The Dive, 7/1/24
Your monthly compilation of what's what on global politics, American society, and an assortment of odds and ends
Quote of the Month
"...no country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources. Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, September 30, 1934
What I’m Reading:
1. Where progressive elites went wrong
Why you should read it: New York Times columnist David Brooks dissects the way today’s progressive elites have unmoored themselves from the left’s traditional grounding in working-class politics.
“I went to an elite university and have taught at them. I find them wonderful in most ways and deeply screwed up in a few ways. But over the decades and especially recently, I’ve found the elite, educated-class progressivism a lot less attractive than the working-class progressivism of Frances Perkins that I read about when I was young. Like a lot of people, I’ve looked on with a kind of dismay as elite university dynamics have spread across national life and politics, making America worse in all sorts of ways. Let me try to be more specific about these dynamics.”
“The first is false consciousness. To be progressive is to be against privilege. But today progressives dominate elite institutions like the exclusive universities, the big foundations and the top cultural institutions. American adults who identify as very progressive skew white, well educated and urban and hail from relatively advantaged backgrounds… Virtue is defined by being anti-elite. But today’s educated class constitutes the elite, or at least a big part of it. Many of the curiosities of our culture flow as highly educated people try to resolve the contradiction between their identity as an enemy of privilege, and the fact that, at least educationally and culturally, and often economically, they are privileged… This, I think, explains the following phenomenon: Society pours hundreds of thousands of dollars into elite students, gives them the most prestigious launching pads fathomable, and they are often the ones talking most loudly about burning the system down… The second socially harmful dynamic is what you might call the cultural consequences of elite overproduction. Over the past few decades, elite universities have been churning out very smart graduates who are ready to use their minds and sensibilities to climb to the top of society and change the world. Unfortunately, the marketplace isn’t producing enough of the kinds of jobs these graduates think they deserve… As a nonprogressive member of the educated class, I’d say that elite overproduction induces people on the left and the right to form their political views around their own sense of personal grievance and alienation. It launches unhappy progressives and their populist enemies into culture war battles that help them feel engaged, purposeful and good about themselves, but it seems to me that these battles are often more about performative self-validation than they are about practical policies that might serve the common good… But it’s awful to live in a perpetual state of cultural war, and it’s awful to live in a continual state of social fear. The inflammation of the discourse serves the psychic and social self-interests of the combatants, but it polarizes society by rendering a lot of people in the center silent, causing them to keep their heads down in order to survive.”
Why it matters: “In this reality we would face up to the fact that all societies have been led by this or that elite group and that in the information age those who have a lot of education have immense access to political, cultural and economic power. We would be honest about our role in widening inequalities. We would abhor cultural insularity and go out of our way to engage with people across ideology and class. We would live up to our responsibilities as elites and care for the whole country, not just ourselves. Most important, we would dismantle the arrangements that enable people in our class to pass down our educational privileges to our children, generation after generation, while locking out most everyone else… But there is another possible future. Perhaps today’s educated elite is just like any other historical elite. We gained our status by exploiting or not even seeing others down below, and we are sure as hell not going to give up any of our status without a fight.”
2. How Ukraine won the battle of the Black Sea with naval drones
Why you should read it: Wall Street Journal reporter James Marson details how Ukraine used a fleet of naval drones to neutralize Russia’s vaunted Black Sea Fleet and end Moscow’s blockade.
“Ukraine has sunk or damaged around two dozen Russian ships of all sizes using explosive drones or mines delivered by low-slung craft about the size of a small fishing boat. Sea drones caused severe damage to a bridge from Russia to occupied Crimea that Russia used to supply its forces in Ukraine… As a result, Russia has dispersed the bulk of its Black Sea Fleet far from Sevastopol. Ukraine has been able to restart exports worth billions from its main port of Odesa. Missiles launched from Russian ships take longer to reach Ukraine, giving air-defense crews critical extra time to intercept them. Russia has relocated reconnaissance planes, jet fighters, helicopters, aerial drones and electronic-jamming systems from the front lines to counter Ukraine’s sea drones, easing the pressure on Ukraine’s embattled ground forces.”
“The drones are revolutionizing warfare on the seas much as uncrewed aerial craft have in the skies. They are relatively cheap and hard to detect and defend against. Their use shows how smaller, poorer nations can level the naval playing field against larger, more-powerful navies… Lacking the resources to build up its own conventional navy, Ukraine is seeking to create squads of 10 to 20 drones with separate functions that, when combined, replicate the capabilities of a single warship, [Ukrainian general Ivan] Lukashevych said.
Why it matters: “The U.S., which for years has focused on defending against drones or using them for surveillance, is taking note. The Pentagon in August announced an initiative to deploy hundreds of small, cheap air and sea drones to counter China’s growing military mass.”
3. Why and how Boeing is rushing to train thousands of new workers
Why you should read it: As its more experienced workers retire and the company faces growing quality control problems, aerospace giant Boeing has rushed to train thousands of new workers—and change the way they’re trained, Wall Street Journal reporter Sharon Terlep explains.
“Boeing’s factory workforce has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years. Legions of senior machinists retired when the pandemic hit and in the years since. The company, racing to meet demand for new jets as travelers returned to the skies, has been on a hiring spree to replenish its ranks… Last year in the Puget Sound area alone, Boeing hired an average of 800 factory workers a month. It’s still bringing in hundreds of new recruits a month, though the pace has slowed somewhat.”
“The result: factories populated by new employees, many of them younger than their predecessors and with no experience related to building airplanes. Gone were many of the seasoned workers with the know-how to handle problem parts or glitchy equipment, or to point newer colleagues to the right procedures tucked deep inside digital tutorials... An influx of inexperienced workers has cut across virtually all industries, including manufacturing, healthcare and customer service. Many workers were laid off amid pandemic shutdowns and then found new jobs and careers in the historically tight labor market that followed. Because many companies, including Boeing, used early retirement buyout offers to thin their ranks, veteran workers comprised a greater share of job reductions… Boeing’s new training regimen requires more hours and includes more frequent testing to ensure proficiency along the way. New workers are paired with veterans. Instead of eight to 12 weeks of foundational training, employees now undergo 10 to 14 weeks. The entire process, including training after employees begin working under supervision, takes about six months.”
Why it matters: “Of the more than 30,000 Boeing employees represented by District 751 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, roughly half have less than six years of experience, the union said. That is double the level before the pandemic… Building planes and plane parts—unlike making toys, appliances or even cars—requires a deep knowledge of the machine. A single person on an airplane assembly line may have dozens of jobs, each of which must be completed flawlessly.”
4. How to rebuild the Arsenal of Democracy
Why you should read it: In the Washington Monthly, former Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren outlines how America’s defense industry has atrophied since the end of the Cold War and offers recommendations on how to rebuild it.
“At Willow Run, Michigan, the Ford Motor Company constructed a mammoth facility with an assembly line more than a mile long; it was the largest factory under one roof in the world. By mid-1944, the Michigan plant was producing one B-24 an hour, meaning that the B-24s destroyed over Ploiesti could have been made up with just over two days’ production at a single plant. Altogether, 18,482 B-24s were produced during the war, the highest-ever total for a four-engine aircraft… Eighty years later, America’s arsenal is in much the same shape as the remains of the Willow Run plant: underutilized for decades, and gone to seed. In 2010, most of it was demolished. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine administered a comprehensive shock to the post–Cold War consensus in so many respects: the idea that NATO, the EU, and other European institutions had banished the prospect of a major war on that continent; the notion that global free markets would lead to political convergence and improved behavior by countries like Russia; and even the illusion that world grain markets were resilient and self-equilibrating. Not least among the casualties of the invasion was the belief that the United States was unchallengeable militarily… It [is] estimated that expended units of the Javelin antitank missile will require five and a half to eight years to replenish; the HIMARS guided rocket, two and a half to three; the Stinger antiaircraft missile, six and a half to an incredible eighteen. The verdict is damning; for all the money thrown at the Pentagon, the Department of Defense cannot supply weapons for a conventional land war of moderate size and intermittently high intensity for much longer than a year without drawing down munition stocks to dangerously low levels. How, then, can it hope to deter an adversarial power of the first rank like China, which could potentially conduct a major, very high-intensity war on multiple fronts? War games demonstrate that the United States would deplete essential munitions within just eight days of engaging in a high-intensity conflict with China concerning Taiwan”
”Beginning with World War II, the United States has sought technological superiority over adversaries. But this doctrine was combined with a substantial force structure supported by an extensive industrial base. With the end of the Cold War, however, force size was significantly decreased while the acquisition system sought to develop a series of technological magic bullets. These wonder weapons frequently had a gestation period of well over a decade and were produced in small quantities, often by a single source—that is, when they worked at all… Because of their prolonged development period, technical complexity, and high unit cost, each generation of a given weapon type almost invariably sees fewer numbers produced than those of its predecessor. These small production runs lead to fewer and fewer specialized suppliers who will only facilitize their plants for what are essentially craft rather than assembly line processes. The same applies to the subcontractors that produce components. Most of American commercial manufacturing is only willing and able to gear up for large production lots of a stable design—and all the services are notorious for inundating contractors with a myriad of change orders after the design is already approved for production.”
Why it matters: “It is delusional to believe that the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy over the past four decades would not exact a toll on national defense. With the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and other measures, the Biden administration has signaled the beginning of the end of the era of divestment from manufacturing, offshoring, and downsizing. Even the Republican Party, which enthusiastically engineered many of the features of the postindustrial economy, is now ideologically split over laissez-faire economics. As the broader economy attempts to shift to a more resilient model, so must the Pentagon—and Congress, which is supposed to oversee it—find a new way to manage the defense establishment.”
5. How SpaceX generates profit by failing to pass on reduced costs to consumers
Why you should read it: In Space News, European space industry trade analyst Pierre Lionnet examines SpaceX’s business model and finds the company has reduced the costs of rocket launches but has yet to pass those savings onto its customers—in particular the U.S. government.
“Today it is generally recognized by all observers that SpaceX, with its partially reusable Falcon launch system, has achieved major cost reduction for orbital launch… [But] customers of SpaceX, as a whole, are not yet benefiting from any significant reduction of the cost of access to space, because SpaceX is not incentivized to pass the economies they achieve to their customers, or only very marginally, if they do.”
“As many commentators regularly note, SpaceX has managed to significantly lower the cost of access to space, but it is not passing these savings to its customers. Considering the dire situation of the competition (Arianespace and ULA mainly) SpaceX has actually no incentive to offer lower prices… Of course, since SpaceX is private, nobody can prove or disprove that SpaceX is making a hefty profit on its Falcon launch business. But, as we discussed above, the assumption that Falcon 9’s full cost per launch is significantly higher than $30 million does not stand in front of the incredible launch cadence driven by the Starlink deployment. If we assume that each Falcon 9 actually costs SpaceX ‘as little’ as $50 million, this would imply that SpaceX will have spent $10 billion and upwards on Starlink launch alone (plus a probable $6 billion to $8 billion for the satellites) by the end of 2024. We believe that this figure is not compatible with other financial facts about SpaceX, and would not support the affirmation that Starlink was breaking even on cash nor was profitable at some point of 2023.”
Why it matters: “The very low costs of Falcon [rocket] launches could also raise some questions from U.S. government customers. NASA and DoD regularly foot very expensive launch bills to launch with Falcon. Considering how much SpaceX’s successful development path has been tied to NASA and other U.S. government business, it may be reasonable for these customers to start wondering whether they have the right bang for the buck, and consider auditing SpaceX and determine whether the price offers made by SpaceX are fair or whether they include an excessive markup.”
6. The “omnicause” that ate left-wing politics
Why you should read it: Jewish Chronicle columnist Hadley Freeman notes how left-wing notions of vast, interconnected systems of oppression ineluctably lead progressives to a political and intellectual dead-end.
“I’d like to talk about The Omnicause. Oh, you haven’t heard of The Omnicause? How embarrassing for you, because it’s quite the dernier cri! The Omnicause is, simply, every cause you must care about if you’re A Good Progressive rolled into one, because everything in the world is connected… Gender, environment, Gaza: they’re all the same, even though LGBT people live under the threat of death in Palestine, and I haven’t heard too much from Hamas about the environment. According to The Omnicause, they’re all magically connected. It’s the fatberg of causes, and the fat gluing them all together is Western narcissism.”
“A lot of this has to do with – as I said – narcissism: idiots who cannot fathom the idea that their issues are totally irrelevant to other people’s issues, and maybe the Israeli-Hamas conflict has actually nothing in common with, say, a middle class life in Brighton… But really, this is about conspiracy theories. For the past decade, progressives have been obsessed with finding a single source for all oppression. For a while it was ‘patriarchy.’ Then it was ‘white supremacy.’ For the hardcore there was ‘heteronormative cis supremacy.’ And now it’s ‘Zionism.’”
Why it matters: “…history doesn’t work in single, simple ways, alas. It would be so much easier if it did, but it doesn’t, and part of growing up is learning this fairly basic truth. You can resist it if you like, and reside in a state of arrested development, clinging with your fingernails to the fatberg Omnicause, but don’t kid yourself that you’re doing any good. All you are, really, is a crank and a conspiracy theorist.”
7. How the American far left became a movement of authoritarian zealots
Why you should read it: In an excerpt from his new history of American Communism in The Atlantic, historian Maurice Isserman shows how much of the American left turned from away the democratic socialism of Eugene Debs after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and became a movement of ideological fanatics.
“For more than a century, the American left has been pulled in two directions. The better one seeks revolutionary change through the democratic process, as the Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs did in the early 20th century. Emulating the abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, Debs tried to convince people of many political persuasions to expand the promise of equality embedded in the Declaration of Independence… A competing vision arose during and after the First World War in Russia, a country that bore scant resemblance to Western democracies and had no tradition of government based on principles of equal rights. To overthrow Russia’s czar, Vladimir Lenin created a tightly organized and ideologically disciplined corps of ‘professional revolutionaries’ who would dedicate ‘the whole of their lives’ to the movement. Their success at destroying the old order in 1917 appealed to a contingent of American radicals who, in 1919, left the Socialist Party to form what would eventually be named the Communist Party USA. Like the original Bolsheviks in Russia, the CPUSA subordinated democratic ideals and individual conscience to the decisions made by a hierarchical party apparatus. That approach—which assumes that adherents’ fervor and discipline can compensate for a lack of popular support—has done little to create a more equitable society in the United States… The [American] Communist Party’s ignominious history—of taking instructions from Moscow, drumming out dissenters, and making excuses for communist regimes’ human-rights violations in the name of revolutionary solidarity—should be a warning to ideologues pushing for greater uniformity on the left and to anyone tempted to think that dogmas, slogans, and tactical orders from headquarters should be accepted without debate. Unfortunately, some factions within the organized left are repeating the CPUSA’s errors today, most notably in their rigid, doctrinaire response to the Hamas attack on Israel in October.”
“Communists in the United States, like their counterparts around the world, considered defending the Soviet Union their top political priority. American Communists did not deny that opposition to the Soviet regime brought harsh penalties for those living under its rule, but argued it was all for the greater good… Sticking up for Moscow resulted in frequent, dizzying reversals of the ‘party line.’ From 1929 to 1934, as Joseph Stalin consolidated his totalitarian control and pushed for rapid industrialization in the Soviet Union, American Communists adopted an equally hard-line and ultra-revolutionary stance, calling for proletarian revolution. From 1935 to 1939, as Stalin awoke to the danger of an attack from Nazi Germany and sought to woo the Western democracies as allies in the event of war, Communists in the United States dropped calls for immediate revolution, and sought instead to form a broad anti-fascist ‘Popular Front’ with American liberalism. From 1939 to 1941, the years of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, when Stalin and Hitler collaborated in dividing much of Eastern Europe between them, American Communists dropped anti-fascism for anti-war isolationism. And so on for decades, as party leaders in America would advocate whatever served Moscow’s interests, no matter how illogical or nonsensical the argument might be… Communism in the United States was an adopted and embattled faith and, as such, precariously held by many CPUSA members. American Communists were not born Leninists or raised in a society where obedience to party dictates could be enforced by violent repression, as it was in the Soviet Union. Tensions around questions of democracy produced a constant stream of defections from the party. In my research, I found ample evidence of members’ unease over many Soviet policies. But, strikingly, many of these members failed to speak up. In 1931, the labor journalist Mary Heaton Vorse, who had secretly joined the party in the mid-1920s, confided in her diary that she was ‘in a bourgeois frame of mind about the kulaks’—which is to say, uneasy about the brutal displacement of peasants from their land during the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture in the first Stalinist Five-Year Plan. ‘Who cares which class rules so long as the sum of injustice remains the same?’ she asked, underlining the question. Yet Vorse kept her doubts to herself.”
Why it matters: “Major elements of the left in the United States have embraced the Leninist tradition before, from World War I to the Cold War, and now some American radicals appear ready to choose ideological uniformity and organizational discipline over free debate. That choice has always ended in disaster and disillusionment. There is a far better tradition of genuine American radicalism that stands for democratic rights and common decency.”
8. Why the way we talk about men and boys needs to change
Why you should read it: Writer Ruth Whippman argues in the New York Times that the way progressives and much of elite America talk about boys and men only serves to deepen the problems of alienation and lack of emotional intimacy that plague them.
“I have spent the last few years talking to boys as research for my new book, as well as raising my own three sons, and I have come to believe the conditions of modern boyhood amount to a perfect storm for loneliness. This is a new problem bumping up against an old one. All the old deficiencies and blind spots of male socialization are still in circulation — the same mass failure to teach boys relational skills and emotional intelligence, the same rigid masculinity norms and social prohibitions that push them away from intimacy and emotionality. But in screen-addicted, culture war-torn America, we have also added new ones… For many progressives, weary from a pileup of male misconduct, the refusal to engage with men’s feelings has now become almost a point of principle. For every right-wing tough guy urging his crying son to ‘man up,’ there’s a voice from the left telling him that to express his concerns is to take airtime away from a woman or someone more marginalized. The two are not morally equivalent, but to boys, the impact can often feel similar. In many cases, the same people who are urging boys and men to become more emotionally expressive are also taking a moral stand against hearing how they actually feel. For many boys, it can seem as though their emotions get dismissed by both sides. This political isolation has combined with existing masculine norms to push a worrying number of boys into a kind of resentful, semi-politicized reclusion.”
“Some of them were genuinely isolated. Others had plenty of friends. But almost all of them had the nagging sense that something important was missing in those friendships. They found it almost impossible to talk to their male peers about anything intimate or express vulnerability. One teenager described his social circle, a group of boys who had been best friends since kindergarten, as a ‘very unsupportive support system.’ Another revealed that he could recall only one emotionally open conversation with a male friend in his life, and that even his twin brother had not seen him cry in years. But they felt unable to articulate this pain or seek help, because of a fear that, because they were boys, no one would listen… Perhaps it’s not surprising that boys don’t know how to listen and engage with their friends’ emotions on any deeper level; after all, no one really engages with theirs. We are convinced that men and boys have had more than their fair share of our attention already because in a sexist society, male opinions hold outsized value. But the world — including their own parents — has less time for their feelings.”
Why it matters: “Silencing or demonizing boys in the name of progressive ideals is only reinforcing this problem, pushing them further into isolation and defensiveness. The prescription for creating a generation of healthier, more socially and emotionally competent men is the same in the wider political discourse as it is in our own homes — to approach boys generously rather than punitively. We need to acknowledge boys’ feelings, to talk with our sons in the same way we do our daughters, to hear them and empathize rather than dismiss or minimize, and engage with them as fully emotional beings.”
9. Why progressive elites lie to each other
Why you should read it: In his Substack newsletter, Josh Barro contends that progressive activists routinely employ the noble lie because it works—not to achieve their stated policy objectives but to increase their standing within the Democratic Party’s political coalition.
“Jerusalem Demsas of The Atlantic, Rachel Cohen of Vox and Matt Yglesias have all written pieces in recent weeks about progressive advocacy groups spreading what Yglesias calls ‘elite misinformation’: overblown claims about social problems [like climate change, maternal mortality, etc.] they want to draw attention to… Demsas, Cohen and Yglesias would all like the lying to stop, and so would I. But I don’t think any of the three of them quite put their finger on why these groups lie. The unfortunate truth is that they lie because lying works — and it works because big, bold, scary lies are helpful for these groups as they try to claw their way to the front of the line when governments run by Democrats parcel out our country’s constrained fiscal resources.”
“While progressive groups that focus on climate change and child care and education and health care are putatively allies — and feel increasingly compelled to make performative statements in favor of each other’s causes, even when that narrows the coalition they can build — beneath the surface, they’re fighting over a limited pool of resources. The budget deficit is large and set to increase over time with rising entitlement spending. Neither major American political party is willing to countenance tax increases on people making less than about $400,000. So when Democrats run Washington, priority setting necessarily happens, even though most Democratic politicians don’t like to admit it and aren’t very good at doing it. So the Groups don’t need to just be seen as having worthy ideas — they’re all trying to be seen as the group trying to address the most urgent problem that must be addressed first… One reason the lies get believed within the tent is that there’s a lot of social pressure not to point out that they are lies. Demsas and Cohen each focus on specific issues where many experts knew that claims being popularized were wrong but felt compelled to keep quiet out of the concern that rejecting the crisis framing would undermine campaigns for policy change, or would alienate political allies… The lying has not worked as a political strategy for those interest groups yet — but it does seem to me that painting an unduly catastrophic picture of the climate future has worked as a strategy for climate advocates seeking to get governments to devote resources to the (again, real) problem of climate change. And it’s not clear to me that advocacy groups will be held accountable in the future for past lies. After all, the social pressure remains not to point out when one’s allies are lying. And a lot of people are bought into the idea that lies are fine if they’re for a good cause. It’s probably true that reporters will be more skeptical of claims about child care next time around. But 50 years’ worth of skepticism from reporters and economists about false claims that tax cuts will pay for themselves hasn’t exactly stopped Republicans from getting mileage out of that lie.”
Why it matters: “…the only thing that will stop the lying is a structural change in the progressive coalition that makes lying no longer an effective strategy. And I’m not really sure how that could be brought about. So I just expect that the groups will continue to lie to us and get away with it.”
Odds and Ends
Taylor Swift’s tour has arrived in Europe—and will likely boost the local economies of the cities where she plays…
Everything you wanted to know about pooping on the Moon but were afraid to ask…
An excellent profile of Canadian singer-songwriter Sarah McLachlan as she embarks on a tour to mark the thirtieth anniversary of her breakthrough album Fumbling Toward Ecstasy…
How the solar storms that lit up Earth’s night sky with spectacular auroras “cooked” Mars days later—and what that might mean for future astronauts on the Martian surface…
How a Norwegian farmer uncovered thousand-year-old Viking sword as he strolled in his fields…
What I’m Listening To
To honor forty years since the release of Prince’s masterpiece Purple Rain, the fourteen-minute “Hallway Speech” version of “Computer Blue.”
“When the Levee Breaks,” a live rendition of Led Zeppelin’s take on the blues classic by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
“Don’t Stop Now,” by harpist Mikaela Davis from her most recent album And Southern Star.
What I’m Streaming
Everybody Wants Some!!, director/writer Richard Linklater’s 2016 film about a Texas college baseball team’s lazy adventures in the last days before the start of class in August 1980.
Dark Matter, an Apple TV+ series that sees a college physics professor (Joel Edgerton) stranded in the multiverse and desperately searching for a way to return home to his wife (Jennifer Connelly).
Ripper Street, a police procedural set in late Victorian London starring Matthew Macfadyen (Succession) and Jerome Flynn (Game of Thrones) that starts strong but goes a bit off the rails over the course of its five seasons.
Image of the Month
