Quote of the Month
"...when a guide comes across someone who's lost his way, he takes him to the right road; he doesn't mock him or abuse him and then abandon him. You, too, should show your interlocutor the truth, then you'll see him follow you. But as long as you're not showing him the truth, don't mock him, but rather recognize your own limitations." - Epictetus, Discourses, 2.12.3-4
My Recent Writing:
What I’m Reading:
1. Why China poses a threat to democracy worldwide
Why you should read it: International relations scholars Michael Beckley and Hal Brands detail the ways China poses a threat to democracy around the world in the National Endowment for Democracy’s Journal of Democracy.
“The intertwining of ideology and geopolitics should not be surprising: At root, foreign policy is how a country seeks to make the world safe for its own way of life. Many analysts accept that U.S. foreign policy is driven by ideological impulses. Even hardcore international-relations “realists” concede the importance of ideology when they bemoan the grip that liberal passions have on Washington’s statecraft. Curiously, though, there has been more resistance to the idea that there may be an ideological component to the grand strategy of America’s chief rival—the People’s Republic of China (PRC)… In fact, the reverse is true: To grasp the Chinese challenge, we must grasp its ideological dimensions. If Woodrow Wilson and his followers wanted to make the world safe for democracy, the PRC’s rulers want to do the same for autocracy. For them, autocracy is not simply a means of political control or a ticket to self-enrichment, but a set of deeply held ideas about the proper relationship between rulers and the masses. In his October 2022 keynote speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—during which he had himself installed for a third term as top leader, while on the final day having his predecessor Hu Jintao unceremoniously escorted out of the room—Xi Jinping insisted that “constantly writing a new chapter in the Sinicization of Marxism is the solemn historical responsibility of contemporary Chinese communists,” and made it clear that ‘the authority of the Party Central Committee’ will continue to be at ‘the core of leadership in controlling the overall situation.’ Everything in the speech hinges on the CCP remaining in sole charge of ‘developing socialism with Chinese characteristics.’”
“A strong, proud China might still pose problems for Washington even if a liberal-democratic government held sway in Beijing. That China is ruled by autocrats committed to ruthlessly suppressing liberalism at home turbocharges Chinese revisionism globally. A deeply authoritarian state can never feel secure in its own rule because it does not enjoy the freely given consent of the governed; it can never feel safe in a world dominated by democracies because liberal international norms challenge illiberal domestic practices… This is no exaggeration. The infamous Document Number 9, a political directive issued almost a decade ago at the outset of Xi’s presidency, shows that the CCP sees a liberal world order’s inherently threatening. ‘Because China and the United States have longstanding conflicts over their different ideologies, social systems, and foreign policies,’ a Chinese military document stated in the 1990s, ‘it will prove impossible to fundamentally improve Sino-U.S. relations.' For decades, in fact, Chinese officials have alleged that Washington has been waging a deliberate, well-orchestrated campaign—a ‘smokeless World War III,’ in Deng Xiaoping’s words—to weaken and fatally subvert the CCP. Deng blamed the United States for being behind the ‘so-called democrats’ who dared to protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989… Chinese leaders feel a compulsion to make international norms and institutions friendlier to illiberal rule. They seek to push dangerous liberal influences away from the PRC’s borders: In Beijing’s mind, writes Timothy Heath, a ‘harmonious Asia’ would feature a ‘political order shaped by Chinese political principles.’ The rulers in Beijing feel that they must wrest international authority away from a democratic superpower with a long history of bringing autocracies to ruin. And as an authoritarian China becomes powerful, it inevitably looks to strengthen the forces of illiberalism—and to weaken those of democracy—as a way to enhance its influence and bolster its own model. China is doing so, moreover, at a time when the world, and its prevailing distribution of ideological power, presents the CCP with both keen anxieties and tantalizing opportunities.”
Why it matters: “Chinese leaders are wrong if they think that the United States is actively seeking to overthrow the CCP regime. They are not wrong, however, to think that a world rooted in liberal values is one in which their own rule must be perpetually precarious. In an international system built on respect for human rights and a preference for democracy, governments that murder their own citizens risk censure, ostracism, and punishment—as happened to Beijing after Tiananmen Square in 1989 and is happening again today in response to the brutalization of the Uyghur minority. An international system in which democracies are strong, vibrant, and globally engaged is one in which subversive tendencies will continually tempt states ruled by tyrants: In 1989, Tiananmen Square protesters erected a replica of the Statue of Liberty, while those in Hong Kong thirty years later publicly waved American flags and sang ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.’ In what it is and what it does, a hegemonic democracy threatens the Chinese regime… China’s ideological offensive is thus at the heart of its effort to reshape the global order. A crucial part of the democratic world’s China strategy, therefore, must involve securing democratic institutions against authoritarian assault. If democracy promotion has a bad name, democracy protection is becoming indispensable.”
2. Why Germany needs to apply hard lessons learned at great cost with Russia to China
Why you should read it: In Foreign Affairs, German foreign policy experts Liana Fix and Thorsten Benner argue that Berlin is making the same mistakes with its China policy today that it made with its Russia policy before the war in Ukraine.
“As the war in Ukraine rages on, few German politicians would take issue with the assertion that Berlin must reduce its energy dependence on Moscow. In fact, the German government has done so. And rhetorically, at least, German leaders are promising to ease the country’s economic dependence on China, as well. ‘As China changes, the way we deal with China must change, too,’ German Chancellor Olaf Scholz argued in an op-ed for Politico in November. In a piece for Foreign Affairs magazine, he also argued for ‘a new strategic culture’ as part of Germany’s Zeitenwende, or tectonic shift, in foreign policy, which he announced after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So far, however, Scholz has been reluctant to upset the status quo with Beijing—not least because Russia’s war and high energy prices have taken a toll on the German economy. Large German companies that are heavily dependent on China’s market are keen to expand their operations instead of cutting back… because its economic ties to China are so deep and complex—far more so than is the case with Russia—Berlin must move forcefully to reduce dependence on Beijing. In particular, the risk of a war over Taiwan leaves Germany dangerously exposed to economic coercion and shocks.”
“The idea of ‘change through trade’ survived the end of the Cold War and remained an influential concept in Bonn and Berlin, Germany’s capital before and after German reunification. For a generation of German policymakers, it was a framework that conveniently entwined the engagement of nondemocracies such as China and Russia in pursuit of economic profits with the possibility of transforming those countries into democracies… Berlin has come to terms with the failure of its ‘change through trade’ approach to Russia. The same cannot be said for how Berlin engages with Beijing… Germany’s dependence on China, in contrast [to Russia], includes a broad range of critical products and materials needed for manufacturing, such as such as lithium and cobalt, as well as rare-earth minerals that are crucial for Germany’s zero-carbon transition. And whereas Russia was a sizable but not a vital market for German industry, China is Germany’s largest trading partner outside Europe. Berlin’s dependence on the Asian giant, furthermore, is increasing: German investments in China are at an all-time high. The same goes for German imports from China and Germany’s trade deficit with Beijing.”
Why it matters: “To be sure, reducing Germany’s dependence on China will come at an economic cost. That cost, however, will be lower than the price Germany would have to pay if it remains woefully unprepared for a potential war over Taiwan between China and the United States and allies in the Asia-Pacific…Scholz warned in Foreign Affairs against returning to a Cold War paradigm, arguing that the world has entered a multipolar era distinct from that period. This assertion applies to Germany as well: the country must bury its own illusions about the lessons of 1989. Instead of ‘change through trade,’ Germany—in conjunction with other Western partners—will need to employ a ‘peace through strength' approach to dealing with Russia and China. Such are the realities of a more confrontational world.”
3. Why Iran’s recent protests represent the beginning of the end for the Tehran regime
Why you should read it: Carnegie Endowment Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour writes in the New York Times that recent protests in Iran show that the country’s ruling religious regime can no longer be considered viable.
“The protests in Iran, now in their third month, are a historic battle pitting two powerful and irreconcilable forces: a predominantly young and modern population, proud of its 2,500-year-old civilization and desperate for change, versus an aging and isolated theocratic regime, committed to preserving its power and steeped in 43 years of brutality… However the protests are resolved, they seem to have already changed the relationship between Iranian state and society. Defying the hijab law is still a criminal offense, but women throughout Iran, especially in Tehran, increasingly refuse to cover their hair. Videos of young Iranians flipping turbans off the heads of unsuspecting Shiite clerics are popular on social media.”
“The ideological principles of Ayatollah Khamenei and his followers are ‘Death to America,’ ‘Death to Israel’ and insistence on hijab. Mr. Khamenei’s ruling philosophy has been shaped and reinforced by three notable authoritarian collapses: The 1979 fall of Iran’s monarchy, the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Arab uprisings of 2011. His takeaway from each of these events has been to never compromise under pressure and never compromise on principles. Whenever Mr. Khamenei has faced a fork in the road between reform and repression, he has always doubled down on repression… Mr. Khamenei understands that rescinding compulsory hijab will be a gateway to freedom and will be interpreted by many Iranians as an act of vulnerability, not magnanimity. That Iranians will not be placated merely with the freedom of dress but will be emboldened to demand all the freedoms denied to them in a theocracy — including the freedom to drink, eat, read, love, watch, listen and, above all, say what they want.”
Why it matters: “If the organizing principle that united Iran’s disparate opposition forces in 1979 was anti-imperialism, the organizing principles of today’s socioeconomically and ethnically diverse movement are pluralism and patriotism. The faces of this movement are not ideologues or intellectuals but athletes, musicians and ordinary people, especially women and ethnic minorities, who have shown uncommon courage. Their slogans are patriotic and progressive — ‘We will not leave Iran, we will reclaim Iran,’ and ‘Women, life, freedom…’ When Ayatollah Khomeini acquired power in 1979, he led a cultural revolution that sought to replace Iranian patriotism with a purely Islamic identity. Ayatollah Khamenei continues that tradition, but he is one of the few remaining true believers. While the Islamic Republic sought to subdue Iranian culture, it is Iranian culture and patriotism that are threatening to undo the Islamic Republic.”
4. How Europe lets Russia and Iran get away with murder
Why you should read it: Politico Europe correspondent Matthew Karnitschnig shows how European nations effectively allow countries like Iran and Russia to operate assassination rings on the continent with minimal consequences.
“The failed [September 2021] attack [in Cyprus] was just one of at least a dozen in Europe in recent years, some successful, others not, that have involved what security officials call ‘soft’ targets, involving murder, abduction, or both. The operations were broadly similar in conception, typically relying on local hired guns. The most significant connection, intelligence officials say, is that the attacks were commissioned by the same contractor: the Islamic Republic of Iran… That success has come in large part because Europe — the staging ground for most Iranian operations in recent years — has been afraid to make Tehran pay. Since 2015, Iran has carried out about a dozen operations in Europe, killing at least three people and abducting several others, security officials say.”
“Whether such [assassination] operations succeed or not, the countries behind them can be sure of one thing: They won’t be made to pay for trying. Over the years, the Russian and Iranian regimes have eliminated countless dissidents, traitors and assorted other enemies (real and perceived) on the streets of Paris, Berlin and even Washington, often in broad daylight. Others have been quietly abducted and sent home, where they faced sham trials and were then hanged for treason… While there’s no shortage of criticism in the West in the wake of these crimes, there are rarely real consequences. That’s especially true in Europe, where leaders have looked the other way in the face of a variety of abuses in the hopes of reviving a deal to rein in Tehran’s nuclear weapons program and renewing business ties.”
Why it matters: “Europe’s insistence on giving Putin the benefit of the doubt over the years in the face of his crimes convinced him that he would face few consequences in the West for his invasion of Ukraine… Iran presents Europe with an opportunity to learn from that history and confront Tehran before it’s too late. But there are few signs it’s prepared to really get tough. EU officials say they are ‘considering’ following Washington’s lead and designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a vast military organization that also controls much of the Iran’s economy, as a terror organization… Yet even as the regime in Tehran snuffs out enemies and races to fulfil its goal of building both nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach any point on the Continent, some EU leaders appear blind to the wider context as they pursue the elusive renewal of the nuclear accord.”
5. Why neither the United States nor Europe can guarantee Putin’s security
Why you should read it: British strategic studies eminence Lawrence Freedman observes on his Substack blog that, despite chronic calls from the likes of French President Emmanuel Macron to provide Moscow with security guarantees, there is precious little either the United States or its NATO allies in Europe can do to guarantee Russian security.
“In the 1990s, after the end of the Cold War great effort went into developing what was commonly described as a ‘security architecture’. It began in late 1990 with a big conference in Paris, and involved a number of institutional innovations. The loftiest principles of international order were reaffirmed along with the warmest aspirations for cordial and harmonious relations. Thereafter there was no shortage of opportunities to talk and resolve disputes… Similar language [to the NATO-Russia Founding Act] can be employed in the future but recent experience will provide few grounds for taking it seriously. There is no point in solemn undertakings not to aggress. They have already been made – for example in the Charter of the United Nations, and their regular reaffirmation has not prevented their neglect.”
“It is precisely because of the difficulty of relying on such such undertakings that the issues of security guarantees arises. Security guarantees are best understood as insurance policies for small powers. They are promises by a large power, or group of powers, to come to the aid of small powers if attacked. They are at the heart of any alliance – an attack on one will be treated as an attack on all. Like all insurance policies and guarantees, however, there are let-out clauses. If the small power has been unduly provocative, or attacked first, then the guarantee might be invalidated. There might be other extenuating circumstances, for example another ongoing military conflict, that makes it hard to honour the commitment. A security guarantee is therefore a second best policy, better than nothing but not as good as building up national defences to cope with all eventualities… While NATO can repeat past promises – still honoured – not to invade Russia it is not going to offer Russia a security guarantee as traditionally understood.”
Why it matters: “All this illuminates the limitations of ‘realism’, at least in its most reductive form as a theory of international relations, as an aid to understanding the origins of this conflict and what to do about it. Because realism concentrates on power relations between states, the only aspect of Putin’s tergiversations that are considered relevant by realists are those that complain about NATO’s enlargement. All the rest are disregarded… It does no harm to start thinking about a post-war security order but not if this thinking is wishful and assumes a possible return to the status quo ante bellum. Perhaps we can imagine a forward-looking grand peace conference like the 1815 Congress of Vienna, or 1919 Versailles Conference, or the post- Cold-War Paris summit of 1990 coming at some point after a cease-fire. We might also imagine a post-Putin leadership willing and able to mend fences with the West. But a lot of imagination is required here… In the end the biggest threats to Russian security do not lie outside its borders but inside its capital.”
6. Why eight billion people is good, actually
Why you should read it: Left-wing journalist Leigh Phillips makes the case in Compact Journal that, contrary to the doom and gloom of neo-Malthusian activists, the increase in human population to eight billion represents “a remarkable achievement in human flourishing.”
"We reached this milestone thanks to myriad wonders of human ingenuity: among others, the germ theory of disease; improvements in sanitation and sewage systems; antibiotics, vaccines, and other victories over our microbial adversaries; unbounded advances across all fields of medicine and health care, especially female and child mortality; and the Third Agricultural Revolution, which delivered high-yield cereals, irrigation, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides giving us soaring crop yields and enhanced nutrition almost everywhere… In short, the 8 billion people owe their lives to Prometheus plus Spartacus, to paraphrase the midcentury Marxist Hal Draper describing the starting point of human self-emancipation: technological progress yoked to equality… “Technological advance that is restricted to the wealthy few delimits what new technologies can be invented, for it restricts the number of minds that can be engaged in discovering and inventing. That, in turn, restricts the degrees of freedom there could be otherwise—even for the wealthy. Meanwhile, equality without innovation is merely an equality of poverty, enslaving everyone to the caprices and scarcity of nature. Every peasant must be made a lord, not every lord reduced to a peasant.”
“To be sure, climate change and biodiversity loss are real threats. But as most scientists on the front lines of these challenges argue, there is a difference between a sober, evidence-based consideration of the considerable danger they pose and what they call ‘doomerism’: willful exaggeration of their findings for the sake of clicks, likes, and search-engine optimization… We humans evolved within a set of ecological conditions, including a relatively cool climate compared to much of the Earth’s deep history, that are better for human flourishing than other ones. We should want to avoid dangerous climate change and biodiversity loss not because the planet is fragile—it isn’t—but because we humans are fragile. We want to prevent changes to what are called ‘ecosystem services,’ the ecological conditions that benefit us Homo sapiens.”
Why it matters: “We are profoundly special. Sagan was right: We are the way that the universe comes to know itself. Nothing else—so far as we know—comes close to the full complement of moral attributes experienced by humans. Perhaps one day we will discover extraterrestrial intelligences or build true artificial general intelligences here on Earth. If either event comes to pass, we might recognize these other creatures as having the same fundamental rights that humans do, because they enjoy the same moral attributes. But until then, we are the only instance of a rational and moral creature through which the cosmos becomes self-aware… So long as we base our environmental policies on anti-humanism, on the scientifically and morally erroneous belief that we humans are doing something bad to the planet, we will unwittingly work to undermine the policies that we need to avoid any undermining of ecosystem services necessary for that flourishing.”
7. Why America needs a nuclear New Deal
Why you should read it: In Breakthrough Journal, Fred Stafford makes the case for a nuclear New Deal that includes public funding and ownership of new nuclear power plants via the Tennessee Valley Authority and similar mechanisms.
“In fact, TVA’s whole nuclear fleet of seven reactors, with a total daily capacity of about 8.3 GW of power, has generated more over that period than the approximately 34.2 GW of intermittent power that California’s great wind and solar industry has brought to market, and with only a minuscule fraction of the land (and rooftop) footprint. Moreover, unlike much of New England and California’s green energy installations, all that TVA nuclear power is publicly-owned, producing energy at cost, not for profit—and not for Wall Street, whom federal tax credits for ‘green energy”’were set up to enrich. That’s a lot of clean public power…Still the nation’s largest public power system, the TVA operates a grid cleaner than neighboring market-based grid areas MISO and PJM, according to EPA data, and it provides power at cost for 10 million people. That’s thanks to TVA’s legacy hydropower infrastructure and, in particular, its seven nuclear reactors that churn out four times clean energy than its hydroelectric sites.”
“For the last several decades, a bipartisan wave of electricity restructuring, generally known as ‘deregulation,’ rocketed around the United States, beginning in the 1970s and later picking up speed. Conceived out of an ideology of efficient markets and the awesome power of consumers, deregulation fundamentally remade electricity markets in much of the country, as did the same spirit in sectors like trucking, air travel, and telecoms… As a result, infrastructure that serves as a constant, firm source of power, like nuclear and coal plants—which aren’t easily ramped up or down, and therefore require continuous operation—have struggled to compete in these exchanges. That nuclear energy is carbon-free unfortunately doesn’t matter; the incentives set up by deregulation reward renewables and flexibility instead… All this goes to show that, in capitalist practice, the prospects for nuclear are leashed to the volatile, unpredictable swings of fossil fuel prices, particularly of natural gas. And in large part, that’s the result not of government regulation and subsidies in favor of renewables or against nuclear, but of electricity deregulation, a historical project of the investor class themselves to make the most money for the least expenditure. Large industrial customers sought the ability to play the market for their power purchases, and they got it. Fast forward a few decades and corporate behemoths like Amazon have become the leading agents of (renewable) energy investment.”
Why it matters: “With this monumental task at hand, should we place our trust in the investors at the top of the pyramid to invest in what’s socially needed, not just what’s sufficiently profitable to them? That they won’t simply eat up the gains for themselves instead of lowering prices for the masses? The connected experiences of American nuclear and electricity deregulation don’t warrant much hope… To escape the same old game of coaxing private investors to act, we should instead return to the New Deal politics of public power. The recently-passed IRA perpetuates the former at the same time it opens new doors for the latter. In Roosevelt’s original words, ‘a corporation clothed with the power of Government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise’ can directly plan, invest in, and build what we know we need, all for modern living and for clean industry, and all produced at cost, not for profit. The TVA could and should be at the center of it, to kickstart the national decarbonization effort in the American Southeast with revitalized nuclear power.”
8. How the activist campaign to rename the James Webb Space Telescope fell afoul of the historical record and turned its sights on a prominent black physicist
Why you should read it: New York Times journalist Michael Powell narrates the travails of Hakeem Oluseyi, current president of the National Society of Black Physicists whose debunking of homophobia charges against former NASA administrator James Webb was met with a smear campaign mounted against him by identity politics activists.
“For half a decade now, influential young scientists have denounced NASA’s decision to name its deep-space telescope after James E. Webb, who led the space agency to the cusp of the 1969 moon landing. This man, they insisted, was a homophobe who oversaw a purge of gay employees… Hakeem Oluseyi, who is now the president of the National Society of Black Physicists, was sympathetic to these critics. Then he delved into archives and talked to historians and wrote a carefully sourced essay in Medium in 2021 that laid out his surprising findings… ‘I can say conclusively,” Dr. Oluseyi wrote, “that there is zero evidence that Webb is guilty of the allegations against him.’”
"Mr. Webb, who died in 1992, cut a complicated figure. He worked with Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to integrate NASA, bringing in Black engineers and scientists. In 1964, after George Wallace, the white segregationist governor of Alabama, tried to block such recruitment, Mr. Webb threatened to pull top scientists and executives out of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville… Fifteen years earlier, however, Mr. Webb encountered different pressures as an under secretary at the State Department during the Truman administration. The political right, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, sought to dismantle the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In attacking the State Department, they tried to ferret out employees they claimed were Communists and what they called ‘perverts’ — gay Americans, in what became known as the lavender scare… Historians who specialize in this era in gay history said such expectations ignore the historical context. Mr. Webb did not lead efforts to oust gays; there was not yet a gay rights movement in 1949; and to apply the term homophobe is to use a word out of time and reflects nothing Mr. Webb is known to have written or said… Professor Oluseyi argued the fairer measure of Mr. Webb is found in his willingness to face down a segregationist governor. Civil rights was the moral struggle of that time. ‘I was born in the South,’ he said. ‘Webb was heroic in that moment.’"
Why it matters: “NASA in late October made clear the telescope will retain its name. But the bitterness remains. On Twitter, critics talk of the ‘zombie James Webb’ and suggest Dr. Oluseyi and his defenders are due for a reckoning… Several prominent astrophysicists in interviews supported Dr. Oluseyi but declined to talk publicly. ‘People err on the side of prudence, which is to say they don’t speak up,’ Dr. [Sylvester James] Gates [Jr.] noted. ‘When a campaign is aimed at denigrating a professional reputation, that is the inevitable effect…’ Dr. Oluseyi is aware of the risk of damage to his reputation. For just a moment, he sounded plaintive… ‘Look, I didn’t care about James Webb — he’s not my uncle,’ Dr. Oluseyi said. ‘I had no motivation to exonerate. Once I found the truth, what was I supposed to do?’”
9. How social media broke Donald Trump’s (and Elon Musk’s and Kanye West’s) brain
Why you should read it: UCLA history professor Russell Jacoby notes in Tablet that the overproduction of undergraduate degrees and limited spots for college professors mean that young activists have seeped into the wider workplace and imposed their illiberal doctrines on the rest of us.
“By the late 1990s the rapid expansion of the universities came to a halt, especially in the humanities. Faculty openings slowed or stopped in many fields. Graduate enrollment cratered. In my own department in 10 years we went from accepting over a hundred students for graduate study to under 20 for a simple reason. We could not place our students. The hordes who took courses in critical pedagogy, insurgent sociology, gender studies, radical anthropology, Marxist cinema theory, and postmodernism could no longer hope for university careers… What became of them? No single answer is possible. They joined the work force. Some became baristas, tech supporters, Amazon staffers and real estate agents. Others with intellectual ambitions found positions with the remaining newspapers and online periodicals, but most often they landed jobs as writers or researchers with liberal government agencies, foundations, or NGOs. In all these capacities they brought along the sensibilities and jargon they learned on campus.”
“It is the exodus from the universities that explains what is happening in the larger culture. The leftists who would have vanished as assistant professors in conferences on narratology and gender fluidity or disappeared as law professors with unreadable essays on misogynist hegemony and intersectionality have been pushed out into the larger culture. They staff the ballooning diversity and inclusion commissariats that assault us with vapid statements and inane programs couched in the language they learned in school. We are witnessing the invasion of the public square by the campus, an intrusion of academic terms and sensibilities that has leaped the ivy-covered walls aided by social media. The buzz words of the campus—diversity, inclusion, microaggression, power differential, white privilege, group safety—have become the buzz words in public life. Already confusing on campus, they become noxious off campus… When employees protest that they feel unsafe because their company is publishing an offensive article or book, we know what university courses they have taken… We know this, but we have to suffer the consequences. The self-righteous professors have spawned self-righteous students who filter into the public square. The former prospered in their campus enclaves by plumping each other’s brilliance, but they left the rest of us alone. The latter, their students, however, constitute an unmitigated disaster, intellectually and politically, as they enter the workforce. They might be the American version of the old Soviet apparatchiks, functionaries who carry out party policies. Intellectually, they fetishize buzz words (diversity, marginality, power differential, white privilege, group safety, hegemony, gender fluidity and the rest) that they plaster over everything”
Why it matters: “Politically, they mark a self-immolation of progressives; they flaunt their exquisite sensibilities and openness, and display exquisite narcissism and insularity. Once upon a time leftists sought to enlarge their constituency by reaching out to the uninitiated. This characterized a left during its most salient phase of popular front politics. No longer. With a credo of group safety the newest generation of leftists does not reach out but reaches in. It operates more like a club for members only than a politics for everyone.”
Odds and Ends
How the post-World War II Icelandic Christmas tradition of Jólabókaflóð - the Christmas Book Flood - rose from long-standing Icelandic literary traditions and how it works today…
What Artemis I and Apollo 17 - the final lunar landing mission, launched and completed 50 years ago this past December - have in common…
How scientists are reconstructing Biblical military campaigns using geomagnetic field changes…
Want to keep ancient Roman ruins at Pompeii clean? Send in the sheep…
Why ankylosaurs used their massive tail clubs both to defend against predators like T. rex and attract mates…
What I’m Listening To
“it’s time to go,” a bonus track from Taylor Swift’s 2020 album evermore.
“Emancipation,” the title track from Prince’s mammoth 1996 triple album.
A cover of Bob Dylan’s “Chimes of Freedom” from Bruce Springsteen’s 1988 live Chimes of Freedom EP.
Image of the Month
