, recycling programs have reduced landfill materials and extended the life of many dumps in large municipalities for decades…so it’s a mixed bag. But because recycling remains popular as a virtue-signaling activity among progressives, progressive politicians are hesitant to champion new policies that correct for new conditions on the ground. I think there are several examples similar to this, but it is by no means a majority of progressive policies, just a select few that remain problematic.

In terms of overarching policies, however, I think there are three areas where progressive ideology (or at least the beliefs of most progressives who hold public office) has been corrupted by neoliberal propaganda in very destructive ways:

1. The idea that corporations should be treated as “persons” in terms of free speech, political contributions and lobbying, receiving welfare, receiving aid when they are in distress (i.e. bailouts), and so on — when this is clearly the most toxic and corrosive thing that can happen in democracy, as it allows huge concentrations of wealth to create huge concentrations of influence and power (i.e. super PACs funded by dark money, the astonishing reach of the American Legislative Exchange Council, etc.). It has already turned the U.S.A. into a plutocracy, with really no end in sight.

2. The idea that a progressive arrogance or superiority complex has alienated rural white voters — when that alienation is instead clearly the result of rightwing propaganda around an invented “culture war,” along with the economic suffering created by rightwing economic policies like supply side economics, opposition to minimum wage, dismantling of unions, etc.

3. The idea that radical rightwing distortions of fact, deliberately manipulative disinformation, and extreme and hateful views need to somehow be “heard” or incorporated into our political dialogue — when in reality this far right ideology (anti-government, anti-democracy, seditionist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, Trump cultist, willfully ignorant, etc.) is profoundly opposed to the values expressed by the U.S. Constitution and to democratic civil society itself…and really shouldn’t be honored, acknowledged, or accepted as “reasonable” within a sane political discourse. Instead, this increasingly deranged extremism should be called out — and dismissed — for what it really is: spastic wackadoodle wholesale destruction of democracy fomented in broken brains by the plutocratic masters of hoodwinking propaganda.

Essentially, then, progressives do make errors in some policies that they then fail to correct because of the virtue-signaling popularity of those policies….But the much more significant failure of progressives is buying into the idea that plutocracy, disinformation, deception, hate-centric beliefs, strident proclamations from ignorance, liberal-shaming, and outright lunacy should be “welcomed” on equal footing into our political discourse. This greater mistake of tolerating and engaging with the far right’s broken brain ideas — if it continues —will inevitably lead to the final downfall of the United States itself.

My 2 cents.

Thank you for this question.

Unfortunately, like many physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual challenges, it is nearly impossible to “diagnose” what is going on without a lot more information — and it is questionable whether online discussions can provide an adequate back-and-forth to get to the bottom of something. Then there is the issue of getting multiple opinions…some of which are informed and experienced, and some of which are not.

That said, what you are describing could be any of the following:

1. A consequence of emotional stress (at work, in close relationships, etc.).

2. A consequence of changes to habits of diet, sleep, exercise.

3. A lack of adequate exposure to sunlight that has induced Seasonally Affective Disorder.

4. A vitamin D or vitamin B12 deficiency.

5. A temporary and natural “blip” in one’s confidence or faith regarding past assumptions and experiences in spiritual matters.

6. A consequence of some two years of COVID-related disruption to collective and interpersonal well-being.

7. A genetic predisposition to depression that is just now manifesting itself.

8. Unresolved childhood trauma that is percolating up after years of being repressed/denied.

9. A consequence of too much alcohol or other substance (or of ending a dependency on a substance — like quitting smoking).

10. The side effects of a chronic infection or inflammatory disorder.

And we could easily explore another dozen possibilities. Hopefully you see the problem here in terms of there not being enough information to make even a guess about what is going on.

So…I would recommend first seeing a primary care physician and getting a standard physical and blood tests (a standard metabolic panel, for example, will indicate certain deficiencies, infections, etc.). If that doesn’t prove useful, I would then see a well-recommended therapist. And, if none of those produce any fruit, then yes, there may possibly be a spiritual component to what you are going through.

However, the dark night of the soul is generally a bit more extreme than the symptoms you describe. It is also rarely (if ever, from my observation) a spontaneous or uninvited experience. The dark night is almost always the consequence of disciplined and sustained spiritual practices over time.

I hope this was helpful.

LOL. Really? Well let me first say that the door to much propaganda in the world today is something very sneaky, something called “reasonableness.” In the case of neoliberal market fundamentalists like Mankiw, that “reasonableness” is describing “principles of economics” that, taken individually and in (academic and ideological) isolation, may seem reasonable. In fact one could debate each of Mankiw’s principles ad nauseum, and still be operating within his ideological framework — because of how he restricts the scope of the conversation. You see the problem? If you ask me “what are the principles of a stable romantic relationship,” I could respond: “Well, first off both people in the relationship need to buy the right kind of clothing. Second, they both need to listen to the same kind of music. Third, there needs to be a clear, preexisting understanding of what each person’s role should be….” And so on. And I could keep elaborating on these “principles” as if they actually correlated with every dimension of a human relationship…when clearly they would not. They would, in reality, be confined by a very narrow perspective on relationship that I was effectively imposing on the conversation. And the more emphatically I insisted that nothing else need be included — while I actively excluded very important additional or alternate factors — the more I could perpetuate a discussion that is boundarized by my own biases. And that is precisely what Mankiw is doing…just like many neoliberals before him. I often flag this sort of behavior as ideologically fascist, with the poster child of the technique — in economics at least — being Milton Friedman.

That said, what issues do I have with Mankiw’s 10 principles themselves? That would be a very lengthy conversation. At a 10,000-foot level, I would say they are “half-truths that add up to delusional bupkis.” More specifically, behavioral economics has clearly demonstrated that consumers are not rational operators, and that principles 1–4 are not only oversimplifications, but actually distort or distract from the microeconomic dynamics that are really in play. Human decision trees are not analytically neat-and-tidy, they are messy, impulsive and emotional; and, in fact, marketing knowingly exploits that unstable irrationality to condition completely counterfactual, counterproductive, unhealthy, demeaning and dangerous consumption patterns in consumers. For crying out loud…this is obvious to anyone who observes or researches real-world consumer responses to corporate coercion and manipulation.

After 1–4, Mankiw gets a bit more sneaky with 5–7. He uses the phrasing “trade can,” “markets are usually,” and “governments can sometimes,” and of course we can’t really argue those points, because…well…they are in fact reasonable. Except…well…are they? It is when Mankiw elaborates on these points further (in his writings, etc.) that we see the depth of his blindness — how he does not appreciate or address the complex interdependencies involved, or the widely demonstrated externalities and causal chains, or in fact the well-established track record of what actually works in the real world…and what really doesn’t. This is where we can get lost in the weeds, but suffice it to say that Mankiw doesn’t begin to fully enumerate all of the inputs and outputs of trade, or the complex landscape of variables that influence those inputs and outputs, or, indeed, the disastrous consequences of what can fairly be described as “Mankiw-esque” market fundamentalist policies we have witnessed in the past. His ideas live in a bubble — applicable to what I call “a unicorn market,” one that has never and will never exist.

Principles 8–10, along with most of Mankiw’s thinking, are just more conceptual trickle-down from outdated classical economics. But (and this is pretty ironic IMO) unlike Smith, Ricardo et al, Mankiw fairly reliably excludes the common good from being part of serious deliberation. In other words, he drifts into the realm of laissez-faire that classical economists actually warned about. Where, as Smith wrote: “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” But are points 8–10 accurate in any way? Sure…again if you exclude all sorts of other factors, causes, variables, evidences, etc. that are critical to a complete macroeconomic picture, Mankiw’s points provide a partial, highly tailored framing of causal relationships. So, if a person ignores how markets actually function, the corruptive influences of crony capitalism, how boardroom decisions are actually made, why financialization has displaced production for massive wealth generation, why monopolies occur, where Keynes was proven correct (and what monetary policies actually work), why growth-dependent economies boom-and-bust, etc…and instead pines away for a juicy young unicorn to sate their every neoliberal appetite, well then: Mankiw is the porn for them!

Let me just call out one specific example of Mankiw’s delusional approach. His prescription for most resource allocation challenges is to privatize them — like many neoliberals, Mankiw believes private property is the panacea for all ills. However, Elinor Ostrom demonstrated in her common pool resource management research that the tragedy of the commons need not exist where self-organized, self-managed sharing of common resources is approached a certain way, and she goes on to enumerate observed principles that have been successful. Essentially, there are widely employed systems of access to and utilization of common resources around the globe that completely sidestep the tragedy of the commons without private ownership or government intervention. Hmmm. How could this be? In Mankiw’s unicorn universe, it can’t be, since there will always be free riders and excessive inefficiencies when privatization is absent. But again, Ostrom was just documenting what she observed in the real world, so Mankiw is just, well…wrong. Hence the nature of the problem with most of Mankiw’s thinking — and indeed most market fundamentalist thinking (i.e. Randian objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, individualist economic materialists, Austrian School evangelists, etc.).

My 2 cents.

Here is a previous answer to this question that covers most of the basics, describing how much of the innovation that capitalism often takes credit for has actually occurred in non-profit environments (academia, government research, unpaid internships, hobbyists inventors inventing for the pleasure of doing so, etc.):

https://www.tcollinslogan.com/tclblog/index.php?/archives/380-Socialists-How-would-you-deal-with-the-incentive-problem.html

More generally, human beings are not primarily motivated by greed — and, even when they are, other complex motivations are also in play. The fans of “market fundamentalism” really do believe a desire for material gain and security dominates human behavior and choices…but that simply is contrary to all research on our intrinsic motivation (see link below). But a romantic view of the profit motive bolsters their blind enthusiasm for capitalism, and distorts how market fundamentalists understand all causality in human systems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5364176/

In reality, most innovation throughout human history — and even during the rise of capitalism — has been a product of natural desires in human beings to imagine, problem-solve, impress others, or just be clever. In fact, nearly all of the most impactful innovations in the 200 years have been a result intrinsic, non-materialistic motivations (Edison’s invention of the light bulb and phonograph; Einstein’s theory of relativity; Marie Curie’s work on radioactivity; the Atanasoff–Berry computer; and so on). That’s who we are as a species. The linked Quora answer above covers some of the more recent examples of this natural tendency to innovate without profit, but any student of anthropology, archeology, or history can educate folks about how amazingly innovative human beings have always been…long before making a profit was a factor.

“One might think that the money value of an invention constitutes its reward to the man who loves his work. But speaking for myself, I can honestly say this is not so…I continue to find my greatest pleasure, and so my reward, in the work that precedes what the world calls success.” —Thomas Edison

Does the profit motive actually incentivize innovation at all? That’s a very interesting question. What the profit motive seems to be really good at is incentivizing efficiencies and cost savings in production and distribution — and in developing new ways to persuade people to buy new things, whether those those things are useful or have any intrinsic value. In other words, capitalism has a knack for inventing value out of thin air, and then convincing consumers the invented value is real. It also is pretty good at recognizing the profit potential of other people’s inventions, capitalizing on the ideas of those not motivated by profit, and then taking credit for the innovation.

In any case, consider the consumer fads that have driven the most massive surges in sales in the U.S. — are any of the clothing, toys, electronic gadgets, convenience appliances, etc. all that innovative? Not really…they just become popular because they are the “latest and greatest” version of something that everyone is persuaded by advertising they “must have.” This lemming effect of keeping up with artificially induced popular demand drives a lot more sales than actual innovation. So in terms of what is being produced, advertised, and sold, most new ideas in the commercial marketplace are a lot more focused on convincing people they need something they really don’t.

In addition, many mature industries aggressively resist innovation — because a truly disruptive new idea will undermine their profit. This is why ExxonMobil spent millions to spread doubt about both climate science and the feasibility of alternative energy production. In fact, this practice of disinformation to keep innovation from occurring has been a massively funded and well-coordinated activity of big business for many decades. See this web page for examples:

https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/Attacks_On_Science/

As much of the low-hanging fruit of substantive innovation and market disruption has already occurred across many industries over the past 50–100 years (i.e. how many new, meaningful variations of “toaster” or “hair dryer” or TV can their really be…?), profit-driven product and service innovation increasingly tends to put new veneers on old ideas — just asserting that something has new value when it really doesn’t, or making sure consumers have to replace what they buy on a regular basis. This is one reason we see the durability of all goods plummeting even as their prices soar.

So this is how the profit motive works in the real world, and how its linkage with real innovation is tenuous at best. Don’t be fooled by the market fundamentalist propaganda.

Lastly, regarding socialism. First, here is a link on the different types of socialism…and how they are not at all cookie cutter replications of Marxism-Leninism as the anti-socialists would like you to believe:

https://www.tcollinslogan.com/tclblog/index.php?/archives/618-What-are-the-different-types-of-socialism.html

But even in the case of Soviet era communism, there was a lot of innovation and productivity occurring in the U.S.S.R. As “inefficient” as the anti-socialists want us to believe the Soviet model was, it produced some astonishing innovations that the capitalist world came to rely upon. As just one example, the Soyuz rocket has the longest, most reliable track record of delivery supplies and personnel to space — including the International Space Station.

https://www.space.com/40282-soyuz-rocket.html

But Soyuz was just the tip of the iceberg. The Soviets were actually pretty damn innovative, and their inventions had a measurable influence on the rest of the (capitalist) world. Here is one quick overview:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-greastest-inventions-made-by-the-soviet-union.html

So again…don’t be fooled. The truth is always more nuanced than the (unfortunately numerous and widespread) pedantic declarations of the brainwashed and the ignorant. Just because something gets repeated over and over again doesn’t mean it’s true…but the market fundies (right-libertarians, fans of Ayn Rand, neoliberals, neoconservatives, etc.) often fall victim to this illusory truth effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

My 2 cents.

Yes, CATO is extremely influential — often because they do credible and interesting research. However, they are part of the movement started in the early 1970s, inspired by the 1972 “Powell Memo,” that sought to combat the influence of socially liberal movements in the 1960s that constrained corporate power in politics, regulated industry, strengthened civil society, and undermined reckless profit seeking. CATO pretends to be pro-capitalist “right-libertarian” (historically a bit of an oxymoron, as libertarianism had been anti-capitalist for a century until Friedman, Rothbard, et al distorted its principles in service to corporate profit) but really CATO promotes crony capitalism — just like Milton Friedman did. And of course the ongoing influences of wealthy neoliberals like Koch, Bradley, and Scaife have just made that trend continually worse.

As to what I think of them, as I mentioned they actually have produced some interesting research — sometimes revealing counterintuitive causality or unintended consequences regarding certain policies and practicies (along the lines of Freakonomics). But these occasionally interesting and factual insights are overwhelmed by a mission to disrupt civil society and effective governance as we know it, and perpetuate deceptions on various topics (such as climate change, the effectiveness of government and government solutions, the ability of free markets to solve complex problems like health care, education, social security, and so on). On these and other topics that serve a neoliberal agenda, CATO consistently promotes deliberately deceptive or skewed data, and sometimes even misinformation, that transparently serves their donors’ capital accumulation. Below is just one example of deliberate deception — please note that this was from a full page newspaper ad that CATO created, promoted, and paid for:

"We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect."

For more, see:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/

And here is more info on the broader and deeper neoliberal trend that CATO aims to serve…basically, we just need to “follow the money” to understand CATO’s tactics and motivations:

https://level-7.org/Challenges/Neoliberalism/Attacks_On_Science/

My 2 cents.

There are a number of reasons why technology innovation has the appearance of slowing down — and in some cases really is slowing down. Among them are:

1. Much of the low hanging fruit (technological solutions to universal human challenges) has already been invented, developed, and refined.

2. Much of what remains is more complicated, takes more time, and costs more to research and develop.

3. There are efforts by well-established industries that dominate a given sector to discourage or constrain innovation — the most obvious example being the petroleum industry’s funding of climate change and alternative energy skepticism.

4. Over the past fifty years, commercialism has created tremendous downward pressure on technology costs while generating extremely high expectations of technology benefits. That’s simply not a winning formula.

5. Complexity and massive interdependence across complex systems in modern technology itself is interfering with both rapid development and disruptive innovation. It just takes longer to ensure integration, compatibility, and even moderate levels of future-proofing.

6. Another consequence complexity is a lack of extensibility, and how that impacts costs. A simple example of this is writing a piece of software that is backwards compatible with several iterations of hardware. At a certain point it becomes too difficult to accomplish in a profitable way, which in turn places an increasing cost burden for innovation on consumers — not just monetarily, but also in new learning curves. Buying a new smartphone or laptop every year is a pretty hefty expectation. Therefore a balance has to be struck between rapidity of innovation based on technology, and rapidity of deployment based on consumer acceptance and willingness to bear all of the costs.

Hope this helps.