And What’s Wrong with Matt Yglesias
It’s getting almost scary to follow news media, including many mainstream op-ed journalists. Donald Trump has so infected our view of the world that where we once saw community, shared values, common culture — and beauty in diverse places – now we see only ugliness and division, hatred, distrust. How did we come to this? By extension, who is MAGA, really? Did anybody vote for this? Our current emergency is the discovery of the hole we’ve dug for ourselves. It is truly depressing.
It’s one thing to distrust elites, those with great wealth and power, while we see ourselves as fully functioning, productive members of mass society. It’s quite another thing to feel totally powerless to defend our ever-declining status in that society. We want our government to represent people like us, but how? Look at who we’ve elected, and who they have appointed; then say to yourself, “Sure, that’s what I voted for!” We accept two different media ecosystems: one extolling the virtues and common desires we share with our representatives, the other constantly hammering the point that they are our enemies! It’s understandable that our natural response might be complete disengagement from them.
I can’t stomach “Both Sides-ism” in media. One side is right, the other wrong — my world view, too. But surely there must be something other than naked power involved. Truth must exist somewhere. Over the years, I’ve grown accustomed to seeing truth in social customs and common beliefs – tribal things. And, most of all, tolerance for many different systems of social values is necessary for coexistence on the planet. I believe in peace, not war. I don’t mind living next door to somebody who does not share the same cultural background as me, so long as they don’t make ME feel like an outsider. Being on the outside rather than inside … that is the problem.
Are we now all “outsiders”? Is mass alienation the real emergency?
Matt Yglesias in his Substack empire, “Slow Boring,” seems to feel like he is an “insider” perpetually haranguing a certain subset of American society he claims is on the outside – and doomed to rejection by his asserted majority of voters. I get tired of the rhetoric of “moderation.” It makes me feel the outsider. But I won’t cancel my paid subscription to his Substack, because the vexing thing about his writing is that I agree with much of what he says. It would be nice to see some statistical backing for his idea of what the “median” American voter really wants, but still. The important point is that a “median” is the value where 50% are on one side and 50% on the other. His continuous call for appeals to that median voter can easily be reduced to a call for a working plurality … or a 51% edge. Maybe there are other dimensions of voter preference than those he touts. It could be about more than policy. For instance: the sincerity of the candidate!
That business of sincerity figures prominently, it seems to me, in who wins and loses elections – remember, few voters are really dedicated to any single issue, except in extraordinary circumstances. The current emergency is not likely a crisis brought on by any such extraordinary event (maybe the COVID pandemic?), but by disillusionment with candidate sincerity. I’m inclined to think that just enough voters were distrustful of Kamala Harris’ true motives versus Donald Trump’s fully transparent rhetorical nonsense to sway last fall’s election for President. I can imagine lots of face-planting now among that slim margin of Trump voters. We’ll see where the midterms next year take us, but I’d bet on clarity of message, and sincerity of feelings, as the key – which party, on net, will communicate these nuanced perceptions best, I predict, will be the winner.
So how does an individual campaign for Congress, or a governorship, or a state legislative seat, accomplish this? Policy positions should be clear enough to persuade voters – using facts. But the “anti-woke” or “anti-MAGA” animus comes from something other than policy positions. It comes from behavioral expectations of candidates – do they seem trustworthy, or are they consumed by forced platitudes prescribed by others? These are two very different impressions. I believe that winners are the ones deemed by (more) voters to be trustworthy – genuine. Donald Trump is nothing if not genuine in his outbursts. His blather “comes from the heart” (or perhaps the gut). Republicans who try to emulate it may get his endorsement but won’t necessarily increase their chances of electoral success unless their voters believe they really mean it. Democrats should be like Bernie Sanders or AOC, not Schumer, Jeffries and other Congressional leadership. Democratic winners shouldn’t be judged so much on whether they are “fighters” but whether they are genuine. Senators John Fetterman and Elissa Slotkin come across as voices in their caucus willing to talk to their counterparts across the aisle … without compromising their own beliefs. Sometimes fighting has more honesty value but sometimes compromise has more honesty value. Republicans have members with similar traits (perhaps Cornyn and Young in Senate, others?).
Yglesias, meanwhile, does not always show us genuine feeling so much as tactical positioning to influence supposedly “moderate” voters. There is nothing wrong with strong beliefs – even ideological ones. If you believe in science, you should admit it – advocate for scientific consensus. Science is NOT political! Matt would have you believe it is, that the “groups” have had an undue influence over it. I disagree with him on climate matters, and many sociological positions as well, because I believe science is truth unfolding. Pseudo-science may become political but should be ignored as much as those phony politicians. Likewise, if you believe in Democratic Socialism, a la Bernie, AOC, Zohran, admit it. I do, despite its long, frequently troubled, history in all the world’s democracies over the last two centuries. Liberalism, as expounded first by Hobbes, later by Locke, Mill, and Rawls is also a reality-based political/social philosophy. No, the fall of the Soviet Union was not the “end of history” as Francis Fukuyama wrote, but still a key triumph of liberalism in the late 20th century. I don’t believe Ayn Rand has anything of value to say to me – nor does the NFL — and I will admit it! Yet, many do value them – they also should admit it. Matt Yglesias often struggles to admit what he believes … in his heart. But I still read him, because he sometimes manages to overcome that blockage, and writes some pretty good stuff!
If only he wasn’t so proud of being on the inside. But perhaps being an “owner” rather than “worker” is an important part of his identity.
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 