May I politely suggest paying less attention to the idiot box?
I’m not sure that argument goes through—if the European refugee crisis is important, then aren’t Merkel, Obama, and Clinton important? And if they’re important once they’re in office, isn’t the process by which they enter office important?
That argument involving the idiot box actually looks like this: Mass media optimizes for outrage. Estimating the importance of the topic by the amount of air time it gets is a mistake.
if the European refugee crisis is important, then aren’t Merkel, Obama, and Clinton important?
No. Not in the sense that Merkel, etc. are unimportant, but in the sense that a systemic crisis is not reducible to the importance of whoever happens to be in the office at the moment.
isn’t the process by which they enter office important?
If James_Miller wanted to discuss the crisis of the “establishment” center of the mainstream US parties and the rebellions within them, it might have been an interesting topic. But James_Miller want to discuss Donald Trump, personally.
Of course, that’s what Donald Trump wants as well X-)
a systemic crisis is not reducible to the importance of whoever happens to be in the office at the moment.
The reason I picked those particular people is because of Clinton’s role in the removal of Qaddafi, Obama’s role in the continued destabilization of Syria, and Merkel’s public pledge to take in refugees (which exacerbated the degree to which it is a European crisis, instead of a Syrian or Africa crisis). “Whoever happens to be in the office at the moment” is a factor in many of these crises.
I have a feeling we’re slowly slipping towards the conflict between the “impersonal forces” and “great people” views of history :-)
But I guess the question here is whether you want to discuss people or whether you want to discuss systems. Of course they are related and interdependent, but still. Going back to the source of this subthread, I find thinking about tensions between “rebels” and “nomenklatura” in US political parties to be moderately interesting (especially in the context of how they deal with the need to overpromise during the campaign). I find Donald Trump to be very uninteresting. YMMV, of course.
I have a feeling we’re slowly slipping towards the conflict between the “impersonal forces” and “great people” views of history :-)
A synthesis of the two views clearly outperforms either view on its own. There seems to be a difference between, basically, forest fires and earthquakes—both rely on long build-ups (the impersonal forces contribution) and when they happen may be surprising (I couldn’t tell you when the housing bubble would burst until it had but I could tell you that it would eventually), but the while there’s little control over when an earthquake happens and how the consequences shake out, there’s quite a bit of control over when a fire happens and how the consequences shake out (the great people contribution).
That’s an interesting distinction—can you say more about it?
It seems to me that events and changes vary quite a bit in how much control various people have over them. For things like the Chinese economic difficulties, it looks to me like this is the result of lots of malinvestment over the years, and there’s not too much control over whether or not things get worse / no clear single point of failure. Then there are other issues where there does seem to be a single point of failure, or a single failure avoidance point. Even in those cases, there are systemic forces that created the fuel for the conflagration.
One example that comes to mind is Arkhipov voting against firing nukes during the Cuban Missile crisis. The things that put the missiles there and made their standing orders to fire if attacked (and the officers agreed) might be better thought of as ‘systemic forces,’ but it seems hard to argue that ‘systemic forces’ are a better explanation of a 2-1 vote instead of a 3-0 vote than the ‘great people’ view. Similarly, one can imagine many forest fires that almost happened, and then didn’t because of direct action by a person on the scene.
(Or many forest fires caused by direct action of a person on the scene.)
No. Not in the sense that Merkel, etc. are unimportant, but in the sense that a systemic crisis is not reducible to the importance of whoever happens to be in the office at the moment.
Even if she did greatly exacerbate it by doing something really stupid?
Yes, even, because there are reasons she did that and those reasons don’t have much to do with her personally. It wasn’t like she buckled the entire German consensus.
I’m not sure that argument goes through—if the European refugee crisis is important, then aren’t Merkel, Obama, and Clinton important? And if they’re important once they’re in office, isn’t the process by which they enter office important?
That argument involving the idiot box actually looks like this: Mass media optimizes for outrage. Estimating the importance of the topic by the amount of air time it gets is a mistake.
No. Not in the sense that Merkel, etc. are unimportant, but in the sense that a systemic crisis is not reducible to the importance of whoever happens to be in the office at the moment.
If James_Miller wanted to discuss the crisis of the “establishment” center of the mainstream US parties and the rebellions within them, it might have been an interesting topic. But James_Miller want to discuss Donald Trump, personally.
Of course, that’s what Donald Trump wants as well X-)
The reason I picked those particular people is because of Clinton’s role in the removal of Qaddafi, Obama’s role in the continued destabilization of Syria, and Merkel’s public pledge to take in refugees (which exacerbated the degree to which it is a European crisis, instead of a Syrian or Africa crisis). “Whoever happens to be in the office at the moment” is a factor in many of these crises.
I have a feeling we’re slowly slipping towards the conflict between the “impersonal forces” and “great people” views of history :-)
But I guess the question here is whether you want to discuss people or whether you want to discuss systems. Of course they are related and interdependent, but still. Going back to the source of this subthread, I find thinking about tensions between “rebels” and “nomenklatura” in US political parties to be moderately interesting (especially in the context of how they deal with the need to overpromise during the campaign). I find Donald Trump to be very uninteresting. YMMV, of course.
A synthesis of the two views clearly outperforms either view on its own. There seems to be a difference between, basically, forest fires and earthquakes—both rely on long build-ups (the impersonal forces contribution) and when they happen may be surprising (I couldn’t tell you when the housing bubble would burst until it had but I could tell you that it would eventually), but the while there’s little control over when an earthquake happens and how the consequences shake out, there’s quite a bit of control over when a fire happens and how the consequences shake out (the great people contribution).
Of course—they are just endpoints and the discussion is about where in the middle the proper balance is struck.
That’s an interesting distinction—can you say more about it?
It seems to me that events and changes vary quite a bit in how much control various people have over them. For things like the Chinese economic difficulties, it looks to me like this is the result of lots of malinvestment over the years, and there’s not too much control over whether or not things get worse / no clear single point of failure. Then there are other issues where there does seem to be a single point of failure, or a single failure avoidance point. Even in those cases, there are systemic forces that created the fuel for the conflagration.
One example that comes to mind is Arkhipov voting against firing nukes during the Cuban Missile crisis. The things that put the missiles there and made their standing orders to fire if attacked (and the officers agreed) might be better thought of as ‘systemic forces,’ but it seems hard to argue that ‘systemic forces’ are a better explanation of a 2-1 vote instead of a 3-0 vote than the ‘great people’ view. Similarly, one can imagine many forest fires that almost happened, and then didn’t because of direct action by a person on the scene.
(Or many forest fires caused by direct action of a person on the scene.)
Even if she did greatly exacerbate it by doing something really stupid?
Yes, even, because there are reasons she did that and those reasons don’t have much to do with her personally. It wasn’t like she buckled the entire German consensus.