Sounding a bit like Martin Gurri, Tyler Cowen writes,
An informed populace, however, can also be a cynical populace, and a cynical populace is willing to tolerate or maybe even support cynical leaders. The world might be better off with more of that naïve “moonshot” optimism of the 1960s.
Carrying the idea to extremes, Robin Hanson writes,
These two facts, better tech for reading feelings and widespread hypocrisy, seem to me to be on a collision course. As a result, within a few decades, we may see something of a “hypocrisy apocalypse”, or “hypocralypse”, wherein familiar ways to manage hypocrisy become no longer feasible, and collide with common norms, rules, and laws.
I don’t think David Brin ever thought it through this way.
I rather compare to the 1990s or 2000s as that would be more meaningful to current generations as compared to the 1960s.
1) I do find it weird there is less optimism today than that era. However, there is a lot of sanitizing history as the US fairly down from 1991 – 1994 if you look back . (A third Party Trump like candidate won 19% of the vote in 1992.) Or what about the late 1970s? The US generally has 20 – 30 years growth of optimism and then 10 years of down. (Think 1948 – 1973 with a down 74 -82 and then 1983 – 2007 with down 2008 -2016)
2) Is there really more bad news or can we just find quicker and more of it. For instance would have Mollie Tibberts been national in 1990? Probably not. We can focus on the Valenzuela but South America in the 1960s through 1980s was an endless series of Civil Wars. In 1984, a South American Civil War or the Mollie murder was 30 second spot on local News Radio.
3) It really seems like the Tech companies all suddenly turned from Galts to Taggarts in nature. (Isn’t Elon Musk the definition of a Rand hero? Now is becoming definition of a Taggart.)
4) Shouldn’t economic libertarians be thinking of ways to improve the lives of people 18 -25? That seems the bigger miss today and their ‘Friends’ reality is pushing 30 not 25.
To Tyler, I reply that *knowing the truth* is not *cynicism*. I am an informed person, not a cynic. I *tolerate* whatever leaders get into office—what else can I do? But I do not *support* them (i.e., donate to their campaigns or make speeches praising them); why would I do that? (I am not a professional politician.)
An uninformed populace is easier to lead, but that is a mixed blessing.
Cynicism is well justified as the debt in 1969 was only 40% of GDP and we were engaged in carpet bombing rice farmers in Vietnam. How is that some moonshot?
We have a government system that generates periodic recessions, and we know it.
Our system is not democratic, as anyone can tell by looking at the disparity of senate representation. We know that disparate state size causes the regular regime change in DC that triggers the recession. So how does calling this a democracy help? It is written into the Constitution, we are properly a republic. Why lie about written law on this?
Debt is now over 100% of GDP, interest charges about 3% of GDP, yet our long term growth outlook is about 2%. How does a moon shot help?
What has worked? Sequester, more taxes and government shutdowns are both clearly associated with the longest expansions in post war history. But sequester, government shutdowns are cynical governances, and they actually work.
Unprecedented immigration for the last 30+ years with no expectation that the immigrants assimilate will make people cynical. Doesn’t help that most of the immigrants are themselves the product of cynical cultures. But hey, cheap labor increased GDP by some trifling percentage, so totally worth it. And don’t forget about all the ethnic restaurants!
When I went to church with my grandparents the service was in German. This was the early 1970s. Their parents had emigrated in the 1890s. The books on the shelf were in German. My grandpa had an accent even though he was born in the US.
Is it really different today?
Germany is a pleasant place to be because it’s full of Germans (or used to be). While German language did stick in the craw of many Americans, the fact is that they have been productive, non-troublesome, and fit in well with greater American culture.
More to the point, German culture is a lot more compatible with heritage American culture than the cultures of most contemporary immigrants. In fact, you could argue that Germans are a significant portion of heritage America. Most immigrants today have no connection to heritage America, or even Western Civilization.
Vastly different. The people of Germanic descent in the US viewed themselves as proud Americans. They believed America and to be superior to Germany and were actually eager to assimilate. Opa and Oma may had been determined to teach the kids German, but the kids learned English and preferred it. And never mastered German. Mon and Dad grew to only use German when talking to opa or oma. They were grateful to America. There was no welfare system to rely on, so they had no choice but to be productive. More importantly, Americans believed America was superior to Germany (and it was). They were certain their culture was superior. They insisted that immigrants assimilate and that they be net contributers to the economy and the culture.
There are far to many of today’s immigrants who come here with no intention of assimilating. They believe their country and culture are superior to America(s). And most of the political left agrees with them. The left is opposed to assimilation. The result, in the long run, will inevitably be a disaster. One can see that demonstrated by the second and third world social and economic conditions that are common today in large portions of California. Just take a look at data like the poverty rate and the gini coefficient for California.
Oh, BTW. was that German language service the only service, or was there also an English language service? And who and how many attended each service? Those are kind of important data points. What language was spoken at the grocery store by almost all or all of the people. What language was spoken in the class room? Were newly arrived Germans who were not even US citizens lecturing Americans about how they were owed certain rights and treatment regardless of their legal status? Were these immigrants telling the Americans that Americans were inferior to Germans? Insisting that their interests were to be prioritized over the interests of Americans? Where these immigrants joined by a large portion of one of the major political parties and a non trivial portion of the “elites” of the other major political party?
Don’t git too goddamned smart, now,
there’s a measure for ever’thing.
You’ll know you’re gone too far
when you can’t find a thing to smile about:
That’s what wisdom’s like.
-The Norse Havamal, as translated by Jackson Crawford