by Henry Farrell on September 18, 2024
A class of a practical sequel (or, if you prefer, sequela) to my previous post on this topic. The great modern advocate of applied (as opposed to theoretical) Straussianism, is Tyler Cowen [update: Tyler Cowen says in email that he has a very different perspective on Straussianism – see here]. Plausibly, Straussianism provides a skeleton key to his recent posting, and a solution to a great mystery. Why is it that a scholar who has spoken eloquently of his commitment to the liberties apparently discovering that he has so much in common with those who oppose them? The answer – of course! – is that he is writing in the Straussian mode, saying just the opposite of what he believes, but in so outrageously exaggerated a manner that the cognoscenti will surely detect the true message.
Thus, when Tyler complains vociferously about J.D. Vance couch/sofa joke culture, and how “most intellectual commentators seem to be embracing it or at least tolerating it,” he is secretly offering an apologia for his own embrace/toleration of Elon Musk, and the ludicrous conspiracy theories and vile slanders about Black people and immigrants that Musk spews daily. The very title of the post – “I’m Tired of This” – gives the true game away. When Tyler responds to J.D. Vance’s and Donald Trump’s lies about Haitians eating dogs and cats with a rambling post about Haitian food, and a coda about Chris Rufo’s bounty program for videos, the sheer ridiculousness of the post is the giveaway. It’s the intellectual equivalent of someone in a hostage video pulling weird faces as they read out their assigned script. And when he denounces “Scholars in support of the Moraes Brazil decision against X” as advocates of censorship, he is tacitly communicating his unhappiness with how Twitter/X is spreading anti-democratic lies, and indeed his ferocious opposition to the entire Rufo censorship agenda of firing faculty with the wrong political views.
I suspect that some shorter post or another in his voluminous output is an anagram for something like “Help! I am being kept captive by a clique of anti-democratic Silicon Valley billionaires,” but I don’t have the deciphering skillz to be sure of it. Has anyone checked in on the situation in George Mason University econ department recently? I’m getting quite worried.
by Henry Farrell on May 12, 2017
by John Holbo on January 21, 2016
Eric tells us one thing we’re sure of. Which is interesting. And relates to something I’ve long thought would be an interesting scholarly exercise. A survey of the history of Presidential impossibilities-turned-realities. In this season of Trump, we shall see what we shall see. In the meantime, go back and collect all the ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ events, from every Presidential season. Who is certain to be a contender, then immediately eliminated? (Looking at you, Scott Walker.) How many candidates who cannot possibly win have won?
Now, there is an ambiguity in the question, insofar as the other side always has a vested interest in kicking up dust. Every possible candidate is ‘impossible’ to someone. So let’s focus on the consensus cases. Like Trump. No one – I mean: no one – thought he would make it this far. Impossible. Now things get tricky, count-wise, because, from an impossibility, an infinite number of impossible consequences flow. (Looking at you, Ted Cruz, last, best hope of the Establishment.)
But seriously. Barack Obama was impossible. Clinton was impossible. Reagan was impossible. Carter? A long-shot, for sure. Watergate was impossible, ergo Ford. Nixon was impossible, insofar as he was a has-been.
Back of the envelope, I think more than 50% of the most important things that happen in Presidential elections are strictly impossible, at least according to conventional wisdom, six months earlier. What do you think is a good number?
UPDATE: The impossibility unit, per season, could be the Trump. Every election can have a T-rating, for the number of impossible things that actually happen.
by Henry Farrell on July 22, 2015
WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 21: Thomas L. Friedman speaks during a rehearsal before a taping of Jeopardy! Power Players Week at DAR Constitution Hall on April 21, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kris Connor/Getty Images)
Tyler Cowen argues that the concept of “Very Serious People” refers to people who “realize that common sense morality must, to a considerable extent, rule politics.” I’m not either the originator nor the popularizer of the term, but I think that’s wrong. As I understand it, the theory underlying the concept of Very Serious People is as follows.
1. Everyone has a mix of beliefs, some of which are right, and some wrong.
2. Everyone co-exists in a social system that tends to value, heavily reinforce and widely disseminate some people’s beliefs while disparaging, heavily discounting, and tending to limit the circulation of certain other people’s beliefs. This bias is not random, but instead reflects and reinforces existing power structures and asymmetries.
3. People whose beliefs are reinforced and widely circulated so that they are socially and politically influential, even when they are manifestly wrong, are Very Serious People. The system provides them with no incentives to admit error or perhaps to understand that they have erred, even when their mistakes have devastating consequences.
Or: Shorter Theory of Very Serious People.
1. Being Tom Friedman Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry.
[click to continue…]
by Chris Bertram on June 13, 2013
Responding to concern about PRISM and the issue of whether intelligence collaboration with the US enabled British agencies to circumvent legal restrictions, Foreign Secretary William Hague told us that “law-abiding citizens” have nothing to fear. Not only do I not wish to be the kind of person Hague thinks of as “law abiding”, more generally it is social movements that willfully break the law that are most likely to bring about change and to threaten established power and privilege. And it is just such movements, and their leaders, who are at risk from pervasive state surveillance of our communications.
[click to continue…]
by Chris Bertram on June 8, 2012
This post is really a bleg, aimed at the international lawyers out there. I’ve been looking into the legal basis for US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, strikes that on some estimates have caused over a thousand civilian deaths. As far as I can see, the strikes need to pass the regular tests of discriminating between combatants and non-combatants and not causing disproportionate “collateral damage”. They also need to get past the UN Charter’s ban on using force against the territorial integrity of other states. This article by Jack Goldsmith claims there are two ways to do this (1) by getting consent from the “victim state” and (2) by properly invoking the right of self-defence re the non-state actors concerned and claiming truly that the victim state is “unwilling or unable” to deal with the threat posed.
The United States in its drone campaign appears to be relying on self-defence and this “unwilling or unable” test. This strikes me as deeply problematic on two grounds. The first is that the _Caroline_ test, that necessity of self-defence be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation” seems not to be met. But I suppose the United States could claim that it is simply continuing a campaign of self-defence that began after September 11th 2001 and has continued since. (Could that really justify extending “self-defence” to take in new sovereign territories?) The second reason is that it looks to me as if the doctrine the United States is relying upon would also have justified “targeted assassinations” by other states on US soil at various times against individuals or groups planning or engaged in actions against those states, whom the US was unwilling to suporess. So, for example, both Cuba and Nicaragua in the past and maybe Iran today could invoke a similar doctrine with as much justification. Say it ain’t so?
by Henry Farrell on February 24, 2012
From David Marsh’s “book on the origins of the euro”:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300176740/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=henryfarrell-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0300176740, some indication that the last few years of gold standard lunacy were baked into the cake from quite early on.
bq. The two leaders [Giscard d’Estaing and Helmut Schmidt] professed the common aim, at a wider European level that superseded national borders, to regain monetary stability forfeited through a century of war and disruption. According to Giscard, the road to a European money was part of a journey that had been abandoned when the Gold Standard ended:’During the second half of the nineteenth century, up to the 1914 war, France enjoyed continuously successful economic growth, and a steady build-up of its engineering industry, with a currency that was totally stable. With their roots in a rural economy and their cultural leaning towards the fundamental values of savings and thrift, the French as a nation cannot cope with an inflationary economy and a weak currency. They thrive on stable money.’ Schmidt, too, affirmed a link between the goal of EMU and the Gold Standard:’We had a currency union up to 1914 in Western Europe – the Gold Standard. From a historical point of view, I would draw a direct parallel.’ (p.69)
by Henry Farrell on July 15, 2011
Rupert does his first post-crisis interview, with “the Wall Street Journal”:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304521304576446261304709284.html, naturally.
bq. In an interview, Mr. Murdoch said News Corp. has handled the crisis “extremely well in every way possible,” making just “minor mistakes.”
Indeed – News Corporation has done a quite wonderful job handling the mess – with a few, notably rare exceptions.
Should anyone be interested I did a “Bloggingheads”:http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/37406 yesterday with Felix Salmon on the Murdoch scandal and a few related topics (this in turn led to a couple of talking-heads type appearances on BBC channels today, but I really can’t think I said anything in my allotted 90 second slots that’s surprising enough to be worth hunting down).
