Alan Jacobs's Blog, page 186

more education, more motivated reasoning

Musa al-Gharbi:

In fact, the more intelligent, educated, or rhetorically skilled one is, the less likely it becomes that someone will change their minds when confronted with evidence or arguments that challenge their priors. There are two big tendencies driving this phenomenon.

The first is that in virtue of knowing more about the world, or being better at arguing, etc. people are just better equipped to find ways of punching holes in inconvenient facts, or finding reasons to justify ‘sticking to their guns.’ Indeed, one becomes more likely to really enjoy arguing – and to engage in political research and arguments as a hobby — as they grow more intellectually and rhetorically capable.

Perhaps surprising, but also somewhat intuitive if you think about it, highly-educated or intelligent people tend to be far more ideological than the general public. They are more likely to be partisan, to be obsessed with some moral-political cause, or to use some intellectual framework or idealized model to interpret the world.

And while educated people may be less likely to discriminate against others on the basis of factors like race, they are significantly more likely to be prejudiced against people who think differently than them, or hold different ideological commitments.

Follow the links for more details. 

Planet Earth

I have a policy that I recommend to you. When I hear a politician who wants my vote, or a pundit who claims to explain what’s happening in politics and society, I ask one fundamental question: Does this person live on Planet Earth? And if the answer is No, which quite often it is, then I pay no further attention to that person.

against Trumpistan

Yuval Levin:

The post-election political spectacle has put the question of reality and fantasy front and center. A meaningful number of Republican voters are frustrated because they believe widespread fraud in key states stole the election for Joe Biden. They are wrong about this. In fact, the election was relatively close and yielded a mixed result without much evidence of serious fraud. Trump lost fairly narrowly but clearly in a series of swing states and so lost the presidency, but Republicans improved their standing in the House of Representatives and lost just a few seats in the Senate in a year when they had more seats at risk. No inquiry into fraud has turned up anything of note, and claims to the contrary have all melted away under scrutiny; most were never even made in court because they couldn’t even reach the level of assertions. The election therefore leaves Republicans with some major opportunities to pursue, but also with a Democratic president to deal with.

Republican politicians could deal with these facts, and so look for ways to use the power they possess to pursue the opportunities they have to advance their voters’ interests and expand their future electoral appeal. Or they could pretend the lies too many of their voters have accepted are true and put on a show for those voters, to both justify and intensify their frustration and outrage. And some Republicans in Congress have clearly chosen the latter course — an easy but corrosive populism, rather than a hard but constructive populism.

President Trump himself has obviously encouraged them in this course. He is deeply fluent in the fraud conspiracies, and seems genuinely to believe them — as he has often shown himself incapable of separating fact from fiction too. We now also know that he has tried to get state officials to steal votes for him even as he claims the Democrats stole them away. He is intent on talking a different reality into being and demands that others accept it. To abide and encourage the election-fraud conspiracies is to affirm the web of lies he has been spinning, and the Republican politicians who have chosen to do that know full well that this is what it means.

The whole essay may be behind a paywall, but it is a compelling analysis, so read it if you possibly can. (National Review has been really great in the Trump years, so it’s more than worth a subscription.)

The Republican Party, it seems to me, is now chiefly comprised of three camps: the delusional, the liars, and those who enable delusions and lies.

Among the few not in any of those three camps is Representative Chip Roy (R., Texas) who yesterday pointed out to his fellow Republican Representatives an inevitable chain of logic following from the claims of massive voting fraud:

Such allegations – if true – raise significant doubts about the elections of at least some of the members of the United States House of Representatives that, if not formally addressed, could cast a dark cloud of suspicion over the validity of this body for the duration of the 117th Congress. After all, those representatives were elected through the very same systems — with the same ballot procedures, with the same signature validations, with the same broadly applied decisions of executive and judicial branch officials — as were the electors chosen for the President of the United States under the laws of those states, which have become the subject of national controversy. And while the legislatures of those states have sent us no formal indication that the results of these elections should not be honored by this body, it would confound basic human reason if the presidential results were to face objection while the congressional results of the same process escaped without public scrutiny.

(Emphasis mine.) Only two of his colleagues declined to “confound basic human reason.” The others don’t believe that any election fraud took place, but they are fully prepared to pretend they did because they think they can gain politically thereby.

As I have noted many times, I do not belong to either political party and for decades now have consistently voted for third-party or write-in candidates. The GOP’s repudiation of the most foundational governing principles of this nation has forced me to change my thinking. Yesterday I wrote this letter to one of my Senators, Ted Cruz:

Dear Senator Cruz,

As you know, there was no fraud in the recent Presidential election. President Trump’s attorneys have declined even to allege fraud, because they know — again, as do you — that there is no evidence for it. You could have corrected and instructed those who have been misled by manipulative deceivers, and thereby helped to promote trust in a system that has earned our trust. Instead, you have chosen to echo those deceivers and to inflame fears with a truly shocking recklessness. The American people at this moment need firefighters; you have chosen to become an arsonist. You are treating the vows you have made as a Senator with absolute contempt; you are treating America itself with absolute contempt. You have chosen to advocate the abrogation of American laws, norms, and traditions in order to build up the alternative nation you want to live in: Trumpistan.

I am a long-time conservative. I last voted for Democrat candidates for the Presidency and Senate in 1976. But I am very much looking forward to voting for whoever — and I do mean whoever — the Democratic Party runs against you in 2024.

Sincerely,

Alan Jacobs

(Of course, Cruz may not run for Senate again. But whatever he runs for, and it’ll be something, I’m agin’ him.) I am extremely unhappy with this decision, because the Democratic Party despises me and most of what I believe in. And maybe I wouldn’t take this path if I lived in a blue state, that is, one where the Democrats are more radical than they are here in Texas. But if I can do anything to prevent those who prefer Trumpistan to America from gaining political office, I will.

Against Trumpistan

Yuval Levin:

The post-election political spectacle has put the question of reality and fantasy front and center. A meaningful number of Republican voters are frustrated because they believe widespread fraud in key states stole the election for Joe Biden. They are wrong about this. In fact, the election was relatively close and yielded a mixed result without much evidence of serious fraud. Trump lost fairly narrowly but clearly in a series of swing states and so lost the presidency, but Republicans improved their standing in the House of Representatives and lost just a few seats in the Senate in a year when they had more seats at risk. No inquiry into fraud has turned up anything of note, and claims to the contrary have all melted away under scrutiny; most were never even made in court because they couldn’t even reach the level of assertions. The election therefore leaves Republicans with some major opportunities to pursue, but also with a Democratic president to deal with.

Republican politicians could deal with these facts, and so look for ways to use the power they possess to pursue the opportunities they have to advance their voters’ interests and expand their future electoral appeal. Or they could pretend the lies too many of their voters have accepted are true and put on a show for those voters, to both justify and intensify their frustration and outrage. And some Republicans in Congress have clearly chosen the latter course — an easy but corrosive populism, rather than a hard but constructive populism.

President Trump himself has obviously encouraged them in this course. He is deeply fluent in the fraud conspiracies, and seems genuinely to believe them — as he has often shown himself incapable of separating fact from fiction too. We now also know that he has tried to get state officials to steal votes for him even as he claims the Democrats stole them away. He is intent on talking a different reality into being and demands that others accept it. To abide and encourage the election-fraud conspiracies is to affirm the web of lies he has been spinning, and the Republican politicians who have chosen to do that know full well that this is what it means.

The whole essay may be behind a paywall, but it is a compelling analysis, so read it if you possibly can. (National Review has been really great in the Trump years, so it’s more than worth a subscription.)

The Republican Party, it seems to me, is now chiefly comprised of three camps: the delusional, the liars, and those who enable delusions and lies.

Among the few not in any of those three camps is Representative Chip Roy (R., Texas) who yesterday pointed out to his fellow Republican Representatives an inevitable chain of logic following from the claims of massive voting fraud:

Such allegations – if true – raise significant doubts about the elections of at least some of the members of the United States House of Representatives that, if not formally addressed, could cast a dark cloud of suspicion over the validity of this body for the duration of the 117th Congress. After all, those representatives were elected through the very same systems — with the same ballot procedures, with the same signature validations, with the same broadly applied decisions of executive and judicial branch officials — as were the electors chosen for the President of the United States under the laws of those states, which have become the subject of national controversy. And while the legislatures of those states have sent us no formal indication that the results of these elections should not be honored by this body, it would confound basic human reason if the presidential results were to face objection while the congressional results of the same process escaped without public scrutiny.

(Emphasis mine.) Only two of his colleagues declined to “confound basic human reason.” The others don’t believe that any election fraud took place, but they are fully prepared to pretend they did because they think they can gain politically thereby.

As I have noted many times, I do not belong to either political party and for decades now have consistently voted for third-party or write-in candidates. The GOP’s repudiation of the most foundational governing principles of this nation has forced me to change my thinking. Yesterday I wrote this letter to one of my Senators, Ted Cruz:

Dear Senator Cruz,

As you know, there was no fraud in the recent Presidential election. President Trump’s attorneys have declined even to allege fraud, because they know — again, as do you — that there is no evidence for it. You could have corrected and instructed those who have been misled by manipulative deceivers, and thereby helped to promote trust in a system that has earned our trust. Instead, you have chosen to echo those deceivers and to inflame fears with a truly shocking recklessness. The American people at this moment need firefighters; you have chosen to become an arsonist. You are treating the vows you have made as a Senator with absolute contempt; you are treating America itself with absolute contempt. You have chosen to advocate the abrogation of American laws, norms, and traditions in order to build up the alternative nation you want to live in: Trumpistan.

I am a long-time conservative. I last voted for Democrat candidates for the Presidency and Senate in 1976. But I am very much looking forward to voting for whoever — and I do mean whoever — the Democratic Party runs against you in 2024.

Sincerely,

Alan Jacobs

(Of course, Cruz may not run for Senate again. But whatever he runs for, and it’ll be something, I’m agin’ him.) I am extremely unhappy with this decision, because the Democratic Party despises me and most of what I believe in. And maybe I wouldn’t take this path if I lived in a blue state, that is, one where the Democrats are more radical than they are here in Texas. But if I can do anything to prevent those who prefer Trumpistan to America from gaining political office, I will.

UMaster

In a recent edition of my newsletter, I mentioned that I am something of a fanatic about sound recording, from the instruments used to the recording equipment itself to mixing and mastering. The loudness war in recording has brought me a great deal of misery, and I am always looking for beautifully recorded music that maintains dynamic range and has a feel of spaciousness and openness.

I read somewhere that Paul McCartney’s new home-made album is really good, so I gave it a listen, and it’s … okay, I guess. None of the songs especially stood out to me — but what did stand out is the quality of the recording. It’s fantastic — something evident from the opening song, the mostly-instrumental “Long-Tailed Winter Bird.” So I was especially pleased to discover this interview with Paul’s sound engineers describing the recording process. Fascinating stuff, though rather geeky at times.

By contrast, while I love the songs on new Fleet Foxes record, Shore, I absolutely despise its sound — an opinion shared by other Fleet Foxes fans, though in that thread Robin Pecknold himself says that they did two different masters and released the less compressed, more dynamic one. If so, I do not want to hear the one they rejected.

All this makes me think that we are overdue for a music service — probably an expensive one — that has a built-in mixing desk. I would love to be able to take a song that I like and reshape the sound — maybe even, ideally, strip out unwanted instrumentation. Call it ReMIXD. Or UMaster. Whatever. (Yes, I know those names are used for other things.) I want it. Technically it would be extremely difficult, of course — the size of the necessary audio files alone would make it a daunting prospect. Nevertheless: I want it. I want to be like George Martin sitting down with Brian Wilson and remixing “God Only Knows” right on the spot.

By the way, I do not have an audiophile-grade sound system. You can get exceptional sound quality these days at reasonable prices, especially if you look for deals. My system:

Denon PMA–60 integrated amp
NAD C 538 CD player
Polk Audio S20 Speakers
Bang & Olufson Beoplay Hi9 headphones, played not using Bluetooth — because Bluetooth is a terrible technology — but plugged in to my Denon amp or into my computer via my Cambridge Audio DacMagic XS Portable USB DAC Amp

I got all those items for well below retail (the headphones at half price). Nothing too fancy, and a true audiophile would sneer in contempt, but it’s a great setup for me.

a reflection

Þere parfit treuthe and pouere herte is and pacience of tonge, Þere is charitee.

— Piers Plowman

“Patience” is the title of the essay about Terrence Malick’s A Hidden Life that I published earlier this year, just as everything was beginning to go all lopsided.

Patience (patientia) is related to passion (passio). Both connote suffering and the endurance of suffering; the acceptance with dignity of what cannot, and sometimes should not, be avoided; the willingness to wait until this present darkness passes. Jesus bore his passion with patience; those who endure to the end, who are likewise patient in their suffering, will be saved.

I try to cultivate patience because I am commanded to do so. “Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer” (Romans 12:12), says St. Paul, who also begs me “to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:1–2). And does not the book of Proverbs (15:18) teach me that “Those who are hot-tempered stir up strife, but those who are slow to anger calm contention”?

I try to cultivate patience because I am by nature — as my family will quickly and perhaps eagerly tell you — extremely impatient. In public life I am easily frustrated by what I believe to be intellectual error, especially if I think that error stems from a lack of charity. Uncharity makes us all stupid, and my tendency to be uncharitable to the uncharitable is one of my worst faults. Reflecting on that sober fact led me, some years ago, to make a case for the canonization of Jonathan Swift.

I try to cultivate patience especially along three intersecting axes: the ecclesial, the political, and the technological. I am especially interested in the ways that our dominant communications technologies mediate both political life and religious life, and entangle those with each other. (Anyone who has lived through the Trump Era will not need me to explain what I mean.) Especially our social media tend to make us madly impatient with disagreement and difference and to try to quash dissent through words and actions alike. We might demand that everyone be with us wholly or against us wholly; we might long for a King who will rout our enemies and bring about perfect unity.

But anyone pursuing such practices has succumbed to the temptation to immanentize the eschaton. And the only remedy for that particular temptation is to practice patience. And you will only do that if you understand the real import — which is political as well as spiritual — of the parable of the wheat and the weeds, about which I wrote, some years ago, here. In the end, we are told, “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” but to live now, to live in “the time being,” is to live, with as much patience as we can manage, in the plural world. That is why I have written a good deal recently about plurality:

“Ecclesial Plurality”
“Alexander Herzen and the Plural World”
“Ten Theses on Monism and Pluralism”

But any attempt to live patiently in plurality meets with profound resistance from the gods of our age, who want us to live wholly and reactively in the present, who teach us fear and loathing of the past, what I call palaiphobia. We can begin to overcome that, begin to escape the direhose, first by understanding that our current social hatreds are driven by fundamentally religious impulses.

And then, equipped with that understanding, we can practice listening to the voices of the past; attending to the apparently irrelevant; cultivating handmind; learning to be idiots. And on basis of all that, we can then, perhaps, make a bet on mutuality.

A last word: For the past couple of years I have become more and more convinced that there are vital resources for those of us who want to cultivate patience, who want to be peaceable towards others, who are drawn towards technologies that help us to be more peaceable and patient, in the philosophical tradition of Daoism. (As opposed to Daoism as a religion, in which I am not interested. I follow Jesus.) That’s why I published this essay, the writing of which, as I recently said to a friend, felt like “opening a door for myself — but I still don’t know what lies on the other side of that door.”

Because I want to pursue this new direction, I expect 2021 to be a quieter year for me. I want to write as much as ever, but I think patience now requires me to consider and reflect more while posting and publishing less. Of course, there’s a part of me that hopes that a time of silence will in the long run yield essays and books. But one of my goals for the next year is to make that part of me less vocal, less dominant.

samizdat

My take on this is simple: It is better for a good book not to be taught at all than be taught by the people quoted in that article. Yes! — do, please, refuse to teach Shakespeare, Homer, Hawthorne, whoever. Wag your admonitory finger at them. Let them be cast aside, let them be scorned and mocked. Let them be samizdat. Let them be forbidden fruit.

They will find their readers. They always have — long, long before anyone thought to teach them in schools — and they always will.

guilt

Freddie deBoer: “That you should never feel guilty is a commonplace in this world; guilt is never an appropriate response to something wrong that you’ve done but always a dysfunction, a failure to see the hidden righteousness in everything you’ve done. But please take a look at the last entry on the first line, ‘Saying No to Others,’ and the second on the second line, ‘Asking For Your Needs to Be Met.’ The immediate question is, what if what one person is saying no to is the other person asking for their needs to be met? What resolves the tie?” (The whole post is excellent.)

gruel

Francis Fukuyama:

Liberalism deliberately lowered the horizon of politics: A liberal state will not tell you how to live your life, or what a good life entails; how you pursue happiness is up to you. This produces a vacuum at the core of liberal societies, one that often gets filled by consumerism or pop culture or other random activities that do not necessarily lead to human flourishing. This has been the critique of a group of (mostly) Catholic intellectuals including Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermeule, and others, who feel that liberalism offers “thin gruel” for anyone with deeper moral commitments.

It is indeed “thin gruel” — it is meant to be, on the understanding that the real banquet is being prepared and served by other elements and institutions of our social order. If those other institutions are not doing their jobs, then liberalism will not do it for them. To recognize that the Church has manifestly failed to be the Church and in response to decree that therefore it should be the State instead — that’s the logic of integralism.

CRT

Three hundred years ago Daniel Defoe wrote, “I believe there are a hundred thousand plain country fellows in England, who would spend their blood against Popery, that do not know whether it be a man or a horse.” That is precisely the condition of a group of Southern Baptist seminary presidents with regard to what they call Critical Race Theory. 

The phrase is the primary problem: the syllables “Critical Race Theory,” uttered in that order, sound in the ears of conservative white Christians like a forbidding malediction. My advice to them is: Pretend the phrase doesn’t exist. Instead of issuing upon it a vague, wooly anathema, try to articulate what specific views, what specific positions, about race and racism you think incompatible with the Christian faith. 

Then take one more step. Ask someone you believe to be a proponent of that view whether they in fact hold it. You might be surprised by what you learn.