Sorry to be adding by what seems like leaps and bounds, but Lind's insights seem appropriate within the context of this discussion. Note: "The partisan gender gap between young men and young women, and men and women of all races in general, is an interesting political phenomenon. But the data suggest that the greatest emotional maladjustment is not on the side of “younger working-class men of all races.” According to a recent study by epidemiologists at Columbia University, depression rates have risen the most for young progressive women. A March 2020 Pew study reported that 56% of young white liberal women, said they had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, compared to only 28% of young white moderates and a mere 27% of young white conservatives.
Although Donald Trump will eventually be gone from the scene, elite center-left fear and loathing of the multiracial working class seems unlikely to change. Today’s heirs of anti-populist and anti-egalitarian Progressives, Mugwumps, Whigs, and Federalists will continue to insist that working-class Americans and rural Americans are dangerous cretins who threaten to destroy democracy by putting their grubby fingers on the voting levers and committing an unforgivable crime: voting against gentry liberal candidates." (Lind.)
"Between January 2020 and November 2022, over 150 emails were exchanged between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety head Yoel Roth, journalist Matt Taibbi reported. Roth, who resigned shortly after Musk’s takeover, led the team responsible for suppressing the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop bombshell on the platform.
Some of those virtual conversations involved the FBI asking for information about Twitter users that related to active investigations. But in a significant number of instances, the agency allegedly demanded that Twitter crack down on election ‘misinformation,’ Taibbi noted." (NR)
"It is also true that there is little in these revelations we didn’t already know or surmise, though it does seem that the company’s previous denials that it engaged in shadow banning—quietly restraining the dissemination of certain users’ tweets—were at best a case of being economical with the truth.
There is, however, something instructive in the documents: They provide a valuable picture of the minds of those who make decisions about what gets amplified and what gets suppressed in our public discourse. While there were some dissenters at the company, the key decisions almost all went the way you would expect.
What we get is an unsettling insight into the approach to knowledge by which our cultural elites operate—what we might call an epistemological asymmetry between progressive ideologues and the rest of us.
It’s not that executives, editors, reporters and algorithm-writers at big media and tech companies consciously promote their ideological nostrums, mindful of and striving to overcome competing ideas. It’s much worse. If you’re an executive at Twitter with the Orwellian title of “head of trust and safety” or a “disinformation” and “extremism” reporter at NBC News, or an executive at the New York Times charged with enforcing intellectual homogeneity, you’re not simply promoting a view of the world that you espouse.
You are doing something much more important, which compels compliance and tolerates no alternatives: promulgating the One True Faith, a set of orthodoxies from which there is no legitimate dissent.
Here is the asymmetry: Most conservatives, or intellectually curious people, don’t think like this. They don’t think that someone with differing opinions on say, immigration restrictions, the right level of taxation, or the case for affirmative action is voicing a provably false and intrinsically illegitimate view that amounts to misinformation. They think their opponents’ beliefs are wrong and reflect flawed analysis or erroneous evidence. But they don’t think there is only one acceptable belief and that dissent from it is analytically impossible, intellectually dishonest and morally contemptible.
But this is the left’s mindset. It is why they don’t need instructions from government officials or public censors to determine access to information. They are themselves the controlling authority. They act in ways that are reminiscent of the pre-Enlightenment certitudes of the clerisy. They have a moral and normative view of knowledge that seeks to disfavor, suppress and ultimately extirpate heresy." (Gerard Baker, WSJ.)
"All of this is an indictment of officials who were supposed to supervise the FBI, whose director reports to the Attorney General. Where were Ms. Lynch and her deputy, Sally Yates? The report notes that Deputy Assistant AG Stuart Evans raised concerns with the investigation, but the Comey FBI snubbed him, and higher-ups at the Justice Department ducked their duty.
The press corps was also an all-too-willing accomplice to the collusion con, yet there has been little to no outrage or even self-reflection at having been played for dupes. Most coverage largely dismisses the Durham report because no one new was indicted. The press performance in the collusion story has done untold damage to its credibility, and it’s a major reason that much of the country believes nothing it reads or hears about Donald Trump.
The Durham team deserves credit for not engaging in leaks, innuendo or politicized actions—precisely the FBI behavior it is criticizing. The report notes that if the findings “leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred,” but rather that “the law does not always make a person’s bad judgment, even horribly bad judgement” a crime.
The FBI responded to the report by claiming it has already “implemented dozens of corrective actions” that, if in place in 2016, would have “prevented” this mess. Mr. Durham appears to have predicted this shabby evasion, and his report provides a powerful retort. Its conclusion notes that it isn’t recommending “wholesale changes” in guidelines or policies, because the FBI ability to fulfill its responsibilities “comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath . . . As such, the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old,” namely the FBI’s guiding principles of “Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity.”
The Russia collusion fabrication and deceptive sale to the public is a travesty that shouldn’t be forgotten. That Washington’s establishment refuses to acknowledge its role in this deceit is one reason so many Americans don’t trust public institutions. It will take years for honest public servants to undo the damage, but the Durham accounting is a start." (Editorial. WSJ.)
It was interesting to reread this article in the light of recent events. I submitted a lengthy comment on when Claire first published this (see below) so here I will be brief.
It's all well and good to point out the failures of populism and the reason for those failures. Claire did a good job there. But it bears repeating that the real problem today is that the alternative to populism, liberal democracy buttressed by respected institutions and trusted elites, is not available. For reasons all too familiar by this time, those institutions and elites have squandered their credibility. They've earned the distrust of the American people. And that which they've squandered is not easily reclaimed. The most recent case in point is the United States Secret Service.
"Career employees fill almost all federal jobs. Only 4,000 of the 2.2 million federal employees are political appointees. Career federal employees consequently do almost all the work of government. In theory, these career employees should be nonpartisan experts who neutrally implement elected officials’ policies. But in reality they have their own political views and policy preferences.
While many career employees faithfully implement the president’s policies, others don’t. Deborah Birx recently gave Americans a taste of this insubordination. Dr. Birx was a career employee tapped in 2020 to coordinate the White House Coronavirus Task Force. In her new book she boasts about advancing her own policies in defiance of senior White House staff. Senior appointees directed Dr. Birx to moderate lockdown recommendations in federal guidance. She instead deleted the offending materials, then reinserted them in less prominent places in the same documents. She describes this as “subterfuge” to “work around” senior appointees.
In hindsight it is clear the senior staff were right; Covid lockdowns went too far. But Dr. Birx’s actions wouldn’t have been justified even if she had been correct. Career employees should give their best advice to political appointees, but once politically accountable officials make a decision, career staff should implement it faithfully." (James Sherik.)
With regard to Schedule F and the ruling class, I think it's a safe assumption that you don't believe in the "hackerama," Claire. You're forgiven as I'm assuming that you've never resided in Massachusetts. There's more than enough ammo to address these issues readily available on many, many fronts. Give me a day or so. Thank you.
Sorry to be adding by what seems like leaps and bounds, but Lind's insights seem appropriate within the context of this discussion. Note: "The partisan gender gap between young men and young women, and men and women of all races in general, is an interesting political phenomenon. But the data suggest that the greatest emotional maladjustment is not on the side of “younger working-class men of all races.” According to a recent study by epidemiologists at Columbia University, depression rates have risen the most for young progressive women. A March 2020 Pew study reported that 56% of young white liberal women, said they had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, compared to only 28% of young white moderates and a mere 27% of young white conservatives.
Although Donald Trump will eventually be gone from the scene, elite center-left fear and loathing of the multiracial working class seems unlikely to change. Today’s heirs of anti-populist and anti-egalitarian Progressives, Mugwumps, Whigs, and Federalists will continue to insist that working-class Americans and rural Americans are dangerous cretins who threaten to destroy democracy by putting their grubby fingers on the voting levers and committing an unforgivable crime: voting against gentry liberal candidates." (Lind.)
Another perspective on related considerations..........https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/attack-of-the-crypto-nazis
"Between January 2020 and November 2022, over 150 emails were exchanged between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety head Yoel Roth, journalist Matt Taibbi reported. Roth, who resigned shortly after Musk’s takeover, led the team responsible for suppressing the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop bombshell on the platform.
Some of those virtual conversations involved the FBI asking for information about Twitter users that related to active investigations. But in a significant number of instances, the agency allegedly demanded that Twitter crack down on election ‘misinformation,’ Taibbi noted." (NR)
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-was-in-constant-contact-with-twitter-trust-and-safety-team-documents-show/
Taibbi: https://www.c-span.org/video/?526578-1/hearing-twitter-documents-content-moderation-decisions
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5061403/user-clip-matt-taibbi-twitter-files-story-bigger-2008-financial-crisis
"It is also true that there is little in these revelations we didn’t already know or surmise, though it does seem that the company’s previous denials that it engaged in shadow banning—quietly restraining the dissemination of certain users’ tweets—were at best a case of being economical with the truth.
There is, however, something instructive in the documents: They provide a valuable picture of the minds of those who make decisions about what gets amplified and what gets suppressed in our public discourse. While there were some dissenters at the company, the key decisions almost all went the way you would expect.
What we get is an unsettling insight into the approach to knowledge by which our cultural elites operate—what we might call an epistemological asymmetry between progressive ideologues and the rest of us.
It’s not that executives, editors, reporters and algorithm-writers at big media and tech companies consciously promote their ideological nostrums, mindful of and striving to overcome competing ideas. It’s much worse. If you’re an executive at Twitter with the Orwellian title of “head of trust and safety” or a “disinformation” and “extremism” reporter at NBC News, or an executive at the New York Times charged with enforcing intellectual homogeneity, you’re not simply promoting a view of the world that you espouse.
You are doing something much more important, which compels compliance and tolerates no alternatives: promulgating the One True Faith, a set of orthodoxies from which there is no legitimate dissent.
Here is the asymmetry: Most conservatives, or intellectually curious people, don’t think like this. They don’t think that someone with differing opinions on say, immigration restrictions, the right level of taxation, or the case for affirmative action is voicing a provably false and intrinsically illegitimate view that amounts to misinformation. They think their opponents’ beliefs are wrong and reflect flawed analysis or erroneous evidence. But they don’t think there is only one acceptable belief and that dissent from it is analytically impossible, intellectually dishonest and morally contemptible.
But this is the left’s mindset. It is why they don’t need instructions from government officials or public censors to determine access to information. They are themselves the controlling authority. They act in ways that are reminiscent of the pre-Enlightenment certitudes of the clerisy. They have a moral and normative view of knowledge that seeks to disfavor, suppress and ultimately extirpate heresy." (Gerard Baker, WSJ.)
And then, substantial footnotes on the media and Public Discourse: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-files-revelations-are-instructive-but-not-surprising-media-cultural-elites-misinformation-disagreement-musk-11670856198
An excerpt: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5071206/user-clip-whistleblower-marcus-allen-details-retaliation-endured-fbi-director-christopher-wray
The long version: https://www.c-span.org/video/?528159-1/fbi-employees-testify-weaponization-committee
Nary a mention of Agency malfeasance. At least footnotes..........https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-durham-report-special-counsel-fbi-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-russia-peter-strzok-christopher-steele-d4a01d4e
"All of this is an indictment of officials who were supposed to supervise the FBI, whose director reports to the Attorney General. Where were Ms. Lynch and her deputy, Sally Yates? The report notes that Deputy Assistant AG Stuart Evans raised concerns with the investigation, but the Comey FBI snubbed him, and higher-ups at the Justice Department ducked their duty.
The press corps was also an all-too-willing accomplice to the collusion con, yet there has been little to no outrage or even self-reflection at having been played for dupes. Most coverage largely dismisses the Durham report because no one new was indicted. The press performance in the collusion story has done untold damage to its credibility, and it’s a major reason that much of the country believes nothing it reads or hears about Donald Trump.
The Durham team deserves credit for not engaging in leaks, innuendo or politicized actions—precisely the FBI behavior it is criticizing. The report notes that if the findings “leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred,” but rather that “the law does not always make a person’s bad judgment, even horribly bad judgement” a crime.
The FBI responded to the report by claiming it has already “implemented dozens of corrective actions” that, if in place in 2016, would have “prevented” this mess. Mr. Durham appears to have predicted this shabby evasion, and his report provides a powerful retort. Its conclusion notes that it isn’t recommending “wholesale changes” in guidelines or policies, because the FBI ability to fulfill its responsibilities “comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath . . . As such, the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old,” namely the FBI’s guiding principles of “Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity.”
The Russia collusion fabrication and deceptive sale to the public is a travesty that shouldn’t be forgotten. That Washington’s establishment refuses to acknowledge its role in this deceit is one reason so many Americans don’t trust public institutions. It will take years for honest public servants to undo the damage, but the Durham accounting is a start." (Editorial. WSJ.)
Superb essay
It was interesting to reread this article in the light of recent events. I submitted a lengthy comment on when Claire first published this (see below) so here I will be brief.
It's all well and good to point out the failures of populism and the reason for those failures. Claire did a good job there. But it bears repeating that the real problem today is that the alternative to populism, liberal democracy buttressed by respected institutions and trusted elites, is not available. For reasons all too familiar by this time, those institutions and elites have squandered their credibility. They've earned the distrust of the American people. And that which they've squandered is not easily reclaimed. The most recent case in point is the United States Secret Service.
"Career employees fill almost all federal jobs. Only 4,000 of the 2.2 million federal employees are political appointees. Career federal employees consequently do almost all the work of government. In theory, these career employees should be nonpartisan experts who neutrally implement elected officials’ policies. But in reality they have their own political views and policy preferences.
While many career employees faithfully implement the president’s policies, others don’t. Deborah Birx recently gave Americans a taste of this insubordination. Dr. Birx was a career employee tapped in 2020 to coordinate the White House Coronavirus Task Force. In her new book she boasts about advancing her own policies in defiance of senior White House staff. Senior appointees directed Dr. Birx to moderate lockdown recommendations in federal guidance. She instead deleted the offending materials, then reinserted them in less prominent places in the same documents. She describes this as “subterfuge” to “work around” senior appointees.
In hindsight it is clear the senior staff were right; Covid lockdowns went too far. But Dr. Birx’s actions wouldn’t have been justified even if she had been correct. Career employees should give their best advice to political appointees, but once politically accountable officials make a decision, career staff should implement it faithfully." (James Sherik.)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-to-fire-insubordinate-bureaucrats-schedule-f-executive-order-trump-deborah-birx-at-will-civil-service-removal-appeals-11659989383
With regard to Schedule F and the ruling class, I think it's a safe assumption that you don't believe in the "hackerama," Claire. You're forgiven as I'm assuming that you've never resided in Massachusetts. There's more than enough ammo to address these issues readily available on many, many fronts. Give me a day or so. Thank you.