I have an interesting household. I'm an American from elite liberal institutions. My wife immigrated from Russia not long ago and is recently nationalized here. In her opinion, Russia is a democracy because its leadership enjoys the support of the majority of the voters. As a model of governance, it looks altogether more competent and reasonable than what she sees in the United States -- despite what our media tells us, living standards continue to improve there, and seem to decline here. She also has family in Ukraine, who are inclined to see the war there as a civil war.
Every time I voice my alarm at the actions of the current administration, I get an eye roll.
I think you are on to something, as usual, about the blindness of Americans to what is happening here politically. But there is another kind of deafness as well. We see "dictatorship" in cinderblocks because we -- the liberals -- must see our system as superior to flavors of authoritarian democracy abroad which are tolerable if not popular to their citizens, even as it comes apart on us. And of course there's a hypocrisy of the effects of US liberal foreign policy abroad on their "civil wars", reflected back on us.
What I can't find the right words for is the bizareness of the personalities involved in our leadership here. "Cult of personality" is another term that has 20th century visuals. What about these dynamic social media personalities which are crankily present everywhere, warts and all, rather than as austere portraits?
Maybe a 21st century liberal democracy also needs a refreshed image.
Yup, agree completely. It is sad because I used to be a kind of political intellectual. And I thought it should be our job to do this work. To help people understand, to prepare their minds. But academia rejected this. It exemplifies our complacency. Our thinkers haven’t helped us to think ahead. And the politically “progressive” have been the most backward of all, stuck in ancient frames of Marxism and colonialism. They have wasted their time and energy on everything except seeing our current society and politics as it actually is.
On the Möbius strip of Left/Right authoritarianism, it's hard to tell one side from the other. Today's "progressives" cheer on the murderers of CEOs, diminish the pursuit of academic excellence, advocate racialist doctrines, oppose free speech, embrace the national security state, and express total contempt for their fellow Americans. To see what's happening in front of you, you must first remove the log from your eye.
Bollinger is a smooth talker, no doubt, but having covered him for many years I'm not sure how much it really amounts to. He was a skilled academic administrator/diplomat, certainly more than his successors, but presiding over a campus is different than substantively navigating ideas.
I have an interesting household. I'm an American from elite liberal institutions. My wife immigrated from Russia not long ago and is recently nationalized here. In her opinion, Russia is a democracy because its leadership enjoys the support of the majority of the voters. As a model of governance, it looks altogether more competent and reasonable than what she sees in the United States -- despite what our media tells us, living standards continue to improve there, and seem to decline here. She also has family in Ukraine, who are inclined to see the war there as a civil war.
Every time I voice my alarm at the actions of the current administration, I get an eye roll.
I think you are on to something, as usual, about the blindness of Americans to what is happening here politically. But there is another kind of deafness as well. We see "dictatorship" in cinderblocks because we -- the liberals -- must see our system as superior to flavors of authoritarian democracy abroad which are tolerable if not popular to their citizens, even as it comes apart on us. And of course there's a hypocrisy of the effects of US liberal foreign policy abroad on their "civil wars", reflected back on us.
What I can't find the right words for is the bizareness of the personalities involved in our leadership here. "Cult of personality" is another term that has 20th century visuals. What about these dynamic social media personalities which are crankily present everywhere, warts and all, rather than as austere portraits?
Maybe a 21st century liberal democracy also needs a refreshed image.
Excellent points
Got that right Nils.
Yup, agree completely. It is sad because I used to be a kind of political intellectual. And I thought it should be our job to do this work. To help people understand, to prepare their minds. But academia rejected this. It exemplifies our complacency. Our thinkers haven’t helped us to think ahead. And the politically “progressive” have been the most backward of all, stuck in ancient frames of Marxism and colonialism. They have wasted their time and energy on everything except seeing our current society and politics as it actually is.
On the Möbius strip of Left/Right authoritarianism, it's hard to tell one side from the other. Today's "progressives" cheer on the murderers of CEOs, diminish the pursuit of academic excellence, advocate racialist doctrines, oppose free speech, embrace the national security state, and express total contempt for their fellow Americans. To see what's happening in front of you, you must first remove the log from your eye.
Bollinger is a smooth talker, no doubt, but having covered him for many years I'm not sure how much it really amounts to. He was a skilled academic administrator/diplomat, certainly more than his successors, but presiding over a campus is different than substantively navigating ideas.
Golden ticket to Hell.