If you really want an example of the Vertically Integrate Messaging Apparatus look at Russia. In the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine government sanctions were followed up with cultural cancellation (Tchaikovsky concerts, Russian artists, etc.) plus economic boycotts that went above and beyond what was legally required from corporations such as McDonald's, Visa, Starbucks, etc. The same class of elites is in positions of power in government, industry and the arts and their responses were instinctively, organically coordinated.
Does Chait buy the Year Zero hypothesis? Even as the author of the 2015 NY Mag piece, he seems to regard the present moment as merely an (over-) extension of 90s P.C. culture, but it's not clear to me he thinks we've crossed the Rubicon in some fundamental way.
Chait says something interesting (to me) a few minutes in -- paraphrasing, to the effect that the hard Left has long scoffed at liberals who believed (naively, they think) that adequate "progress" could be had while maintaining and upholding the liberal order. Only ends matter, and must be achieved by whatever means necessary. There's a similar phenomenon on the Right (and it sometimes surprises me the people who ascribe to it ): that democracy isn't in and of itself a first-order good or principle, but is only useful insofar as it promotes a "good" society. They're pretty open about it these days, with the obsession over Hungary/Orban and whatnot.
The center just isn't holding -- the idea that "this isn't 'Nam, there are rules!" Everyone just lunges for power now: the Left commandeered institutional power, the Right responds by grasping for political power, even if that means subverting, in some sense, democracy itself. (Not that the Left hasn't tinkered with the levers of democracy also -- let's be clear on that.)
I'm rambling perhaps, and I'm not as smart as many of you, but I'd be interested in an exploration of the Right's role in this road to Year Zero: is it merely reactionary, or has the Right, too, undermined the liberal order in its own quest to usher in its vision of the good society?
Jack, I've spent a fair bit of time looking at that question. I think I can clarify. Growing segments of the right are looking at everything Wes describes, and deciding that free speech is a LIE.
What? Yes, and don't underestimate their argument. It's powerful. In a nutshell:
The neutral public square idea, which is only a few decades old as a thing separate from a Christian culture, has failed. Observably and consistently. They cite serious philosophical and social-behavioral reasons for that failure, beyond basic observation, but the observation of failure is key because of its logical conclusion:
"You are going to live under blasphemy laws."
They can be Christian, or Islamist, or leftist - which is also very much a religion, albeit in the Scientology tier. Since your only option is WHICH blasphemy laws you live under, there is no "free speech" outside of a foundational concept of the good, beautiful, and true. So make sure your people write and enforce the blasphemy laws, AND exclude those who would undermine them. That's the real game, and all the "neutral square" stuff is just a PR lie - or an enemy tactic, until they can (and will) change the rules on you.
I dislike these conclusions, as they go against everything I've been trained to believe and advocate over my life. But... "You ARE going to live under blasphemy laws."
As a guy who does look at the data and will change his conclusions. I've yet to see an logical, effective response.
Living under blasphemy laws? Now that’s scary and you know what? I’d like to dismiss it out of hand but I can’t quite do so. I think you’re wrong but I don’t know that you are.
Some in our society like to say “You have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to be free of the consequences of that speech” and that feels a little bit like a threat to me.
If you really want an example of the Vertically Integrate Messaging Apparatus look at Russia. In the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine government sanctions were followed up with cultural cancellation (Tchaikovsky concerts, Russian artists, etc.) plus economic boycotts that went above and beyond what was legally required from corporations such as McDonald's, Visa, Starbucks, etc. The same class of elites is in positions of power in government, industry and the arts and their responses were instinctively, organically coordinated.
Does Chait buy the Year Zero hypothesis? Even as the author of the 2015 NY Mag piece, he seems to regard the present moment as merely an (over-) extension of 90s P.C. culture, but it's not clear to me he thinks we've crossed the Rubicon in some fundamental way.
Chait says something interesting (to me) a few minutes in -- paraphrasing, to the effect that the hard Left has long scoffed at liberals who believed (naively, they think) that adequate "progress" could be had while maintaining and upholding the liberal order. Only ends matter, and must be achieved by whatever means necessary. There's a similar phenomenon on the Right (and it sometimes surprises me the people who ascribe to it ): that democracy isn't in and of itself a first-order good or principle, but is only useful insofar as it promotes a "good" society. They're pretty open about it these days, with the obsession over Hungary/Orban and whatnot.
The center just isn't holding -- the idea that "this isn't 'Nam, there are rules!" Everyone just lunges for power now: the Left commandeered institutional power, the Right responds by grasping for political power, even if that means subverting, in some sense, democracy itself. (Not that the Left hasn't tinkered with the levers of democracy also -- let's be clear on that.)
I'm rambling perhaps, and I'm not as smart as many of you, but I'd be interested in an exploration of the Right's role in this road to Year Zero: is it merely reactionary, or has the Right, too, undermined the liberal order in its own quest to usher in its vision of the good society?
Jack, I've spent a fair bit of time looking at that question. I think I can clarify. Growing segments of the right are looking at everything Wes describes, and deciding that free speech is a LIE.
What? Yes, and don't underestimate their argument. It's powerful. In a nutshell:
The neutral public square idea, which is only a few decades old as a thing separate from a Christian culture, has failed. Observably and consistently. They cite serious philosophical and social-behavioral reasons for that failure, beyond basic observation, but the observation of failure is key because of its logical conclusion:
"You are going to live under blasphemy laws."
They can be Christian, or Islamist, or leftist - which is also very much a religion, albeit in the Scientology tier. Since your only option is WHICH blasphemy laws you live under, there is no "free speech" outside of a foundational concept of the good, beautiful, and true. So make sure your people write and enforce the blasphemy laws, AND exclude those who would undermine them. That's the real game, and all the "neutral square" stuff is just a PR lie - or an enemy tactic, until they can (and will) change the rules on you.
I dislike these conclusions, as they go against everything I've been trained to believe and advocate over my life. But... "You ARE going to live under blasphemy laws."
As a guy who does look at the data and will change his conclusions. I've yet to see an logical, effective response.
Living under blasphemy laws? Now that’s scary and you know what? I’d like to dismiss it out of hand but I can’t quite do so. I think you’re wrong but I don’t know that you are.
Some in our society like to say “You have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to be free of the consequences of that speech” and that feels a little bit like a threat to me.