Your document reads much more like “Rational Politics for Liberals.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s really clear that you tacitly oppose lots of dissident/alternative/reactionary right views. I’m pretty sympathetic to what you’re trying to do, but I see it more as a concerted effort for thoughtful and rational discussion of how to solve the issues of alternative and neoreactionary right beliefs.
I don’t think any level of rational calculations of per person terrorism risk will change the 20-50% of Americans who don’t want Muslim immigration. Terrorism is the nicest and cleanest, discrete and emotionally actionable issue to focus around. The impression I get is more that many people prefer or like their own culture, and want to live in a culture with homogenous groups of people. There is at least enough research on the fact that homogenous groups are higher-trust and safer, to make the preference to exclude sufficiently different people as something that could be rational, or debatable in a rationalist framework (disclosure: I don’t think people are necessarily irrational for having ingroup preferences or outsider-anxiety).
I have spent a lot of time trying to think about how we can reconcile these worldviews between the in-group preference and the more universalist/progressive political model. It’s really hard, maybe impossible. Right now the intellectuals of each group (read: not the meme spammers) can’t even honestly discuss the issues. Their views are so beyond the pale of one another, that they can’t even find a shared platform to say a thing. Maybe one goal would be to get the intellectuals of both groups to take a stand against pointless meme arguments.
I’m not a huge fan of Ezra Klein, but his interview with Tyler Cowen gets at this (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/conversation-ezra-klein-2.html).
KLEIN: I strongly agree. We do not have a language for demographic anxiety that is not a language that is about racism. And we need one. I really believe this, and I believe it’s been a problem, particularly this year. It is clear, the evidence is clear. Donald Trump is not about “economic anxiety.”
I think a true rational politics project would work on developing this ‘language for demographic anxiety.’ If we can imagine a slightly better pundit news discussion:
Interviewer: We have Guest1 and Guest2. Guest1 prefers a more homogenous culture, which he argues is higher trust. Guest2 believes that the evolution of our culture as we know it has succeeded because we bring in different groups of people.
Guest 1: Great to be here, I have lots of respect for Guest2, but I think we need to focus on bringing highly educated people who match on our core cultural dimensions.
Guest 2: There is more than simply education, over time we have seen [previous groups] slowly absorb into America, and add their own cultural strategies into our melting pot.
...or something like that. Right now that conversation cannot happen. Or at least it can’t happen without faux and real outrage, accusations of racism, and so forth. And in saying all this, it’s probably clear where my political preferences rest. It’s a testament to the challenge of this endeavor that any individuals model of what a ‘Rational Politics Project’ would look like secretly embeds the political views of its author.
The reason why culturally homogenous groups are higher trust is racism. The discussion from both sides needs to be about bad things, and racism is not infinitely bad or even any more inherently bad than inequality is.
...you [Gleb] tacitly oppose lots of dissident/alternative/reactionary right views
For what it’s worth, I think “dissident/alternative/reactionary” activists have a lot to learn still about what politics is actually like in the real world. Deliberation and compromise are critically important in real-world politicking, while writing obscure theoretical essays ala Moldbug and other ‘neo-reactionary’ thinkers is a lot less relevant. (Of course, this failure mode is by no means unique to neo-reactionaries—plenty of radical leftists do the same thing!) And I don’t think that even Donald Trump and his ‘alt-right’ supporters, who are obviously a lot closer to wielding real power, can escape this need for finding good compromises. (Especially in the longer run.)
… KLEIN: ”...It is clear, the evidence is clear. Donald Trump is not about ‘economic anxiety.’ ” …
Nitpick—a lot of people really want to believe this. ISTM that they do not care so much about understanding Donald Trump or his constituency, and they’re still trying to whitewash the blatant strategic mistakes of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
I see the situation right now as more liberals being closer to rational thinking than more conservatives, but it hasn’t been the case in the past. I don’t know how this document would read if more conservatives were closer to rational thinking.
Regarding the Muslim issue, you might want to check out the radio interview I linked in the document. It shows very clearly how I got a conservative talk show host to update toward being nicer to Muslims.
If you’re interested in participating in this project, email me at gleb [at] intentionalinsights [dot] org
Your document reads much more like “Rational Politics for Liberals.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s really clear that you tacitly oppose lots of dissident/alternative/reactionary right views. I’m pretty sympathetic to what you’re trying to do, but I see it more as a concerted effort for thoughtful and rational discussion of how to solve the issues of alternative and neoreactionary right beliefs.
I don’t think any level of rational calculations of per person terrorism risk will change the 20-50% of Americans who don’t want Muslim immigration. Terrorism is the nicest and cleanest, discrete and emotionally actionable issue to focus around. The impression I get is more that many people prefer or like their own culture, and want to live in a culture with homogenous groups of people. There is at least enough research on the fact that homogenous groups are higher-trust and safer, to make the preference to exclude sufficiently different people as something that could be rational, or debatable in a rationalist framework (disclosure: I don’t think people are necessarily irrational for having ingroup preferences or outsider-anxiety).
I have spent a lot of time trying to think about how we can reconcile these worldviews between the in-group preference and the more universalist/progressive political model. It’s really hard, maybe impossible. Right now the intellectuals of each group (read: not the meme spammers) can’t even honestly discuss the issues. Their views are so beyond the pale of one another, that they can’t even find a shared platform to say a thing. Maybe one goal would be to get the intellectuals of both groups to take a stand against pointless meme arguments.
I’m not a huge fan of Ezra Klein, but his interview with Tyler Cowen gets at this (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/conversation-ezra-klein-2.html). KLEIN: I strongly agree. We do not have a language for demographic anxiety that is not a language that is about racism. And we need one. I really believe this, and I believe it’s been a problem, particularly this year. It is clear, the evidence is clear. Donald Trump is not about “economic anxiety.”
I think a true rational politics project would work on developing this ‘language for demographic anxiety.’ If we can imagine a slightly better pundit news discussion:
Interviewer: We have Guest1 and Guest2. Guest1 prefers a more homogenous culture, which he argues is higher trust. Guest2 believes that the evolution of our culture as we know it has succeeded because we bring in different groups of people. Guest 1: Great to be here, I have lots of respect for Guest2, but I think we need to focus on bringing highly educated people who match on our core cultural dimensions. Guest 2: There is more than simply education, over time we have seen [previous groups] slowly absorb into America, and add their own cultural strategies into our melting pot.
...or something like that. Right now that conversation cannot happen. Or at least it can’t happen without faux and real outrage, accusations of racism, and so forth. And in saying all this, it’s probably clear where my political preferences rest. It’s a testament to the challenge of this endeavor that any individuals model of what a ‘Rational Politics Project’ would look like secretly embeds the political views of its author.
The reason why culturally homogenous groups are higher trust is racism. The discussion from both sides needs to be about bad things, and racism is not infinitely bad or even any more inherently bad than inequality is.
For what it’s worth, I think “dissident/alternative/reactionary” activists have a lot to learn still about what politics is actually like in the real world. Deliberation and compromise are critically important in real-world politicking, while writing obscure theoretical essays ala Moldbug and other ‘neo-reactionary’ thinkers is a lot less relevant. (Of course, this failure mode is by no means unique to neo-reactionaries—plenty of radical leftists do the same thing!) And I don’t think that even Donald Trump and his ‘alt-right’ supporters, who are obviously a lot closer to wielding real power, can escape this need for finding good compromises. (Especially in the longer run.)
Nitpick—a lot of people really want to believe this. ISTM that they do not care so much about understanding Donald Trump or his constituency, and they’re still trying to whitewash the blatant strategic mistakes of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
I see the situation right now as more liberals being closer to rational thinking than more conservatives, but it hasn’t been the case in the past. I don’t know how this document would read if more conservatives were closer to rational thinking.
Regarding the Muslim issue, you might want to check out the radio interview I linked in the document. It shows very clearly how I got a conservative talk show host to update toward being nicer to Muslims.
If you’re interested in participating in this project, email me at gleb [at] intentionalinsights [dot] org