Politics

Recently, the governor of Louisiana signed a bill requiring all public school classrooms in the state to display a poster-sized copy of the Ten Commandments. In the “Beforetimes” (before the current partisan Supreme Court took shape), this would have been struck down immediately as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This bill is a clear violation of that clause. I imagine that the justices will dance around the cultural and historical significance of the document without stopping to consider the state’s motives in passing this law. While the proponents of the Ten Commandments aren’t wrong about its historical significance, the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments arguably hold more importance from the secular perspective that one must adopt in a public school.

Free speech in Russia has never been particularly favoured. The Romanov dynasty remained in power long past their expiration date by suppressing waves of free thought, from the ideals of the Enlightenment, to the anti-capitalist ideals of Marx and Engels. At least, until the 1917 Revolution. And even then, the Bolsheviks continue to suppress dissent for the entire seventy-something year history of the Soviet Union. Perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union promised change. But the change was fleeting.

From an article recently on the BBC Russian Service:

Блокировка уходящего президента США в “Твиттере” и “Фейсбуке” привела к необычной ситуации: теоретически Трамп еще может начать ядерную войну, но не может написать твит.

“Blocking the outgoing U.S. President from Twitter and Facebook has led to an unusual situation: theoretically Trump can still start a nuclear war, but cannot write a Tweet.”

In only a week, he won’t be able to do either. But while celebrating the deplatforming of this vicious clown, I have a tinge of worry about why it means for the future of democracy. It nearly goes without saying that social networks have become nearly the de facto equals of representative government in the U.S.

That “reality bubbles” contribute heavily to increasing political polarization is well-known. Customized media diets at scale and social media feeds that are tailored to individual proclivities progressively narrow our understanding of perspectives other than our own. Yet, the cures are difficult and uncertain. Often, though, we’re advised to consume media from the other side of the political divide.

A sentence from a recent piece in The Atlantic encapsulates why I think this is such a fraught idea:

Постепенно открылось мне, что линия, разделяющая добро и зло, проходит не между государствами, не между классами, не между партиями, — она проходит через каждое человеческое сердце — и черезо все человеческие сердца. Линия эта подвижна, она колеблется в нас с годами. Даже в сердце, объятом злом, она удерживает маленький плацдарм добра. Даже в наидобрейшем сердце — неискоренённый уголок зла.

My rough translation to English:

“Gradually it was revealed to me that the line separating good from evil passes not between States, nor between classes or parties. It passes through every human heart. The line shifts; it oscillates in us with the years. Even in a heart overwhelmed by evil, it retains a small bridgehead of good. Even the kindest hearts, there is an corner of evil not uprooted.”

Meritocracy has been on everyone’s minds lately, it seems. Reading Daniel Markovits’ “The Meritocracy Trap,” I was fully ready to condemn the concept completely. I may be still; but I need to take a moment to think about it more fully.

Here’s the problem with condemning meritocracy outright: if we look at ability on a case-by-case basis, would you rather a well-trained, accomplished pilot or a mediocre one? Would you rather go to a concert performed by a scratchy third-rate violinist or someone whose pedigree includes Juilliard, Curtis, or the like? Maybe the problem with meritocracy is simply that it doesn’t scale well in capitalist markets. (Don’t hold me to that idea; I’m not quite ready to embrace it fully.) In the process of scaling to the level of a large society, does any inherent rightness of merit confer a right to so distort the economic life of a country that only narrower and narrower slices of it garner larger and larger portions of the economic output?

He tells them every single day not to trust anyone, not to believe in the healing power of love and redemption and peace.

I really tried. Sorry, Jordan Peterson, it’s not me, it’s you.

Trump lawyer and all-around whackadoodle Rudy Guiliani claims he’s the most ethical person ever. Of course, his association with one of the least ethical people ever suggests otherwise. Thus, it prompts me to articulate “Duncan’s Law.” Succinctly stated, if someone claims absolute superiority in some particular characteristic, his actual performance in that characteristic is actually somewhere between average and the least performant.

Yes. Yes, they’ve done a fine job for “you”. But what about the rest of us? Moreover, what about the “us” in perpetuity, those who will have to deal with the erosion of civic norms?

I’m an atheist, but I’m familiar enough with the Christian canon that this photograph of “President” Trump with “journalist” Sean Hannity reminded me of a verse from the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 16, verse 26):