"Are Democrats on par with Republicans in the digital media space? Not yet. The gap remains wide, according to audience numbers and interviews with creators and strategists. Republicans dismiss their efforts as phony. 'What they need to stop doing is trying to copy our homework and go invent something of their own,' said CJ Pearson, a conservative influencer and podcast host. 'If they do that, it’ll be a lot more authentic than whatever they’re doing right now.'... But even the friendly confines of liberal media can turn hostile. Creators who bring strong political opinions to interviews sometimes push Democrats harder than expected, said Kyle Tharp, author of a newsletter about politics and online influence.... Tharp predicted the creator class will wield even more power in the 2028 presidential campaign. 'Some of these campaigns are going to be handing them a bag of cash for an endorsement,' he said. 'People are really going to want some of these major Democratic talkers’ endorsements in the next campaign.'"
From "How Democrats are building their own digital media army/The 2024 election spurred Democrats to seek out podcasts and social media creators to spread their message and catch up with their Republican counterparts" (WaPo)(free link).
I'm suddenly remembering the "Authenticity" trend that seems to have peaked last August.
I think good social media emerges organically. Ask Joe Rogan. These top-down efforts are not going to produce the right influencer/influencee relationship. And I've been watching the Democratic Party try to do this since the 2004 campaign, when it coddled bloggers.
Posts
91 comments:
Democrats also tried this and failed with radio in the 1990s -- Rush Limbaugh was everywhere while the Democrats had a bunch of forgotten people plus Bill Maher with his misnamed "Politically Incorrect" TV show.
You can't fake grass roots efforts, but large groups can use media to brainwash and control their followers. The problem always is that true grass roots efforts always follow from "common sense" and majority opinions. Not fringe stuff on gender reassignment, banning gas cars, forcing people out of houses and into apartments, open borders, unchecked shoplifting because of "equity," handing military control to the UN, etc.
Every time Democrats try some 'authenticity', it's remarkably entertaining. Like some SNL skit.
But, I do believe that smart podcasters, or at least avaricious ones, will see the potential of a large, one-time influx of cash. If they can let it be known (subtly) that they are for sale, the DNC and donor cash will pour in. I mean...why go slack for a candidate for free?
They will be like high school football players waiting for a big payout from their favorite university. Only they'll get to take money from all suitors, not just one.
Creators who bring strong political opinions to interviews sometimes push Democrats harder than expected
This is the heart of their problem—they see it as a bad thing.
Some of these campaigns are going to be handing them a bag of cash for an endorsement
And this is the other problem. They want to be bought, they got into it to be bought. Which is why they don’t know how to deal with people bringing their own opinions—they aren’t expecting it.
I’m pretty worn out with podcasts. In fact, I’m pretty worn out with the social media era of political obsession. I listen to Scott Adams and the All-In Podcast while driving a couple times a week. That’s plenty. It gets in the way of listening to classical and sacred music.
Shouting Thomas - Agree. That is why I love this site. Rather low key with the Cruel Neutrality.
Fuck ‘em.
Influencers can't sell their influence for money if it's not what they truly believe in their hearts. Social media bares the souls of the presenter in ways that staged commercials never do, which is why it is so compelling.
"Creators who bring strong political opinions to interviews sometimes push Democrats harder than expected."
This is their problem, the Democrats have carefully constructed propaganda narratives that will not stand up to scrutiny, which is death for social media. Look at Kak, he never responds to a hard question because it would break the brittle narrative that he is probably being paid to promulgate. It's not easy to fake authenticity for the kind of extended periods of time that truly build credibility for people who honestly believe what they are saying.
Rachael Maddow has complete control of the video she shows, the questions she is asked, and the "facts" that she allows to be discussed. This works for the simpletons who just want rage bait, but maybe that isn't enough. I am thinking that the Nazis in Germany would never have gotten as far as they did if they allowed honest debate, and yet the Democrats seem to view the model of not allowing honest debate as the preferable one.
Shouting Thomas, I am in that borderland trying to leave my political addiction. Really, I'm so over all of it. I comment here less and less because I have nothing more to add to the political commentary that hasn't already been said dozens of times by dozens of others.
The Althouse Blog still works because Ann keeps it on numerous topics and from different angles. But the rest of the news/blogs/social media...sheesh. It's so overkill.
And yes, I'd much rather listen to classical music. Or Joe Jackson. Or old Pat Metheny. Or something.
As for podcasts, I'm even over the All-In guys. Too much. But I have found one podcast that has me hooked. "The Rest is History" is a great listen, if you like history at all. I'm late to finding them, but I'm making up for lost time.
Also- as is mentioned on this blog from time to time: "A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs" is a great listen, though the host, as brilliant as he is, is horribly woke, and that gets in the way of his telling the story from time to time.
The Rest Is History is one of my favs too. Great rapport between the hosts, in-depth treatment of events, and a good mix of serious and fun (they did 4 hours just on the opening salvos of the second Punic War but also did an hour on a bear who served as a corporal in the Polish Army in WWII and who was decorated for courage in battle in Italy).
If you find human psychology interesting, I recommend You Are Not So Smart. Really interesting looks at the foibles of human thinking.
The only ideas the Dems have are all based in Marxism.
The Democrat social media wants to be “Influencers”. The podcasters I listen to want to know more about their guest. It is the difference between pushing your ideas versus understanding others’ ideas.
For @Temujin
Joe Jackson - Loisaida
Temujin said...
Shouting Thomas, I am in that borderland trying to leave my political addiction. Really, I'm so over all of it. I comment here less and less because I have nothing more to add to the political commentary that hasn't already been said dozens of times by dozens of others.
The Althouse Blog still works because Ann keeps it on numerous topics and from different angles. But the rest of the news/blogs/social media...sheesh.
This is how I felt reading Achilles react to one of my comments. My point was hoping we might see less drive to just talk politics. His point was being excited about politics of people I don’t even care about.
I enjoy social media that talks about subjects that interest me. When Rogan talked to Musk, I was more curious about updates to Starship and Tesla’s upcoming new roadster. I enjoyed the Billy Bob Thornton interview because he’s interesting. Conversely, my normal favorite Triggernometry interviewed Sam Harris, and I made it 5 minutes before turning it off. I barely made it through Dave Smith, but I enjoyed every minute of Dana White.
They want to be bought, they got into it to be bought.
I needed to bring in some money while my husband was in grad school and had recently moved to Texas and didn't know the environmental regs there so I couldn't easily get a job in environmental consulting where I'd come from. The job I could get was as content manager for a dot.com.
This statement brings that time back to me so clearly.
'Some of these campaigns are going to be handing them a bag of cash for an endorsement,' he said. 'People are really going to want some of these major Democratic talkers’ endorsements in the next campaign.'"
Yikes!
Lots of Gerda content recently.
So where are the articles reporting on this network of paid/sponsored influencers? Why aren't there weekly articles in the NYT et al. about this? How many commenters here are sponsored/supported in some way? Why are protests reported as spontaneous outpourings by concerned citizens when they have identical messaging and even costumes across the country?
We need a new descriptor to capture these attempts at connection. Synthetic Authenticity
The only ideas the Dems have are all based in Marxism.
Yes Dave, it’s the policies that are the problem yet they still obsess over messaging…
When the CIA does this it's called a Psi-Op.
Democrats = Fake it till you make it.
Why are protests reported as spontaneous outpourings by concerned citizens when they have identical messaging and even costumes across the country?
I want to know where the money is coming from. I’m certain I already know but I need the ‘proof’ for those who are trying to keep the money flowing.
It seems to me that this article is - perhaps inadvertently - touching on another sort of important factor: performative "authenticity" seems to be just fine, perfectly adequate, for Democrats - look how much they crow over Gavin Newsom and any elderly Congressional Dem who throws out an f-bomb! They seem to love that stuff, and it doesn't matter that it resonates like Honey Boo Boo. So - in a turnout election (say, the midterms), it could be quite effective.
But the article talks about the 2028 presidential election, in which base-only turnout isn't ever enough. What podcaster is going to bother endorsing a mere member of Congress, or mayor, or sheriff, or whoever? It's the big money or nothing. Those lesser races might require that you learn about local issues, and who has time for that when Authenticity! demands that you hold forth passionately and ceaselessly about the evils of the other side?
Unfortunately, independents, like Republicans, seem to find performative authenticity unsatisfactory. So - another strike against them?
When we started seeing ‘activist’ in the job title of people’s social media bios I thought it was to signal political affiliation. Now I know for many it is their paid profession…
How much will an endorsement by that pretty boy Harry Sisson going to be worth?
Remembering the Dems Air America attempt to have a leftist Limbaugh, Rush was amazed and amused that they were having to pay radio stations to run their content instead of the other way around.
I mostly get political here because it's so difficult to do it in real life with people I know. Knowing a person's politics too well today makes it hard to be close to them in work, play or relationships. In a way, the internet is the place you can be yourself, or at least one of your selves without it costing too much.
Authenticity. If you can fake that, you got it made!
Nothing brings out authenticity like a little cash.
The core problem for democrats is that there is no constituency for globalism. The globalists want a poor underclass of divided stupid people.
The only people dumb enough to fall for what democrats want to do are college educated women and immigrants with poor english skills.
It isn't enough to get elected without voter fraud.
Dave Begley said...
The only ideas the Dems have are all based in Marxism.
No.
Marxism is the opiate.
The people pushing marxism from the top down never intend to actually implement it. It is just the lie they are telling democrat voters.
RIP Jimmy Cliff.
I don't think paying for endorsements is a new thing. Look at last year!
..spontaneous outpourings by concerned citizens when they have identical messaging and even costumes..
serious questions:
How Much would 50 identical "handmaid's tale" outfits cost?
How do these 50 women receive these identical outfits?
Is there a warehouse (and factory) somewhere producing these?
how much do shipping costs run?
and finally..
If you are a "handmaid", where do YOU think your custume came from?
Jaq said...
Influencers can't sell their influence for money if it's not what they truly believe in their hearts. Social media bares the souls of the presenter in ways that staged commercials never do, which is why it is so compelling.
And that is the secret sauce right there.
This is why Candace and Tucker have orders of magnitude more influence than the Israel first crowd.
It is just a simple question: If the average person cannot buy the average house why are we sending billions of dollars to Israel every year?
The response is invariably to call the person asking the question an anti-semite.
In the past all media was corporate and it was enough to call someone an anti-semite and the suits would shut it down. But now media is decentralized and most people are demanding authenticity and something that makes sense.
The same thing is happening on the left. They keep promising marxism but they never deliver it. The dumb little drones they push through college actually want marxism. They are starting to sniff out the money behind influencers.
The fastest way to lose your influence is to take the money.
Joe Bar said...
I don't think paying for endorsements is a new thing. Look at last year!
And look at how well it worked.
The thing about Rogan is that he’s perfectly happy to spend three hours talking about bow-hunting, or experimental cancer treatments, or bears. Someone given a show in order to advance a political agenda won’t be able to do that.
Re: podcasts.
I have enjoyed listening to Megyn Kelly over the last few years, but she has become increasingly strident and partisan. She is overly protective of Tucker Carlson (He has made his own mess, and he should clean it up. She doesn't have to defend him.), and she has been thrown off balance by Charlie Kirk's assassination. She has given occasion for Mark Levin and Noah Rothberg to say stupid things about her.
The big problem with podcasts is that eventually the hosts say stupid things. Editors provide valuable service if they stop people from saying stupid things. Rush Limbaugh was remarkable for all those years live on the air with so few stupidities. It was because he knew what he thought, he was consistent in articulating it, and he was very, very clever (in a good sense).
The people pushing marxism from the top down never intend to actually implement it. It is just the lie they are telling democrat voters.
My husband and I were just talking about this this morning, in re James Carville. He's on his economy bandwagon, as usual - his strategy for Democrats is "get anything woke out of your damn mouths. Focus on affordability and go hard - $20 federal minimum wage, free college, free childcare, etc., etc."
The question we discussed was whether he actually favors any of these things as policies or just sees the talking about them as the right move to get elected (and then, once in power, look like you're "trying" and blame Republicans for your failure to make any of it happen). We both believe that he's just as performative as the lefty podcasters seem to be, in contrast to Ezra Klein who really seems to want his "abundance agenda" to be policy.
Ezra Klein has a rapsheet of stupidities. Back in the Obamacare days, he offered the Veterans' hospitals as a model for American healthcare.
Jamie said...
The question we discussed was whether he actually favors any of these things as policies or just sees the talking about them as the right move to get elected (and then, once in power, look like you're "trying" and blame Republicans for your failure to make any of it happen).
2026 and 2028 will be over who convinces the most people that they will actually focus on the economy in the US.
People have figured out that GDP and Unemployment and other government statistics are complete bullshit. The average person makes 40k a year and the average house costs 400k a year and the average first time home buyer is 40.
Young people are fucked right now. They see all of this wealth transferred to a bunch of boomers who already have assets. The gap in both parties right now is generational in nature.
On the right they these asshole boomers who tell them to just get a job and shut up. They are happy sending billions of dollars to other countries and bombing Iran and if you complain about bombing Iran you are an anti-semite.
On the left they are told that they are going to tax the rich and give them free stuff. But the rich boomers just keep all of the money and the free stuff never comes.
It isn't going to keep going this way.
I am thinking the Dem efforts show a "cargo cult" mentality.
They look at the Rep's working airfield, and then create a mock-up of what they see. It's what they did - as mentioned up the thread - with Air America.
Frankly, it even feeds into their policy ideas: people with college educations seemed to do better financially, let's spend a gadzillion dollars to get *everyone* a chance at a college education . . . not realizing that they had reversed cause and effect. It was the drive to get through college by a smaller percentage of people that predicted success. Similarly: home ownership. They (and the Dems are far from alone in this) decided that *everyone* would have a better chance of owning a home. We saw how well that worked out in 2008.
The water moccassin is the fakest character ever remember he endorsed obama and biden and kamala
He destroyed pete dawkins to put in that hack lautenberg
He put wofford in as a stalking horse for hillary care
Now he is fined with epuration (look it up) of trump supporters
He diminishes a fine community with his name
The core belief of the Democrat party is that to stay in power, people are going to do as they're told. They are not particularly interested in belief systems or persuasion. They always take the 'top down' approach to campaigning, because implicit in their core belief is the understanding that there is a hierarchy, and one's position within that hierarchy is of paramount importance. It's their only concession to 'self'.
Ezra Klein has a rapsheet of stupidities. Back in the Obamacare days, he offered the Veterans' hospitals as a model for American healthcare.
No argument from me! When I've heard Klein speak about "Abundance," it's always either extant Republican (or at any rate Trumpian) policies, or it's the usual warmed-over "Scandi socialist" garbage.
I. Rant - I have likened Democrat political strategy and the Democrat policy platform to a cargo cult many times! It seems to me to be the Occam's Razor way to understand what they're doing.
The left are good at building fake structures - the bricks they use are aborted fetuses... the window dressing is from Margaret Atwood.
They are not particularly interested in belief systems or persuasion.
But is that because they're so convinced that they're right and that no right-thinking person could disagree, or is it because they have just internalized the will to power (to which, Hobbes -like, I tend to believe we're all subject), without similarly internalizing a moral framework that requires persuasion (say, Christianity 🙄) in order to be valid?
Or, I don't know, am I asking the same question there? No persuasion necessary, for whatever reason?
'The economy stupid' over the mildest recession since 1920
Hes as fake as a three dollar bill
Of course clinton was the vehicle for motor voter for creating the sub prime bubble for subverting the military and intelligence in service of china (his paymasters)
Scandisocialism works as long as the population is Scandinavian.
“The problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers.” - Hillary Rodham Clinton
Achilles: "2026 and 2028 will be over who convinces the most people that they will actually focus on the economy in the US....The average person makes 40k a year and the average house costs 400k...and the average first time home buyer is 40."
Dude, copyright "40/40/400" rfn! Then make the two parties bid for it. Seriously. That is a great encapsulation of the problem. RLTW, JSM
And dems want to make money worth less (are we in a moebius loop) now there is a question of specialty labor and AI
"push Democrats harder than expected" A minor gaffe, showing that what Dems "expect" from traditional media is softball questions that reinforce their talking points and support the party line. Here's guessing that the push comes mainly from the left, to which clueless old-style Dems have no coherent response. Can they prevent the DSA takeover of the party? Besides more health insurance subsidies and TDS, what is the party line these days?
The Dems may find they are better spending money on AI-produced bot farming rather than enriching “influencers.”
Dem voters have to be part of the herd where all agree. What better way to do that than to flood them with bots agreeing with everything they say.
Scandisocialism works as long as the population is Scandinavian.
It's not even socialism - it's high-tax, high-benefit capitalism. And your right it only works in a high-trust, culturally homogeneous society. (I don't agree with Achilles that it has to be a Protestant society, but I do think, based on the available evidence, that it has to be one in which people value the general welfare rather than being constantly fearful that someone else is getting the upper hand through the raw application of power. This concern for the general welfare, or at least a generalized belief that everyone is playing by one set of rules, seems to me to be a characteristic of capitlism at least as much as of Protestantism.)
As others have noted, their consumption of podcasts is declining. It's the natural progression of any mode of communication. Now that the popularity and influence of podcasting is declining, the DNC in all of its collective brainstorming decision by committee and memos have determined that they need to jump on the bandwagon.
There's a great saying in surfing when you're out at a spot and it's relatively flat and there's no exciting rides to be had: "you should have been here yesterday, it was epic."
Sebastian asked...
..Besides more health insurance subsidies and TDS, what is the party line these days?..
hmmm?
allow foreign invaders to rape and murder your children?
or..
castrate your children?
(or the Ever Popular) abort your children?
Sounds like a win, doesn't it? I mean; IF you Hate your own children
@Jamie, the way I see it there are some true believers that can be useful, but never at the top of the hierarchy. Without power, nothing is achievable. Having power is the key to all locks.
Wasn't it Air America that was going to put conservative radio on its heals? Yeah, that worked so well. Rush has a lot of independents and "classic" liberals that listened to him. It's actually amusing to watch Bill Maher wave the classic liberal flag, using it to smack people at both extremes.
The Comintern 21st Century version.
The Democrats don't need digital creators. Their base is full of conformists who "follow the party line". Or people who vote their identity because "the Democrats are the X people's party". Throw in the illegals, and immigrants who don't speak english, and that's their voter base.
Occassionaly, you'll get a Mamdani because the smarter ones want some relief for their perceived economic problems, but that's just a one-off. In 2028, the DNC will label 2-3 people as "acceptable". And after South Carolina, theyll crown one and primaries will be over.
Btw, the people who run the democrat party - basically the billionaries, publishers, and smart lawyers, etc. - know how to run a political party. You give each part of your colilition (sic) a little of what they want to keep them happy. And you label a heretic anyone who disagrees too much and purge them.
And whenever you need to, you have the Candidates blather about "income inequality" and the need for "affordable housing and college education" without any intention of fixing anything.
I wish some of our lefties would show up on these "where Democrats are missing the boat" threads. I sincerely want to know their strongest case for why Democrats have been so focused on messaging and have so often rejected the obvious changes to their policy prescriptions that are being offered even on their own side*.
Maybe they have a winning approach now with the socialist manage-the-decline handouts. So... is that, as has been suggested, a Trump-like movement that can unite the financially despairing born-elite, the identity alphabet, the lost working class? Or is there enough evidence out there in the real world and over the last century that the handouts diminish to rations, the taxes on the rich are actually taxes on the middle class, the affordable housing devolves swiftly into slums, and counter to what they were told, the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful - the only material difference being that under this new enlightened system, their own chance for advancement has dropped to zero?
Anyway. I want to hear from actual current ordinary Democrats.
* I speak, again, of Klein. I think he's really trying to get them to rethink what they plan to do rather than just what they say and how they say it. Now, I think he's almost universally wrong about what he thinks they should do (or at least how he thinks they should go about it - all government all the time), but what they're doing is not working, so why won't they at least try to evolve a little? See what happens?
@Jamie: " I do think, based on the available evidence, that it has to be one in which people value the general welfare rather than being constantly fearful that someone else is getting the upper hand through the raw application of power. "
The underlying factor is that conformist, cooperative LONG COLD WINTER cultures tend to cooperate to survive COLD WINTERS. This manifests in different ways, but Canada, the USA upper midwest, Scandinavia, Russia, and China all maintain implied or direct control over every member of the group. They are survival leftists.
In cold Iceland, as an offshoot of risk-taking Norwegian seafarers, farmers, and the descendents of Vikings, rebellion is visible but restrained today. They drip with black humor/sarcasm and paint colorful countercultural murals on their buildings. They put a "punk museum" across the street from the official Prime Minister's office aka "White House." They have a faint revisiting of pagan/Viking religions (but not much because of the later Nazi associations). Still, they all conform because no one could get through winter without cooperative and structured food and shelter.
On a relative global scale, the arctic economic model has worked well for the USSR, China, and Scandinavia. Canada continues to do well enough as the USA's northern resource provider.
"more health insurance subsidies"
Progressive taxes.
"TDS"
The first rule of social liberal club.
"allow foreign invaders to rape and murder your children"
Immigration reform.
"castrate your children"
Levine's Dreams of Herr Mengele.
"or the Ever Popular) abort your children"
Obama's "burdens".
Enigma @10:59, it so happens that I'm rereading Guns Germs and Steel at this very time. I'm still in the "how many domesticatible species are in a region" part but if long-ago memory serves, I'm headed toward your hypothesis eventually.
If you can fake sincerity you've got it made in Hollywood or Washington D.C. (Hollywood for ugly people). But faking sincerity is hard--easier to be sincere if that's who you really are. Dims are selling second quality goods off the peddler's wagon.
They’ve been trying to catch up since Rush Limbaugh
Jamie said...
I wish some of our lefties would show up on these "where Democrats are missing the boat" threads.
This is why the Democrats are losing and why mail in voting is so important to them.
The only voters they have left are retards who don’t understand what they are voting for.
The leftists here are too stupid to opine on these threads.
Enigma said...
The underlying factor is that conformist, cooperative LONG COLD WINTER cultures tend to cooperate to survive COLD WINTERS. This manifests in different ways, but Canada, the USA upper midwest, Scandinavia, Russia, and China all maintain implied or direct control over every member of the group. They are survival leftists.
Interesting.
They want to steal and destroy (like they did 5 years ago)
Maddow reid and franken were all air america franken ran it
One thing you may be sure of is that the more power “creators” have, the less power the Democrats have.
john mosby said...
Dude, copyright "40/40/400" rfn! Then make the two parties bid for it. Seriously. That is a great encapsulation of the problem. RLTW, JSM
It crossed my mind.
But good ideas are not particularly valuable tbh. It is the execution that really matters.
The world of publicity does not really change. Only the targets of those publicity $.
Howard said...
As others have noted, their consumption of podcasts is declining. It's the natural progression of any mode of communication. Now that the popularity and influence of podcasting is declining, the DNC in all of its collective brainstorming decision by committee and memos have determined that they need to jump on the bandwagon.
Podcasting was the force that drove the information market to saturation. There are only so many hours a day to watch and only so many people to watch.
They are in the same market for attention as this blogger space is.
I could be watching a podcast right now.
They seem to be able to get people to vote against their own interests in new jersey and virginia
Comey/James cases dismissed.
I just heard Beto O'Rourke speak at some Democrat meeting. Good Lord, that guy, what a bullsh*t artist. It was the most humble-bragging, Americana-evoking, 'just tyin' to hep the needy' man-o-the-people line or patter I've heard in a long time. He managed to drag in more American political symbology than I've ever heard stuffed into a 3 minute speech. Cripes, I wish he would pack it in, nobody should have to listen to that.
I dubbed him skippy, yes hes a ridiculous character
Hes probably cost the dems 150 million
I highly recommend "Guns, Germs and Steel" as a great introduction to deterministic anthropology driven by geographic setting.
Regarding winter survival economics, a very old and hackneyed summary is:
"Life is too easy in the tropics because everything grows. People get lazy. Life is too hard in the arctic because winter is tough. People fixate on survival. Life is 'just right' in the temperate zone so they have enough motivation to make life easier and enough time to enjoy it."
Regarding the brutality of surviving winter in a small, resource-constrained community, watch the tough Japanese mountain village film "The Ballad of Narayama."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084390/
Cold places tend to be truth cultures. Warm places tend to be honor cultures. In a cold place, there's one harvest, one chance to put up enough food for the winter. You either did it or you didn't, and your status isn't going to help you when the other villagers are cold and hungry.
In a warm place, there's more than one harvest, multiple overlapping growing seasons for this or that, lots of second chances. You can tolerate a certain amount of nonsense from high-status people.
We tend to call Japan an honor culture, but it seems to really be a truth culture. High-ranking people don't get directly questioned, but when they fail, they commit seppuku - either literally, or just professional suicide. Everyone bows to everyone else and calls each other "-san" in the process, so it looks like an honor culture to the casual observer. Maybe it's because so much of Japanese culture comes from warmer places: China, India? CC, JSM
There is no solution to the "affordability problem" because it's really a problem of unrealistic expectations. If a young couple were willing to accept the lifestyle of the previous generations that they assume had it better, they could afford that. Homes were much smaller and life in general was harder, less safe, shorter, and involved much more work and far less convenience. All that stuff cost money to have at todays level, but people think these unprecedented levels of everything are normal. I know a number of young couples with new families and rarely do both work. They would never accept a house the size my two working parents could afford, nor would they want to give up all the other stuff that makes life for them better than it was for my parents, who lived in an unprecedented time and place of abundance. Much of the affordability problem is a lack of perspective.
Benny Drama, Hasan Piker, Harry Sisson, Taylor Lorenz, and Jennifer Welch aren't enough? The Bulwark and Chapo Trap House aren't still in business?
Do Republicans really have more of a media presence? The mainstream media was always favorable to the Democrats. Conservatives (whoever they are) developed alternative radio and online media. Are they really as loyal and devoted to Republicans as the Democrats would like their media to be?
The Vikings weren't an "honor culture"? Feudal Europe wasn't an "honor culture"?
@john mosby: I have no idea what you are talking regarding truth vs. honor. Humans are animals that mostly don't want to die, so they employ a wide range of strategies to stay alive. These range from predatory to opportunistic to structure-building and sharing. What works depends on the situation.
Then, another culture comes along and steals their lunch. Time after time after time. See the Huns, Mongols, Golden Horde, Vikings, Spanish, and English. Strategy shifts also happen in many other species -- see bird thieves (e.g., Cuckoos).
IIRC, the Vikings became raiders of France and England because of poor/icy harvest seasons. "We have boats. Raid or die." Then, raiding became a profitable habit. Then, they became Christians and cooperative (e.g., see Harald Bluetooth) and largely peaceful traders/settlers along the Atlantic coast. Shifting shifting shifting. Adaptation.
I’m pretty worn out with podcasts.
The next podcast I listen to will be my first.
Laz: "The Vikings weren't an "honor culture"? Feudal Europe wasn't an "honor culture"?"
Enigma: " I have no idea what you are talking regarding truth vs. honor. "
Okay, here are my definitions:
In truth cultures, the truth of the statement is more important than who's saying it. Debate and negotiation are meant to get to the truth for everyone's benefit.
In honor cultures, the status of the speaker is more important than the truth of what he's saying. Debate and negotiation are discouraged because they sow disunity.
Yes, Scandis, then and now, are a truth culture. The Vikings certainly valued "honor," but more in the sense of "I can do what I said I was gonna do" versus "how dare you question my veracity!?" They adapted other peoples' technologies and social ideas very rapidly - the Byzantines, the French, etc. They became other cultures, too: the Normans, the Rus. Viking as a verb - raiding for loot - was generally done by temporary groups of freely-associating men, not conscript armies or even feudal networks of mutual oaths.
And oh by the way, look at the way southern honor cultures of migrants blend so well in modern Scandi countries.
Which leads me to Laz's other question: feudal Europe often was an honor culture - in the warm south. In the north, it was more of a truth culture. The north consists of smaller countries (the Holy Roman Empire wasn't any of the three; Germany wasn't unified till 1870; each Scandi country has only about 5M people; Great Britain wasn't unified until 1707, etc.) because small groups won't put up with a faraway jackass in charge. The northern feudal system was much more of a set of contracts with mutual obligations. The south was an attempt to recreate the Roman Empire, with absolute monarchs like the Bourbons and Habsburgs. Buwaya is welcome to correct my oversimplifications about Iberia.
Is it a bit more complicated? Sure. For one thing, much of European history takes place on a structure of Roman Catholicism, which as the name implies is a Roman honor authority structure (although founded by guys from a truth culture). The English legal system is adversarial, which you might think is honor-based, but it's really meant to get to objective truth for all regardless of status. While southern inquisitorial legal systems claim to be a search for objective truth, but in practice enforce the power of the centralized state. Etc.
There it is - prove me wrong. I'm from a truth culture, so I won't take offense. CC, JSM
Rush Limbaugh rose to the top of a new phenomenon in the late '80s involving reinforcing conservative politics on his Excellence in Broadcasting program when he grabbed the attention for 20 plus million folks with nothing to do but listen to Limbaugh talking for more than 30 years.
But conservative politics changed because Limbaugh's ego drove him down the path of eliminating messy social leanings and excess spending in government. Sadly, he decided to get in bed with the dishonesty of Trump's candidacy, and here we are today with an autocratic government highlighted by masked federal police arresting folks based on the color of their skin without warrants.
My point is that it is not important whether liberals failed in reaching the popularity of so-called conservative bloggers, podcasters, and media broadcasters. Instead, we need to find a mindset that permits the reestablishment of the constitutional rights lost in the past year followed by throwing out the criminals now in charge of the government.
"Them versus us" has to cease.
@john mosby: I use different language for these system. Honor = tradition and respect for authority. Truth = survival and competition.
Any given culture can alternate between these methods, and it seems to be a function of whether the status quo supports the economic stability (survival; families) of the population. "If daddy/grandpa/the Lord/Duke/Baron down the road gives me a job and wife, I'll settle down. If not, I'm going to find a better way."
If bad weather, lack of land for growth, or an external threat arrives, then movement, science, and experimentation replaces tradition and authority. There's an old observation that the military allows its idiots to lead in peace time, and promotes its best only during wars. The Mediterranean certainly has easier weather than the cold north.
The Vikings expanded out from Denmark to Sweden and Norway for more land, and then to France (Normans = North Men), England (Danelaw), Iceland, and Greenland/North America (briefly). The early Icelanders were largely farmers who sought more land when no land was available in Norway. They were not ocean fishermen nor users of geothermal energy (those happened much later).
If a given culture had fixed ways and no serious changes or external pressures (e.g., much of France, Germany, Spain, and Germany), it settled into domestic steady-as-she-goes feudalism. In contrast, the Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, and English shifted to technology (i.e., better boats, roads, and weapons) to create larger external empires.
But conservative politics changed because Limbaugh's ego drove him down the path of eliminating messy social leanings and excess spending in government. Sadly, he decided to get in bed with the dishonesty of Trump's candidacy, and here we are today with an autocratic government highlighted by masked federal police arresting folks based on the color of their skin without warrants.
This is, perhaps, the absolute pinnacle of incoherence.
Golf clap.
I don't know how you do it, but wow, Man.
Enigma: "If a given culture had fixed ways and no serious changes or external pressures ... it settled into domestic steady-as-she-goes feudalism. In contrast, the Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, and English shifted to technology"
That's a pretty cool dichotomy as well.
You know what they say - there's two kinds of people: the kind that says there's two kinds of people, and the kind that doesn't. CC, JSM
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.