Still digesting the “Flight From Reality” piece a bit, which is indeed brilliant and on to something fundamental regarding the dynamics of populism devolving from functional democracies. This being centered on unmet emotional needs of an under-informed electorate is a truly critical insight.
But also, I think the outlook is maybe awfulizing a little bit, perhaps overstating the inherent weakness of democracy.
My $0.02 - Decent democratic leadership *can* adjust to meet those unmet emotional needs, but has largely failed in the recent past. This failure is what has given populists an opening to exploit and the populists have successfully exploited it. But they have not done so alone or organically either - an autocratic alliance is actively fomenting this insurgency and pushing misinformation to advantage the populists and delegitimize elite leadership. It has been successful.
More critically, the adjustments needed to meet those emotional needs are probably less severe and problematic than we might think. Offering a cogent vision of a better future in line with the emotional needs of the electorate is the missing piece of the puzzle, imo.
Informed centrists among us, I think, accelerate populism when we reflexively close ranks on moderates that promise to keep the seat warm and little else. We want to make sure we don’t kill the golden goose and lose our Constitutional governance and so the tendency is to form bland centrist coalitions that won’t offend anyone.
But when the population has unmet emotional needs, this is exactly the wrong position. Decent leadership must present a vision for reform or else the populists will keep gain more ground promising to blow things up entirely.
For example, the horror show that is our corrupted supreme court is a glaring problem threatening the continuation of constitutional governance. I am personally horrified. And yet, Democrats are not meeting my emotional needs on this topic. Democrats do not campaign on how they would fix it if we gave them the power to do so.
This seems to stem from a desire to be seen as the adults in the room who wouldn’t do anything questionable with Constitutional hardball. Bland centrism. But it only promotes further “flight from reality” - there is no where to turn but fantasy and charlatans unless leadership articulates a plan that addresses those deep fears and aspirations.
This addendum alone is worth the price of the subscription! Thank you for explaining the outcome of the second round of French elections more clearly than any article I've seen to date.
Your Dad was right. That article is a wonderful piece of writing. I spent a lot of time on it, and the various tangents off your main argument, and considered it time well spent.
Today's CG is equally incisive and engaging. Thank you for introducing me to the term "brebis galeuse." As I was typing this, I spotted your footnote 5 right above. You're absolutely right about online dictionaries. When I looked up that term, I got "black sheep" as an answer. That seemed too mild to me, so I looked up the individual words, which led me to the real nastiness of the concept. And that nastiness is entirely appropriate for the group of people you (and Attal, indirectly) direct it at.
He is very correct; it is a masterpiece. Maybe a few too many side stories, but the short discussion of the dumbing down of democracies is relavatory. Of course! The constitution was written with the “citizenry” in mind. The educated,land-holding men! Now, the majority of the “citizenry” have an average middle school reading level. How are they supposed to keep up with all the issues we face? Someone who says”leave it to me” sounds very comforting.
You're right on almost every point and you get the essence of the argument. But the side stories are well worth the diversion, and if you clicked on Dr. Berlinski's article from September 2019 you'd have seen an even fuller description of Shawn Rosenberg's impressive and depressing theory of democratic decline. Sometimes it's worth going down those rabbit holes. At least it is to me. Of course, as an old, retired guy who is still in possession of most of his marbles, that's easy for me to say. I've got the time and perseverance to go spelunking. :-)
Excellent perspective Claire, thank you!
Still digesting the “Flight From Reality” piece a bit, which is indeed brilliant and on to something fundamental regarding the dynamics of populism devolving from functional democracies. This being centered on unmet emotional needs of an under-informed electorate is a truly critical insight.
But also, I think the outlook is maybe awfulizing a little bit, perhaps overstating the inherent weakness of democracy.
My $0.02 - Decent democratic leadership *can* adjust to meet those unmet emotional needs, but has largely failed in the recent past. This failure is what has given populists an opening to exploit and the populists have successfully exploited it. But they have not done so alone or organically either - an autocratic alliance is actively fomenting this insurgency and pushing misinformation to advantage the populists and delegitimize elite leadership. It has been successful.
More critically, the adjustments needed to meet those emotional needs are probably less severe and problematic than we might think. Offering a cogent vision of a better future in line with the emotional needs of the electorate is the missing piece of the puzzle, imo.
Informed centrists among us, I think, accelerate populism when we reflexively close ranks on moderates that promise to keep the seat warm and little else. We want to make sure we don’t kill the golden goose and lose our Constitutional governance and so the tendency is to form bland centrist coalitions that won’t offend anyone.
But when the population has unmet emotional needs, this is exactly the wrong position. Decent leadership must present a vision for reform or else the populists will keep gain more ground promising to blow things up entirely.
For example, the horror show that is our corrupted supreme court is a glaring problem threatening the continuation of constitutional governance. I am personally horrified. And yet, Democrats are not meeting my emotional needs on this topic. Democrats do not campaign on how they would fix it if we gave them the power to do so.
This seems to stem from a desire to be seen as the adults in the room who wouldn’t do anything questionable with Constitutional hardball. Bland centrism. But it only promotes further “flight from reality” - there is no where to turn but fantasy and charlatans unless leadership articulates a plan that addresses those deep fears and aspirations.
This addendum alone is worth the price of the subscription! Thank you for explaining the outcome of the second round of French elections more clearly than any article I've seen to date.
Your Dad was right. That article is a wonderful piece of writing. I spent a lot of time on it, and the various tangents off your main argument, and considered it time well spent.
Today's CG is equally incisive and engaging. Thank you for introducing me to the term "brebis galeuse." As I was typing this, I spotted your footnote 5 right above. You're absolutely right about online dictionaries. When I looked up that term, I got "black sheep" as an answer. That seemed too mild to me, so I looked up the individual words, which led me to the real nastiness of the concept. And that nastiness is entirely appropriate for the group of people you (and Attal, indirectly) direct it at.
He is very correct; it is a masterpiece. Maybe a few too many side stories, but the short discussion of the dumbing down of democracies is relavatory. Of course! The constitution was written with the “citizenry” in mind. The educated,land-holding men! Now, the majority of the “citizenry” have an average middle school reading level. How are they supposed to keep up with all the issues we face? Someone who says”leave it to me” sounds very comforting.
You're right on almost every point and you get the essence of the argument. But the side stories are well worth the diversion, and if you clicked on Dr. Berlinski's article from September 2019 you'd have seen an even fuller description of Shawn Rosenberg's impressive and depressing theory of democratic decline. Sometimes it's worth going down those rabbit holes. At least it is to me. Of course, as an old, retired guy who is still in possession of most of his marbles, that's easy for me to say. I've got the time and perseverance to go spelunking. :-)
Chapeau!
Pop a raison.
Great stuff. Depressing that gridlock was the safest option for democracy.
People forget how close most of the continent is to having lived under fascism or Stalinism.
I don’t know if Americans appreciate what real fascism is.
Yes, exactly right: Americans seem to think that Europe is basically the US with museums. It isn't. The recent past here is so, so dark.